July 28, 2007 6:45 a.m.; July 29, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Today's News:
Press-Citizen wants public back in "public health"
Four speak out on "Sicko"
Pomerantz to get honorary degree from UI
UI buildings on Regents' agenda
"Big Ten Network" in big tough negotiations
Editorial, "It's Time for the State to Help Put the 'Public' Back in 'Public Health,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 28, 2007, p. A14.
Press-Citizen's "Diagnosing Michael Moore's 'Sicko,'" July 28, 2007, p. A15.
Richard Dobyns, "Why Not Socialize Health Care? It Would be Bad for Business"
Loreen Herwaldt, "Fair and Balanced 'Sicko' is Not, But Neither is the U.S. Health Care System"
Chris Atchison, "Moore Describes Challenges Better Than He Does Solutions"
Sam Levey, "Boldness Has Been Sadly Absent Among Our Nation's Leaders"
Kathryn Fiegen, "UI Seeking Honorary Degree for Pomerantz," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 28, 2007, p. A1
Kathryn Fiegen, "Regents' Agenda Released for August; New Projects, Budget and Security Will be Discussed," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 28, 2007, p. A3 (not available online); Kathryn Fiegen, "Regents Consider $267 Million in Capital Projects," Iowa City Press-Citizen Online, July 27, 2007
Scott Dochterman, "Tense Waiting Game; What's at Stake for big Ten Network, Cable Companies, Fans," The Gazette, July 28,2007, p. A1
Diane Heldt, "Fethke farewell; Impact of interim presidency to continue as he leaves UI post," The Gazette, July 29, 2007, p. A1
# # #
July 27, 2007, 6:15 a.m.
Not a lot on the radar screen this morning, but there's plenty in this past week's blog entries to satisfy any reader's need for a blog fix.
Meanwhile, a couple of Des Moines Register letters to the editor deal with the Wellmark College of Public Health and the general subject of corporate welfare. Both (along with the comments on the first) provide more evidence, if such was needed, that folks are watching, and thinking, and full well know what's going on around them. We're not as dumb, uninformed and apathetic as some corporate officials and elected officials seem to think we are.
Palmer Holden, "What's the going rate for a college?" Des Moines Register, July 27, 2006
If Des Moines businessman Marvin Pomerantz will sell the University of Iowa College of Public Health for $15 million, what would he take to name the university "Wellmark University of Iowa?"
If you are willing to sell your soul for a college, why not a university?
Comments:
Reader Comment Posted by: 420friendly on Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:34 pm
How many people would like to see the "Microsoft Computing Center"?
or the "Viacom Communications Building"?
or the "HarperCollins English Building"?
or the "DeCoster Agricultural College"?
or the "Clear Channel School Of Music"?
or the "Knapp Properties School Of Business"?
or the "Gannett School Of Journalism"!
Reader Comment Posted by: PeaceMom on Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:35 am
Pomerantz is a bully.
Jeff Clingan, "Give incentives to workers, not companies," Des Moines Register, July 26, 2007 ("Regarding the July 14 story, 'Manufacturer Interested in Newton': It's not too difficult to picture this company's executives gleefully rubbing their hands together at the prospect of watching 1,800 out-of-work people fight over 700 low-paying jobs while simultaneously extorting $2 million from Iowa taxpayers. If Chet Culver wants to hand out $2 million, let him give it to the people who will be taking a giant pay cut.")
# # #
July 23, 2007, 6:00, 6:25, 7:40 a.m.
Health-denying insurance companies; "Sicko;" Wellmark naming; Gazette's Gambling Gomer
Health-Denying Insurance Companies
The Des Moines Register continues its four-day series on so-called "health insurance" and the companies that provide the non-coverage. This morning it has seven more pieces on the subject. (I may or may not identify, and add links to, each of them later. Meanwhile, just check the online Register site. You'll find them -- and yesterday's.)
Meanwhile, the anonymous blog commentator "John Barleykorn" has just kindly emailed me a link to a story in Washington's conservative paper, The Washington Times, regarding the Canadian system. Gregory Lopes, "In Reversal, Canada Dabbles with Health Care Privatization," July 22, 2007. While it must necessarily point out the disadvantages of the Canadian system, and the advantages of the "marketplace" for all purposes, given the source it is a remarkably balanced piece.
Bottom line: No one can question the advantages of the universal, single-payer systems available to all the citizens of the world living in civilized, industrialized nations. It's irrefutably in the numbers. (1) Canadians, for example, enjoy better health than we do, measured by such things as infant mortality and life expectancy. The U.S. ranks well down the list. (2) Every single person is provided this free service; health care is considered a citizen's right (like K-12 education is here) not just one more profit-maximizing corporate corner of the economy. Some 45 million American's don't have the necessary ticket for access to health care: health insurance; and of those who do, for many it only covers them a part of the year, or they discover the condition for which they need health care is the condition their insurance company won't pay for. (3) The total cost of these systems -- even though they cover everyone and our system only covers some lucky few -- are dramatically below the cost of ours.
There are undoubtedly horrible stories of delays and malpractice that can be told by individuals in any nation's health care system -- ours included. (As a kid, with regular U.S. medical care, I often had to wait entire days beyond my scheduled appointment to see a doctor.) There are some problems in our system that don't exist in other countries; some in other countries that don't exist here. There are ways other countries' systems try to hold costs to reasonable levels (the Times story points out that dental is not covered in Canada), and ways our insurance companies do here.
But individuals' anecdotal stories aside, the bottom line remains: other countries provide health care to all as a right, as a result of which their people are healthier and live longer, and it costs them less than what our system costs for providing care to fewer individuals.
And see, below, the anonymous comment from "North Liberty" regarding the possible benefits of a properly structured multiple system (which is, in fact, a variation of what many of the "universal, single payer" systems have in reality).
"Sicko"
The Daily Iowan has a balanced movie review of "Sicko" this morning (Paul Sorenson, "The U.S. Sick System") that tends to focus on the film (as a "movie review" should, of course) more than the public policy questions.
Wellmark Naming
The Gazette awards a Gomer to Marvin Pomerantz for his "childish" my-way-or-the-highway, I'm-taking-my-marbles fit ("Bratish Behavior," p. A4), and the Press-Citizen has another letter to the editor this morning opposing corporate naming of University colleges and buildings (Charles Laudie, "Wrong to Sell Public Education Names") -- in addition to those yesterday.
And don't miss, from "Anonymous'" comment, below, the possibilities of selling off naming righs to athletic teams: "I want Frank Perdue to have naming rights to the football team. We could be the Perdue-Iowa Chicken-Hawkeyes." That one might seriously go for a lot of money, especially with a tie-in monopoly right to sell fried chicken pieces in the stands. Only problem: When the "Perdue-Iowa Chicken-Hawkeyes" play the "Purdue Broiler-makers." You know, "which comes first, the chicken or the broiler?"
Gambling's Gomer
The Gazette awards another of its "prestigious" Gomers this morning to the gambling industry ("Side Effect," p. A4) that, along with increasing its gross revenues in Iowa is increasing the number of gambling addicts and problem gamblers seeking help -- with all the social and economic costs gambling imposes on any people who believe they can gamble their way to a state's economic development.
# # #
July 22, 2007, 7:40, 8:00, 9:20 a.m.
Wellmark Naming, Insurance Abuses, Sicko, Grassley on Athletics Tax Abuses, Media
Wellmark Naming
(As always, the Press-Citizen's skilled graphic artist and editorial cartoonist, Bob Patton, is able to tell the story with a few strokes of his pen. This from the July 21 Press Citizen.)
Letters to the editor of Iowa's papers are now rolling in on the Wellmark naming controversy -- virtually all of them ridiculing the proposal and praising those who are resisting selling off the University's integrity.
Even the Register has turned around; having formerly given the College of Public Health faculty a "thistle" for turning down the money this morning it took some tweezers and removed that thistle and stuck it in Pomerantz instead.
Here are the Register's letters to the editor this morning, July 22:
Keith McKinley, "If they start naming colleges after corporations, what's next, the great Wells Fargo State Capitol?"
Paul J. Kaufmann, "Corporate Sponsorships Endanger Credible Research"
Stu Bassman, "No good deed goes unpunished"
Mike Burkart/Maria Houser Conzemius, "Register thistle aimed at U of I a poke in the eye of integrity"
David Brewbaker, "Wellmark could put its $15 million to better use"
Insurance Industry Abuses
The Register is doing a four-day series of stories and opinion pieces about the inadequacies, and outright abuses, from the "health-claim-denying," profit-maximizing insurance industry. Here are some editorial pieces from today (July 22, 2007):
"Help "Iowans resolve insurance headaches; State funds $300K program, with part sales pitch included"
"Questions and Answers About Long-Term-Care Insurance"
Andie Dominick (editorial), "Diagnosis: Dementia But She Was Denied Coverage"
"'It's Not Giving Us the Help We Thought We Would Get'"
"Consumer's guide to long-term-care insurance; ASSURANCE DENIED: Troubles with long-term-care insurance"
(There are more in the Press-Citizen and Gazette.
Sicko
Looked in for awhile on a theater-full of folks watching "Sicko" last night. Based on their reactions, I'd say they clearly "got it." The political question, of course, is whether the sadness and laughter Michael Moore evokes in his audiences will get translated into citizen demand for the health care accorded those who live in civilized countries -- and, if so, whether it can ever be enough to overcome the millions of dollars from big pharma and the insurance industry that is currently dictating our candidates' "health care" proposals.
Grassley on Athletic Programs' Tax Cheats
Senator Grassley (Senate Finance Committee) isn't letting go of his concern regarding the propriety of funding lavish college coaches' salaries and other expenses with wealthy donors' tax deductions. Scott Dochterman, "Give and Take; College Sports Have Come to Depend on Tax-Exempt Donations; Has This Mutually Beneficial Arrangement Spun Out of Control?; Grassley Questions Whether Exemptions, Education Mix," The Gazette, July 22, 2007, p. A1 (also by Docterman, "Change in Tax Status Deemed Unlikely" and "Grassley Aims to Protect Incentives for Giving and Keep Donors Honest," p. A13).
Some numbers:
"Tax exempt donations have helped increase the University of Iowa's athletics department budget by 42 percent" from $43.5 to $61.5 million
It is now self-sustaining, and during the last two years generated a $21 million surplus; Iowa State's athletic budget jumped 31%, from $28 to $36.8 million, including $3 million in state support, hopes are it can add $5.6 million in contributions (since it had to drop swimming and baseball to help pay for a $19.5 million refurbishing of Jack Trice Stadium)
Tax exempt donations help "pay football coach Kirk Ferentz nearly $3 million annually"
Ohio State's athletic budget will exceed $100 million this year
80% of what's paid for a skybox at Kinnick is considered a charitable, tax exempt contribution
NCAA teams brought in and spent $7.8 billion in 2005 -- of which $275 million is corporate sponsorships, and $845 million is "donations and contributions"
T. Boone Pickens gave $165 million to the University of Oklahoma athletic program
Iowa spent $90 million refurbishing the Kinnick Stadium -- and for what? Six games will be played there this year. Most games run about 3-1/2 hours (and include, I'm told, a total of about 7 to 12 minutes of actual action, with multiples of that time devoted to commercials). At 24 hours a day, and 365 days a year, counting 3-1/2 hours a game, that's 21 hours of use out of 8760 hours a year -- 99.76% of the time sitting empty; 24/100ths of 1% of the time being used. (Even with a 40-hour-a-week, 50-week-a-year (with two weeks vacation) 2000-hour year it's but 1%.)
Grassley's just asking -- not declaring, just asking -- what does this multi-billion-dollar industry have to do with charitable, tax deductible contributions for "educational purposes"? Good question.
How the Media Failed Us
The media -- at least the responsible sectors thereof -- has been going through a mea culpa recently over how it failed the American people by serving as cheerleaders for the Iraq war. Here are a couple more in this morning's Register.
Rekha Basu, "Writer Calls Out Peers, President," Des Moines Register, July 22, 2007 (Helen Thomas)
Richard Doak, "Media's Failure to Challenge Case for War Stains Industry," Des Moines Register, July 22, 2007
# # #
July 20, 2007, 6:00, 7:40, 8:10 a.m.
Regents Address Bullies, Corporatization Policies, Guns on Campus;
Mason's Dilemma
The Campus Bully -- and Why Wellmark by Any Other Name Would Smell the Same
Brian Morelli, "Regent Accuses Donor of Bullying; Says It Was Improper for Pomerantz to Call for Firing," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 20, 2007, p. A1
Erin Jordan, "Fethke Key to Rebound of Wellmark Naming Idea," Des Moines Register, July 20, 2007
Clara Hogan, "Regent Eyes Naming Policy," The Daily Iowan, July 20, 2007
Editorial, "UI could avoid future Wellmark controversies by standardizing rules on corporate donations," The Daily Iowan, July 20, 2007
Yesterday I wrote ("And the beating goes on") regarding the impropriety, and self-defeating quality, of Pomerantz' call for Dean Merchant's resignation. Today Brian Morelli reports the comparable response of the Regents to Pomerantz' behavior:
President Pro Tem David Miles: "I really think it is an improper attempt to dictate internal personal [personnel?] decisions at the regents institutions. He is attempting to bully our incoming president by threatening the loss of significant financial support if his demands are not met quickly. I trust the board will reject this interference. President Mason has my full support in the independent exercise of her authority as a Board of Regents appointee to manage the university and lead it forward. I think it is perfectly appropriate for Pomerantz to disagree vigorously. I think it is inappropriate to step across the line and demand the president fire the dean. Indeed, by its letter, the current policy would allow naming of a college after a commercial product. However, at least from what I have been able to find, it appears that naming a college after a corporate donor would be a first in higher education."
Regent Bonnie Campbell: "Terminating someone's employment is a very serious matter, and I would approach that skeptically. [Pomerantz] can say whatever he wants; we have a First Amendment. Obviously, it's a strong sentiment, but I don't know on what basis [Merchant] would be terminated."
Regent Bob Downer: "I am not aware of any basis at this point for calling for Dean Merchant's resignation. [Pomerantz] has earned the right to make whatever comment he chooses to make. Marvin Pomerantz is a great Iowan. No one I know has done more for education at all levels than Marvin Pomerantz."
I've written at length in prior blog entries about my view of the naming issue, and won't repeat that here -- except to note that the primary problem lies in taking the money, whatever name is or is not adopted for the college or put on the building, when there are inherent conflicts between the source and the recipient. (Given the ongoing -- and largely adversarial -- business relationships between the University and Wellmark that raises some question as to the propriety of the University accepting substantial grants from Wellmark for any purpose.)
Now that the movie "Sicko" is dramatizing the question of the propriety of insurance company profiteering from the delivery -- or, rather, the withholding -- of health care there is a special irony, as well as an offensive conflict of interest, in a College of Public Health accepting money (let alone naming itself after) a health insurance company at the height of the national debate over the future of Americans' health care and the negative impact of so-called "health" insurance companies.
"Sicko" -- Today's the Day! Today's the Day!
And speaking of "Sicko," yes, today's the day it -- at long last -- finally opens in Iowa City at the Sycamore Mall theater. Rachel Gallegos, "Group to Greet 'Sicko' With Pledge," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 20, 2007, p. A1. If you go today, or this weekend, you'll have a lottery player's chance to win a visit -- at Michael Moore's expense -- to a country that provides free health care to all its citizens. The film also ties in with the SEIU's targeting of Iowa, and its presidential candidate visitors, for health care public policy. Representatives will be present at today's showings. Do see it if you haven't yet -- and then re-think the Wellmark naming issues.
Campus Police: "Believed to be Armed and Dangerous!"
Rod Boshart, "Campus Safety Changes Urged; Review Done in Wake of Virginia Tech Calls for Sirens, Cell Phone Messaging," The Gazette, July 20, 2007, p. A1.
Dan Piller, "Campus firearms issue goes to regents; Gov. Culver won't take a position on police having guns at universities," Des Moines Register, July 20, 2007.
No one wants to touch this one. The Governor says its for the Regents. The Regents say they'll respond to the universities presidents' recommendations.
Here are some preliminary thoughts:
(1) My memory is that the statistics indicate that those who keep a handgun in the house for "protection" are 16 times more likely to have it used in killing or wounding a member of the family or close friend than against a criminal. A similar phenomenon exists with armed campus police. They are much less likely to make tragic mistakes, much less likely to have their guns taken by criminals and then turned on them or other innocents, if they don't have weapons.
(2) Do we want University SWAT teams as well? Units of the National Guard housed on campus -- "just in case?" Hazmat crews? A university fire department? It's bad enough we have our own university bus system in a small community with some six or seven public transportation systems. My point? The Iowa City police headquarters is a couple blocks from the main campus along with one of the City's fire departments. The Johnson County Sheriff's headquarters a couple blocks in another direction. There are lots of resources to be coordinated and drawn upon -- including trained, armed police -- under a variety of foreseeable, and unforeseen, circumstances. We don't need to duplicate them all.
(3) A University loses something the more its campus communicates -- with metal detectors, video surveillance cameras, and armed police -- that everyone is so much at risk of physical harm that these 1984 measures are necessary. Are there risks in fact? Darn right. Although individuals' common sense (such as not wandering around dark streets, dead drunk, at 2:00 a.m.) can do a lot to minimize them. But it's hard to predict, let alone prevent, what those risks will be. Handguns are of little use in providing protection from tornadoes. To the maximum extent prudently possible, the more freedom of movement -- and absence of focus on "security," "terrorist threat levels," and military/police/weapons solutions to society's problems -- the better it is for a community of learning and research.
Regents: Guns, Naming and Governance
Diane Heldt, "Regents to Discuss Naming Rights Policy," The Gazette, July 20, 2007, p. B3.
Regents Miles and Downer are absolutely right to suggest -- as I proposed in a blog entry some time ago -- that the College of Public Health naming controversy needs to become part of an overall policy rather than treated as a single case to be resolved.
Ditto for guns on camps.
The point is, it all goes back to the Regents' lack of a meaningful, integrated, rational theory of governance. Without that they are going to continue to, at best, continue to only address policy issues after the fact as individual cases blow up like IED's along an Iraq road, and at worst not even see them as policy issues, micromanaging that which makes its way into the media and failing to micromanage that which does not.
As John Carver says, most advice for boards only tells them how to do the wrong things better. But they're still doing the wrong things. Figuring out what the right things are is this new Board of Regents' priority number one, in my humble opinion.
See, Nicholas Johnson, "An Open Letter to Regents on 'Governance," in "UI Held Hostage Day 451 - Open Letter to Regents," April 17, 2007, and Nicholas Johnson, "Regents, Governance, PR Firms, Strategic Planning, Presidential Selection, and June 13" in "UI Held Hostage Day 487 - Governance Regents Number One Priority," May 23, 2007.
President Sally Mason's Dilemma
Ashton Shurson, "Diversity Tops Mason's List," The Daily Iowan, July 19, 2007
If Sally Mason were not a skilled street fighter she never would have become Provost, and a finalist for President, at Purdue -- or selected as the next president for the University of Iowa. So I have no doubt she's going to be able to handle herself just fine once she gets here.
But she is walking into some real challenges at a time when, whatever may be said about the eyes of Texas, the eyes of Iowans are going to be on her every move.
So far as I know, Fethke has yet to express himself on the UI athletic program's ties to the gambling industry (in the form of various partnerships with the Riverside Gambling Casino) over the protests of the NCAA and many on campus. So she'll find that one on her otherwise cleaned out desk when she arrives.
The Governor and Regents are handing her the hot potato -- or gun barrel -- regarding arming the campus police.
The organizational structure of the UIHC and College of Medicine was radically altered ten days before her arrival -- a near billion-dollar-a-year component of the University for which she's ultimately responsible.
Then there's the Wellmark naming controversy -- which Pomerantz wants resolved before she arrives, and for which the Regents and faculty want more time. She's going to have to reassure Jim Merchant that he's not going to have to retire before his previously scheduled retirement next year (or not), and see if it is possible to start the UI relationship with Pomerantz all over again.
But the substance of those issues (and many, many more) is the least of her problem.
The great dilemma will be how best to control and present herself in the first few weeks. There are lots of ways of avoiding taking a stand on issues. She can say she looks to Robillard to run the hospital and College of Medicine and Barta to make decisions about gambling industry partnerships. She can set up committees or task forces to study guns on campus or other issues, and then wait for the issue to go away -- or, when necessary, say she's simply adopting the proposals of those groups. She can say she needs more time to study an issue.
But there's a hazard in over-using those techniques. Ultimately they can leave her open to a perception that she is being weak and not in charge. On the other hand, if she immediately starts proposing new policies, changing directions and making decisions that are clearly hers, for which she takes responsibility, there's a risk that she may get some of them wrong (for want of sufficient networking and input), or be criticized for being too authoritarian and going it alone.
She's undoubtedly already figured this out -- and more. And there's every reason to believe she has the experience, skill and charm to pull it off. But it is going to be interesting to watch.
# # #
July 19, 2007, 6:30, 7:25, 9:30 a.m.
[Below: Third Parties; Wellmark/Pomerantz; UI Grants; Road to Nowhere]
Opposition to Third Parties and Electoral Reforms
The Third Party “Threat”
While the bickering regarding Wellmark's effort to buy a University of Iowa college continues (see links below), the biggest news this morning involves a baby step away from Iowa's reputation as one of the most third-party-hostile states in the nation. Jason Clayworth, "Iowa Voter Registration Forms to Include Third Party Groups," Des Moines Register, July 19, 2007. Editorial, "Letting Us Register for Small Parties Good for Democracy," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 19, 2007, p. A9. The State had to be sued to finally agree to do the decent thing, but at least the case is now behind us.
Professions of support for "democracy" to the contrary notwithstanding, the two major parties have historically opposed voting -- even for their own candidates -- especially by the poor.
True democracy has almost always been resisted by those in power. Most of those said to be the fathers of our democratic system, those who drafted the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, agreed with John Jay that, “Those who own the country, should run it.”
It is a view still widely held today by those in power.
Recall that at the beginning of our nation women could not vote. African-Americans could not vote. White males who did not own land could not vote. And no one aged 18, 19 or 20 could vote.
When I was going to college in the South in the 1950s voters were taxed. We had to pay to go to the polls. It was called a “poll tax.” Many community and business leaders profited politically and economically by discouraging the poor and working poor from voting.
None of the expansions of the franchise was freely given. Each had to be fought for with grassroots people’s movements – from marching in the streets to, in one case, a civil war. For one description of the price paid by some of the women requesting women's right to vote, see Connie, Schultz, "A Short History Lesson on the Privilege of Voting; And You Think It's a Pain to Vote," Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 19, 2004.
But ultimately these expansions of our democracy were won. We’ve yet to go so far as Australia and other countries to encourage voting by taxing those who don’t vote, but at least we no longer tax those who do.
As a result of this expanding electorate, today’s establishment has to be much more inventive in devising ways of holding on to power, including coming up with innovative ways of discouraging the poor from voting.
There isn’t much one can say in favor of the poll tax except for its almost total absence of hypocrisy. It made clear upon its face that its purpose was to significantly discourage, if not prevent, voting by those for whom the expenditure of a dollar or two was a matter calling for some considerable deliberation. Since poverty was disproportionately the lot of southern African-Americans the racist motives of poll tax enthusiasts was also not hidden from view.
Since the repeal of the poll tax, “those who own the country,” to quote John Jay once again, have become somewhat less honest in their efforts to limit the franchise to themselves. They simply oppose any and all proposals that might make it easier for the poor and working class to register and vote: leaving the polls open for 24 hours, in fact any effort to extend the hours for voting; a guaranteed right of leave with pay for purposes of voting, or declaring election day a national holiday; making it possible for any citizen to register new voters and help them to vote absentee; more clerks for shorter voter registration lines; early voting at satellite polls in supermarkets and malls; and registration where drivers licenses are issued (“motor voting”).
Discouraging voters from participating in the affairs of the two major parties is one thing. But it is the prevention of the rise of third parties that is an even more serious matter.
As the 19th Century New York City political Boss William Tweed is credited with having said, “I don’t care who does the electing just so long as I do the nominating.”
So long as there are only two political parties those who control those parties’ purse strings can maintain their control of the nation by continuing to do the nominating.
The opposition to third parties by “those who own the country” is understandable. For it is third parties that have brought the American people most of the political and social progress we enjoy today – much of which has come at the expense of the wealthy. That kind of progress was fought at every turn by those controlling the two major parties, often with the aid of local police and national guard in ways that left demonstrators dead, injured and bleeding.
Ultimately one or the other of the two parties would adopt the proposal of a third party as its own, but only at the eleventh hour when its failure to do so would have seriously harmed the party’s political power and influence.
Third parties are a proud tradition in America -- and, ironically, especially in Iowa's early history.
After the Civil War the Democratic Party came to be controlled by big business and the wealthy. It didn't do much for poor farmers. Disenchanted Democrats organized the People's Party.
By 1912 many Republicans were disgusted with big business control of their party. Those dissidents formed the Progressive Party.
James B. Weaver of Iowa was a third party nominee for president in 1892.
It turns out that most of the progress in this country has been opposed by both of the major parties. It has come about only when third parties have pushed the agenda and picked up enough popular support that they could no longer be ignored.
That's how we got regulation of banks and railroads, a progressive income tax, the eight-hour workday, direct popular election of U.S. senators, workers' compensation, and limitations on child labor. Yes, it is third parties we must thank for the women’s right to vote, antitrust controls over the worst of corporate abuses, the minimum wage, the fact that we’re not all working weekends, safety in the workplace, workers’ right to organize and bargain with employers, safe foods and medicines, social security, civil rights – the list goes on. (See, e.g., the outline notes of Professor Donald R. Shaffer, University of Northern Colorado.)
So you can see why “those who own the country,” and today control both major political parties, would want to do all they can to prevent this kind of agitation and progress.
Opposition to Third Party Electoral Reforms
Both parties, and those who fund them, oppose at every turn any and all reforms that would permit more third party participation. The so-called Presidential Debates Commission is in fact an exclusive club for Democrats and Republicans, who have for the most part successfully prevented the American people from ever seeing third party alternatives to their nominees. They even oppose proposals that would eliminate the threat to them of what they persist in calling “spoilers.”
(Both parties, with their sense of entitlement to exclude all others from the political process, have the chutzpah to characterize anyone with the nerve to think they can also run for public office -- without the major parties’ permission -- as a “spoiler.”)
“Fusion,” “proportional representation,” and “instant runoff” are just some of those proposals for electoral reform.
Fusion is a system that permits a third party to endorse, as its candidate, the nominee of another party, usually one of the two major parties. New York has this system. Without it President Reagan would not have beaten Jimmy Carter in New York. Carter, as a Democrat, had more votes than Reagan got as a Republican. So how did Reagan carry the state? The Conservative Party in New York had also nominated Reagan. And the votes of the Conservative Party members, when added to the votes of the Republicans, gave Reagan New York.
(Why would a third party want to do this? Because in some states in order to retain legal status as a “party,” with a right to appear on election ballots, it is necessary to receive a certain number, or percentage, of votes in the last election. (This is what the morning news reports has been changed in Iowa. Of course it took a long-dragged-out lawsuit against the State of Iowa by the ACLU to get it -- little as it is.) By nominating the major party candidate that comes closest to the positions of the third party’s members it can attract more votes for “its” candidate than by nominating an (often unknown) member of their own party.)
Proportional representation can take many forms in this country and around the world. But, as the name suggests, it gets rid of the “winner takes all” system. It insures that some proportion of, say, the members of a legislative body will represent minority parties.
With instant runoff the Democrats would have carried Florida in 2000.
Assume it is true, as diehard Democrats contend, that all of Ralph Nader’s voters would have, but for his candidacy, voted for Al Gore. Under the present system they had to choose. Given only one choice, their choice was Nader. With instant runoff they could have voted for both; Ralph Nader as their first choice, and Al Gore as their second choice. When their first choice didn’t win their Nader votes would have been recalculated, using their second choice votes. Al Gore would have won.
For more on democratic, innovative, alternative voting systems see, e.g., the resources of the Center for Voting and Democracy.
(In fact, Florida exit polls indicated that 25% of Nader’s supporters were Republicans, and 37% said that, but for his being on the ballot they wouldn’t have voted at all. Over 250,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush, multiples more than the 37,000 Democrats (38% of 97,000 total Nader votes) who voted for Nader. Had the corporate-oriented Democratic Leadership Council and its candidate appealed to, and been able to hold, its own party members Gore would have won in a walk. These numbers square with CNN’s exit polling that Nader’s voters included 2% of those registered as Democrats, 1% of those registered as Republicans, and 6% of those designating themselves as independents. But I don't rely on these numbers for a description of "instant runoff" because taking the Democrats false assertions as fact makes a stronger case for the procedure. Whichever numbers are used, there is simply no rational reason for the Democratic party to fight these third party proposals since, often as not, they would enable the Party to win elections it would otherwise lose. Notwithstanding that reality, it opposes them anyway -- on principle, I guess.)
So what’s a voter to do? One of the things you can do is to work for innovative, more democratic, voting systems that increase the choices of voters, enable third parties, and often as not help the major parties as well.
Iowa has now -- though it had to be sued to do it -- taken one small baby step in that direction. Hopefully, it is but the beginning of a walk across the state to a third-party-friendly, innovative, approach to politics and elections of which all Iowans could be proud.
# # #
"And the beating goes on . . ."
Erin Jordan, "Oust Dean for Rejection of Gift Pomerantz Says," Des Moines Register, July 19, 2007.
It's sad.
Marvin Pomerantz, a former President of the Iowa Board of Regents, influential businessman, and exceedingly generous benefactor of the University of Iowa as well as many other Iowa institutions, is continuing to behave in ways that are eroding the good name he has built up over the years.
* He was a major player in the idea of naming the UI College of Public Health the "Blue Cross Blue Shield Wellmark College of Public Health" in exchange for a take-it-or-leave-it purchase price of $15 million. (Naming colleges for corporations is virtually unprecedented at American universities, and certainly at the University of Iowa.)
* The "wink-and-nod" procedure in which he was involved was so lacking in transparency and participation by the College's -- and University's and Regents' and Iowa's -- stakeholders as to produce a lengthy analysis of its impropriety by the Governor's chief lawyer.
* When the College's faculty wished to discuss alternatives -- even some that would have involved including "Wellmark" in the College's name -- Pomerantz (and Wellmark CEO Forsyth) in a revealing display of petulance and sense of entitlement said "our way or the highway" and insisted the "gift" was withdrawn.
* When negotiations seemed to open up the possibility of reconsideration after the arrival of the new UI President, Sally Mason, some 10 days from now on August 1, Pomerantz said the University couldn't have that much time. As Erin Jordan reports this morning, "Pomerantz said the gift offer may expire before the semester begins. 'I don't think it will be out there until the fall,' he said Wednesday." (I believe he earlier insisted it should be resolved before President Mason arrives.)
Now his most recent petulant outburst involves a series of ad hominem attacks on the College's Dean Jim Merchant:
"We need to pay him off and get him out of there," Pomerantz said of Jim Merchant, . . ..
"I think the new president will take care of the dean. He needs to go," Pomerantz said Wednesday.
. . .
"He's saying all kinds of crazy things," Pomerantz said Wednesday "It simply isn't true."
Not only is Pomerantz' behavior unseemly and unbecoming someone of his stature, in this case he's really picked the wrong guy for an ad hominem attack. Erin Jordan's story continues,
Faculty members said his record as dean of the fledgling college speaks for itself.
"In a few short years, he's taken a department in the College of Medicine and made it into a college," said Charles Lynch, a U of I epidemiology professor and director of the State Health Registry of Iowa. "He's gotten full accreditation, and he's increased the number of faculty."
The College of Public Health's faculty, staff and graduate students generated $39.7 million in grants and contracts in the fiscal year that ended June 30, which is about 10 percent of the U of I's total $382.2 million in external funding.
John Finnegan Jr., dean of the University of Minnesota's School of Public Health, said Pomerantz's comments about Merchant are "over the top."
"Mr. Pomerantz can disagree with Dr. Merchant all he wants, but trashing Dean Merchant is just ridiculous," Finnegan said Wednesday.
Merchant "is one of the most respected deans of the 40 schools of public health in this country."
Moreover, I wasn't there but based on my past experiences with Jim Merchant it would be my guess that, ironically, he was probably one of the coolest heads caught in the middle of all this, trying to work out something to Pomerantz' satisfaction.
For Marvin Pomerantz' own sake -- not to mention that of the University -- someone close enough to him to "speak truth to power" should let him know the harm he is doing to himself.
# # #
Meanwhile . . .
Erin Jordan, "Grants to U of I, UNI increase from 2006; The USDA's withdrawal of several grant proposals from bills hurt Iowa State," Des Moines Register, July 19, 2007.
# # #
Iowa's "Road to Nowhere"
In an effort to outdo the State of Alaska -- which boasts its "bridge to nowhere" -- the Iowa Transportation Commission has set aside $3 million for an Iowa "road to nowhere" -- namely the indoor rain forest that doesn't exist, in Pella or anywhere else.
So Iowans will be able to drive there, even though "there is no there there" at the nonexistent "Earthpark." (Don't you miss State29? I do. Try to imagine what he would have done with this one.)
Darwin Danielson, "DOT Allocates Money for Roads to 'Earthpark,'" Radio Iowa, July 18, 2007.
# # #
