Farming in America

Here’s how Tyson Foods, one of the largest meat producers in America, buys its chickens.  The company has contracts with over 5000 chicken farmers to raise broilers.  Tyson supplies the baby chicks, the feed, and instructions on how to raise the birds.  The chicken farmers are paid according to how much weight the birds gain compared to the amount of feed provided.

According to an article in the January 29 issue of Lancaster Farming, when a farmer named Alton Terry tried to organize some of the farmers to get a better deal with Tyson, Tyson cancelled his contract.  Tyson said it was because the farm needed expensive upgrades.  That, in turn, meant that Mr. Terry couldn’t even sell his farm, and it went into foreclosure.

It’s probably illegal to urge you not to buy Tyson foods, so I won’t urge that.  

The party of "reform"?

Mike Morrill of Keystone Progress sent an email today detailing Republican plans to allow the Pennsylvania House Rules Committee to restrict amendments from the minority (i.e., Democratic) party and table amendments without cause.  The email also notes that the Republicans plan to change the House committees to 15 Republicans and 9 Democrats.  That is not even close to the ratio in the House, and it will make any Democratic proposal unlikely ever to reach the floor.

The new Republican majority was supposed to be reform-minded.  Some reform. 

The planned vote is tomorrow, January 31.  Doyle Heffley, the House member from Carbon County, can be reached at <dheffley@pahousegop.com>.  Tell him what you think of this power play.  I just did.

Man in the Street

“With the harsh winter we’re having, do you believe the world’s in danger of global warming?”  This question was asked of five people in a sort of “Man on the Street” column that Times News ran on January 29.

What a great idea, I thought.  I’ll ask a similar question and publish the results on my blog.  I picked five people at random in downtown Parryville and asked “Do you believe the sun revolves around the earth?”

The response:

Bob Rural, East Side:  Well, yeah.  You can see it come up every morning in the east and set every night in the west.  Don’t you think that is kind of a silly question?

Fred Weisenheimer, East Penn:  I believe that question was settled during Galileo’s trial.

Dag Largo, Little Gap,  I’ve heard that it does, but I think the scientific evidence isn’t clear.  There are lots of scientists who disagree.  

Warden Schmidt,  Long Run:  Why do you want to know?  Are you one of those liberals?

Fred Reinsoft, New Columbus:  That’s a toughie.  I think I saw something about that on Hannity.  Or was it Glenn Beck?

Have some faith

The idea that we need military tribunals to try suspected or accused terrorists is  common.  All sorts of reasons are advanced.  The terrorists are too dangerous to bring into a courtroom, or the American court system is too unwieldy or too prone to leniency, or too subject to slick attorneys confusing inexperienced jurors.

This past Tuesday in federal district court in Manhattan Judge Lewis Kaplan sentenced Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani to life imprisonment for his role in the bombing of American embassies in East Africa in 1996.  The jury found Mr. Ghailani not guilty on most counts, but did find him guilty on a conspiracy charge, and that was enough.  

Almost ten years after the 9/11 attacks, many citizens, including a majority of Congress, live in fear, willing to abandon centuries-long guarantees of fair trial procedures in favor of brutal confinement and a presumption of guilt.  I have heard  congress members say we must keep Guantanamo up and running to hold all of the terrorists we have there.  U.S. Senators and Representatives should have more faith in our institutions.

Rich People

Rich people don’t need government.  They don’t need police; they live in gated communities with private security guards.  They don’t need schools; they send their children to private academies.  They don’t need health care; they can afford excellent medical care whenever they need it.  They don’t need libraries; they can purchase books they want.  They don’t need national parks; they vacation in exclusive resorts.  They don’t need Social Security; they have millions socked away for their old age.  They don’t ride public transportation, don’t know how food stamps work, can’t imagine unemployment compensation.  

This is why the political party that caters to rich people can confidently call for ending health care reform, Social Security, public education, and just about every government program currently operating.  And this is why that party wants to cut taxes--why should its followers pay for programs they never need anyway?

This philosophy makes a positive of greed and selfishness. If you have money, you must deserve it, even if you inherited it.  If you don’t, you must somehow deserve your lower status.  Followers of Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, and the current House leadership believe this completely.  

Right now what we are seeing is class warfare, and I think you can guess which class is winning.

Living in a one-newspaper town

What does a liberal do when he or she lives in a one-newspaper town and that one newspaper is constantly printing reactionary claptrap, Tea Party ramblings, and anti-Obama commentary?  You could cancel your subscription, but then where would you find the news about the demise of Lehighton’s Bike Night, or the firing of the Palmerton basketball coach, or Lansford’s near bankruptcy? 

One possible answer to this problem is suggested in the latest issue of the New Yorker in an article by Peter J. Boyer entitled “Fox Among the Chickens.”  Mr. Boyer looks at recent events in Cold Springs, New York.

Cold Springs a small town 50 miles up river from Manhattan, was home to the Putnam County News @ Recorder, a small privately-owned newspaper that emphasized local news.  In July 2008 Roger Ailes, the chair of Fox News, bought the paper and gave it to his wife.  She, being the wife of Roger Ailes, turned the paper into a forum for anti-Obama editorials and nasty critiques of local activities that offended the Ailes’s sensibilities.  

Some residents, disgusted with the new tone of the paper, formed the “Full Moon Project” to discuss publishing an alternative newspaper.  The big problem was the cost, but another was finding people to report news--almost everybody wanted to write opinion columns only.

The alternative that finally developed was an online newspaper, Philipstown.info, funded by one man for $100,000 a year. Most of the e-paper’s reporters were hired away from the Fox newspaper.  The new paper did not replace the Fox paper, but citizens now have an alternative source of objective news.

Does anybody have $100,000 stuffed into a coffee can somewhere?

State of the Union

When you have lemons, you make lemonade, and right now President Obama is facing a truck load of lemons rolling right at him.  From a political standpoint, given the Congress that Obama has to work with, the speech was a rousing success, co-opting Republican rhetoric while advancing the Democratic agenda.

However, to quote my friend Debbie, “the speech was a little too centrist for me.”  First of all, we don’t have a deficit problem, we have a revenue problem, brought on by Republican tax cuts, recently extended, for the rich.  Decreased tax revenues because of  the Recession have exacerbated the problem.

Secondly, to talk about medical malpractice tort reform plays into Republican philosophy.  If the doctor amputates the wrong leg, I want to be able to sue.  On the other hand, it would almost be worth doing so the Republicans would just shut up.

I also want to know how this proposed freeze will work.  Will it be across the board?  I’ve already discussed the idiocy of across-the board-cuts in an earlier posting.  Since candidate Obama ridiculed McCain for proposing an across-the-board cut, I’m assuming the freeze is an overall limit.

The whole issue of earmarks is overblown; to hear the President say he would veto any bill with earmarks in it is an example of pandering to the conservatives for no advantage.  Earmarks are what a good member of Congress does to help his or her district.

Bottom line:  If the President had given the speech I would have given, he’d drop like a rock in the polls, get nothing done in the next two years, and lose 2012 election.  I’ve got to keep repeating to myself--don’t sacrifice the good for the perfect.

Hooray for the EPA

West Virginia mines are not at all like the Number 9 mine in Lansford.  In West “Almost Heaven” Virginia entire mountain tops are removed to expose the coal.  The mountains, called “spoil,” are dumped into nearby valleys, creating polluted streams and rivers, floods, and devastation that will not be mitigated by planting a few trees.

The Spruce Number 1 Mine just had its permit pulled by the EPA, even though the Army Corps of Engineers, an agency noted for its environmental obtuseness, had already approved the mountain top removal from over 2100 acres.  

The EPA action will be labeled as jobs killing.  The two Democratic Senators from West Virginia are already complaining about the decision.  Environmentalists ought to give more credit and support to the Obama administration for its pro-environmental record.  You can bet one of the agencies the Republicans plan to defund is the EPA.  

Incidentally, the Arch coal company that hopes to open Spruce Number 1 mine has announced it will fight the EPA’s decision in court. 

You want an example of an oxymoron?  How about “clean coal.”

Redistricting

The Constitution requires a census every ten years.  Seats in in the U.S. House of Representatives are reallocated in response to population changes within and among the various states.  Although Pennsylvania’s population has grown within the past decade, other states have grown relatively faster, so Pennsylvania loses one member in the House of Representatives, dropping from 19 to 18.  District lines, therefore, must be redrawn.

This is done through legislation, passed by the Pennsylvania House and Senate and approved by the governor.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court may hear challenges, but in 2011 the PA House, Senate, Governor, and Supreme Court are all controlled by Republicans.  

What this means to Democrats I will be discussing at a CCDC meeting at the Inn at Jim Thorpe on Tuesday night at 7 p.m.  I’ll explain gerrymandering, packing, cracking, the effect of the Voting Rights Act, and what the average citizen can do about the whole system.  After my talk we’ll watch President Obama’s State of the Union message.  There’s no charge.

Rickie, Rickie

My mother sometimes used an expression on occasions when somebody made a particularly mean or stupid remark.  She would simply say, “Consider the source.”  

After reading the comments of former Pennsylvania Senator Rickie Santorum on abortion, slavery, and President Obama, for some reason I thought of mother’s expression.  There’s no point to getting all worked up about Santorum--just consider the source.

Note:  I’ll be attending a convention of liberals in Pittsburgh on Saturday and Sunday (weather permitting).  Workshops include organizing, voter contact, and media relations   I’ll be reporting on the speakers and workshops when I return on Monday. 

Did you ever notice how little tugboats can turn a giant ship around?  That’s what we liberals plan to do to the ship of state.  We are going to turn this baby around.

The Filibuster

The last year I was at San Jose State I taught an upper division experimental course entitled “Politics and Film.”  Among the films we screened were Casablanca, Sullivan’s Travels, Nothing but a Man, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  On the last day of class students voted for their favorite film of the semester.  Mr. Smith Goes to Washington won overwhelmingly.

In the film, Jimmy Stewart plays a naive U.S. Senator, Mr. Smith, who learns that he has been betrayed by a corrupt colleague.  To prevent a bill from reaching a vote, Senator Smith talks and talks until he collapses and is carried from the floor, but he is ultimately victorious. 

During the Civil Rights era, the filibuster was brought into disrepute by reactionary Southern senators who used it in an attempt to prevent legislation ensuring racial justice.  Even then, however, Senators had to talk.  They actually had to be on the Senate floor, speaking.  (The record is held by Strom Thurmond, who once spoke for 25 hours straight.)

This is no longer the case.  Nobody actually talks.  Senators use anonymous holds on bills, so the public doesn’t even know who is bottling up legislation.  Instead of a once or twice a session effort, delaying tactics are used on almost every bill and almost every appointment.  Endless amendments are proposed simply to oppose.  The Senate, already an undemocratic body (CA with more than 50 times Wyoming’s population has two senators, same as Wyoming), has now become a joke.

Three senators are working to change this,  Tom Udall of New Mexico, Jeff Markley of Oregon, and Tom Harkin of Iowa are doing their best to reform the Senate rules.  Go to <www.fixthesenate.com> for information on the current rules and what these senators are proposing.  They need our help, and the site has some suggestions.

Health care bill repealed in the House

Pre-existing conditions!  Millions uninsured!  Costs to rise!  Sick people to die!  Republican House members gloating!

Republican Health Care?

The Republicans in Congress have said that they will not only repeal the Health Care bill, but they will also introduce their own program.  This is a good thing.

First, it implies that health care insurance in this country is not adequate and needs some kind of attention.  The Republicans are finally admitting we have a problem.

Second, policy developed by the Republicans will generate commentary and opposition.  Saying “no” was easy.  The House majority will find that producing any kind of meaningful bill will be far more difficult.

Third, the Republicans will find--are finding already--that many parts of the reform passed last year are very popular.  They will either have to alienate large blocs of voters or admit that the Democrats were correct.

So far, though, any Republican health program is just talk.  Republican leaders say they need time to develop their policy.  

Good news!

The War in Afghanistan should be winding down very soon.  This week Senator Pat Toomey, man of action, visited that country, told President Karzai he needs to cooperate, and reviewed the American war effort.  This is one take-charge guy.  

A proposal

We can’t celebrate the Fourth of July on the sixth of July.  It wouldn’t be right.  Many holidays, however, are routinely moved to create three-day weekends.  Holidays can also be changed. Years ago we celebrated Washington’s and Lincoln’s birthdays; now it’s Presidents’ Day, and we make sure it’s always on a Monday.

I’m proposing that instead of celebrating Martin Luther King Day in January, we move the holiday to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  If we made our election day a national holiday in memory of Dr. King, we would honor his life’s work and his philosophy of peaceful change.  If election day were a holiday, as it is in most European countries, we would also increase increase turnout and make voting easier for millions of people.  Dr. King would have approved. 

A Reconsideration

Earlier this month I decried the effort to censor Huckleberry Finn.  I noted that what I took away from the book was the need to defy the authorities when they are wrong.  Huck decided to help Jim when the law and the societal values said otherwise.  That was a powerful lesson.

When I read that book in the 1950s I was a white fifth grader.  To me the word “nigger,” used some 200 times in the book, did not carry the weight or meaning that it would to a ten-year-old black kid in 2011.

Lorrie Moore, an author I respect, wrote an essay in today’s New York Times opposing the censorship, but she also urged that Huckleberry Finn not be taught until college, or even graduate school.  She noted that a book that used “kike” or “bitch” some 200 times would never be assigned to a high school class.  While I would argue that the historical context of those words is different, I see her point.  She writes, “Huck’s voice is a complicated amalgam of idioms and perspectives and is not for the inexperienced contemporary reader.”

I agree with that.  If Huckleberry Finn is taught in high schools, it ought to be accompanied by a large amount of supplementary contextual material.  Ms. Moore recommends Sherman Alexie’s Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian as a book to hook boys into reading.  It’s no Huckleberry Finn, but it is contemporary, relatively easy, funny, and contains a positive message. 

And please don’t sneer and tell me I’m being “politically correct.”  That term needs to be retired.

Too late for Komatowski

In “Gideon v. Wainwright” (1963), the U.S. Supreme Court said that a person who had been arrested had a right to an attorney, even if he or she could not afford one.  Just three years later, in ”Miranda v. Arizona,” the Court ruled 5-4 that police had to explain to the person arrested that he or she had the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent.

Why those rulings were so important is illustrated in a recent historical investigation by Ron Rabenold published in the January 15 Times News.  The story, entitled “Secrets of the Big Creek Valley,” details a possible intentional drowning in the Pohopoco Creek in Carbon County.  

Mr. Rabenold writes:  “District Attorney Albert H. Heimbach told the press that they were ‘turning up the heat’ with ‘third degree tactics’ on their yet-to-be-named key suspect.  After a 20-hour marathon interrogation in 2-hour relays, including brutal punches to the face and kicks to the ribs, the police arrived at a confession from Komatowski.”

That happened in Carbon County in 1941, 25 years before Miranda.

Health Care Disparities

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a press release yesterday detailing some disparities in health care by race, gender, and income. (<www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2011>). The data in the release are taken from the just completed “CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Report--United States 2011.”  The report contains 22 essays discussing various aspects of American health care.

Some of the figures are not surprising.  For example, the researchers found that the rates of preventable hospitalizations increase as income decreases.  Eliminating those disparities, according to one estimate, “would prevent approximately one million hospitalizations and save $6.7 billion in health care costs per year.  ‘’

We also learn that women are better drivers.  In 2007, non-Hispanic white men (21.5 per 100,000 population) were two to three times more likely to die in car crashes than were non-Hispanic white women (8.8 per 100,000).  The differences were similar in other race/ethnic groups.

Other data provide stark evidence of the grave inequalities in the American health care system.  Babies born to black women are up to three times as likely to die in infancy than babies born to women of other races.  

Remember during the health care debate how the Republicans kept saying America had the best health care system in the world?  Maybe it does if you are rich and white.

Just suppose

President Obama last night asked the nation to stop the finger pointing, and I agree completely with the tone of his speech.  Nevertheless, I think about all the Republicans  who say that the shooter was simply a deranged individual.  What would the Republican response be if the shooter had been an illegal alien or a Muslim?

Across-the-board cuts

Pennsylvania townships and boroughs are facing budget shortfalls of major proportions.  This is mostly a result of declining tax revenues and decreased state aid.  The state government itself is awash in red ink.

Let’s make this personal.  Say your boss tells you that your hours will be reduced and, as a result, your take-home pay will be cut by 20 percent.  After the initial panic, you realize you will have to do some serious planning.  What you won’t do is cut every item in your budget by 20%.  That might seem reasonable on the surface, but your landlord might not understand when you cut your rent payments by 20%.  If gas prices rise, you might actually have to increase that item.  On the other hand, the trip to Disney World can be eliminated completely this year.

Across-the-board cuts make no sense for a family.  They don’t make any more sense when governments implement them.  Some programs might be cut, others could be eliminated, and perhaps some vital programs should receive a larger allocation, even in a recession.  

The next time you hear an official propose across-the-board cuts, you know you are dealing with someone who either can’t make difficult decisions or is just plain dumb.

Note:  I thought President Obama’s memorial speech in Tucson was moving.  The whole ceremony was impressive, but to me the yelling and whistling from the audience seemed out of place at such an event.  Perhaps I’m being unfair--LInda felt it might be cathartic.  

The climate

In a signed editorial discussing the Tucson shooting published in the Times News on January 10, Ron Gower said this: “What’s very disturbing about this shooting, besides the actual tragedy, are the news accounts following it.”  

He went on to decry the commentators who criticized Sarah Palin for contributing to the atmosphere that led to the violence.  He said it was wrong to shift blame from anyone except the gunman.

I know that Sarah Palin did not intend for a nine-year-old girl or Rep. Giffords or all the other victims to be shot down in a shopping center.  I am sure that Ms. Palin is shocked and saddened.  She never intended those statements about reloading and the website with the targets to lead to actual blood being spilled.

I want to choose my words carefully here and talk about Shenandoah.  I don’t think our new Congressman Lou Barletta ever advocated or condoned the actions of the four young men who beat a Mexican immigrant to death in Shenandoah.  While I don’t know Mr. Barletta personally, I’m sure he was shocked by that fatal beating.

Nevertheless, I strongly believe that Mayor Barletta contributed to the climate that encouraged those young men to act as they did.  When officials ostracize a minority, criticize members of that minority for increasing crime and urban blight, pass laws to marginalize that minority, and give speech after speech about “illegals,” they must take some responsibility when other people turn on members of that minority in ways those officials might not have intended.

When people call for “second amendment solutions,” talk about “reloading,” claim the president is not a U.S. citizen, bring loaded weapons to political rallies, scream obscenities, and castigate liberals as “traitors” (as Anne Coulter, a Times News columnist has done), those people bear some responsibility when unstable people act upon those words.

A few words on the N.R.A.

A few words on the N.R.A.

I’m a member of the Palmerton Rod and Gun Club--have been for a number of years.  I’ve been reading the Pennsylvania Game News since the Fifties.  I know hunters, associate with hunters, have hunted myself.  I’m 68 years old. 

With all that experience and in all that time, I have NEVER known a hunter who hunts with a semi-automatic Glock pistol.

And now we will hear from the bullies at the N.R.A. and their Congressional lackies that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.  Tell it to the six people who died in Tucson.

I know we have a right to bear arms.  I also know that James Madison, who wrote the 2nd Amendment, was a rational man. I can say with assurance he would not agree with some thug claiming a right to carry an AK-47 to an Obama rally.  Madison had no idea of the weaponry people would be toting around or the mayhem it could cause.

Surely any reasonable person would accept limits.  No RPGs for example.  No IEDs.  No automatics.  The problem is that the NRA is not reasonable, and, for all I know, supports the right to carry RPGs and build IEDs.  It certainly supports the right to carry automatics.

Referendum in the Sudan

The southern part of the Sudan started voting today on whether or not to split off from the northern portion.  The balloting will last a week, since in some remote areas it may take that long for voters to get to the polling locations.

Somewhere in my attic is a research paper entitled “The Dichotomy Called Sudan” written for a graduate school class I took in the mid-sixties at Penn State.  The paper discussed the problems created by European powers that drew the boundaries of their African colonies without regard to tribal or regional loyalties.  I used the Sudan as a case study.  The Arab north should never have been united with the animist south to form the Sudan.  While that may have been obvious, newly independent African states were usually reluctant to approve any boundary adjustments, worried about separatist movements in their own countries.

Now, after pressure from Europe and the U.S and tacit approval from African states, the Sudan has agreed to the referendum on the split.  Most observers think the south will approve the divorce, although bloodshed may continue and more ethnic violence may occur.  On the other hand, if the Sudan remains as it is, more violence is certain.  The civil war in the Sudan was already 10 years old when I wrote that paper.  Over 40 years have gone by since then, and the civil war rages on.  It is time to split that country.

Censoring the Constitution

The House Republican leadership, in an effort to show its love and respect for the Founding Fathers, began the 112th Congress with a reading of the Constitution.  Some of the Representatives regard the Constitution as a sacred document, written with divine inspiration.  In the reading, however, some portions were skipped.  Article I, Section 2, the famous 3/5ths clause, was omitted from the reading.  The Representatives also skipped over the part in Article IV, Section 2 that said “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State...escaping into another” [i.e. fugitive slaves] shall be considered free.

When Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address in 1863, he said the nation was founded “four score and seven years ago.”  Twenty x four + seven = 87.  Subtract that from 1863 and you get 1776.  Lincoln used the Declaration of Independence as the nation’s starting date rather than the Constitution.  Why?  Because it’s the Declaration, not the Constitution, that says all men are created equal, and the Declaration didn’t endorse slavery.    

I have great admiration and respect for most of the Founding Fathers.  It is important to remember, however, that the original Constitution was a result of major compromises, it had no Bill of Rights, and it did contain a procedure for amendments.  The Constitution, wonderful as it is, is not perfect.  We must not censor the distasteful parts of our history or rewrite the unpleasant portions of our heritage.

A note:  Democrats as well as Republicans participated in the reading.  Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, was quoted in the New York Times as saying:  I wanted to be here, I think it’s important.  Reflecting on the Constitution in a bipartisan way is a good way to start the year.”   Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment.

Rewriting Huckleberry Finn

When I was in the fifth grade I read Huckleberry Finn.  I was deeply influenced by the scene in the book where Huck considers the morality of helping a runaway slave.  In pre-Civil War Missouri aiding and abetting a fugitive slave was considered a major crime. 

Huck, however, was not all that worried about breaking the law.  He was largely truant from school and lived a rather carefree life on the edge of civilization.  His problem was that he had internalized his society’s views on slavery.  If he helped his friend Jim, he would burn in Hell.  

I can’t quote from the text exactly after all of these years, but Huck’s decision still resonates.  He thinks about the consequences of aiding JIm and concludes, “All right, then, I’ll go to hell.”  

After all this time that still gives me goosebumps.  You don’t follow the rules when the rules are wrong.  I later learned about Gandhi’s struggle in India and read Thoreau’s “Resistance to Civil Government” and assigned Martin Luther King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” as class reading, but I had already internalized Huck’s message.  

A professor of English at Auburn University recently produced a new edition of Huckleberry Finn that removes the term “nigger,” used in the book something like 200 times.  He calls Jim “Slave Jim.”  He’s changed “Injun” to Indian.  He says teachers will more likely to assign his version of the book.  I think he’s missing the point.

Tomorrow:  The Republican House, evidently taking a lesson from the Auburn professor, censors the Constitution.

Keeping my New Year's resolution

One of my New Year's resolutions was to write to my Republican members of Congress at least once a month.  This letter is going out tomorrow.

Dear Congressman Barletta:

Under the Health Reform bill enacted last session, millions of Americans who had no health insurance will now be able to afford it.  Insurance companies can’t use pre-existing conditions to deny coverage, college students can stay on their parents’ health plans, and millions of dollars will be saved on Medicare expenses.

That the Republican Congress as its first act of business would attempt to return to conditions before that bill was enacted says to me that the new majority would rather make political points than do what is best for the country.  I urge you to turn away from your party’s leadership and vote the interests of your constituents.

I'm sure this will be the deciding factor in Barletta's vote.

Leaked letter to Congressman Issa

Wikileaks aren’t the only source of secret information.  Here’s the copy of a letter forwarded to me that I thought readers might find interesting:

Dear House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa,

Last month you wrote to about 150 companies and trade groups asking them to identify federal regulations that limit job growth and economic recovery.  You evidently plan to introduce legislation to eliminate such regulations.  As the owner of a large family-owned business employing hundreds of workers, here are a few suggestions on what to repeal:

OSHA.  Most of my workers are careful people, and I don’t see why we need to have a federal agency insisting on fire escapes and beepers on trucks backing up.  If a worker is injured on the job, there are many unemployed people out there who would be willing and happy to take his place.

Workman’s Comp.  This relates to the first one.  If a worker is injured on the job, why should he get worker’s comp?  Why can’t the family take care of him?

EPA regulations on water pollution.  Prior to the EPA and its burdensome regulations, my grandfather always dumped the leftover chemicals, dyes, and acids into the river next to the plant.  Do you know the expense of complying with pollution rules?  Why can’t we be like the Marcellus Shale drillers and not have to worry about water pollution?

EPA regulations on air pollution.  A little smog never hurt anyone, at least not very much.

Consumer safety regulations.  Our factory at one time made children’s pajamas.  Then the Commerce Department said pajamas had to be flame resistant.  Do you realize how much that added to the cost?  I really don’t think many kids play with matches.

Equal work for equal pay.  We’re supposed to pay men and women the same amount for the same job.  Why is that?  Everyone knows that women are working for “pin money.”  If I could pay women half of what I pay men, I could hire twice as many.

Overtime and minimum wage requirements.  I think you would agree both of these reduce productivity and retard economic growth. 

Taxes.  Are you aware of how much I could invest in my plant if I didn’t have to pay any corporate taxes or contribute to Social Security?  I know the government needs some revenue, but can’t it build more casinos and run more lotteries?

I’m sure that your committee can act to eliminate these rules.  Unfortunately, we have a Democratic Senate and President, so the changes I’m proposing might not become law.  In 2012, however, I think that will change and we will succeed in eliminating these burdensome and socialistic regulations.

Your friend and campaign contributor,

     Cornelius

I was unable to obtain a copy of Chairman Issa’s reply.  

A pep talk

Suppose you attended a New England Town meeting.  One hundred citizens showed up and chose between two women running for mayor.  The ballots were counted, and the winning candidate achieved victory on a 51 to 49 vote.  Forty-nine people in the room wanted someone other than the woman who won.  You would probably guess that in an election that close, the new mayor would tread very carefully.

Toomey beat Sestak on a 51-49% vote.  Forty-nine of every hundred voters in this state rejected Mr. Toomey.  In the Barletta-Kanjorsky race, 45 people out of a hundred did not want Mr. Barletta.  As my friend Debbie has pointed out, Toomey and Barletta do not only represent Tea Party fanatics and anti-immigrant bigots--they also represent you and me and all of the other citizens who voted against them. They do not only represent Republicans, but they also represent Democrats and Greens and independents, and yes, non-voters.  We have to keep reminding them of that over and over.  

Tomorrow the 112th Congress is sworn in.  Don’t wait to long to remind them. 

  

False Consciousness

Driving through some of the poorest neighborhoods in Carbon County before the election last November I noticed many Barletta and Corbett yard signs.  Did these voters think that Republicans represented their interests?

In What’s the Matter with Kansas, Thomas Frank noted that in 2004 some of the poorest counties in Kansas voted overwhelmingly for Bush.  White non-union men in rural and suburban areas were strongly Republican.  Frank looked at the reasons why such voters would support candidates who are willing to pollute their environment, reward the very rich, oppose health care reform, and fight every policy geared to helping people on the bottom.  

One label for this type of behavior is “false consciousness.”  Voters are convinced that the Republicans are indeed their friends, in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary. 

“I could have a beer with him,” people said of George Bush.  It didn’t matter that Bush supported tax cuts for the rich, that his daddy had been president, or that he never had to do an honest day’s work in his life.  He appeared to be regular guy.

Here are three ways this scam is perpetuated:

1.  Republicans play the common man card.  They accuse Democrats of being latte-sipping liberals who read the New Yorker and would rather attend an opera than a NASCAR race.  Remember Heffley’s campaign slogan--”he’s one of us.”  Sure Heffley’s policy positions will aid the upper class, but voters identified with him.

2.  Republicans scapegoat.  The current baying about illegal immigrants is a way to divert attention to the real culprits in the financial meltdown.  Blame Mexicans or Muslims--they’re the problem.  Who defends them?  Liberals.

3.  Republicans divert attention.  Candidate Obama never ever supported confiscating guns, yet I heard many NRA types swear that the Democrats would do just that.  I was not able to convince them otherwise.  Look at the non-issues in the November election--gay marriage, the World Trade Center mosque, death panels.  And it worked!

How do we overcome false consciousness?  I wish I knew. 

State Stores

Pennsylvania takes in approximately $90.000.000 annually from its state-owned liquor stores.  Governor Corbett is proposing to sell those stores; he predicts the sale will bring in a one-time windfall of $2 billion dollars to help to make up for the deficit facing the state.

This is a gimmick, pure and simple.  It is the equivalent of eating the seed corn. It eliminates a steady source of revenue and does nothing to solve long-term budgetary problems.  

Many Pennsylvanians, of course, support privatization of the liquor stores, although most of them probably haven’t lived in states with a plethora of wine and liquor outlets in every supermarket and mom and pop grocery.  They probably haven’t seen inebriated winos frequenting the local liquor store to buy their bottles of tokay.  They may not have thought about how, with private liquor stores, you can buy a bottle of booze at any hour, although that may be one reason why Mothers Against Drunk Driving opposes privatization.

Status offenders

The term “status offender” refers to people who have not actually committed a defined crime, but have done something illegal because of their status in the community.  An example would be a 15-year-old walking along the sidewalk at 11 p.m. in a town that has a 10 p.m. curfew for juveniles.  If I were walking down the street, no problem.  The 15-year-old, however, can be taken into custody because of his status.  He hasn’t assaulted anyone, hasn’t robbed a convenience store, hasn’t spray painted a wall.  He has simply violated curfew and his age makes his act criminal.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants in the U.S. are status offenders. They have not robbed banks or sold drugs.  Most labor at poor paying, often dangerous jobs.  They are routinely exploited, have no health insurance, and live day-to-day.  These are the people who are being scapegoated for all the economic ills in this country. 

If you want to blame people for the state of the economy, it is not the guys who speak Spanish.  It is white men in suits who make millions.  They speak English without an accent, they manage hedge funds, they vote Republican, they ship jobs to China.  They get tax cuts.  They don’t contribute.  They are the parasites.