Warren Buffett or Jimmy Buffett?

Here's an URGENT APPEAL I received the other day on Facebook:

This is an idea that should be passed around.  The BUFFETT Rule!  Let's see if these idiots understand what people pressure is all about.

Congressional Reform Act of 2017

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman / woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.
2. Congress (past, present, & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 3/1/17.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women. Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, then it will only take three days for most people in the U.S. to receive the message.

It's time! THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS! If you agree, pass it on.

There's a lot of confusion about this initiative.

 

According to several sources I looked at, Warren Buffett is not even officially behind the so-called Buffet Rule, that it was just a comment made in passing.

Moreover, he is not in any way responsible for the "Congressional Reform Act of 2017," which is just the latest version of the dubious and rather flawed "Congressional Reform Act of 2011".

Regardless, it absolutely astounds me that no one seems to see the ONE MAJOR DEFECT in this noble attempt to reform Congress.  This fatal error happens to apply to most of the ideas I've recently encountered, intended to fix America and get our country back on track.

This proposed act has to be passed by Congress.

Which begs the obvious question . . .

Why would they pass it?

 

This is like me challenging Roger Federer to a tennis match for a $1,000,000 prize, and then turning to him and saying:  "I have one simple request, Roger.  Please have both of your arms chopped off at the elbow before we meet on the court." 

What are these folks thinking?  Do they actually think that the current crop of corporate pay-for-play lapdogs who sit in their comfy jobs in Washington DC are going to do anything to jeopardize their free ride with the rich and powerful of this country?

I just love it, for example, when people propose progressive constitutional amendments.  According to the Article V:  "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures." Apparently, these wild-eyed dreamers haven't read the newspaper lately.  The Republicans own the White House, both chambers of Congress, most governorships, and the majority of state legislatures.  Even more shocking, we often see Democrats siding with the extreme right-wing legislative ideologues on a host of key issues -- increasing defense spending, perpetuating war, advocating more tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy.

Consider this . . .

It's impossible to get GMO labeling on food product legislated, something supported by 93% of all Americans, regardless of party affiliation.  Do progressive strategists actually believe they can get anything through Congress which genuinely serves the majority of Americans, with the current cutthroat mercenary puppets installed in the seats of power?  Here we have something 93% of Americans want and it gets killed by corporate greed and legislators who couldn't spell 'representation' if a gun was pointed at their heads.

I've said this over and over.  But it bears repeating until folks get it.

There is ONLY ONE SOLUTION!

We have to have a CLEAN SWEEP OF CONGRESS.  Regime change in Washington DC!

Let's stop kidding ourselves.

The people now in positions of power will not do anything for everyday U.S. citizens.  NOTHING!  They will do the bidding of their deep-pocketed financiers, their mega-rich and powerful masters . . . and that's it.  End of story.  So let's start doing some real work!  Let's begin the daunting but absolutely necessary task of swapping out 33 senators and at least 400 of the traitors who are currently in the House of Representatives in 2018.

I have a method for accomplishing this.  It's summarized in two of my books -- Candidate Contracts: Taking Back our Democracy and Fighting For The Democracy We Deserve -- and dozens of articles published here and all over the web.

In each congressional district, good decent citizens must choose four or five issues which are critical to them, things which are totally non-negotiable, things they are absolute and unswerving about.  For example:

1. Make no changes in Social Security and Medicare.
2. Raise the federal minimum wage to $12.50 per hour.
3. Eliminate corporate welfare and increase taxes on the rich.
4. Reverse by law the Citizens United decision.
5. Cut back on military spending.

The good news is that nationally there is already enormous support for these.

75% of Americans want a federal minimum wage of $12.50 per hour.
76% of voters want a cut back on military spending.
79% of voters want no reductions in Social Security, 70% support expanding it.
79% of voters want no reductions in Medicare.
80% of voters oppose the "Citizens United" U.S. Supreme Court decision.
68% of voters think taxes on the wealthy should be increased.


Next step is to draw up a contract or set of contracts on those issues.  Such a contract will look and read like this, one I drew up for raising the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour.

Then we simply put it to the candidates.  It's up to them.  Will they sign the contract(s) and guarantee that they will go to Washington DC and hit the ground running, doing exactly what we want them to do?  Or not?

If they sign, we vote for them.

If they don't, we vote for someone who will.

It's that simple!  And it's that clear.  Either they will decisively and unequivocally, with no excuses or double-talk, do the job we vote them in office to do . . .

Or we don't vote for them!

In the event there is no major party candidate willing to sign the contract -- and recognize that is a very distinct possibility -- then we turn to a minor party candidate, or put one on the ballot ourselves.

THAT'S how you take back our democracy!

THAT'S how we take the guesswork out of voting!

THAT'S how you make sure the voice of the voice of the people is heard!

THAT'S how you put "people" back in the equation . . . government of the people, by the people, for the people.

It's either that . . . or drink a lot of tequila and watch our country steadily descend into the sewer of economic medievalism and kleptocratic tyranny.

I like a good time as much as the next guy.

But maybe we should wait until we have good reason to celebrate.



[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]



Warren Buffett or Jimmy Buffett?

The Red White and Blue Color Revolution

 

Orange . . . Rose . . . Purple . . . Yellow . . . Saffron . . . Green . . .

The West, with of course America itself in the lead, loves color revolutions!

I say:  Game on!  Let's go for it.

But instead of another color revolution posing as a victory for democracy but which in reality is more colonial subjugation by the Greater American Empire, let's have a color revolution that will really make a difference.  Let's install democracy in a country now truly desperate for real citizen empowerment and the vast saving graces of representative government, transparency, freedom of the press, respect for human rights -- you know the list, since its trumpeted 24/7 by our propaganda machinery, whether these inspiring and noble ideals have any basis in reality or not.

Yes, we'll call this one:  The Red White and Blue Color Revolution!

It will be regime change, of course, because that's what color revolutions are all about.

But this one will take place in Washington DC, putative center of the Universe, the grand "decider" when it comes to all things global, the bright beacon of hope and freedom and enlightened leadership.

If it isn't already obvious, U.S. citizens now live in a police state under the oppressive and ruthless rule of an authoritarian oligarchic elite.  Everyday citizens have no voice in their government, their most vital constitutionally-guaranteed rights have been nullified, their tax dollars are being used in service to a kleptocratic cartel of corporate/banking/energy industry/Wall Street/military-industrial-government-complex insiders, they are under constant surveillance by a sprawling Stasi-like security state.  Anything resembling basic social services are under siege and being slashed in the name of austerity, and promoting the general welfare as chartered by the Constitution is dismissed as socialist daydreaming. Our essential infrastructure is crumbling, the result of gross indifference and neglect.  The quality of our air, drinking water, schools, communities, even our daily life, continue their steady decline. While the rich immerse themselves in greater opulence and grandeur at the banquet table, the rest of us dumpster dive for what scraps we can scavenge in the alley in back.  They snidely reassure us:  "Buy a lottery ticket! You might win."

So what about our elections?  How is hope and change holding up in the voting booth?

The simple truth is that the dismal array of prospects we are now forced to select from to "represent us" in their official capacities shows no prospect for any of this turning around.  Choice at the polls is an illusion.  It's always between one corporate lapdog and another corporate lapdog, regardless of party affiliation.

This is intentional.  The major party duopoly is configured to maintain the status quo.

Those in power intend to stay in power and use that power to enrich themselves and their wealthy benefactors who will use their wealth to keep their minions in positions of power.  It's an unforgiving closed-loop feedback system, the political engine of crony capitalism.

It keeps "them" in and "you and I" out.

There is only on solution . . .

Regime change in Washington DC.

Translation:  Replacing every elected representative who does not guarantee absolute, non-negotiable, unambiguous loyalty and service to those who elect him or her to office.

The Red White and Blue Color Revolution!

I'm dead serious.  Because America is in dead serious trouble.

We need a clean sweep.  We'll "drain the swamp" . . . for real this time!

Let's not fool ourselves any longer.  Anything less will doom America to further rapacious exploitation, and consign Americans to total enslavement under ruthless totalitarianism:  One nation under God . . . by the rich and for the rich.

As revolutions go, they can be peaceful or violent, responsible or bloody.

That will not be our choice to make.  It'll be up to those in power.

Either they'll go quietly, respectful of the democratic will of the people.

Or . . .






[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]


The Red White and Blue Color Revolution

Just Say No! . . . To Duopoly

 

Two of my recent postings have created a storm of controversy. I've been
subjected to extremes of hyperbolic praise and acidic vituperation.

With a few welcome exceptions, The 'H' Word and When Hope Becomes Hype
have largely been judged as vicious attacks on President Obama, as in
personal condemnation of the man. His administration is certainly
fingered, because the specific lessons to be taken away are definitely
germane and unquestionable timely. While there's value in never
repeating the mistakes of history, what's the point of looking at
Eisenhower or Coolidge when there are hard lessons to be learned right
now? And how irresponsible it would be to not single out and identify
those directly responsible for the destructive policies and evident
treachery unfolding before our eyes in real time?

Let me candid about something: Fairly recently I concluded the President never
intended to deliver on his promises. However, during his first campaign
and the first few months of his presidency, I very much believed in Mr.
Obama and took the man at his word, whereas many others, including Glen
Ford of the Black Agenda Report, said he was not at all what he appeared to be. 
This was before the 2008 election.

While I've come to this same conclusion belatedly __ and that and that alone
is the thrust of my two controversial postings __ I am not interested
so much in berating Mr. Obama, as preventing the same mistake from
happening again.

The same mistake would be Hillary Clinton. Or Jeb Bush. Or Rand Paul. Or any
of the other duopoly pretenders to the throne who are already in the
limelight in anticipation of the 2016 election.

What's the difference between butterscotch and butter rum candy ? Sometimes I 
can tell. Usually they taste pretty much the same. Frankly it's such a close
call, it's not worth any hand-wringing or long, involved debate about it.

That's the choice we are faced with in our current political system. The truth is,
Democrat and Republican are in the long view pretty much the same flavor.

They are two sides of the same 1% oligarchic corporate-owned coin.

Heads or tails?

It's still a quarter. And it won't buy you a cup of coffee.

It won't even pay the bus fair to your second job or the unemployment office.

So what in my view is the lesson we take from travesty of the last few elections?
What can we learn from the play-for-pay politics of big money,
epitomized by Obama's currying the favor of corporations at the expense
of 99% of the American public? What can we do about the stranglehold of 
Citizens United and McCutcheon? What is the alternative to the the Democrat vs. 
Republican dog-and-pony show which has made meaningful voting a fatuous 
exercise in futility? How can you and I as citizens of our democracy-in-exile 
make our voice heard above the din of cronyism and Beltway banditry? 
It's really quite simple . . .

Just say 'no' to this sham. Just say 'no' to the fraud of Tweedledee-Tweedledum voting.

Just say 'no' to the duopoly which has as much relevance to real democracy as Monopoly 
has to the real economy.

Just say 'no' to the "lesser-of-two-evils" non-choice choice.

Vote your conscience, vote your principles. Do the right thing. Not the
brought-to-you-by Monsanto or Morgan Chase or big pharma or big fossil
fuel or media monopoly thing.

Here's one really great thing that Obama has repeated over and over:

Yes, we can!

I agree!

Yes, we can . . . say 'no' to the duopoly and start having real choice.

Support Bernie Sanders.

Support Jill Stein.

Support any "non-partisan" candidate.

Support those individuals who answer to you on election day . . .

Not Wall Street.

Not too-big-to-jail banks.

Not transnational corporations.

Not play-for-pay lobbyists and SuperPACS.

Not the Koch brothers and other sociopathic oligarchs.

Certainly not the corporate owned Democratic and Republican puppet parties.

Make your vote actually count for something.

Just say 'no' to duopoly.



[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Why do “they” blame Nader?

 

Let me start out by saying, there are two distinct groups of "they", each
with their own reasons and agendas for claiming that Ralph Nader lost
the election for Al Gore in 2000.

The most visible and virulent, of course, are the sour puss Democrats. I
understand how they feel. Which is why I have no respect for them
anymore.

Disclosure:
I was raised working class in Detroit, when unions were strong. I don't
think I even met a Republican for my first eighteen years. Certainly my
parents, their friends, and everyone within 50 miles of the trailer
park we lived in was Democrat. Until 1996, I voted as a knee-jerk
Democrat.

So let's get down to the nitty-gritty.

The presidential election of 2000 was decided in Florida.
Almost 6,000,000 people voted. Al Gore lost to George W. by 537 votes.
There were massive irregularities in the election, including 54,000
alleged felons who were disenfranchised of the right to vote. Most
turned out to not be felons at all, and 54% of them were
African-American, a demographic highly likely to have voted for Al Gore.
Also, there were all sorts of problems with chads and double-voting,
usually attributable to weirdness with vote tallying and the ballots
themselves.

Having said that . . .

97,421 people voted for Ralph Nader. It is assumed that had these 97,421 people
not voted for Nader, they would have voted for Al Gore and he would
have swept the election.

Wrong!

But even before I get into that, why don't they rail against the 538 registered Democrats
who were too lazy, too drunk, too preoccupied, too busy shacking up
with some honey, too hooked on some soap opera or sitcom, or maybe too
stoned, to get off their lard asses and vote for Al? Why pick on people
who made a considered, deeply principled
decision to take a stand against the rabid conservatism of the right __
aka the Republicans __ AND against the sell-out and betrayal of the
progressive left by the Democrats?

It's no secret. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were responsible for tilting so far to
the political right they gutted the Democratic Party of its core values.
True progressives __ the kind of people who responded to Nader's message __ comprising
the 97,421 and voted for him in Florida, were finally fed up with the
Democratic Party, its pandering to big business, its pathetic cowering
to bubble heads like Newt Gingrich.

If Ralph Nader had not been on the ticket, most of those 97,421 would have stayed
home. Because they __ like yours truly __ had had it up to their
widow's peak with the Beltway's business-as-usual, resented Clinton's
pivot to the right, and were stunned if not horrified by the corporate
takeover of the Democratic Party.

I admit I was charmed by Clinton. I loved his humor, his persona, his sax playing.
He was __ and still is __ a brilliant speaker, a real charmer. But
remember, this is the man who led the charge for deregulating Wall
Street and the abolition of Glass-Steagall, initiated the subversion of
the social safety net with his aggressive attack on welfare, and foisted
on a gullible nation the horrible trade agreement known as NAFTA .

Yes ... NAFTA!

I remember watching the debate between Al Gore __ who by then I found both
articulate and in his robotic way extremely mesmerizing __ and Ross
Perot. I recall my reflexive and now embarrassing rooting for Al,
wanting him to put that ugly little jerk in his place. But guess what?
Al was wrong! I was wrong! Ross Perot was dead on the money. NAFTA has
turned out to be, just as Mr. Perot predicted, a very bad deal for America.

That was just the tip of the iceberg. Much of the Clinton-Gore agenda __ Mr.
Gore's commitment to the environment being the commendable exception __
turned this country completely around. But in the wrong direction!

When the 2000 campaign got underway, many of us were getting wise to this.
Growing numbers of voters were becoming restless, disenchanted. I sat in
the huge coliseum in Portland, Oregon where 10,000 people paid to hear Ralph Nader speak. That's right, we paid for tickets like we were going to a Sting concert. That's how desperate people were becoming for a presidential candidate who talked straight and made sense.

So let me take this a step further. Instead of blaming principled voters who used
the ballot to make a genuine cry for real change, why not blame the
Democratic Party for making a challenge from Mr. Nader a necessity?
Why not blame all of the knee-jerk Democrats who maintained their
steadfast, unprincipled and unthinking loyalty, despite the fact that
the party was moving further and further to the right, abandoning the
unions, abandoning their core working and middle class constituencies?
The country then deserved and still deserves a real alternative, a
choice which aligns with the vast majority of the voting public on most
key issues. The Nader phenomenon was created by the gaping void left when the Democratic Party become the Republican Party Lite.

So Democrats, blame yourselves for Al Gore losing the 2000 election! Don't
scapegoat a man who has given forty years of his life to unselfish
public service, has been a model of integrity, has always been open and
honest about his views, never sold out, and has been rewarded with
ridicule, mockery and every vile form of abuse our shallow and snide
media clowns could whip up between games of Foosball and sniffing
celebrity panties.

At the beginning of this article, I said there were two "they" factions who
propagate the Spoiler Nader myth. The second set of "theys" is a little
more stealthy. Please pay close attention, folks.

I'll tell you who else benefits from this false narrative. The conservatives! The right wing! 
Because if the public can be convinced that the choice is only between
Tweedledee and Tweedledum __ as Nader characterized the
Democrat-Republican option __ there will never be a credible threat to
their agenda.

The only occasion Democratic candidates __ generally fairly privileged and connected
individuals who live more in the stratospheric upper reaches of society
__ give notice to the needs of the working and middle classes are when
they are challenged from the left. That's why the New Deal became the
agenda of the Democratic Party. The country was in turmoil and
socialists and even communists were viewed as a legitimate threat at the
polls. Same thing at the end of the 19th Century with the rise of the Progressives. When there is what is perceived as a real alternative to oligarchic, monopolistic, and corporate control, the Democratic Party must embrace progressive policies or get their butts kicked at election time. It's pure politics. 

But . . . if everyone can be convinced that voting for a third party is throwing away their votes, voila!
No threat from the left. The Democratic Party makes its gradual but
certain migration to the comfort and safety of Daddy Warbucks. Big money
talks and politicians walk. But with their backs to ordinary citizens
like us. With Citizens United and the recent McCutcheon decision by the
Supreme Court, that is truer than ever before in our history.

So the other they __ the right wing of this country __ also want you to think there has never been or never will be a progressive option. "See what happens. You vote for those kooks and you end up throwing the election!"

I'd really like to think we're smarter than this. But it's not encouraging.
Third-party voting is a tough way to go. I voted Green the last three
presidential elections. As a result I suffer the constant taunts about
throwing my vote away and being an air-headed chump. But I don't for one
second believe that I in any way furthered the evil juggernaut of the
right wing in this country. I like to think __ perhaps too
idealistically __ I'm just part of an awakening, a vanguard for what
will turn politics in America around and restore something resembling
the ideal of democracy to our nation.

There's one other benefit . . .

I can sleep at night.


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]