September 13, 2012

Outspending the Truth – The GOP Plan for Election 2012

Many have marveled at the amazing extent to which Republican politicians and office holders lie. They’ve been doing it for years, but now the lies are so blatant, and their frequency and magnitude so great, that it boggles the imagination.

But actually, there is a readily explainable reason for it – or rather two related reasons. One is that the Republican Party is now the Party of psychopaths. They have little or no conscience and little or no empathy for other people.

But that doesn’t explain the more recent astounding increase in their lies. That explanation lies in the U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United decision of 2010. Even before that decision, the extent to which money influenced U.S. elections was highly toxic to our democracy. But Citizens United opened the floodgates.

Now the extent to which money influences our elections is so great that psychopathic politicians with access to lots of money are able to lie at will, in the knowledge that their money will likely cancel out their lies in the minds of many American voters. The basic principle is simple: If a lie is repeated often enough, loud enough, and with enough fake earnestness, many people will come to see the lie as indisputable truth.

The strategy is three-fold. 1) Suck up to the American oligarchy; 2) screw almost everyone else, and; 3) lie about it. Sucking up to the American oligarchy is what causes the money to come pouring in. Screwing everyone else is a necessary part of the game plan because that’s what the American oligarchy demands – for it enables them to become even wealthier and more powerful. And of course lying about it is necessary because most people resent getting screwed for the purpose of enriching the wealthy.


A few words about the American oligarchy

Some may feel uncomfortable about my use of the term “American oligarchy”, perhaps because it implies a conspiracy. Well yes, it is a conspiracy, in that these people don’t act alone. They coordinate their messages because when they all say the same thing it becomes even more believable. Oligarchy has been defined as "a form of government that effectively rests with a small segment of society". Another way of saying the same thing is that it is government by the rich and for the rich. With those definitions in mind, it should be easy to see why governments tend to turn into oligarchies when money has excessive influence in the political process. The rich use their money to influence public officials to use policies and enact legislation that enriches themselves at the expense of everyone else. They thus become richer and better able to repeat the process, which thereby becomes a vicious cycle.

That is what happens when a society allows money too much influence in the political process. That is what Citizens United did to our society. In 2010, 1 percent of the wealthiest 1 percent accounted for 25 percent of all campaign-related donations ($774 million) and 80% of all donations to the two major parties. Stephen Colbert noted that half of the money raised by Super PACs in 2011 came from just twenty-two people.


Money equated with speech

The 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo was a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it recognized that there should be a limit to the First Amendment protection of campaign contributions. Specifically, it said that if excessive campaign contributions could be seen to have corrupting influences on the behavior of our government, Congress should be allowed to put a limit on campaign contributions for that reason.

On the other hand the Buckley decision essentially said that money can be equated with speech, by saying that our First Amendment protects the right of candidates for public office and independent parties to spend money on political campaigns in the form of “speech”. That decision has been explained as follows:

A 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Randall v. Sorrell, went well beyond Buckley v. Valeo by striking down a portion of a 2006 Vermont law that limited campaign contributions, thus making even clearer the equating of money and speech. Citizens United then removed most of the remaining limits on the use of money to influence our political process.

The equating of money with speech is an outrageous perversion of our First Amendment. Campaign contributions do not express opinions. Jeff Milchen explains the meaning and consequences of this type of perversion:



The state of our corporate owned media

The removal of the remaining barriers to political campaign donations and spending is greatly compounded by the corporate consolidation of ownership of our communications media. What has historically been thought of as public airways is now monopolized to a large extent by a very small number of wealthy corporations controlled by wealthy and conservative individuals. This allows the transmission of daily propaganda to the American people, disguised as “news”. The corporations that control our communications media decide what is presented as news and how it is presented.

One of the best recent examples of the “mainstream” media’s contempt for the truth is illustrated by a commentary by the Washington Post fact checker, Glenn Kessler, on Paul Ryan’s speech at the Republican Convention. Rather than even mention any of Ryan's many lies, Kessler dismissed them in his inappropriately named September 1 “Fact Checker” column.

First, he titled his article "The truth? C'mon, this is a political convention". Then he expounded upon the unimportance of checking the facts of a speaker at a political convention by saying of political conventions in general:


Then Kessler said, “Ryan was so quickly labeled a fibber by the Obama campaign that one suspects it was a deliberate effort to tear down his reputation as a policy expert…” Did Kessler consider the possibility that part of the rationale for labeling Ryan a fibber was that he fibbed? No, he didn’t. Did he discuss any of Ryan’s lies? No. He just criticized the Obama campaign for calling Ryan a fibber. So much for "fact checking".

Eric Alterman comments on Kessler's job of fact checking:



Outspending the truth

A recent editorial in The Nation summarizes the problem very well. After expounding on the astounding frequency and magnitude of Republican lies, they note the problem it poses for Democrats:


They note the ultimate Republican lie, which of course is designed to please their campaign contributors and screw everyone else:


Near the end of the editorial they note the bottom line – why the Republican Party is able to tell so many lies:



Lying about “welfare reform”

One of the most illuminating examples of the GOP plan to outspend the truth is their lies about welfare “reform”. The word “reform”, especially when applied to welfare, is a GOP euphemism for heartless cruelty. Their most cherished idea for welfare “reform” is to abolish welfare.

One of their most blatant lies about President Obama is that he abolished the work requirement for former President Clinton’s “Welfare Reform” act, otherwise known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Actually, abolishing at least part of the work requirement is warranted in a society that cares about its fellow citizens. There are hundreds of thousands or millions of single parents today who can’t find work or for whom work imposes serious barriers to caring for their children – thus driving more and more families (including the children) into poverty.

Why would the GOP think that TANF shouldn’t be made a little more generous than it is? Betsy Reed points out that due to a combination of our current recession and the insufficiency of TANF as a welfare measure, the U.S. poverty rate has risen to a 50-year high, with one in five children now living in poverty, while welfare continues to reach fewer and fewer of them. Apparently Republicans think that that is something to be proud of. Why else would they criticize a president for trying to amend such a situation?

Reed describes President Obama’s efforts to do something about this situation: What Obama did do is include in his 2009 stimulus package a provision for helping people on welfare get jobs – which is the purported purpose of welfare reform. This provision, referred to as the “TANF Emergency Contingency Fund”, placed 260 thousand parents and youth in paid jobs. It stimulated local economies and helped many thousands of people in dire need while providing them skills with which to improve future work prospects. Thirty states made use of it. Obama deserves praise for that, not condemnation, and not lies about what he did.

But Republicans called the program a “boondoggle” and said it was designed to promote “welfare dependence”, and the Republican controlled Congress eliminated it in September 2010, thereby depriving 100 thousand families of their means of livelihood.


Conclusion – the perversion of our First Amendment that paves the way for oligarchy

The free speech clause of our First Amendment was never meant to be merely a meaningless abstract concept. Rather, it was meant for a specific purpose – which is best ascertained by reviewing and assessing the deliberations and statements of the Founding Fathers who wrote it.

Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of our First Amendment. He elaborated on the rationale for freedom of speech in his Second Inaugural Address, in which he said:


Jefferson also said with respect to freedom of speech and freedom of the press:


Thus it is that the primary purpose of the free speech and press clauses of our First Amendment is the discovery of truth. Our Founders believed that by prohibiting the government censoring of speech, Americans would thereby have the opportunity to be exposed to such a variety of opinions and ideas that they would have the opportunity to divine truth. Thus freedom of speech and press are necessary to produce an informed citizenry. And only an informed citizenry can maintain a representative government and a free society.

The equating of money with speech, thus giving money the same sacred First Amendment protections as speech, accomplishes exactly the opposite. When unlimited amounts of money are allowed into our political process, the wealthiest of Americans gain control of our political process. It does not contribute to a free exchange of ideas. Instead it allows the propaganda of the rich free reign. They and the politicians they control with their money pervert our First Amendment and our political process by outspending the truth. You can equate money with speech if you want, but be aware that its primary consequence is the creation and entrenchment of oligarchy.

September 11, 2012

What Happened on Election Night, November 2-3, 2004?

It was well known in the days prior to the 2004 Presidential election that a Bush victory was highly unlikely without Bush carrying both Ohio and Florida. As Election Day unfolded, spirits in the Kerry camp were running high, as it became evident that Ohio’s 20 electoral votes would determine the victor, and there was widespread belief that Kerry was on track to win Ohio.

Much anecdotal evidence suggests that the Kerry/Edwards ticket was on track to win Ohio, when rather suddenly its fortunes went south. Kerry had a very comfortable lead in the Ohio exit poll. Even CNN’s right wing hack, Robert Novak, seemed to acknowledge on live TV that things looked very bad for Bush. Reports of exceptionally high turnout in highly Democratic Cleveland provided much cause for optimism. A Kerry campaign worker later told me that he and his fellow campaign workers went to bed Election Night certain that Kerry had won. Yet by noon the next day John Kerry conceded the election, which he officially lost by about 119 thousand votes.

There is a great deal of evidence of foul play in the 2004 election in Ohio. In addition to exit polls showing a 4.2% Kerry win, there was: massive purging of voter rolls targeted at Democratic voters; absurdly low official voter turnout in Cleveland, despite the widespread long voting lines that suggested otherwise; insufficient allocation of voting machines in Democratic areas, especially in Franklin County; numerous reports of touch screen voting machines in Mahoning County switching votes from Kerry to Bush right before the voters’ eyes; widespread evidence of voter intimidation and dirty tricks, as detailed in John Conyers’ excellent report, Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio; the finding in Clermont County of oval stickers covering the Kerry/Edwards place on the ballot so that votes for Kerry couldn’t be read by the optical scan machine; the fake terrorist threat in Warren County that provided the excuse for county election officials to count their votes in secret, and; the corrupted Ohio recount, which removed the last chance to ascertain evidence of election fraud.

But why did Kerry’s chances of winning the 2004 Presidential election appear to disappear so suddenly, late on Election Night? Some of the above incidents could have provided at least a partial explanation for that. But perhaps the best explanation was provided by Stephen Spoonamore, a Republican and a computer expert who provided an affidavit on the subject shortly before the 2008 Presidential election. But before addressing Spoonamore’s affidavit we need to consider the man who probably knew a lot more than Spoonamore about what happened on Election Night 2008, though he died prior to his scheduled testimony on the subject.


Michael Connell

Michael Connell was a high level Republican operative and IT consultant. He was the founder of New Media Communications, which provided web site services for the Bush-Cheney 2004 presidential campaign, The Republican National Committee, and many other Republican candidates. At the time of the 2004 national election he was president of GovTech solutions, which was hired by Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to set up an election website for the Ohio presidential 2004 elections. This clearly presented a conflict of interests, in the same way that Secretary Blackwell’s dual role as Ohio Secretary of State (in charge of Ohio elections) and campaign chairman for the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio created a serious conflict of interests.

Given the exit poll discrepancy in the Ohio 2004 presidential election of 6.7%, the numerous irregularities surrounding that election, and the fact that the awarding of Ohio to Bush was responsible for his reelection, numerous lawsuits were brought in Ohio to challenge the election results. Given Connell’s close connections with Karl Rove and the Bush campaign, in combination with his official duties with respect to the presidential election in Ohio, he was sought to provide testimony in connection with a case that alleged tampering with the 2004 election. It was alleged in the case that Connell participated in vote tampering. On September 22, 2008, Connell was subpoenaed to testify in the case. Connell initially sought to avoid testifying, and even put forth a motion to quash his subpoena. But that motion was denied.


The Testimony of Stephen Spoonamore

On September 17, 2008, Stephen Spoonamore provided an affidavit in connection with ongoing investigations into election fraud involving the 2004 Presidential election. The first parts of his affidavit related to his qualifications for the opinions he provided, and included the following:

He then went on to describe the vote counting system in play on Election Day 2004 in Ohio:


Lastly he described his view of the how Michael Connell fit into the picture:


An article posted in Velvet Revolutions relates what happened next. Later on the same day that Spoonamore provided his affidavit:


On September 22, Connell was subpoenaed to testify about the matters that Spoonamore raised. Connell did everything he could to avoid testifying. Spoonamore provided another affidavit on October 26, going into more detail than his September 17 affidavit on how he saw the 2004 Presidential election being stolen:


A couple words of explanation are in order at this point: The SmartTech system that Spoonamore referred to was operated by Michael Connell; the references to the hard drives removed by Triad employees before the recount relate back to the corrupted Ohio recount, which I described here. The removal of those hard drives constituted destruction of evidence of the true vote count, thus making it impossible to conduct an accurate recount.

Note that by this time Spoonamore seems to have lost confidence in the innocence of Michael Connell that he exhibited in his September 17 affidavit. This is suggested by Spoonamore’s comment on Connell’s continued efforts to avoid providing relevant information, with the excuse that he was trying to protect trade secrets. Spoonamore said that that excuse was absurd, and he went into much detail to explain why it was absurd.

On October 28, attorneys filed a motion to compel testimony of Connell regarding his knowledge of the workings of the GOP computer systems. On October 31 a federal judge ordered Connell to submit to a deposition on possible election manipulation. Connell gave the deposition on November 4, providing as little information as possible, but eventually he was forced to admit that “he brought Triad and SmartTech into the Ohio election game”. Velvet Revolution noted:



The Death of Michael Connell

When it became apparent that Connell would testify in the case, according to news reporter Blake Renault, Connell was warned not to fly his plane:


Cliff Arnebeck, the Ohio lawyer who brought the suit and subpoenaed Connell, warned the U.S. Justice Department that Connell’s life might be in danger, and requested witness protection. Arnebeck wrote:


Unfortunately, in an event reminiscent of the death of Raymond Lemme, who had apparently collected incriminating evidence bearing on the same subject that was at the core of the Connell subpoena, Connell never did get to testify. On December 19, he died in a plane crash, presumably caused by his plane running out of gas.


Unsolved mysteries

I don’t know what ever became of Spoonamore’s testimony. Perhaps any chance the American people had to get to the bottom of this matter was buried along with Michael Conner. In a just world, Spoonamore’s allegations would have been thoroughly investigated in an attempt to find out what really happened. So would the great amount of other evidence of election fraud in Ohio and elsewhere on Election Day 2004.

It is also difficult for me to understand how Spoonamore obtained the information he discussed in his affidavit. Being an expert on the subject was not enough. Clearly he seemed to have inside information. How did he obtain that information? It seems that he obtained much of it from Connor himself – but why did Connor trust him with that information?

In any case, if nothing else we should take very seriously Stephen Spoonamore's central message: Electronic voting machines are a national security threat. They have no legitimate place whatsoever in a democracy.

September 8, 2012

Democracy Undone: Unequal Representation, the Threat to our Election System, and…

“Democracy Undone: Unequal Representation, the Threat to our Election System, and the Demise of American Democracy”, by Dale Tavris (me) is a short history of the brutal beating our democratic process has taken in the 21st century, with special focus on the theft of two out of three past elections and the expanding influence of the American corporatocracy and their money in determining the outcome of elections in our country. The book will be published by Bitingduck Press, in all e-book formats, soon: http://www.bitingduckpress.com/democracy_undone

Could what happened in 2000 and 2004 happen again in 2012? The short answer is obviously YES. A longer and more interesting answer to that question appears in an article by Ari Berman that I just read today, titled " Voter Suppression: The Confederacy Rises Again". Though the article concentrates on voter suppression in the South, the tactics described are not be any means confined to the South. They are also very much alive in other states, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.


The return of the Old Confederacy

Berman begins by noting two very important and interesting demographic trends in the Southern U.S. First is the rise of minorities: Minorities are increasing in numbers much faster than the white population. While 72% of baby-boomers (age 55-64) are white, only 51% of kids 15 and under are white (the remainder is 22% Hispanic, 21% African-American, and 6% other – mostly Asian and Native American). Second is the major Party split in minority composition: While the Republican Party is 88% white, the Democratic Party is only 50% white (the remainder is 36% African American, 9% Hispanic, and 5% other).

Berman notes that these demographic facts represent a ticking time bomb for the Republican Party in the South. How do they respond to this problem? Berman explains:

The methods of voter suppression being attempted for the 2012 and future elections are very similar to the methods used to put George W. Bush in office in 2000 and keep him there until January 2009. These include:

Strict voter ID laws
Laws mandating government-issued IDs as a requirement for voting are reminiscent of the Southern poll tax, which was made unconstitutional by our 24th Amendment to our Constitution in 1964. The poll tax was instituted in Southern states for the purpose of disenfranchising black people. It also tended to disenfranchise poor white people as well, because poor people generally have less access to these IDs (for example, poor people are less likely to drive and therefore own a driver’s license). A 2005 study showed that 11% of American citizens of voting age don’t own government-issued IDs. Furthermore, these laws are discriminatory, as 25% of African-Americans don’t own these IDs.

Restricting voter registration drives
Knowing that twice as many Hispanic and African American voters are likely to register to vote as a result of voter registration drives, states have been legislating barriers to these drives. This is certainly not the first time. Art Levine described during the Bush presidency how Republicans counteracted the efforts of voter registration organizations, through intimidation of the organizations that undertake them:


Disenfranchising felons even after serving their times
Laws disenfranchising felons from voting are one of Florida’s favorite ways for ensuring Republican victories at the polls. Often or usually, the “felonies” these people committed were non-violent, victimless crimes, such as possession of small amounts of marijuana. In 2000 this particular tactic cost Al Gore more votes than any other single factor, thus paving the way for the George W. Bush Presidency. Worse yet, many thousands of the disenfranchised Florida voters in 2000 were never felons at all, but merely close computer matches of felons. And Florida Governor Jeb Bush knew that would happen before his administration’s voter purge went into action.

Eliminating early voting
The working poor, composed disproportionately of minorities, are much more likely to utilize early voting dates, when available, than more affluent voters. The reason for this is easy to understand: Voting often is an economic hardship for working people, especially those who need more than one job to keep economically afloat, since it is often difficult for them to get the necessary time off of work. This year the elimination of early voting, targeted to Democratic areas, has been particularly troublesome in Ohio, which required a court ruling to somewhat restore early voting rights.

Redistricting
Berman explains how Southern states have used redistricting to increase their numbers of legislative seats:


Arbitrary voter purging
Lastly, and most ominously (but not covered in Berman’s article), evidence from 2004 shows that Republican operatives sometimes don’t require any excuse at all to purge voters from the voter rolls. There is much evidence that illegal voter purging provided the Bush/Cheney ticket with hundreds of thousands of net votes in Ohio in 2004, which enabled Bush to win Ohio and therefore retain his Presidency.


A few words about “Democracy Undone”

I begin Chapter 1 with a statement of the basic problem of our failing democracy:


The most fundamental consequence is that we habitually fail to elect officials who actually represent us:


Here is a graph of Congressional job approval in the United States since 1974.


Note that currently Congressional job approval is bouncing right along the 20% line.

Consequences then flow from the fact that we habitually elect people who do not represent us. These include: severe, record-breaking income inequality; rampant militarism; the highest imprisonment rate of any country in the world; the systematic flouting of international law, and; failure to take measures to control the climate change that is destroying our planet’s ability to support human life as we know it.

The following chapters include:

Chapter 2: How the 2000 Presidential election was stolen
Chapter 3: Was the 2004 election stolen too?
Chapter 4: Can you trust the corporations that make the computers that count your votes?
Chapter 5: Fixing elections by making 2 + 2 = 3
Chapter 6: Illegal purging of legitimate voters
Chapter 7: More dirty tricks – Voter suppression and intimidation
Chapter 8: The “Voter Fraud” myth and the barrage of new restrictive voting laws
Chapter 9: Shocking testimony on vote switching in the 2004 Presidential election
Chapter 10: Legalized bribery of government officials
Chapter 11: Corporate control of communications Media
Chapter 12: Some actions we can take

I end the book with a warning about being too complacent about our failing democracy, with a quote from Milton Mayer, who studied the thinking of ordinary lower level Nazis during Hitler’s rise to power. Mayer explained in his book, “They Thought They Were Free – The Germans 1933-45”, the gradual process by which Germans gave up their freedom to Hitler:



I’ll provide some more detailed description of the book content in a later post, prior to the publication of the book.

September 3, 2012

On the Political Context of the Charges against Julian Assange

An article in The Nation by Joann Wypijewski, titled "Justice Foreclosed", explains better than anything I’ve read why Julian Assange shouldn’t give himself up to let “justice” work its course. From the second paragraph of Justice Foreclosed:

The political context
After noting (accurately in my opinion) that the law is no more likely to deliver justice to Assange in his rape case than it was to a black man charged with raping a white woman in the Jim Crow South, Wypijewski continues:


Julian Assange a terrorist? If he’s a terrorist, then I guess I am too, because if I had access to the material he had, and if I had the courage to release it, I would do so in a heartbeat. If Assange is a terrorist, then I guess that so are all journalists who release information on war crimes committed by the state.

On the murkiness of the rape charges
Like just about everyone else, I don’t know what the truth is surrounding the rape charges against Assange. What I do know is that the circumstances of those charges seem very suspicious. Wypijewski describes some of those circumstances:


On the presumption of innocence
Wypijewski notes that a big reason why some liberals are not supporting Assange in his refusal to face charges is that they involve rape. And in those cases, it is the presumption of guilt that works against their supporting him. I see it slightly differently. If the presumption of guilt is the reason why a “liberal” does not support him, then that person is not really a liberal – at least not in the way s/he looks at this case. There are few things that are more fundamental to liberalism than the presumption of innocence in criminal cases. Wypijewski explains:


On what Assange faces if he gives himself up
Lastly is the issue of what Assange is likely to face if he gives himself up:



For those of you who criticize Assange or call him a coward because of his refusal to give himself up to “justice”, I ask you to consider: Would you give yourself up if you faced a likelihood of indefinite detention without trial and torture?

August 21, 2012

5 Myths that Are Destroying our Country

A recently produced document by Jacob Hacker and Nate Loewentheil, Prosperity Economics – Building an Economy for All, begins by discussing the five myths of austerity economics. That is an appropriate place to start a discussion of how to build a healthy economy because over the past four decades a widespread belief in those myths among the American people has been destroying our economy and our country. As long as Americans harbor a steadfast belief in those myths we will make no progress and our downward course will continue. Therefore recognizing those myths as the lies they are should be seen as a first step towards our recovery.

The five myths of austerity economics are:

Actually, careful study of these five myths will reveal that they have a single purpose – the enrichment of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. And indeed, they have served that very purpose and continue to do so. And they will continue to do so until they are exposed for the lies that they are. Think of the austerity myths and “trickle down” economics as part and parcel of the same idea. Give everything to the wealthy, and don’t do anything for anyone else because the wealthy know best, and they will take care of everything in the best interests of everyone.

It is easy to see how myth # 2 serves that purpose, and no further comment is necessary on that. Myth # 5 justifies myth # 2 by creating the impression that the rich deserve all the breaks they can get, no matter who gets hurt in the process. Myth # 3 justifies the inevitable result – a rapidly growing economic inequality. If inequality is not a problem then we need not do anything to correct it, and anyone who says otherwise is engaging in “class warfare”. Myth # 1 is a little tricky. If “spending”, leading to deficits, is seen as our # 1 problem, then we must decrease spending on social programs such as health care and Social Security. That enables tax cuts for the rich. And yet, anyone with an ounce of common sense will quickly see that massive tax cuts for the rich will itself contribute substantially to deficits. So the proponents of the austerity myth simply ignore that obvious fact or else claim that it isn’t true, by referring back to myth # 2. Myth number 4 is their way of telling us that our government should get out of the way and let them have a free hand to do whatever they want. If their activities lead to the destruction of our planet, don’t worry about it. Markets know what they are doing and must be left alone to produce their magic. Myth # 4 is the equivalent of a mafia king telling us that we don’t need police or courts of law because the mafia knows what is best for us and will shower us with prosperity (after all the evil-doers are sacrificed).


The Powell Manifesto in the context of U.S. history

Many historians see the beginnings of widespread American adherence to the austerity myths in the Powell Manifesto, written on August 23, 1971, by Louis Powell, a corporate lawyer. Less than a year later, Powell was appointed by President Nixon to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he served for 15 years and contributed substantially to the embedding of conservative economic ideas into our national culture and legal system. A few years following the appearance of the Powell Manifesto, the Reagan Revolution began with the election of Ronald Reagan to the U.S. Presidency, and we’ve gone mostly downhill ever since then.

I don’t recommend actually reading the Powell Manifesto. It’s a very dense read, as it is all written in code. An idea of the entire theme and purpose of the document can be gleaned from its last sentence, which notes that “… business and the enterprise system are in deep trouble, and the hour is late”. The body of the document blames this on leftists, Communists, etc.

What is so revealing about the statement that 'business and the enterprise system are in deep trouble" is that the memo was written during what Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman describes as the "greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history", in his book, "The Conscience of a Liberal".


The greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history and its roots in the New Deal

This great economic boom was largely the fruits of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which was founded upon an economic philosophy that is directly opposite that of the austerity myths. In the view of FDR and others who brought us the New Deal, we are at our best when all Americans participate in our economy and share in its benefits, rather than passively sit by and wait for prosperity to trickle down to us from the rich, or become virtual slave laborers to those with the money to control our lives.

Krugman describes the economic boom in terms of median family income: Beginning in 1947, when accurate statistics on this issue first became available, with the top marginal tax rate approaching 90%, median family income rose steadily (in 2005 dollars) from $22,499 in 1947 to more than double that, $47,173 by 1980. Then, for the next 25 years, except for some moderate growth during the Clinton years, there was almost no growth in median income at all, which rose only to $56,194 by 2005 (85% of that growth accounted for during the Clinton years). However one wants to interpret those numbers, nobody could possibly conclude that they indicate overall bad financial consequences accruing from high tax rates on the wealthy. To the contrary, as Krugman notes, this period of record high tax rates on the rich coincides with "the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history".

So how could Powell complain about the business and enterprise system being in deep trouble during such an economic boom? The answer is simple. His memo was written to the Chamber of Commerce, right wing corporate titans, and other like minded groups and individuals. To them, shared economic benefits were not seen as a good thing. They were after something else. They wanted to go back to the days prior to the New Deal – the days that FDR railed against in setting the stage for the New Deal and the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history that followed.

FDR's speech at the 1936 Democratic National Convention came as our country was continuing to struggle out of the worst economic depression in our history. It was directed at those whom he referred to as "Economic Royalists" – the same type of people who today promote trickle down economics and all the austerity myths for their own benefit. Some excerpts from FDR’s great speech:


During the New Deal and the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history that followed, the American people made great progress towards a shared prosperity. A robust middle class evolved that sustained itself for many decades. But for almost the past four decades we have been regressing in the opposite direction. Wealthy individuals and corporations have united against us and infused their propaganda into our political system and our culture. U.S. Supreme Court decisions have legitimized the use of huge amounts of money to influence our electoral process. The Economic Royalists are back. We fall for their propaganda at our own peril.


A brief look at the economic effects

In their introduction to austerity economics, Hacker and Loewentheil show us three charts that pretty much tell the whole story of the last few decades. Figure A shows us that from 1973 to 2011, the hourly productivity of the American worker rose 80.4%, but in return, median hourly compensation rose only 10.7%. What could cause such a disconnect between production and earnings? Answer: The Economic Royalists have used their massive wealth to buy their own politicians and produce the propaganda needed to get them elected and re-elected. They then direct their puppet politicians to do their bidding, rigging our economic (and political) system for their own private benefit.

Figure B is a graphic illustration of growing economic inequality from 1979 to 2007. While the top 1% of income households have increased their average after-tax annual income by 278%, for an average increase of about a million dollars per household, the poorest fifth of American households have increased their after-tax annual income by only 18%, for an average of about…. well, it’s too small an amount to visualize on the chart with any accuracy.

Figure C is a “Social Health Report Card” for the United States. It shows that among 20 industrialized countries of somewhat comparable wealth to us (Canada, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherland, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and us), we rank first in income inequality, relative poverty, health expenditures, and infant mortality, and lowest in life expectancy, health insurance coverage, and environmental performance index. Yet we keep hearing that we are the greatest country on earth – the implication being that it is unpatriotic to criticize our economic or political system.


Counteracting the austerity myths

Hacker and Loweentheil go into much detail to counteract the austerity myths. I’ll just say a few words about them here:

Myth 1 – Spending and deficits are our # 1 problem

Myth 2 – Cutting taxes on the richest is an effective way to spur prosperity
Just prior to the Stock Market Crash of 1929 that led to the Great Depression, top marginal tax rates were very low, at 25%. As noted above, the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history took place in the midst of the highest top marginal tax rates on the wealthy in the history of our country – over 90% from 1950 to 1963. That should be enough by itself to shut up all the yapping about the benefits of reducing tax rates on the wealthy. But if not, consider where the George W. Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have gotten us. In the face of the economic disaster that followed several years of massive tax cuts for the rich, how gullible do you have to be to continue to believe that tax cuts for the rich are good for our economy? And finally, take a look at these two charts, which show respectively: 1) the relationship of income inequality to the two worst economic catastrophes of our history – the Great Depression of the 1930s and our current recession. It is titled “Re-creating the Gap that Gave us the Great Depression”; and 2) how top marginal tax rates for the wealthy have varied over time.



The first chart plots income inequality, measured as the ratio between the average income of the top 0.01% of U.S. families, compared to the bottom 90%. The most important thing to note about this chart is that just preceding the great stock market crash of 1929, which plunged us into the Great Depression, and again preceding the great recession of 2008 (in which we are still mired), the inequality ratio hit peak levels, whereas it was at its lowest levels during the long economic boom that Paul Krugman speaks about. The second chart shows that income inequality plotted over time is inversely proportional to top marginal tax rates.


Myth 3 – Inequality is not a problem because social mobility is high
Figure F in “Prosperity Economics” shows that among nations, social mobility declines in proportion to economic inequality. The United States demonstrates very low mobility and very high inequality compared to similarly wealthy nations. End of story.

Myth 4 – Markets are smart, government are dumb
While noting that “markets have enormous virtues”, Hacker and Loewentheil go into great detail in describing the many problems that can plague markets unregulated by a democratic government that is responsive to the needs of its citizens. They conclude:


Myth 5 – Those at the top are the ones who create wealth and are alone responsible for their great fortune
Again, this flies in the face of the fact that the greatest sustained economic boom in the history of our country occurred concurrently with the greatest levels of economic equality. We don’t need to shower the wealthy with gifts in order to have a strong economy. To the contrary, history shows just the opposite of that. Economic prosperity occurs when everyone contributes and shares in the benefits of their labors.

Furthermore, the recent wave of high-level financial fraud that led to our recent economic crisis has shown that, far from creating wealth, many of the wealthiest financial titans in our country have merely found ways to transfer wealth from the American taxpayers to themselves.


Growth for whom

The authors conclude their discussion of the five myths of austerity economics with this common sense paragraph:


And the solution is:


And that is what the rest of their report is about.

August 18, 2012

Paul Ryan’s hypocrisy and the Romney/Ryan Vision for our Country

Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his running mate hoping that his widely known advocacy for fiscal austerity would impress his conservative base, and perhaps fiscally conservative independents as well.

The introduction to Ryan’s proposed 2013 Budget Resolution, titled "Path to Prosperity – A Blueprint for American Renewal", reads like a fairy tale. It contains 7 major points, point number 7 being to “Lift the crushing burden of debt” from our country. To do that he proposes to “Prioritize defense spending to keep America safe” (point # 1), enact massive tax decreases (point # 5) for wealthy individuals (reducing the top marginal tax bracket to 25%) and corporations (from 35% to 25%), strengthen the social safety net (point # 3), and “fulfill the mission of health and retirement security” (point # 4). Hmmm. What part of this plan is designed to save money to “lift the crushing burden of debt”?


Ryan’s budget fantasy

Many have expressed admiration for Ryan for actually “crunching numbers” to come up with his proposals. But as William Black explains, Ryan did not “actually crunch the numbers”. Instead he “created fantasy numbers, instructing the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to suspend disbelief and treat the fantasy numbers as real”. Specifically, here is the warning that the CBO issued in their treatment of Ryan’s budget numbers:

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman had much the same thing to say about Ryan’s plan, but was a little more blunt about it:




Ryan’s hypocritical record

Ryan’s record during his 7-term tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives is even more damning with regard to his claim to be interested in balancing the budget. The only interest he’s shown in balancing the budget has been on the backs of the poor. When it comes to anything else, he hasn’t shown any restraint.

Despite all his severe anti-big government rhetoric, he has a history of lobbying for millions in federal money for Wisconsin’s 1st district, which he represents. That includes money from the Obama economic stimulus bill, which he attacked as "misses the mark on all accounts". Indeed, as John Nichols points out with respect to Ryan’s long Congressional record, far from being a budget balancer:


But this year Ryan might not get away with it – not only in his run for Vice President, but even getting re-elected to his House seat in Wisconsin. This year his Democratic opponent, Rob Zerban, is calling him on his hypocrisy]:



The impact of Ryan’s budget proposal if it becomes law

Ryan’s budget plan, which has the full support of Mitt Romney, would attempt – unsuccessfully – to balance the federal budget on the backs of the poor, who already are in dire straits, while offering huge advantages to the wealthy. First, his tax “reform” plan would greatly favor the wealthy and hurt the poor, as shown in this chart produced by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:



Note the much greater percent federal income tax decrease for those with half a million dollars or greater income, compared to those with incomes under $200,000. And on top of that, consider that even if the percents were identical, the money saved by a given percent tax decrease by a multimillionaire is orders of magnitude greater than the money saved by a family with an income of $200,000 or less with the same percent decrease. As an example of what this plan would mean for the wealthy (and the budget deficit), under the Ryan/Romney budget plan, Mitt Romney would have paid less than 1% in federal taxes, of the $21 million he made in 2010.

With Ryan’s proposed increases to our military budget, how would such a large reduction in federal taxes be paid for in an attempt to reduce the budget deficit? That would be paid for by deep slashes in spending for domestic programs. As Jamelle Bouie explains, in addition to deep cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, all other discretionary spending would have to be cut to less than 10% of what it is today, down to about $100 billion by 2050:


By transforming Medicare into a voucher program, seniors would essentially be on their own. While less federal spending would go to Medicare, out of pocket expenses for seniors would double, from about $6,000 to over $12,000 annually:



Yet despite all the painful cuts to social programs that so many Americans rely on for their livelihood, the budget deficit would rise under Ryan’s plan because of increased military spending and massive tax cuts for the wealthy:






Putting Romney’s choice of Ryan into perspective

Bouie summarizes Ryan’s vision and Romney’s decision to choose him as a running mate:

August 13, 2012

The Irony and Cynicism of Mitt Romney’s Secrecy Surrounding his Tax Returns

Despite repeated requests for transparency regarding his tax returns, Mitt Romney has thus far released for public view only his 2010 tax returns, with promises to later additionally release only his 2011 tax returns. This is despite his requesting that his potential running mates release “several” years of their tax to him (He won’t say how many years he requested, but obviously “several” means more than one or two years).

This secrecy is especially ironic given that it was Romney’s father, George, who engaged in path breaking transparency with regard to his finances in preparation for his run for the Republican Presidential nomination of 1968, when he turned over 12 years worth of tax returns to a journalist. Since that time, as noted by Edward Kleinbard:

Now it appears that the son of the man who inaugurated the practice of transparency in personal finances for Presidential candidates will be the one to terminate that practice – at least temporarily.


Why is transparency of the personal finances of Presidential candidates important?

One of the major responsibilities of a U.S. President is handling the national economy. The personal finances of a Presidential candidate could provide clues as to how that responsibility would be handled once in office.

Release of Romney’s 2010 tax returns showed that he paid less than 14% federal tax on an income of $21 million. That’s about half the tax rate of an average middle class family with two working spouses. Could it be possible that Romney paid far less than 14% federal tax in previous years? Tax experts have stated that it is indeed possible that Romney didn’t pay any taxes at all in one or more previous years, on multi-million dollar incomes, and that he remained within the law in doing so. But wouldn’t it be of interest to the American public to know if Romney paid obscenely low rates in federal taxes on multi-million dollar salaries over the years? That could raise issues of fairness in taxes that the American public would do well to consider. It is especially important to consider since under the budget plan of Romney’s running mate, Romney would have paid less than 1% in federal taxes in 2011. Furthermore, under Paul Ryan’s "Path to Prosperity" plan, Romney might not pay any federal taxes at all for the next ten years.


Other questions raised by Romney’s secrecy over his financial transactions

Financial experts have raised several additional questions posed by Romney’s secrecy over his financial transactions:

It is known from the release of Romney’s 2010 tax returns that he had a great deal of money in a Swiss bank account, which seems to have closed in 2010. In 2009 the IRS announced a partial tax amnesty for unreported foreign bank accounts. Did Romney avail himself of that amnesty program? If he did, might that emphasize the issue of whether some of the millions of Americans who have lost their homes or are currently in danger of losing their homes, largely as the result of fraudulent bank practices, be offered amnesty that would help them retain or regain their homes. Might it raise the question of whether these millions of Americans are as deserving as Mitt Romney? It has also been pointed out the ownership of a Swiss bank account could raise question of compliance with federal tax law, which could be resolved by release of the tax returns covering that period.

Romney is known to have an IRA of $102 million, which he accumulated during his tenure at Bain Capital. Yet Romney was restricted to contribution to the IRA during that time of $32,000 per year. How did annual contributions of $32,000 grow into $100 million? One possibility that has been mentioned is that Romney used some fallacious excuse to put in far more money that he was allowed to put in, in an effort to avoid taxes.

Nicholas Shaxson poses several questions about seemingly strange aspects of Romney’s financial history: It is known that Romney has sheltered much of his wealth in foreign tax havens, but nobody knows much about them. Why is Romney still being paid by Bain Capital, and could those payments constitute a conflict of interest as President? Are Romney’s blind trusts really blind, and if he knows what’s in them, could that create a conflict of interest as President? Did Bain serve as a tax haven for foreign criminals? Shaxson points out:



The bottom line

As noted above, Mitt Romney would accrue huge financial benefits under the type of national budget that he and his running mate are proposing. A public viewing of Romney’s financial transactions over the past several years – the financial transactions that have helped to make him an incredibly wealthy man – could shine a light and put in perspective the economic plans being put forth by Romney and Ryan.

As an abstract concept, I have no problem with people accumulating tremendous wealth. But as a result of huge tax breaks for multimillionaires, Paul Ryan’s plan would strip millions of Americans of basic health insurance, make severe cuts in college grants, and greatly reduce much of the federal safety walls that currently provide some protection to the low income Americans. As described in "Paul Ryan's 'Path to Prosperity' Budget":


The release of Romney’s tax records could generate a lot of national attention for these issues. Aren’t these issues important for the American public (and voter) to consider? In considering Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” plan, the American voter might want to consider whose prosperity the plan refers to.

August 11, 2012

The Takeover of our Democracy and our Economy by Wall Street

It is no coincidence that as the influence of money in politics has exploded to levels not seen in our country since prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s, wealth inequality has also reached record high levels – with the giant financial institutions of Wall Street leading the way.


The roots of economic catastrophe

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman sums up the anti-regulatory craze that led to our current crisis in his book, “The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008” – in which he discusses the “shadow banking system”, which refers to the extreme deregulation of our banking system:

This should not have been surprising. Why should we expect that the results of deregulating financial institutions – or any corporate sector of our economy – should be any different than deregulating organized crime (i.e. doing away with all laws used to control it), for example? Both organized crime and corporate America are focused primarily on a ruthless pursuit of profits and power, and neither is particularly concerned about who gets run over in the process. So when the barriers are purposely removed we should not be too surprised to see lots of people get run over.

It should not be surprising that when the wealthy few are given huge advantages over vast masses of people that they will use their powers to their own advantage. What we have seen in this country since the Reagan presidency is vast expansion of the income and wealth gap in our country, and consequently the accumulation into the hands of the wealthy few vast powers to shape national legislation to their advantage.

Privatizing benefits while socializing the responsibility for the consequences of risks should strike us as the most obvious of frauds. Yet those in power have managed to bamboozle millions of Americans into thinking of it as “throwing off the restraints on free enterprise”.


Behind the deregulation of our financial system – the corruption of democracy by money

Bill Moyers explains in his book, "Moyers on Democracy", that the root of the problem is that our elected representatives in Congress need huge sums of money to finance their campaigns and remain in office. As a result of this:



If Republicans are the cheerleaders for the 1%, Democrats are collaborationists

Goron Lafer makes it clear in an article titled "Why Occupy Wall Street Has Left Washington Behind" that, though the Republicans are worse, both parties are to blame:



Gifts by our government to Wall Street

Bush administration – the Bush-Paulson bailout
Robert Scheer explains, in “The Great American Stickup”, how the financial industry bailout began under President Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, and worked for the benefit of Wall Street, especially for Goldman Sachs:


Obama administration

Continuation of the Bush bailout by the Obama administration
The bailout continued under the Obama administration. As the Obama administration was considering putting Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s plan into effect – which was largely a continuation of the Bush administration plan – several eminent non-corporate economists warned them and us of the consequences. They used different words, but their basic description of the Geithner plan was the same: a reverse Robin Hood scheme, conducted behind closed doors:

Paul Krugman wrote:


In other words, this is a gift from the American taxpayers to the banks. Krugman added:


What Joseph Stiglitz had to say about the Geithner bailout plan was very similar to what Krugman said:


Long after these warnings were ignored by the Obama administration, and the continued bailout of Wall Street was widely recognized as a dismal failure in which Wall Street used their taxpayer funded gift almost solely to enrich themselves, Robert Reich put the issue in perspective:


Little help for homeowners
Given that home foreclosures were at the heart of our economic crisis, one would hope that government interventions would be targeted towards helping homeowners rather than relying on a trickle down sort of solution in which primarily banks were targeted for relief. But it didn’t work out like that. Help for homeowners would cut into Wall Street’s profits. As William Greider noted:


William Kuttner in his book, "A Presidency in Peril – The Inside Story of Obama’s Promise, Wall Street’s Power, and the Struggle to Control our Economic Future", describes how this crisis was handled by both the Bush and Obama administrations:


Obama’s solution was a program called "Making Home Affordable". Kuttner explains that this program had several fatal flaws. Perhaps the most fundamental flaw was that it was voluntary for the banks. Instead of mandating actions on the part of banks, they were given various “incentives”. But the incentives weren’t enough to make it worth the bank’s while to provide much help to homeowners. In fact, in many cases they had an incentive to foreclose rather than help the homeowner stay in the home. Consequently, the banks offered very little help for most homeowners.

There was one provision of Obama’s bill that had some teeth. That was the proposed authority of bankruptcy judges to compel banks to modify loans to prevent foreclosures. This provision was fiercely resisted by the financial industry, and therefore given very little support by the Obama administration. Kuttner explains:


The only provision of the bill that was opposed by the financial industry therefore died in the Senate. Kuttner commented on the difference in government solicitude for banks, compared with the rest of us – the bottom 99%:


Declining prosecutions for financial institution fraud
One would hope that, with the wild excesses and evidence of fraud committed by our large financial institutions during the Bush and Obama administrations, that our federal government would have been especially active in prosecuting those responsible. But to the contrary, a simple chart that requires no comment tells the story:

[font color="red"]Criminal Financial Institution Fraud Prosecutions over the Last 20 Years[/font]



The money behind the gifts to Wall Street

Much was made about the large amounts of money that the Obama campaign amassed from small donors in 2008. It is true that the Obama campaign raised a great deal of money from small donors. In 2008, 30% of his record-breaking $745 million campaign donations came from small donors (defined as $200 or less). But what about the other 70 percent? Ari Berman puts the issue into perspective:


Three of Obama’s top seven contributors in 2008 were financial industry giants:
Goldman Sachs: $1,013 thousand
JP Morgan Chase: $809 thousand
Citigroup: $737 thousand

Morgan Stanley wasn’t far behind, at $512 thousand. By contrast, John McCain received less than a million dollars combined from those three institutions. Those contributions were not made with altruistic purposes in mind. As noted above, the financial giants were very well compensated by the Obama administration during his first presidential term.


Wall Street now loves Romney even more than Obama

Yet despite the Obama administration’s very generous treatment of Wall Street, the 2012 election cycle is turning out to be a very different matter. Five of Romney’s top six contributors so far have been financial industry giants:

Goldman Sachs: $636 thousand
JP Morgan Chase: $503 thousand
Morgan Stanley: $476 thousand
Bank of America: $466 thousand
Citigroup: $345 thousand

And this campaign is far from over. Undoubtedly, by the time it’s over, financial industry contributions to Romney’s campaign will dwarf even their huge contributions to the 2008 Obama campaign. And by contrast, the five institutions noted above aren’t even among Obama’s top 20 contributors in 2012, which ends at $127 thousand.

Why the desertion by Wall Street of Obama for Romney, after the Obama administration treated them so well? Obama did sign legislation requiring some regulation of the financial industry, and he did engage in some populist rhetoric against the excesses of Wall Street. Even that was too much for them. It’s hard to imagine, but a Romney administration is likely to dole out even more welfare to the financial industry that the Obama administration did.


The power of the 1% in American politics

Ari Berman summarizes the issue in "Occupy Wall Street Hits K Street":


The problem continues to worsen, accelerating with every election cycle. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first major party nominee to decline federal matching funds – in order to avoid limits on campaign spending. 2012 will mark the first Presidential election where both major party candidates refused federal matching funds for that reason.

In 2010, 1 percent of the 1 percent accounted for 25 percent of all campaign-related donations ($774 million) and 80% of all donations to the two major parties. Despite the severe unpopularity of the giant financial institutions in the United States today, the money they supply to political campaigns remains a major force in American politics. Stephen Colbert noted that half of the money raised by Super PACs in 2011 came from
just twenty-two people. That’s seven one-millionths of 1 percent of Americans.


Robert Reich’s suggestions on what needs to be done

In "'Big Government' Isn't the Problem, Big Money Is", Robert Reich, who resigned as Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor because of insufficient support for his recommendations, suggests what needs to be done:

August 3, 2012

The New Poll Tax – Restrictive Voting Laws Could Disenfranchise Millions

As the 2012 national elections approach, the Republican Party (and Democratic Party too, to a lesser extent) is so subservient to the interests of the American oligarchy – the wealthiest and most powerful corporations and individuals – that they routinely fail miserably to represent the interests of ordinary Americans. In order to preserve ever more money for the American oligarchy they strive to tear apart government programs that help ordinary working Americans, while providing every advantage they can for their wealthy donors. They bail out gigantic banks with trillions of dollars of tax payer money, while refusing to enact legislation that would prevent banks from the reckless activities that created their need for those bailouts. By comparison, the help they provide to distressed homeowners, who are losing their homes by the millions, is minimal. They are attempting to destroy the Social Security program that has served the needs of elderly Americans for so many decades, by turning it over to private for-profit corporations. They fight endlessly against public education. They demonize any government program that would help to make health care more affordable to the American people. The list goes on and on. The result has been recession, high unemployment, and a record high level of income inequality in the United States, exceeding even that which directly preceded the Great Depression of the 1930s.

No wonder polls show today that Congressional job approval has averaged a miserable 14% of the American people in 2012. How do incumbent Congresspersons overcome such unpopularity to stand a chance at re-election? For one thing, they use the money they receive from their wealthy donors to bombard their constituents with propaganda, especially lies about their opponents.


The barrage of voter ID laws

But that is not enough. They also have to make it extremely difficult or impossible for ordinary people to vote. Since 2003 they have been passing state voter ID laws for this purpose. This is the equivalent of the of the old poll tax, which was abolished in 1964 with the 24th Amendment to our Constitution, which reads in part “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any… election… shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax”. The voter ID laws are the equivalent of the poll tax because the less money one has the more difficult it is to obtain the various voter IDs required by these laws. These laws also have the same purpose as the long abolished poll tax – to make it difficult to impossible for poor people, and especially black people, to vote.

As of September, 2011, 30 U.S. states required either photo ID or some other form of ID in order to vote. In 2012, more voter ID legislation, all with the purpose of making it difficult to impossible for those of little means to vote, was introduced in 34 states.


The excuse for voter ID laws – the “voter fraud” myth

To deflect attention from the real reasons for their disguised poll tax, they claim that the purpose of the voter ID laws is to prevent so-called “voter fraud”. Art Levine discusses the “voter fraud” movement in an article titled "The Republican War on Voting".

On Election Day 2000 in St. Louis, hundreds or thousands of voters were turned away from the polls because their names didn’t appear on the voting rolls, resulting in a court order to delay closing of the polls in St. Louis by 45 minutes. In that election John Ashcroft lost his bid for re-election to the U.S. Senate (from Missouri) to Mel Carnahan, who had recently died in a plane crash. Republican leaders were outraged over this turn of events, and Missouri’s remaining Republican Senator subsequently made the unsubstantiated charge that dogs and dead people voted in that election. Levine describes what happened then:

Later, in October 2002, Ashcroft initiated an effort to combat voter fraud – the "Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative". Yet, though “voter fraud” was declared a high priority, only 24 people were convicted of illegal voting between 2002 and 2005. Not a single person was even charged with impersonating another voter – the claimed rationale for the restrictive voting laws. Fourteen of the 24 convictions were of noncitizens who were apparently confused about election laws.


Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law and its probable effects

The state of Pennsylvania passed an especially egregious voter ID law in 2012. According the Pennsylvania Transportation Department, 9.2 percent of registered voters in Pennsylvania lack the required ID to vote in 2012. Unless this law is successfully challenged (it is currently being taken to court), these voters will be turned away from the polls when they attempt to vote on Election Day 2012. Yet, according to a recent study by Matt Barreto, only 34% of currently registered Pennsylvania voters are aware of the law, and 98% believe that they have a currently valid ID. Barreto also identified certain demographic groups (of otherwise eligible voters) that are especially likely to lack the required ID. All of these groups tend to vote Democratic. Barreto found the following percentages of various groups of otherwise eligible Pennsylvania voters to lack an ID that is valid under current Pennsylvania law:

Females: 17.2%
Latinos: 18.3%
Over age 75: 17.8%
Age 18-34: 17.9%
Make less than $20,000 per year: 22%

No wonder Pennsylvania State House Republican leader Mike Turzai recently bragged soon after he led the passage of the 2012 Pennsylvania voter ID law, “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done”.


The shame of restrictive voter ID laws

American voters who are homeless, do not own cars, or otherwise lack access to photo IDs are usually ordinary people who have fallen on hard times and gotten caught up in a system that is making life more and more difficult for ordinary people. The abolition of the poll tax in 1964 was a great step towards giving our most vulnerable citizens the right to vote. With the recent barrage of voter ID laws we are moving backwards. Time will tell if we let them get away with this.

August 1, 2012

Election Fraud 2012 – Voting Machine Fraud

As we all know, there are some very wealthy and powerful interests in this country who would hate to see us elect many candidates for public office who care about the interests and well-being of average Americans and are willing and courageous enough to use the power of their offices to benefit the American people. That would disrupt the status quo by reducing the power that the American oligarchy exerts over our lives.

These wealthy and powerful interests are not going to just sit by and watch democracy take its course. Recent history has shown (and not so recent history as well) that they will go to great lengths to prevent the election of candidates who are antagonistic to their interests – that is, who act in the interests of the majority of their constituents – including the rigging of our election system to elect the candidates of their choice.

These people arranged for the election of George W. Bush in 2000, and did so again in 2004. You can bet that they will do whatever is within reach of their considerable power in 2012 to disrupt the democratic process. They have many methods at their disposal for that purpose. In this post I’ll discuss election fraud mediated by voting machines.


Vote switching on electronic machines that produce unverifiable results

Electronic voting machines that record and count your vote with no intervening process (for example, voters punching holes in or making marks on ballots prior to the ballot being read by a machine) are called direct recording electronic (DRE) machines. Unless they produce a paper record of your vote which you have the opportunity to verify, there is no way on earth to verify that the vote total claimed by the machine represents a true and accurate vote total. That’s why they call it “black box voting”.

In 2012, 25% of American voters residing in 17 U.S. states will be voting on these machines, with no accompanying paper record. The owners of these machines are private corporations – most of them with strong ties to the Republican Party. Voting experts unanimously agree (including even those who don’t agree that the 2000 or 2004 Presidential and other elections were stolen) that voting on these machines represents a travesty of democracy.

In addition to the 25% of American voters who will be voting on these machines in 2012 with no accompanying paper record, another 8% will be voting on the same kind of machines, but with an accompanying paper record that the machine produces and provides the voter with an opportunity to verify. This is called a "paper trail" or a "voter verified paper audit trail" (VVPAT). The VVPAT takes many different specific forms, some better than others. But all have problems. Some problems with the various VVPAT systems include: 1) some do not provide ballots directly to the voter for verification. When that is the case, the voting machine can be programmed to produce fake electronic votes that do not correspond to the image shown to the voter; 2) evidence has shown that even when the paper vote is provided directly to the voter, many voters don’t take the time to verify its accuracy; 3) paper trails are of use only when they are recounted (i.e. audited) by hand following an election. Many states have non-existent to poor procedures for doing this, and even when such procedures exist on the books, they may not be executed.

Potential solutions
By far the best solution to this problem is to disallow the use of DRE machines to count our votes. Period. Our elections are public functions that represent the heart of our democracy. To entrust that responsibility to private corporations with their own set of interests makes a mockery of democracy. But it is too late for 2012. Voting precincts in the United States have already established what methods of voting they will use on Election Day.

In the minority of cases where a VVPAT accompanies the use of a DRE machine, procedures should be in place to make sure that voters understand how to verify their vote and what to do when their paper record doesn’t match their intended vote. An audit system of routine recounting of a statistically valid sample of ballots should be in place to verify the accuracy of the machine count. The audit should be completed before the final results are certified.

Exit polls have often been used – in other countries – to verify the accuracy of machine produced vote counts. When the exit poll diverges substantially from the official vote count, that should signify a serious problem in need of investigation. Extensive hand vote recounts should then be performed (but of course are not possible where DRE machines without VVPAT are used). The use of exit polls to act as checks on national elections seemed to work very well in Yugoslavia in 2000 and in the Ukraine in 2004. A large discrepancy between exits polls and the official vote count in Yugoslavia was used, in part, to topple Slobodan Milosevik from power in 2000. A similar large discrepancy between exit polls and the official vote count in the Ukraine was used, in part, to elevate Victor Yanukovich to the Ukrainian Presidency over Victor Yushchenko in 2004. The government of the United States was happy to facilitate both processes, using the exit poll discrepancies as a major rationale. Yet in the United States, exit polls are not seriously considered as a means of monitoring elections. When exit polls in 2004 showed John Kerry winning the U.S. Presidency, our national news media was silent about it. Instead we were shown TV graphics of adjusted exit polls, indicating George W. Bush as the winner. TV viewers had no way of knowing that these weren’t really exit polls at all, but rather they were numbers statistically adjusted to fit the machine recorded vote count. When knowledgeable people pointed out the huge discrepancies between the official vote counts and the results of the exit polls, we were told that the exit polls were wrong – with almost no evidence shown us to back up that claim. Exit polls should be used in this country, as they are in other democracies, to monitor elections.


Tabulation of vote counts

Even when voters produce paper records of their vote, the vast majority of counties in the United States tabulate the final (and official) vote count by adding up the counts from each of their precincts by machine. These machines, just like the machines that register and count our individual votes, can be programmed for fraud. And as is the case with individual DRE machines, there is much evidence that these county “central tabulators” have been used for the purpose of election fraud.

Potential solutions
In theory, the solution to this problem is very simple. Just obtain the vote count for every precinct in every county as soon as the results are posted, before the final and official county vote count is tabulated. Then, when the official count is announced, see if it matches the totals from the individual precincts. But what is simple in concept can be very difficult in actual practice. We need airtight comprehensive systems for doing this. Whatever systems were in place for doing this in 2004 did not work. Election integrity organizations were unable to obtain the original (pre-tabulator) vote counts from way too many precincts following that election.

Where paper records are produced, hand recounts of the vote can be conducted to verify the results of the county tabulated votes. As discussed above, good thorough systems must be in place for doing this.