Puget Sound Liberals Weekly Newsletter

Norman Goldman (The Norman Goldman Show) often rags on the President. To what end? While it may be true that President Obama has made some decisions that some find questionable, Scapegoating him is just a little too convenient. Perhaps people who do so seek to rid themselves of the guilt they feel for their complicity over these past thirty or so years.

When Great Society liberals in Congress came under attack in the 70’s, people all but remained silent. Rather than defend liberalism many Main Street Americans sought cover. Some, incredibly, even went over to the other side. They helped elect Ronald Reagan while calling themselves “Reagan Democrats”. (The two words are self-canceling. One could not be a Democrat and a Reaganite at the same time. More then a score of them now fly under the “Independent” banner. These folks now delude themselves into thinking that they carry a level of “sophistication” that would be hampered by Party affiliation.)

Presidents are easy targets. Let’s, however, be straight with one another. Egregious legislation that rolled out of Washington, D.C. over the past several decades was passed by Congress! Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and now Obama didn’t do it by themselves. They had to have the help of a compliant, bipartisan Congress.

Deregulation, tax breaks for the rich, NAFTA, WTO and other phony “free trade” schemes, repeal of Class-Steagall protections, the wars, the financial market bailout, and sham health care reform legislation were products of Congress! And who elects Congress? We do, that’s who! Reaganomics was memorialized by Congress, and ditto for all of the other anti-working class laws that have wreaked havoc on 85% of we the people! This November, however, we’ll mostly re-elect the same Congress. We’ll honor Party affiliation and vote against our own self-interests in the process. (“Independents” will flutter around and pick whatever low-hanging fruit they deem to be compatible with their self-interests. They don’t participate in the workings of either of the two major Parties, but then weigh-in on election day with their votes of pontification.)

So what’s the answer? Apathy isn’t it, and neither is leaving all the grunt work to others. If we hope to see a turnaround in governance we must engage! We must reject sloganeering and faux flag waving and instead begin shaping the future along ethical and humane lines….the old “Golden Rule” if you will. First, however, we’ll have to engage. Precinct Committee Officers (PCOs) are the first rung of organization. Sadly, far too many precincts will not be electing PCOs this year. Not enough people have stepped up to run for that position. The second rung is the County and Legislative District Central Committees. The Officers of these Committees are elected by PCOs. The third and vital rung is returning to our roots. For Democrats and liberals that means re-connecting with the policies and principles of the New Deal and the Great Society. It means creating an atmosphere wherein politicians will be held accountable. It means supporting lawmakers who support us, and punishing lawmakers who do not. It means replacing functionaries in “Party machines” who are beholden to the same incumbents or the same corporatist ideology that got us into the mess we’re in with people who believe in small “d” democracy.

When we allow ourselves to share our concerns with others we often find we have more in common than popular opinion would suggest. Many rank and file Republicans are feeling the same pinch we’re feeling. Alas, come election time most of us retreat to our respective political organizations and policies shaped by “higher ups”. We do so because we’ve been conned into supporting Party machines that in the long rung prove much too similar in their ideologies. Rank and file Republicans are not all “anti-big government”. Not all of them want to curtail civil liberties. Many want our troops brought home now. More than a few want NAFTA repealed. And when the truth about single payer health care is explained to them they recognize its merits! Democratic leaders and the Blue Dogs and New Dogs often parrot the GOP's “big government is bad” malarkey while voting for more flawed trade agreements, assaulting civil liberties, refusing to implement a timeline for withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, and passing defective health care legislation.

Without recognizable and clear differences between the objectives of the two Parties we’re left with opting for “Party loyalty” to see which side can win the most marbles. The “Independent”? They get to free-lance and critique both Parties without having to lift a finger to help either.

Mr. Goldman and others would be wise to peer in the mirror. They’d be looking at the solution. Scapegoating is a luxury we cannot afford. It is up to us to get off our duffs and engage. We can be loyal to our Party! We can be loyal to it once we return it to its goal of equality and justice for all regardless of race, gender, or national origin. Complacency equals complicity. Organize! Rich Austin

Ray McBain: Iraq and Iran Make Same Mistake as Vietnam

Reading this article:

Ten days after his predecessor was ousted over remarks that laid bare a dysfunctional civilian-military relationship, the new American commander in Afghanistan sought Saturday to put a unified face on the U.S.-led war effort. U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, who arrived Friday to assume command of U.S. and Western forces here, made his public debut in Kabul at a Fourth of July weekend celebration at the U.S. Embassy. He and U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, who presides over the world's largest American diplomatic mission, used brief remarks there to drive home the message that they would heed President Obama's stern order to put aside internal rivalries. "We look forward to being your teammates," Eikenberry told Petraeus, whom he referred to at one point as "Dave."

The ambassador ceremonially presented the camouflage-clad general with an access badge to the sprawling diplomatic compound and said: "You're welcome at this embassy 24-7." "I feel like one of the team," Petraeus told about 1,700 invited guests, who included military and diplomatic personnel, together with a number of Afghan dignitaries. "Cooperation is not optional," he added. "This is a tough mission."

Petraeus replaces fellow four-star Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who had led the war effort for the last year. McChrystal's military career was abruptly ended by remarks made by him and top aides in an explosive profile that appeared in Rolling Stone magazine. In it, McChrystal and his team disparaged Vice President Joe Biden and expressed irritation with special regional envoy Richard C. Holbrooke. One of McChrystal's senior aides was quoted as calling Obama's national security advisor, James L. Jones, a "clown." McChrystal was quoted as saying the American ambassador "covers his flank for the history books" — a reference to leaked diplomatic cables last year in which Eikenberry expressed reservations about the scope of the troop surge urged by McChrystal. He also branded Afghan President Hamid Karzai an unreliable partner.

Recent days have brought a concerted effort to set a new tone. Petraeus stopped in Brussels en route to Kabul to brief NATO allies about the state of the war, and Eikenberry accompanied him back to the Afghan capital. Many observers believe it is difficult to know how the relationship of Petraeus and Eikenberry will play out. The military-civilian partnership is a key element of the American strategy in Afghanistan, which calls for battlefield pressure on the Taliban to be tightly linked to improved governance meant to win over the population.

Petraeus was a friend and mentor to McChrystal, and a driving force behind the counterinsurgency strategy that McChrystal had been working to implement. Some of those close to the ousted general blame the American envoy, at least in part, for fostering the antagonistic climate that led to McChrystal's intemperate remarks. Karzai, whose relationship with the Obama administration has been strained by widespread allegations of corruption in his government, was not present for Saturday's festivities, although the presidential palace said he was in the capital. He sent his foreign minister, Zalmai Rassoul, to represent him.

Petraeus was to formally assume command at a ceremony on Sunday at the Kabul headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's International Security Assistance Force, where McChrystal took part in a similar ritual a year ago.

I am reminded of the fallacious thinking of the US "warriors" (top level bureaucrats) who drove the country into a disastrous war in Vietnam that killed millions, accomplished nothing of value, and wasted billions of dollars. All in the name of "halting the spread of communism". Meanwhile promoting capitalism, esp. in favor of American corporations. I see the same mindset and mistakes being committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. For basically the same reasons. Ray McBain

Henry King Stanford: It’s Time for WA State Income Tax

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I read a Seattle Times editorial opposing the creation of an income tax for the state of Washington. If Republicans made a serious attempt to replace the federal income tax with a regressive consumption tax, arguing that income taxation is bad for job creation nationwide, The Times would have an apoplexy.

The question of who would or would not pay the tax is a red herring. An income tax, with progressive rates, combined with reductions in sales and property tax rates, would be a better deal for this state’s low-income earners. The Times’ editorial mantra should be something like the following: It’s time for a liberal tax for our liberal state. Henry King Stanford

Don Smith: Ross Hunter Is Not a Road Kill Caucus Member

In my earlier report about the State Convention that you published in your newsletter, I incorrectly said that Ross Hunter is a member of the Road Kill Caucus. According to him, he is NOT a member.

I am not a member of the Road Kill Caucus.. I attended 2 of their meetings, but I also meet with the Blue-Green caucus. As the guy responsible for trying to find a center-point on the revenue issue this year I didn’t think it would be helpful to be a member of any particular group. I agree with lots of groups on lots of issues, and disagree with lots of groups on other issues. Ross Hunter.

Please publish a Correction. I had been relying on a webpage from a union apparently unhappy with one of his votes. The web page suggested that Hunter is a member of the Road Kill Caucus. But it isn't so. He's not on their Facebook page either. Thanks, Don Smith

Liberals and Democrats

Job Creation

Republicans oppose job creation, hoping that Democrats will be blamed for high unemployment.

One federal stimulus program which allows states to use federal dollars to temporarily subsidize salaries is working well. In more than 30 states, thousands are being put to work. State officials of both parties appreciate the program.

Without more federal action, jobs may still result from various private activities, including:

· Extra ordinary company efforts to create sales

· Efforts to export more

· Attempts to attract foreign capital.

For more.

Blue Dog Democrats said they are for job creation, but now aren’t supporting it.

President Obama has changed union rules for railroads and airlines to make them more fair, easing unionization.

Regulating Wall Street

On Thursday, the Senate passed the conference financial regulation bill, sending it to President Obama to sign it into law.

Joe Stiglitz says Wall Street must be restrained through a combination of regulation and taxes.

Fiscal Responsibility

Wealthy people don’t invest in jobs. Their unearned wealth should be taxed to provide revenue for job creation. Labor organizer says tax rates on wealthy should be increased. President Obama and Democratic leaders have failed to emphasize reducing financial inequality as the basic necessity underlying health care, financial regulation and other reforms.

A .25% financial speculation tax favored by an increasing number of nations would produce an estimated $177 billion per year. For more.

Making Government More Customer Friendly

I recently reread Vice President Al Gore’s 1993 National Performance Review, which made many recommendations for making government more customer friendly and more efficient in responding to customer needs, based on four principles:

· Putting customers first

· Cutting red tape

· Empowering employees

· Cutting back to basics.

Based on these principles, an action plan was developed:

· Create a clear sense of mission

· Steer more, row less

· Delegate authority and responsibility

· Help communities solve their own problems

· Replace regulations with incentives

· Develop budgets based on outcomes

· Inject competition into everything we do

· Search for market, not administrative solutions

· Measure our successes by customer satisfaction

For more. Many changes resulted during the remainder of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

I wondered if President Obama has continued to promote the types of changes that Al Gore recommended. The only report that I found indicates that while President Obama has not announced a major initiative to corresponding to Al Gore’s National Performance Review, he has initiated a series of reforms in the 2011 budget that orient to achieving the results that Al Gore promoted:

“The Administration is committed to revolutionizing how the Federal Government works on behalf of the American people,” states President Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget. But this comes as a surprise to many inside-the-Beltway grumblers who are disappointed that Obama not having announced some “big bang” government reform initiative so far. There’s been no splash like Bill Clinton’s National Performance Review or George W. Bush’s President’s Management Agenda.

So where’s the revolution? University of Maryland’s Professor Don Kettl notes that a series of Obama initiatives, when taken cumulatively, are significantly reshaping how government works. He calls it a “stealth revolution” that is quietly reshaping both governance and performance in the federal system.

What’s Promised in the FY 2011 Budget? The performance agenda in the FY 2011 budget comes across as modest – and achievable. It focuses on three initiatives:

· High Performance Goals. The new chief performance officer, Jeffrey Zients, worked with the major agencies to identify a sub-set of goals that they felt they could achieve in the following 18 to 24 months. Consequently, the budget details 128 specific, measurable goals that Zients, and the Office of Management and Budget, will track via a “performance portal” and quarterly meetings. Goals include reducing the number of homeless veterans to 59,000 by 2012 and increasing the number of on-line filers for Social Security to 50 percent.

· Public Dashboards. The budget commits to an expanded use of other portals, as well. It describes how it has already created an IT Spending dashboard, which regularly posts the progress of major agency information technology projects on-line. It proposes creating dashboards for other projects as well, including improper payments, citizen services, hiring, procurement, etc.

· Problem Solving Networks. The budget also commits to building on existing, or creating new, cross-agency teams to tackle shared problems. Some will be mission-related (such as reducing obesity), some will be process- based (such as improving transaction processing or customer service), and some will focus on policy “tools” (such as block grants or conducting evaluations). The government-wide Performance Improvement Council will be the hub for any performance management networks.

However, the real effects of Obama’s approach to performance are woven into his Administration in different ways and are reflected in several policy statements, such as his Transparent and Open Government memo, which advocates greater transparency, participation, and collaboration. The most direct statement, for the performance community, is in the FY 2011 budget: “Government operates more effectively when it focuses on outcomes, when leaders set clear and measurable goals, and when agencies use measurement to reinforce priorities, motivate action, and illuminate a path to improvement.”

While policy statements help frame a way forward, what is actually being done? Following are three of the more significant steps being taken so far:

· Challenging the traditional governance approaches by creating new roles and responsibilities reaching across agency boundaries.

· Advocating the use of radical transparency of government data as a new form of accountability, and

· Using Web 2.0 social media to increase citizen and employee participation and collaboration.

Challenging the Traditional Governance Approaches. Professor Kettl’s 2009 book, The Next Government of the United States, is premised on his observation that “the government we had was not a good match for the problems we were trying to solve.” He says we need to organize government around collaborative, results-based behavior, but that the old-style accountability system “drives out the quest for results.” The Obama Administration seems to have taken this to heart and is trying to change the governance system, at least in the executive branch.

The first step was to redefine roles of some key officials. Obama’s presidential campaign committed to creating three new positions: a chief performance officer, a chief technology officer, and a chief information officer. He also appointed a series of high-level coordinators for key initiatives – health care reform, the financial crisis, implementation of the Recovery Act, improving food safety, and more. In fact, he has been criticized for appointing too many “czars.” But by doing so, he was trying to address the inability to get things done in the traditional agency-and-program approach to governance. Kettl says “this is a revolutionary in-scale move to maneuver past the permanent bureaucracy.”

However, these may only be the first steps in redefining governance. The Obama budget also praises the use of CompStat meetings in state and local governments. These are frequently scheduled, goal-focused, data-driven meetings that use statistics to solve problems.

But how do you ensure accountability under this new approach? This is linked to a second major set of initiatives, Obama’s “transparency and open government” efforts.

Advocating Radical Transparency in Data. President Obama’s commitment to “radical transparency” goes far beyond approving more Freedom of Information Act requests. It involves sharing massive amounts of raw, machine-readable data on-line. For example, agencies have been asked to post “high value data sets” on the internet on the Data.Gov website. So far, people are downloading, re-using, and interpreting more than 170,000 available data sets.

The Recovery Act is another example of radical transparency of both spending and performance data. Recipients of Recovery Act funds – over $300 billion – are required to submit quarterly reports on spending, progress, and results. Over 160,000 entities – states, localities, non-profits, and for-profits – are reporting via this new system. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these new reporting requirements are creating a demand among citizens for similar reporting of other funds, and organizations are beginning to use the Recovery Act data collection requirements to monitor their own performance progress.

Using Social Media to Promote Participation and Collaboration. The new Chief Technology and Chief Information Officers are actively promoting the use of technology as a way of increasing citizen and employee participation in getting insights and results.

Citizens are being invited to comment on government proposals, such as new regulations, at an earlier stage in the process. They are also being invited to offer ideas for improving agency operations, as well. For example, citizens were invited to provide insights for the Department of Homeland Security’s quadrennial review and to interact with people from other countries in framing priorities for U.S. foreign aid.

Inside the government, the Administration is expanding pilot programs that offer incentives and prizes for innovation. For example, last year OMB hosted a contest to find ways to save money. Over 38,000 ideas were submitted and the winner had the honor of presenting her idea directly to the President. In addition, the budget commits to creating a government-wide on-line “platform” to allow employees to collaborate more readily across agency boundaries.

What Are the Implications for the Performance Movement? Obama’s evolving “performance revolution” has a series of potential implications for those interested in performance management. When taken together, these various initiatives could significantly change the performance measurement and reporting world.

First, the shift from a traditional performance model organized around agencies and programs -- to one premised on a series of services and results -- will likely result in different executive and legislative branch roles and relationships. In addition to “czars” around cross-cutting outcomes, this could include institutional changes, such as a congressional “performance resolution” setting goals for cross-cutting outcomes, such as climate change, rather than the traditional approach where dozens of congressional committees independently set their own sub-goals for executive agencies to act upon.

Second, changes in institutional structures will likely lead to changes in accountability structures. Again, this could occur in both the executive and legislative branches. For example, agencies may move away from standardized, static performance measures being reported annually – such as the current Performance and Accountability Reports -- to near-real-time, unanalyzed performance information being available to both government employees and the public. This will unsettle both politicians as well as senior career leaders!

Finally, this has the potential to change the role of citizens, where they have the opportunity to become far more involved in defining accountability, developing solutions, and analyzing data via ever-evolving social media tools. Government analysts won’t be able to control the data and analysis, and they will have competition in creating meaningful and actionable knowledge from the data. Again, an unsettling prospect in many agencies.” From Report by John M. Kamensky For more.

I wish President Obama would give greater publicity to these activities, similar to that which the Clinton Administration gave to Vice President Gore’s efforts. I believe that few Americans appreciate this and many other reforms that the Obama Administration is quietly making. President Obama should get credit for them. Less flawed than the more obvious health care and financial regulatory reforms, these quiet reforms may be at least as beneficial and something that Liberals and even some Conservatives can wholeheartedly approve. Dave Thomas

Mobile Health Clinics Are Needed Everywhere

Mobile Health Clinics provide cost-effective convenient health care to people who don’t and some who do have health care insurance.

“For every dollar invested in the Massachusetts Family Van’s operations, an estimated $36 -- in avoided ER visits, in prevention of diseases, in management of chronic illnesses that can spiral out of control -- has been saved. The Family Van spared the health-care system more than $20 million last year, and it did that on a meager budget of half a million dollars.”

“Given how expensive most medicine is, how do mobile health clinics manage to save the system so much cash? Part of the reason is their sharp focus on a set of cheap, portable screening tools and questionnaires --for diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension, alcohol abuse, and depression --that are proven money savers. (Not all preventive medicine saves the system money; some types of screening cost a great deal.)

Another part is the vans’ emphasis on long, sometimes meandering conversations between patients and health-care providers, which are often the best way to suss out what’s bothering a patient and what can be done about it. Conventional primary-care doctors often can’t afford to discuss their patients’ issues in depth, since they are not reimbursed for that time. Van staffers, on the other hand, don’t have to worry about insurance and Medicare reimbursement: their salaries are paid by donations

Still another reason that mobile health clinics succeed where traditional primary care fails is convenience. Once the Family Van has parked in a neighborhood for the morning or afternoon, it’s there to provide whatever is needed. It takes only walk-ins.”

“Finally, there is the fact that the Family Van provides medicine without doctors. Instead, it hires people with some certification and trains them further to provide every medical service it offers. (If complex medical care is needed, it makes referrals.) That keeps labor costs low.”

“There are now more than 2,000 mobile health clinics across the country. But they can do only so much. Obviously, there’s a limit to the services a van can provide without doctors, and to the amount of money that can be funneled into such projects, either through philanthropy or (as with some other vans) government grants. Still, it’s worth looking at the advantages of the Family Van and asking why these can’t be applied to conventional health care, too.”

Instead of buying expensive unreliable insurance coverage from private insurers for otherwise uninsured people, Washington State and other places should fund Mobile Health Clinics. Dave Thomas

Here’s the Beef

Voters don’t realize how much harm would result from increased Republican congress membership.

7 lessons Saul Alinsky would give today’s Liberals.

Jim Hightower’s 6 ways to increase democracy in America.

Liberal groups combine to offer Tea Party like challenge to inconsistently Liberal Democrats.

True Majority advocates a new WPA to provide millions of jobs directly and indirectly.

According to Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP), our hHealth care reform act will leave many uninsured and allow health costs to continue to rapidly increase.

Former large donors have quit helping Democrats, so small donors need to contribute more.

To shape their agenda, Republicans are meeting with lobbyists.

Conservative groups are pledging to spend $100s of millions on congressional elections, may 4 times the amount Liberal groups will spend.

AZ Republican Governor Jan Brewer lies about increased violence due to undocumented immigrants.

The judicial activist Conservatives on the Supreme Court might rule against our Attorney General’s challenge to Arizona’s anti-immigration law.

NV Republican Senate candidate Sharon Angle views rape as God’s will, so opposes victim’s abortion.

Nevada Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid is almost even with Tea Party opponent Sharon Angle, suggesting he will win.

In defining a Reagan purity test, Conservatives mischaracterize Reagan who wouldn’t pass the test.

Is the Tea Party sustainable, or will it fade before this fall’s election.

If older voters and Independents maintain their interest, they will help Republicans gain congressional seats this fall. In general, voters favor Democrats over Republicans, so Democratic losses may be few.

Have voters forgotten what damage Republicans caused when they were in control two years ago?

Running for Senate as an Independent, Florida Governor Charlie Crist (Like Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown did) is adopting some Liberal positions.

Senator Byrd’s successor as West Virginia Senator will be named today.

State and Local

Patty Murray Is Lobbyist’s Favorite

Published by Seattle Times on 7/6/2010

In the years after Patty Murray first won her U.S. Senate seat in 1992, she received some of her biggest political contributions from women's groups and people supporting Israel. Today lobbyists top the list of Murray's donors as she seeks her fourth term. Among the top six Democrats in the Senate leadership, only Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has collected more money than Murray from lobbyists and their firms since 2005, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit that tracks money and politics. Yet even Reid receives a smaller share of his overall donations from lobbyists than Murray does.

What's more, Murray's congressional colleagues now rank among her biggest financial supporters. She has received $287,700 since 2005 from "leadership" PACs, a popular but controversial vehicle for members of Congress to solicit donations that they then dole out to fellow lawmakers. It's a striking transformation for a woman whose annual Seattle fundraiser is called the "Golden Tennis Shoes Awards," a winking homage to the footwear that defined the early underdog status of the Bothell "mom in tennis shoes." And the lobbyist donations attest to the power of incumbency — even in a year when incumbency appears ripe for voter backlash.

Murray's spokeswoman, Alex Glass, said 85 percent of the 65,000 contributions the senator has received during the current election cycle came from her home state and averaged $39. The Center for Responsive Politics tracks only contributions over $200, which typically out-total the smaller donations.

"These are hardworking Washington state residents who like the job she's doing," Glass said.

Meredith McGehee, policy director for nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, a public-interest group working for campaign-finance and ethics reform, said Murray "is not much different from any other establishment candidate." The shift in Murray's donor base, McGehee said, reflects the fact that raising vast sums from special interests has become a prerequisite for victory in federal elections. "It's a heck of a way to run a railroad," McGehee said. "The system itself is corrupting, but it's almost impossible to win without participating in it."

Since winning her third term in 2004, Murray has taken in more than $11 million for her re-election coffers. She has $6 million of it left on hand. Her top Republican challenger, Dino Rossi, officially entered the race in late May and says he raised $600,000 in the first six days. Since then, his campaign has declined to release new fundraising totals. Murray's "Golden Tennis Shoes" fundraiser last month at the Washington State Convention Center drew 1,100 supporters and was co-hosted by Vicki Kennedy, widow of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. The brunch raised $280,000.

Friends with agendas

Since 2005, lobbyists — who by definition are donors with an agenda — and their firms have given nearly $605,000 for Murray's re-election and to M-PAC, her leadership political-action committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's more than any other single source and is a big jump from during Murray's first term, when lobbyists ranked No. 20 among industries and sectors that donated to her campaign. She didn't have her PAC at that time.

For all members of Congress, lobbyists rank No. 8 in contributions in the current election cycle, the center's data show. These tallies are based on contribution reports available from the Federal Election Commission as of June 13, and will change as the campaign season progresses. Fundraising totals for the quarter ending last month are due July 15. Many powerful members of Congress are magnets for interest groups. Contributions from lawyers, defense contractors, major corporations and PACs can collectively dwarf modest checks sent in by voters.

But the sheer concentration of Murray's contributions from lobbyists warrants watching, said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington, D.C., government watchdog.

When lobbyists donate to a politician, Ellis said, "they are essentially investing in gaining access."

Murray is one of only four people to sit on both the Senate budget and appropriations committees, and thus has critical sway on which programs should — and actually will — get funded. More directly, Murray chairs two subcommittees, including one that oversees spending on roads and housing.

She deployed her clout in May when she inserted $44 million in the federal supplemental budget for repairs to the Howard Hanson Dam, which was weakened by a January 2009 storm and has left the Green River Valley more vulnerable to flooding.

Murray also has been a dogged supporter of Boeing's operations in Washington state. She recently introduced a bill that seeks to penalize the European parent company of Airbus for receiving government subsidies. The company is competing against Boeing for a $50 billion Air Force air-refueling tanker order. Recently, Boeing has given more generously to Murray than to anyone in the U.S. Senate or House. Under campaign-finance rules, companies can't contribute directly to a candidate. But according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Boeing executives, employees and its PAC have contributed $53,550 to Murray since 2009.

She has taken in nearly twice as much money as the next-highest recipient, Rep. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, where Boeing is the state's largest employer. In fact, Murray is the No. 1 congressional beneficiary of campaign contributions from the entire air-transport industry. One donor was Tim Keating, Boeing's senior vice president of government operations. Keating donated $2,400 to Murray in April 2009, shortly after the company privately briefed her that it likely would locate a second assembly line for the 787 Dreamliner in Charleston, S.C., instead of in Everett. Two months later, Keating gave Murray another $2,400. In October, Boeing announced Charleston as its pick. A furious Murray threatened to withhold her support for any Boeing projects beyond Washington's borders.

Under federal rules, an individual can give a candidate a maximum of $2,400 per election, for a total of $4,800 for the primary- and general-election campaigns.

Microsoft is Murray's top donor by contributor; its executives, employees and its PAC have given $131,000 since 2005 to Murray's campaign and to M-PAC. The company just edged out the No. 2 contributor, ActBlue, a political-action committee that bundles individual donations to Democratic candidates.

Top lobbyist donors

On Murray's list of top-10 contributors are two lobbying firms. Employees at Denny Miller Associates of Washington, D.C., have given $84,200 since 2005. Miller lobbies on behalf of a wide range of clients in Washington State, including Boeing, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Swedish Medical Center, as well as defense contractors. The other firm is McBee Strategic Consulting, whose founder, Steve McBee, once worked for U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton. The firm's president of Northwest operations is Rick Desimone, Murray's former chief of staff. McBee has given $58,600 since 2005 to Murray's campaign and to her PAC.

M-PAC is the 16th-largest leadership PAC in the Senate, with $435,000 in contributions between January 2009 and April 2010. Murray has dipped into M-PAC to support a host of Democratic candidates and groups. Recipients include Reid, the Senate majority leader; Senate Policy Chairman Sen. Byron Dorgan; and the political-action committee of Planned Parenthood. Murray's Washington state colleague in the Senate, Maria Cantwell, is one of 13 senators who do not operate a leadership PAC. McGehee, the campaign-finance expert, believes that leadership PACs represent influence peddling at its worst: Donors give to curry favors with a lawmaker, who for the same reason then funnels the money to fellow politicians.

Murray voted for the landmark 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill, which sought to regulate large contributions from corporations and unions to political organizations. She also is one of 47 co-sponsors of the DISCLOSE Act, a legislative counterattack to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned parts of McCain-Feingold. McGehee, though she credits Murray's votes, faults her and many other Democrats for paying only lip service to curbing money's influence on politics.

Murray spokeswoman Glass said the only thing that sways Murray is the needs of Washington residents. And the biggest part of that job, Glass said, is bringing jobs and federal dollars home.

Where’s the Beef from Our 2^nd Microsoft Congressional Candidate?

As the Seattle Times reported on 6;27/2010, “For the third election in a row, U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert faces a well-financed Democrat who worked at Microsoft but has no political experience. Suzan DelBene believes she'll do better than Darcy Burner did against Reichert in 2006 and 2008. DelBene is positioning herself as a seasoned businesswoman who's focused on putting the economy back on track.”

I have received several invitations for fundraising events for Suzan DelBene. None of them present any reason to support her. They don’t present her values, or how Dave Reichert has acted in opposition to realizing these values. Why does she assume that voters would want to support her, by donating money to her campaign? Dave Thomas

WA Income Tax May Have National Significance

If a Washington income tax on our wealthiest several percent of people, it may encourage the Obama Administration and Democratic congress members to enact tax increases on our wealthiest several percent of people nationally. Such taxes on unearned income would produce revenue to both reduce our federal deficit and stimulate job creation. By reducing deficits, Democrats would be clearly in favor of fiscal responsibility. By stimulating jobs, Democrats would be clearly siding with Main Street workers against Wall Street speculators. By opposing these tax increases on unearned income, Republicans would clearly be favoring fiscal irresponsibility and siding with Wall Street speculators against Main Street workers.

The reason that these tax increases would be on unearned income is that just as wealthy people depend upon capital, employees, equipment and supplies and must pay for them, so do they depend upon our physical and social infrastructure created by previous generations. If they don’t pay for maintaining and enhancing our physical and social infrastructure, the money they save is unearned income just as income they might save by not paying for capital, employees, equipment and supplies would be unearned income. Taxing high income people’s unearned income is not class warfare. It is only being fair.

Nation and World

Our Afghanistan War Has Been Wrongly Described

Our Afghanistan war has frequently been said to be our longest war. But the war has been primarily conducted during less than 3 years, 18 months from soon after the 9/11/2001 terrorist act to the onset of the Iraq war on 3/20/2003 and again about 18 months from soon after President Obama took office until now. During the intervening 6 years, the Bush administration focused its attention on Iraq, with limited military efforts being made in Afghanistan.

Much attention has also been given to our military casualties in Afghanistan. It should be noted that the total number of casualties there was exceeded during some months of the Vietnam War. I fervently opposed the Vietnam War.

I have fervently opposed the Iraq War, believing that even if Iraq becomes a democratic country, the price of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths is too high. However unlike most Liberals, I support our present military actions in Afghanistan. There are far fewer civilian casualties in Afghanistan compared to Iraq, including those caused by both us and our opponents.

Based upon my community development experiences, I believe that our present Afghan strategy can stimulate village development in Iraq that will be far better than would result under Taliban rule. Whether or not such community development is occurring by a year from now, I agree that we should decrease our military presence there as rapidly as possible, hopefully leaving the best situation that we can.

An added benefit to trying to stop the Taliban from resuming control of Afghanistan is to eliminate it as a staging area for al-Qaeda, similar to Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Dave Thomas

Featured Advocacy Group

-------------------------------------- 350.org ------------------------------------------

350.org is an international campaign that's building a movement to unite the world around solutions to the climate crisis--the solutions that science and justice demand. Its mission is to inspire the world to rise to the challenge of the climate crisis—to create a new sense of urgency and of possibility for our planet.

Its focus is on the number 350--as in parts per million CO₂. If we can't get below that, scientists say, the damage we're already seeing from global warming will continue and accelerate. But 350 is more than a number--it's a symbol of where we need to head as a planet.

It works hard to organize in a new way--everywhere at once. In October of 2009 it coordinated 5200 simultaneous rallies and demonstrations in 181 countries, what CNN called the 'most widespread day of political action in the planet's history.' This October it is organizing a 'global work party' all over the world. People will put up solar panels, dig community gardens--and send a strong message to our leaders: 'If we can get to work on solutions to the climate crisis, so can you.'

Its theory of change is simple: if an international grassroots movement holds our leaders accountable to the latest climate science, we can start the global transformation we so desperately need.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here’s the Beef

Largely through speculation, wealthy people are getting wealthier while Main Street Americans suffer.

Increasing poor people’s income frees them to become more productive.

As in most societies, infidelity in America by both men and women is common.

District Court rules that ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

Our Liberal Spirit

On the Verge of Several Victories

Next week, Elena Kagan will be confirmed to replace Justice Paul Stephens. This will not change the court’s membership of 5 Conservatives and 4 Liberals. Hopefully one of the Conservatives will be replaced next. Best of all would be replacing chief justice John Roberts.

A new attempt is being made to cap the BP oil leak. It was stopped on Thursday (7/15/2010) afternoon.

Also on Thursday afternoon (7/15/2010), the financial regulation bill will be passed. While seriously flawed, it will hopefully be implemented well. Hopefully it can stop further development of a bubble, or at least prevent a crash which further harms our economy.

These three events will free up President Obama to concentrate on stimulating jobs. And on publicizing Democratic accomplishments in the face of Republican opposition, in hopes of helping Democratic congressional candidates this fall.

Next of our agenda should be raising the revenue through taxing the unearned income of our wealthiest few percent of people to reduce our deficits and fund job stimulation. Beyond that, my priorities would be immigration reform, then unionization reform and then eliminating ‘Don’t ask. Don’t tell.’

We also need energy reform, including both energy conservation and shifting from carbon to non-carbon based energies. Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski may provide the winning vote for energy reform.

It is tempting to think that we can complete our reforms and then rest. But no matter how much we solve problems and improve things, humans always have the ability to develop new visions, which require additional efforts for their realization. Even if it became possible to realize all of our visions, to rest would be to quit being human. Being human involves always attempting to create new freedoms and opportunities for more people, and assisting these people to take advantage of them.

Recommended Books – See our list of books for liberals

Robert Frank and Philip Cook, 1996, The Winner-Take-All Society. Why the Few at the Top Get So Much More Than the Rest of Us

Published 14 years ago, this book hasn’t received nearly the attention it should, because it explains why a few talented people become fabulously wealthy while many others who are only slightly less talented or lucky obtain very little wealth.

Like a lottery, many people compete to become a winning golfer, but only a handful of top payers get the opportunity to be well paid for doing commercials, while others scarcely less talented or prone to win receive virtually nothing. Our mass communication enables us to identify the top handful, but our attention span doesn’t extend to more. This same dynamic occurs regarding tennis, various positions in team sports, and various types of entertainment.

With our specialization, the same dynamic occurs regarding various jobs within law, journalism, consulting, medicine, investment banking, corporate management and sales, publishing, design, fashion, academia and even among products. Wanting the best, people bid up the cost of the top few people in each pyramid, while starting just after the well publicized winners, the others receive very little. The result is an enormous waste of talent and effort by the many people who seek to compete. And an enormous income inequality between the top few and the many.

The authors provide entertaining excursions into many arenas and facets of these (few) winner(s) take all pyramids. This book is easy and fun to read, while explaining something of which we have likely been only dimly aware.