CeeCee's blog

UN Report Urges Countries to Take Action to Protect Human Right to Water
Statement by Shayda Naficy, senior organizer of Corporate Accountability International's International Water Campaign

WASHINGTON - September 16 - We commend the independent expert for her thorough review of the challenges to ensuring the human right to water and sanitation in the United States, and support her call for a national water and sanitation policy and plan of action. To fully realize and sustain the human right to water and sanitation, it is essential that the U.S. engage in a process of policy reform and harmonization to put human rights and marginalized groups first, address gaps in regulation and implementation, minimize inequality and de facto discrimination, protect water resources, and bolster data collection and rural water quality oversight. We support communities that have been impacted by corporate usurpation of water resources, including water bottling, and look to the U.S. government to ensure that these unjust and unsustainable practices are stopped.

The report recognizes the need for adequate investment in planning and implementation, which in the U.S. includes a serious need for federal funding increases for infrastructure. Lack of adequate financing is a major contributing factor to U.S. water and sewer system failures. Since 1978, the portion of municipal sewer infrastructure funded by the federal government has declined dramatically from 78 percent to 3 percent. States and localities have been unable to fill this shortfall, leading to extensive deterioration of essential infrastructure. This steady cutback in federal funding has also forced utilities to raise rates dramatically, endangering the human right to water and sanitation especially for low income communities. For example, Washington, D.C. needs a $3.8 billion investment over the next ten years, and without adequate federal support, the city raised rates 17 percent in 2010. With nearly 18 percent of D.C. residents living in poverty in 2009, these escalating water rates could restrict people’s access to safe drinking water.

We are concerned that instead of prioritizing the human right to water and sanitation and dedicating needed federal funding, parts of the U.S. government are increasingly promoting “market solutions” such as “full cost pricing” in ways that undermine these human rights for the most marginalized. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is now advocating for full cost pricing, backed by private corporations that stand to gain from higher water rates and reliance on ratepayers for investments. In the past, these aggressive rate increases have resulted in residents being unable to pay, and having their water cut off. This is a troubling trend that threatens the human right to water in both urban and rural communities and will exacerbate the de facto discrimination highlighted in the Rapporteur’s report.

Water privatization in the U.S. has too often led to human rights violations, and has consistently undermined democratic water governance, accountability, and transparency. While privatization and the right to water may not be theoretically mutually exclusive the Rapporteur’s report shows some examples of how the myriad forms of privatization have violated the human right to water through cutoffs, price hikes, contamination, corporate withholding of information or misleading the public, and failing to fulfil obligations. Additionally, these practices disproportionately impact low income communities and those with fixed incomes.

For example, in 2004, Aqua America took over the water and wastewater system in Neuse River Village, N.C. Within a year, Aqua America had cut off water service to more than half of the 130 households. Dozens of families were forced to fill jugs of water at their neighbours’ faucets for daily cleaning and cooking, use the nearby woods as a bathroom, and some were evicted from their homes. Many families were paying more for water than for rent.

In another case in Toms River, N.J., a federal and state investigation linked drinking water served by United Water Toms River, an investor owned water utility, to childhood cancer. The state later determined that United Water was also manipulating drinking water tests to conceal potential quality violations. These cases exemplify the broader problems with water privatization in the U.S. and the need for better regulation and government oversight.

U.S. foreign assistance should also support the progressive realization of the human right to water and sanitation in other countries. Greater transparency and disclosure, as well as civil society and public involvement is needed in setting priorities for foreign aid to ensure that, for example, the strategy and criteria USAID is developing to target areas of greatest need emphasize community ownership of water and sanitation projects, non-profit structures and locally-sourced technologies.

Finally, U.S. engagement with international financial institutions should be designed to promote and support the human right to water and sanitation. The World Bank Group remains the “largest external source of financing for water management in developing countries”, but continues to push water privatization and corporatization on governments through advisory and technical services, direct investments that empower transnational water corporations, restructuring public utilities, and even through donor conditionalities. Restructuring often means forcing borrowing countries to adopt cost-recovery regulations that increase household tariffs and lay the groundwork for corporate takeover.

In particular, the IFC plays a key role in not only directly purchasing equity shares in water transnationals, but also advising governments to procure their services. We found that from 2000 to 2008, 80 percent of the IFC’s water loans went to the four largest transnational water corporations, further exacerbating power and resource inequalities between the private and the public sector.

Currently, many states lack the capacity to adequately protect and fulfil the human right to water and sanitation, making it both easier and more dangerous for them to succumb to the pressures of transnational corporations, IFIs, and donors, by delegating their key duties to the private sector.

In conclusion, we urge the U.S. government to:

Commit the necessary resources, financial and otherwise, to create and implement a national plan to respect, protect and fulfil the human right to water and sanitation in the United States that:

- Centers around human rights, prioritizing basic needs and ecological integrity
- Incorporates the forthcoming results of U.S. Geological Survey surface and groundwater mapping statistics
- Includes affordability standards, effective remedies for discrimination, and accountability mechanisms
- Is based on a participatory, inclusive, and transparent process
Safeguards against corporate interference in the planning and implementation process
- Address water holistically by including other sectors with impact on water in policy reform and international commitments
- Adopt effective regulations to prevent harm to water resources through contamination and overuse, and provide accountability
- Bolster support for public, non-profit water systems through programs and policies that boost public funding
- Take measures to increase public confidence in, and awareness regarding the importance of, public water systems including by phasing out governmental spending on bottled water
- Take steps through Congressional action to improve regulation and accountability of the bottled water industry
- Ensure that the activities of IFIs support the realization of the human right to water and sanitation
- Ensure that foreign aid, donor activities, and other international activities prioritize and contribute to the progressive realization of the human right to water and sanitation

We urge the Human Rights Council Working Group on Transnational Business, etc to:
- Conduct a study of the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water resources
- Develop recommendations for safeguarding UN water policymaking from corporate interference, based on the Joint Inspection Unit report on the Global Compact

###

Corporate Accountability International has been waging winning campaigns to challenge corporate abuse for more than 30 years. We were there at the beginning of this movement to demand direct corporate accountability to public interests and have been at its forefront ever since.

...this explains one of the reasons why the Teabaggers are against the United Nations. What tools!

»

...Virginia's Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a very important work session on June 8 at 6:00 pm at the Albemarle County Office Bldg to determine the community’s future and its commitment to being a good steward for the County’s environment.

Apparently, The Jefferson Area Tea Party has convinced some members of the Board of Supervisors that being a part of a long-range regional planning effort is a bad thing and that the county should rescind its commitment to set voluntary energy reduction goals. The Tea Party had about 30 people at a recent Board of Supervisors meeting, and that was not on the night of a vote or work session! This small, but vocal, group has put pressure on our Supervisors to take two actions that they will be discussing the evening of June 8, and surely they will be out in force that evening.

1) The first issue is that the Board is considering rescinding a resolution called "Cool Counties", a resolution that has a non-binding goal of reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Tea Party members have convinced Board members that this voluntary resolution, signed by our County in 2007, is part of an international conspiracy that threatens personal property rights. Not kidding – follow this link to read more. http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2011/05/boyd...

Over 1,220 local governments, including Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, have joined a group that supports local governments who are attempting to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission. The group is called “ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability” and provides its members with software that compiles data so progress towards the goals can be tracked.

From what I can tell, because the word ‘sustainable’ is in the name of the group, and ‘sustainability’ was a term that drew international attention through a 1992 UN conference on the Environment, someone has drawn a connection between the ICLEI and the UN. Go figure. (CeeCee Note: No, IMHO "Teabaggers" just have trouble with more than one-syllable words--no room in their mouths or brains--sorry, couldn't resist.)

Have over 1,000 local governments in this country been duped by a UN plot to take away American citizens’ personal property rights? Let’s stand up for some common sense and a voluntary resolution that at least is an attempt by our local government to take some responsibility for keeping the environment healthy for future generations. Rescinding this resolution and removing ourselves from the ICLEI group would refute our County’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, lose money on energy-saving programs, and lose information on tracking data related to energy reduction in the County.

Here are some quotes from Ken Boyd, a member of the Board of Supervisors: “We are being infiltrated in local government by an agenda that is set by this international organization. I think it is time that we as a government took back that control.”….. “Cool Counties is the real problem here… It’s now becoming evident that this initiative was just an extension of the United Nations initiative Agenda 21 which is administered by [ICLEI]….. My concern now is that this is the camel’s nose under the tent. It’s even beyond that. I think it’s now a cancer that is infiltrating our local government here.”

2) The second issue is the Board’s consideration of refusing money that is being offered to our County to help with long-range collaborative planning with our regional partners, because …. the grant that is being offered to the county is part of an initiative that has the word ‘sustainability’ in it!

Surely, it must be the UN plot, again – but this time in the guise of the regional planning organization, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. The state mandates that local governments update their Comprehensive Plans every five years, but provides no funding. Updates are due for Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization, (which does our long-range transportation and road planning).

A federal grant became available to partially fund staffing the updates for all three. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District commission applied and won $999,000 to help with the 3-year project.

So, what’s the problem with accepting some funding to staff positions for updating our much-used and important Comprehensive Plan?

The Tea Party has again convinced some members of the board that because citizens, from 1994 to 1998, worked on a committee of the TJPD, (the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council) and created the Sustainability Accords that were signed by our County, that the TJPD is also a group threatening citizens’ property rights in the name of sustainability.

What do we lose if we pull out of this grant?

We lose funding for positions that we will have to pull from our County budget, we lose needed coordination with the City of Charlottesville around many planning issues, but particularly transportation issues, and we lose the TJPD and their staff to assist us with our Comprehensive Plan.

The Sustainability Accords developed by citizens through the work of the TJPD seem quite mild-mannered to me - here is the description how the Sustainability Accords were developed and what they are, from the TJPD website:

“The diverse group of farmers, business people, foresters, environmentalists, developers and elected officials - 34 citizens representing the six localities of the district - was given the charge to "describe a future where our economic, human, social, and environmental health are assured." The Council addressed the areas of: human population, basic human needs, economic development, transportation, land development, waste, values/ethics, community awareness, interdependence/balance, government, natural environment, and agriculture/forestry. Over a four-year period and with the assistance of hundreds of members of the public at forums and in working groups, a mission statement, a delineation of the Principles which govern a sustainable community, and the Goals, Objectives, and Indicators and Benchmarks of a sustainable region were developed. Taken together, the Accords create an agenda on which the community can agree. Taken individually, each one provides an opportunity for individual and community action toward sustainability for the region. The Accords were presented to the public on June 16, 1998, where they were signed by many citizens and local elected officials. They have since been included as part of the comprehensive plans of the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville.”

And here, from the Cville Tomorrow website, is how a Tea Party member recently characterized the Thomas Jefferson Planning District:

“This unelected organization has stated its intention to apply its own version of sustainability benchmarks against all activities of the public, and have its vision of citizen behavioral change and social justice objectives codified in the County Comprehensive Plan”. Yet another sustainability conspiracy!

So, please come to the June 8 meeting and speak in support of ICLEI, Cool Counties, and the TJPDC planning grant. The meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. at the Albemarle County Office Building. We need to have 100 people to stand up for sustainability. You don’t have to speak, others will ask supporters to stand if they are in agreement.

If you can’t come to the meeting, please email the supervisors (bos@albemarle.org) and tell them to keep Albemarle County in these valuable programs. You can be brief, but the e-mails really do make a difference!

Thanks so much for reading the above and considering it!

If you are interested in researching the issues further, here are some interesting talking points and websites. It is also interesting to read some of the information on the Jefferson Area Tea Party’s website: http://www.jeffersonteaparty.org/

Further information:

· Surveys of Albemarle County residents show that residents overwhelmingly support spending tax dollars on environmental protection.(http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/county_e... -- 98.2% said it is important to protect natural resources and environment, 96.7% said it's important to manage growth)

· Sustainability is a good thing. It means we will not deplete natural resources and will leave a healthy planet for future generations. Living sustainably protects our air, water, and natural areas. The Sustainability Accords are a home-grown result of hundreds of hours by local citizens. (http://www.tjpdc.org/home/sustainability.asp) The Livability project continues this home-grown effort.

· Coordinated planning by the county, the City and U.Va. through the Livable Communities Planning Project is a good thing. The TJPDC Livability program assists our local comprehensive plan updates, funded by a HUD grant, especially welcome now that County budget cuts have reduced Planning staff. The County retains the ability to make its own decisions. Common sense tells us that the three entities should plan together for the future of our community. (Project description: http://www.1-community.org/ ) Do sign the contract.

· We are proud that Albemarle County Board unanimously joined Cool Counties and agreed to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050. (Fairfax County page regarding the Cool Counties program: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/2007/178.htm) It is intelligent for the County to set goals by which to measure progress. If this is not your goal, what is? The County has been an environmental leader for decades, and now is no time to stop.

ICLEI provides the County the means to measure progress, learning from other counties and using a computer software to estimate and track its CO2 emissions. We can take or reject any advice on how we can reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas pollution. ICLEI is a valuable tool, and eliminating it will handicap the County’s ability to achieve its environmental goals. (The ICLEI home page: http://iclei.org/). It is hard for citizens to believe the County seriously values the environment if it rejects such a useful tool.·

Americans rise to face challenges like climate change, and we are at our best when we confront them rather than denying or hiding from them. For the past 30 years Albemarle County has made progress in protection of our environment. This is no time to cease or handicap those efforts by refusing to set goals (through the Cool Counties resolution) or rejecting an inexpensive, irreplaceable tool (ICLEI) or refusing a grant to help up-date our Comprehensive Plan (updating is required by state law).

You can read May 25th Daily Progress article, page 6, about the June 8 meeting. Charlottesville Tomorrow has several relevant articles on its webpage, such as its report on Albemarle supervisors meeting with Boyd comments on ICLEI (http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2011/05/boyd...).

…while watching the Super Bowl on the Fox channel which for about seven and half hours they shamelessly promoted themselves with commercials, other publicity and over the top jingoism. Clearly, the only prerequisite to have a commercial during the Super Bowl broadcast was $3 million for 30-seconds and not be in a Union. (More on the commercials later.)

The Super Bowl goes beyond determining the Annual NFL Champions. It’s an exhibition of cronyism and greed and how corporations help themselves at the expense of others.

This Super Bowl demonstrated that corporations don’t get a lot of stuff right either; and without government (of the people, by the people and for the people) we the people can be hurt, sorry out of luck, and/or demeaned while corporations accumulate power, influence and wealth.

Let’s start at the stadium…seems Mother Nature decided to make the Packers and Steelers feel at home and dumped snow and ice in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas.

According to Arlington Fire Department spokesman Pete Arevalo, seven workers were injured as ice on the stadium began falling when the NFL had “raised the temperature inside in an attempt to melt the ice before it can come down.” It’s a science thing, Newton established years and years ago--gravity. It’s not their fault, Texas abandoned the text books that don’t reinforce right wing ideology.

Perhaps had Cowboy owner, Jerry Jones, not packed his skybox with War Criminals, there would have been adequate seating for the paying customers.

Then, if you were thinking that the Pre-Game show would be highlighting the NFL season and AFC and NFC Champions “Road to the Super Bowl,” watching Fox was not the network for you. Viewers were barraged with publicity for Glee and any other Fox investments. Oh and let’s not forget “the interview” of President Obama by Bill O’REALLY. I could not even go there, I changed the channel. While I appreciate the President saying a few words about the Super Bowl, clearly having Loohfah Man conduct it was political manuevering.

And since when has reciting the Declaration of Independence before “The Game” become a tradition. Made me want to throw up a little bit in my mouth. I begrudgingly concede the Super Bowl is a respite for the military and it's festivities has incorporated flyovers and recognizing military participants for years, but what’s next, tank battles during halftime.

Speaking of halftime, how convenient was it the sound system was miserable during the Black-Eyed Peas performance. Obviously, the incompetents were trying to steer clear of the performers altering their music lyrics to inject their political message into the mix. The sound company missed their mark, though, because the message about jobs and government stimulation got through. I enjoyed halftime; although, I always feel that the duration is not a good thing for the athletes.

The game was Super Bowl worthy, although John Madden, looking uncomfortable sitting with the War Crimnals, should have been in the broadcast booth with Joe Buck and Troy Aikman locked out. I had no team preference. I saw a lot of pass interference that never got called. Washington’s NFL team release of now Pittsburgh’s, at least at this writing, Field Goal Kicker Suisham was justified for missing “should have made” field goals that could have won or tied the game. Could Fox's pre-game interviews, actually minutes before the start of the game, of Pittsburgh's Head Coach Mike Tomlin and Green Bay's Charles Woodson provided enough distraction that cost Pittsburgh the game and resulted in the player's injury?

Depending on your perspective, the commercials are as important, more or less, as the game. In addition to paying big bucks for a 30-second spot, what did Chrysler pay for its two-minute spot or should I say propaganda piece. Notice Fox got top billing…

No mention of corporations being responsible for the misery in Motor City and their gratitude to we the people, otherwise known as the Government, for saving the U.S. auto industry. This wasn’t the only commercial that seemed to be a mixed message. In fact many seemed that way to me.

The Groupon.com commercials with Cuba Gooding Jr. (Save the Whales) and Timothy Hutton (Tibet) seemed to be mocking public concerns/causes.

PepsiMax and Teleflora objectifying women and reinforcing men’s objectification. Violence toward women through physical humor such Pepsi Max and Snickers. Isn’t Roseanne Barr a presidential candidate?

John 3:16 had an ad. Obviously, their free advertising throughout the season is NOT enough, giving $3 million to the Fox Network instead of feeding the hungry and housing the homeless is money well-spent? At least, the NFL Players Association has its priorities straight.

Furthering “it’s all about me and you be damned” theme, The Fox Network also presented a mocking adaptation of iconic commercial with Steeler “Mean” Joe Green and a boy fan. Curmudgeon House throws his cane at a child after being offered a Hispanic dessert.

If Gervais is banned from hosting another awards show, then The Fox Network should never see another Super Bowl except by turning on the television.

I am going to take a shower.

P.S. My favorite commercials (not in any particular order):

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise...
Submitted by CeeCee on Fri, 01/28/2011 - 8:20pm.
One U.S. Corporation's Role in Egypt's Brutal Crackdown
Timothy Karr
January 28, 2011

The open Internet's role in popular uprising is now undisputed. Look no further than Egypt, where the Mubarak regime today reportedly shut down Internet and cell phone communications -- a troubling predictor of the fierce crackdown that has followed.

What's even more troubling is news that one American company is aiding Egypt's harsh response through sales of technology that makes this repression possible.

The Internet's favorite offspring -- Twitter, Facebook and YouTube -- are now heralded on CNN, BBC and Fox News as flag-bearers for a new era of citizen journalism and activism. (More and more these same news organizations have abandoned their own, more traditional means of newsgathering to troll social media for breaking information.)

But the open Internet's power cuts both ways: The tools that connect, organize and empower protesters can also be used to hunt them down.

Telecom Egypt, the nation's dominant phone and Internet service provider, is a state-run enterprise, which made it easy on Friday morning for authorities to pull the plug and plunge much of the nation into digital darkness.

Moreover, Egypt also has the ability to spy on Internet and cell phone users, by opening their communication packets and reading their contents. Iran used similar methods during the 2009 unrest to track, imprison and in some cases, "disappear" truckloads of cyber-dissidents.

The companies that profit from sales of this technology need to be held to a higher standard. One in particular is an American firm, Narus of Sunnyvale, Calif., which has sold Telecom Egypt "real-time traffic intelligence" equipment.

Narus, now owned by Boeing, was founded in 1997 by Israeli security experts to create and sell mass surveillance systems for governments and large corporate clients.

The company is best known for creating NarusInsight, a supercomputer system which is allegedly used by the National Security Agency and other entities to perform mass surveillance and monitoring of public and corporate Internet communications in real time.

Narus provides Egypt Telecom with Deep Packet Inspection equipment (DPI), a content-filtering technology that allows network managers to inspect, track and target content from users of the Internet and mobile phones, as it passes through routers on the information superhighway.

Other Narus global customers include the national telecommunications authorities in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia -- two countries that regularly register alongside Egypt near the bottom of Human Rights Watch's world report.

"Anything that comes through (an Internet protocol network), we can record," Steve Bannerman, Narus' marketing vice president, once boasted to Wired about the service. "We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on; we can reconstruct their (Voice Over Internet Protocol) calls."

Other North American and European companies are selling DPI to enable their business customers "to see, manage and monetize individual flows to individual subscribers." But this "Internet-enhancing" technology has been sought out by regimes in Iran, China and Burma for more brutal purposes.

In addition to Narus, there are a number of companies, including many others in the United States, that produce and traffic in similar spying and control technology. This list of DPI providers includes Zeugma Systems (Canada), Camiant (USA), Procera Networks (USA), Allot (Israel), Ixia (USA), AdvancedIO (Canada) and Sandvine (Canada), among others.

These companies typically partner with Internet Service Providers to insert DPI along the main arteries of the Web. All Net traffic in and out of Iran, for example, travels through one portal -- the Telecommunications Company of Iran -- which facilitates the use of DPI.

When commercial network operators use DPI, the privacy of Internet users is compromised. But in government hands, the use of DPI can crush dissent and lead to human rights violations.

Setting the Bar High for DPI Sales

Even Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on this problem.

"Internet censorship is a real challenge, and not one any particular industry -- much less any single company -- can tackle on its own, " Rep. Mary Bono Mack wrote in a 2009 letter to Rep. Henry Waxman, then chair of the House Commerce Committee. "Efforts to promote freedom of expression and to limit the impact of censorship require both private and public sector engagement."

Earlier this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Egypt's government "not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications, including on social media."

Bono Mack's letter and Clinton's statement echo Free Press' call for a congressional inquiry into the issue. But this is just a start.

Before DPI becomes more widely deployed around the world and at home, the Congress ought to establish clear criteria for authorizing the use of such surveillance and control technologies.

The power to control the Internet and the resulting harm to democracy are so disturbing that the threshold for using DPI must be very high.

Today we're seeing the grave dangers of this technology unfold in real time on the streets of Cairo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/one-us-corporations-role-_b_8...

December 1st, 2010 11:07 AM
Recipe for Riots: Take Cruel Republicans and Wall Street Democrats, Add the Worst Economy in Eighty Years, and Stir
By Michael Moore

Imagine if the U.S. Post Office had just shut down, leaving its almost 800,000 employees without a paycheck. And then imagine Wal-Mart was planning to lay off two-thirds of its workers -- or 1.2 million people -- by Christmas. What would they do? And what would two million more people with no income do to a U.S. economy that was teetering on the edge as it is?

Well, you don't have to imagine, because that's the situation we're in as of midnight last night. Congress has failed to appropriate money for emergency unemployment benefits for 800,000 Americans. And another 1.2 million people will be in the same boat by the end of December. They'll have no income in the worst economy since the Great Depression -- and with no sign of hope on the horizon.

(Note that these are NOT the "99ers" -- those who've exhausted 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. There are approximately 3.5 million 99ers. The two million who're now falling through the safety net with them have been unemployed for fewer than 99 weeks, but Congress has refused to appropriate the funding for their benefits.)

You don't care, you say? You have a job and don't want to hear about these millions of people who suddenly suffered from a mass attack of laziness starting in late 2008? Well, care about this: without these two million spending their unemployment checks, up to another million people will likely lose their jobs, with the total effect stomping on whatever little momentum the economy has. You might be getting a sudden attack of laziness soon yourself.

So what do we do now? Two things:

1. Find the contact information for your representatives and call, fax and write them demanding that they all -- Democrats or Republicans -- vote for the money for the needed benefits. And tell Democrats to stand up to the GOP Senate blackmail where they're holding the unemployed hostage unless Democrats vote to extend Bush's tax cuts for the richest 2%. (Of course, don't forget that the Democrats could pay for this right now on their own if they were willing to get rid of the filibuster).

2. Participate in the AFL-CIO's Day of Solidarity with the long-term jobless on December 7th. We're all in this together, and we'll either make it together or go down together.

If Congress decides to tell millions of Americans to shut up, go home and die...well, we're going to end up at a destination even John Boehner and Mitch McConnell won't like much. I'm amazed my fellow Americans have taken everything as well as they have so far, but every country has their breaking point. And we're getting close.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/recipe-for-riots

November 28, 2010
Liberal Groups to Propose Routes to Smaller Deficit
By JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON — As President Obama’s fiscal commission faces a deadline this week for agreement on a plan to shrink the mounting national debt, liberal organizations will unveil debt-reduction proposals of their own in the next two days, seeking to sway the debate in favor of fewer reductions in domestic spending, more cuts in the military and higher taxes for the wealthy.

The proposals from two sets of liberal advocacy groups highlight the deep ideological divides surrounding efforts to deal with the nation’s budgetary imbalances, even as Mr. Obama’s bipartisan commission works to finalize its recommendations by Wednesday — and struggles for a formula that would get the backing of at least 14 of its 18 members, the threshold for sending its proposal to Congress for a vote.

Inside the commission, expectations remain low that a supermajority can agree on a plan, given most Republicans’ opposition to raising taxes and most Democrats’ resistance to deep spending cuts and reducing future retirees’ Social Security benefits.

Yet the panel’s proponents hope that agreement among even a bipartisan minority can be the basis for future action to arrest the unsustainable growth of government debt in coming years.

Over the holiday week, the commission’s staff revised the draft plan from its chairmen — Alan K. Simpson, a former Senate Republican leader, and Erskine B. Bowles, president of the University of North Carolina system and a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton — to reflect contributions made at meetings this month by the rest of the commission, six senior members of Congress from each party and four business and union leaders.

Even if the commission fizzles, its chairmen’s plan and the alternatives — about a half-dozen packages from centrists and conservatives, and now the two from the liberal groups — have demonstrated a rough consensus for all their differences: action is needed once the economy recovers, and the fiscal problem cannot be resolved by spending cuts or tax increases alone. Both military and health care spending should be on the cutting table. So should “tax expenditures,” the scores of popular but costly tax breaks for individuals and corporations, including the mortgage-interest deduction. And Social Security’s finances require a long-term fix.

Nothing of the sort is before the lame-duck session of Congress that resumes this week. Instead, the parties and Mr. Obama are in effect fighting over how much to add to the long-term debt: Democrats want to extend the expiring Bush-era tax cuts except for rates in the highest income brackets, at a projected 10-year cost of about $3 trillion, while Republicans want to make all the tax rates permanent, which would cost more than $4 trillion — roughly the same amount the Bowles-Simpson plan would save in a decade.

And while Mr. Obama and Congressional Republicans agree that lawmakers should not earmark spending for special projects, a ban would hardly dent the projected annual deficits.

On Monday, the progressive policy organizations Demos, the Economic Policy Institute and the Century Foundation will unveil a liberal blueprint. Their report says that unlike the centrist plans, this version “stabilizes debt as a share of the economy without demanding draconian cuts to national investments or to vital safety net programs.” It would, however, leave the debt at a higher level as a share of the economy than the centrist plans.

On Tuesday, a separate coalition of liberal groups, economists and labor leaders — the Citizens’ Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America’s Economic Future — will release a similar outline.

Both plans are comparable to one recently proposed by Representative Jan Schakowsky, a liberal Democrat from Illinois who is a member of the Bowles-Simpson commission. Ms. Schakowsky opposed the chairmen’s draft as too hard on the middle class.

The liberal plans’ differences with centrists and conservatives include the following:

¶Timing. While other debt-reduction plans would take effect as early as 2012, the progressives oppose any austerity measures until perhaps 2015, once unemployment is at or below 6 percent.

¶Stimulus spending. Most of the plans call for immediate additional stimulus measures, arguing that they will help create tax-paying jobs and reduce spending for relief to the jobless. But the liberals seek more spending in the short and long term: for now, financing for unemployment assistance, public works projects and aid to state and local governments to prevent continued layoffs of teachers and other employees, and for years beyond, “pro-growth investments” in areas like education, infrastructure, child care, rural broadband and scientific research.

¶Military spending. All the plans would reduce projected spending for the military, but the liberal plans would cut deeper.

¶Health care cost constraints. Congressional Republicans, including Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, who has a comprehensive conservative plan, would repeal the new health care law. Mr. Ryan would also privatize Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in the future. In contrast, the liberal and centrist plans would expand on the new law’s long-term savings policies.

The liberal plans, however, would rely more on limiting payments to doctors, hospitals and other care providers and less on increasing out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries, except for upper-income people. The liberals also call for a public option to compete with private insurers in new exchanges for consumers, and for the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower prescription-drug prices.

¶Social Security. While centrist plans would raise payroll taxes for the affluent and reduce benefits scheduled for many new retirees in future decades, the progressive plans would only raise taxes to make the program solvent until late in the century.

Liberals and centrists would raise the cap on taxable wages to cover 90 percent of all wage income; the level has slipped from that level in recent years. If it applied in 2012, for example, workers would pay Social Security taxes on income up to about $156,000 instead of $113,700.

¶Taxes. The progressive plans rely heavily on higher revenues from the rich and would reduce taxes for low-wage workers.

The centrist and liberal plans eventually would end the Bush tax rates, restore estate taxes, and limit or eliminate tax breaks for corporations and individuals — so-called tax expenditures — that cost more than $1 trillion in revenues annually. The liberals would use the revenues for deficit reduction and increased domestic spending; centrists would use them to pare the deficit and to significantly lower individual and corporate income tax rates.

The liberals also call for a surcharge on income above $1 million. They would limit other tax breaks that benefit the affluent and tax capital gains and dividends at higher ordinary income rates. The liberal plans would impose a carbon tax to encourage clean energy and to raise revenues, which would be split between deficit reduction and energy rebates for consumers. They would also raise the federal gasoline tax to replenish the federal highway trust fund.

Both liberal plans would impose a tax on financial transactions to raise revenues and discourage speculation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/us/politics/29fiscal.html?_r=2&ref=us

Deconstructing America - The "Reich" has plans...
...or why the Presidency has to stay out of their hands!

Scalia Jumps On The Anti-Seventeenth Amendment Bandwagon

One of the most bizarre developments of the last several months is the growing right-wing calls to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, the provision of the Constitution that empowers voters — as opposed to state legislatures — to elect their senators. On Friday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia joined Senator-elect Mike Lee (R-UT) and Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) in opposing the century-old amendment:

Scalia called the writing of the Constitution “providential,” and the birth of political science.

“There’s very little that I would change,” he said. “I would change it back to what they wrote, in some respects. The 17th Amendment has changed things enormously.”

That amendment allowed for U.S. Senators to be elected by the people, rather than by individual state legislatures.

“We changed that in a burst of progressivism in 1913, and you can trace the decline of so-called states’ rights throughout the rest of the 20th century. So, don’t mess with the Constitution.“

Justice Scalia’s use of extremist “states’ rights” rhetoric is an ominous sign. Although Scalia has a well-deserved reputation as an ultra-conservative, his record on federal/state power issues is surprisingly sensible. Indeed, his concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich could have been written as a blueprint for why President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is constitutional.

It’s puzzling why Scalia, or anyone else for that matter, would suddenly take a swipe at this entirely uncontroversial amendment — although the Wonk Room offers one possible explanation. Before the Seventeenth Amendment was enacted, corporate interest groups were able to lean on state lawmakers and thus effectively buy U.S. Senate seats. In other words, repealing the Seventeenth Amendment “would be like Citizens United on steroids.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/15/scalia-seventeenth/

Why Does The Far Right Suddenly Hate Electing Senators?
One of the most bizarre developments since President Obama took office is the growing desire on the right to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, the provision of the Constitution which requires senators to be chosen by election. Senator-elect Mike Lee (R-UT), Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia have all jumped on this bandwagon.

Over at the National Review, right-wing law professor Todd Zywicki makes the unsurprisingly unpersuasive case for this radical proposal. Among other things, Zywicki claims that repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would be a good thing because it would make senators more like British Lords (yes this is true), but the crux of his argument is that we should leave senator selection in the hands of state legislatures to fill the Senate with individuals who “recognize that their reelection depend[s] on pleasing state legislators who prefer[] that power be kept close to home.”

Conservatives have long advocated devolving power from national leaders to state governments as a backdoor way to undermine America’s social safety net. Landmark programs such as Social Security and Medicare are economically impossible unless they are administered by the federal government or coupled with draconian restrictions, such as a mandate that everyone must retire in the same state that they worked and paid taxes in. Ultimately, shifting power from national to state leaders can be an effective way to dismantle these landmark programs.

But this does little to answer why the right has suddenly become obsessed with Senate elections, as it’s not even clear that repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would succeed in significantly altering the balance of power between state and national leaders. As David Gans explains, the Seventeenth Amendment did not come about through some kind of federal assault on state power (nor could such an assault have succeeded because it is impossible to amend the Constitution without the consent of a supermajority of state legislatures). Rather, the last time state lawmakers were empowered to choose senators, they practically begged the Congress to take that power away from them:

By 1912 –- when the Senate finally capitulated to public pressure and approved the Seventeenth Amendment –- thirty-three states had provided for direct primaries; another twelve states had implemented the “Oregon system” in which candidates for state legislative office pledged whether or not they would adhere to the results of the popular vote for Senator. Between 1874 and 1912, Congress received 175 petitions from state legislatures calling for direct election of Senators. Most important, when year after year, the Senate refused to approve the proposed Seventeenth Amendment, states around the country petitioned Congress for a constitutional convention. By 1910, 27 states had called for a convention, and only the threat of an actual convention finally spurred the Senate into action.

So there’s little reason to believe that actual state lawmakers want to drink the states-rights cocktail that Zywicki is brewing. As Gans explains, however, there is one very simple reason why conservatives may prefer the pre-Seventeenth Amendment America — repealing the Seventeen Amendment would be like Citizens United on steroids:

[T}he system led to rampant and blatant corruption, letting corporations and other moneyed interests effectively buy U.S. Senators, and tied state legislatures up in numerous, lengthy deadlocks over whom to send to Washington, leaving those bodies with far less time to devote to the job of enacting the laws their states needed for the welfare of the people.

So while it’s anyone’s guess why so many far-right lawmakers and constitutional scholars have suddenly taken aim at the United States Constitution, the simplest explanation is probably the best one. Eliminating Senate elections would increase corporate America’s power to choose lawmakers and potentially undercut the social safety net in the process. In other words, it will help to reshape America in the right wing’s image.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/15/seventeenth-hate/

2010 Election Over; Seven-Point Plan for 2012
Tuesday 16 November 2010
by: Gloria Feldt, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

Election day 2010 is so yesterday. Today and tomorrow, progressive women - who constitute up to 60 percent of the Democrats' base - had better regroup and start a vigorous push not just to regain ground lost, but to take back the message and advance a strong agenda for 2012.

Let's face it - Democrats (do they ever learn?) and all progressives are in for a very rough ride again, after only the briefest of post-Bush respites.

But we have to remember that the political process is an oscillation, not a straight line between two points. Count on it: Every political defeat sows the seeds of the next victory, and every victory sows the seeds of the next defeat. This year's defeat was sown not by moving too fast or thinking too big, but because Democratic leaders with President Obama at the top failed to keep the electorate thinking expansively and courageously enough.

Contrast this with Republican performance during the last two years. Did they wait even one minute to begin their battle to regain control of Congress? No, they redoubled their efforts. Instead of licking the wounds of their 2008 defeat, they set about opposing Obama, vilifying Nancy Pelosi, and obstructing the legislative progress. They unabashedly blamed the Democrats in power for not passing the very legislation they themselves killed - and worse yet, the Democrats let them get away with it.

Here's a seven-point plan so progressive voters can celebrate like it was 2008, come November, 2012.

1. Carpe the chaos. Post-election regrouping with its inevitable shifting boundaries and jockeying for power is the perfect launching pad for victories ahead. Far from being a time to step back, it's an opportunity for progressive women to assert leadership and do things differently while people are searching for new solutions. Defeated Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell said the Republican Party will never be the same because of her candidacy. If that's true, progressives have an ideal opportunity to stage a come back in 2012.

2. Opt out of being co-opted. Some say, "You lost, so change your platform to be more like those who beat you." That's a losing strategy.

Insist, instead, that the Democratic Party recant its lose-lose, Blue Dog recruitment and focus on beefing up support for the 60 percent of their voter base that is women, largely progressive women. Democrats can't win without those votes. Period. Notably, many Blue Dogs lost their seats despite "running against their party" in futile attempts to placate conservative constituents.

3. Embrace the power of choosing. Nonpartisan women's political groups like the White House Project and the 2012 Project should rethink their missions and set standards for helping only women who support a pro-woman agenda, if not by party affiliation, then on key issues. Many women resist choosing sides in an ambivalent relationship with power. Time to get over that.

4. Articulate a bold and righteous agenda. What Obama promised before he was elected is a good start. That would define new terms for the debate. For example: health reform with universal coverage and full reproductive health care (NOT starting with yet another compromise as he is already offering to do); the Paycheck Fairness Act; quantum leaps to stimulate the economy with green jobs, investment in education and technological innovations; the Freedom of Choice Act to guarantee reproductive self-determination. And while we're at it, let's raise the need for quality, affordable day care. We should be gearing up to run a progressive woman for president in 2016, or 2012 if Obama continues to throw women under the bus. (Yes, I have someone in mind, but the truth is, that because of her, there will be a solid bench of qualified female candidates in the pipeline.)

5. Learn from the mama grizzlies. They embrace that which is uniquely female - childbearing (82 percent of women, including progressive women, are mothers). Emulate their fierceness and moral certainty, and the energy of their insurgency. But fight their attacks on policies designed to help our children. And call out the $11,000 pay disparity that mothers face by proposing real solutions such as Moms Rising's Motherhood Manifesto.

6. Shape and monitor media coverage. Make sure that more progressive females are represented, and represented in a positive light. The right has played the news media like a virtuoso on a Stradivarius, while the ever-appeasing talking heads tack to the middle of the road, where it's said there's nothing but a yellow stripe and a dead armadillo. Enough of that.

7. Don't play so darn nice. When reminded that he isn't giving us the change we needed, Obama shakes his professorial finger and chides, "You weren't listening." Oh, but we are listening. Women's groups and progressive women voters were seduced by fool's gold, thinking that the 2008 victory represented lasting change. But it's not a place of power to confuse access for influence, or any one election for lasting change.

The way forward is to carpe the chaos, opt out of being co-opted, and never ever get off the offensive. Progressive women must embrace their power to put themselves not just back into office, but back into political ascendancy.
http://www.truth-out.org/2010-election-over-2012-election-on65155

ACLU Launches Voter Empowerment Program
Effort Includes Cards Advising Voters Of Basic Rights And Emergency Contacts On Election Day

ATLANTA - October 15 - The American Civil Liberties Union launched its 2010 voter empowerment program today. As part of this effort, ACLU affiliates have distributed voter education materials in 19 states that inform voters of their rights on Election Day and how to avoid problems when casting a ballot.

"The ACLU is working hard to ensure that all voters' rights are protected and that every vote is counted on November 2," said Fred McBride, Redistricting Project Coordinator with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "There is just too much at stake for people to be denied their right to choose their leaders."

The cards, which are being distributed by ACLU state affiliates and are available for download at www.aclu.org/voter, summarize the basic state and federal laws pertaining to every voter and list emergency contact numbers for voters to call if they encounter problems at the polls. The cards also provide answers to common questions such as: Where do I vote? Is identification required? How can I minimize potential problems?

Voter education materials have been created for voters in 19 states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Voters can report complaints on a wide range of elections issues – including equipment malfunctions, access to the polls and discriminatory or illegal election practices – by calling the ACLU toll-free help line: (877) 523-2792. Many states will also have information about voting with a criminal conviction available.

"With Election Day right around the corner, we are pleased to offer an important tool to help people exercise their fundamental right to vote," said Laughlin McDonald, Director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "You never know what might happen at the polls – that's why voters must be as informed as possible."

Through a multi-pronged effort of litigation and legislative advocacy, the ACLU is on the front lines fighting the important constitutional battle to protect voting rights. The ACLU has challenged voter suppression efforts throughout the country, including unlawful voter purges and photo identification laws.

To download the voter empowerment cards, go to:
www.aclu.org/voter

Voter empowerment cards optimized for mobile devices are available at: mobile.aclu.org/voter/

A video with 10 tips for Election Day is at:
www.aclu.org/voting-rights/always-practice-safe-voting

.