Month: May 2008

If Hillary was in the same situation, delegate wise, against John Edwards, how likely is it that she would have resorted to the tactics she is employing against Barack Obama today?

The Clinton campaign likes to talk about how the Florida and Michigan delegations should be seated at full strength because we have to “count every vote.” Hillary Clinton’s express appeal to the emotional experience of voter disenfranchisement in Bush-Gore Florida 2000 is meant to short-circuit thinking about the issue. After all, who would want to argue that we shouldn’t count every vote?

In fact, Florida and Michigan are almost certain to have their delegations seated at the convention in some fashion. Clinton is pushing for it; Obama has said he is committed to having it happen as well. The question is what value will each vote from these states end up having relative to the delegate count that is the metric of the nomination contest.

Florida and Michigan are likely to have their delegations seated at the convention with their delegates’ votes being valued at half instead of full strength, as the regulations that everyone knew about and agreed to ahead of time call for. If this is done, Florida and Michigan will be punished for their unsanctioned primaries not by disenfranchising their voters but by recalculating the value of their votes per delegate.
The value of vote per delegate in the Democratic presidential nomination process already varies wildly per state depending on a number of factors, including the jurisdiction’s popular vote for the Democratic candidate for President in the last three presidential elections, how late the jurisdiction’s primary falls in the cycle, and whether it has electoral votes or not. Setting a penalty on states that hold unsanctioned primaries in order to maintain some semblance of order in the process is just another one of those factors, and under the circumstances, not inherently disenfranchising.

For example:

• In the California Democratic primary there were 5,066,993 votes cast for a total of 441 (370 + 71) delegates, or 11,490 votes/delegate.
• In the Democrats Abroad primary there were 23,105 votes cast for a total of 11 (7 + 4) delegates, or 2100 votes/delegate.
• In the Rhode Island Democratic primary there were 186,657 votes cast for a total of 33 (21 + 12) delegates, or 5656 votes/delegate.
• In the Massachusetts Democratic primary there were 1,263,764 votes cast for a total of 121 (93 + 28) delegates, or 10,444 votes/delegate.
• In the Pennsylvania Democratic primary there were 2,307,759 votes cast for a total of 187 (158 + 29) delegates, or 12,341 votes/delegate.
• In the Illinois Democratic primary there were 2,038,614 votes cast for a total of 184 (153 + 31) delegates, or 11,079 votes/delegate.
• In the New York Democratic primary there were 1,891,143 votes cast for a total of 281 (232 + 49) delegates, or 6730 votes/delegate.

(total vote figures from The Green Papers)

This isn’t even getting to the caucuses, compared to which the numbers of votes per delegate in big states like California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania are already significantly undervalued.

So instead of Florida having its 1,749,920 Democratic primary votes for 211 delegates valued at 8293/delegate, if they’re given a 50% penalty they’ll instead be valued at 16,586/delegate. Admittedly high, but certainly not disenfranchisement.

And if Michigan gets a 50% penalty, their 594,398 votes for 157 delegates will be reduced in value from 3786/delegate to 7572/delegate – still more bang for the buck per voter than for the voters in many states, including California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.

Are you ready for another pastor controversy? Maybe this is the year where the balance is tipped and it becomes disadvantageous to seek out the political support of religious leaders.

Cross-posted at Project Vote’s blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Indiana’s voter ID law, the state-by-state battle to pass similar legislation has escalated with politicians seeking partisan gain furiously pushing laws that hinder access to the ballot. However, lawmakers seeking to dismantle barriers to electoral participation are just as committed to election integrity and protecting the voting rights of potentially millions of voters by calling out voter ID laws as “sheer political posturing.” Meanwhile, positive measures to increase participation through Election Day Registration (EDR) are gaining ground in several states even as Iowa prepares to test-drive its new EDR law in the June 3 primary.

Voter ID

Last week, two states introduced new voter ID bills, including adjourned state, Mississippi. The state – which convened for a “costly special session” – introduced two new voter ID bills after seven failed at the end of the 2008 regular session in April. One bill, S 2004a passed, but is expected to die in the House, according to Jackson, Miss. publication, The Clarion Ledger. The other state, North Carolina introduced voter ID bill, H 2284, explicitly citing the Supreme Court’s Indiana decision and the state’s unspecified “voter fraud history” as reason to enforce voter ID.

This week, stubborn Illinois politicians extended the deadline to pass voter ID bill, H 4403 for the third time since the bill was introduced in January. The state is projected to adjourn on May 29. Illinois’ openness to continued efforts to pass a voter ID bill was not mimicked in Massachusetts on Tuesday when lawmakers blocked an effort to allow voter ID legislation in the city of Lawrence, according to The Eagle Tribune.

The Lawrence bill passed the city council in February in hopes of silencing “frequent rumors of electoral fraud and voter mischief,” the mayor, Michael Sullivan, said. In another interview, Sullivan admitted he was not aware of actual voter fraud in the state, the Eagle Tribune reported. Even on the national level, voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Between 2002 and 2005, the federal government was able to secure just 24 voter fraud convictions out of 214 million ballots cast in federal elections during the same period, according to Project Vote report, The Politics of Voter Fraud.

Despite nine pending voter ID bills, such legislation is unwelcome in Mass., having a “powerful enemy” in chief election officer and Secretary of State William Galvin and organizations such as MassVote and the state ACLU, which “contended requiring voter ID was an unreasonable burden on voter access.”

While the Mass. legislature blocked the bill to avoid setting “a precedent of allowing individual communities to have different election laws,” Delaware politicians were less concerned with confusion and disenfranchisement. State law allowed Milton city councilors to pass a bill to require both proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter ID to cast a ballot.

This legislative session, Project Vote has monitored 25 states that introduced numerous voter ID bills. Currently, six states are still considering such legislation. To track some of these bills, visit ElectionLegislation.org (registration required).

Election Day Registration

On the positive side of election reform, several states are considering or preparing to implement a measure that “significantly increases the opportunity to cast a vote and participate in American democracy.”

Iowa will “test” a new law allowing citizens to both register and vote on Election Day during the June 3 primary, according to the Associated Press. “It will be a good test for the county commissioners, because in November there will be a flood of people,” said Secretary of State Michael Mauro.

The AP noted fears of voter fraud as a result of convenient registration procedures like EDR.

However, “administered effectively, Election Day Registration may actually provide more security for the ballot, not less,” according to Demos, a research and advocacy organization. “As the secretary of state of Minnesota [Mark Ritchie] recently put it, ‘EDR is much more secure because you have the person right in front of you—not a postcard in the mail. That is a no-brainer. We have 33 years of experience with this.’”

Election Day Registration helps enfranchise historically underrepresented communities, including minorities and young people. Currently, eight states allow same day registration, most of which boast a turnout rate 10-12 percent above the national average, Demos reports.

Last week, Ohio joined the ranks of seven other states that are currently considering EDR. The state introduced House Joint Resolution 6 to provide for same day registration. It is currently in the House committee on State Government and Elections. Same day registration is also being considered by Congress. Earlier this month, Sen. Russell Feingold introduced an EDR bill, S 2959. The bill is currently in the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. To monitor Election Day Registration bills, visit ElectionLegislation.org or Demos.org.

Quick Links:

Voter ID:

Bills and Contact:

Miss. Senate Bill 2004a
Sponsor: Sen. Terry Burton (R-31)

Resources:

BLOG: Counter framing Voter ID: Voting is a Right, Not a Privilege. Voting Matters Blog.

Citizens Without Proof: A Survey of Americans’ Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenship and Photo Identification. Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

EDR:

Bills and Contact:

Mass. S 2514
Sponsor: Joint Committee on Election Laws

Mich. H 410
Sponsor: Rep. Bettie Scott (D-3)

Neb. L 803
Sponsor: Sen. Ray Aguilar (NP-35)

N.J. S 141
Sponsor: Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-20)

N.Y. A 4488
Sponsor: Asm. Michael N. Gianaris (D-36)

N.Y. S 581
Sponsor: Senate Rules Committee

Ohio HJR 6
Sponsor: Rep. Tyrone K. Yates (D-33)

Okla H 3035
Sponsor: Rep. Ryan McMullen (D-55)

Resources:

www.Demos.org

In Other News:

The Vote Fraud Bogeyman: Evidence suggests that rampant voter fraud is a myth, and voter-ID laws may suppress votes rather than protect them – Newsweek
Just as a sizable fraction of American children firmly believe in a bogeyman in the closet, many American adults are gripped by the paranoid fear that the opposing political party regularly steals votes-Democrats allegedly do this through vote fraud (i.e., casting ballots for dead people) and Republicans apparently do so through vote suppression (i.e., preventing voting through intimidation or misinformation).

Arizona to seek dismissal of challenge to voter ID law – Associated Press
State officials say a challenge to Arizona requirements for voter identification and proof of citizenship should be thrown out in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana’s voter ID law.

Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote’s Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD).

Hey, Newt Gingrich, why do you think we haven’t had any follow-on domestic terror attacks since September 11, 2001?

“I honestly don’t know,” Gingrich replied. “I would have expected another attack. I was very, very worried … when we had the sniper attacks, because the sniper attacks were psychologically so frightening. … I was amazed that the bad guys didn’t figure out how to send ten or twelve sniper teams.”

“This is … one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration,” Gingrich continued. “The more successful they’ve been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we’re in danger. And therefore, the better they’ve done at making sure there isn’t an attack, the easier it is to say, ‘Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.’ And it’s almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us.”

Okay. I can see you’re not really serious Newt, but you seem to be implying that we should allow small attacks to somehow prevent large attacks. Is that what you’re saying?

I think that your liberties in a domestic setting are paramount,” Gingrich explained. “I would rather risk crime than risk losing my civil liberties. But I would not rather risk a nuclear weapon. … I think the greatest danger to our liberty is to actually have the country end up in the kind of attack that would lead us to favor a dictatorship for security.”

Oh, so you are saying that you’ll trade small attacks to prevent big attacks. Aren’t those called false-flag operations normally? Or maybe you are just arguing that we should allow our rights to be violated. Is that what you’re really trying to say?

Gingrich then recommended splitting the FBI into a domestic crime unit, which would respect civil liberties, and a “small but very aggressive anti-terrorism agency” with “extraordinary ability to eavesdrop.”

So, I guess we need to rephrase that old canard to read, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety, unless there are nuclear weapons in the world.”

And the Republicans actually want people that love freedom and liberty to vote for them. Astonishing.

…as the Israeli government pushes the Bush Road Map aside.

The bulldozer does its work while Mr. Sbeih turns way in disgust. – Top Center: Israeli settlement of French Hill.
More Israeli Repression – Another Day of Home Demolitions is the name of this story, reported by Fred Schlomka from the Israel Committee Against House Demolition (ICAHD) (reproduced here by permission).

Stories like this one are everyday occurrences in the West Bank, Palestine and merely emphasize the intent of the proZionist Israeli government to continue its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. This poor Palestinian father is at the mercy of the Israeli military intent on taking his land. Because he cannot shelter and feed his family, it may encourage him to move his family, perhaps to Jordan or Egypt, like many others before him. The Bush Road Map and recent statements by Bush and Condi Rice to achieve a two state solution by the end of the year cannot withstand the reality of everyday life in the West Bank. Israel has other plans, obviously, and this Palestinian man’s stolen land is part of it.

Read the story. They are all pretty much the same.

Yunis Sbeih, his wife and eight children had lived in their home for four years in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Anata. This morning while Mr. Sbeih was consulting with his lawyer about a home demolition order he received four days ago, his wife called to say that bulldozers had arrived at his home. A call was put in to The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), that in turn, sent out a notice on the organization’s SMS activist alert system. Before long a core cadre of ICAHD was on the way to Anata.

By the time the activists arrived, the police and Israeli Army had cordoned off the house, giving the family just half an hour to remove their belongings. Then the giant jackhammer attached to the bulldozer began its ugly work, systematically destroying the fruit of decades of Sbeih family savings. It wasn’t enough for the machine of destruction to make the house uninhabitable by collapsing the roof and walls. They also burrowed deep into the rubble and tore into the concrete slab floor of the house. Then the bulldozer went meticulously around the edges of the slab, digging deep into the ground to the foundations buried several meters in the ground. Once the house had been completely destroyed the jackhammer turned its attention to the surrounding trees, and the recently poured concrete slab that was intended for an addition to the original home.

While all this was happening the hapless family was forced to sit nearby, surrounded by soldiers and police, and watch their whole life collapse. Was this a terrorist family? Had a family member committed a heinous crime? No. The Sbeih family story is similar to thousands of other families in the Jerusalem area who are trying to build lives for themselves and their children.

Through the politicized and cynical manipulation of municipal planning and zoning regulations, the government has made it all but impossible for Jerusalem’s Palestinian residents to obtain building permits. However the government is more than happy to ask thousands of dollars for permit applications that are invariably refused. The Sbeih family applied for a permit five years ago. It was a reasonable request. They own the small plot of land on the edge of the village and merely wanted to build a modest 100-meter (900 sq. ft.) home. They were willing to pay for the permit and to comply with all relevant building codes. However, like virtually all applications it was refused, and the family went ahead and built their home.

During the demolition ICAHD activists engaged some of the Israeli soldiers in conversation, who fell generally into two categories. Some were quite bored with the proceedings and talked amongst themselves about girlfriends and weekend activities. A few averted their eyes when asked how they felt about participating in the demolition. One soldier, a Druze from a village in the north, denied any responsibility. “I’m just doing my job”, he said, “Those people from the Jerusalem municipality are responsible for the demolition, not me.” When asked how he would feel if a home in his village was demolished, the soldier replied, “They demolish Druze homes too”. The Druze are a religious sect situated in northern Israel, south Lebanon, and southwest Syria, originating as an offshoot of Islam. They refer to themselves as Ahl al-Tawid (People of Unity) or al-Muwahhidün (Unitarians). Like all minorities in Israel, they are kept largely confined to their villages with most of the surrounding land zoned agricultural. Denied building permits like the East Jerusalem Palestinians, they often build `illegally’ and have homes demolished. However virtually all Druze men serve in the Israeli army or police as part of a `deal’ made with the Israeli authorities after the founding of the state in 1948. It’s ironic that they are themselves subject to repression; yet profess loyalty to the state.

This loyalty extends to the protection of the municipal officials, private contractors and their workers, who are violating international law and human rights conventions through the destruction of civilian homes in Occupied Territory. Although the village of Anata was `annexed’ by Israel and is considered part of Jerusalem under Israeli law, it receives almost no municipal services, and has a checkpoint at its entrance where Palestinians are harassed and humiliated daily.

Anata, situated on the northeastern fringe of Jerusalem dates from antiquity, and is reputed to have been a Canaanite village in biblical times. Village lore claims that Anata residents originated from the same ancestor, Sheikh Abed Asalam Mohammed Al Rifai who established a school of thought, Al Rifai Sufi-school, which is a famous school in the Arab world. During the Crusader wars, the Muslim leader, Salah Eddin Aiyoubi, situated his administration in the village before he proceeded towards Jerusalem. Today Anata is administered in part by the Jerusalem Municipality, and partly by the Israeli ‘Civil Administration’, which is responsible for the eastern edge of the village, part of Area ‘C’ of the West Bank.

It is our friends and ally that this story talks about. That’s a Hyundai bulldozer, by the way, just in case anyone needs some help in choosing their next car: stay away.

Michelle Obama on that RFK type of talk:

“Send us good vibes. Pray for us. Think positive thoughts. But most of all, be vigilant. Be vigilant about stopping this kind of talk. It’s not funny. You don’t have to like Barack to dislike that kind of talk. Be vigilant about stopping that kind of talk.”

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers’ Alliance, and My Left Wing.

I was venting my spleen last night about Dunkin’ Donuts idiotic decision to cave to Michelle Malkin and her band of crazies in the right wing blogosphere. And the inimitable skippy stopped by to give me an action alert.

As skippy points out, by playing Malkin’s game, Dunkin’ Donuts not only insults one-time bohemian college students, like myself, who wore the ultra-hip keffiyah, but THE ENTIRE ARAB WORLD.
From Epicurious:

Of course, Malkin glosses over the fact that the kaffiyeh is a staple of Arab wardrobes all over the Middle East (Jordanians prefer red-and-white ones, Kuwaitis all-white ones, etc.), not just among those using violent means to create a Palestinian state. Simply saying that anyone who wears a kaffiyeh is demonstrating solidarity with Islamic terrorists is like saying anyone who wears a beret believes in Cuban-style communism as espoused by Che Guevara. True, Arafat made it his trademark, but it’s critical to remember that to a vast number of Arabs, the kaffiyeh’s basically just another kind of hat, and that to equate kaffiyeh-wearers with terrorists sets a dangerous precedent in a country that should have learned by now the pitfalls of underestimating the complexities of Arab (and Muslim) cultures.

Unless Malkin actually is saying that all kaffiyeh-wearing Arabs are jihadists and terrorists, which is certainly something she’d conceivably say.

But let’s face it. That’s how Malkin and her ilk think, as they stoke racist hate against Muslims… and some Sikhs and others who have the misfortune of looking somewhat Arabic. And now Dunkin’ Donuts corporation has joined the appallingly ignorant in legitimizing prejudice.

we say, what’s good for the batshit insane is good for the logical.

here’s dunkin’ donuts contact form. why not email them and let them know that you will no longer be buying their donuts or coffee or any product because their actions, at worst, in effect condemn all who wear scarves, and at best, are just plain looney?

be nice…and point out what epicurious says…a kaffiyeh is merely a piece of wardrobe worn by most people in the arab world, and to ascribe a political philosophy to its usage is moronic.

and we don’t need to buy from moronic corporations.

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing

click to enlarge
John McCain showed his true strips (again) last week when he came out against the G.I. Bill on the eve of Memorial Day Weekend. He has a history of ignoring the needs of the military even though he was a prisoner of war. One would think he would have a firm grasp of the needs of the military but as my friend, Christine Hall, pointed out, “John McCain can easily be talked out of anything.” That had to be the best description of John McCain I have ever heard.

The SEIU published a research report exploring John McCain’s health care record, policies and campaign plans.

From AAP:

As the research shows, McCain’s latest ideas for health care would actually make obtaining coverage more difficult for the average working family and cause health care costs to go up for millions of hardworking Americans.

Deborah Roberson, a child care worker in Erie, PA, has diabetes and is currently uninsured. Under the McCain plan, she would not be guaranteed coverage because she has a pre-existing condition. Her net pay last year was $14,300 and her out of pocket health care costs were $3,000 – over 20 percent of her income.

“I live in fear of getting sick,” said Roberson. “I have to stretch my medication. Sometimes I take one diabetes pill instead of the two my doctor prescribed. God forbid I should have to go to the hospital. I need health insurance so that I can stay healthy and take care of myself, my family and these kids. John McCain has no plan to ensure that people like me get the care we need.”

Good grief! How in the world can John McCain believe a health care plan that maintains the idiotic pre-existing condition position? It is easy, he was talked out of it.

If you are a woman, it gets worse.

From HuffPo,

Since 1983, in votes in the House and the Senate (where he has served since 1987), McCain has cast 130 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues. 125 of those votes were anti-choice. Among his voting lowlights:

He has repeatedly voted to deny low-income women access to abortion care except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life (although McCain is now wavering on trying to put these exceptions into the party platform).

He voted to shut down the Title X family-planning program, which provides millions of women with health care services ranging from birth control to breast cancer screenings.

He voted against legislation that established criminal and civil penalties for those who use threats and violence to keep women from gaining access to reproductive health clinics.

He voted to uphold the policy that bans overseas health clinics from receiving aid from America if they use their own funds to provide legal abortion services or even adopt a pro-choice position.

Of his anti-choice voting record, McCain has said, “I have many, many votes and it’s been consistent,” proudly adding: “And I’ve got a consistent zero from NARAL” through the years. And last month he told Chris Matthews: “The rights of the unborn is one of my most important values.”

What’s more, McCain has made it very clear that if he becomes president he will appoint judges in the Scalia, Roberts, Alito mold. His big judicial speech earlier this month was filled with coded buzz words that make it clear that, if given the chance, he’d replace 88-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens with an anti-choice Justice who would tip the scales against Roe v Wade. Throw in an additional anti-choice replacement for the 75-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and you can kiss the right to choose good-bye for a long, long time.

Why John McCain is so interested in my wife’s uterus is beyond me.

McCain’s problems are deeper than that of course. These are probably not McCain’s beliefs, they are the beliefs of his lobbyists and special interest pals. John McCain is nothing more blank sheet of paper where the highest bidder gets to write down their commands for McCain to follow. He has been following orders for years and can’t get enough when he figured out there was real money in it.

John McCain cannot seem to think for himself. He has to look to one of his moneyed superiors to tell him what to do. When he takes his 3AM phone call, a lobbyist will probably answer for him what to do based on THEIR interests, not the interests of the American people and not what is in the best interest of the United States of America.

Simply put, John McCain is only as strong as his weakest lobbyist.

SPECIAL REQUEST FOR TCD FANS: The San Francisco Chronicle is pondering the addition of new cartoons for their paper – a process that seems to be initiated by Darren Bell, creator of Candorville (one of my daily reads – highly recommended). You can read the Chronicle article here and please add your thoughts to the comments if you wish. If anything, put in a good word for Darren and Candorville.

I am submitting Town Called Dobson to the paper for their consideration. They seem to have given great weight to receiving 200 messages considering Candorville. I am asking TCD fans to try to surpass that amount. (I get more than that many hate mails a day, surely fans can do better?)

This is not a race between Darren and I, it is a hope that more progressive strips can be represented in the printed press of America.

So if you read the San Francisco Chronicle or live in the Bay Area (Google Analytics tell me there are a lot of you), please send your kind comments (or naked, straining outrage) to David Wiegand at his published addresses below. If you are a subscriber, cut out your mailing label and staple it to a TCD strip and include it in your letter.

candorcomment@sfchronicle.com

or

David Wiegand
Executive Datebook Editor
The San Francisco Chronicle
901 Mission St.
San Francisco, CA 94103

The biggest political issue receiving no attention by the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates is the powerful plutocracy that has captured the government to produce rising economic inequality.

Both major parties have enabled, promoted and supported this Upper Class plutocracy.  Myriad federal policies make the rich super-rich and the powerful dominant in both good and bad economic times.  Meanwhile, despite elections, the middle class sinks into one big Lower Class as the plutocracy ensures that national prosperity is unshared.

Why no attention?  Why no explicit reference to a plutocracy that makes a mockery of American democracy?  Simple answer: because both major parties and their candidates are subservient to numerous corporate and other special interests that use their money and influence to ensure that their elitist priorities prevail.  Make no mistake.  Barack Obama with all his slick rhetoric is just as much a supporter and benefactor of this Upper Class plutocracy as Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Everyone that is not in the Upper Class who votes for any of these presidential candidates is voting against their own interests.  They have been hoodwinked, conned, brainwashed, exploited and manipulated by campaign propaganda.  They elect people for the visible government while they remain oblivious to the secret government – the powerful pulling the strings behind the stage.  Money makes more money, financing more political influence.

One of the biggest delusions of Americans is that if they retain their constitutional rights that they still live in a country with a working democracy.  Wrong.  American democracy is delusional because the two-party plutocracy makes citizens economic slaves.  This represses political dissent.  It is 21st century tyranny.  Two-party presidential candidates, unlike our nation’s Founders, lack courage to fight and revolt against domestic tyranny.  Placebo voting distracts citizens from the political necessity of fighting the plutocracy.

Economic data show the plutocracy’s assault on American society.  Consider these examples.

The top 20 percent of households earned more, after taxes, than the remaining 80 percent in 2005, while the topmost 1 percent took home more than the bottom 40 percent.

No American state has seen the gap between rich and poor widen faster than Connecticut. From 1987 through 2006, the top fifth of the state’s households saw their incomes increase by 44.8 percent, after inflation.  Incomes for the bottom fifth fell 17.4 percent.  On the other coast, just three of every 1,000 Californians in 2005 reported at least $1 million in income.  But they got $213 of every $1,000 Californians earned in 2005 income.  The state’s top 1 percent – average income $1.6 million – pay 7.1 percent of their incomes in income, sales, property, and gas taxes.  The poorest fifth of California households pay 11.7 percent.

Real hourly wages for most workers have risen only 1 percent since 1979, even as those workers’ productivity has increased by 60 percent.  Higher efficiency has rewarded business executives, owners and investors, but not workers.  What’s more, American workers now work more hours per year than their counterparts in virtually every other advanced economy, even Japan, and without universal health care.

A typical hedge fund manager makes 31 times more in one hour than the typical American family makes in a year.  In 2007, the top 50 hedge fund income-earners collected $29 billion – an average of $581 million each.  John Paulson took home $3.7 billion from his hedge fund labors.  These figures do not count profits from selling shares in their companies.  Importantly, hedge fund players contributed nine times more to the Senate Democratic fundraising arm than they gave to Senate Republicans in 2007.

In 2009, Americans who make over $1 million a year will save an average $32,000 from the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.  The average American household will save $20.

Between 1986 and 2005, the income of America’s top 1 percent of taxpayer jumped from 11.3 to 21.2 percent of the national total.  Their federal income taxes dropped from 33.13 percent of total personal income in 1986 to 23.13 percent in 2005.  From 2001 to 2008, the net worth of the wealthiest 1 percent grew from $186 billion to $816 billion.

Economic inequality and injustice reflect a political disaster, even with regular elections.  It has resulted from government decisions on tax cuts, spending, trade agreements, deregulatory measures, labor unions, corporate handouts, and regulatory enforcement.  All crafted to benefit the rich and powerful and leave the rest of us behind.  It has happened under Democratic and Republican presidencies and congresses.  Bipartisan domestic tyranny propels greed driven plutocracy.

What do we desperately need?  A national discussion and referendum on inequality-pumping plutocracy, that none of the major presidential candidates shows any interest in having.  Certainly not Barack Obama with his vacuous talk of change (but not about the political system) and John McCain’s incredulous talk of reform.

And it is delusional to think that populist global Internet connectivity producing what is called personal sovereignty threatens plutocracy.  Networking among the rich and powerful strengthens the global plutocracy, placing it above national sovereignty.  More than produce an army of revolutionaries to overturn the system, the Internet has fragmented every imaginable movement.  Individuals indulge themselves with their own or social websites or fall victim to conventional politicians.  Technology and media owned and controlled by plutocrats serves them while it shackles and deceives the multitudes.

Only one presidential candidate sees our core national problem and the need for revolutionary thinking and action to correct the system: Ralph Nader who said recently, “We need a Jeffersonian revolution.”  Plutocrats should heed these wise words of John F. Kennedy: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”  With all the guns and pain Americans have, the ruling class should worry and start reforms.  To start, let third party and independent candidates into televised presidential debates.  If the stage can be filled with a bunch of primary season candidates, why not more than two in the general election?

For electoral dissent, stop being a presidential romantic; use your vote to fight the plutocracy.  Reject the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.  Put an end to serial disappointments.  Time is running out.  Talk is cheap.  Action is crucial.  Violent revolution is an option.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]