America’s Big Government Future: In his third appearance on Democratic Perspective, Lane Kenworthy, Professor of Sociology and Political Science at the University of Arizona, presents the case for a bigger government role in adapting to the challenges of a global economy, and discusses what government can legitimately do to make us less vulnerable to economic forces which are beyond our individual control.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
That’s the title of a stimulating presentation by Lane Kenworthy, author and Professor of Sociology and Political Science at the University of Arizona. In his third appearance on Democratic Perspective, Mr. Kenworthy compared the size of US government with that of other countries.
“As a share of GDP our government is not large by comparison,” said Kenworthy. “In 2007, the US government was 37 percent of GDP. Most spend more. The top spenders, such as Denmark and Sweden, dedicate 50 percent of their GDP to government.”
“We tend to think that public opinion drives policy” he continued, “but it’s the other way around. People say they don’t want big government. But when you ask them about specific programs, they don’t want to lose them.”
One of the characteristics of countries with large governments, according to Kenworthy, is that a greater percent think luck has a lot to do with a person’s fortunes. “Over the last century,” he said, “most countries have put in place a variety of programs – some more than others – such as safety nets and programs to increase opportunity.” He defined opportunity as the result of schooling and education.
“The US lags behind in early childhood education (education for children under age 6),” he said. “Other countries think of this as part of overall education. They do this partly through the government.”
Kenworth defines safety nets as insurance for periods when people are unable to provide for themselves. “Some of these programs we have, some not. There’s a very clear pattern across countries. As they get richer, they are more willing to pay for insurance such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, even wage insurance.”
“How can a rich country like ours have such poverty and need?” he asked.
“In the US, most people identify themselves as working class,” Kenworthy continued. “In the US, when conditions change and people lose their jobs, a lot find jobs quickly, but they often don’t get paid as much. We could create a program to make up the difference. This is a problem that has been growing for several decades. Insurance could help make up the difference. We want people to get jobs quickly, but we need something to help them fill the wage gap.”
You can read more of what Professor Kenworthy has to say on his blog, Consider The Evidence.
A New Direction for Sedona Politics: The Impact of Arizona’s Current Redistricting. Democratic Perspective co-hosts Steve Williamson and Mike Cosentino talk with Angela LeFevre, President of Democrats of the Red Rocks, on the likely outcome of current congressional and legislative redistricting for residents of Sedona. Now that the crude gerrymandering attempts of the Republicans and Governor Jan Brewer have been largely beaten back by the State Supreme Court, Sedona seems likely to remain in competitive districts until the next census in 2020.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
On December 19, 2011, Democratic Perspective hosted Angela LeFevre, president of Democrats of the Red Rocks, to discuss the political landscape in Arizona.
When asked about the current political situation in Arizona, she replied, “The state is split equally between Democrats, Republicans and Independents, yet the legislature is totally dominated by Republicans. The only explanation is the way the districts have been drawn.”
“Politics for our area have been totally dominated by Prescott,” she continued. “Since Tom O’Halleran lost his legislative office in the last Republican primary, there has been no representation for the entire Verde Valley. None of our legislators have come to Sedona.”
That should change, according to LeFevre. “It now looks as if Sedona will be moved to Legislative District 6 (LD-6) as part of the Flagstaff area,” she stated. “This is a very competitive district represented by Democrat Tom Chabin. The redistricting maps are not final yet, but it appears that the elections will no longer be decided in the Republican primary.”
“As for the Congressional Districts, Arizona is now entitled to one more district as the result of population growth,” said LeFevre. Among other potential changes, she cited the willingness of the Navajo and Hopi to be placed in the same district. “It appears there will be two rural districts divided East and West,” she said. “Thankfully, Sedona is likely to be in the East. The West is extremely conservative.”
Regarding the recent controversy over the Independent Redistricting Commission, Angela declared, “The Republicans made an outrageous power grab by impeaching Mathis (the Commission chair). But the Supreme Court struck down the attempt. As a result, Governor Brewer is no longer meddling in the process. Voters intentionally took the power for redistricting away from the legislature,” said LeFevre. “Democrats have been very supportive of the Commission’s work and, overall, the Commission has done a good job. It made a mistake by splitting Sedona, but the Commissioners listened and that seems to have been fixed.”
She said that the Independent Redistricting Commission is expected to finish its work by Christmas.
When asked how people can get involved with the political process, Angela suggested joining Democrats of the Red Rocks. “DORR is very active and growing. There is also a group in Cottonwood called Democrats of the Verde Valley. It’s important to get involved. 2012 will be a huge year. Our organizations need help in all aspects, from baking cookies to knocking on doors. There is even a candidate training program for those inclined to run for office,” she concluded.
The American Legislative Exchange Council: Who Really Writes Our State Laws? Democratic Perspective co-hosts Steve Williamson and Mike Cosentino take on ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group funded by conservative business-oriented special interests, which writes and recommends model bills for state legislators. Guess whose interests these custom-written bills favor, and what ALEC promises to legislators who take them back to their states and get their legislatures to pass them into law without any pesky amendments, as many have? No, come on — I’m SURE you can guess.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Democratic Perspective continued its series about the use of political front groups as a way of hiding corporate contributions in order to subvert the political process. This week, we looked at ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council.
ALEC’s website calls the organization “A nonpartisan membership association for conservative state lawmakers who shared a common belief in limited government, free markets, federalism, and individual liberty.” But our co-hosts, Steve Williamson and Mike Cosentino, more accurately described ALEC as “A dating service for giant corporations and conservative legislators.”
The National Resources Defense Council goes further. It authored a press release describing ALEC as “Corporate America’s Trojan Horse In The States.”
ALEC was founded in 1973 by a group of conservatives which included Paul Weyrich, originator of the term “Moral Majority” for Jerry Falwell. It originally focused on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. But the founders soon realized that they could get corporations to fund everything and state legislators to push their ideas at the state level.
Today, ALEC boasts a membership of nearly 2,000 state conservative legislators and hundreds of corporate sponsors. Some of the corporations and associations represented on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Board are Centerpoint360, Bayer Corp, GlaxoSmithKline, Reynolds American, Wal-Mart Stores, Energy Future Holdings, Johnson & Johnson, PhRMA, American Bail Coalition, Kraft Foods, Pfizer, AT&T, Peabody Energy, UPS, Koch Companies, Coca-Cola, Altria, ExxonMobil, Salt River Project and State Farm Insurance.
Here’s how it works: Funded almost entirely by corporations and industries, ALEC dreams up legislation that is right wing, business-friendly or both. Conservative Republicans bring the legislation home to their statehouses. The legislators are then rewarded for their efforts with large campaign contributions by the corporate sponsors.
By focusing on state legislatures in this manner, ALEC provides corporations with 50 opportunities to push conservative legislation versus just one at the federal level.
In Arizona, 50 of the state’s 90 legislators are members of ALEC. And, thus far, 19 of 36 ALEC-generated laws introduced in the Arizona legislature have become law.
One example is the law creating corporate-owned prisons in the state. Despite the fact that these prisons cost more per prisoner than Arizona’s publically-funded prisons, their number is growing. And thanks to the SB1070 anti-immigration bill (another ALEC initiative), they’re preparing for more growth. As soon as 1070 passed, the prison corporation and conservative legislators began seeking land for new prisons to be filled by 1070.
Other issues being pursued by ALEC members at the state level are tax incentives for moist, fruit-flavored tobacco that appeals to kids, bills that would block the Kyota protocols on global warming, bills designed to block EPA efforts to maintain clean water and clean air, tort reform to “discourage frivolous lawsuits,” and bills which would block the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act one state at a time.
ALEC has much more influence than people think. To keep track of its efforts, visit AlecWatch.org or AlecExposed.org.
Dark Money: Corporate Contributions Disguised As Free Speech. Democratic Perspective co-hosts Steve Williamson and Mike Cosentino continue their discussion about the Citizens United decision, and its effect on American politics. Do we know who is talking to us, and what they really want? In today’s politics, thanks to the Supreme Court’s judgment that corporations are people, such simple things aren’t always clear. We have to follow the money, and because by definition dark money is hard to trace to its source, we need to pay much closer attention than we used to. As an illustration of what to look for, Mike and Steve dissect a case in point in Arizona. What — and who — is RetireSafe, why are they giving money to Representative Paul Gosar, and what is it that they really want?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
This week, the Democratic Perspective co-hosts, Steve Williamson and Mike Cosentino, continued their discussion of dark money and the effects of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
As a reminder, dark money is the anonymous and largely-unregulated money spent on electoral politics through front groups. There has been an avalanche of such spending since the Citizens United decision that gave corporations the same rights as individuals and confirmed the notion that money equals free speech. The result is that corporations may now donate unlimited amounts of money to influence elections on their behalf.
In 2010, dark money had a huge impact on the elections. For example, the US Chamber of Commerce spent almost $40 million in 2010, mostly to attack Democrats on behalf of Republicans.
As stated in the previous program, Congressman Paul Gosar is one of the Republican candidates who benefited greatly from dark money in the 2010 campaign. Front groups spent $2 million to help Gosar defeat Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick – more money than the candidate, himself, spent. And front groups are continuing to spend on his behalf.
For example, a recent mailing by RetireSafe praised Gosar for receiving its “Standing Up For America’s Seniors” award for “his efforts to protect the health benefits and security of America’s seniors and disabled citizens.” At this point, it should be mentioned that, far from protecting seniors, Congressman Gosar voted for the Ryan budget bill that would destroy Medicare and replace it with a questionable voucher system.
To put the mailing and award in perspective, it’s important to look closely at RetireSafe. Led by long-time, right-wing ideologues, RetireSafe claims to be “a grassroots advocacy organization” with membership of 400,000 plus. But it is more accurately described as a front group for the ultra-conservative Council for Government Reform which was originally the National Center for Privatization funded by Big Pharma. Among the many right-wing issues the group supports is the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
If the group’s origins and mission seems intentionally deceptive, it’s for good reason. It likely wants to cloak itself in a disguise of nonpartisanship to hide its largest donors and ulterior motives.
There are dozens of such front groups that are already flexing their anonymous financial muscle in the upcoming elections. They’re joined by so-called “Coin-Operated Think Tanks” which conduct polls and studies to generate support for whatever position you pay for.
Until Congress passes legislation to limit the money and influence of such groups, there is little that can be done to counter the effects of dark money. All we can recommend is that you look closely at the groups behind the political ads, and to research the source of their funding.
This week, the hosts of Democratic Perspective, Steve Williamson and Mike Cosentino, examined the effects of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
Mike began by asking the rhetorical question, “How do you have a democracy when you have a few bucks to give a candidate, while a corporation or billionaire has millions to spend on propaganda? Enough to turn black into white and up into down?”
“Most Americans believe there’s some sort of disclosure act for elections,” said Steve. “We came close in July. But not one single Republican voted for it and it never got to the floor of the Senate. This was to be a remedy for Citizens United, the 5-4 decision of conservatives over moderates which awarded corporations the same rights as individuals. It means that if you’re a private corporation, you don’t have to disclose political donations.”
“It’s called dark money,” Steve continued. “We can see the money being spent on TV or whatever. We can see the sponsoring group listed, but we don’t know who donated to the group. So the origin of the money is dark.”
“The Citizens United decision allowed this to happen more easily,” Mike stated. “This is how you turn black into white.”
“Let’s look at the group called 60 Plus,” said Steve. “It sounds like AARP. But it was founded by Republican and conservative operatives and funded by the pharmaceutical industry. We don’t know who’s funding it now, but it has left a bizarre track record of positions. Many of the positions have been to support high drug prices. Now, why would seniors want high drug prices? Why would seniors want to pay full retail price for drugs? They don’t. 60 Plus is not representing seniors. It’s representing pharmaceutical interests.”
Mike added, “60 Plus spent $7 million in the 2010 elections. If you live in northern Arizona, you’ve probably seen their postcards and print ads. They say ‘We should thank Congressman Paul Gosar for saving Medicare.’ But Gosar voted to end Medicare for those under 55 and replace it with vouchers. The vouchers shift the cost of Medicare to those who are receiving it. Yet according to the cards, we’re supposed to call Gosar and thank him for that.”
“Another of the shadowy organizations that sponsored these postcards and ads is Grover Norquist’s organization, the National Taxpayers Association,” Steve added. “That’s been around a long time. It started with donations from Phillip Morris, the tobacco company.”
“As far as I’m concerned it got people like Gosar to sign the no-tax pledge making their allegiance to the Taxpayers Association stronger than to their constituents,” Mike responded.
“The group sent out the latest postcard thanking Paul Gosar for saving Medicare,” said Steve. “That’s basically a complete lie. The card claims the White House proposed a new rebate scheme that will only end up taking money from seniors’ pockets and putting the money directly into government coffers,” he continued.
“There is a bill that has been introduced into the House of Representatives called HR2190, the Medicare Savings Act that will save $120 billion by reducing Part D drug costs for seniors. It doesn’t introduce price controls, but it will cut the cost of drugs for everybody. Now why would you oppose that? Because it will cost drug companies a lot of money,” said Steve. “This postcard is just one example of dark money.”
“To be fair, both sides collect money and distribute to candidates,” Steve added. “The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Emily’s List and others collect money and distribute it to candidates. But they have to disclose their contributions. On the other hand, groups like 60 Plus comprise a sort of shadow RNC (Republican National Committee). And these groups don’t have to disclose contributors or where the money is spent.”
“We haven’t used the term, Orwellian yet,” said Mike. “But it is. It’s turning dark into light.”
Dark Money and the Lack of Political Accountability: Democratic Perspective co-hosts Steve Williamson and Mike Cosentino talk about last year’s Citizens United 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision, and its effect on American politics. Since that decision, a host of front groups with mom and apple pie names, acting as bagmen for undisclosed corporate contributors, have dumped millions of dollars into our political campaigns. When we talk about the will of the people these days, exactly WHAT are we talking about? Do we mean you and me and our friends and colleagues as individuals, or do only organizations with a million dollars or more to toss into the kitty qualify?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
