Money in politics is not only a corrosive symptom but also an important cause of structural problems with our economy.
Politics in money sustains the myths that economic growth leads to prosperity, prosperity alone increases well-being, and economic growth can continue forever. Economic growth is the unchallenged mantra of every politician. But we are already deep in financial overshoot, manifest as the aggregate of government, institutional, and personal debt. Ecological overshoot is manifest as global warming, air and water pollution, waste dumps, deforestation, desertification, aquifer depletion, natural resource consumption, depleted fisheries, and other exploitations of common resources. Also, income inequality continues to increase.
The book Sacred Economics: Money, Gift, and Society in the Age of Transition by Charles Eisenstein exposes the many false assumptions of traditional economics to describe a system that is stable during degrowth, and encourages us to create more of what is truly valuable. The author presents bold solutions to the systemic problems of today’s economy, while describing how a transition to this sacred economy could take place. To learn more, please read my recent review of the book on-line or as a pdf file. The full text of the book is generously offered online as a gift. A short video introduces some of the key ideas.
Economic concerns are so pervasive, so influential, and our economic systems contain so many faults that an economic transformation is required to ignite broader social and political reforms. Money will stay in politics until we can get politics out of money. Transforming our economic systems may be the lynchpin that unleashes a deeper, richer, and longer lasting well-being for all. Learn to recognize and challenge the false assumptions that prop up our economic systems. Break the cycle of politics in money obliging money in politics.
Coffee Party presents, in partnership with Americans For Tax Fairness: "A Christmas Album for Tax Cheats" featuring Will Rice, The Middle School Accountants, and MORE!
Holiday music expresses our hopes, dreams and aspirations—and it’s no different for tax-dodging corporations. While you and your family sit around a roaring fire enjoying the songs of the season, corporate accounting departments will be sitting around the huge, loophole-ridden tax code, enjoying the warmth given off by innumerable write-offs and special breaks. And they’ll sing, too, just different songs.
“Offshore In A Haven” is a cautionary tale of what happens when corporate tax reform goes too far—by which is meant, actually reforms anything. The heart-breaking story of corporate cash separated from its home office by the overriding need to avoid all U.S. taxes, this haunting tune has inspired generations of lobbyists and tax strategists.
With “Deduct Them All” we revisit the ancient beginnings of corporate tax dodging—the “fa la la” chorus reflects a time when young accountants could cook books, but couldn’t read them. The tax deductions for legal damages referenced in the second stanza goes back to a legal principle of the Middle Ages: rich people don’t pay for their own mistakes.
“Write-Off, The Red-Faced Tax Break” is a rollicking tune that delights current and future CFO’s alike. Children learn that being different is OK, as long as it makes someone money. We all learn that today’s illegal tax evasion can become tomorrow’s clever tax avoidance if we only view it with the proper magical spirit.
“What Tax Is This?” is the most overtly religious of this collection, tapping into a deeply felt conviction on the part of corporate executives that paying taxes is the greatest sin of all. The counter-argument presented in the song—that taxes are necessary to pay for important services—is presented ironically, held up as a common error to which non-corporate types often fall prey.
The happy, hopeful “Taxfree, the Haven” is another favorite of children, who dream of one day visiting the tropical paradise where troubles—and corporate tax liabilities—all melt away. However, it also serves as rallying cry for adults, who learn to stand forever vigilant against the insidious forces of reform.
There was once a man who set off to change the world, then discovered he didn’t have enough power to change the world. So he decided to change the country...but again failed. So he decided to change his own community with no more luck. He returned home to change his family, who resisted all attempts. He decided to change himself...and succeeded!
As a result, his family was transformed, and that spilled out into his community. His community became a role model for other communities in the country, which was positively changed. And as his country shifted priorities and policies, the world was changed.
We started this conversation three weeks ago in Transpartisan Nation Part 1. Questions we asked on that show included, “Can we let go of the point-scoring, win/lose paradigm? Can we trust each other, provide compassion instead of competition and control our fear long enough to be the change we seek?”
In this blog and corresponding radio show, we explore how does one become “transpartisan” and what does this really mean? Let’s start with what Coffee Party means by transpartisan.
Transpartisan / Independence
We engage in political and social bridge-building for the sake of finding solutions to common problems, working above and beyond ideological dogmas, putting the country first. (from Coffee Party Core Values informed by the work of CitizenNow)
How does transpartisan forward the the action of seeking common solutions?
creates a safe space to explore differences
no one party is always right
no one party is always wrong
evidence based facts and metrics
challenge ideas not the person i.e. name calling is out, denigration/dehumanisation is out and mutual respect (civility) is in.
We asked ourselves how might we move from polarization to shared outcomes? From disengagement with each other to engagement and results?
Stepping Stones from Disengagement to Engagement
we can't hear each otherwe can hear but do not understand (controlled narrative, talking points, code words)
we can understand but not discuss (blame or ridicule)
we can discuss without blaming (empathy)
we can hear each other (compassion)
we can problem solve together
You might recall trying to share an experience with someone, and they simply cannot understand. Or you really love a family member or friend...but just can’t talk about certain topics. Which stepping stone would you be experiencing?
Just as the man who wanted to change the world failed until he changed himself, how might we each, individually, need to change? What is the attitude, emotion and actions of people who work (or play) together?
We referred to the Abrahams/Hicks emotional scale. Abraham-Hicks has come up with a sequence of emotions that will help us work from feeling bad to feeling better about whatever we are experiencing. What do you normally experience when you are engaging in political action? If you find where you are emotionally on the scale, you can then look for and practice thoughts that feel just a tad bit better. In other words, we only move up or down, one step at a time. It can take seconds or months. Practice allows us to shift quicker. Here’s the scale:
What are the emotions of transpartisanship? Our supposition is that transpartisan conversations become available when we reach contentment and higher, because that is where we are “safe” enough to engage.
So when you engage in political conversations, activism or even comment on Facebook posts, what is your emotion? Anger? Blame? Optimism? How do you change your emotion or mood? How long does it take?
At the end of the day, wherever you are on the path to a transpartisan lifestyle, you are fine. Keep exercising the muscle that will move you up the levels of the emotional scale and up the levels of engagement. Exercise gratitude when people show you that you have stumbled. Exercise humility when you dust yourself off. Apologize if needed. And stay on the path. This republic’s democracy is counting on you.
Join us today for a BIG topic of transpartisanship and our role in creating our future.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, more commonly referred to as the TPP is Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and 12 Asian Pacific countries. Like other such agreements, it is been being created and negotiated by the the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), who reports directly to the President. Work on the TPP began in 2005 under the Bush Administration and has continued during of the Obama Administration. And now, the President has begun talk of using the Fast Track Option to limit debate on and amendments to the agreement during the congressional approval process; a process the President had aimed to complete by the end of 2013. Twenty-nine chapters in length, many are calling it NAFTA on steroids.
The White House claims that the purpose of the agreement is to make it easier for American companies to do business in the region. However, those who oppose the treaty are saying it will do great harm to the vast majority of Americans by handing over even greater power to large, multinational corporations. But here's the rub. There's no way for any of us to be certain which is true because for the past eight years, the TPP has been negotiated in total secrecy. Well, almost total secrecy.
While the American people and even members of Congress are being denied access to the contents of the TPP, 600 representatives from corporations such as Halliburton, Monsanto, Chevron, and Walmart are helping to write it. What we want to know is this: Should the Coffee Party officially demand transparency from the White House on the TPP so that it can be properly vetted by The People?
"Slavery was a global institution, not a Southern one; its legacy, in the form of the Tea Party, is global too."
I retyped it, adding a typo but also the word "currently."
Our more conservative contributors to the Coffee Party Facebook page took offense, understandably assuming that the article argued that all participants in Tea Party events are racist. For this I apologize, I know first hand that this is not true. The article called this assumption into question, but for those who read only the sub-header, they of course were not aware of this, and the Confederate flag image didn't help either.
Here is one comment from a contributor named Dan:
I interviewed 180 people at two Tea Party rallies on April 15 2010, California State Capital and Pleasanton Fairgrounds. (I was shooting for 100 at each but ran out of time). The difference between my interviews and the Mainstream Media's, was I did not seek out only the person with the stupidest sign to interview.
Part of my interview consisted of a question about Education, I was amazed at the number of graduate degrees. The single biggest occupation I met was Medical Doctor in private practice.
When combined with Dentist, Psychiatrist, and medical lab owners, it was more than half of ALL other occupations combined (37% of all those I interviewed)
I met 4 Ph'ds from my Alma Mater alone (UC Berkeley), and I met just over 50 UC Berkeley alumni in total (both via interview and some that just came up and introduced themselves as such).
In other comments, Dan reminded me of the original version of the Tea Party, as founded by Ron Paul. Here is one of my replies:
I am familiar enough to know that the reputation the Tea Party currently has is largely based on "bad apples" — most famously, the visual impact of the most offensive signs and images seen at their rallies, but there is more to it than that.
Ron Paul's Tea Party is not the Tea Party we know today. It was inundated with waves of political advertising disguised as news and/or entertainment. The fact is, for 99% of America, there would have been no Tea Party without conservative media products such as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and his myriad imitators. These are the real "bad apples," for, political advertising is just like any other type of advertising. Mass culture requires themes that exploit base emotions, such as cultural resentment and racial anxiety. If you want your audience to show up at a Tea Party rally, you can't say, "We know that Bush's policies failed, now there is a new president who inherited unprecedented debt and deficits, two wars, and the second largest global financial crisis in history. He is trying to turn things around, but let's protest just in case he fails." That wouldn't have gotten anyone to show up.
So, instead they go with birtherism and talk about communism, fascism, and socialism. They turned affordable health care into a "social issue" by lying about what was originally a Republican alternative to single payer, and exploiting hatred of Obama. Where did all this hatred of Obama come from? Most Americans assume it has something to do with his race. We have three indicators for that (1) the racist signs at Tea Party rallies — which I have not chosen to focus upon in this thread until you brought them up, (2) racist comments by leaders including elected leaders who identify as Tea Party and (3) the race-based hysteria scripted and produced for conservative television and radio channels that began as soon as Obama was elected.
When historians and political theorists (and everyday people like us) compare the Tea Party to those who opposed the Civil Rights Act and fled the Democratic party for the Republican party, we are not indicting the consumers of political advertising; we are indicting the producers of it.
I have recently found myself in the inquiry - do we have what it takes to be a transpartisan nation?
I was confronted with this question this past week as I found myself drawn to news stories about the Reclaim America Now rally in Washington DC on November 19th, and rally organizer Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch, Freedom Watch, and now, the “Reclaim America Now Coalition”. The rally press release claimed to be providing a new American Independence Day, and called for a peaceful, non-violent, second American Revolution. I was more than curious.
My research took me to some mental roadblocks. Mr. Larry Klayman and his several organizations clearly challenge our government to account for itself, something I can support. But the devil was in the details: we do not agree on the causes of the failure of our elected to represent WE the People. I blame the corrupting effect of money in politics, and he blames the Obama Administration.
It did not take long to identify barriers to communication between folks like Mr. Klayman and me. There are too many code words and talking points that support a narrative that I am not sure either of us might be able to transcend. And yet, isn’t that exactly what has to happen if we are ever going to pull off the citizen intervention required to put this republic’s democracy back on track?
Assuming that We The People have the same goal of an efficient and accountable government, what will it take for us to move beyond the blame game of “how we got here” and focus on making our shared goal a reality? Can we let go of the point-scoring, win/lose paradigm? Can we trust each other, provide compassion instead of competition and control our fear long enough to be the change we seek?
Today’s LUNCH w LOUDEN invites you to join in this important conversation. If we are to make sytemic and sustainable change in our political structure, it will take a strong majority of citizens with skills that promote respect, dignity and collaborative action. We’d like to hear your stories from the field. Are you the change? Or are you locked in identifying the problem?
A recent study by John S. Ahlquist, Kenneth R. Mayery, and Simon Jackmanz found that experiences with "voter fraud" and "alien abduction" are reported at similar levels.
The study was conducted in a way that offered people a list of things that may or may not have happened in their lives, with "voter fraud" included for one group, and "alien abduction" included for the other. They were asked HOW MANY things on this list have happened to you.
This way, no one had to say specifically that they were involved in voter fraud, and no one had to say they were involved in alien abduction.
The data shows that experiences with "alien abduction" and "voter fraud" appear in similar numbers, allowing for the fact that many respondents hit "all of the above" and may have been flippant or careless in doing so.
This study is just a fun way of underscoring the overwhelming evidence that "voter fraud" is not an actual problem, but rather a myth that was manufactured by conservative advertising agencies (aka "think tanks") and election lawyers in order to justify restrictions on voting, such as government issued ID requirements, that have cropped up over the past 10 years.
Both the voting restriction legislation, and the "voter fraud" myths were disseminated from organizations like ALEC, Fox News, and the Heritage Foundation, beginning not long after the release of the 2000 census. The purpose of the new restrictions on voting was to counterbalance the demographic shift that this census revealed.
Before the 2000 census, there were no media products, and no "think tanks" marketing the notion of "voter fraud." Since then, it has become a popular myth among consumers of Republican media products, and laws restricting access to the polls have been implemented in 37 states.
I posted on Facebook Tuesday: “How many corporations are going to the polls today? None. Why? Because they are not citizens.” The comments were enlightening.
DS: Why cast a vote they can buy them in bulk.
HC: The supreme court thinks they’re people, that their money equals speech, and soon, they they have religious freedoms.
HB: When only about 55%or even less of Americans bother to vote, it is the corporations that control the outcome. Who's fault is that ?
And my favorite:
DF: What a great question that makes a very important point. Besides corporations not going to the polls today, they aren't registered to vote, nor do they have voter I.D.'s. Yet with their unreported campaign contributions and support of PACs, they buy more influence than all registered voters put together. Makes no sense, yet the Supreme Court majority knew what they were doing and got what they intended in their Citizens United vote. Are they, too, in the pockets of the corporations that they elevated to citizenship?
Somewhere along the way “their” money became more important than “my” vote. Corporate campaign contributions, indirect contributions through non profits, lobbying, and media are all high priced elements in a strategy for financial control. The payoff is huge: according to an NPR article, for every dollar spent on lobbying, the companies got $220 in tax benefits.
But more importantly, the ability of Americans to work through their differences is made impossible by the strategic use of the polarizing rhetoric designed to rationalize the self serving legislation that is the spawn of the unholy union of business and government. We need to talk about gun safety, religious freedoms, the broken economy, and so much more. But if we could talk, we would solve our problems, and the financial control being perpetuated by applying cash to our wounds would end.
Is there another explanation for our inability to have a civil conversation about gun safety? 80% of Americans, many of them NRA members, want some common sense gun safety measures put into place, and while we bicker like Hatfields and McCoys, hardly a week goes by without our having to endure another gun tragedy. Would closing the gun show loop-hole really be the beginning of the end for gun ownership? Really? Neither side of the aisle helps, because they both cash in on the issues remaining unresolved. The heroes in the seaweed, those who listen to the people and try to make something happen, become nothing more than martyrs on a pyre of campaign contributions.
But the real damage is to the American psyche. Our country does not walk, talk, or smell like a democracy any more, and what you can expect if you ask why is, “this is a republic”. I guess some think that a tyranny of the minority is acceptable in a republic. I guess business rights trump citizens rights in a republic. I guess religious rights are limited to the chosen few who can afford to impose their beliefs on others in a republic. I don’t think most people think this way.
But for the record, the United States is a “constitution-based federal republic [with a] strong democratic tradition” according to the CIA Factbook. The key word here is constitution-based. Even that precious document has become a polarizing tool for the spin doctors.
On our show today we would like to talk about some of the things that need talking about. Are you in?
Posted by Eric Byler · November 06, 2013 9:26 AM
· 2 reactions
So much of the focus of the Coffee Party has been on the corrupting influence of money in politics. And, because more times than not, expensive media products such as campaign commercials (and campaign-commercials-disguised-as-news) still decide elections, it is right to point out that on Election Day 2013, the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia went to the candidate for whom more money was spent.
But, political advertisements would not have the impact they have on elections — and thus on policy — if our fellow citizens were not so easily manipulated by them. In 2009, the TEA Party was formed by consumers of cable television and right wing radio political advertising. During the 2012 primary, and even more alarmingly, since then, the TEA Party has seemed almost like a runaway train destined to destroy the Republican party. But the results in the two marquee governors races last night show signs of life for the mainstream wing of the Republican party, and lessons for conservatives who have recently been unsure how or whether to stand up to the party's fanatical base.
Bottom Line New Jersey: America needs Chris Christie. Gov. Chris Christie (R) is the man the Republican party needs to help them embrace, or at least acknowledge, 21st century America. Many Americans are disgusted with the hyper-partisan obstructionism of Republican media personalities and the TEA Party-dominated House of Representatives that has stalled America's economic recovery and made it impossible to meet important priorities such as job creation, immigration reform, and addressing climate change.
If the madness is to end, the Republican party needs a leader who is not going to back down "when extremists attack." On far too many issues, weak leaders like Mitt Romney and Speaker John Boehner have crumbled in the face of irrational anger and even more irrational policy coming from the far right. Until someone in the Republican party shows that it is possible to stand up to extremism, and not only survive but thrive, America will be plagued by a Republican party fueled by the darkest, most dangerous emotions this country and this planet have known.
The people of New Jersey, and the people of America appreciate Gov. Christie because he is a Republican who not only accepts and acknowledges that Barack Obama has the same right to be president as any of his predecessors, he physically embraced him and worked with him to help rebuild New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy. What ever policy differences Democrats might have with Gov. Christie, this basic acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the first black president is progress enough to engender good will. Call it a case of national Stockholm Syndrome, but we can't deny that the emotion and the gratitude is there.
Bottom Line Virginia: The TEA Party blew it for Republicans (again). Governor-Elect Terry McAuliffe (D) is not a good match for Virginia. He is a Washington insider and former DNC Chairman who has never held elected office, and only lives in Virginia because it borders Washington DC. I saw him speak in person four years ago on the same stage with Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), where it was clear to me that McDonnell was a more engaging and more talented politician. In 2009, TEA Party media products were being produced at a rate of several hours per day, but McDonnell chose to present himself as a composed, dignified conservative whose focus was on creating jobs. McDonnell won.
Four years later, fanatics in the GOP used a nominating convention to circumvent primary voters. There, party activists chose as their nominee current Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) who, not only embraced the TEA Party even during its disastrous government shutdown, he is best known for supporting legislation that bans birth control and even certain sexual positions (!?!).
If Republicans had held a primary and allowed the voters to decide, the GOP candidate would have been moderate Republican Lt. Governor Bill Bolling. Bolling would have done better with women. And he would have had the financial support of wealthy Republican donors who care more about economic growth than what human beings do with their genitals. Bolling would have won handily.
There is one thing made clear in Act III of Political Fiscal Theatre: the debt ceiling is much ado about nothing that can cause a cascading financial failure, impacting the entire world economy.
The ideological nature of the debt ceiling gaming we have seen is fierce. Is it something our framers intended to protect or is it sedition in constitutional clothing?
How are we using the tools of governance? And how are we using the tools of obstructing governance? Why would our founders set up a system where tools of obstructionism are needed?
The framers of our government were concerned about the tyranny of the majority. Concerned enough about mob-rule, religious fanatics or any group of ideologues gaining too much power that they established a system of checks and balances with our three branches of government.
Did they ever foresee the possibility of tyranny of the minority? Where a group of ideologues would gain just enough power to obstruct governance including but not limited to the debt ceiling?
Only two countries in the world even use a debt ceiling...the U.S. and the Netherlands.
It was never an issue in the U.S. until recently.
Created in 1917, pundits now say that the debt ceiling was an attempt to curb runaway spending, while congressional historians report it was a way for spending to occur after Congressional decisions were made.
Jeanene - by reducing taxes on the majority of American income has created the need to borrow (instead of create revenue).
Debilyn - And given that our money is just printed pieces of paper, fiat money, based on our belief in it, what difference does it make?
Warren Buffett laid out the case why we should abolish the debt ceiling earlier this week. Strangely enough, he is almost the only public person making this noise. Why so few? The cry is clear in social media.
The debt ceiling is hardly the only area where mischief is afoot:
Late September 2013, the Rules Committee of the House decided that only the Majority Leader of the House (currently Eric Cantor) could bring a bill to the floor, when previously it was ANY member of the House. This maneuver secretly gave more power to the Majority Leader than the Speaker of the House.
The power of the purse was used to deny funding to adequately set up the federal system of the Affordable Care Act exchanges, which needed expansion. And was expanded again due to 26 states opting out of Medicaid expansion which would have covered millions of their citizens. These states are primarily controlled by those who are making an ideological statement. (reported on NPR and NYTimes)
Help us formulate the Coffee Party position on the debt ceiling, and brainstorm what action we should take. Can we eliminate mischief one step at a time?