. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Showing posts with label campaign finance reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign finance reform. Show all posts
Nicholas Johnson Des Moines Register March 24, 2010, p. 15A
Why does the FCC think America needs its newly-announced "National Broadband Plan" (NBP)? Why are Iowa cities scrambling to be Google's choice for installation of superfast broadband?
"Broadband" is how we do, or soon will, connect to the Internet. For most Iowans that means Mediacom or Qwest. Federal and Iowa officials think we're suffering by lagging the world in broadband speed. They want to increase it by as much as 100-fold.
I neither have, nor represent anyone who has, a financial interest in these issues; just an interest in what the NBP means for Iowans in general and you in particular.
Obviously, what it took the FCC 376 pages to say - with the help of eight small-print pages of glossary and "common abbreviations" - can't be fully explained in a 600-word column. (If you'd like my fuller take, see "Broadband Challenge," at www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/BroadbandChallenge.doc.)
Having spent seven years as an FCC commissioner writing what were mostly critical, dissenting opinions, I want to complement the FCC this time. The NBP is one of the agency's largest, boldest efforts ever. There is much in it that mirrors my own recommendations, such as promotion of broadband for poor families and underserved rural areas, a super-fast access point in each community, and better informed consumers.
On the other hand, until voters insist on public financing of campaigns, big money will continue to dictate big policy. Congress turns the health-care problem over to those who created it, with a health-insurance-company subsidy program. Instead of meaningful consumer protection, it selects Treasury Department secretaries from Goldman Sachs and tells Wall Street to regulate itself.
As a result, the NBP offers broadband consumers no hope of protection from price-gouging by limited-competition phone and cable companies earning upwards of 80 percent profit margins. The industries' campaign contributions had already eliminated local, state and federal regulation.
The FCC's not even requiring them to provide open access to their competitors - the one requirement that explains how Korea and other countries sprint ahead of the United States with their near-universal access, dramatically faster speeds and cheaper rates.
Broadband is a classic multiple-variable challenge. The speed and varieties of computer chips, computers, and phones; the demands of the millions of new applications; alternative distribution technologies (phone, cable, wireless; optic fiber and coaxial) - and broadband speeds - must ratchet upward together.
There may be questions about who needs how much broadband speed, where, and by when. But it seems clear Internet access will have an increasing influence in Iowans' lives. The FCC focuses on seven areas: economic opportunity, education, health care, energy and environment, government performance, civic engagement, and public safety. There's more: 3 billion downloads of the 134,000 iPhone apps for that device alone.
Iowa's governor and legislators are aware of the challenge and opportunity expanded and extended broadband offers our citizens. There will soon be more to say about their planning process (in which I participated). Today's Internet is no less significant to our era than railroads were to the 19th century, AT&T to the early 20th, and the interstate highways to the late 20th. Each of us can benefit from learning more about it.
How much speed do you need for your uses? What are you actually getting compared to what you were promised? (What does "up to" mean?) Is there a cheaper alternative? Does your library offer free access? What additional uses might improve your family life, increase your business' profits, deliver your health care more efficiently, let you earn a degree (or run a business) from home, or make your neighborhood safer?
The column has produced some commentary, both by way of emails and as posted to the Register's online site.
A Mr. Jerry Viers emailed me this afternoon:
Mr. Johnson,
Thank you for the insightful article I just read in the DM Register. It really hit home with me. Ten years ago I moved to the country and for my sin, learned that high speed internet was not available here. I need high speed for my business and had to travel to my daughter's house to use her connections. The use of dial up connections was like not having internet at all.
I have [my company] as a phone provider and their efforts for providing rural customers with high speed have been laughable. In their advertisements, they proclaim that virtually all their customers have high speed access. When I ask them to explain this, they provide me with the phone number to a satellite provider. That act makes me accessible to high speed, according to them. High speed (DSL) is offered by them in populated areas. They have been promising me that high speed will be in my area in a few months. They have been saying this for about eight years now.
Some other tidbits about [my company];
• Their CEO is the third highest paid person in the State of Iowa. • Their phone "service" is equivalent to a Dixie cup on a string. • They do not wish to speak with you about these issues, save for a poor uninformed customer service rep. • Their rates have doubled in the last 10 years.
And lastly, they have recently been sold to a national company that I hope is more tech savvy and customer friendly.
Also, I have conducted some research on the above mentioned satellite providers; they are slow and dependent on weather conditions, expensive and are not recommended by the Consumers Union.
With the help of [another company] I now am able to connect via cell phone signals with a device that attaches to my computer. I get fair speed from it. Ten time faster than dial up, but still not DSL.
In answer to your question; I believe that providing internet to rural areas is tantamount to the rural electrification of the 1930's. The answer is to run fiber optic lines to all areas.
I thought this real life description of Iowans' broadband frustrations worth sharing with others, as support for what I hope will be our State's equivalent to the FCC's National Broadband Plan.
Here are some of the comments posted to the Register's Web page for the column:
2002retired wrote: As a result, the NBP offers broadband consumers no hope of protection from price-gouging by limited-competition phone and cable companies earning upwards of 80 percent profit margins. The industries' campaign contributions had already eliminated local, state and federal regulation.
Must be talking about all that regulation that was stopping competition and not letting capitalism work for us. Good thing we got rid of that government socialist program and let Americans enjoy the fruits of unregulated capitalism. 3/24/2010 9:55:06 AM
adelguy wrote: Let me get this straight. The Federal Government decides everyone in America has a "right" to broadband internet, no matter what the cost is. So if you live in a city that has at least two options (phone and cable companies) you will now get to pay for those who live in rural areas that don't have cable or DSL. Apparently it never crossed the minds of the big thinkers in D.C. that broadband is available via satellite and cellular companies plus a few other over-the-air broadband carriers like Prairie i-Net. Are rural areas blocked by trees so they can't get a clear view of the sky for satellite, or live too far away from any cell tower to get that reception either? Yes, those two options cost more than cable or DSL, but I would bet there's enough money left from rural residents not having to pay city property taxes to more than offset that difference. 3/24/2010 10:59:18 AM
ImSpeakingMyMindInIowa wrote: Replying to adelguy:
Replying to adelguy:
.....Apparently it never crossed the minds of the big thinkers in D.C. that broadband is available via satellite and cellular companies plus a few other over-the-air broadband carriers like Prairie i-Net. Are rural areas blocked by trees so they can't get a clear view of the sky for satellite, or live too far away from any cell tower to get that reception either? Yes, those two options cost more than cable or DSL, but I would bet there's enough money left from rural residents not having to pay city property taxes to more than offset that difference.
Prairie i-Net, LOL, I couldn't get rid of them fast enough, what joke. As far as all current over the air ISPs, none of them meet the qualifications of being broadband. They just like to call themselves that for sales because they are faster than dial-up, oh boy! They only get away with it because there is no legal definition of broadband which the FED proposal changes. 3/24/2010 5:01:33 PM
ImSpeakingMyMindInIowa Replying to adelguy:
......So if you live in a city that has at least two options (phone and cable companies) you will now get to pay for those who live in rural areas that don't have cable or DSL. .........
You mean like the rural areas have subsided your city electricity for what now, 80 years? Its easy to anticipate a program setup up like the REC did for electricity, where the government subsidizes the private companies on capital expenses at a super low interest rate to get it to all rural users. Who then turn out to be the major market over the city folk in its use. Just like with electricity, interesting to say the least.
3/24/2010 5:10:28 PM
ElsaA wrote:
Living in my rural area means muddy gravel roads, slower fire and ambulance response times, and slow crappy Internet access. If I decide I don't like those things, I have the option of moving into a city. So be it.
I did get annoyed when I read that a sizeable amount of previous federal money allocated for broadband access ended up going to suburban millionaire McMansions in Texas to upgrade their already-reasonably-fast Internet speeds. Either spend the money better than that or don't allocate it, period. 3/25/2010 10:09:11 AM
cubreporter wrote:
Electric Coops already supply burglar alarm and similar services in many states. Let them step forward with computer connections. 3/25/2010 10:42:48 AM
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Controlling the Broadband-Its (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
The National Broadband Plan remains my focus this morning.
That's a dramatic declaration given local news. UNI just beat the nation's top-ranked Kansas basketball team. And I'm even more excited about the UI girls' basketball team -- some of the most accomplished athletes I've ever seen in any sport -- beating Rutgers. [Why? Here's insight: Patty Fisher, "Rooting for the women,"San Jose Mercury News, March 22, 2010.] Meanwhile, the local school board is trying to figure out what it's looking for in a new superintendent -- apparently it's some sort of combination of the best of the qualities of Thomas Jefferson, Jesus and The Music Man. (As is often the case with this board, it's going about it backwards. Its first question should be what kind of a board the board is looking for, and prepared to offer, its new superintendent -- in short, defining its governance model. Thus, the number one quality I'd be looking for is a superintendent who refuses to be considered for the position until the board takes care of this "Job One.")
Oh, and the House is going to be voting on the health care bill tonight.
So when the FCC's National Broadband Plan (NBP) wins out over that kind of competition for the subject of the Monday morning blog entry, it gives you some sense of how significant I think those broadband issues are -- for the planet, the nation, and specifically for our state of Iowa.
So while the U.S. may be starting off a few years behind, I think it's commendable that the Congress and FCC have now taken the leadership that they have.
What the NBP fails to address, however, is what has been the keystone to the success of other countries in providing a broadband service that is more extensive, much faster, and much cheaper, than what the U.S. now has or is likely to have in the future. The governments of countries that are now way out ahead of us have, among other things, insisted that those who own and control the major broadband backbones must provide non-discriminatory, reasonably priced access to any and all of their current and potential competitors. The resulting competition among consumers' providers is what has encouraged service to more homes and businesses, at faster speeds, and lower prices -- as well as providing a welcoming platform for those entrepreneurs with exciting and innovative smart phone Internet access to imaginative new apps.
This failure has been the cause of much concern by a number of public interest groups, among them FreePress.net, which has gone so far at to characterize the NBP as the "Internet Rip-Off."
FreePress sent me an email, suggesting I write the FCC Chair, Julius Genachowski, along with some suggested text.
I don't usually act on the basis of such emails, but on this occasion I decided to -- after deleting the suggested text.
Chairman Genachowski:
This is a plea for you to do whatever you feel you can to provide SOMETHING to control currently unrestrained broadband prices.
I understand the power the largest players have, as a result of their campaign contributions, over the members of Congress who, in turn, have some meaningful controls over you. It would be unfair to hold you singularly responsible for the consequences of Congress' failure to enact meaningful public financing of elections.
But the reality is that most Iowans have a choice of but two potential suppliers: Qwest and Mediacom. If they want more than 1.5 mbps, in most areas of the state that means their only choice is Mediacom.
Notwithstanding profit margins upwards of 80%, there is no provision for local, state, or federal cost-related price regulation.
As I understand it, you are not going to require open access for competitors -- the primary driving force in, for example, Korea's near-universal coverage, speeds well in excess of ours, and rates a fraction of ours.
Your staff has done such a great job with the NBP in so many other ways, I really hate to see you taking heat for this rather embarrassing elephantine-sized hole in the Plan.
Please do something to control what may well end up being the single greatest hurdle to accomplishing the goals you have set forth.
Respectfully,
Nicholas Johnson FCC, 1966-73
I'm not expecting a detailed and responsive reply anytime soon, but I do hope someone at my old agency will at least read, and count in some category, my concerns.
Unless someone in Congress is willing to take the leadership on this, and take on the opposition (and exceedingly generous campaign contributions) from the powers of telecom, the NBP may well end up becoming little more than a dusty dream on the shelves (and in the hard drives) of the FCC.
And that would be America's real loss in the global competition we will continue to confront over the decades to come.
Note: Over 59,000,000 hits return from a Google search on “broadband.” This list of references is obviously but an illustrative handful.
Web sites
Broadband.gov (an FCC site, http://broadband.gov; see especially dropdown menu, About Broadband, http://broadband.gov/about_broadband.html, for basic broadband overview)
The Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program, http://www.aspeninstitute.org/policy-work/communications-society
Berkman Center for Internet & Society, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/
Center for Digital Democracy, http://www.democraticmedia.org (click on “Current Projects,” http://www.democraticmedia.org/current_projects)
Consumer Federation of America, http://www.consumerfed.org/ (see especially dropdown menu, Communications/Internet http://www.consumerfed.org/communications/internet.asp, for testimony and other materials)
Freepress, http://www.freepress.net (see especially dropdown menu Policy Updates/Internet/“Internet Policy,” http://www.freepress.net/policy/internet, for links to numerous articles and filings from freepress and others)
Media Access Project, http://www.mediaaccess.org/ (click on Issues/Broadband/Open Access, http://www.mediaaccess.org/issues/open-access/)
Public Knowledge, http://www.publicknowledge.org (see especially dropdown “Issues,” http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues, scroll down to, and click on links to broadband-related topics)
Speed Matters (CWA), http://www.speedmatters.org
Stanford Center for Internet and Society, http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/
TeleTruth (“Alliance for Customers’ Telecommunications & Broadband Rights”), http://www.teletruth.org/
Reports and Articles
FCC, “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” March 16, 2010, http://download.broadband.gov/plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf
Berkman, “Next Generation Connectivity: A Review of Broadband Internet Transitions and Policy from Around the World (Final Report),” The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, October 2009 (draft), February 16, 2010 (Final Report), http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/broadband/
John B. Horrigan, “Broadband Adoption and Use in America,” OBI Working Paper Series Number 1, FCC, February 2010, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296442A1.pdf
“Broadband Adoption in Low-Income Communities,” Social Science Research Council (Dharma Dailey, Amelia Bryne, Alison Powell, Joe Karaganis, and Jaewon Chung), March 2010, http://mainstreetproject.org/tools/archives/32010---broadband-adoption-in-low-income.attachment/attachment/BroadbandAdoptionInLowIncomeCommunities.pdf
The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, "The Internet Economy 25 Years After .Com: Transforming Commerce & Life," March 2010 (Robert D. Atkinson, Stephen J. Ezell, Scott M. Andes, Daniel D. Castro, and Richard Bennett), http://www.itif.org/files/2010-25-years.pdf
“Scenarios for a National Broadband Policy,” Report of the 24th Annual Aspen Institute Conference on Communications Policy, The Aspen Institute, Communications and Society Program (2010; David Bollier, Rapporteur), http://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/scenarios-national-broadband-policy
Networking the Green Economy: How Broadband and Related Technologies Can Build a Green Economic Future, March 2010 (Progressive States Network; Communications Workers of America; Sierra Club; BlueGreen Alliance), http://cwa.3cdn.net/bd26ffc1c231b25060_xxm6b6v73.pdf
Karl Bode, “FCC Afraid to Tackle Open Access; Broadband Plan Architect Believes There’s ‘No Appetite’ For It. Wait, What?” Broadband/DSL Reports, March 2, 2010, http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/FCC-Afraid-To-Tackle-Open-Access-107139
Laurence Cruz, “Cisco Puts an Internet Router in Space; In a Move that Could Revolutionize Satellite Communications, Cisco Extends the Internet Into Space for Testing by the U.S. Government and Businesses,” Cisco, January 19, 2010, http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2010/ts_011910.html
Doris J. Kelley, “A Study of the Economic and Community Benefits of Cedar Falls, Iowa’s, Municipal Telecommunications Network,” Black & Veatch, October 2, 2003, updated July 6, 2004, http://www.baller.com/pdfs/cedarfalls_white_paper.pdf
freepress, “Changing Media: Public Interest Policies for the Digital Age,” May 2009, 289 pp., http://www.freepress.net/files/changing_media.pdf (see especially Part I: The Internet, chapters 1-6)
Andy Opsahl, “Is the Federal Government’s Defined Speed for Broadband Too Slow?” Government Technology, January 8, 2010, http://www.govtech.com/gt/736478?topic=117699
“Broadband access gap remains large; Commerce Department report points to 40 percent of Americans who lack high-speed internet access,” eSchool News, February 17, 2010, http://www.eschoolnews.com/2010/02/17/broadband-access-gap-remains-large/ _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
The Prior Post: See "Summertime Blogging," May 23, 2009, for a list by topics of links to numerous entries March-May 2009, and an explanation of the summer schedule.
For a start on the currently hot School Board efforts at elementary school boundaries, the demolition of Roosevelt, and a new high school, see links contained within, and text of, "School Boundaries," March 30, 2009.
Leave No Congressman Behind. My mother used to tell my baby sitter, "Go find Nicky, see what he's doing, and tell him to stop it."
Is that how you feel about your congressman? You have no idea what he's up to, but you're sure it's no good. Are you part of that "Half of all voters (50%) [who] say the legislature [Congress] has not passed anything to significantly improve life in America?" The 33% who "say most members of Congress are corrupt"? Or the 87% of voters unaffiliated with either party who refuse to join the 13% of their number who "give the legislature positive ratings"? (And these are "Congress' Highest Ratings in Two Years"!) "Congressional Performance," Rasmussen Reports, May 29, 2009.
Think there is nothing we can do about it? Think again.
Just as we can look to the example set by all the largest, most successful industrialized nations to find the answer to our health care crisis (an answer Congress is bribed (campaign contributions) to reject: universal, single-payer), so we can look to one of the world's leading examples of how to manage elected officials. Can you guess which country I'm talking about?
Meanwhile, the Brits are taking things into their own hands over the recent revelations that MPs may have been abusing their expense accounts -- a story broken, and driven, by London's Daily Telegraph. Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at Oxford University and author of the just-published The New British Constitution, writes in The Guardian's series on "The New Politics" of the widespread "anger against the abuse of expenses" he calls a "scandal." He, and many others -- including some MPs themselves -- believe strong medicine is in order. As he says, "The expenses scandal has shown how remote many MPs have become from the electorate. Even without it, the case for a second era of constitutional reform would be strong. With it, the case is overwhelming." Vernon Bogdanor, "Parliamentary Reform: We Must Go Beyond a New Constitution,"The Guardian, May 26, 2009. (The Guardian devotes an entire Web site to the charges, resignations and reforms: "MP's Expenses,"The Guardian.)
So what were these awful things the MPs were doing? Were they taking millions in campaign contributions from special interests and then returning the favor with billions -- or even trillions these days -- of taxpayer dollars, the way our elected officials do? No. Were they accepting personal gifts (like Alaska Senator Ted Stevens' home improvements, or Senator Chris Dodd's "special" mortgage rates)? No. Were they putting in for expenses they never incurred? No (with perhaps one exception).
Our elected officials have taxpayer-funded expense accounts that are multiples of those available to the Brits. But one item the MPs do get is help with their second home requirements, which can be very expensive in London. The problem was that they were stretching a bit, including items as to which their constituents are looking askance and would rarely come up for a Congressman. Like what? Like reimbursement for having a moat cleaned out.
It kind of puts "the best Congress money can buy" into perspective, doesn't it? The Brits are near-rioting over a moat cleaning, and we are calmly accepting the money changers in the temple of government, voting to require us to go on paying health insurance premiums, and giving our grandchildren a multi-trillion dollar debt for what Congress and two administrations have passed along to Wall Street.
On balance, I'd rather pay to have a moat cleaned out that to be left with the sensation that I'm being cleaned out.
Transportation Innovation. Managing our errant members of congress is not the only thing we have to learn from our global neighbors abroad. Our gasoline mileage goals are "27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 24 miles per gallon for light trucks" (which constitute over half the vehicles manufactured). Micheline Maynard, "Obama Criticizes Automakers on Fuel Economy,"New York Times, May 8, 2009.
Talk about "thinking small" -- by continuing to manufacture big. We need something more than these baby steps.
By contrast, consider Ben Mack, "Ford’s ECOnetic Fiesta Gets 65 MPG. You Can’t Have One," Autotopia, Wired, February 10, 2009 ("The ECOnetic Fiesta that Ford sells in Europe is a sporty little five-passenger hatchback that gets 65 mpg and emits less CO2 than a Toyota Prius. It is the greenest family car sold in Britain and just the thing to boost Ford’s sales - and image - at home. But Ford has no plans to bring it to America for one simple, stupid, reason. It’s a diesel. . . . European customers . . . snapped up more than 42,000 of them since the car’s debut last fall. But we can only look on with envy.").
We could have 65 mpg cars -- Ford cars -- instead of 24 mpg trucks and vans (with no additional invention whatsoever), and they're not going to be available to us because they're diesel?! And this is America's, and the Obama Administration's, way of freeing us from dependence on imported foreign oil? This is the most ingenuity Americans can muster? Whatever happened to "the difficult we'll do right now, the impossible may take a little longer." Come on, America!
Moreover, if we continue to insist on everyone operating their own transportation system -- rather than investing in railroads -- and reject the health effects and savings to the environment and our pocketbooks from bicycling, we also have the option of fueling our cars with air. With air?! That's right.
It uses the same kind of air compressor you now use at the filing station to improve your gas mileage by putting more air in your tires; and the same compression principles that enable the pistons in your engine to power your gas-fueled car. Except you carry the compressor on board, and you don't mix the air with gas.
Short-sighted engineers point out that with the electricity it takes to compress the air you could drive further with an electric car. But what that analysis fails to consider are:
o the initial cost of all those batteries in an electric car (embedded in the car's price).
o the total monthly cost of an electric car when the initial cost is amortized over its life (the Chevy Volt sells for $40,000; the Zero Pollution Motors (ZPM) air car is $18,000).
o the inefficiency, the energy consumed, in just moving an electric car's heavy set of batteries everywhere the car goes.
o the energy it takes to build and ship those heavy batteries to auto manufacturers (or retailers, as replacements).
o at some point all those electric car's batteries' must be replaced, at a significant replacement cost.
o the recycling, disposal and landfill problems, costs, and environmental impact that are caused whenever the electric car owner does have to replace batteries (or ultimately the car is junked).
o and of course, if the electric is a hybrid it will continue to require gas, oil and antifreeze.
(Thanks to Gregory Johnson for some of these points.) I'm not an engineer, don't have the numbers I'd need if I was, and haven't run them. It may be these additional costs for an electric car are more than offset by some other additional costs for the air car.
Finally, there's no magic, one-option solution (with the possible exception of the creation of a massive passenger train network, similar to those available in Europe or Japan). Obviously, compressed air cars also have their drawbacks. And even at 65 mpg Ford's answer is still polluting the atmosphere, just less.
All I'm arguing is that there are solutions. Options are available to us -- even if air cars and 65 mpg Fords prove not to be among them.
We have a lot to learn from the countries, cities, institutions and individuals living all around the world before we reject universal, single-payer healthcare, before we start a war with North Korea, continue to kick campaign finance reform down the road, or demand no more than the baby steps the auto and oil special interests are willing to walk with us toward true transportation (and environmental) reform. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
I really doubt that there will be many of Senator Barack Obama's supporters who will stay home, let alone vote for Senator John McCain, because of Obama's recent flip-flops on major issues. And apparently he's counting on that as well since he's just left $85 million of public money on the table.
But can he now continue to count on his supporters' continued financial support, and enthusiastic campaigning, between now and November? That has become more problematical.
As anecdotal evidence, a friend has shared with me an email she received from an Obama supporter in California that reported,
"Barack Obama owes me $600.43. I sent him my [federal government economic] stimulus rebate with the proviso that if he opted out of public finance he should return my contribution. I enclosed a self-addressed envelope with a 43 cent stamp attached."
Another friend who has been a nearly monthly contributor to Obama tells me she swears she's not sending him another dime -- as much because of Obama's switch on FISA as because of his switch on public finance.
At least a part of what brought out Obama's crowds of thousands, the new voters and contributors, and the enthusiasm of the young, was the Robert Kennedy-esque suggestion (some would say "promise") of a new kind of politics, "change we can believe in," the practical implementation of a bottom-up-community-organizing approach to national politics, a small-d democratic replacement for the "to-get-along-go-along" expediency, campaign-contributor-lobbyist-sub-government control, compromise-anything-and-everything-to-win, special privilege, and corporate welfare of which we've all grown cynical and disgusted. The story is told of Louisiana Governor Earl K. Long that when asked by a staffer what he could tell some Baton Rouge constituents who had come to the governor's office to claim some of his campaign promises, he replied, "Tell them I lied."
Had Senator Obama presented himself as "just another conventional politician" he, too, could try telling his supporters that he lied, knowing that while they might be disappointed they could certainly not claim to be surprised.
But he has marketed himself as something more than that, something better than a conventional politician or manipulative "Pied Piper." So his every change in position, his every abandoned campaign promise, further alienates the supporters who are both disappointed and understandably surprised -- and when his behavior is repeated, ultimately discouraged, disaffected, distant and depressed.
After all, they were promised "Change We Can Believe In." In fact, you can still buy a fan with that message on it from the Obama "store" for $3.00. But the number of "fans" "buying" that slogan may be declining.
Because now, in the course of two or three days, Senator Obama's enthusiastic supporters are discovering that what he has been talking about is not "change we can believe in." We needn't characterize it with the "L" word; let's just say he "misspoke" when he pledged to use public financing to fund his campaign; when he said he opposed spying on Americans and granting immunity to the telephone companies which did so illegally; when he said he would eliminate taxes for the working poor and seniors earning under $50,000; when he said he opposed NAFTA.
If you hadn't noticed, there are a lot of other days between now and November 4. So stay tuned. Remain attentive.
And if you have been, or are still, an Obama supporter you might want to let him know how you feel about changes in the positions you thought you and he were supporting, positions that were important to you. Don't let him take your vote for granted. You know he's going to hear from the lobbyists and major campaign contributors -- regardless of what he says -- and he also needs to hear from you to keep it all in balance and remember who got him to where he is. You can email him here.
Meanwhile, here are brief excerpts from the media's reports regarding these four changes in which his supporters can no longer believe, plus excerpts from a David Brooks column, and my concluding thoughts along with a video of President Bush.
Public Financing of Campaigns
Sen. Barack Obama reversed his pledge to seek public financing in the general election yesterday, a move that drew criticism from adversaries and allies alike but could provide him with a significant spending advantage over Republican rival John McCain. . . .
"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama said in a video message to supporters, circulated yesterday morning by his campaign. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." . . .
In the hours after the announcement, McCain indicated he would consider forgoing public financing as well, but he later indicated that he will opt into the system. "We will take public financing," he said on the Straight Talk Express bus. Asked why, he said simply, "Because we decided to take public financing."
But earlier in the day the senator from Arizona lashed out at Obama. "This is a big, big deal," McCain told reporters . . .. "He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people." . . .
Yesterday, government watchdog groups expressed disappointment with Obama's move. Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook called $85 million "plenty of money" and warned that private funding -- even in the mostly small sums that Obama relies on -- "comes with the expectations of special access or favors." . . .
"Senator Obama knew the circumstances surrounding the presidential general election when he made his public pledge to use the system," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a co-sponsor of the [campaign finance reform] bill, called Obama's decision "a mistake" but added: "I look forward to working on this and a wide range of other reform issues with him when he becomes president." . . .
Although campaign finance issues rank low on lists of voter concerns, the McCain team pounced on Obama's move, along with his rejection of the 10 town hall meetings that McCain has proposed, as evidence that his claim to represent a "new politics" is empty rhetoric. The campaign circulated Obama quotes praising public financing and accused him of breaking his pledge to negotiate the issue with the GOP nominee. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers dismissed an account by Obama aides of recent talks between the two camps on the issue, saying it was "flat-out false."
"He's broken his word," said Charles R. Black Jr., a top McCain adviser. "He said he believes in the new politics; to me it sounds like the old politics. If you're going to change politics in America, that's a step backward." . . .
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.
In his most substantive break with the Democratic Party's base since becoming the presumptive nominee, Obama declared he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote, likely next week, despite misgivings about legal provisions for telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program of suspected terrorists.
In so doing, Obama sought to walk the fine political line between GOP accusations that he is weak on foreign policy -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called passing the legislation a "vital national security matter" -- and alienating his base.
"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program," Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129.
This marks something of a reversal of Obama's position from an earlier version of the bill, which was approved by the Senate Feb. 12, when Obama was locked in a fight for the Democratic nomination with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
Obama missed the February vote on that FISA bill as he campaigned in the "Potomac Primaries," but issued a statement that day declaring "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."
Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) continue to oppose the new legislation, as does Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). All Obama backers in the primary, those senior lawmakers contend that the new version of the FISA law -- crafted after four months of intense negotiations between White House aides and congressional leaders -- provides insufficient court review of the pending 40 lawsuits against the telecommunications companies alleging privacy invasion for their participation in a warrantless wiretapping program after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. . . .
On the presidential campaign trail, Democrat Barack Obama promises to "completely eliminate" income taxes for millions of Americans, from low-income working families to senior citizens who earn less than $50,000 a year. . . .
To which the folks who monitor the nation's financial situation can only say: Good luck. Because, back in Washington, tax collections are slowing, the budget deficit is rising, and the national debt is approaching $10 trillion. Whoever wins the White House this fall, fiscal experts say, is likely to have a tough time enacting expensive new initiatives, be they tax cuts or health care reform. . . .
Meanwhile, the first baby boomers started receiving Social Security checks in January. Without major policy changes, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to devour half of all federal spending by 2050. But the more immediate problem is the depletion of excess cash in the Social Security trust fund, which has been used for years to cover a portion of the annual budget deficit. Government economists predict that the Social Security surplus will start shrinking in 2011 and dry up completely by the end of the next decade, exposing government-wide budget deficits of a magnitude not seen since Bush's first term.
In a new paper titled "Facing the Music: The Fiscal Outlook at the End of the Bush Administration," University of California at Berkeley economist Alan Auerbach and two co-authors from the Brookings Institution conclude that, if spending grows at historic rates, simply keeping the Bush tax cuts and halting the spread of the AMT [alternative minimum tax] would drive the budget deficit to $481 billion by the end of the next president's first term, or 2.7 percent of the economy. Subtract the cash borrowed from Social Security and other retirement funds, and it would be $796 billion, or 4.4 percent of GDP.
"It's a train wreck," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), a member of the House Budget Committee. "The government is making promises to people right now it knows it can't keep. And you have some candidates piling more promises on top, which are clearly unfulfillable."
Former House Budget Committee chairman Leon Panetta, who served as President Bill Clinton's first budget director, said the financial situation is "much worse" than it was in 1993, when Clinton was forced to abandon promises of a middle-class tax cut before he took office. Instead, Clinton wound up devoting his first State of the Union address to a plan that aimed to tame rising deficits with one of the largest tax hikes in history.
"It's worse because there are a huge number of crises out there that are going to confront the new president," Panetta said, . . .. The likelihood is that it's going to get worse. And the fundamental problem has been that there's very little willpower by Republicans or Democrats to confront the issue." . . .
Obama has not made balanced budgets a priority. Instead, he promises numerous tax cuts likely to make the situation worse, including subsidies for education, child care, homeownership, "savers" and people who work. Obama also vows to extend the Bush tax cuts for families who earn less than $250,000 a year. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of Brookings and the Urban Institute, his tax plans would deprive the Treasury of nearly $900 billion in his first term, and increase the national debt by $3.3 trillion by 2018. . . .
The analysis also excludes a possible reduction in corporate tax rates, which Obama first mentioned in an interview this week with the Wall Street Journal. . . .
"They're promising the world with ways to pay for it that are really suspect," Bob Williams, one of the authors of the Tax Policy Center study, said . . ..
OTTAWA — American presidential hopeful Barack Obama appears to have moderated his opposition to NAFTA just ahead of Republican rival John McCain’s extraordinary visit to Canada to praise the trade pact.
Obama, who said in March he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement if he’s elected, said he might have gone too far.
"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," the Democratic nominee told Fortune magazine in an interview.
Were his attacks on NAFTA a product of that brand of campaign posturing?
"Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself," he answered.
The admission was published shortly before McCain was expected to pour unvarnished praise on NAFTA, drawing a clear distinction between America’s two combatants for the White House. . . .
North American free trade and Canada played a pivotal role in at least one state — Ohio — during the U.S. primaries.
A Canadian government memo written after a meeting with an Obama adviser suggested the Democrat’s biting opposition to the pact was rooted in politics that would not blossom into policy if Obama becomes president.
That memo was leak to The Associated Press and many of Obama’s own supporters believe it cost him the Ohio primary, which was won by Hillary Clinton.
Although you may find it hard to believe, it really is the case that it was only after I had written and assembled the material above that I came upon David Brooks column of June 20. You should read the entirety of it. It makes what I wrote look like the chants of an Obama cheerleader by contrast. Brooks may be a conservative, but he's my kind of conservative: normally much more both "fair" and "balanced," as well as reasonable, informed and soft spoken, than the network that markets itself with that claim. Here are some excerpts:
Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.
This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside. . . .
[O]n Thursday [June 19], Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.
But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now. . . .
If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? . . .
All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades.
Senator Obama and his staff should reflect on these reactions -- and the fact that Senator Clinton has only "suspended" her campaign. He's not yet the nominee, and super delegates can change their votes at any time.
Nor is the only rational response for Obama supporters to suddenly drop him like last week's moldy pizza as a result of these recent flip-flops. He may not be all they thought -- and he promised -- and still be head and shoulders above the mediocre, far better than merely the "least-worst" alternative.
But meanwhile, what are voters in general, and Senator Obama supporters in particular, to make of this behavior? Should they assume that these will be the only four shifts in position, that he is really, deep down inside, the same person he represented himself to be, the same person they believed in? Or should they ask, with David Brooks, "If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out?"
Or is the lesson a much more serious and depressing one? Should they listen much more closely to the lyrics from the 1951 film, Royal Wedding (starring Fred Astaire and Jane Powell), "How Could You Believe Me When I Told You that I Loved You When You Know I've Been a Liar All My Life." Not because of Senator Obama, but because of politics and life in general. Will it always (or virtually always) be the case that offerings of "hope" and promises of "change" -- regardless of context -- are, like the enticement of winning the lottery, as ephemeral and short-lived as the morning fog on a hot summer's day?
There are many contexts and stories leading to the punch line, or "lesson," "Don't ever trust anyone, not even your own father." Is that the great lesson of the Obama campaign? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"? Or, as President George Bush puts it, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Sadly, we can get fooled again -- and again, and again, and again.
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli's famous works, The Prince and The Discourses, were published in 1531, four years after his death, and have been read -- and to some extent followed -- by most politicians since. Is it perhaps the case that politics can't be changed? That it has always been thus? Do we have nearly 500 years of history to warn us that the "change we can believe in" was inherently unbelievable?
No, there have been changes, some improvements, and there can be more. But we must work for them -- with or without a President Obama. The changes will only, can only, have only, come from the peoples' sustained efforts.
"When the people lead, their leaders will follow." It's up to us to lead, not to look to the rear of our marching ranks in search of our "leader."
Today is the fourth in a series, "Golden Rules & Revolutions." Here are the prior entries: I - Income Disparity & Revolution, April 12, 2008 . "Series Introduction," "Increasing income disparity, despair. . .," ". . . and Revolution"
Part I of this series noted not just the gap in income between the rich and the poor, but the fact that this gap is continuing to grow ever wider, and that history -- as well as the daily news -- provides ample warning that this condition often produces revolution.
Part II began the exploration of the forces that may be shaping these potentially dangerous conditions -- including the ties between business and government eerily reminiscent of the early stages of what we used to call "fascism."
Part III took us to Washington for some general descriptions of how the system works, what campaign contributors get for their money, the role of lobbyists, and a columnist's description of one case study.
Part IV deals with how the role of lobbyists extends beyond their manipulation of government into the pre-governing phase: presidential campaigns -- beginning with Senator John McCain.
_______________
Given the $2.79 billion that the special interests spend on lobbyists, as discussed in Part III, and the the millions and billions of dollars the special interests "invest" in "campaign contributions" (in state legislatures as well as Congress, and among the best investments these businesses ever make), it comes as no surprise that both lobbyists and campaign contributions also play a major role in the way we select our president.
So why begin the discussion of this issue with Senator John McCain? There are two reasons.
(1) If you haven't yet paid a lot of attention to Senator McCain, you might want to tune in to tonight's Chris Matthews' "Hardball." Here are the details from cable channel MSNBC:
"Hardball with Chris Matthews" brings its take-no-prisoners style to the college circuit once again, as the "Hardball College Tour" hosts Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., live at Villanova University, Tuesday, April 15, 5-6 p.m. ET (repeats 7-8 p.m. ET). Matthews will interview Sen. McCain on the key issues of the 2008 presidential election, including the economy and the Iraq war, with Villanova students also having the opportunity to question the candidate.
(2) Senator John McCain is the first example, not because he is the worst but because he is among the best. Senator McCain has provoked the ire of his colleagues because of his tough stands on reform of campaign finance, earmarks, and the role of Washington lobbyists. And yet . . .
[W]hen McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways.
Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O' Lakes, UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae.
McCain's relationship with lobbyists became an issue this week after it was reported that his aides asked Vicki Iseman, a telecom lobbyist, to distance herself from his 2000 presidential campaign because it would threaten McCain's reputation for independence.
As you've been warned, when it comes to taking on big money in politics, Senator John McCain is among the best the U.S. Senate can offer. In Part V we'll look at one of the worst.
The Register has done Iowans a favor this morning with its perusal of, and then reporting about, the "newly released state campaign finance disclosure reports for 2007." Jennifer Jacobs, "Democrat McCarthy Raises Most Money at $251,000,"Des Moines Regislter, January 24, 2008.
But it has only scratched the surface.
"Knowledge Management" literature (for which the linked document is but the first on Google's list) draws a distinction between "data," "information," "knowledge: and "wisdom."
The disclosure reports, and the Register's reporting, provide the "data" -- or at least some of it.
What we now need is the additional data, and discovery of relationships, that can turn that data into "information" and "knowledge."
(I'll save for the day that happens an exploration of what "wisdom" might be with regard to Iowa's needed campaign finance reform.)
For example, as one reader commented following the Register's online story, "Why is it McCarthy's biggest donors were from out of state? Does this not raise any questions with anyone? What pull, and on what project are these people looking for help on?" ("TheWizard," 1/24/2008 4:36:06 AM).
If the Register is still interested in Pulitzer Prizes (it was once the proud possessor of a collection of them second only to the New York Times) -- not to mention the very substantial community service of cleaning up Iowa politics -- here are some of the questions to which they might want to seek answers.
1. "Follow the money." That was "Deep Throat's" advice to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as they investigated and exposed the Watergate scandal ultimately leading to President Nixon's resignation. And it's my first bit of advice to the Register. Who is giving what to whom and what do they do with it? Individual Iowa legislators tell their constituents they need money for re-election campaigns -- even when they're running unopposed. What do they do with it? Much is simply passed through to their party's leaders, or the state Democratic or Republican organizations. Why? What do they, what do their contributors, what do we, get for that money? To what extent is this pass-through procedure used to shield from public disclosure how much is really coming from special interests to party leaders? And, in reverse, what are party leaders (and the special interests they may be representing) gaining by passing out money to other members? Where do the major state parties get the (largely unregulated) money they have and how do they spend it?
2. Who are these donors and what are their interests? A name (of a donor) and amount (of a contribution) is data. "Knowledge" requires that we know the economic or other interests of that donor. Sometimes that's easy, when the donor is a registered lobbyist for a special interest, or the CEO of a corporation, or is known to be a highway contractor or major land owner. At other times it's more difficult, especially if the money is coming through employees (who have been given raises and are then asked for checks, which are bundled, donated and amount to little more than an illegal contribution from a corporation), spouses, children, relatives or friends of that individual.
3. What is being bought? Some special interests are regular donors. They are like the wealthy Texan, asked by the airline ticket agent where he wanted to go, who replied, "It makes no difference; I've got business everywhere." Some of those funding Iowa's campaigns always have some kind of business with the legislature or governor -- or know that they might. Others are primarily focused on a specific bill they want to defeat, or have enacted, or an earmark, tax break, or bit of "corporate welfare" cash they would like from the state's taxpayers. In any case, "knowledge" requires that we know the relationship between who is giving and what they are getting: what bills on their behalf were introduced by party leaders, or individual legislators, who benefited from their contributions? If they gave to the governor, or other executive branch officials, what agency decisions affected their economic interests? (The rule of thumb in Washington is that major contributors get at least a 1000-to-1 return on their money; contribute $1 million and get $1 billion of government largesse in return. For documentation see, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "You Pay $4 or $4000,"Des Moines Register, July 21, 1996.)
There are lots more questions to ask and trails to follow, but hopefully these few illustrative examples will get our editors and reporters thinking about how their "data mining" these golden nuggets could end up providing some real "knowledge" -- and maybe someday even "wisdom" -- for their readers, and a few extra prizes to hang on the walls of the board room and news room.
