On Education Reform and Picking the Right Fights

by: Roatti

Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 14:55:08 PM EST

The current impasse is pretty much the same one that has bedeviled education reform efforts for decades. Governor Cuomo wants teachers to be rated on their students' standardized test scores, and the NY State Teachers Union (NYSUT) is rejecting that as arbitrary and unfair.

The Governor is correct to demand some type of accountability for teachers. Is is virtually impossible to fire incompetent teachers in New York, as a successful dismissal can cost taxpayers up to $250,000. Rather than protecting this ridiculous state of affairs, NYSUT should be working in good faith to create a decent evaluation system. A recent poll found that "Forty-seven percent of respondents said they thought unions have hurt 'the quality of public school education in the United states'", despite that 75% of respondents in the same poll "had tust and confidence in public school teachers." Fairly or not, teachers unions have lost in the court of public opinion and this is a serious development for a group who rely on taxpayer money to pay their salaries and benefits. It is in the unions' best interests to not be perceived, as they often correctly are, as protecting the worst teachers; especially if they want to be taken seriously when they are on the right side of other issues like demanding higher salaries and smaller class sizes.  They would be wise to pick their fights more prudently.

However, NYSUT is also correct to be critical of standardized-test-based evaluations.  Whatever their merit may be, having test-based evaluations for individual teachers is a bad idea because it ends up making teachers "teach to the test" and waste valuable class time doing so instead of actually teaching.  So how can both of these sides be reconciled in a way that gets NY the federal money it needs and also created a fair evaluation system where the worst teachers are no longer immune to any accountability?

Here's my idea:

* Individual teachers should not be evaluated using standardized tests.  They should be evaluated by a simple questionnaire that is asks a handful of questions about their effectiveness with a numerical rating system. This questionnaire should be submitted separately by all of each teacher's students, the parents of those students, and the principals in their schools.  Any teacher who falls into the bottom 15 or 20% of each of the student, parent, and principal evaluations (thus, being not in the bottom 15 or 20% of only one of the evaluations will preclude a teacher from being fired) for 2 consecutive years will be fired.  

* Individual teachers who are in the top 15 or 20% of each evaluation should get a significant bonus, like $20,000 per year.  

* Principals should be subject to the same evaluation system, except they are rated by students, parents and teachers.

* And finally schools as a whole, but not individual teachers, should be evaluated on a variety of metrics that include standardized tests, but also graduation rates and post-graduation employment and higher education attainment statistics.  Schools in the bottom 5% of those evaluations for a certain amount of consecutive years without showing improvement should be shut down.

I believe this idea is the most fair to all parties involved and will create an effective teacher evaluation system without a lot of red tape and standardized tests and I hope the two sides actually implement something along these lines.  What do you think?

Occupy Movement Next Step

by: statusquobuster

Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 10:22:19 AM EST

Joel S. Hirschhorn

There is a growing convergence of thinking about where the US Occupy movement should go as a next step to turning its values, concerns and commitments into changing what most Americans see as broken government under control of corporate interests.  When it comes to political and social movements, history shows us that they usually fail not because they disappear, but rather because they become marginalized, unimportant despite a core group of committed people and groups.

They lose popular appeal and support or never expand beyond a small early group of supporters.  The nation and many supporters move on.  Other movements grab the interest of the most informed, dissident-type people seeking truth, justice or change.  A good example of such a failed contemporary movement is the 911 truth effort.  The groups, websites and true believers keep on pushing their objectives a decade after the historic event.  But the goal of revealing what really happened that the official government story does not divulge is like a moldy piece of forgotten food in the refrigerator.

Movement death by inattention happens despite good resources, charismatic leaders and even great organization and communication skills.  Critical mass of public support simply never materializes, in large measure because diverse segments of the population never buy into the central arguments of the movement.  The Internet is littered with websites of activist groups that persist despite clear evidence of decay and wide disinterest.  True believers have a mission in life tied to their egos that prevent them from admitting defeat.  They do not move on.

The biggest mistake that passionate advocates for a cause make is overestimating their ability to reach critical mass and underestimating the competition of other movements with greater appeal which rob them of both attention and supporters.

Make no mistake; I totally and enthusiastically support the Occupy movement because it offers the prospect of producing reforms to fix our broken government and attracting very wide public support for a nonviolent Second American Revolution.  What worries me, however, is that many of its participants seem over confident, as if they cannot fail.  On the other hand, I have become impressed by a convergence of thinking about what the next big step for the Occupy movement can and should be.  I will briefly identify examples of this convergent thinking.

Canadian author Erich Koch has written a compelling article: An Objective for the U.S. Occupy Movement: A Constitutional Convention.  He buys into the view that the Occupy movement could embrace the thinking of Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig who has presented the case for amendments to fix Congress.  Like others Koch is correct in saying that "No one in the movement would disagree with its main point: the fundamental problem is the corruption of Congress."  Unlike others, Koch recognizes the path for obtaining reform constitutional amendments is using the provision in Article V for a convention of state delegates, having the same power as Congress in proposing amendments that still must be ratified by three-quarters of the states.  It has never been used despite many hundreds of state requests for a convention because, clearly, Congress and most status quo forces fear such a convention.

Koch cited a great article by Alesh Houdek: Has a Harvard Professor Mapped Out the Next Step for Occupy Wall Street?  Most is a review of Lessig's book.  Correctly noted about using the convention option is "it bypasses the usual means of reform (Congress, presidential elections, etc.) which the lobbyists and other interested parties have learned so well to manipulate. And lastly, such a convention would be free to propose solutions that would otherwise be subject to be stricken as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court."  This is critical to understand.  Houdek concludes: "Properly presented, the strategies and aims of Lessig's book could make it the handbook the protesters have been looking for -- and provide a pathway for them to ride out the winter ahead."

Dan Froomkin also has presented the same case in: Lawrence Lessig's New Book On Political Corruption Offers Protesters A Possible Manifesto.  He quoted what Lessig himself had said in an article about the Occupy movement and the concern that I share, namely that the Occupy movement "will become too diffuse and not focused" on the root issue of corruption of government.  And that the movement will only grow "if a wide range of people can be part of it."  This requires coalescing around an issue "as fundamental as the corruption of the system."  Only a constitutional amendment can fix the corrupting impact of money in politics.  This is also the focus of Dylan Ratigan's fine effort, except that the use of the convention path has not been emphasized.

A specific call for an Article V convention was made by the pro-Occupy US Day of Rage group: "We are organizing a coordinated national campaign at local and state levels, including where necessary the occupation of state capitols, in order to demand an article V constitutional convention be called to restore representative democracy to our nation."  A set of specific reforms to be fix the corruption-money problem are presented.

The 99 Percent Declaration group has also presented an important statement centered on the call for a National General Assembly, where delegates would formulate a petition of a list of grievances that would be delivered to the main parts of the federal government on behalf of 99 percent of Americans.  A suggested list of grievances includes the need for constitutional amendments to achieve solutions, but only for a few of the issues.  Not explicitly acknowledged, however, is that constitutional amendments, not ordinary laws, would be necessary for other solutions, such as term limits for Congress and abandoning the Electoral College.  Moreover, there is no specific recognition that serious amendment reforms will not be proposed by Congress, and that an Article V convention is needed.  Inattention to method was also the shortcoming of a similar list of solutions by Ralph Lopez.

Author Scott Turow has presented: How Occupy Wall Street Can Restore Clout of the 99%.  His recommendation to the Occupy movement is "work across the nation for a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to regulate the expenditure of private money on elections.  ... The best antidote to this imbalance of income and influence would be to greatly reduce the role of private funding in our elections.  ...As for the Occupy Wall Street movement, it has been criticized by some for not having a realistic agenda, even though polling shows that millions of Americans, including me, are sympathetic to the basic message of the protests."  His prescription: "rally around a single goal and reinvigorate their movement."  Fine, but missing from his analysis is the recognition that Congress will never propose reform amendments, only an Article V convention will do the job.

This sampling of recent writings clearly shows convergent thinking that the Occupy movement can and should focus on key reform constitutional amendments and, second, that some better informed critical thinkers recognize, this requires advocacy for using the Article V convention option that Congress has refused to honor.

As to Occupy movement success, I want again to emphasize that there is always competition for the attention and support of concerned Americans who recognize how broken our system is.  In particular, the well financed Americans Elect effort is impressive.  Because it is offering an alternative path to nominating a presidential candidate in 2012, over 2 million Americans have already signed up to be delegates for a web convention, with millions more very likely as the mainstream media keeps giving this effort attention.  The Get Money Out campaign has over 250,000 signatories.

Disgust with the two-party plutocracy is surely shared by Occupy participants and supporters.  But for movement success based on enticing many millions of Americans, the Occupy movement cannot ignore competition such as Americans Elect.  This means that the Occupy movement must explicitly start making the case to the broad public why their effort can achieve more of what is needed.  This is easily done.

Here are some key concepts that the Occupy movement could use.  No matter who is nominated by Americans Elect, the odds are that either the better financed Democrat or Republican candidate will win the presidency.  This may just require spending even more millions of dollars on campaigns.  And whoever is nominated by the group will likely be strongly linked to one of the two major parties, rather than some courageous reformer and enemy of the status quo.  Moreover, this group does not offer a realistic path to getting the key reforms of the system that most of us see critically needed, such as constitutional amendments, already recognized by many Occupy supporters.

A sign of trouble for the Occupy movement is a recent national poll that found: "In the latest survey, 33 percent voiced support for Occupy Wall Street, down from 35 percent in a previous poll, while opposition to the movement climbed from 36 percent to 45 percent. Twenty-two percent were unsure."  These results are worse than earlier polls.  From the left, Chris Bowers commented: "the decline in Occupy Wall Street's image is probably more connected to the increasingly negative coverage of the clashes between protesters and police than it is to declining support for movement's message."  Now is the time to move the message from what is wrong to solutions, using an Occupy Congress approach.  Otherwise, this view from the conservative right might prevail: "OWS will linger ... but I'd argue we've seen the movement's high tide. It will now recede into a mere annoying shadow of itself as support is withdrawn by political figures and organizations."

True, Occupy movement success is not inevitable.  The movement must better define what success means and how it can be achieved if it is to attract and keep the support of many millions of Americans.  It needs specificity for its solutions that ordinary Americans can relate to.  Never underestimate the power and commitment of status quo forces to maintain control over the political, government and economic system that has so harmed most Americans.  The fight against the Occupy movement mostly seen as local police violence against peaceful demonstrators and protesters as well disinformation from some news outlets and pundits are nothing compared to what could be mounted if the movement is viewed as more threatening to the status quo delusional democracy with its delusional prosperity.

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

Governor Cuomo in less control of Albany than he'd like

by: simonstl

Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:25:01 AM EDT

While reporters were describing Governor Cuomo as having mastered Albany a few short months ago, there's a difference between "Albany - The State Government" and "Albany - The City". Every now and then that difference matters for the people in state government.

Over the weekend, I was happy to see that Albany - The City chose the path of little conflict, and impressed to see this word from Sean Collins:

District Attorney David Soares made an appearance at Occupy Albany yesterday, pledging that if anyone was arrested at Occupy Albany that he would not move to prosecute. For the record, no one there took that as a free pass to do whatever the hell they pleased. They still actively worked to not give reason for the police to arrest them-beyond leaving the park-by working to keep sidewalks clear, the park clean, etc.

Blogs and Twitter were ahead of the newspapers, but today we get to see Cuomo's aides dissing Albany Mayor Jerry Jennings because of Albany's lack of action:

Cuomo last year considered Jennings as a possible running mate for lieutenant governor but picked Mayor Robert Duffy of Rochester instead.

"It's fair to say that after Jennings' performance with the demonstrators, the governor thinks he made the right choice,'' said a source close to Cuomo.

Yes, that's in the New York Post, Fred Dicker reporting. There's lots of Dicker's own spleen where that came from. Jennings, "a longtime friend", "nervously backed down" in the face of "about 200 mainly young, hippie-like demonstrators" after "Albany's leftist-oriented and highly political district attorney, David Soares, told city officials he wouldn't prosecute."

I had my doubts about the Cuomo-Post nexus during the Paladino race, but those doubts have pretty much faded. The Times-Union tells a similar story less dramatically, without the "close to Cuomo" personal diss of Albany's mayor.

The Times-Union, though, reminds readers that Cuomo has his own police force:

A person familiar with Albany's plans to react to the rally said Cuomo's secretary, Larry S. Schwartz, called Jennings Friday morning and said State Police would remove any protesters who did not comply with a curfew.

The position of the governor's office was in contrast to an earlier plan by Albany police to leave the protesters alone if they were peaceful, even if they stayed overnight.

While Cuomo may be regretting his lousy timing in comparing his opposition to the millionaire's tax with his father's opposition to the death penalty, New York State Governors with presidential ambitions have been known to overreact.

Update: Protestors seem to have noticed Cuomo's interest in shutting them down, too.

Yes, you can

by: simonstl

Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 06:34:48 AM EDT

The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any. -Alice Waters

I've had too many conversations with people who seemed deeply convinced that there was nothing they could do about issues that seemed incredibly important to them - involving government at all levels, as well as schools, churches, businesses.

Up until recently, that sense of personal hopelessness just seemed to keep accelerating, fueled by cycles of hope and disappointment that left too many people thinking the game was rigged on too many levels.

The game is rigged, in favor of various people with various kinds of power. That's what having power means. However, the game is not over.

If you want to address large issues - like tackling climate change, abolishing fiat money, making millionaires pay their fair share, or replacing the tax system with a flat tax - there are two challenges. The first is that there are established interests opposing all of those positions, and the second is that there are so many voices in the conversation. Before you even get to deal with the established interests, you have to make your voice heard.

The same is true of smaller issues. Schools, neighborhoods, villages, cities, towns, and counties are far easier to reach than federal and state governments, but it still takes time to figure them out, get them to know who you are, and work on behalf of things that matter to you.

This keeps coming up all over the world. In May, I stumbled across a piece on "enraged citizens" working outside established German political structures, and a more recent article on people frustrated that voting by itself seems to make little difference.

Voting is great - please show up and vote - but there is much more you can do.

So what to do?

• Listen

• Find friends

• Talk

• Do

All of these are most easily done with other people, but you can certainly get started by yourself.

New York Special Elections: The Old-Boys Network That Keeps Women Out of the Legislature

by: bill samuels

Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 11:20:48 AM EDT

New York, NY - Bill Samuels, founder of the reform group New Roosevelt, joined State Senator Liz Krueger, Susan Lerner, Executive Director of Common Cause, and Elizabeth Caputo, Chairperson of DL21C to blast the continued over-use of special elections, exposing the fact that the boss-driven selection process has had a demonstrably negative impact on the percentage of women representative in Albany.

On Protecting The Innocent, Or, Is There A Death Penalty Compromise?

by: fake consultant

Sat Sep 24, 2011 at 12:21:46 PM EDT

And given the choice, I'd rather see us abandon the death penalty altogether, for reasons that must, at this moment, seem self-evident; that said, it's my suspicion that a lot of states are not going to be in any hurry to abandon their death penalties anytime soon now that they know the Supreme Court will allow the innocent to be murdered.

So what if there was a way to create a compromise that balanced the absolute need to protect the innocent with the feeling among many Americans that, for some crimes, we absolutely have to impose the death penalty?

Considering the circumstances, it's not going to be an easy subject, but let's give it a try, and see what we can do.

New Roosevelt Questions Continued Use of Special Elections by Governor Cuomo

by: bill samuels

Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 17:20:37 PM EDT

The six Special Elections held across New York State last Tuesday for the open Assembly seats highlight a fundamental flaw with choosing that process over a traditional primary and general election. In every case, Governor Cuomo had the choice to allow for a primary and general election, which would have adhered to his campaign platform of protecting the right to popular election, and instead chose Special Elections. Special Elections deprive voters of the choice to pick the strongest candidate from a wide field to represent their party.

Samuels added that the State should adopt the principal put forth by state constitutional expert SUNY Professor Gerald Benjamin, who in his research on this subject for a forthcoming Constitutional Change project, an effort to examine constitutional reform in New York, wrote that "to the greatest degree practicable, vacancies in elected offices should be filled by elections held at a time and through a process that will maximize competition and accountability."

On Fixing The World, Or, Help George Carlin Stick It To God

by: fake consultant

Thu Sep 15, 2011 at 10:29:14 AM EDT

It's got everything you need for serious irony: an irascible comedian who mocked religion at every opportunity, a city that loved him, and the rich coincidence of his having been born at the crossroads of New York City's communities of religious education.

And that's why, today, we'll be talking about the effort to name the street right next to Manhattan's Seminary Row...Carlin Street.

(And before we go further, a language warning: we'll be quoting George Carlin liberally, and that means there may be present today certain of the seven words with which he created one of his best known routines. You are now officially warned.)

What's gone wrong with New York's political machines?

by: simonstl

Wed Sep 14, 2011 at 07:37:34 AM EDT

Well, yes. I know. Many many things, since the hazy origins of New York politics.

Lately, however, the machines are failing at their central purpose: electing candidates in areas where they (supposedly) dominate.

Yesterday, the folks at New York Capital wrote:

If Weprin loses, it will be the fourth time in two years a New York special election has gone badly for a candidate hand-picked by the dominant party.

I think most of us here cheered when Scott Murphy, Bill Owens, and Kathy Hochul won, all Democratic insurgents challenging Republican establishments Upstate.

Now we have Republican insurgent Bob Turner defeating the Democratic establishment Downstate.

None of these races were identical - Bill Owens in particular benefited from a massive split among the Republicans. You can always argue about the quality of the candidates and the campaigns.

All of them, however, were in Congressional districts that seemed dominated by one party, until you looked closely enough to see the smaller pieces, the neighborhoods, the fragmentation generally. The losers were all, I think, Assembly members.

Since 2006 and Spitzer's election, I've wondered if New York voters in general are just looking for change. There's a broad grumbling out there that our political institutions aren't serving the state (or country) well. People and parties in power are the natural target of that fury, especially when there's a local connection.

I'm not sure that the machines themselves have changed for better or worse than usual, but I do think that voters are much more interested in Davids setting off to slay Goliath than they used to be, perhaps especially in races where national issues seem to be at stake.

LATFOR Hearings Schedule

by: Roatti

Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 13:43:45 PM EDT

Are you tired of an anti-democratic political system where despite having among the lowest approval ratings in the country, our legislature is rewarded with one of the highest incumbent re-election rates?

Are you tired of a scenario where because legislators don't have to answer to voters, all they have to answer to are their conference leaders, lobbyists, special interests, and large fundraisers?

If you are tired of these things, you have the chance to make your voice heard, and soon.  The LATFOR (legislative task force on redistricting), although is really shouldn't exist, just posted the details of the next 4 public hearings:

Tuesday
September 20, 2011
10:00 A.M.
Brooklyn Borough hall
Community Room
209 Joralemon Street
Brooklyn, New York

Thursday
September 22, 2011
10:00 A.M.
Joan & Allen Bernikow Jewish
Community Center
1466 Manor Road
Staten Island, New York

Wednesday
September 21, 2011
10:00 A.M.
Assembly Hearing Room
250 Broadway
Room 1923, 19th Floor
Manhattan, New York

Wednesday
October 5, 2011
10:00 A.M.
Farmingdale State College
Little Theater, Roosevelt Hall
2350 Broadhollow Road
Farmingdale, New York

In order to attend and speak, you need to sign up via instructions at the link, and I strongly recommend everybody submit their testimony beforehand.  

As I mentioned, LATFOR isn't just part of the problem- it is the problem.  It is the unholy alliance of Senate Republicans and Assembly Democrats to disenfranchise the voters of New York.  Under any fair system, LATFOR's duties would be carried out by an uninterested party.  And I plan on letting them know that.  Very bluntly.  

You can too.

On Bilking The Sophisticated, Or, Check It Out: We're Suing Banks!

by: fake consultant

Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 17:59:45 PM EDT

You remember that little bit of a banking crisis we had a couple of years back, where banks around the world might have possibly, maybe, just a little, conspired in a giant scheme to package toxic mortgage loans into Grade A, investment-ready securities instruments, which then blew up in everyone's faces to the tune of a whole lot of taxpayer bailouts?

Well all of a sudden, it looks like an agency of the Federal Government is looking to do something about it, in a real big way.

Last Friday the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced they're suing 17 firms (I'll give you a list, bit it's pretty much all the usual suspects); depending on who you ask the Feds are seeking an amount as high as $200 billion.

As Joe Biden would say, it's a big...well, it's a big deal, anyway, and that's why we're starting the new week with this one.

Rolling Stone: Scheiderman vs. Obanker

by: Soundpolitic

Fri Aug 26, 2011 at 10:59:58 AM EDT

I would assume both citizen journalists came to it themselves, but the new RS  blog by Taibbi is a welcome addition to the voices bringing this issue up.  I recieved it from former State Senate candidate David Weiss in an e-mail, and I hope this gets more attention.  Fat chance it will break through Very Important Nonstop Hurricane Updates, but I implore you, check out Taibbi's full article if these choice quotes mean anything to you:

Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal
::
The idea behind this federally-guided "settlement" is to concentrate and centralize all the legal exposure accrued by this generation of grotesque banker corruption in one place, put one single price tag on it that everyone can live with, and then stuff the details into a titanium canister before shooting it into deep space.

This is all about protecting the banks from future enforcement actions on both the civil and criminal sides. The plan is to provide year-after-year, repeat-offending banks like Bank of America with cost certainty, so that they know exactly how much they'll have to pay in fines (trust me, it will end up being a tiny fraction of what they made off the fraudulent practices) and will also get to know for sure that there are no more criminal investigations in the pipeline.
::
So this deal being cooked up is the ultimate Papal indulgence. By the time that $20 billion (if it even ends up being that high) gets divvied up between all the major players, the broadest and most destructive fraud scheme in American history, one that makes the S&L crisis look like a cheap liquor store holdup, will be safely reduced to a single painful but eminently survivable one-time line item for all the major perpetrators.
::
Why? My theory is that the Obama administration is trying to secure its 2012 campaign war chest with this settlement deal. If Barry can make this foreclosure thing go away for the banks, you can bet he'll win the contributions battle against the Republicans next summer.

Which is good for him, I guess. But it seems to me that it might be time to wonder if is this the most disappointing president we've ever had.

Emphasis mine - SP

The same fellow who e-mailed this to me began calling him Obummer a couple years back.  Now, with this, it's worth it to add "Obanker" to the list of worthy aliases attributable to this mockery of a president.

Speaking truth to LATFOR

by: simonstl

Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 17:07:58 PM EDT

New York State legislators have spent at least the past few decades gerrymandering, allowing the Assembly majority to draw district lines for the Assembly, while the Senate majority draws lines for the Senate. Unsurprisingly, we end up with legislative lines badly tilted toward the parties that drew them.

Way back in 2007, while redistricting was mostly theoretical, Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton hosted a forum on the issue, and I posted a transcript and posted an article here about it.

County Legislator Michael Lane was the voice of sanity at that forum, and I'm delighted to see that he's continued to press the issue as LATFOR - the joint legislative committee managing the deals, I mean districting - is holding hearings. In his closing, he even used the accurate word that legislators least like to hear: corrupt.

I would conclude by saying that the current process is undemocratic. Let's do it the right way. If this Task Force, or the Legislature as a whole, recommends districts in the old corrupt fashion, then I hope the Governor will keep his word and veto them. It would not be pretty and court actions might have to come into play. Whatever occurs, it is definitely time that self-serving partisan gerrymandering come to an end. Make it happen.

I've posted his whole statement below the fold, which includes notes on Tompkins County's own redistricting as well as the way the county is treated for congressional and state legislative redistricting.

On Doing Better Than 50%, Or, Could More "Made In USA" Mean More Jobs?

by: fake consultant

Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 21:53:47 PM EDT

They are also going to have to come up with ideas that are pretty much "bulletproof", meaning that they are so hard to object to that even Allen West and Louie Gohmert will not want to be on record saying "no no no!"; alternatively, solutions that work around the legislative process entirely could represent the other form of "bulletproof-ery".

Well, I have one of those "maybe bulletproof" ideas for you today, and it has to do with how "Made in USA" the things are that our Government buys.

On Running Your Own Government, Or, Why Pay The Military?

by: fake consultant

Sat Jul 30, 2011 at 07:15:24 AM EDT

You will hear a lot of conversation about the consequences from others; today, however, you are going to get the chance to be both the President and the Secretary of the Treasury, and you will get to decide for yourself exactly what bills the Federal Government should and should not pay as the cash runs out if a deal is not made by the time borrowing authority runs out.

At that point you'll be able to see what's coming for yourself - and once you do, you won't need me to tell you what ugly is going to look like.

On My Last Weekend, Or, Wanna Save A Few Trillion On Health Care?

by: fake consultant

Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 09:56:21 AM EDT

Instead, I'm going to jump into my own personal life for today's story, and I'm going to do it so that we can stimulate some thinking about where we really need to go to if we ever hope to make some sense out of the crazy way we deliver health care in this country.

Since this appears to be the weekend that a lot of decisions are either going to be made about the future of our "social safety net"...or they wont; we're entirely unsure...let's talk about how it actually works for a lot of us - and how it could work a lot better.

On Being Bumped, Or, Let's Have Another Roundup

by: fake consultant

Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 13:16:19 PM EDT

But that's OK, because the world's been busy doing a lot of other things - and while many of them get media coverage, some don't get a lot of notice at all.

And of course, there are also those stories that look one way at first glance...but look a lot different when you dig a bit deeper.

We'll hit a few of those today, have a bit of fun doing it, and get ready for what promises to be another busy week of strategically not doing things in Washington.

To make things even better, some of the stories will be real, and some won't.

We'll see if you can tell the difference.

Protecting financial reform was a victory for small business

by: Andrew Ohlbaum

Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 16:49:41 PM EDT

The past year has been a roller coaster for small business owners, full of ups and downs.  Following last week's vote to turn down an attempt to delay swipe fee reform, spirits on Main Street are especially high.

Last year, Senator Durbin championed an amendment to rein in excessive debit card swipe fees to ensure that these fees are reasonable and proportional to the actual cost of each transaction.  In the months since, provisions of Senator Durbin's amendment have been under attack -- but have managed to survive several tests.  This has been tremendous for small businesses that have suffered for years due to unfair and excessive swipe fees.

On Hole Cards, Or, "Drill, Baby, Drill"? Why? Is Canada Out Of Sand?

by: fake consultant

Wed May 25, 2011 at 05:34:57 AM EDT

Naturally, this has brought the Sarah Palins of the world back out in public, and once again the mantra of "Drill, Baby, Drill" can be heard all the way from the Florida coast to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

But what if those folks have it exactly backwards?

What if, in a world of depleting oil resources, the last thing you want to do is use yours up?

To put it another way: why isn't all our oil part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

Lobby for Redistricting June 1

by: Roatti

Tue May 24, 2011 at 13:13:46 PM EDT

Please join ACT NOW and our coalition partner ReShapeNY as we head to Albany on Wednesday, June 1st to lobby on behalf of non-partisan redistricting, an essential reform that will end rampant gerrymandering in New York State.

(snip)

LOBBY DAY FOR NON-PARTISAN REDISTRICTING
Where : Albany
 Free buses leave from Manhattan
 Time/Place TBA
When : Wednesday, 2011/06/01 through 2011/06/01

It's not every day that you get to personally meet with legislators and try to convince them of a policy idea you believe in, so this is a great opportunity.  RSVP at the link and I hope to see you there!