More Popular Lies

You know,  the classics: "War is peace. Freedom is slavery." And today's favorite, "Tax cuts create jobs."

The right's answer to solving the nation's economic woes has for the last thirty years been the dictum that cutting taxes creates jobs which, in turn, increases revenue, thus decreasing the deficit. Maybe sometime when I have all day to get way into economics I'll do an extended blog post about the Laffer Curve, and it's misapplication by opportunists, but today let's keep it pretty basic.

Check the trajectory of our debt and job growth: The above theory has been empirically proven wrong again and again over the same thirty year period.

A few of the facts (not ideological theories, but observable, measurable events):

1. The Federal tax burden is at its lowest point in 60 years.
2. The debt exploded the most under Presidents Reagan and Bush (Jr.), the Presidents most closely associated with the above economic theory.
3. Job growth under George W. Bush, perhaps the strongest believer in "tax cuts create jobs" - even more so than Reagan - was the worst in 75 years, since Herbert Hoover and the start of the Great Depression.

Let's take a quick look at the 32 years leading up to the current administration:

President	Job Growth
Carter	3.1
Reagan	2.1
Bush (I)	0.6
Clinton	2.4
Bush (II)	0.2

Now, let's say I run a widget company. No amount of tax cuts will ever convince me to hire a new widget salesperson. The only thing that would convince me to hire a new salesperson is demand for more widgets.

The best thing for increasing demand is a growing economy that inspires consumer confidence. And, as we've seen, the economic answers of modern conservatives have repeatedly failed to do that.

We currently have a President who is at least nominally "progressive" in many areas, but held hostage to a conservative Congress, and all too willing to go along with them far too often.

What he seems prepared to go along with now is cutting Social Security benefits to appease the right. Do you believe that cutting the spending power of a large group of Americans is going to increase or decrease consumer demand? Cutting Social Security to "balance" a cut in taxes will be a double hit to the economy.

The Republican lies about economic growth have been repeated so many times that it seems the majority of the public believes them, despite the facts. Well, it's time for us to wake up and say enough is enough. It's time for the President and the remaining Democrats to stand up and tell the public the hard truth: we can't afford another tax cut today.

No, you don't create jobs by cutting taxes or benefits, and - listen carefully - you can't save the economy by defaulting on the national debt.

Read more here - and here.

In Memory of Jim Harris

Jim Harris was a computer consultant, a software developer & programmer, a teacher, a union organizer, president of a trade school, a gifted musician, and a social activist. It is in that last role that I became aware of Jim, soon after he and Pat Murphy co-founded Progressive Secretary in 1997.

Progressive Secretary was not the first organization to see the potential for using email and the net and what we now call "social media" to encourage activism, and bring people together for progressive causes (MoveOn.org had them beat by at least a year), but they were certainly early in the line.

And, for all the changes and advances in technology in the last fourteen years, Progressive Secretary has remained true to their original, simple concept:

Progressive Secretary sends out progressive email letters to Congress, the President, and other officials on peace, the environment, civil rights and other issues.

The letters are suggested by participants in the cooperative and are sent to you as a proposal. If you tell us to "send", then the letters are sent ... over your signature and return address.

Whether or not you consider yourself a "progressive" or not, and whether or not you agree with Jim's politics is not my point here today. It's the simple elegance of the concept of using email to organize cooperative grassroots campaigns. So obvious today; not so much in 1997.

Today, the flip side is that such efforts have become so commonplace that they are derided as "slacktivism" - faux activism designed to appeal to the lazy. But Jim Harris was no slacktivist. He worked for social justice all his life, was part of the Civil Rights movement, going to Mississippi with SNCC, and later working with Cesar Chavez and the UFW. When he co-founded Progressive Secretary in 1997, he was recovering from leukemia, and considered it part of his healing.

Jim finally passed last Friday, June 3, of glioblastoma, an aggressive brain cancer. There will be a Quaker memorial service today at the Sacramento Friends Meeting House. He was seventy-years old. Progressive Secretary lives on.

50 to 50

It's early June, and today we're having record rains... So I stayed inside all afternoon and wrote and recorded a new song... Didn't intend for it to be so sappy. Sorry about that.

   50 to 50 by kenrg

50 to 50
© 2011 K.R. Goldstein

today it's hard to see through the rain
but I feel it coming around again
reviewing it all from way back when
and long-lost friends

the cast of characters come and go
some too fast and some to slow
only the rare have a chance to rust
turn to American dust

to those I've loved and those who cared
hold up high those times we dared
when all was lost and all was found
we held our ground

this next big day could turn the tide
of this long confusing ride
set the course for the final stretch
of this comic sketch

can't let all these aches and pains
tie me down with battleship chains
and if the wind blows it all away
refuse to fade away

(not fade away, not fade away, not fade away)

Bye Bye Borders

By now you've probably heard that Borders Books is entering bankruptcy and will be closing many of its stores. The two Borders outlets nearest me are both on the list to be axed. This blog post is not so much about Borders itself, but a comparison of the two towns that are losing the massive retailer.

On one side we have the beach-side college town of Santa Cruz, and on the other the Silicon Valley suburb of Los Gatos.

Santa Cruz is known for being on the funky side. The shops downtown cater to a younger, hipper audience. Walking down Pacific Avenue on any given day, you're likely to encounter several street musicians and even more homeless (or near-homeless) asking for handouts.

Los Gatos is known for being decidedly more upper-crust. The shops are high-end and expensive, and the restaurants compete with San Francisco for cutting-edge gourmet dining experiences. Only one homeless person at a time is allowed on North Santa Cruz Avenue (yes, Los Gatos' main drag is called "Santa Cruz").

Santa Cruz culture emphasizes the small, the local, the sustainable, the unique. Los Gatos also stresses unique and special, but is more open to corporate influence and its perceived worldliness. In Santa Cruz many of the shop windows have signs for the 3/50 Project - a nationwide campaign to get people to shop locally. I'm not sure I've ever seen 3/50 references in Los Gatos.

Santa Cruz has always been home to multiple bookstores, each with their own specialties and market niches. When Borders announced they were moving in, there were protests saying the chain store was neither needed nor welcome. Since Borders opened there's been some changes in the local book scene, but they never managed to supplant the major local players.

Borders was welcomed with open arms in Los Gatos, where, at the time, there were only two other bookstores: One locally-owned specialty mystery bookstore and one Crown Books discount book chain outlet. Shortly after Borders came, each of these closed. The Crown is now the Pier One Imports and the mystery book shop is now quite an excellent little restaurant.

The loss of Borders in Los Gatos means the closest thing to a bookstore will be going to the Apple Store and purchasing an iPad to read your iBooks. For as much emphasis as Los Gatos places on being a place of "culture" and refinement, the lack of a bookstore should be a major embarrassment. For a community that bases its overblown property values in a large part on the quality of its schools, the inability of the town's adults to support even one bookstore demonstrates where their real values are.

For Santa Cruz, the loss of Borders won't alter the town's voracious appetite for literature and learning in the least. The only concern for Santa Cruz will be such a large vacant space in a prominent location.

Is your community ready for the loss of Borders? What if the other large box retailers were to pull out of your town? Do you have any more local retailers left?

Support your local bookseller and read about the 3/50 Project before it's too late.

Updates, Changes, Travel, and History

So, how have you been the past two months? It's hard to believe that my last post was a pre-election summary of ballot initiatives. I suppose following any election comes a bit of a let-down. Either my candidates lost, and that - of course - is depressing. Or, as happened recently, my candidates won, and given what they've got to work with, they can only disappoint and embarrass me. And that - of course - is depressing as well.

But November also brought news of exciting changes to come, and that is a large part of what has distracted me from my usual social media participation. After a long interview process and much discussion, I have been offered, and have accepted, the position of executive director at a local, Santa Cruz County nonprofit agency, effective January 3, 2011.

It is a wonderful agency, with excellent professional staff, a great board, and an incredible contingent of volunteers, and I am very much looking forward to getting started. Of course, it is also a bit bittersweet in that I will be giving up my consulting practice and "independent contractor" status.

The next distraction from blogging was, of course, the Thanksgiving holiday, around which time I was contacted by an old friend who said, "How about Pearl Harbor Day in Pearl Harbor?" I replied that he was crazy, it was barely two weeks out, and there was no time to plan, etc. He said he'd found some deals on airfare and hotels and I ran out of objections. So, on December 6, I took off for a week's vacation in Oahu.

It was quite moving, being at Pearl Harbor on December 7th - the 69th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. There was, of course, much ceremony, both in memory of the nearly three thousand soldiers and civilians who died in the attacks, and in honoring the more than 100 survivors who were present (average ages 86-97). They were also dedicating the opening of the new visitors' center.

It was good to see so many people turn out, when for many of us it's not even a memory, but something we learned from history. For our generation, it's 9/11 that marked us the way Pearl Harbor did for that previous generation. And the shadow of 9/11 was present, as the new visitors' center was momentarily evacuated due to a "suspicious package."

We returned again on December 8th - the 30th anniversary of the assassination of John Lennon - to continue our tour with smaller crowds. The coincidence of the anniversaries did not strike us until we were there, honoring those who died at the start of WWII, and remembering an artist who's message was that war is over, if we want it.

For more of my thoughts on these Pearl Harbor visits, and the dual anniversaries, please play the podcast embedded below (...video posted here...):



I'd been to Hawaii twice before, each time with my wife, and we'd stayed on Maui and Kauai, so this was my first time spending any time on Oahu, other than stopping over at the airport. The cities of Honolulu and Waikiki were not like the Hawaii I'd known before. I kept commenting that they seemed a strange mix of Hawaii and San Diego.

That's not necessarily bad. I like San Diego; I just don't need a five hour cross-ocean flight to get there. But in terms of it being a busy, metropolitan area, with a large military presence, lots of traffic, tall buildings, etc., it's like San Diego. But with volcanoes in the background. Wonderful, but a bit odd. Next time, it's back to Maui, or maybe the big island.

I started this post with a remark about politics, it turned to the topic of bittersweet changes, and touched on history. I'll finish with a bit of news that hits all three; the demise of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

It's a bittersweet and historic victory, that gay and lesbian Americans can now openly enlist in our armed forces, and ironic that those of us civilians who fought the hardest for this this change, are also - largely - those who are most opposed to our current wars.

The end of DADT is a wonderful moment for the advance of civil rights. But, somehow, I don't feel much like celebrating. Or, maybe it's just the rain speaking.

Propositions "R" Us

There will be nine statewide propositions on Californian's ballots on November 2nd, including one I'm very excited about. In fact, back in May of 2009 I called it my "Fantasy Proposition: Majority Rule!" On November 2, I get my fantasy with Proposition 25, "Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget From 2/3 to a Simple Majority." What I wrote then was that:

"California is one of only a handful of states that requires a super-majority (2/3 vote) to pass its annual budget. This allows a minority of legislators (34%) to hold the majority hostage... The stalemate has to end, and the way to do it is with a simple majority rule, like we imagined a democracy would be. If the minority party wants to have a say, they've got to come to the table to work, not just be obstructionist babies."

The budget stalemates, and resulting partial shut-downs, have cost our state billions in interest and other costs. These political theatrics don't just hurt state workers, but effects our entire state economy as it punishes small businesses who rely on state spending (such as food vendors to state prisons) when they aren't paid on time. I believe Prop 25 to be one of the most important reforms Californians could possibly pass, and I urge a strong "YES" vote.

I'm also voting a strong "YES" on Proposition 22, "Prohibits the State From Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services," and I'm appalled at the Democratic Party and other "progressives" who are recommending a "no" vote. Yes, I'm fully aware of the state's budget problems and the tough choices to be made. But the state's habit of fixing its problems by raiding other funds has been a disaster for local services and needs to stop. Now. And while I'm shaming the Democratic Party, here's also a bit of scolding for the California Teachers Association, who rightly screamed bloody murder when the Governor raided education dollars, but now aren't willing to help the cities and counties in the same fight.

My strongest "NO" vote recommendation is on Proposition 23, "Suspends Air Pollution Control Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level." This has nothing to do with "saving jobs" ... at least, not California jobs. This is simply a couple of Texas oil companies who don't want to comply with our new pollution standards.

I will probably vote for Proposition 19, "Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed," but it's largely symbolic as this does nothing to change Federal law. An interesting note is that some of the Medical Marijuana advocates are recommending "no" votes here, as current Medical Marijuana law allows for larger "private gardens" than does Prop 19.

On the two redistricting propositions, I'm torn. Proposition 20 adds Congressional districts to the responsibility of the State Commission on Redistricting, while Proposition 27 eliminates the Commission completely, and turns that power back to the State Legislature. The Democrats, who are in the majority, are for Prop 27 and against Prop 20. But I'm leaning toward Power to the People and going against the "official liberal" grain on this pair of conflicting propositions.

If you would like to see a great master list of who has endorsed "YES" or "NO" on each of the propositions (includes groups from all across the political spectrum), see the California Choices website (californiachoices.org). Meanwhile, here's a quick list with my choices (subject to change without notice):

19 - Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed - soft "yes"
20 - Redistricting of Congressional Districts - "yes"
21 - Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs - "YES"
22 - Prohibits the State From Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services - "YES!"
23 - Suspends Air Pollution Control Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level - "HELL NO!"
24 - Repeals Legislation That Allow Businesses to Lower Taxable Income - "yes"
25 - Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget From 2/3 to a Simple Majority - "PLEASE YES!!!"
26 - Requires Certain State and Local Fees to Be Approved by 2/3 Majority - "NO"
27 - Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority - "yes"

Two Week Warning - Get Out and Vote!

It's hard to believe two weeks from now, as I write, we'll be starting to see the mid-term election results coming in. Even harder to believe that I've blogged so little about this election (see It Ain't Over Till it's Over). It's not that I don't care, or that there's nothing to say; perhaps there's so much that it's overwhelming.

To recap for newer readers, I call myself "left-of-center, Independent." I left the Democratic party in disgust around late '94 or early '95. I was registered as Green for several years, but have most recently registered as "Decline to State." Simply put, I have always rejected the idea of voting for "the lesser of two evils" when there are multiple "3rd party" and independent options on the ballot.

But this year, much as I expected and hoped for more from President Obama and the great Democratic majorities in Congress, I am terrified of the possibility of the Republicans taking back either (or both) houses of Congress.

This year's Republican nominees are not the principled conservatives we debated with in the past. These are fringe candidates with dangerous ideas, not just to turn back the small progress the Democrats have made in the last 21 months, but to turn the clock back decades, if not centuries, on our fragile democracy.

These are candidates who want to repeal not only the new health care reforms, and the new student loan reforms, but who want to repeal Medicare and turn your Social Security over to the same Wall Street fat-cats who put us into our current economic mess. These are candidates who question whether the Voting Rights Act of 1964 went too far. They don't just question Roe v. Wade, they've vowed to ban all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest.

But I'm sure you've read all that, or seen it on TV or online. My only point here is if you're staring in disbelief at candidates like Christine O'Donnell or Carl Paladino, just imagine having to hear from them for the next two, or four, or six years, or more.

Maybe you're disappointed in the Democrats too. I know I'm sure as hell overdue for an economic recovery myself. The rebuilding of our future may still have a long way to go, but at least we've stopped digging the hole.

This year, this left-of-center independent is proudly voting a full Democratic ticket, and I'm encouraging everybody who's concerned for their future to do the same. The stakes are just too high to sit this one out.