Grover Who?

By Ruth A. Sheets

When I hear the name Grover, I think of the charming, Muppet monster.  Grover Norquist, though, might be considered a “monster” by some, but he is certainly not charming, particularly in his relentless efforts to subvert the American political system.

Grover Norquist is a huge voice in Republican Conservative circles.  He is like the puppet master with his hand controlling Republican policy through his organization Americans for Tax Reform (ATR).  The group is responsible for the “pledge” that nearly all Republican members of Congress have signed.  These elected officials have promised not to raise taxes under any circumstances among other things.

 

Instead of running for elected office, he has chosen to work behind the scenes to manipulate the political discourse.  The main tactic used is fear.  Distract people from what is really going on and who is actually responsible for the economic situation we are currently experiencing.  Blame the folks with no power for our nation’s ills. 

ATR convinces conservatives that lowering taxes and eliminating all programs that help to support the society will make life better for America.  Maintaining things as they are will destroy America as we know it.  That is probably true for him and those whom ATR represents (intimidates), a clever slight-of-hand. 

Many of those ATR folks are what I call SWG’s (Scared White Guys).  They are so used to being in power that they can’t imagine what it would be like if someone else shared some of it, and they are terrified.  They are aware of the demographics.   

Mr. Norquist’s family had financial resources which enabled him to more readily achieve the American dream than other baby boomers.  But, of course, he doesn’t see that.  He believes he got where he is solely because of hard work and true convictions. 

According to Wikipedia, Norquist entered politics as a 12-year-old working for Nixon in 1968.  He honed his conservative values over the years and has championed most of the conservative positions for the past 40 years.

As an American, of course, he has the right to stand for anything he wants to.  He can push his doctrine of no raise in taxes.  He can hope the Government will get so small that it can be flushed down the drain (his words). 

What is wrong in my view is the undeserved influence he wields.  His organization is one of those groups that does not have to disclose where their money comes from. And, it appears that a lot of wealthy guys cough up money for it.  ATR can pressure candidates into signing pledges and taking particular positions on pain of being unelected.  Through media contacts, ATR seems too powerful to question if one is a Republican.  In addition, he is on the NRA’s board as well as the boards of other powerful conservative organizations.

Who is Grover Norquist?   He is one of the SWG’s who want to shape America in such a way that he and his peers will stay as comfortable and prosperous as possible for as long as possible.  Does it matter to them how devastating the effects of their actions will be for poor and middle class Americans?  Not one bit.  With their policies in place, he and his will have enough financial resources that it will make no difference to them at all what happens to the peons.   

Why do we give such self-centered, power hungry  people so much influence?  Fear!  They are scared and they scare us into feeling their fear and believing that what we fear is the same as what they fear.  It’s not.

What works against fear?  Courage!  Remember the lion in “The Wizard of Oz?”  It’s time that we all stand up to the power brokers like Grover Norquist.  America is not just Scared White Guys.  We’re a rainbow of ideas, backgrounds, needs, challenges, talents.  We don’t need a bunch of SWG’s to set our agenda for us, no matter how much money or influence they have. 

Why Romney's Attitude Matters

by muon

I just read an opinion piece by John Baer titled "Why Mitt Romney's tax returns don't matter." (Not to be picky, but my English teachers always pounded it into my brain that words in headlines should be capitalized--but maybe political columnists aren't required to pass English.)

Mr. Baer claims that America wants to see Mitt Romney's tax returns merely "so we can see (a) just how rich he really is and (b) what he's hiding from the American people." He calls this, dismissively, "voyeuristic curiosity." He says what we'd find out doesn't matter.

While making sure that Mr. Romney isn't hiding anything worrisome or even criminal in his financial past would certainly be a legitimate reason to ask for the returns, I think the main issue here is the candidate's stubborn refusal to show them to us. We are, after all, his prospective employers.

Picture yourself interviewing a job candidate. On his application, he lists the job he's had for the last two years, possibly even something impressive, like rocket scientist. You say, "This is great, but what did you do before that?" He says, "You don't need to know that. All you need to know about me is written there on the application."

If you're a real employer, all sorts of red flags will go up. You're not going to hire the guy. Not only are you worried about what may or may not be in his past, you don't like the fact that he won't answer your question. You want team players in the office, not prima donnas.

Imagine that Mitt is elected. I can picture him evoking executive privilege even more than G. W. Bush (his record is 6 times). Mitt's press conferences will be singularly and deliberating uninformative. If these months of job interview are any indication, Romney would be at best, a secretive president, and at worst, someone who constantly lies to us, the folks paying his salary.

So, what do you say, Mr. Romney? 5 more years of returns? That's all we ask. Or shall we thank you for your time and move on to the next job applicant?

muon

You Think You Know A Person

by muon

This morning when I signed into Facebook, I noticed that one of my friends had "Liked" Mitt Romney.

This friend isn't a bosom buddy, so it wasn't like I'd found out my best friend was a serial killer or anything, but I couldn't help but wonder why this person would support Romney.

I've met her face-to-face, so I know she's female. She has a job in a profession not often pursued by women. Does she honestly think she ought to be paid less than the men who do the same work? She's been married for a couple decades and has 2 kids. Only 2. That kind of seems to indicate use of contraceptives. So...she's okay with other women being denied contraceptives and with women being forced to submit to state-mandated ultrasounds? She's okay with her own daughter having to be forced to have an ultrasound?

She and her husband aren't millionaires, or even likely half millionaires. Beyond that, I don't know her financial status, though she's definitely not in the 1%. Possibly she has enough bucks that she can't fathom how much more of her income will be funneled to the .01% under a Romney presidency. Here's how that works: government projects that benefit you are cut, making you spend more money on either private or local government substitutes, while the very rich get more tax breaks. You lose money, they gain.

Maybe she's pro-life. Of course, you'd think anyone calling themselves pro-life would object to the dismantling of programs that keep starving children alive and warm and healthy. You'd think they'd balk at the war on contraceptives, the very things that prevent the unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions (because, seriously, what woman would intentionally get pregnant just for the chance to have an abortion?).

Maybe she's okay with being forced to drive gasoline powered cars and to heat her home with fossil fuels, at increasingly higher fuel costs, more carbon emissions, a dirtier environment, and more severe climate events each year, simply because the GOP refuses to lose their ties with the oil, gas and coal industries. Maybe she doesn't care about leaving her grandkids the legacy of having to fix the environment before her great-grandkids suffer the toxic effects?

Maybe she's just not too bright...that she lacks the reasoning power to know that a vote for Romney is a vote completely against her own interests and that of her family and her descendents? Of course, she's got a college degree in a scientific field. You'd think she'd have the smarts necessary to achieve that.

So, I don't get it. What makes an intelligent woman and mother "like" Mitt Romney? You tell me.

Negative Campaigning, Really?

by Ruth A. Sheets

This morning on the news, I heard someone lamenting that we are already experiencing negative campaigning on the presidential trail.  Mitt Romney is demanding that Barack Obama apologize for his comments about Romney’s  time at Bain Capital and Obama refuses.  President Obama is demanding that Romney release his tax returns and Romney refuses.  Is this really negative campaigning?

There are clearly some discrepencies in Mitt Romney’s story of when he was and was not at Bain Capital.  Is it negativity to want to know the truth?  Is it negativity to ask for tax return information from a candidate who has loudly demanded such information from his opponents?

Negativity is Thomas Jefferson’s party calling John Adams’ supporters “herds of harpies”  and calling Adams’ time in office a “reign of terror” in 1800.  Negativity is the atomic bomb ad against Barry Goldwater in 1964 and the Willie Horton ad by George H.W. Bush in 1988.   Negativity is what the Swift Boaters did to John Kerry in 2004.  There is nothing so far in this campaign that comes even close,. 

So, what is going on here?  It seems that when opponents of Republicans expect candidates to make public there credentials, describe their plans for the country in some detail, or explain their personal or business history, it is negative campaigning.  It seems that the smears are only to be used by Republicans and the superpacs who love them.  Democrats and others are just supposed to stand by and put up a feeble defense.  This defense makes them look guilty of whatever they have been accused of.  Defense is not as popular as offense in American society today.  The guy who delivers the first punch must have the story right or they wouldn’t say it.  Ha! 

I am not a fan of negative campaigning, but the one thing one can be sure of, it works and it is hard to stand against.  People scream that they don’t like it, but they vote for the guy who says the most negative things.  If you are not sure of this, look at the 2010 mid-term elections around the country. 

Democrats will pay for their unwillingness to initiate some honest negativity for years, maybe even decades, and so will the 99% in America.  The one percent is delighted and ready to strike again.  This time, President Obama struck first.  I hope he can keep the pressure on Mr. Romney and not compromise or feel remorse for demanding the disclosures Americans deserve. 

Hand Out, Hand In

by Ruth A. Sheets

It seems that again, it is in fashion to malign people who receive unemployment.  I guess conservatives did not get enough traction when they went after people on food stamps and seniors on Medicare.  Folks like Rush Limbaugh accuse those who receive unemployment of collecting instead of working, being a drain on society.  His rant went on and on about these freeloaders who could be out there working if only they tried a LITTLE harder.

It seems that Rush and his cronies consider unemployment a handout to the lazy.  According to him, this handout should be cut off.  America would be stronger and our deficit would be lowered.

I find it interesting that people who have jobs, even jobs that are of nominal value like Rush’s have no qualms berating those who no longer have the jobs they counted on for a living.  They claim that recipients of unemployment are sucking America dry.  Are they really?

I recently read that Mitt Romney got a tax break of $77,000 for his horse.  Why does Romney need such a tax break?  Because it’s there?  Why isn’t Rush bent out of shape over that and other equally ridiculous government assistance? 

My brother-in-law has a theory that I really like.  He says it’s probably because in the case of unemployment, money is being given directly to a person, who has to have their hand out.  In Romney’s case, he just gets to keep his money.  His hand stays in his pocket along with the money.  The former is overt while the latter is more covert and not as public.

So, as long as people are getting tax breaks, even for things as frivolous as horses, they are not a drain on society, but if a check is cut to enable a person/family to survive, society is being tapped.

Does anyone else recognize the hyhpocrisy here?  The addiction of the wealthy to their money requires them to make the “have nots” feel like losers and inferior people.  Rush’s rants are designed to make the non-thinkers among us believe that wealth is just around the corner for them and that the unemployed are keeping them from their dream of riches.  This is nonsense of course.

The sad part is that Rush’s audience is being used by the wealthy who care nothing about their lack of  jobs or the unemployment among their neighbors.  Give the downtrodden another group of Americans to hate.  It takes the pressure off the wealthy and their enablers.

A Shared Occasion

by Ruth A. Sheets

America’s 236^th birthday has just passed.  It was a good chance to reflect on where we have been as a nation and where we are going.  Communities all over the country celebrated with parades, festivals, concerts, fireworks displays, naturalization ceremonies, and more.  We wore our flag on our sleeves and waved it in our hands.  We proudly let our patriotism show.  We need to do this now and then to remind ourselves that just as the founders 236 years ago were in it together, we are too.

I had the pleasure of walking in the bicentennial parade in my hometown, Norristown, PA.  Groups as diverse as a martial arts club, the sherriff’s department, the local volunteer fire companies, high school and community marching bands, a veterans’ motor cycle club, local churches and historical reenactors and performers participated. 

I cannot believe that everyone in the parade or watching along the route shared the same world view.  What we did share was a belief in America, and the idea of what America can be.  For those hours, we were one community in all its diversity.

People all over the country and even in many other parts of the world experienced the same connectedness.  Truly awesome!  Over 300 million people live in the United States and contribute to our history and will help to shape our future.  For at least one day, we came together to say that America is important to us and that Woody Guthrie was right when he wrote “This Land was Made for You and Me.”

Just as people who love Christmas want the best parts of Christmas to last throughout the year, lovers of July Fourth want the good feelings, the patriotism, the connectedness to last all year.

How do we keep our July Fourth spirit infusing our daily political interactions?  How do we help everyone to understand that it is because of, not in spite of our diversity that we have achieved greatness. 

Here are a few things to keep in mind.

1. It took little or no money for Americans all over the country to walk in or watch parades, to watch fireworks, to wish their neighbors a happy Fourth.  This way, Americans of all income classes can mingle and share the experience.  Community taxes and donations make this possible. 

2. Remember that the people we elect, our fellow Americans, should be selected for their ability to bring people together to share the struggle as well as the triumphs of our success, not for their financial prowess. 

3. Remember that our future is at least as important as our past.  We must be laying the foundation for a shared positive future every day through the way we provide for our Nation’s people, particularly our children.  Even in this venture, we should find ways to share the burden, each giving according to their ability to contribute, for the common good.

4. Don’t forget that those who demand the reciting of the “Pledge of Allegience” most loudly, on Independence Day and always, are often the ones most likely to forget that the last seven words are “indivisible with liberty and justice for ALL.”  They see themselves as America’s chosen.  They’re not.  They are us, neither better nor worse, nor more or less patriotic, just different.  Every American needs to continue to kindly remind our fellow citizens of this.

5. Remember that the founders who put on the line their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, were a diverse group that was trying to do something that had not been done before.  They learned to work together, to compromise, and to find a way through the storms of seven more years of war.  Maybe we need to put ourselves on the line as they did and be willing to pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to make things better for all Americans.

6. None of the “patriotic” songs we sing this holiday say that being wealthy or powerful makes a person better or more important than any other American.  Keep that in mind when singing those songs we share.

7. Americans are very competitive and like to be “Number one.”  That can be applied to our nation as well.  If a team will truly be “Number One,” the whole team must work together.  That is not happening in the United States these days.  The better off members of the team scorn the less well off and accuse them of being dead weight and other unpleasant and even harmful names.  This does not inspire any of the members to achieve, or even participate in the game.  We need some well-trained cheerleaders to get our team to work together.  We’ll have a chance to vote for some of those cheerleaders this November, so show up at the polls.

I hope your Independence Day celebration was really special filled with family, community, and a national pride that will lead to accepting more responsibility for helping to enhance life and prospects for all Americans.  Keep the spirit alive this time around.

Show Us Your Patriotism and We’ll Show You Ours

By Ruth A. Sheets

Patriotism is one of those words that clearly means something different to people in each of the various groups in America.  I think that “patriotism” means love of one’s country. 

That sounds so simple.  If one loves one’s nation, one is “patriotic,” right?  Well, maybe not so simple.  Love is one of those words which can be defined so broadly that no two groups will understand it the same way.

For some, one can only demonstrate love of country through service in the military, while for others, vocally supporting the nation’s wars is sufficient.  Some require patriots to display a flag on the lawn and/or wear a flag pin in public.  Some expect patriots to know and sing all the “patriotic” songs and stand with their hand on their heart when singing the “National Anthem,” (even though standing at attention is actually correct).  Some only demand the saying of the “Pledge of Allegience” at every possible occasion (even though it is pledging to a flag, not to a country).

The element that is missing from all but the first understanding of patriotism is depth.  Mouthing support for a war, waving or wearing a flag, saying the “Pledge,” singing  “America the Beautiful” demand nothing of the practitioner.  These acts  are very visible and seem patriotic.  It is easy, then,  to designate those who don’t participate in the superficiality as unpatriotic.

Serving in the military is valuable and should be recognized, but it is not the only “deep” patriotism.  Every community in the United States has people acting patriotically every day:  volunteer fire-fighters, people who try to stop violence, folks who care for the frail seniors among us as well as the very youngest, and the most vulnerable.  Scout leaders, youth directors, people who staff soup kitchens, community pantries, and other services.  These are all patriots as are local elected officials, mediators, school safeties, teachers, environmentalists, innovators, and so many more.

What all of these people have in common is that they care not just about the country, but the people who live here too.  No matter what their political leanings, they see a need and try to meet it using the resources available to them.  These folks understand that America is a diverse place and that there is room for everyone here.  We are stronger together than separate.

So, celebrate this July 4^th, but do it with your neighbors and friends.  Display a flag, but remember that it is the symbol of a people more than of a place.  We are a flawed people, but we are trying to get better, and for the most part, we are.

Call it Courage

by Ruth A. Sheets

On Thursday morning, June 28th just after 10:00 a.m., the Supreme Court came down with a decision that by some was eagerly awaited and by others, awaited with trepidation.  The case was the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Law (Obamacare). 

Two of the major news outlets, Fox and CNN got the decision wrong at first.  They were so sure that the Court’s conservative wing would knock down President Obama’s signature legislation on principle, not on its Constitutionality that they didn’t wait to hear what the justices actually had to say.

Many of the Court’s decisions lately have been 5-4 with Justice Kennedy going with whichever side he happened to favor that day, although, mostly on the conservative side.  That is exactly what was expected with this decision, but alas for the Obamacare haters, and amazingly for the proponents of the bill, Justice Kennedy was not the decider on this one.  It was Chief Justice John Roberts.

It is hard to underestimate the courage it took for the Chief Justice to take the position he did.  Until Thursday, Chief Justice Roberts was the darling of the Right, a certain vote for anything that would demolish programs of moderates and progressives.  He nearly always sided with whatever would benefit business, limit rights for ordinary citizens, and give more power to those who already have too much of it.

Justice Roberts must have known that he would be maligned by the Right in ways generally only reserved for the most hated progressives.  He must have known that “traitor” would be one of the kinder things he would be called. 

I admit that I am not a particular fan of Chief Justice Roberts.  I find him shallow and easily swayed to support the wealthy, conservative powerful while hiding behind what he thinks the Constitution says about the founders in conservative revisionist history. 

It doesn’t take courage to do what everyone expects you to do.  It doesn’t take courage to go along.  Courage is required of those who stand for what is right knowing it will lead to rejection, anger, and vilification on the part of the people who thought they had you under their thumb.  That is what John Roberts has been experiencing since Thursday, and it does not seem to be letting up.

Had Roberts simply gone with the other conservatives, he would barely have been mentioned and again, Justice Kennedy would have been the decider.  Justice Kennedy does not seem to be particularly courageous with his decisions.  He seems to go with whatever argument he likes at a given time.  Chief Justice Roberts clearly did some weighing of the issues and consequences because he came up with an explanation for his position that was different from that presented in argument.

It will be interesting to see if Chief Justice Roberts’ courage extends into the next season when some very difficult cases will be facing the Court.  Will his traditional base find him predictable and dependable or will they and we find a thoughtful justice who stands for the least among us, those who could benefit from a courageous voice on the bench of the highest court in the land?