In a news release, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee says it intends to hold DesJarlais “accountable for forcing the debt super committee to fail by demanding more tax breaks for billionaires while insisting the Medicare guarantee be eliminated.”
The bipartisan panel, charged with making over $1 trillion in cuts, deadlocked over cuts and tax [revenue] increases.
DesJarlais' spox attempts to distance his boss from the Super Committee, noting that he had voted against the budget act which formed it. However, its his and other Republicans' intransigence on the issue of tax revenue which caused the GOP members of the committee to reject large deals that would've made serious dents in future deficits.
Earlier this evening I attended a presentation at Vanderbilt's First Amendment Center by Eliot Ackerman, COO of Americans Elect, an ostensibly non-partisan 501(c)4 organization designed to allow people to nominate a candidate who will enjoy instant ballot access in all 50 states upon getting the nomination, which will be held through an online forum format.
Americans Elect is not necessarily a new idea, its actually an outgrowth of a 2008 group called Unity '08 which was more or less forced to close due to an FEC ruling which said they couldn't operate outside the bounds of traditional campaign finance laws...a ruling that was reversed in 2010 by a three judge DC Circuit Court panel. The ruling says that because the group is supporting a candidate's access to the ballot, and will not apparently be campaigning on behalf of this nominee after they are chosen, they aren't required to register as a traditional political party, and are thus exempted from campaign finance rules due to their 501(c)4 tax status.
In short, the group's concept is fairly simple. They raise money, which they say is capped at $10,000 donations but is currently being funded primarily via "seed loans" of a lot more than that, and use it to go into states and gain access for their non-party party candidate in the 2012 General Election. "Delegates" to this "convention" can sign up, answer a bunch (and I mean BUNCH) of questions about their political philosophy, and even pose questions for potential nominees (which will be whittled down by a special committee) to answer and then get ranked. After some sort of process, the top six candidates in terms of support will get to choose a running-mate, the catch being they are supposed to be from "another party". I asked about who the arbiter of this process will be, and all I got was that a rules committee will decide all this. But, either way, if all goes to plan what we'll end up with is a bi-partisan/non-partisan/Americans Elect party ticket that contains a candidate who was chosen by the most people.
After the nomination, unlike the Democratic or Republican candidate, this Americans Elect candidate will be thrown out into the ether to either sink or swim on their own volition, though with the understanding their name will be on all 50 ballots.
OK, synopsis over, what's it all mean? Well, its hard to say for sure. I didn't get the impression that the people founding the organization had some super-secret motivation to destroy Obama or the Republican party. While someone looking at the board can certainly draw these conclusions, there are some Republicans and some Democrats, some tied to Romney, some tied to Obama, I think most of those involved just genuinely dislike the current political system we have.
Having said that, however altruistic their goals may be, its quite easy how this can be co-opted for purposes of ill. On the one hand, supporters of the Democrats or Republicans could flood this site with nominations for a liberal or conservative candidate who would siphon off votes from the President or the GOP nominee. The control for this is probably the knowledge that whomever participates in this group will be quickly ostracized from their political party of choice, so its unlikely you'll see a lot of traditional liberal or conservative candidates participating.
Option 2, the moderate/centrist candidate. Now, we can argue whether or not there is a need for a centrist candidate with Barack Obama on the ballot, but either way, there is a vast swath of Americans who feel Obama is too liberal. Is there an opening for a Mike Bloomberg or Jon Huntsman to fill this void? You betcha. I kind of doubt Huntsman would poison his future prospects as a Republican, so that leaves Bloomberg. After the original dissolution of Unity '08, some of the founders went on to join the Draft Bloomberg organization which, obviously, failed. Bloomberg is the only candidate I can imagine who could feasibly bankroll such a large scale operation as a national election campaign, and who would easily find a Democrat/Independent/Republican to be his running mate.
Option 3, The Ron Paul Revolution takes over. Now, I certainly don't think that this is the goal or desire of the folks who run Americans Elect, after all, at least a few of them are members of the same Council on Foreign Relations that Paul despises, and many others are members of the financial industrial complex he could tear asunder if he had his way. However, anyone who has spent any time on the Internets these past few years knows that Paul's fan base is rabid, eager, and technologically capable. If he were to run for this nomination, its pretty easy to see him winning the votes. But Paul could probably get ballot access in all 50 states regardless, so whether or not he would bother with this process if he were to rebuke the GOP's nominee is a matter of debate...though it would save him time and money that could be used for campaigning.
As for me, a "delegate" to this convention, I'm interested but weary to see what will happen. Regardless of who their nominee is, I'll be voting for Barack Obama. While I'm not in love with every action or position he's taken, I don't see another candidate in the horizon who would do a better job as President. In addition, this non-party party does nothing to fix our broken congressional system, which is what (I think) has truly harmed both the country and the President's abilities these past 3 years. Either way, its an interesting experiment in American politics that looks rather certain to come to fruition in some manner.
The Sen. announced last week that that he would be serving as Co-Chair for the Newt Gingrich campaign in Tennessee, mostly because he was enamored with Newt's uncanny ability to think of solutions to problems (regardless of their potential efficacy). In a post this Saturday, Sen. Campfield preemptively addressed Ron Paulians on why their candidate couldn't win the election. He made some decent observations, like Paul's obsession with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Gold Standard or the Fed are issues that matter to only a small cadre of folks in this country. But he also made the mistake that many Republicans seem to make in terms of what the Democrats are doing in response:
The question is, what happens [if Paul gets the nomination]? I hate to say it, but it is Obama's dream come true. Why? because Paul is the easiest to beat in a general election. Right now Democrats have left Ron Paul alone. Why? They hope he is the nominee. He will be 77 on election day. They will show that fake eyebrow falling off video a mazillion times and make him out as that crazy, mean, old, neighbor who yells at the kids to get off his lawn. Try to remember what they did to squishy soft McCain and multiply that by 50.
The reason that Democrats have left Ron Paul alone is the same reason Democrats have left Bachmann, Cain and Gingrich alone. Because they think Romney will be the nominee, and save Jon Huntsman, is probably the most difficult challenger that Obama could face. "But Sean," says the voice in my head, "Democrats have been attacking Cain and Gingirch, in fact, you just did in your last post." This is true oh voice in my head, however, these attacks, really more mocking and sarcastic than anything else, haven't really been directed by the official party aparatus, but rather people who just hear some rather ridiculous shit and can't help but point out the absurdity in it all.
If you want to see who Democrats are fighting, look at their websites. Democrats.org has two attacks against Romney on their front page, and a website dedicated to pointing out Romney's flip-floppery, WhichMitt.com. The Obama Super PAC, Priorities USA, is attacking exclusively Mitt Romney, and has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars running ads attacking him.
Why? Well, two reasons really. First, in the hopes that Republicans will nominate some joker like Newt or Cain or Perry. Second, because from this perspective it seems like the whole GOP primary has been an exercise in making Romney seem moderate and Presidential in contrast to the rest of the GOP (sans Huntsman) trying to out-crazy one another...and the Democrats are going to have to disabuse the public of this notion in the general election.
So, while there are always going to be partisan flights of fancy about some super-secret Machiavellian plans by campaigns to choose their opponents...the fact is, politicians are people, and so are their staffs. While there may be some secret strategies at play, the ability to keep secret a large strategy of promoting one candidate over another is nearly impossible in the modern era of digital communications.
Which brings us back to the question of Paul or Gingrich. Yes, Paul isn't very electable, but neither is Stacey's man Newt. Republicans may be enamored by his uncanny ability to be the GOP's idea man, but there is a reason why policy wonks and think tank staffers aren't often running for President. The Presidency requires a combination of various types of intelligence. Classical, critical thinking is an important component, but also emotional intelligence, the ability to connect with people, sell a narrative, connect on a personal level, is equally important. Despite GOP efforts to paint Obama as both an effete white liberal and the reincarnation of Malcolm X, most Americans have held higher personal opinions of him, even while not approving of his job performance. This is, whether it should be or not, very important politically. Newt is a prickly egotistical insult machine who couches his radical rhetoric in DC wonkishness. This may be OK as the GOP's shiny little toy of the moment, but I find it difficult to imagine this as a sustainable year long winning campaign strategy for the broader American public.
Newt Gingrich is an incredibly smart, capable, gifted orator who has spent decades thinking about and finding solutions for the tough challenges we Americans face. Well, at least that's what Newt tells people anyways. As for some of his groundbreaking thoughtful ideas, they seem to be somewhat lacking from this person's perspective.
On the issue of Marijuana policy, the self-proclaimed smartest guy in the room has carefully studied the issue and found that he would "continue current federal policy, largely because of the confusing signal that steps towards legalization sends to harder drugs." Right. Because, as we all know, in the pantheon of drugs, marijuana is more addictive, dangerous, and mood altering than, oh, say alcohol.
Further pressed on his past support and later opposition to Medical Marijuana, the amphibian candidate says:
What has changed was the number of parents I met with who said they did not want their children to get the signal from the government that it was acceptable behavior and that they were prepared to say as a matter of value that it was better to send a clear signal on no drug use at the risk of inconveniencing some people, than it was to be compassionate toward a small group at the risk of telling a much larger group that it was okay to use the drug.
Right, gotcha. So, when thousands of Americans protest wealth and income inequality as a systemic problem, the answer is for them to take a bath and get a job. When a few parents decide the federal government's legal position on an issue such as marijuana consumption is more influential than them or the local community, then Newt will step in like Superman saving Lois Lane. Again though, one thing all interviewers should remember to press candidates on is not comparing marijuana to hard drugs, but rather marijuana to alcohol...its a far more apt comparison and crystallizes the hypocrisy of the situation.
Moving on to Cuba, Newt says that he thinks the wet-foot-dry-foot policy is bad because "I think we ought to have some rule that says if you get far enough away from Cuba you've made it. I think it's a terrible thing to say to somebody that you can be within sight of land and that if we intercept you, we're sending you back." This is somewhat like his immigration policy. Built to sound compassionate but so frustratingly vague as to be meaningless in any real aspect. Where is the limit? 10 miles, 20 miles, 50 miles? Do we park some ships a mile off the Cuba border to start picking up refugees?
Newt's position on Cuba is effectively to just double down on all the failed policies of the past. Including trying "to find a way to give virtually every Cuban a free radio. You might want to try to find a way to maximize your ability to broadcast into Cuba so that you have a continuous alternative model of information." Well, apparently Mr. Gingrich was too busy being resident historian to Fannie Mae to do some research on this proposal. Currently, Radio Marti and TV Marti reach about 1% of the audience in Cuba. Why? Well, because unless you consistently change the frequency on which you broadcast, its fairly easy to jam a radio or TV signal coming into the Island. And if you do continuously change the frequency, well, then, it becomes a further exercise in futility because people won't be able to find it. Not to mention, I kind of doubt the Cuban government is going to sit on their hands as the United States starts handing out radios to the Cuban public...does he think they just wouldn't notice?
But even more than this...the idea that people in Cuba are so isolated that they don't understand that their lives suck is the kind of patriarchal American hubris which got Cubans to hate our influence (and give rise to Castro) in the first place. Yes, there are people that want to overthrow the Cuban regime. And if they, as in other areas in the Middle East, were to engage in armed insurrection against their government, then perhaps we should step in with air support or other methods to protect them from reprisals. But the notion that we just haven't put enough time and attention towards getting rid of the aging Castro brothers in preposterous. Our policy in Cuba, as with our policy toward Marijuana is failed. And instead of Braniac realizing this, he just blurts out some rather ignorant and disprovable ideas as "solutions" to the problem, without really addressing whether or not our approach to the situation is not a problem in and of itself.
At a debate on Nov. 5, Mr. Gingrich said, “If you are serious about real health reform, you must abolish the Congressional Budget Office because it lies.”
This is typical of Mr. Gingrich’s modus operandi. He has always considered himself to be the smartest guy in the room and long chaffed at being corrected by experts when he cooked up some new plan, over which he may have expended 30 seconds of thought, to completely upend and remake the health, tax or education systems.
The Mid-South Carpenters Council are none too pleased with the alleged labor
violations being committed by a subcontractor of Roswell Drywall at the Music City Center project:
“Roswell picked Obando to do their work,” said Matthew Capece, a spokesperson for the Mid-South Carpenters. “According to the law, carpenters at the Music City Center should be paid $17.21 an hour. Carpenters working for Obando have approached us and let us know they’re being paid $13 to $14 an hour. On top of that, they don’t get overtime pay when they work over 40 hours a week on weekends. It doesn’t stop there. Taxes aren’t deducted from their pay for weekend work.
“It’s a shame that these things are happening on a tax-payer funded project. Roswell should be doing a better job of policing their subcontractors. Based on the information we have, we believe the allegations made by these workers. This is not only unfair to the workers, it’s unfair to Nashville taxpayers and all of the good law-abiding employers that struggle to make a living in the construction industry."
In protest, the Carpenters will be unfurling a banner that says "Shame on Roswell" from 8-2 Monday, and every weekday thereafter.
The 4th Congressional District, wherever it may be, has gained a Democratic candidate to take on incumbent Rep. Desjarlais (or whomever may beat him in a primary), Sen. Eric Stewart of Winchester, TN.
State Senator Eric Stewart announced today that he will run to represent Tennessee’s 4th district in the U.S. House of Representatives, pledging to put partisanship aside so we can protect our nation’s commitment to seniors, create jobs to revive our economy and reduce our massive deficit.
Another point on the GOP debate. Someone, I think Mike Tyson, said something about the need for energy security and independence. I think its worth pointing out a few data points. Since Obama has taken office:
Finally, exports of petroleum products are up. A lot of this is due to natural gas exports, which have nearly doubled since 2008, and are likely going to continue to rise as companies find ways to tap into newly found natural gas deposits. But crude oil exports are also up at their highest levels since about 2003.
Taken altogether, shows that just because we drill more, does not mean that will automatically get used up here in the good ol' US of A. Something to remember as Big Oil attempts to use the higher gas prices as subterfuge to put more of our land and natural resources under their control all the while killing needed environmental and safety protections needed to prevent major oil spills and accidents that could kill workers, animals, and local economies around the country.
Going through some of the GOP debate on foreign policy, haven't quite gotten through with the first video and have been struck by some rather remarkable arrogance on their part. Cain, Mittens, and Newt all think Obama has failed because of his lack of "covert" operations. One example, coming from Newt after his typical show of condescending arrogance, says that Obama shoud've have conducted "maximum covert operations to block and disrupt the Iranian program, including taking out [murdering] their scientists, including breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable".
Just one question, how in the hell do the three stooges know this isn't being done? None of them are in or remotely connected to the government when it comes to classified military intelligence, so more or less they are just talking out of their ass regarding what is being done right now. Frankly, I don't know what our "covert" level of cooperation with Iranian dissidents or Israel is...if I did, it really wouldn't be covert or deniable, would it?
At this point, its unclear to me what any reason for not appointing Mike Jameson to the vacant Metro General Sessions Court position would be? He's a former councilman, well liked even among those ideologically different. He's got an impressive resume. And now, with the Nashville Bar Association ratings coming out, it appears he is viewed most favorably by his peers in the Nashville legal community. Nothing against any of his fellow nominees, I'm sure many would be fine judges, but it just seems that Jameson is clearly the best.
In poll results released today by the Nashville Bar Association, Mike Jameson emerged as the most highly rated candidate for the General Sessions judgeship appointment Metro Council will make on November 15, 2011. Jameson was recommended by a total of 551 attorneys, including earning “highly recommended” by more respondents than the next three candidates combined. He likewise received the fewest critical ratings of any candidate...
...David Esquivel: (member, Bass Berry & Sims) “The Bar poll results say a lot about a candidate and how they’re perceived by their peers. Mike was highly recommended by more people than the next three candidates combined. You just don’t see that type of result unless you’re a good lawyer and a good person.”
See Also: Speaking of the legal community, James Bowden has a list of some famous Nashville lawyers who are also veterans, including friend of the blog, Bob Tuke.
As we look at the Republican field and Democrats see an embarrassment of riches, it is worth remember that there is one candidate who should reasonably give all Democrats a bit of heartburn going into the general election, Jon Huntsman.
The objectively best general election candidate they have, Huntsman has languished in obscurity in a GOP field determined to out-crazy one another and in the midst of potentially seeing our 4th or 5th front-runner who isn't Mitt Romney. However, as we get closer to New Hampshire, there is always the chance that Obama's approval numbers will improve. If they do, and this GOP hubris that Obama is toast no matter how nuts their nominee is, then perhaps we'll see the establishment panic and try to focus in on their best chance to beat Obama, not simply the one who seems most in their pocket.
At last night's debate (I started watching it but decided I would prefer not to raise my blood pressure), Huntsman had at least one moment of clarity where he broke through this GOP idolatry of the Free Market and deigned to criticize big banks:
HUNTSMAN: I think we ought to set up some sort of fund. I think we ought to charge some sort of fee from the banks. That mitigates the risk that otherwise the taxpayers are carrying. There’s got to be something that takes the risk from the taxpayers off the table so that these institutions don’t go forward with this implied assumption that we’re going to bail them out at the end of the day.
Not only does that sound like a [Gasp!] regulation, but a potentially costly one at that. Tsk...tsk. Of course, this is kind of what Americans want, solutions. Couple that with his latching on to a tax plan created by Obama's Simpson-Bowles commission (albeit the worst, least deficit reducing option presented) and it seems like he has many of the qualities the press attributes to Romney (such as a relative moderation), but isn't the vapid empty vessel that Mittens is.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want Huntsman to be the nominee...at least the Democrat in me doesn't. However, I think it just warrants mentioning how ridiculous it is that the GOP's best candidate is polling at or below that frothy mixture of...well..Santorum. But if the Republicans do start to panic, they may end up giving him a second, as did Erik Erickson in a recent blog post. That may explain why the former Utah Governor and Ambassador has stayed in this despite the cold shoulder from the GOP elite and base alike.
What I think would be incredibly interesting, is if Huntsman did start to move up in the standings, whether or not the right-wing that embraced Romney in 2008 as the conservative, and has subsequently abandoned him as a liberal thus far in this race, will come back to the hair that one them over four short years ago.
In case you missed out on Saturday's Bank Transfer Day celebration, the Occupy Nashville folks want you to consider doing it tomorrow, during an oddly specific time period, if you bank with BofA or Regions:
Move Your Money!
Occupy Nashville encourages customers of Bank of America and Regions Bank to close your accounts and "Move Your Money" to a credit union or locally owned bank, on Wednesday, November 9th, between 11 AM and 2 PM. The unethical practices of these banks have, to a large degree, contributed to the instability of our country's economy. The banks are continuing to gamble with our future, and expect the federal government to "bail them out" once again, should their poor business practices land them in insolvency. By divesting our funds, we will be sending the message to the banks that we will not tolerate their reckless disregard for our nation's financial security.
A three judge panel of the US Circuit Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, has agreed with a lower court in throwing out a lawsuit against the individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act.
In a 2-1 decision, Reagan and Carter appointees Silberman and Edwards argued that the court does have the authority to hear the case because the fee assessed by the individual mandate is a penalty, not a tax. A third judge, GWB appointee Kavanaugh, refrained from arguing the merits of the mandate because he felt it was a tax, and therefore the courts would be excluded from prematurely ruling on its constitutionality until its enacted in 2014.
A couple interesting passages I found in the ruling were that of Edwards' short concurring opinion which referenced a 2005 opinion by Justice Scalia:
As Justice Scalia explained in his concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), Congress may regulate economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce and also enact laws to make a valid regulation of commerce effective. See id. at 37–39. With respect to the latter category, “[t]he relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are ‘reasonably adapted’ to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.” Id. at 37 (citation omitted). “[T]he power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective.” Id. at 38. Congress’s power to make a regulation of the interstate market effective “is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between ‘what is truly national and what is truly local.’” Id. (citation omitted).
I find this compelling because if the Supreme Court were to find that Congress had a compelling interest in regulating the health insurance market (which, I think, it would be a hard case to argue that it doesn't), then the mandate is an important component of this legislative package in that it enables Congress to impose requirements on insurance companies that eliminate recessions and require coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions. The question is, will Scalia find the same merit in this argument 7 years later in a case involving the Obama administration? Or does this expansion of federal power only extend to fighting the war on marijuana, as was the matter at hand in Gonzales v. Raich?
Another key passage of the decision is in Silberman's opinion affirming the constitutionality of the mandate:
We acknowledge some discomfort with the Government’s failure to advance any clear doctrinal principles limiting congressional mandates that any American purchase any product or service in interstate commerce. But to tell the truth, those limits are not apparent to us, either because the power to require the entry into commerce is symmetrical with the power to prohibit or condition commercial behavior, or because we have not yet perceived a qualitative limitation. That difficulty is troubling, but not fatal, not least because we are interpreting the scope of a long-established constitutional power, not recognizing a new constitutional right. Cf. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2252, 2272 (2009) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). It suffices for this case to recognize, as noted earlier, that the health insurance market is a rather unique one, both because virtually everyone will enter or affect it, and because the uninsured inflict a disproportionate harm on the rest of the market as a result of their later consumption of health care services.
Just because the mandate is novel, does not make it unconstitutional. Indeed, there are no real markets like that of the health care and health insurance markets. Perhaps if we lived in a country that allowed for denial of emergency care because of an inability to pay, the unconstitutionality of the mandate may be more apparent...but because hospitals are required to provide emergency care, either for moral reasons or because it could be difficult to ascertain the financial status of a patient who comes in with no ID or documentation, it makes sense that everyone should have some form of insurance coverage to protect both hospitals and those who do participate in insurance programs.
Now, all this said, a much easier work-around for all of this is to have a single-payer health care system by simply deleting the "over 65" section of Medicare and extending it to all Americans. But, Americans or American politicians aren't ready to present this option, so this imperfect solution is all we have.
As this issue heads to the Supreme Court, its important to remember that the concepts of stare decisis are far less imposing on the highest court than they are appellate courts...so just because Silberman, et al, are suppose to be following precedent, doesn't mean that Roberts and Company will feel compelled to do the same. But, if Scalia is to be intellectually consistent, its hard to argue that the Federal Government has a more compelling interest in barring someone from growing a weed in their backyard than they do in requiring individuals to be responsible at some level for their health care in order to protect those Americans who already are.
This whole Sarkozy/Obama open mic conversation is cracking me up. So, what do we have here. Sarkozy privately tells Obama what he feels, "I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," to which Obama responds, "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," to which Reuters concludes, "Obama's apparent failure to defend Netanyahu is likely to be leapt on by his Republican foes, who are looking to unseat him in next year's presidential election and have portrayed him as hostile to Israel, Washington's closest ally in the region."
"I didn't appreciate your way of presenting things over the Palestinian membership of UNESCO. It weakened us. You should have consulted us, but that is now behind us," Obama was quoted as saying.
"You have to pass the message along to the Palestinians that they must stop this immediately," Obama said.
It seems to me that short of launching a drone strike on the Dome of the Rock, nothing President Obama does will ever get the rightwing in this country and theirs to acknowledge the President does more to promote the interests of the Israeli government than any other leader in the world.
Proponents of school vouchers will tell you that the issue is choice for parents whose children are in failing schools. The truth is that the choice resides with the private schools, which have the final say over which students they admit. Private schools have the right to an admission process because they operate with private money. Public money comes with different but necessary requirements to educate all children, regardless of income, religious belief or prior achievement. Tennessee now has the nation’s second-toughest academic standards and is focused on strong accountability. Private schools don’t operate under these requirements, nor should they — but they also should not expect to receive public money without them.
. I will take the $1,200.00 challenge (four weeks at $300.00 per week). While I can not get out of my mortgage, I will deduct $225.00 (the cost of rent for multiple rooms available for rent on craigslist) from the $1200.00. I will stay at my house and bet I can personally live on the rest ($975.00 or less) for a month. What I make from my life's work and investments will not go to any personal expenses, only to pay my business expenses. If I choose to work for extra money it will be in a completely new job.
Well, first of all, despite the Pulse's generous $300 line, unemployment in Tennessee is $275, but back when Democrats controlled Congress they added in an extra $25 to help out victims of the Bush recession...so, we'll grant them getting in while the getting was good.
Second, where in the hell is Stacey Campfield finding a place to live for $225 a month? According to him, there are "multiple rooms available" on Craigslist...when I did a search for room rentals in Knoxville, only one popped up, a camper in Sevierville. Of course, the problem here is that not everyone that gets laid off is single and able to pick up and move to some dinky camper in the middle of nowhere.
Unfortunately, unemployment often strikes when people have spouses, children, pets, responsibilities, etc...that can't just be written off in a moments notice. People often have credit cards, student loans, car payments, health insurance bills, and (like Stacey) mortgages that can't easily be dumped off because they no longer have a job. And, for those who do get to the end of their ropes and end up bailing on their mortgage, defaulting on their debts, etc...the ensuing hit to their credit rating could render then unemployable in many situations.
Another factor to take into consideration Stacey would be health insurance. Now, I don't know what your particular situation is...maybe you foot your insurance bill by yourself, or your rugged individualism precludes you from participating in a communist plot like "insurance," but if you do take advantage of the state employee health insurance plan, you are likely getting a rather generous subsidy from us taxpayers to help keep you healthy. According to the state's website, plans range from $102 to $137 premiums for a single employee, in return, the state picks up $466 of the cost of that insurance. The COBRA insurance plan is $579 to $615...so, if you do partake in taxpayer subsidized insurance, please feel free to deduct this COBRA premium from your grand total.
Now, all of this aside, is it possible for a human being in America to live on $1,100 or $1,200 a month? Yes, it is. Its sure as hell not comfortable, and could result in some rather deplorable living conditions, but poverty is real, and for many people this is their reality. The point is not whether people can subsist on this amount of money, the point is whether the "comfort" of this financial subsidy is keeping a plethora of people from returning to work. People on unemployment are there because they worked for a company for a year or longer and that company was either forced to delete the position or the company itself was deleted. So, even if someone could feasibly live on this amount, chances are (because unemployment insurance is a fraction of your previous wages) that this person is probably conditioned towards a different lifestyle typically not afforded by $275 a week, and they'll generally be more inclined towards finding a job that pays more than an amount less than a full-time minimum wage salary.
The Sixth Circuit will hold oral arguments on January 17, 2012, in Kurita v State Primary Board of Tennessee Democratic Party. The hearing will be at 1:30 p.m. in Cincinnati. This is the fascinating case, filed in 2008, over whether a party has a constitutional right to set aside the results of its primary and designate the primary loser as the party’s nominee.
Forgot who Rosalind Kurita was? Understandable...Rosalind Kurita was the ever so brief democratic challenger to Congressman Harold Ford Jr. in the 2006 US Senate election. In 2007 Kurita went back on her word to the Democrats in the caucus and voted for Ron Ramsey to become Tennessee's Speaker of the Senate. Not surprisingly, she landed a Democratic challenger for her primary in 2008...which she won, at the ballot box, by a very narrow margin. Unfortunately for Kurita, the Tennessee Democratic Executive Committee is the ultimate arbiter of primary election results, and after what I thought were some rather dubious arguments of "fraud," the election was kicked back to the county parties which voted for Tim Barnes to be the nominee.
Of course, it didn't end there...Kurita filed a frivolous lawsuit against the TNDP, even though the Tennessee Code gives them clear authority, with little-to-no guidelines on how to interpret primary contests. She has since more or less joined with the Republicans, giving them all of her money, and hiring on a rightwing anti-abortion crusader, James Bopp, to be her primary counsel. She'll almost definitely lose the case, but in doing so the Republicans managed to cost the TNDP money that would've otherwise been spent on electing Democrats, which was the point of this whole exercise in the first place.
"When does it become a benefit and when does it become a lifestyle?" Ramsey, R-Blountville, asked of the current unemployment compensation system.
Weekly unemployment pay averages $285 a week, and beneficiaries aren't pressed hard enough to look for work, Ramsey said...
..."There are jobs out there. ... It may not be the job you want, but there are jobs out there," Ramsey said.
First off, we are in Tennessee, and in Tennessee there isn't an "average" of $285 a week, there is a maximum of $275, regardless of whether you made $30,000 or $80,000 when you were laid off.
Second, what Ramsey is saying is that someone's desire to find work is tied to the amount of compensation they receive. However, the numbers indicate that the states with the highest levels of compensation have, on average, a lower unemployment figure than Tennessee and the other 5 states with the lowest compensation. If unemployment compensation were keeping people unemployed, it would stand to reason those with the highest and longest compensation plans would have the worst unemployment...they don't.
States that pay highest unemployment insurance compensation
UI Rank (Lowest to Highest)
Rate (Sept)
Massachusetts ($628-942, 72 weeks)
13
7.30%
Rhode Island ($528-660, 79 weeks)
43
10.50%
Pennsylvania ($558-566, 72 weeks)
25
8.30%
Connecticut ($519-594, 72 weeks)
30
8.90%
New Jersey (584, 79 weeks)
36
9.20%
Average
8.84%
States that pay lowest unemployment insurance compensation
Mississippi ($230, 59 weeks)
45
10.60%
Arizona ($240, 72 weeks)
33
9.10%
Alabama ($255, 59 weeks)
39
9.80%
Tennessee ($275, 59 weeks)
39
9.80%
Florida ($275, 79 weeks)
45
10.60%
Average
9.98%
Ramsey is obviously trying to deflect criticism of his administration, which has overseen an increase in unemployment in relation to the national average which has gone down...and he's doing it by blaming the people trying desperately to find work.
Former Councilman and would-be Metro Sessions Judge Mike Jameson has gained the endorsement of over a hundred lawyers, including current councilmen Maynard, Holleman and Todd.
“It’s an honor to have the endorsement of fellow lawyers, including those I served with on Metro Council, and I’m very grateful for their faith in me,” said Jameson.
The letter cites Jameson’s reputation for being a hard worker who is a compassionate and an ardent advocate for legislation affecting quality of life and government ethics.
During Jameson’s legal career, he worked as an Assistant Public Defender representing indigent defendants, litigated against race discrimination in Title VII cases, and went on to practice civil litigation for over 21 years in Nashville where he was originally born.
Fellow blogger GingerSnaps is part of the 9.8% of Tennesseans who are unemployed. She wants to set the record straight that for those leaving "smug, self-righteous, know-it-all" all over Facebook:
Yesterday, I and over 5,000 others sweated and stood in line for over 7 hours to get a chance to be considered for a job at Nissan. There were people from all walks of life standing in that line. People dressed in suits and people in jeans, people with college educations and people who served our country in the military in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other posts. There were men, women, young, old, married, single, parents, and grandparents. Those who have been unemployed and underemployed, all standing in line for hopes of regaining their dignity in life. A job.
Two weeks ago, I traveled to Lebanon, Tennessee for a job fair for Amazon.com only to be turned away because they could not handle the crowds of applicants who had shown up. There have been countless other such job fairs with overwhelming turnouts.
So, don’t you dare say those of us who are struggling do not want to work hard and want handouts.
A little while ago a group of Vandy students led by Stephen Siao, President of the Tennessee College Republicans and Vanderbilt Republicans, marched down to the Plaza to protest people trying to bring attention to inequalities and injustices in our socio-economic and political systems here in America.
The main focus of the Vandy students seemed to be that Americans, and specifically our generation, are increasingly saddled with debt...something the crowd was more than happy to agree with when they joined in chanting "we are the generation of debt," although a helpful Occupy Nashville organizerleader guy who appeared to have some level of authority added in the words "student debt" and "housing debt" to the mix.
A few minutes later, the Occupy Nashville team welcomed Siao to speak to the crowd, complete with a repeating chorus of Occupiers enacting their human microphone. When given the chance to speak Siao said that the protesters' demands were unrealistic (what demands?) and that their real focus should be on President Obama and not Tennessee which has "been a leader in job creation and education".
The Many
Oh where to begin. First off, Siao apparently lives in a mythical fantasy world where Tennessee isn't 39th worst in unemployment and ranks near the bottom in most measurements of public education quality. Tennessee has also recently dropped 6 slots for "business climate" since his GOP swept into power earlier this year.
Also, its worth noting how warmly the occupy protestors welcomed Siao and his fellow Republicans compared to the anger expressed by Tea Party ilk towards Democrats and liberals in 2009 and 2010. Occupiers clapped for them as they marched up, all proud of themselves as they chanted "fire Obama, occupy the White House". And can you even begin to imagine a Tea Party rally offering the chance for a liberal Democrat to speak, whilst not only politely listening to them, but repeating in unison everything they said? Seriously, anyone still repeating the "angry left" mantra needs visit these people.
But, most importantly, I think where the Vanderbilt Republicans fell flat was in their overall message. According to them, the only problem facing millions of Americans is the federal debt per capita. Now, yes, the federal debt is a real issue, and its been just about the only thing being addressed by Washington since the Republicans took over. However, the federal debt did not create a mortgage derivative market that lead to over-rated housing prices, unscrupulous mortgage lending, and millions of Americans facing underwater mortgages and potential foreclosure. The federal debt did not cause millions of Americans to lose their jobs in 2008-09. The federal debt did not cause the rise in student debt burden or the soaring health care and college tuition prices.
Americans, most of the ones with real problems anyways, aren't laying awake at night wondering how they are going to pay the interest on the federal debt..they are wondering how they'll pay the interest on their credit cards, student loans, mortgage or car payment while they search for hard to come by jobs, all the while corporations make record profits and the wealthiest 1% continue to get wealthier. What the Vanderbilt Republicans are focused on is an abstraction, not real issues facing Americans. Its a vapid distraction from the most pressing concerns of the average American, and its a distraction that is halting forward progress in creating jobs and easing the burden of millions of Americans.
Whether the fault lays with Wall Street, Congress, or the White House, what these folks are protesting is a political and economic environment that ignores the needs of the many while coddling the very few. Whether or not whatever policies these folks believe are the best way to address these concerns is irrelevant to the fact that their movement has caused people to talk about these underlying issues once again. That is my takeaway from the 99%. That is why they are holding camp in state houses and city halls across this nation. To bring attention to issues that have been neglected by political leaders and the media for years, and that are actually affecting the lives of millions of people...not NPR funding or Solyndra, but serious issues that have been dropped by the wayside in Washington and New York for far too long.
The Occupy Nashville protestors have drafted a letter to our Governor to let him know who they are and what they're about:
Dear Governor Haslam,
Can we start anew? Please allow us to introduce ourselves properly: We are Occupy Nashville, a citizen-led movement defending democracy from corporate money and corruption.
The dictators in the legislature are at it again as Sen. Kelsey and Rep. Casada are going back to amend the law passed this year that stripped Nashville of its ability to decide where our tax dollars went regarding discrimination. The newly expanded law would ban local governments from "impos[ing] on or make applicable to any person an employment practice, standard, definition, or provision which imposes or mandates health insurance benefits, a minimum wage, or family leave requirements" [SB2149].
Why don't they just abolish local governments altogether? Hell, they have the power to do it, and they obviously have complete and total contempt for the rights of cities and their citizens to decide for ourselves how we'd like our laws to be written...so why not just leave all decisions up to the dictators in the GOP caucus?
Of course, as you might expect, the reasons for gutting worker protections and rights is entirely an altruistic show of support for Tennessean's African-American community, of which a "shocking 42 percent" of teens don't have jobs...has nothing to do with selling off municipal authority to the highest bidders.
I'm no legal eagle here, but it doesn't take course in sexual harassment law to learn the definition of what is and is not sexual harassment. Apparently, that is just too damned much for National Review's John Derbyshire who, along with many other conservatives, is jumping all over themselves to defend Herman Cain against charges they really have no information about. But, Derbyshire in his ignorance, really stands out:
Is there anyone who thinks sexual harassment is a real thing? Is there anyone who doesn’t know it’s all a lawyers’ ramp, like “racial discrimination“? You pay a girl a compliment nowadays, she runs off and gets lawyered up. Is this any way to live?...
...There has never in the history of the world been a people better mannered and less inclined to insulting acts of prejudice than today’s Americans, yet we’re supposed to believe that the nation is seething with “harassment” and “discrimination,” women being groped in every business office and crosses burning on every lawn.
Well, first off, no, we shouldn't believe that the nation is "seething" with harassment or harassment charges. According to the EEOC, there has been a rather steady decline in Title VII harassment charges since the 1990s, from nearly 16,000 in 1997 to less than 12,000 in 2010.
Now obviously these statistics don't include all of the claims being filed within a workplace, but its reasonable to assume that the overall amount of claims have fallen in conjunction with this EEOC data.
Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general...
...Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
Now, I have no idea if what Herman Cain did or did not say rose to the level of "sexual harassment"...all I do know is that there are two women who did think just that, and were so upset that they had to leave the workplace, albeit with a severance package in conjunction with a non-disclosure agreement, in order to have a sense of resolution.
Sexual harassment may be less prevalent today than in 1960, I don't think many people dispute that, but its been largely because of sexual harassment lawsuits that companies have forced their employees to change and adapt to a workplace that has nearly equal proportions of male-to-female workers.
Earlier today the Tennessee House of Representatives Education Subcommittee concluded a nearly two hour discussion on the merits of school vouchers as proposed by Rep. Bill Dunn's HB388. The proposed legislation would only effect the Shelby, Davidson, Hamilton and Knox County School districts, of which all four school boards have registered their opposition to the proposal.
About half of the time was allotted to phoned in testimony from Jon Husted, Ohio's new Republican Secretary of State and the former Speaker of the Ohio House. Ohio has their own voucher program called "EdChoice" which has been in place for about 5 years or so. The Ohio law, as written, is far more detailed and comprehensive than the one being proposed by Rep. Dunn, and includes provisions to require transportation be provided, something Mr. Husted said was a key feature of Ohio's plan, and is found lacking in Tennessee's proposed new law.
In addition, Ohio's law currently limits the number of participants to focus on children zoned for troubled school districts, as well as the total number overall, though that is scheduled to expand in the following years. Dunn's law would cover all children on free or reduced lunch, and has no restriction for whether or not they are zoned for successful or failing schools.
Regardless the differences, which could change as the bill makes its way through the committee process, one thing we are seeing in Ohio is that once the vouchers are introduced, Republicans will continue an effort to expand the programs to include more affluent families. A new proposal in the Ohio legislature removes the restrictions for failing schools, and ups the family income to $96,000, a plan that would decimate public school funding for districts around the state, and essentially create a large market for state funded parochial schools with little supervision from the state.
In contrast to Secretary Husted, Nashville's Director of Schools Jesse Register spoke out against the GOP measure on behalf of all four of the school districts that would have this measure opposed on them by state legislators calling it a "diversion" that could "undermine and derail" efforts to improve education in Tennessee.
Register pointed to the efforts being implemented in his school district and Tennessee which have been recently passed that expand school choice through charter schools, as well as program changes that resulted in Barack Obama's "Race to the Top" award that Tennessee received in 2010.
He pointed out the Tennessee's per pupil funding is dramatically lower than that of Ohio's, by about $4000 per student, and that in order to improve, local school districts need more, not less funding in order to continue improvements in recently passed laws.
Later in testimony, Vice-Chair Mark North went after the political rhetoric surrounding this issue, pointing out that the "choice" is held by the admissions department of the private schools, and that they may recruit and market to whomever they wish. In regards to competition, North noted that MLK and Hume-Fogg are the two best high schools in the state, public or private, and that other schools have improved in relation to these magnets, as well as charter schools.
The only school board member that the Republicans could find to support this measure was Dr. Whalum of Memphis. Whalum was Memphis School Board's most outspoken member in opposition to the dissolution of Memphis' school district to join with the Shelby County Schools, likening it to Memphis raping Shelby County Schools. Ironically, while he was opposed to Memphis imposing itself on Shelby County, he seemed to have no problem with the state imposing this voucher program on school districts that are vocally opposed to the measures. In his testimony, Whalum said he was tired of the failure of success in public schools in his district, as well as the "hypocritical" opposition to using state dollars to fund private education, while saying nothing about the private donations used to influence public schools. He said studies opposed to vouchers are "inconclusive at best" and likened a refusal to pass this bill as prohibiting people from getting on a lifeboat as the Titanic was sinking.
Later, after other speakers gave their presentations, Rep. John DeBerry, a co-sponsor of HB388, took 3 minutes to admonish his fellow members for not referencing Whalum's opinions in later discussion, saying that he "would appreciate it, as a legislator, if questions were presented, they would be given the same validity and the same importance as those that you agree with. If all of you were sitting in this room and each of you heard this man voice his opinions, whether you agree with him or not, nobody addressed them. Not one of you said one single solitary thing about what the board member of the city of Memphis had to say about those constituents he represents."
Of course, while standing on his soap box, Rep. DeBerry failed to mention that he didn't address or question Dr. Whalum's testimony either, except to admonish his colleagues for not talking about it.
In addition to all of this, Memphis Catholic Dioceses Superintendent Mary McDonald spoke of the successes in her schools, which include the "Jubilee" schools directed towards at-risk African-American youth, and requested that the legislators pass this measure so that her schools would get some of the state funding for it. However, there are ways to have schools like the Jubilee schools receive state funding...that is to turn them into charter schools. In 2009, a handful of financially troubled Catholic schools successfully did just that, removing the Catholic dogma from their curriculum, but keeping on the same staff and administrators as before. This method would allow for McDonald to receive even more in state and local funding than they would under this voucher program, while making the schools more hospitable to a largely non-catholic base of students.
Ultimately, there are many programs and policies that have yet to be fully implemented, and school districts don't need even more state mandates and funding cuts to deal with at this time. This is yet another way for Republican legislators in the state to grab power from local entities in order to promote their own hard-right agenda, and it should be forcefully opposed by all or state legislators who truly care about the quality of public education in our state.
