April 13, 2012

Global Research - Challenging America’s Plutocracy: The Power of Individual Voters to Transform Their Government

America is once again in crisis! All three branches of its government and its major political parties are controlled by a plutocracy composed of large corporations and the wealthy elite. Irrespective of the candidates they elect, the voters are neither represented nor protected. Every American is at great risk, not only for their freedoms, but for the very safety and well being of their families and for the future of their children.

Individual voters are the essential element of every democracy. Their effectiveness and the power they exercise determine the quality and extent of the freedoms they enjoy and the protection of the government they employ.

U.S. voters appear to be increasingly powerless to fight the plutocracy which runs their government. As a result, Americans are living in an ever more repressive police state that is illegally committing acts of violent aggression around the world.

The only thing that can possibly transform the U.S. government to one that cares for the voters who elect it, rather than for the plutocracy that controls it, is a unified opposition by all of the People, irrespective of their social class or political beliefs. The energy driving such a mass movement must flow from the personal actions taken by each of its individual participants.

The existing political situation in the United States can be compared to that of India prior to its independence. There the people were ruled by a foreign country, and in the U.S. the people are ruled by a government controlled by a plutocracy of privilege. As in India, the U.S. government has little care or concern for the people who contribute their hard-earned taxes to support it and the lives of their young people to defend it.

Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of India, led a mass movement of nonviolent civil disobedience participated in by Indians of every class, religion and political party for more than 30 years until they forced the granting of independence in 1947.

Gandhi repeatedly demonstrated the collective power of individual actions, such as the refusal to purchase government-controlled salt and the march to the sea by hundreds of thousands to gather their own salt.

All Americans, irrespective of social class, religion or political party, are being cynically manipulated by an unaccountable plutocracy which turns one against the other. Once they come to realize this, they will find the courage and the ability to reverse the power structure and to transform their government into one which is concerned about their welfare and that of their families.

The People are not unaware of the crisis. Republicans and Libertarians are alarmed by the massive federal budget deficits, and Democrats and Greens are concerned about cuts in health, education and social programs. All are worried about government intrusion into their privacy, the curtailment of their civil rights, corporate personhood, and unfair taxation.

Political activity is rampant on the right, left and the middle, with hundreds of organizations taking aim at one or another of the issues that most concern them; however, there is no single focus to unify all elements of political activism into an effective defensive force which will ultimately provide a political mechanism to peacefully resolve everyone’s concerns.

Gandhi taught that people have the right to defend themselves when their lives are threatened, but he also believed nonviolent civil disobedience was the most effective defense of freedom.

As in India, the power of a mass movement of Americans will be an aggregation of the basic strength of each individual participant, and their vote is the only effective, nonviolent power that every individual citizen possesses and controls.

The faceless plutocracy that controls the U.S. government promotes an illusion of legitimacy by allowing the people to vote for a variety of political candidates, the majority of whom have been bought and paid for by the plutocracy. The fiction extends to the “independent” judiciary, whose members are carefully selected by the plutocracy and who promote its agenda.

Gandhi recognized that “A government builds its prestige upon the apparently voluntary association of the governed.” Thus, the legitimacy required by the plutocracy to remain in power depends upon misleading voters to vote against their interest. This leaves alarmed and informed American voters with two choices: They can either refuse to vote or figure out a way to make their vote count.

Already, more than half of all qualified voters do not vote, which makes it easier for corporate-controlled candidates of both major parties to dominate elective politics. Therefore, the American People must find a way to cast their votes in a manner that emphasizes their personal strength and which diminishes the corporate power of the plutocracy.

There is one simple expedient that can be used by every voter to demonstrate their power. When voting for president, or for any other office they choose, they can take their ballpoint pen out of their pocket and carefully write in the name of the person they want to represent them. Whether or not that name is on the ballot!

There will be little or no effect if only one voter, or a hundred, writes in their choice; however, if thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of voters, nonviolently as in India, do the one thing each has within their personal control, they can and will defeat the plutocracy and will take charge of their government and direct its activities for their benefit.

The Voters’ Rights Amendment (USVRA), which provides all of the People with the right to cast effective votes and guarantees that each write-in vote is counted, is intended to serve as a catalyst for the discontent that is widespread among American voters. It will operate for the benefit of every citizen and it will serve as a common cause for everyone, irrespective of their social, political or religious beliefs.

There are no leaders of the USVRA. To the contrary, every voter is a leader, and every voter has the power and obligation to make a difference – for themselves, their families, and their country.

In 1776, Thomas Paine called “not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state: up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it.”

Now, 236 years later, with the nation once again in crisis, let it be said in the future that the People once again rose up and demanded the true freedom and democracy that had been for too long denied to them.

William John Cox is a retired police officer, prosecutor, public interest lawyer, author and political activist.

Print

Recommend

The evolution of Voters Evolt! commenced in 1979 when a class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of all citizens alleging that the government no longer represented the interests of ordinary voters. As a remedy, the Court was asked to order the other two branches of government to hold a national policy referendum on the most critical questions facing the nation every four years when its president was elected.

The process of evolution continued over the years with the creation of the Voters Evolt! website and came to include the demand for a national paid holiday for federal elections to honor voters, a national hand-countable paper ballot for all federal elections and the call for a write-in vote for all federal offices.

With the Supreme Court’s decision two years ago in Citizens United, the “Arab Spring” youth revolutions last year and the emergence of the Tea Party and Occupy Movements, there came a recognition that what was needed in the United States, as a focus for all of these movements, was a Voters’ Rights Amendment to the Constitution.

The first understanding was that citizens would be denied an effective vote so long as corporations were allowed to participate in elections and there was an equation of money with free speech. Seeing that the proposal by Move To Amend most effectively dealt with these issues, the proposal was incorporated with the other elements of Voters Evolt! to create the following Voters’ Rights Amendment (USVRA).

Henceforth, the USVRA will be the primary goal of Voters Evolt!

Section 1

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2

Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Section 3

Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Section 4

The right of all adult citizens of the United States to cast effective votes in all elections is inherent under this Constitution and shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State.

Section 5

During the calendar year preceding a presidential election, Congress shall solicit public comment regarding the political issues that most concern the People.

Prior to the end of the calendar year preceding a presidential election, Congress shall adopt a joint resolution enumerating the 12 most critical policy questions that should be addressed by the next President and Congress.

Failure of Congress to adopt a joint resolution prior to the end of the calendar year shall result in the disqualification of all sitting members of Congress to be eligible for reelection.

Section 6

Federal elections conducted every second year for Senators and Representatives shall be held on a national voter’s holiday, with full pay for all citizens who cast a ballot.

Federal elections shall be conducted on uniform, hand-countable paper ballots and, for the presidential election, ballots shall include the 12 most critical policy questions identified by Congress, each to be answered yes or no by the voters.

Paper ballots shall provide space allowing voters to handwrite in their choice for all elective federal offices, if they choose, and all such votes shall be counted.

Section 7

The States shall ensure that all citizens who are eligible to vote are registered to vote.

In balancing the public benefit of maximum voter participation with the prevention of voting fraud, Congress and the States shall not impose any unreasonable restriction on registration or voting by the People.

The intentional suppression of voting is hereby prohibited and, in addition to any other penalty imposed by law, any person convicted of the intentional suppression of voting shall be ineligible for public office for a period of five years.

Print

Recommend

February 12, 2012

Global Research - Political Transformation in America: Effectuating Real Democracy by a Voters’ Rights Amendment

Reversing the Supreme Court’s gift of de facto constitutional rights to corporations in Citizens United will not cure the political ills weakening the sinews of democracy that bind the United States. The nation was infected at birth and it will continue to be diseased until its government is transformed into one that is responsive to the needs and ambitions of ordinary people, irrespective of wealth or influence.

Although Citizens United unleashed the overwhelming power of the wealthy elite, corporations, and other special interest groups to purchase the major benefits of government while avoiding the burden of taxation, the danger presented by the power of money has been a risk to democracy throughout American history.

Thomas Jefferson hoped that “we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, . . .” Almost two hundred years later, Franklin Roosevelt said, “We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.”

A number of organizations have attracted widespread bipartisan support in their efforts to overturn Citizens United. Even if they succeed in persuading Congress to enact an amendment depriving corporations of constitutional rights and if they convince three fourths of the states to ratify the amendment, the problems that existed the day before the decision was announced will remain and will continue to be as threatening as ever.

Legalized bribery in the form of campaign contributions will still influence the actions of elected officials; candidates will still avoid taking positions on critical issues and will ignore the concerns of voters; political parties will still enact policy “platforms” designed to attract voters and will ignore their promises once their candidates are elected, and voters will continue to be uninformed and turned off by elective politics.

If they are to ever achieve true representative democracy and the freedom and opportunity inherent in its promise, the People of the United States must transform their government, rather than to reform or restore it back to something which will not serve or protect their best interests.

The essence of politics is the formulation of policy, and the manner and means by which public policy is made and effectuated by laws and regulations defines the very nature of government.

The effectiveness of a democracy can be measured by the degree that its voters have an influence in the development and articulation of government policy, either directly or through their elected representatives. Conversely, curtailment of that power results in an oligarchy or plutocracy, rather than a democracy.

The Existing Public Policy System. Presently, political parties and candidates identify their concept of the issues confronting the offices sought, and they present their policies regarding the various issues. Citizens then cast their votes for the candidates they hope are best prepared to solve the problems they consider to be the most serious.

The current process presents a number of problems. Left to their own devices, politicians ignore the most critical issues and concentrate their resources and rhetoric on personalities and negative campaigning designed to lower the estimation of their opponents in the eyes of the voters. In addition, candidates studiously avoid taking any position on the real issues they will face, believing they will lose rather than gain votes by taking a stand.

Specifically, during presidential elections, the political parties construct “platforms” defining their proposed policies on the issues. These artfully drawn platforms are designed to appeal to the maximum number of voters, while retaining a sufficient degree of ambiguity to avoid all accountability in the future.

If the presidential platform was a blueprint for the construction of a residence, the house would be unattractive, unsafe, and uninhabitable. Even so, American voters continue to attend the open houses held by slick political salesmen, and more often than not they are forced to buy the lesser of two evils, with the ever diminishing hope that their purchase will actually live up to its promises.

The Politics of Wealth. The development of meaningful public policy also suffers because the two main political parties have become virtually indistinguishable. They primarily rely on the same corporations, financial institutions and wealthy elite for major campaign financing, and consequently, irrespective of their “platforms,” they both remain beholden to the same narrow constituency and its special interests, rather than the health and welfare of those who cast the ballots.

David and Charles Koch hosted a billionaire summit conference in the last week of January at a golf resort in Southern California to plot strategy and raise money for the 2012 elections. This was not the first time the wealthy elite has united to make and control the U.S. political agenda, nor will it be the last.

America’s plutocracy did not suddenly pop into existence from another dimension. It is the dividend returned on a massive investment over the past 40 years by family foundations, such as those established by Lynde and Harry Bradley, John Olin, Sarah Scaife and Smith Richardson, and by individuals including Bunker and Nelson Hunt, Joseph Coors, Richard Mellon Scaife, and the Koch Brothers.

The centers, institutes, and foundations endowed and supported by corporations and the wealthy elite have come to very effectively formulate and market their agenda of privilege for every branch of the government. Burton Pines of the Heritage Foundation unabashedly said, “Our targets are the policymakers and opinion-making elite. Not the public.”

One of the most effective of these groups has been the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, which has successfully staffed a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court with its members. They have produced a series of decisions, including Citizens United, in collaboration with their wealthy and corporate sponsors in the class war being waged against the American people.

Special interest pressure on government does not come only from the right. The labor movement has made significant contributions of money and volunteers to the Democratic Party in the past, but the decline of labor unions over the past 30 years has reduced the influence of organized labor over the Democratic “platform.”

The Democratic Party has historically represented the interests of workers and the poor; however, both sitting and former members of the party now peddle their allegiance to corporations and the wealthy elite. The newsletter, First Street, recently published its top-ten list of Washington lobbyists. The top four were all former senators and congressmen from the Democratic Party.

Similarly, the Republican Party and the “Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America” no longer represent the needs and aspirations of the millions of small business owners in the United States. Two thirds of small business owners revealed in a recent poll by Lake Research that they have been hurt by Citizens United, and 88% viewed money as playing a negative role in politics.

Lobbyists. The revolving door between the Capitol Building and K Street provides access to both sides of the aisle. Currently, there are 285 former members registered as congressional lobbyists, with many others, including Newt Gingrich, offering “strategic advice” or public relation services to corporate and special interest clients.

There are tens of thousands of registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C. representing thousands of corporations, trade associations and interest groups. These individuals will not be laid off or made redundant by a reversal of Citizens United.

Lobbyists have been working the corridors of power throughout the history of the United States, and they will continue to cut the line in front of ordinary people, as long as they are allowed to get away with it.

What then can be done to transform the government to one which provides the voters, of every political persuasion, with a stronger voice in the formulation of policy?

The concept of “policy” is widely misunderstood. Policy is simply a guideline or a path to a goal or objective. It differs from laws, rules and regulations, which are mandatory.

Moreover, a policy referendum differs substantially from the initiatives and propositions that voters often find on their state and local ballots. A policy referendum does not make law; it creates policy.

Through their answers to a series of referendum questions, voters can effectively establish policy guidelines to be followed and implemented by those they elect. If an elected official fails to follow the people’s policy, then he or she has to be prepared to justify the deviation at the next election.

Consequences. A National Policy Referendum can produce a number of positive results:

First, the grassroots (and netroots) movement that compels the enactment of a referendum, whether by constitutional amendment or by congressional action will, in and of itself, transform the government. Once true representative democracy is effectuated, government will never again be the same.

Second, the referendum process will result in a transformation of apathetic voters of every political persuasion into a more engaged, informed and motivated electorate. Once the power to create policy is realized by voters, they will naturally become more questioning and inquisitive. Moreover, voters will likely insist on civics classes in public schools to better prepare young people to evaluate and resist political propaganda and negative advertising in the future.

Third, Congress will be compelled to identify actual problems, rather than the profit-motivated issues promoted by their corporate sponsors in the military-industrial complex and the health care, financial, and petroleum industries.

In a representative democracy, it will necessarily be the responsibility of Congress to decide upon the most critical issues facing the nation during presidential elections; however, the Internet Age provides myriad opportunities for public participation in the process and for political parties to promote competing questions.

Fourth, candidates for all elective offices, particularly presidential candidates, will be forced to take a public stand on a range of real problems. Undoubtedly, politicians will try to lie and dissemble about their positions on issues, but much like witnesses under cross-examination in a court case, they can be forced to simply answer yes or no to the most important questions.

Finally, referendum voters will be much more inclined to study the issues, to confront their own prejudices and to challenge the positions of others before arriving at well-thought-out conclusions. Thoughtful answers to a policy referendum at the conclusion of an educational process are far more instructive and useful than quick answers offered during surprise opinion polls.

Irrespective of their intelligence, level of education, or station in life, ordinary people are legally required to file income tax returns each year, as the government dips into their pockets to fund its operations and to pay the salaries of their representatives. If people are smart enough to pay taxes and brave enough to die in the wars started by their government, they also possess the ability to decide public policy.

The collective wisdom of motivated and well-informed voters in a free society is a powerful force that will better protect its members against oppression by their own government and the people of other countries from the wars started for the financial benefit of corporate sponsors.

The sanctity of elections in a representative democracy is directly dependent upon the strength of voter turnouts, which in turn depends on the trust of voters that their vote will make a difference, and by the integrity of the ballot box, which insures that all valid votes are properly counted.

Voter Participation. In the United States, voter turnouts are historically much lower than in most other established democracies, and they have been steadily decreasing since peaking at 65% in 1960. The low point was reached in 1988 when barely half of the eligible voters appeared at the polls. Since then, the turnout has bounced up and down depending upon ballot issues, the closeness of the election and whether voters felt their lives would be affected or changed by the result.

Even within the vagaries of turnouts, percentages are closely correlated with income, with 86% of people earning more than $75,000 voting, as compared to 52% of those with incomes of less than $15,000. Unsurprisingly, legislators are far more responsive to the issues that concern high-income voters.

The best way to eliminate or minimize these disparities in participation is to hold elections on a national paid voting holiday to celebrate the federal elections held every two years and to honor the voters, who are the most important element of a democracy.

A measure of the character of a person should not be which party, candidate or cause he or she supports, but whether or not the person actively participates in their government by casting a wise vote. Effective voting must become a sacrament in the nation’s political religion.

Voter Suppression. Fair elections are best guaranteed by large turnouts; however, increasingly, there are political strategies that seek to subvert the process by actively suppressing voter turnout by those of opposing viewpoints.

Rather than encouraging voters to support their position or candidate, campaigns engage in voter suppression efforts to discourage whole classes of people from exercising their right to vote.

Suppression can operate indirectly through legislative processes, such as enacting unreasonable photo identification laws making it more difficult or expensive for low income, minority or elderly voters to register or to cast ballots, or by directly intimidating voters by threatening challenges at the polling place.

Voter suppression can also take the form of mailings or telephone calls directing voters to the wrong polling place, by intentionally misleading voters about voting requirements, or by providing too few polling places in opposition precincts.

Legislative restrictions on registration or voting must balance the benefits of an increased voter turnout with the risk of voting fraud, and all forms of intentional voter suppression should be prohibited.

Computerized Voting. It might appear on the surface that computerized voting could supply a modern and secure method of voting; however, evidence of its vulnerabilities continues to accumulate.

In addition to the facts that voting machines are manufactured and marketed by political partisans who refuse to disclose their operating codes, that the computers can be and have been easily hacked, and that voting machines are mechanically and electronically unreliable and often break down during elections, they do not produce an auditable paper ballot completed and verified by the voter.

Paper Ballots. If American voters are to regain and retain control over their elections, they must refuse to use computerized voting machines or any other electronic ballot. Instead, voters must insist on hand-countable paper ballots upon which to record their choices.

Even still, paper ballots can be optically scanned and quickly counted, but most importantly, each ballot is, indisputably, evidence of an individual’s vote and, collectively, paper ballots serve as a tangible symbol of democracy in action.

Write-in Voting. Once in the voting booth, instead of responding like laboratory animals pushing a button in response to the stimulus of the latest ten-second television attack ad, voters should take time to carefully consider the issues and candidates presented on their ballots by the various political parties.

Once a decision is reached, each voter should have the choice of demonstrating his or her literacy and inherent political power by voting on the most critical issues and by clearly writing in his or her personal choice for president of the United States, whether or not the name is printed on the ballot.

So what if it takes a little longer to count, or recount, the ballots? Isn’t delayed gratification a small price to pay for ensuring that voters control elections, rather than those who profit from elections?

If voter turnouts were to dramatically increase, and if only 15 to 25 percent of voters were to cast write-in votes, trust that the politicians would quickly register their willingness to accept every write-in vote naming them for any office of public trust and that they will be scrambling to ensure that all write-in votes cast for them are legally counted.

The Future. Young Americans continue to be grievously wounded and killed in their nation’s wars to defend a “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” The question that must be answered now is what kind of government will these young people have in the future?

Will it be a despotic government enabled by lazy and easily misled voters, who foolishly rely on robots to count their ballots?

More likely, the People of the United States, of every political party, will prove once again they are smart enough to figure out they are being taken advantage of, and they will have the courage to do something about it. They just need to figure out what that “something” is.

Since its creation two hundred years ago, the People of the United States have traveled a long path toward achieving true representative democracy. Initially, only male property owners were allowed to cast ballots, but along the way the franchise has been extended, with a few exceptions, to all adult citizens.

With its decision in Citizens United, the Supreme Court not only reversed two hundred years of progress toward a democracy for all of the people, it slammed the door shut and handed over the keys to corporations and other moneyed interests.

Amending the Constitution. There has been a groundswell of bipartisan opposition to Citizens United, and a number of organizations representing tens of thousands of voters have proposed constitutional amendments to overcome the decision.

Move to Amend is the best known and best organized of the opposition groups, and its proposed amendment aims to reverse the granting of corporate personhood and the equation of money and free speech ordered by the Court. Its proposal follows in the first three sections:

Section 1

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2

Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Section 3

Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

The V.R.A. A Voters’ Rights Amendment securing voter control over the government must not only reverse corporate personhood and provide for the control of money in politics, it must also clearly establish voter primacy as a matter of inherent constitutional right and it must include a solid foundation upon which to build a true and long-lasting representative democracy for future generations. Following is a working blueprint for such a structure:

Section 4

The right of all adult citizens of the United States to cast effective votes in all elections is inherent under this Constitution and shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State.

Section 5

During the calendar year preceding a presidential election, Congress shall solicit public comment regarding the political issues that most concern the People.

Prior to the end of the calendar year preceding a presidential election, Congress shall adopt a joint resolution enumerating the 12 most critical policy questions that should be addressed by the next President and Congress.

Failure of Congress to adopt a joint resolution prior to the end of the calendar year shall result in the disqualification of all sitting members of Congress to be eligible for reelection.

Section 6

Federal elections conducted every second year for Senators and Representatives shall be held on a national voter’s holiday, with full pay for all citizens who cast a ballot.

Federal elections shall be conducted on uniform, hand-countable paper ballots and, for the presidential election, ballots shall include the 12 most critical policy questions identified by Congress, each to be answered yes or no by the voters.

Paper ballots shall provide space allowing voters to handwrite in their choice for all elective federal offices, if they choose, and all such votes shall be counted.

Section 7

The States shall ensure that all citizens who are eligible to vote are registered to vote.

In balancing the public benefit of maximum voter participation with the prevention of voting fraud, Congress and the States shall not impose any unreasonable restriction on registration or voting by the People.

The intentional suppression of voting is hereby prohibited and, in addition to any other penalty imposed by law, any person convicted of the intentional suppression of voting shall be ineligible for public office for a period of five years.

The United States Constitution once stood as a model for new nations; however, today it is viewed by many as an outdated and difficult-to-amend document that guarantees few rights, when compared to other established democracies.

There is an inherent right in a representative democracy to cast an effective vote, and a failure by the government to protect that right nullifies the electoral process.

By amending their constitution to ensure the primacy of voters and their right to control their government, the People of the United States will once again demonstrate an evolutionary model for democratic governments around the world.

Transformation of the United States government to a true representative democracy is no longer an option. It is a matter of survival!

The illustration of a Voters’ Rights demonstration is by Helen Werner Cox, who was trained as a classical painter at Boston University. She is a retired nationally-certified library media teacher, who has made extensive use of art in her literacy programs.

William John Cox is a retired police officer, prosecutor, public interest lawyer, author and political activist. He wrote the Policy Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department defining the principles and philosophy of policing, and he wrote the role of the police in America for President Nixon’s National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals.

Print

Recommend

Revised February 5, 2012

Unification of the Tea Party and Occupy movements for a common goal - a Voters' Rights Amendment - will re-establish the United States as a democratic republic and will restore control of its government to the voters. The sort of cooperation we will suggest here is possible only to the extent that there is not more opinion-manufacturing or co-optation by political parties or private interests.

Although the corporate and wealthy elite is doing everything in its power - primarily through its mouthpiece, the mainstream media - to convince Occupiers and Tea Partiers that each is an enemy of the other, it is becoming increasingly clear that the two groups have much in common.

Not only do both groups march under the "Don't Tread on Me" flag, they both very strongly believe that corporations should not enjoy the constitutional rights of individuals, regardless of what the US Supreme Court may have ruled. Moreover, both groups believe that their government ignores their most critical concerns, including jobs, personal freedom, and the health, nutrition and well-being of their families, as their elected representatives feed at the trough slopped by the corporate and wealthy elite.

The time is ripe for an open consideration of unity between the two groups. The extensive media coverage amounting to the propaganda-style coverage and pandering of the Tea Party's far smaller demonstrations has given way to acknowledgment of the Occupy movement in the face of police brutality and that movement's staying power.

Support for the Tea Party is lagging with the nonaligned public, as it is increasingly evident that the populist movement has been and is being manipulated by Republican operatives. At the same time, the Occupiers are fighting off attempts by establishment progressives to co-opt their movement.

It is essential that both groups identify their common interests and take collective actions to unify their efforts, instead of attacking each other over other issues about which they may have an honest difference of opinion. Uniting with the increasingly large block of independent voters, Tea Partiers and Occupiers will organize a more effective defense of both of their basic principles, rather than those offered by either the Republican or Democratic party, both of which subvert the rights and interests of workers and small-business owners in favor of wealthy donors and corporate supporters.

The most basic issue that Occupiers and Tea Partiers may perhaps readily agree upon is a Voters' Rights Amendment to the Constitution that ensures that the future of the United States is decided by its voters rather than by the corporate and wealthy elite, which currently manipulates and controls the voters' representatives.

The Voters' Rights Amendment provides that only natural persons are protected by the Constitution, establishes a national paid voters' holiday and calls for a national paper ballot, which includes a national policy referendum on critical policy questions and an alternative write-in vote.

The drawing of The Hydra is by Helen Werner Cox, who was trained as a classical painter at Boston University. She is a retired nationally-certified library media teacher, who has made extensive use of art in her literacy programs.

Chart Credit - Democratic Underground

William John Cox is a retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist. His articles are posted at WilliamJohnCox.com

August 31, 2011

Are you tired of trying to figure out if there’s any real difference between Republican and Democratic politicians, and whether there’s a difference between liberals and progressives, libertarians and anarchists, independents and moderates, or tea partiers and neoconservatives?

Are you fed up with being forced to chose between the lesser of two evils, and are you afraid to cast a vote of conscience because the worser of two evils might get elected?

If you’ve answered yes to any of these questions, perhaps you might want to consider aligning yourself with others who share your concerns and whose political views extend across the spectrum.

The one thing we all have in common is that we are voters and we are sick and tired of our government being controlled by corporations and special interests groups who could care less about our happiness, our health, our families, our jobs, or our futures.

What would you call a political philosophy that focuses on the rights and interests of all voters? What terms would you use and how would they be defined?

Here are a few ideas:

Voterism is the political belief that a legitimate government must be composed of and created by the voters who elect it, and that the primary purpose of such a government is to care for the needs, aspirations and interests of those who elect it.

A votocracy is a government organized to sustain the environment in which its voters live, maintain the economy in which they earn a living, and defend the rights of every individual to be secure in his or her person and property.

A voteristic government continually evolves by encouraging the informed opinion and participation of all potential voters in referenda to develop political policy, not law, and by the election of representatives who are an extension of the voters and who are committed to the effectuation of the policies established by the voters.

A voter centric government is one that is founded upon the belief that a free society depends upon the handwritten selection of representatives by voters who use hand-counted paper ballots and who celebrate all national elections with a paid voting holiday.

A voteric is a nation whose government is organized according to voteristic principles. It is one in which voting is a sacrament of the national political religion.

A voterian believes that a voteristic government can only impose minimal legal restrain on the liberties of each voter in her or his pursuit of happiness.

A voterist believes that a votocracy created and controlled by individual voters is the most favorable form of government.

Voterism is not a political party, rather it is a way for independently-minded and concerned voters of every political persuasion to think for themselves.

As our rapidly-changing world spins into a new millennium, and the older forms of governments are using new forms of technology to become more repressive of and less responsive to their electors, isn’t it time for all of us to consider a modification in how we organize for the common good?

Image Credit: sacbee.com and storiesofusa.com

Print

Recommend

June 13, 2011

“Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, seminaries and in colleges; let it be written in primers, in spelling books and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, enforced in courts of justice. In short, let it become the political religion of the nation.” ~ Abraham Lincoln

American voters are preparing to vote next year to elect a president to preside over their government for the next four years. Will they return President Obama to office, or are they disappointed enough in his performance to elect a President Romney, Palin, Pawley, Paul, Bachman, Cain or Perry? What will the next president do about the environment, the economy, education, jobs and health care? Will he or she end the failed Wars on Terrorism and Drugs?

In spite of all of their lofty promises, mealy-mouthed answers, and misleading advertisements, American voters really have no clue about what any of the candidates will actually do if and when they get into office.

With $3 billion wasted on the Help America Vote Act and the unreliable electronic machines it has purchased, voters continue to worry about whether they will even be allowed to vote next November, much less if their votes will ever be accurately counted.

Your voting power under the current system has been reduced to electoral slavery, and you are seriously deluded if you think you have any real control over your government.

Can you even dream about a National Ballot that will establish your authority, one in which you, rather than politicians, create the policy guidelines for your government and you, rather than hacked computers, decide whom you want to implement your policy?

Imagine there is a paid holiday set aside for the presidential election and that every citizen is encouraged to register and to reverently observe the most sacred sacrament of the nation’s political religion.

Think about walking into your neighborhood polling place and being handed a sheet of heavy paper with 12 policy questions for you to thoughtfully answer, yes or no, and a list of party candidates for you to consider before you carefully write in the name of your personal choice for president and vice president.

Sleep well with sweet anticipation during the week or two it will take to patiently hand count the millions of paper ballots before the clear voice of American voters is heard to echo around the world with the resounding message that democracy is alive and well in the land of the free.

Feel the power flowing into your hands and sense the clarity of your mind!

Close your eyes and picture the paper ballot you would like to see handed to every voter on November 6, 2012:

Given the chance, how would you vote?

What questions would you like to see on the ballot?

What are you waiting for? Voting is a both a right and a duty – use it or lose it!

Print

Recommend

Irrespective of the party in power, the U.S. government primarily responds to the demands of large corporations and well-funded special interest groups, rather than the concerns of ordinary voters - the workers and small business owners of America.

Every four years the two main political parties construct "platforms" as publicity gimmicks to get their candidates elected.

After the election, both parties ignore their platform "policies" and begin to take care of themselves and their financial supporters, rather than to do what they promised to do for the rest of us.

Access by individuals to their elected officials is the foundation of a democratic republic. However, the election of our representatives is now more dependent upon the massive expenditures of campaign contributions from their corporate sponsors, their wealthy friends, and well-funded, special interest groups rather than upon a meaningful vote by an informed electorate.

No matter how deeply we ordinary citizens dig into our pockets, we cannot financially compete with these powerful forces.

No matter how well we organize, we cannot match the influence of lobbyists and political insiders.

No matter how often we march and protest, they will always beat us through the side door into the corridors of power.

Since we have been abandoned by our government and our political parties, we must collectively focus upon a peaceful method to modify our government to one which more attentively considers the needs and concerns of all voters, whether Republican, Democrat, Reform, Libertarian, Green, Independent, or other.

An intolerant, non-responsive and repressive government cannot endure. Our choice is whether political change results from a violent revolution or a peaceful evolution, from a revolt or an evolt.

If we voters are smart enough to earn a living, if we can figure out how to pay our taxes, and if we have courage enough to fight the wars started by our representatives, we are also competent to collectively establish basic policy to guide our government.

We, the voters of every party, must evolt against politics as usual and join in a nonviolent evolution to transform our government.

We must demand a national paper ballot for president that presents the 12 most important national policy questions that concern us and which forces the candidates to answer those questions before we vote for them.

All paid political advertising should be prohibited during the week before the election, and everyone should enjoy a paid holiday to celebrate the most sacred sacrament of our national political religion -- voting.

Voters should go to their neighborhood polling place and thoughtfully answer the policy questions presented on the ballot.

Then, every one of us should carefully write in the name of the person we choose to implement our policy, whether or not that person's name is printed on the ballot as a party candidate.

It could take a week or two to slowly and carefully hand count (or recount) the ballots. So what!

We will evolve a new system of government that will better serve to provide freedom, justice and prosperity to all who share this fragile planet.

We will decide who is in charge of our government and we will chart the direction of its future.

It is our government and our nation. It does not belong to corporations, unions or any other special interests.

We must act now to protect our lives, our liberty, our families and our government.

"–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,… organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." ~ The Declaration of Independence

How many more lies must we listen to and how many more political scandals must we endure before we become sick enough to demand effective changes in our government? Have we suffered enough to force us through a political "evolution” to safeguard our freedoms in this country and to avoid committing war crimes against others?

In Washington’s Crossing, an excellent history of the near failure of the American Revolution in the winter of 1776, David Hackett Fischer concluded that it was not Washington’s leadership or the victories at Trenton and Princeton that saved the revolution following his resounding defeat in New York City. Rather, the victories resulted from the revival of spirit that arose among the ordinary people in the Delaware Valley as they began to read Thomas Paine’s American Crisis.

According to Fischer, "This great revival grew from defeat, not from victory. The awakening was a response to a disaster. Doctor Benjamin Rush, who had a major role in the event, believed that this was the way a free public would always work, and the American republic in particular. He thought it was a national habit of the American people (maybe all free people) not to deal with a difficult problem until it was nearly impossible."

All of us, liberals and conservatives, are going to be increasingly harmed by the failures of our government and those we’ve allegedly elected to run it. We must anticipate there are more lies on their lips waiting to be told, even more ugly secrets waiting to be uncovered and even worse scandals yet to unfold.

The good news is that the American people are among the best, the bravest, and the brightest our human civilization has ever produced. America is the Promised Land – it is an amalgamation of all races and all cultures on Earth. Americans will survive and, ultimately, we will achieve a government that better cares for us and is less threatening to the rest of the world. The bad news is that we will have to go through hell to get there. So, how do we brave the flames?

Perhaps the most basic problem with our government today is that, irrespective of the party in power, it primarily responds to the demands of large corporations and moneyed special interest groups, rather than respecting the hopes and aspirations of ordinary workers and small businesses.

Every four years the two main political parties construct "platforms" to serve as publicity gimmicks to get their candidate elected. After the election, both parties generally ignore the policies they set forth in their platforms and begin to take care of themselves and their financial supporters, rather than to do what they said they were going to do for the rest of us. The process is supposed to result in policies that reflect the interests of the voters, but it is a scandal at best. At worst, it is a continuing political disaster.

Access by individuals to their elected officials is the foundation of a republican form of government. However, the election of our representatives is now more dependent upon massive expenditures of campaign contributions from their corporate sponsors, their wealthy friends, and well-funded, single-issue, special interest groups rather than upon a meaningful vote by an informed electorate.

Special interest groups spent billions of dollars every year just to lobby the federal government. While there are allegedly some limits on campaign contributions, there are no restraints on institutional schmoozing. The Tom De Lay - Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, arrest of Bush’s procurement official, illegal contributions by Freddie Mac, and Congressman Cunningham’s bribery conviction represent just the tip of the iceberg.

No matter how deeply we ordinary citizens dig into our pockets, we cannot financially compete with the powerful special interests. No matter how well we organize, we cannot match the influence of the financial and political insiders. No matter how often we march and picket, they will always beat us through the side door into the corridors of power.

Not only are we are no longer represented; we have also been stripped of Constitutional protections we once enjoyed. Thoughtful people of every political persuasion are increasingly alarmed about the reductions in freedom we have passively accepted in response to 9/11. Many of us, irrespective of party or political beliefs, now question whether the Bill of Rights will survive another terrorist attack, which is sure to come.

Since we have been abandoned by our government, we must collectively focus upon a peaceful method to modify our government to one which more attentively considers the needs and protection of all voters, whether Republican, Democrat, Reform, Libertarian, Green or Independent. An intolerant, non-responsive and repressive government cannot endure. The choice is whether political change results from a violent revolution or a peaceful evolution, from a revolt or an evolt.

One way we can regain control over our government is to require it to hold a National Policy Referendum every four years when we vote for our president. Such a referendum would not make law; rather the purpose would be to express the collective policy of the people through their answers to the major political questions that should most concern the new administration and Congress during their terms of office.

Individuals and organizations could nominate policy questions; Congress would have to debate the issues in formulating 12 current policy questions to be listed on a national ballot; and the president would have to either sign or veto the bill.

To ensure passage of the policy bill, perhaps the pay of all members of Congress and the president and all members of their senior staffs should be withheld commencing on the New Year’s Day of each presidential election year until the issues are identified. Or, maybe all national political campaign contributions to parties and candidates should be prohibited until the bill is passed and signed.

Once the questions are promulgated, presidential candidates (and other elected representatives) would be forced to take positions on a wide variety of real issues. Politics has been defined as the art of not telling the truth, and politicians quickly learn to avoid telling the truth at all cost. Because there are special interests on every side of an issue, it is impossible to please everyone, yet the politicians strive onward, lying and denying, twisting and hiding, trying to grab every vote. The best theater can be seen during the presidential debates. Trying to get a straight answer from any of the candidates is like trying to nail spit to a wall.

Most importantly, we the voters would be more likely to study and question the issues and to arrive at our own opinions, rather than to have them spoon fed to us by AM talk radio, Fox News, and the corporate-controlled op-ed pages.

Not only must we increasingly talk about the issues over the back fence or in the break room, we must also insist that the Fairness Doctrine eliminated by the Reagan-appointed Federal Communication Commission be resurrected to allow fair comment and competing points of view by ordinary voters to be aired for all to hear.

Instead of responding emotionally to brief television and radio ads, most of which are designed to evoke a negative reaction, we would be far more likely to thoughtfully consider positive information and political analysis.

A number of countries, including Canada, Sweden and Switzerland refer policy matters to their voters for binding decisions, and the European Union resulted from a referendum in the participating countries. During its 2004 presidential election, Taiwan submitted two policy questions regarding its relations with China to voters. However, no nation presently holds a non-binding policy referendum as a matter of course.

There are those who might argue that our presidential election is a referendum on the candidates’ platforms; however, the winner-take-all results do not, in any way, suggest our level of support for any of the competing issues. The outcome turns far too often on which of the candidates makes the fewest mistakes or which has devised the most effective smear campaign.

A National Policy Referendum will not be a national opinion poll. The very process of articulating the political questions, the more lively debate, and our thoughtful vote will validate the results far beyond that attainable by any random sampling, no matter how scientific. We will not be expressing a snap opinion. Nor, will we be making law. We will make policy!

Our right to vote in a National Policy Referendum can be found in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which expressly provides our right to petition our government for redress. Our right to peaceably assemble and to seek redress was intended as the bedrock of our free society and as a safety valve to avoid violent revolution.

In a free society, we have a duty to avoid the use of force, even if we believe our existence under ineffectual government is being seriously threatened. It is also our duty to peacefully petition our government, before we resort to violence.

If we are to effectively modify our government through a peaceful political evolution, we must be allowed to exercise our vote in a National Policy Referendum. Otherwise, what can we do?

As effective as a national referendum may be to establish government policy, little good will come of it unless those we elect are forced to pay attention to our interests and to actually carry out our policies. As it is, presidential candidates say one thing and do another to the extent they believe they can get away with it, and because of party politics, we keep getting stuck with having to decide upon the lesser of two evils.

Imagine if we combined a National Policy Referendum with a grass-roots rebellion in which a majority of us were to actually write in the name of the person we wanted to preside over our government. Wouldn’t we seize the power that legitimately belongs to the citizens of this country and wouldn’t we evolve a far more effective and representative government?

Can we trust the current method by which we elect our president? Are there good reasons why we should rebel against the present system?

In 2000, more than a half million voters selected Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, over George Bush, the Republican candidate. However, Bush prevailed in the Electoral College because a fraudulent election in Florida gave him that state’s 20 electoral votes, even though the candidates were only separated by a few hundred votes. Bush had an edge and the fix was in. His brother, Jeb, was governor and the Secretary of State chaired his reelection committee.

Not only were thousands of eligible (mostly Democratic) Florida voters disenfranchised before the election, but every effort to manually recount the ballots, including thousands of rejected votes, was blocked by the Secretary of State. A phony riot was staged by Republican Party operatives flown in from out of state to intimidate local election supervisors, and five Republican-appointed members of the U.S. Supreme Court contrived a politically-motivated decision that reversed a far more reasoned opinion by Florida’s high court, which had ordered that every voter’s intention be determined as accurately as possible.

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the purchasers of electronic voting systems (states and local governments) are not allowed access to any information on how voting results are recorded, nor is there any requirement that the machines provide a paper trail for recounts. All of which is a recipe for fraud.

The 2004 election differed from 2000 in that George Bush may have received a higher percentage of the popular vote; however, it is becoming increasingly clear that he should have lost in the Electoral College, except for another fraudulent election, this time in Ohio.

The Ohio Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, served as the chairman of Bush’s Ohio reelection campaign and publicly called Senator Kerry, the Democratic candidate, a "disaster" sure to reap "terrible" and "horrible" results if elected. Not only did Blackwell cause the registrations of Democratic voters to be rejected because they were on the wrong weight of paper, there were too few voting machines allocated to poor (and largely Democratic) precincts.

A "computer error" allegedly created thousands of non-existent Bush voters in Ohio, and one lawsuit claimed that official rolls in Ohio’s most populous county omitted 170,000 registered voters. It is significant that Bush carried Ohio by less than 119,000 votes in an election where more than 90,000 ballots were discarded because they failed to indicate a valid choice for president and more than 23 percent of all provisional ballots were rejected.

Interestingly, the statewide hand count of "acceptable" provisional ballots and absentee ballots (after Blackwell had already declared victory) provided Kerry with 54.46 percent of the vote. In several heavily Republican precincts, Blackwell certified election results showing more votes than registered voters, up to 124 percent more!

Our democratic republic is founded upon our ability to trust the results of our collective vote. Is there any doubt that the advent of black-box voting, systematic election fraud, and the widespread intimidation of voters dictate that we capture control of the election process before the chance is lost forever?

Each of us must find within ourselves the individual courage and initiative to perform one simple rebellious act – refuse to use the computerized voting machines or any other machine ballot.

Instead of responding like laboratory animals pushing a button in response to the stimulus of the latest ten-second television smear ad, we can each take a little longer to carefully consider the candidates presented on the ballot by the various political parties. Once we decide, we can demonstrate our literacy and our power by clearly writing in our personal choice for president of the United States, whether or not his or her name is on the ballot!

Presently, half of all voters don’t bother to go to the polls and less than one quarter actually elect the president for all of us. Imagine the immense power that would flow to the people if voting truly became universal.

If the voter turnout was to dramatically increase, and if only 15 to 25 percent of us were to write in our vote, trust that the politicians will be scrambling to ensure that all write-in votes cast for them are legally counted. We would quickly find them registering their willingness to accept every write-in vote naming them for any office of public trust.

If we simple voters are smart enough to earn a living and to figure out how to pay our taxes, if we have courage enough to fight the wars started by our government, we are also entitled to collectively establish basic policy to guide our government, and to personally write in the name of whomever we consider most qualified to effectuate our policies.

We, the ordinary voters of every party, must evolt against politics as usual and join in a nonviolent evolution to transform our government. We must peacefully evolve our system of government to require a national ballot for president every four years which presents the 12 most important national policy questions and which lists the candidates nominated by the major political parties.

All paid political advertising should be prohibited during the week before the election, and we should all enjoy a paid voting holiday on Friday connected with Saturday voting to celebrate the most sacred sacrament of our national political religion. No voter should ever be turned away from the polls, and every vote must be hand counted.

We should go to our polling place and thoughtfully answer the policy questions presented on the ballot. Then, we should carefully write in the name of the person we select to implement our policy.

It could take a week or two to patiently hand count (or recount) the ballots. So what! The results will be felt far beyond two weeks.

We will decide who is in charge of this country and we will chart the direction of its future.

The American genetic pool is the most robust and diverse of any society on earth, and the revolutionary spirit continues to run deep and true in the blood lines of all of us who yearn for freedom and the full fruits of our labor.

Let us unite together to show the world what we are really all about and what we can peacefully accomplish together. Let us again demonstrate a new system of government that will better serve to provide freedom, justice and prosperity to all who share this fragile planet.

Print

Recommend

The Public Record - November 24, 2010

If nothing else, the election of 2010 has taught us that a "third" political party is not the answer. Like the two existing major parties, it too would simply become another political commodity to be purchased by the corporations and wealthy elite for their own purposes, rather than serving the interests of ordinary voters. Political salvation will come when the voters of every party decide to exercise, rather than dissipate, their power.

Political parties have been around ever since the founding of the United States, indeed from the time of ancient Greece and perhaps earlier. There will always be legitimate differences of opinion about the extent and role of government, and the give and take of those differences are the foundation of democracy - at least as long as voters are informed and they are not being manipulated by insidious forces.

Members of the newly minted Tea Party and disaffected Democrats have far more in common than the corporate-controlled mainstream media would have them believe:

●Both resent the loss of freedoms experienced by everyone, including electronic surveillance, airport full-body searches, and the ever-more-intrusive national security state;

●Both are suffering from unemployment and watching their jobs being shipped overseas;

●Both fear the loss of their unemployment insurance checks and the hunger of their children;

●Both lay awake at night worrying about how to obtain health care for their families;

●Both are angry about bank bailouts and are worried about how they are going to make their next mortgage or rent payment;

●Both fear corporate power and resent the role of lobbyists and special interests in their government;

●Both are aware that neither the Republican nor Democratic party really cares very much about their concerns; and they

●Both know, deep down inside, that their votes for the candidates of both parties are meaningless, and they feel powerless to do anything about it.

The MSM would also have us believe the country has been swept by a tidal wave of conservatism and that liberalism has been cast overboard; however, the overall difference between the popular votes cast for the House candidates of both parties was less than 3%. If the 2010 election had been a public opinion poll, the results would have been statistically insignificant.

The primary shift of votes from Democratic to Republican occurred among white working-class voters, who have most to lose from conservative policies. Why did they do it?

It should come as no surprise to most voters that both major political parties are ultimately controlled by the same corporate and wealthy interests; however, many of the disenchanted voters of both parties who have been swept along by the Tea Party Patriot movement would feel betrayed if they learned just how manipulated they have been.

As oil companies continue to make exorbitant profits by cutting corners on safety, both for their workers and the environment, and by raising the price of the gasoline needed for workers to get to their jobs, how many tea partying patriots are aware that their movement is being secretly underwritten by Koch Industries, one of the oil companies that is siphoning their hard-earned wages into easy profits?

Koch is the second-largest private company in America, whose annual revenues exceed a hundred billion dollars. It is also one of the top ten air polluters in the United States, which concealed the discharge of cancer-causing benzene from its refinery, which stole money from Indian tribes and which was convicted of negligence and malice in a leaky pipeline explosion that killed two teenagers.

Each of the Koch brothers has only one vote each, but by spending a few million of the billions they divert from wage earners every year, to educate, fund and organize the tea party, they have been able to "turn their private agenda into a mass movement" against the interests of those who will ultimately pay the tab. They were not alone in this endeavor.

As Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler were "flying for freedom" around the country attending Tea Party Patriot rallies during the last weeks of the 2010 campaign, Meckler complained that the rival Tea Party Express (which was funded by a GOP consulting firm) was a "fake, they're not from the grass roots. These are longtime Republican political activists with their own agenda." However, the Dassault Falcon executive jet flown by Beth and Meckler was provided by Ray Thompson, the founder and former CEO of Semitool, whose workers are being laid off to preserve profits.

Tea Party opposition to health care reform was undoubtedly a factor in the watered-down version ultimately passed by Congress and signed by President Obama. Opposition to the final bill (which primarily benefits only the health care industry) by both progressives and patriots is understandable, but it is more difficult to grasp why realistic health care reform, such as Medicare For All, was opposed by tea partiers.

Hundreds of rallies against healthcare reform, including "Kill the Bill" protests outside the Capitol where Democratic lawmakers were cursed and spat upon, were funded by the Koch brothers. However, in the corporate battle against meaningful health care reform, the Kochs did not stand alone.

Funded by giant insurance companies, including United Healthcare, Cigna and Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans provided $86.2 million last year to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to help it pay almost $150 million to lobby against health insurance reform and to mislead small business owners (and their workers) about the benefits of healthcare reform, particularly a "public insurance option."

This year, the Chamber raised and spent nearly $33 million for political advertising to elect opponents of health care reform to House seats; however, since the donations are secret, it is unknown if the campaign was once again underwritten by the insurance companies.

Not unsurprisingly, the newly-established congressional Tea Party caucus was primarily funded by corporate interests, including the health care, real estate and oil and gas industries, and the largest contributors were committees associated with AT&T, Honeywell International and the American Bankers Association.

Hiding behind the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, Karl Rove has established a "Shadow Party" to coordinate conservative political groups in channeling more than $300 million in secret corporate donations to pay for more than 60,000 television ads during the final months of the 2010 election campaign.

The final piece of the "wealth" vs. "us" puzzle can be seen in corporate efforts to extend all of the tax cuts approved early in the Bush administration. While "tea party patriots" want to balance the budget, and the Obama administration wants to extend the tax cuts for 98% of tax payers, including everyone who does not earn more than $250,000, corporations and the wealthy elite are taking an "all or none" position while lying to the voters by telling them the government wants to raise their taxes. If Congress goes along with the scheme, the very wealthy 2% will save $700 billion in taxes, which will be paid for by everyone else.

The corporate indoctrination and manipulation of American voters continue to result in their being represented, not by peers, but by wealthy representatives who could care less about the rights or interests of ordinary voters of either party. The wealth of Congressional members increased by 16% between 2008 and 2009, just as workers lost millions of jobs and the net worth of American families fell by $11 trillion dollars. The average house member is now worth $765,000 and the average senator lays claim to $2.38 million.

More than 43½ million Americans, one out of every seven, are now living in poverty, more than at any time in the last 50 years. Those without any health care coverage rose to 16.7%, or 50.7 million. Save for Latvia, the United States is tied for the worst infant mortality rate in the world. One in five American women of reproductive age is uninsured, resulting in a death rate of women giving birth in the U.S. being worse than in 40 other countries.

Is there anything that the victims of the corporations and wealthy elite can do to avoid being manipulated into fighting the battles for those who seek to enslave them?

A government of the people, by the people and for the people can only be achieved if the people maximize the power of their individual vote. Even though 1% of the wealthy elite enjoys 70% of the nation's wealth, they only have one vote each! Corporations are now allowed to secretly spend untold millions to manipulate the vote, but they can't vote!

If America is to survive as a free and democratic nation, voting must become a sacrament in the national political religion. Everyone must vote, everyone must cast an informed vote, and every vote must be counted!

Here are some of the things that are needed to ensure control of the government by those who elect it:

●A National Paid Voting Holiday. The Congressional elections every two years should be one of the most important dates on the national calendar. All paid political advertising should cease at least a day before the election and everyone should receive a paid voting holiday on Friday, and the polls should remain open through Saturday, to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to visit the polls. Votes should be cast with joy and voters should celebrate the election with real parties.

●Ranked-Choice Voting. All national ballots should provide the opportunity for voters to select candidates in order of their preferences for every office, irrespective of party. This would allow voters to cast their first choice for candidates of the minor parties, such as Green or Libertarian, and, if none of the candidates receive more than 50% of the vote, to count secondary choices until such time as a successful candidate emerges. Not only does the method allow voters to support candidates they believe in, without generating a "spoiler effect," it also discourages negative campaigning.

●Publicly Financed Elections. "Clean Elections" reform is currently the law in seven states and offers a workable solution for Congressional candidates to avoid relying on special interest donors. Once elected, House and Senate members can consider legislation on its merits, without worrying about pleasing or displeasing wealthy donors or corporate lobbyists.

●Eliminate Corporate Personhood. Every voter of every party should demand that every candidate for national office take a pledge to place the highest priority on a Constitutional amendment to ensure that, "Only natural persons shall be protected by this Constitution and entitled to the rights and freedoms it guarantees."

●National Policy Referendum. By voting yes or no on the 12 most critical questions facing the government every four years on the presidential ballot, voters would be able to effectively make policy, not law, on the issues that most concern them. Candidates would be forced to actually take positions on the real issues, and better informed voters would cast more meaningful ballots.

●Write-In Protest. Perhaps the only way for voters to force these reforms is to exercise their power by writing in their choices for president and vice president every four years. Granted, it would take longer to count the ballots; however, it would be a far more active demonstration of voter choice and resolve than by passively relying on corporate-controlled, computerized voting machines.

Two hundred and thirty-four years ago American patriots violently established a new form of government which has, ever since, served as a model for other countries. That government has now become politically corrupt and has allowed economic chaos to risk the lives and happiness of those the government is elected to serve.

Voters now have the opportunity to nonviolently demonstrate they are in charge of their own government and that they have the ability to chart a new direction for its future.

Rather than a violent revolution, American voters have the duty and obligation to peacefully evolve a new system of government that will better serve to provide freedom, justice and prosperity to all who share this fragile planet.

William John Cox is a retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist. His writings are collected at WilliamJohnCox.com.

Image Credit: The Green Market

Print

Recommend

The Public Record - December 12, 2009

The burden of taxation in the United States has been shifted from those who most benefit from our government to those who work the hardest and earn the least. This shrugging of responsibility is not only unfair, it fails to accomplish public policy goals required to move the economy out of recession and the environment out of crisis.

Uncorrected, the heavy burden of taxation borne by workers and small businesses today for the benefit of corporations and the wealthy elite will certainly lead to chaos and violence tomorrow.

It is time to discard our stupid and complex system of taxation and replace it with a smart and simple tax that balances the burden of taxation with the benefits of government.

Commencing in 1817, Congress eliminated all internal taxes and funded the government by tariffs on imported goods. Tariffs increased the cost of goods imported from outside the country, and were primarily paid by the wealthy and larger businesses. Laborers, farmers, and small business owners paid little or no taxes because the goods they consumed were primarily manufactured in the U.S.

Enforced by a new Internal Revenue Service, Congress passed an income tax during the Civil War along with sales, excise and inheritance taxes. The income tax was progressive in that those who earned less than $10,000 only paid 3%, while those who earned more were taxed at a higher rate.

Congress eliminated the income tax in 1868, and although it later flirted with taxing income, the government mainly relied on tariffs and an internal tax on tobacco and liquor for support. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1896 that taxes on income violated the Constitution, since they were not apportioned among the states.

The Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 allowed Congress to tax the incomes of both individuals and corporations. Taxes continued to increase over the years, and with the introduction of payroll withholding in 1943, most Americans were forced to pay a tax on their incomes.

Initially, the wealthy and corporations were taxed more heavily than individuals. When Eisenhower was president, corporations paid approximately a quarter of all federal taxes, the maximum tax rate on top earners was 92%, excise taxes brought in 19% of tax revenue, and most workers paid minimum Social Security payroll taxes.

Today, corporations pay about 12% of income taxes, the maximum rate is only 35% for all those who earn more than $372,950, even those who receive millions or billions each year, and excise taxes have dropped to 3% of revenue.

It gets even worse!

Government Accountability Office reported that two-thirds of all U.S. corporations and 78% of foreign companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, even though they booked trillions of dollars in receipts.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the United States was almost $14.2 trillion in 2008. The government took in $1.2 trillion in estimated receipts and sustained an estimated deficit of $390 billion. Approximately 45% of the revenues came from individual income taxes, 36% from Social Security and other payroll taxes, 12% from corporate income taxes, 3% from excise taxes, 1.2% from estate and gift taxes, 1.3% from customs duties, and 1.5% from other sources.

The Tax Policy Center calculates that individual income taxes and payroll taxes now account for four out of every five federal revenue dollars. Read More - Print All

Recommend

Axis of Logic - Sept 14, 2008

The classical theory of chaos set forth in Chaos: Making a New Science by James Gleick in 1987 is that “a butterfly stirring the air today in Peking can transform storm systems next month in New York.” Basically, any attempt to accurately discern outcomes from discrete and random inputs is much like reading entrails or trying to guess which card will be dealt after God reshuffles the deck “under the table” after each hand.

Although the systems being studied, such as the weather, may appear at first to be disordered, chaos theory seeks to identify the underlying order in the apparently random data.

Meteorologist Edward Lorentz first experimented with the theory in 1960 as he worked with twelve computerized equations to model the weather. He observed that a tiny, statistically insignificant, difference in the starting value resulted in a wildly different weather pattern at the end. Thus, while the flapping of a single butterfly’s wings only produces a tiny change in the local atmosphere, over a period of time, the world’s climate may be dramatically different from what it might have otherwise been.

In addition to the weather, a variety of systems exhibit chaotic behavior, including fluid dynamics, lasers, electrical circuits, and population growth. However, these systems are not entirely disorderly and they lend themselves to a degree of mathematical order and determination.

From a political standpoint, chaos theory requires us to consider the effects of the flapping of politician's lips on starting World War III or Cold War II.

Unfortunately, there are no existing mathematical formulas to help predict the consequences of political words, decisions, and actions; however, it might be rewarding to at least have a basic set of standards to improve the reliability of political practice.

The Old Testament Ten Commandments have existed for more than 3,500 years as an ethical guide for human behavior and are recognized by all three of the major monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Whether or not one is a believer, the Commandments provide a commonsense guide to avoid adverse consequences in most decision making and conduct.

In order to reduce political chaos, the following suggestions are offered as discussion points for establishing a basic set of political standards.

Certainly, if these political standards were being commonly adhered to, the irrelevant and random noise of the current presidential campaign might be reduced and we would hear less about lipstick on pigs and more about the critical issues facing our country in the next four years.

I. Have no master before you except those who elect you. Never forget whose trust you hold. Only citizens of the United States can vote in its elections, and corporations, irrespective of wealth, their power, and their ability to buy candidates, are not citizens.

II. Look at the big picture. Just like playing chess, political statements, decisions and acts must be based not just upon the immediate situation or motivation, but on how they conform to everything known about the issues and the probable consequences. If not enough is known, then gather more data before speaking or acting.

III. Create thoughtful policies. Among other things, policy is based upon traditions, experience, practice, law and commonsense. It serves as a logical guide for decision making and the creation of programs. Modify policy when circumstances change or when more is learned.

IV. Don’t be stupid. Accept proven facts, and reject unproven beliefs. Engage brain before putting mouth in motion.

V. Don’t tell lies. Respect, honor and value the truth. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

VI. Follow the law. Or, change the law. Ignore the law at your peril.

VII. Don’t be greedy. Don’t steal or take what doesn’t belong to you. You do not own the government.

VIII. Respect and care for others. The cultures and beliefs of others are special to them and must be respectfully considered in the decisions and actions that affect them. Have empathy for others and the pain and hardships they suffer.

IX. Don’t hurt or kill others. There may be some legitimacy in unavoidable self defense, but an unprovoked attack is always the mark of a cowardly bully.

X. Follow the Golden Rule. The Rule, in one form or another, is a basic part of all religions and has a foundation in ancient Greek philosophies, including that of Epictetus, "What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others."

Print

Recommend

The genius of Albert Einstein was demonstrated by his ability to step aside in his mind and view the universe and its physical laws from a place where the rest of us had never ventured. In proving that time is relative he had to, as we say today, think outside the box.

The world we live in is a troubling place. To better understand it, perhaps we can take a flight of fantasy and imagine that we are regularly visited by benevolent time travelers from another dimension whose sole mission is to identify the truth. What conclusions would these truth seekers draw about who we are, what we are doing to ourselves, and why?

Freed from political lies and religious distortions, what would their report say?

Humans are quite simply the most marvelous species that has ever evolved on Earth. Increasingly they have adapted Earth’s environment to their needs and have multiplied to fill every habitable niche of its surface.

They have created a magnificent and cooperative world-wide culture based on their ability to work together in solving complicated problems. In doing so, they mostly communicate the truth and usually demonstrate respect and civility in their interactions.

Were you to travel to every country, every city, and every village and enter every home, every apartment and every hut where humans live, you will primarily find parents who love and educate their children and who wish for them a better and safer existence. Everywhere, you will find people who help others in need and who communicate their discoveries and inventions in making life easier for all.

The essence of humanity is that they mostly tell each other the truth, and the truth they mostly tell is that they care for one another.

Humans are, however, infected with a disease: the virus of deception, hatred and violence. Diseased individuals commit crimes against others and the public peace, and in some societies, they are severely punished for their illnesses and incarcerated without any attempt to cure them.

Worst of all, societies which come to be governed by diseased individuals can be led into committing mass acts of violence against their own people or to make war against other societies. Several generations ago, such a war involved most of the societies on Earth.

The world war led to the slaughter of millions and ended with the use of atomic weapons. However, from the ashes of destruction arose a world-wide organization of all nations united in their pledge to avoid war in the future, to obey international laws, and to respect the human rights of all individuals.

Humans practice a variety of faith-based religions, all of which claim to represent the ultimate word, usually of God, to the exclusion of all other beliefs.

Governments vary in their responses to religion. The most enlightened allow individuals to practice their religion of choice and refuse to support or endorse any particular religion. Other, more repressive governments represent a particular religion, rather than individuals, and prohibit all other expressions of faith.

Although most religions provide a basis for ethical decisions by their adherents, they are also relied upon by their practitioners to validate and justify the most violent and uncharitable acts against those who disagree with them.

Just over 200 orbits ago, immigrants to a sparsely populated continent with abundant natural resources united their various states in a new form of government. They established constitutional law that preserved to all individuals the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, including the freedoms of expression, assembly and religion. Although the society was initially destructive of the indigenous people and tolerated human slavery, it learned from its mistakes and came to provide the greatest freedom and opportunity available on Earth.

The best, the bravest, and the brightest found their way from all over the world to this new society where they were accepted and protected. The genetic pool became robust, and the level of intellectual knowledge and accomplishment came to exceed all others.

Indeed, it was this society that provided the balance in the last world-wide conflict between freedom and totalitarianism and which led all other nations to unite against war. While it was the only society that used atomic weapons, it was also the only one whose members came to walk on the Moon.

Sad to say, all of this is at great risk. The government of this great nation was illegally seized by a cabal of diseased zealots who continue to hold it through their mastery of lies and deception, their control of information, and the force of arms.

Claiming to believe in the principles of a small, but powerful, minority of religious fundamentalists and to act in the name of God, these sick men and women secretly worship at the dark altar of corporate greed and world domination.

Since gaining office, these zealots have eliminated taxes on their wealthy and corporate supporters; sought to destroy public education; reduced health care for working people; eliminated constitutional protections; incarcerated criminals and dissenters at rates exceeding all other nations; curtailed the freedom of expression; attempted to impose their narrow religious beliefs on all others; and expanded the intrusion of government into the private lives and decisions of its citizens.

Although existence of the entire human civilization is threatened by global warming, air pollution, and shrinking supplies of fresh water, these zealots, who are suffering from an epidemic of ignorance and avarice, have refused to ratify an international agreement to reduce industrial emissions, overturned and reversed years of beneficial environmental regulations, and authorized the destruction of forests and the pollution of fresh water sources, all to the benefit of their corporate cohorts.

In order to militarize space and to divert tax money into corporate accounts, the cabal withdrew their nation from an effective anti-ballistic missile treaty, and abrogated agreements against space-based weapons.

The nation refuses to sign an international agreement against the use of cluster bombs, which indiscriminately and disproportionately kill children, and the cabal continues to deploy weapons containing depleted uranium. To protect themselves from prosecution for war crimes, the zealots have withdraw their nation from the International Criminal Court Treaty.

Pretending to act against international terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, while secretly seeking control of a vast pool of petroleum for his corporate benefactors, the morally and intellectually deficient head of the illegal cabal ignored the wishes of the international peace organization and ordered the military invasion of a weak society which in truth posed no risk of harm.

As a result, thousands of innocent civilians have been killed and maimed, including hundreds of children and babies who were burned alive.

Although the illegal war is opposed by virtually all other societies on Earth and no evidence of justification has ever been found, its prisoners continue to be tortured and detained indefinitely without trial, and there is no end in sight.

The plague must be contained before it wipes out the efforts of all those who have labored to improve the lives of their children.

While the disease thrives on the powers of deception and acts to destroy the common means of communication, humans have again demonstrated their amazing resilience and ability to adapt to changing conditions.

Humans are seeking a cure through personal interaction using electronic computers and the cooperative media they refer to as the Internet. This then may be their salvation.

Someday a keyboard, such as the one used to prepare this report, may grace the altars of freedom around this Mother Earth and throughout the distant worlds that her children, the truth seekers of tomorrow, will survive to discover and over which they will patiently and lovingly watch.

Print

Recommend