Working For Less Law

It is a foregone conclusion that the Republican controlled legislature in Madison, Wisconsin will pass a so-called “right-to-work (for less) law, and probably within the next week. They have been itching to do it ever since Scott Walker became Governor. But while it might be a done-deal, please don’t tell the workers of Wisconsin this is all about them.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) recently proclaimed just that. “This is  . . . about worker Freedom!” At the same time Mr. Fitzgerald was also calling unionism an “antiquated system,” and they had to change it.

Now who would benefit from such a radical change?

Some of the supporters of this “worker rights” law turn out to be the very manufacturers that many of these workers work for! What a coincidence. These people (and other ten percenters) would be able to pocket more of their profits, while the workers would loose wages, benefits, buying power, and their middle class status—and perhaps their homes.

The fact is that it is quite possible the state as a whole could suffer economically because of this move by the Republican legislature and its governor. The truth is there is little if anything to support the dismantling of unions. Remember, “right-to-work” laws started in the south, in places like Alabama and Mississippi, and such states hardly stand out as economic powerhouses and job creators. Quite the opposite! And such a law will not solve Wisconsin’s nearly $2 billion deficit.

So why do it? For some years now the Republicans have had their eye on the old rust belt states of the Midwest. Their first move was to attack and destroy public unions, so now it is the private unions they have in their sights. Once upon a time, these states had some of the strongest union supporters in the country, but since hard times have hit (US corporations moving to China, dropping of tariffs, etc.) unions have been on the decline. Nationally, unions only make up 7% of the private workforce. What better time to strike? And don’t forget if the unions disappear, there will be less money and support for Democrats! Suddenly there will be little or no political competition. (China and Russia have a single party system, too!)www.cbsnews.com

But this Republican show is not just about workers in Wisconsin. The Republicans want to go beyond the state’s limited borders. Walker and other candidates want to take their philosophy to the nation. A president Walker would be able to do that. But keep in mind those who will benefit. Will it be the workers? Think again! If the Republicans can put one of their own in the White House while maintaining control of the Congress, they will have found the Holy Grail. No more national labor laws. Public schools might disappear. No more Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, as we know it, to name a few changes. To paraphrase Republican President Calvin Coolidge, The business of America will be business, again. And, once again, the wealthy will have their proper place in the sun.   

The Faustian Choice: The world of big money politics

Forget about Iowa and the first caucuses for president in January 2016, or even the New Hampshire primary scheduled for a few days later. The real Republican political caucus for president opened this January in 2015 in California amongst the desert sand dunes near Palm Springs. Southern California is particularly nice this time of year for such events. It is here—where the truly wealthy roam—that the billionaire Koch brothers' were out to reveal what, or in this case, who, their money could buy.

Beyond its political implications, this Palm Springs gathering is also a real world demonstration of trickledown economics in action. Forget about the wealthy giving their “have not” gardener a raise and watching him/her spend the extra money on bread or shoes. Politics is where such billionaires can really make a difference in the economy. With nearly a billion dollars to spend on elections, this is where they can really spread the wealth . . . but only amongst the chosen few.

Evidently, the Kochs’ have formed a separate party of sorts within the Republican Party, and they can enforce their separate beliefs by doling out more money to candidates than the so-called mainstream Republicans.

But to spread their beliefs, the brothers will need others to do their bidding. This is why the Kochs’ invited a select group of politicians to meet in private in a California luxury resort. And behind this closed-door get together is where the transgression starts. But it isn’t just with the Kochs’. Transgressions against an open society happen each and every time a politician meets with a donor. No matter the party, a Faustian play or bargain is reenacted. Every time a Koch or some other rich donor offers money to a candidate from any party, the politician is forced to make a pact with the devil. How badly do you want to be president, Mr. Candidate? (Enter the Robber Barons with their pockets full of cash.) Among these few politicians in California—this particular band of brothers—is Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, as well as Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Tennessee, and Ted Cruz of Texas. These politicians went there to personally be shepherded through an ancient rite of passage, to pander to the Kochs’ deep pockets, and to acknowledge that the Koch brand of Social Darwinism is still alive and well. (Yes, Virginia, the rich truly know better than the rest of us about how best to rule our country.) And let's remember tonight when we say our prays to give thanks where thanks is due: thank you US Supreme Court for allowing this to happen and for reminding us (as if we needed reminding) money equals more free speech for the wealthy than for the rest of us. Amen.

Incredibly, the Supreme Court has taken a broken election system and made it worse! It has helped to create this Faustian choice politicians must ponder. Once they take the money, to whom will these politicians owe for getting them into office? And what will these Barons want in return for such millions? Welcome back to Gilded Age II (ladies and gentlemen), the sequel. Remember, the Gilded Age was a time when the wealthy (including monopolies and oligopolies) controlled the politics of the country, and not surprisingly, it was a time before regulations, the income tax, health insurance, workers compensation, the popular election of senators, minimum wage, the middle class, environmental laws, and unions, to mention a few. Ah, the good old days . . . when no one else counted, but the rich! 

What do you think our brave band of brothers discussed behind those closed doors? Who will gain economic clout, people like the Koch brothers or the middle class? Most of all, think about money-politics when you are voting next year, and think about who will win and who will lose in this type of system.

The Case Against the Second Amendment: Gun Rights Are All Wrong!

Why Hasn’t The Public Gotten Behind More Restrictive Gun Laws?       

How does the United States celebrate Independence Day weekend?

In 2014, Chicago celebrated it with plenty of fireworks, 82 gunshot wounds, and 14 dead! In New York City, 21 were wounded in the last weekend of June. Two were killed and seven more wounded on July 5th in NYC. In Houston, six people were shot during a 4th of July festival, and twelve people were shot in a bar-hopping event in Indianapolis on the 4th. And that is just a snapshot of some of America's largest cities. I am sure this is exactly what the founding fathers envisioned for the country 235 years later. No doubt about it. America, the land of the all night shootout!

Such gun shootings are just the latest in a series of violent acts that have plagued the country for years, and will no doubt not be the last if defenders of the Second Amendment have their way.

So, what are these self-appointed protectors of gun rights trying to preserve? Are they trying to form a more perfect union, provide for a common defense (more like provide for a common shooting gallery), promote the general welfare, or secure the blessing of liberty? Unlikely! Putting more and more (an unlimited numbers of) guns into the hands of untrained and violent prone citizens will lead to only one thing--more violence. 

Let's look at the evidence.

It seems obvious to any sane person that getting shot does not present a pretty picture: shock, trauma, shattered bones, blood, spinal cord or brain injury, paralysis, and sometimes death. Nevertheless, such a picture is repeated in the United States over 100,000 times a year! Yes, that is correct--more than 100,000 people are shot every year. According to Politifact.com, that comes out to anywhere (given some variation in the interpretation of the data) from 235 to 270 people shot per day somewhere in the US.

Let's break that data down even more.

Back in the decade of 1950s, (according to FBI stats) gun death levels were  kept well under 9,000 per year. Handgun numbers were relatively small in those days. But, according to a CDC report published in 2010, beginning some twenty years later, from 1981 to 2007, an average of almost 33,000 Americans died per year during that twenty-six year period from firearms. (33,000 x 26 years = 858,000) At least 500 of those 33,000 were children. (500 x 26 = 13,000) In addition, the American Academy of Pediatrics found in a 2013 study that on average "7,500 children were admitted to hospitals every year in the US with gunshot injuries," and that most of those injuries were inflicted by handguns in the home.

It has been said as a sort of backhanded compliment when talking about gun murder rates in the United States that at least no one or any one group of individuals has kidnapped 300-odd school-aged children and attempted to sell them as slaves or marry them off to some religious fanatic (Boko Raram)! (At least not recently.) Nor in recent memory have people gone so far in the US as to gang rape two innocent girls, kill them, and then hang them up in a tree (as they did in India) as if they were some religious trinkets to be admired. {Though, sixty-odd years ago hangings were all the vogue in the southern US, though for different reasons.)

No, not today! Today, the trend in the US is going in a different direction. Today, US citizens (for whatever reason) aren't content to kill one or two individuals in our schools. They seem determined to use their guns to kill or wound people by the small school bus load every three, two, or even every week; or to pick off young urbanites in the major cities of the US two or three (or 82) at a time during the course of an evening. (It's a little like duck hunting without the ducks.)

But how does gun violence in the United States stack up with gun violence in other countries?

Surely, the US is not the only country in the industrialized world that has a high gun murder rate. I know people will be shocked, but actually, (with one possible exception) it is. According to studies, the United States has the fewest restrictions on gun purchases (big surprise!), it has the most weapons per capita, and it has the highest gun violence rate of all the other industrialized countries in the world (See the charts below). In the US, if the year 2011 is any measure, guns killed roughly 32,000 people that year, though it should be noted a little over 16,000 were killed during a criminal act. A large percent of the rest used a gun to commit suicide. That says something too! But, many people would be reticent to count suicides as victims. Many more would probably also say that gang member killings don't count, either. They might even be tempted to say . . . "See, guns have solved some of our problems!" (We'll leave those people to their aberrant thoughts.)

Another set of statistics might help provide a better, more stark picture of gun violence in the US. How do US gun deaths stack up against lives lost in war? Looking at the combat deaths in the Iraq and Afghan Wars might be a helpful start. According to DOD statistics, the total number of US soldiers killed in combined action in both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars in over a ten-year period was approximately 6,800. If we just take the 16,000 for 2011 as our yearly figure (forgetting about the other deaths for the moment) and multiply it by 10 (years), the number of dead in the US from guns equals 160,000. If we include the suicides and other deaths, the number of deaths from guns in that ten-year period doubles to 320,000. So, at least in recent years, it seems that the number of deaths by gunfire in the US greatly outnumber those on the battlefield.

Can that really be true?

It's actually worse than that.

Politifact.com has confirmed the following statement to be true:

From 1968 to 2011, "more Americans . . . died from gunfire (in the US) than died in . . . all the wars of this country's history."

Here's a summary of deaths by major conflict, according to Politifact:

Revolutionary War ------------------------------------4,435

War of 1812 --------------------------------------------2,260

Mexican War ------------------------------------------13,283

Civil War (Union & Confederate) ------------------525,000

Spanish-American War -------------------------------2,446

World War I -------------------------------------------116,516

World War II ------------------------------------------405,399

Korean War --------------------------------------------36,574

Vietnam War -------------------------------------------58,220

Persian Gulf War -----------------------------------------383

Afghanistan War ----------------------------------------2,175

Iraq War --------------------------------------------------4,486

Total -------------------------------------------------1,171,177

Another 362 deaths resulted from other conflicts since 1980, such as interventions in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Haiti, but the number is not large enough to make a difference.

The figures below refer to total deaths caused by firearms in the US:


1968 to 1980 --------------------377,000

1981 to 1998 --------------------620,525

1999 to 2010 --------------------364,483

2011 --------------------------------32,163

Total -----------------------------1,384,171

Some might suggest that if it weren't for the National Rifle Association the US would have the appropriate laws in place to deal with gun violence. But would it? It should be noted that out of a population of 309 million in the US, the NRA have a membership of roughly 3.1 million-less than one percent of the population. At the same time, according to Gallup, about 70 million Americans claim to own a firearm or about 4 in 10 Americans. With such numbers, it might be easy to put the problem down at the feet of gun advocacy groups and the gun manufacturers. It might be easy, but it would lack some accuracy. No doubt, groups like the NRA and gun manufacturers have much more political and financial influence on our elections and elected representatives than they should, flooding Congress with their campaign contributions or backing another candidate with their money who is more favorable to their cause. No doubt, their rhetoric and attack ads also influence people, scaring them into buying more weapons, and creating an inordinate worry about their safety. And no doubt their tired and oft repeated arguments about how . . . "People kill people. Guns don't kill people." And "these people are just out to take your guns away from you!" Or, "they should more rigorously enforce the gun laws on the books!"

But as bad as these groups are (and they are bad) they are not the whole problem.

The question that needs answering is how many people really buy into this type of thinking and why?

Well, perhaps more than you'd think. Poll after poll around the time of the Newtown School shootings (20 children and 6 adults murdered) showed 60 percent of Americans wanted to see tighter gun laws enacted. One might have expected with all those tiny dead children blown to bits 90 percent or more of us would have wanted to tighten gun laws. But not so! Since that time, things have even gotten worse. Recent polls suggest that that number has come down to roughly 49 percent, while 27 percent want no change and 18 percent want gun laws to be less strict (27+18=45). Given how polls are tallied, these numbers are well within the margin of error. So unfortunately, the NRA not withstanding, we seem to be a country divided on this issue.

Apparently, Americans seem to have gotten used to more guns and gun deaths. As if to back that up, a study found that the United States has more guns and gun deaths than any other developed country in the world. The U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people - more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied. According to the study, (and with one exception: See South Africa) there seems to be a direct correlation between the number of guns in a population and the number of firearm related deaths. That seems straightforward enough. The more guns, the more gun deaths. And guns can kill larger numbers of people in a shorter period of time than any other weapon available to the public.

Here's the full list:

Country ----- Guns per 100 ----- Total Firearm-related Deaths per 100,000

United States ------------88.8 --------------------------10.2

Switzerland --------------45.7 ---------------------------3.84

Finland -------------------45.3 ---------------------------3.64

Sweden ------------------31.6 ---------------------------1.47

Norway ------------------ 31.3 ---------------------------1.78

France -------------------31.2 ----------------------------3

Canada ------------------30.8 ----------------------------2.44

Austria -------------------30.4 ----------------------------2.94

Iceland ------------------30.2------------------------------1.25

Germany ---------------30.3 ------------------------------1.1

New Zealand ----------22.6 ------------------------------2.66

Greece ------------------22.5 -----------------------------1.5

Belgium -----------------17.2 -----------------------------2.43

Luxembourg -----------15.3 -----------------------------1.81

Australia ----------------15 -------------------------------1.04

South Africa ------------12.7 ----------------------------9.41

Turkey ------------------12.5 -----------------------------0.72

Denmark ---------------12 --------------------------------1.45

Malta --------------------11.9 -----------------------------2.16

Italy ----------------------11.9 -----------------------------1.28

Spain --------------------10.4 -----------------------------0.63

Ireland -------------------8.6 ------------------------------1.03

Portugal -----------------8.5 ------------------------------1.77

Israel --------------------7.3 -------------------------------1.86

United Kingdom -------6.2 -------------------------------0.25

Netherlands ------------3.9 -------------------------------0.46

Japan -------------------0.6 --------------------------------0.06

So, where does this leave us? Within the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that the United States will adopt any laws that will make a substantial impact on gun violence and death. As a nation, the US will continue accumulating more and more victims of violence. As it has in the past, victims will appear randomly across the nation in cities, small towns, and suburbs. One or two here, five or six there, fifteen or twenty somewhere else (again 82 in some places), but they will keep coming. The roll call will be endless. It will go on year after year. Victims will range in age from the very young to the very old. They will be of various religious affiliations and ethnic groups. And the victim and their families will be powerless to do anything.

As I see it, there are at least two main obstacles to passing gun laws.

First, the gun lobby, which apparently is just too strong for politicians to resist; and second, the average person doesn't seem to have the desire or the will to fight for a change. I can understand why the gun lobby doesn't want legal restrictions placed on gun sales and manufacture. But what about the average person, what is their reason for not pushing for a change?

I have a theory.

Maybe you have heard this before. It is an old story or experiment about how best to cook a live frog. The experiment goes like this . . . Fill two large pots with water about 4 to 5 inches deep. Set them both on separate burners. Heat one of the pots of water to boil and then put a live frog into it. Observe the frog's reaction. If your first frog jumps out of the pot, then you did this part of the experiment correctly. Now, take a different frog and place it into the tepid pot of water and very slowly turn up the temperature until it reaches a boil. Observe the frog's reaction during this entire time. If the frog stays in the pot (getting used to the increased temperature--a type of sauna) and slowly cooks, then you have successfully boiled your frog. Congratulations!

In a similar experiment, I wonder if one could transport people from the 1950s to the present, and watch how they react to the gun violence in our schools and our society? My guess is that they would react like the first frog and jump the hell out of the boiling water! The rest of us are responding much like the second frog in the second pot, sitting and watching, unwilling to do anything, as our society slowly destroys itself in a stew of violence and death. 

Does the US Supreme Court Favor the Rich?

In an earlier era in this country’s history, buying local judges was a routine affair—almost expected in places like Boston and New York (see Tammany Hall and the Gilded Age), and one way a wealthy person might use the legal system to tilt the political or economic playing field in a city or a state in their favor.  Today, the wealthy don’t have to bribe judges any more; they just have to find judges that ideologically agree with them. With that, crimes like graft and corruption become a thing of the past, and everything else falls in to place for them.

            In the case of the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts, the wealthy and the powerful have found such a judge, as well as four others on his court to do their bidding. Their 5 to 4 decisions in Citizens United and McCutcheon made that plain enough. In the collective mind of these five justices, money equals freedom of speech. So, logically the more money one has the more one can speak out and the more people will hear them on their radios and TVs, or read their opinions or their surrogates’ opinions in the local newspapers.

So, what is wrong with that?

Actually, the concerns are numerous. As it turns out, each of these court decisions allow the wealthy and the powerful (including corporations and unions) to provide huge amounts of campaign funds for their handpicked politicians not just in their own local area but nationwide. And since 2010 it has already had a dramatic effect on the way people are elected—and who is elected. Certainly that had to be Justice Roberts’ intent. Changing the financial rules any game almost inevitably leads to different outcomes, in this case political. The financial rules were changed for Wall Street in the 1990s, and observe what happened in 2008. (Remember, justices like these in the past, decided slaves, like Dred Scott, were not citizens and had no rights, but corporations were people!)

Now, according to likeminded men, someone like Mr. McCutcheon, who lives in one state, can directly back political races simultaneously in numerous other states, spreading influence as far as their money will take them. And with the money such billionaires and some of their political organizations can throw at local campaigns, they can flood the TV airways with campaign commercials that support one candidate or attack another, making it difficult or impossible for the opposition to respond, and drowning out the ideas and the right of others to be heard. And it is working. It also turns local politics in to national politics. Politicians are no longer beholden to only the local population for election, but also to those with deep (out of state) pocks. And if the politicians don’t do what these people want they can find such money being funneled to someone else’s campaign. The lesson here is people will have less control over their own political environment. And these kinds of politicians are indeed getting elected to office in some areas, and local populations find themselves being governed by such people who get their marching orders from a handful people perhaps a thousand miles away. And while these wealthy donors may deny it, those providing funds for elections always require payback, a quid pro quo if you will—be it voting for or against a bill or gaining greater access to the politician. This free flow of funds is also why many countries have gone to public financing of elections. It actually costs them less money and headaches in the long run. (It should also be noted that while unions are now allowed to directly back politicians, private unions like the AFL and the CIO represent only about 7 percent of the workforce in the US—and they are shrinking and no match for corporate interests and the wealthy.)

            While the campaign finance laws were weak from the beginning, with these two relatively new decisions by the US Supreme Court, the United States might soon resemble one of those third world Latin American countries politicians used to chastise for being dominated by a small wealthy upper class elite, with the bulk of the population condemned to poverty and with no voice in their government. From the outside, these countries looked like democracies, but internally their legislatures were rubber stamps for the rich and the powerful. The middle class did not and could not existent in these countries, and without such a class, democracy could not exist. If nothing else, the middle class has provided the leadership for all the great modern democratic revolutions (See the French and American Revolutions).

            Is it a coincidence then that such judicial decisions have come at this time in history? Hardly! Fifty odd years ago the gap between the rich and the rest of the population had not reached critical mass, so to speak. In the 1950s, the average American chief executive was paid about 20 times as much as the typical employee of his firm. These days, looking at Fortune 500 companies, the pay ratio between the C.E.O. and the average worker is more than 200/1, and many C.E.O.s do much better. A typical worker at Walmart earns less than $25,000 a year, while a former C.E.O., was paid more than $23,000,000 in 2012. With the elite in control of such vast sums of money, the United States could be heading for economic and political conditions similar to those found in nineteenth-century Europe. At that time, Europe was dominated and characterized by a small group of wealthy individuals and family members, while the rest of the population struggled to keep up. Sound familiar? The United States seems to be on its way. Figures show that in 2010, the richest 10 percent of households controlled 70 percent of all the country’s wealth and the top 1 percent controlled 35 percent of the wealth. By contrast, the bottom 50 percent of households owned a mere 5 percent.

            Is this really where the country stands after roughly 235 years of existence? Has it come down to the Supreme Court now codifying the rights of the rich to dominate elections as a fundamental part of the US Constitution? Make no mistake. That is what the Supreme Court has done with these rulings. Its main job is to interpret the Constitution, and to speak for the founders, as it were. Has it come down to the court proclaiming in a loud voice (not in a whisper like it might have done in the past) that money truly determines one’s worth in our political system? That money, and the power that comes with it, determines who has a say, or more to the point, the largest say on how things operate and are decided in this country. As if the rich and powerful didn’t have enough say before, and didn't have enough access. 
             From recent Supreme Court decisions, it is obvious certain wealthy individuals were not satisfied with their role in politics or in how society operates, and want more power. In their minds, they know what is best for the rest of the society. And the Supreme Court has opened the door for them. With that opening, they have the means to get what they want. Remember, 10 percent controls 70 percent of the wealth. Obviously, with such wealth, they can raise an army of political and judicial followers to help them pursue their desires. And from such a beginning, there will develop a real and present danger to democracy and to real fairness in society if this shift of power continues unabated. If indeed this is the new and accepted norm in the US, there will be a radical shift away from democratic rule to rule by plutocracy. And if history is any guide, it might be a generation or more before such a power structure can be toppled. One is left with a  question and a hope: When will our hero, Mr. Smith (Jimmy Stewart), go to Washington and take the judiciary back from the moneychangers?