When Acorn came under attack by the Right, I underestimated the depth and seriousness of the assault. The videos produced by young, right-wing zealots conveyed the impression (to some audiences) that ACORN was an edgy organization with a fraudulent social agenda whose employees stood ready to assist underworld-types how best to game the system. In truth, ACORN was edgy and hard-charging and and populist.
At the time the videos surfaced, I thought ACORN might get in a mild bit of trouble, but that it would matter little. ACORN, as I thought of it, was an over-the-hill organization with a stale agenda. I may have been right in some respects--that ACORN was tired (and undernourished)--but it turned out that the organization was indeed in deep trouble. And I entirely ignored the possibility that if a group working at the grassroots for affordable housing and a living wage, and against predatory lending, was erased, neither justice nor a movement that believed in justice would be well-served.
Now ACORN is gone. It took less than a year from the time the organization came under fire until it went under. And now, Planned Parenthood is under a similar attack.
When it happened to ACORN, the right did not know it could destroy a center/left organization. It took awhile for most right-wing organizations to recognize the opportunity that was presenting itself. That's not the case this time. The Right knows what is possible. The Right is mobilized. The Right has learned lessons about how to pursue and amplify the attack. The Right knew another attack was coming.
Of course, Planned Parenthood isn't ACORN. Planned Parenthood is a bigger organization with a better foundation, a larger constituency, more resources and more access to resources. All to the good, because Planned Parenthood may be facing a fight for survival here. And if there's still a Left out there, it better show up for this fight.
Showing posts with label federal funding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal funding. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Friday, June 5, 2009
Health Care Benefits for Workers No Matter Who Pays
I'm approaching 20 letters to the Washington Post since we moved to DC. Clearly, I've too much time on my hands.
Meanwhile, the Post has published one of my letters. This one, submitted Monday, is over their word limit by about 30 percent and probably won't be published, either. But I don't really believe word count is the decisive problem here.
I'm guessing the main difficulty is that I'm generally too critical of the Post (and most other newspapers). Still, I don't think that's my problem. It seems to be a matter of editing and writing that doesn't meet a reasonably high standard. Newspapers in their current form may be on their deathbed, but journalists let the side down a long time ago.
Letter to the Washington Post, #17
Your article, “A Red State Booster Shot (Post, 5/31/09)” asserts that “universal health care … is likely to help red America at the expense of blue [America].” Arguable, yes, but far from proven.
The proposition that government health care reform will end up taxing northern and unionized workers for expansion of health care in red states misses several important points and may be overstated. I say, “may be” because the article does not identify the source for the data it throws around. It's true that most northern states have programs that do a much better job insuring children than do southern states. But the families receiving health coverage through combined state/federal programs certainly will not be taxed on those benefits regardless of the means Congress chooses to pay for health care expansions.
Further, as unionized workers lose their jobs they generally lose their health benefits, as well. This factor accounts more than any other for the recent spike in the numbers of uninsured, a change that probably is not reflected in the data supporting your assertion that blue state workers will be significantly taxed to pay for red state benefits.
Though this is not intended to be an exhaustive critique of the slant implicit in your story, there are any number of ways in which blue states and their residents will benefit from a federal initiative to expand health care coverage no matter how the cost is covered. Here are two:
When large numbers of working people in the south begin receiving health care coverage, it will be despite years of opposition by southern state governments and private employers. This benefit will dampen traditional southern voter hostility to federal government activism and will mean less opposition, if not more support, for other federal initiatives, including changes in labor law aimed at defending workers.
Second, an expanded federal role in providing health insurance means more government leverage for controlling health care cost increases. Such a result will lead to huge benefits for both red and blue state workers and, in the long run, dramatically reduced costs for universal healthcare.
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
WDC 20017
202 506-7470
jeffepton07@comcast.net
Meanwhile, the Post has published one of my letters. This one, submitted Monday, is over their word limit by about 30 percent and probably won't be published, either. But I don't really believe word count is the decisive problem here.
I'm guessing the main difficulty is that I'm generally too critical of the Post (and most other newspapers). Still, I don't think that's my problem. It seems to be a matter of editing and writing that doesn't meet a reasonably high standard. Newspapers in their current form may be on their deathbed, but journalists let the side down a long time ago.
Letter to the Washington Post, #17
Your article, “A Red State Booster Shot (Post, 5/31/09)” asserts that “universal health care … is likely to help red America at the expense of blue [America].” Arguable, yes, but far from proven.
The proposition that government health care reform will end up taxing northern and unionized workers for expansion of health care in red states misses several important points and may be overstated. I say, “may be” because the article does not identify the source for the data it throws around. It's true that most northern states have programs that do a much better job insuring children than do southern states. But the families receiving health coverage through combined state/federal programs certainly will not be taxed on those benefits regardless of the means Congress chooses to pay for health care expansions.
Further, as unionized workers lose their jobs they generally lose their health benefits, as well. This factor accounts more than any other for the recent spike in the numbers of uninsured, a change that probably is not reflected in the data supporting your assertion that blue state workers will be significantly taxed to pay for red state benefits.
Though this is not intended to be an exhaustive critique of the slant implicit in your story, there are any number of ways in which blue states and their residents will benefit from a federal initiative to expand health care coverage no matter how the cost is covered. Here are two:
When large numbers of working people in the south begin receiving health care coverage, it will be despite years of opposition by southern state governments and private employers. This benefit will dampen traditional southern voter hostility to federal government activism and will mean less opposition, if not more support, for other federal initiatives, including changes in labor law aimed at defending workers.
Second, an expanded federal role in providing health insurance means more government leverage for controlling health care cost increases. Such a result will lead to huge benefits for both red and blue state workers and, in the long run, dramatically reduced costs for universal healthcare.
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
WDC 20017
202 506-7470
jeffepton07@comcast.net
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Cut Military Spending!
or Learning to Love a Republican at DOD
For 40 years, I've believed that cutting the military budget would solve most major problems in the United States and a host of minor ones. "Cut military spending" has become a near-mantra for me. It soothes, it focuses, it rejuvenates.
Want to effectively oppose U.S. imperial adventures? Cut military spending.
Want to find the money to rebuild urban public school systems? Cut military spending.
Want to reduce government waste and reduce the influence of lobbyists? Cut military spending.
Too cold outside? Problems with regularity? Need a new computer? Cut, cut, cut military spending.
Clearly, I've been guided by my faith. But it is equally clear that my prayers generally have been falling on deaf ears.
So, it is with some astonishment that I read in today's Washington Post about Bob Gates, our Republican Secretary of Defense, who proposes to cut the military budget ("Gates Seeks Sharp Turn In Spending" and "Contracting Boom Could Fizzle Out"). Gates does not want to cut defense spending as much and as deeply as I do, I'm sure, but "the proposal by Gates amounts to a radical change in the way the Pentagon buys weapons."
I'm not one to believe in a thing just because the newspaper says it's so, but in a lifetime of voracious consumption of news, I can't recall ever seeing or hearing the phrase "radical change" conjoined with "Pentagon" in a corporate daily outside a readers-respond section.
Is this "Nixon Goes to China" or is it "Dewey Defeats Truman?" The answer remains to be seen, but Gates is reported to have said that some weapons programs are "truly in the exquisite category."
Such a statement may not reverberate for the average reader, but for me the words have the power to seduce. I am overwhelmed by the thought that I may have found a new muse.
Alas, much stands between me and the consummation I desire so devoutly. Count Sen. Joe Lieberman, Sen. Jon Kyl, Sen. Jim Inhofe, Sen. Pat Roberts, Rep. Ike Skelton, Rep. Jack Murtha, Rep. Norman Dicks and Rep.Todd Tiahrt among the enemies of true love (read about them in "Pentagon Chief Calls for Cuts; Congress Opens Fire"). These and other members of Congress have constituents whose jobs depend on maintaining spending that Gates proposes to cut.
There are plenty of political theories that would justify the regional chauvinism that motivates the political behavior of some elected officials (e.g., Harold Lasswell and "Who Gets What, When and How"), but the power that they wield together ought to inspire fierce opposition. We need a new caucus in the Capitol, say, Congress Opposed to Narrowly Defined Interests in Defense Budgeting; that would be CONDID-B, it sounds safely militaristic, like the name of a naval base in the Pacific, or something.
Falling in love or otherwise, I am willing to bet my future working with Bob Gates that we can create a good job and a half rebuilding bridges or building new public schools for every defense job we cut (see "Report Shows Increased Military Spending Slows Economy" or "Military Feast, Public Poverty" or The "Economics of Peace" Conference). If I am wrong, I don't deserve the Bob Gates of my dreams, but if I am right, and if Gates gets his way, I get to cross boundaries that have held me back for years. I get to love a Republican.
For 40 years, I've believed that cutting the military budget would solve most major problems in the United States and a host of minor ones. "Cut military spending" has become a near-mantra for me. It soothes, it focuses, it rejuvenates.
Want to effectively oppose U.S. imperial adventures? Cut military spending.
Want to find the money to rebuild urban public school systems? Cut military spending.
Want to reduce government waste and reduce the influence of lobbyists? Cut military spending.
Too cold outside? Problems with regularity? Need a new computer? Cut, cut, cut military spending.
Clearly, I've been guided by my faith. But it is equally clear that my prayers generally have been falling on deaf ears.
So, it is with some astonishment that I read in today's Washington Post about Bob Gates, our Republican Secretary of Defense, who proposes to cut the military budget ("Gates Seeks Sharp Turn In Spending" and "Contracting Boom Could Fizzle Out"). Gates does not want to cut defense spending as much and as deeply as I do, I'm sure, but "the proposal by Gates amounts to a radical change in the way the Pentagon buys weapons."
I'm not one to believe in a thing just because the newspaper says it's so, but in a lifetime of voracious consumption of news, I can't recall ever seeing or hearing the phrase "radical change" conjoined with "Pentagon" in a corporate daily outside a readers-respond section.
Is this "Nixon Goes to China" or is it "Dewey Defeats Truman?" The answer remains to be seen, but Gates is reported to have said that some weapons programs are "truly in the exquisite category."
Such a statement may not reverberate for the average reader, but for me the words have the power to seduce. I am overwhelmed by the thought that I may have found a new muse.
Alas, much stands between me and the consummation I desire so devoutly. Count Sen. Joe Lieberman, Sen. Jon Kyl, Sen. Jim Inhofe, Sen. Pat Roberts, Rep. Ike Skelton, Rep. Jack Murtha, Rep. Norman Dicks and Rep.Todd Tiahrt among the enemies of true love (read about them in "Pentagon Chief Calls for Cuts; Congress Opens Fire"). These and other members of Congress have constituents whose jobs depend on maintaining spending that Gates proposes to cut.
There are plenty of political theories that would justify the regional chauvinism that motivates the political behavior of some elected officials (e.g., Harold Lasswell and "Who Gets What, When and How"), but the power that they wield together ought to inspire fierce opposition. We need a new caucus in the Capitol, say, Congress Opposed to Narrowly Defined Interests in Defense Budgeting; that would be CONDID-B, it sounds safely militaristic, like the name of a naval base in the Pacific, or something.
Falling in love or otherwise, I am willing to bet my future working with Bob Gates that we can create a good job and a half rebuilding bridges or building new public schools for every defense job we cut (see "Report Shows Increased Military Spending Slows Economy" or "Military Feast, Public Poverty" or The "Economics of Peace" Conference). If I am wrong, I don't deserve the Bob Gates of my dreams, but if I am right, and if Gates gets his way, I get to cross boundaries that have held me back for years. I get to love a Republican.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
No Bailouts
The National Lawyers’ Guild used to have a T-shirt that quoted Shakespeare: “The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers.” It was a pointed tongue-in-cheek comment about the way some lawyers use the law to block social justice and change. Unfortunately, what was first a social observation, and later a leftist insight into the way entrenched interests use the law, has become a club with which to bash all lawyers.
Regardless, the recent moves by the Fed to protect banks against their own bad investment decisions put me in mind of the Shakespeare quote. As the current recession gathers momentum, what we need is a priority list for government action. Maybe lead the list off with, “the first thing we do is, we don’t bailout business.”
One of the Fed’s moves involves loaning investment banks up to $200 billion and allows banks to secure the loans by pledging securities they hold. Supposedly, the banks’ pledged collateral will be their most highly rated, mortgage-backed securities. AAA-rated, we are told.
On the news of the Fed’s move, the Dow-Jones average of industrial stocks achieved its largest single-day increase in five years. Despite appearances, the Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein says this isn’t just a “bailout for Wall Street (A Bailout. For Everyone, Post, March 12).” Pearlstein says the move will help us all.
"…it is also a bailout…meant to prevent a financial and economic meltdown that drags everyone down with it,” Pearlstein writes, though he leaves out the specific ways in which working families will benefit.
For a different perspective on bailouts check Dean Baker’s book, “The Conservative Nanny State.” Baker, who is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), argues that the government, contrary to popular belief, repeatedly uses its power to help banks and other businesses avoid the consequences of risk.
“…in a market economy lenders take risks when they make a loan [or buy mortgage-backed securities]. They should, in principle, understand this fact. Certainly, the highly compensated corporate executives that manage large banks and other financial institutions should understand that they take risks when they make their loans [or investments],” Baker writes.
That it is necessary for Baker to make the point at all, in a chapter about bankruptcy, suggests that corporations operating in our “free market” economy understand perfectly well that a government bailout is always a good possibility. The message cloaking the substantial benefits of these corporate bailout policies has been consistent since the phrase “what’s good for General Motors is good for America,” entered the vernacular. Pearlstein’s comments are merely the latest refinement.
But it seems more than possible that AAA-rated securities might not be that good, at all. That’s been the experience recently as even security-rating services have come under fire for their practices. That means the Fed’s decision has put the government in the position of guaranteeing $200 billion in investments that might be liquidated for less sometime in the future.
If jobs are at stake here, then for $200 billion the government could extend unemployment benefits, expand food stamp programs and begin investing in different jobs, like new and rebuilt mass transit, bridge repair and renewable energy. But the first thing we do is, we don’t bailout business.
Regardless, the recent moves by the Fed to protect banks against their own bad investment decisions put me in mind of the Shakespeare quote. As the current recession gathers momentum, what we need is a priority list for government action. Maybe lead the list off with, “the first thing we do is, we don’t bailout business.”
One of the Fed’s moves involves loaning investment banks up to $200 billion and allows banks to secure the loans by pledging securities they hold. Supposedly, the banks’ pledged collateral will be their most highly rated, mortgage-backed securities. AAA-rated, we are told.
On the news of the Fed’s move, the Dow-Jones average of industrial stocks achieved its largest single-day increase in five years. Despite appearances, the Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein says this isn’t just a “bailout for Wall Street (A Bailout. For Everyone, Post, March 12).” Pearlstein says the move will help us all.
"…it is also a bailout…meant to prevent a financial and economic meltdown that drags everyone down with it,” Pearlstein writes, though he leaves out the specific ways in which working families will benefit.
For a different perspective on bailouts check Dean Baker’s book, “The Conservative Nanny State.” Baker, who is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), argues that the government, contrary to popular belief, repeatedly uses its power to help banks and other businesses avoid the consequences of risk.
“…in a market economy lenders take risks when they make a loan [or buy mortgage-backed securities]. They should, in principle, understand this fact. Certainly, the highly compensated corporate executives that manage large banks and other financial institutions should understand that they take risks when they make their loans [or investments],” Baker writes.
That it is necessary for Baker to make the point at all, in a chapter about bankruptcy, suggests that corporations operating in our “free market” economy understand perfectly well that a government bailout is always a good possibility. The message cloaking the substantial benefits of these corporate bailout policies has been consistent since the phrase “what’s good for General Motors is good for America,” entered the vernacular. Pearlstein’s comments are merely the latest refinement.
But it seems more than possible that AAA-rated securities might not be that good, at all. That’s been the experience recently as even security-rating services have come under fire for their practices. That means the Fed’s decision has put the government in the position of guaranteeing $200 billion in investments that might be liquidated for less sometime in the future.
If jobs are at stake here, then for $200 billion the government could extend unemployment benefits, expand food stamp programs and begin investing in different jobs, like new and rebuilt mass transit, bridge repair and renewable energy. But the first thing we do is, we don’t bailout business.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Statement on Public and Public Charter Schools
I testified today at a DC City Commission hearing on education. A couple of people thanked me for my remarks and nobody pointed at me and yelled, "drug test that man." Overall, I'd say the whole thing went pretty well.
Here's my statement:
February 29, 2008
My name is Jeff Epton and I live in Brookland. I’m a product of Chicago public schools and my two older children went to conventional public schools in Michigan. My youngest goes to E.L. Haynes Public Charter School here in the District. I have also taught (poetry) for the last three years on a part-time basis in both Chicago and DC. From the standpoint of a parent, an enthusiastic advocate of public education and a part-time teacher, I’d like to rave a little bit about E.L. Haynes.
In my judgment the teachers and staff at Haynes are highly qualified. More than that, they are enthusiastic, caring and creative and, I think, successful under challenging circumstances. The Haynes curriculum focuses both on skill development for all and on precise and targeted responsiveness to individual children. On that basis alone, Haynes offers Chancellor Rhee and DC public schools one more opportunity to observe and evaluate successful innovation.
There’s three quick points I’d like to make here:
1. We should avoid lengthy debates that focus on distinctions between public schools and public charter schools. Everyone wants to be accountable here. Everyone wants to see the schools strengthened by innovative practices. And we all want to recruit, develop and retain skilled and dedicated teachers and staff. Public schools were once the best tool we had to build democracy and still have the potential to help us build a truly human and enriched society. Charter schools are not the enemy in that, they are a simply a means to achieve some of the revitalization we seek.
2. At times in the past, organized labor may have been an obstacle to improving the schools. But unions have also been a way to insure that the interests and skills of working people are represented in efforts to make change. Unions should be partners in whatever we do to improve the public schools. And not just teachers, either. Students at the schools know the people who work in the schools, the custodial staff, food service staff and others. And those workers know the children and have something to offer this effort, too. Their unions should be a part of these discussions.
3. It may be that if a distinction develops between charters and other public schools that we can’t resolve, it is because these schools are competing for a piece of a pie that is not sufficient to meet their needs. This shouldn’t come as a surprise. The American public school system has suffered sustained neglect over the last 30 years. We must make our schools as efficient as we can and we must demand accountability.
But we must also demand—in concert with school systems and city councils from around the country—that our federal government increase its investment in our children by increasing its investment in public schools of every description.
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
Washington, DC 20017
202 506-7470
Here's my statement:
February 29, 2008
My name is Jeff Epton and I live in Brookland. I’m a product of Chicago public schools and my two older children went to conventional public schools in Michigan. My youngest goes to E.L. Haynes Public Charter School here in the District. I have also taught (poetry) for the last three years on a part-time basis in both Chicago and DC. From the standpoint of a parent, an enthusiastic advocate of public education and a part-time teacher, I’d like to rave a little bit about E.L. Haynes.
In my judgment the teachers and staff at Haynes are highly qualified. More than that, they are enthusiastic, caring and creative and, I think, successful under challenging circumstances. The Haynes curriculum focuses both on skill development for all and on precise and targeted responsiveness to individual children. On that basis alone, Haynes offers Chancellor Rhee and DC public schools one more opportunity to observe and evaluate successful innovation.
There’s three quick points I’d like to make here:
1. We should avoid lengthy debates that focus on distinctions between public schools and public charter schools. Everyone wants to be accountable here. Everyone wants to see the schools strengthened by innovative practices. And we all want to recruit, develop and retain skilled and dedicated teachers and staff. Public schools were once the best tool we had to build democracy and still have the potential to help us build a truly human and enriched society. Charter schools are not the enemy in that, they are a simply a means to achieve some of the revitalization we seek.
2. At times in the past, organized labor may have been an obstacle to improving the schools. But unions have also been a way to insure that the interests and skills of working people are represented in efforts to make change. Unions should be partners in whatever we do to improve the public schools. And not just teachers, either. Students at the schools know the people who work in the schools, the custodial staff, food service staff and others. And those workers know the children and have something to offer this effort, too. Their unions should be a part of these discussions.
3. It may be that if a distinction develops between charters and other public schools that we can’t resolve, it is because these schools are competing for a piece of a pie that is not sufficient to meet their needs. This shouldn’t come as a surprise. The American public school system has suffered sustained neglect over the last 30 years. We must make our schools as efficient as we can and we must demand accountability.
But we must also demand—in concert with school systems and city councils from around the country—that our federal government increase its investment in our children by increasing its investment in public schools of every description.
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
Washington, DC 20017
202 506-7470
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
