Kevin Drum, writing at Mother Jones, explains that the political right has a long history working hard to defund the political left. He argues that this is what the fight over "unions" is really about.
The "People's Budget has been proposed by the 80 member Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus within the U.S. House of Representatives. The co-chair, of that caucus, Democratic Representative Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, appeared on Democracy Now, perplexed that his budget, which is well supported by large numbers of Americans, is being ignored by the mainstream media.
We cut military spending in a significant way. The key to that, getting us out of Afghanistan and out of Iraq. And we take care—we deal with healthcare by reintroducing the public option, which could save up to $68 billion a year from providing a competitive choice for the American people. We didn’t do this on a lark. We have tracked every public opinion poll. And the American people want gas and oil subsidies to be cut. They want the rich and the corporations to pay taxes. They want military spending cut. And so, as we listen to the American people, our budget reflects that listening and really deserves a voice and deserves some attention.Let's mark this lack of attention to a populist budget another exhibit demonstrating the the national media caters strongly to big businesses that purchase advertising and to the affluent customers to whom those ads are often aimed. Can you imagine the outcome of the following question if put on a national referendum: "Should the United States remove its military from Iraq and Afghanistan and redirected the many billions of dollars we are spending in those countries to benefit Americans at home?" Or how about this one: "Should the United States continue paying gas and oil companies tens of billion dollars in tax subsidies?"
Paul Krugman, writing for the NYT:
I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, he’s using it to reinforce his enemies’ narrative.
Krugman was commenting on Obama's lack of fight during the recent budget deal. That bad deal comes on the heels of Obama's recent lack of fight on net neutrality, where Obama and his hand-picked commissioner Julius Genachowski purposely steered clear of the promising solution of declaring the Internet to be a mode of "telecommunications" pursuant to the Communications Act of 1996. That wasn't doable with AT&T looking on, spending more on lobbyists than all members of the military-industrial complex combined. Obama's recent collapse occurred after he declared that he would "Take a back seat to no one" regarding net neutrality. Well, it's clear that Obama didn't have the guts to fight for what he apparently once believed regarding net neutrality. That's the awful trend. Consider his inept Wall Street finance alleged reform ("banks" are now bigger than they were prior to the collapse) and consider his convoluted health care reform, which dumped us into the waiting arms of virtually monopolistic private health insurers (mine raised my premium 10% last week--so much for "cost control," Obama's original justification for health care reform). And then there is Guantanamo--yes, it's still open for business, and consider that the "Peace President" ramped up our military presence in Afghanistan, where we still waste $2B/week, killing and maiming numerous civilians in America's longest war. And consider that Obama has become quite the "Secrecy President." And consider his unwillingness to speak up to protest the torture of Bradley Manning. And why is he taking the side of tens of thousands of tax cheats while ignoring the massive injustice done to a man for whom we should be holding parades, Bradley Birkenfeld? Barack Obama is a President who doesn't have the guts to fight for the promises he made during his campaign. It's apparently not in his bones to do so. He's the Political-Free-Market President: He apparently believes that good things will happen in Washington if only he charms everyone and stays out of the way. Because of this deep character flaw, his window of opportunity to implement the program he campaigned slammed shut. At best, he'll be playing defense, though the recent budget deal suggests that he doesn't have the grit to play tough defense. If I were a Republican, I'd probably be wondering whether I'd actually want to replace Obama with a Republican. This is all so incredibly surreal. My thoughts are similar to those expressed by Lawrence Lessig at the 2011 National Conference for Media Reform. He boiled the problem down to this: "Private funds drive elections." He noted that members of Congress spend 30-70% of their time raising money to get re-elected. This has got to change, because "every issue we care about is blocked by this rot." The Citizens know about this problem quite well; Lessig cited a poll showing that 70% of voters "believe that money corrupts Congress." He has declared that it's often not worth our time to fight issues of the day, because good ideas don't have a chance of winning. Instead, we all need to become "rootstrikers." Here's the idea in a nutshell:""There's no progress so long as private funds drive public elections."
And see the Rootstriker video here. Two nights ago, in the midst of all of this frustration, I had dinner with an African American man who looked at me with shock and disbelief as I expressed my frustrations regarding Barack Obama. The man warned me that we can't "afford" to criticize Obama, or else Obama's opponents will use that against him. "We worked so hard to get him elected." Yes, it seems unsavory to criticize the bad judgment of those who we generally respect, but it is often one's moral duty. For many months I've been losing hope for Obama, evidenced by many articles I've written at this website, but now I'm losing respect for him. I'll admit that my frustration occurs in the following context: We've been moving toward the political right for at least 10 years now (longer if you include Bill Clinton's disastrous de-regulation of Wall Street). Based on this long sad slide, it would be immoral for me to not criticize the current president, for whom I voted. There was so much hope in the air a mere two years ago. Is there still hope? The current situation brings to mind a quote regarding FDR:FDR once met with a group of activists who sought his support for bold legislation. He listened to their arguments for some time and then said, "You've convinced me. Now go out and make me do it."I will do everything in my meager power to try to make Obama do what he promised, even when that seems hopeless. I will not hold back criticism. Obama has been making a ghastly string of mistakes ever since elected, even though he ran one of the most brilliant campaigns I've ever seen. But now he appears to almost fully settled as a comfy resident of Washington, D.C., which is now more visibly than ever a highly big seductive coin-operated town.
Free Speech for People is another concerted effort to overturn Citizen's United. Here's the problem:
A sharply divided Supreme Court decided that the American people are powerless to stop corporations from using corporate funds to influence state and federal elections. The 5-4 decision ruled that the restrictions on corporate expenditures in elections contained in the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known as BCRA or “McCain-Feingold”) violated the First Amendment protections of free speech.
The solution:The Free Speech for People Amendment will overrule the Citizens United v. FEC case and return the First Amendment to its longstanding purpose as a guarantee of the fullest rights of a free people and the press. The Free Speech for People Amendment will overrule the fabrication by activist judges of a “corporate rights doctrine” to defeat democratically enacted laws, and will restore the First Amendment to its meaning and intent for two centuries. The Amendment will ensure that all people have the most robust freedom of conscience, speech and debate and that a vibrant, diverse press remains free and unfettered, thus strengthening, rather than weakening, democracy.
The Free Speech for People Amendment Campaign will work with others to develop specific language for the Free Speech for People Amendment. Here is one example of language for the Free Speech for People Amendment:
Amendment XXVIII Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation. Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.[Addendum April 11, 2011] I have added a short speech by John Bonifaz, co-founder of Free Speech for People. He warns that Citizens United should not simply be seen as a campaign finance decision, but as announcing a radical new doctrine establishing corporate rights. Corporations should not be seen to have the same rights as people. Because of their powers to aggregate wealth, they should be carefully restrained. Unchecked corporate power is subverting our democracy. The BP disaster and the unrestrained consolidation of the media are examples. The solution is to amend the U.S. Constitution with the 28th Amendment. Bonifaz indicates that seven of the existing Amendments remedied egregious injustices. This effort will take immense energy and organizing, but the wholesomeness of the idea is on our side. Polling shows that 87% of Democrats, 85% of Independents and 68% of Republicans support the idea that corporations should not have the rights of people.
At Vanity Fair, A. A. Gill offers this portrait of Dubai:
Dubai has been built very fast. The plan was money. The architect was money. The designer was money and the builder was money. And if you ever wondered what money would look like if it were left to its own devices, it’s Dubai . . . Dubai is the parable of what money makes when it has no purpose but its own multiplication and grandeur. When the culture that holds it is too frail to contain it. Dubai is a place that doesn’t just know the price of everything and the value of nothing but makes everything worthless. The answer to everything in Dubai is money. In the darkness of the hot night, the motorways roar with Ferraris and Porsches and Lamborghinis; the fat boys are befuddled and stupefied by sports cars they race around on nowhere roads, going nowhere. Taxi drivers of their ambitionless, all-consuming entitlement. Shortchanged by being given everything. Cursed with money.