My daughter has become addicted to Dr. Suess.  In December we read How the Grinch Stole Christmas almost every night.  Two weeks ago she brought home The Sneetches from her school.  This week it is The Lorax.

It is obvious that Theodor Geisel had a keen sense of social awareness.  His books, while fanciful and geared towards children, are allegories that address issues we still face today: destructive cynicism (Grinch), prejudice (Sneetches), and greed (Lorax).  The moment of insight in each book holds as much truth for adults as children.  

In fact, the "lightbulb moment" in The Lorax must be embodied by every voter and candidate in 2012.

UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot,

nothing is going to get better.

It's not.  

The Washington Post has a column by Katrina vanden Heuvel encouraging "99 percenters" to run for office.  Here is the full column.  She states that: 'There are few issues on the national landscape that concern me more than the impact of corporate money on our politics — its power to corrupt and distort, its power to change the outcomes of elections and legislation.'  That is what I have been saying since last April when I began visiting town committees in our district.  That is why I have created the Ulysses Compact that pledges both me and you to stopping this problem.  

I hope more folks will take up Ms. vanden Heuvel's challenge.  Because I want other members of Congress to join me in 2013 as we make the House more representative.  

Abraham Lincoln sits at the pinnacle of American history with the Founding Fathers and Martin Luther King, Jr. He is rightly honored for what he did and what he represents.  Even 150 years later, every politician wants to claim some connection with his legacy.  

Jeanette Rankin is not nearly as well known.  That is a sad fact.  She is the first woman elected to Congress in 1916 (she took office on March 3, 1917), which is four years before the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified giving women the right to vote throughout the country.  She is arguably the most morally consistent U.S. politician of the 20th century.  Every politician should strive to follow her legacy.  

I am thinking about Lincoln and Rankin because our politics has failed us.  I am trying to do something about that.  And at every Democratic Town Committee meeting I attend, I hear from committed citizens who hope that we can once again have the government we deserve.  

There is no doubt, eventually the corrupting influence of money will be lessened in our electoral process.  We deserve better.  I have a favor to ask, please share this with half a dozen other people you know who hope for elections where ideas trump attack ads; where both candidates offer reasons why he/she can win rather than arguments for why the other candidate should lose; where the legacies of Lincoln and Rankin are truly represented.  

As I stated in my last entry, I find people/news/events almost every day that make me think I am doing the right things in my campaign.  Again today, I read two items that indicated that my capital gains proposal is especially well-timed.  

Jared Bernstein points to a Congressional Research Service study that indicates that the single most influential factor in rising inequality in the United States is capital income.  Now I think, like I believe most Democrats do, that inequality has reached the point that it has become corrosive to our society and our democracy.  Still, simply increasing taxes on people who have made sound investments isn't the answer.  So I proposed something specific.  

And an article by Adam Davidson in this week's New York Times Magazine confirmed that I was on the right track.  In addressing the need for the United States to become more committed to research and development or risk losing more economic influence to China, Davidson argues:  "... Congress can do other things, like shift incentives away from rampant short-termism.  It could, for example, reduce capital-gains taxes on stocks held for many years."  

Not all of my ideas will be this timely.  However, I will continue to make proposals that I think are needed.  

Every candidate hears and sees things that make him think he is the best candidate for the job.  I am no different. There is no way I can become a full-time candidate because my family needs my income.  So I will continue to work while I campaign on nights and weekends.  Of course, I think having a 40+ hour-a-week job is an asset.  The fact that I am a long, long way from independently wealthy is a strength.  It is also apparently a rarity.  

This just makes me more committed to my campaign.  I have heard scores of people say that the problem with Congress (or Washington) is that there are no regular people there.  That does not need to be the case.  I am running because I already represent most of the citizens in the 5th district: the unemployed; the family members trying to help parents deal with Medicare and Social Security; the parents arguing before town councils to keep school funding at levels that will benefit each student; and the voter frustrated with officials that listen more attentively to big-money donors.  

My observer bias finds two or three news items every week to keep me working to make the House more representative.  

I often hear people say that they are not politically engaged because their elected officials don't represent them.  I have heard this sentiment from co-workers, parents at my children's baseball and soccer games, and while listening to radio call-in shows. Some version of "they are only out for themselves" is part of their critique of current politics.  And often that statement is linked to "there is no real difference between the two parties." 

As a Democrat, I strongly disagree.  As I have been visiting Democratic Town Committee meetings throughout my district, I have found dedicated folks who work to make our government benefit all our fellow citizens.  Yet, there is a siren song of money and power that causes many of our high-profile Democrats to reinforce the cynicism inherent in the "they are all alike" beliefs.  

In today's New York Times there is an article about for-profit colleges that exemplifies why many Americans don't find Democrats more appealing than Republicans.  As the article states:

"A who’s who of Democratic lobbyists — including Richard A. Gephardt, the former House majority leader; John Breaux, the former Louisiana senator; and Tony Podesta, whose brother, John, ran Mr. Obama’s transition team — were hired to buttonhole officials."

One paragraph later the article informs us that a friend of former speaker Pelosi also lobbied against regulations that were devised to help working-class Americans.  

Now I believe Dick Gephardt and Nancy Pelosi have done much good in their long careers.  But I spend an inordinate amount of time consuming political news.  To most people it appears that powerful Democrats don't have core values, rather they have positions that are subject to change if enough money is offered.  

Even the appearance of being "for sale" is corrosive.  If we as Democrats want to gain long-term support from voters, then we need to tune out the siren's song of money.  I have pledged to do just that.  Now one of the active Democrats I spoke with this week expressed concern that I am offering voters a "pledge."  As she said, "it reminds me too much of Grover Norquist."  I understand that concern.  But I also know that many of the folks who tell me that the two parties don't have anyone who "truly represents" them will then share that they intend to vote for the Republican because they at least know "Republicans won't raise taxes."  

I am convinced that a more powerful belief would be that "Democrats won't sell their vote."  

There is a classic "Twilight Zone" episode that explores the human tendency during times of stress to turn on one another rather than band together to face the true threat.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

I am reminded of this episode often by our current political debate.  Much of it involves finger-pointing about who is responsible for the financial crisis and recession, which is encouraged by the mistaken focus on deficit reduction instead of job creation (but that is a subject for another post).

Many will argue that the elderly should shoulder much of the blame due to Social Security and Medicare.  Others will rebut that argument, including those who are elderly themselves, by blaming public pensions that provide government employees with the security that has been taken from their private sector counterparts (Ellen Schultz has done great work uncovering the ugly truth about pensions http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/reviews/story/2011-10-14/retirement-heist-book/50795990/1).  Then there are "very serious people" who will knowingly state that our public commitment to education is bankrupting us and must be drastically reduced.  Of course the entire working class is held accountable by some because they are unwilling to labor for the wages of their third-world counterparts. 

The truth is that inequality reached unsustainable levels prior to the financial collapse.  In fact, the disparate levels of wealth and the disconnect between productivity and wages both reached levels comparable to the 1920s.  While correlation does not prove causation, the parallels between the economic climates that led to the Great Depression and our current situation are unmistakable.  

There is only one place to look for culprits.  A small percentage of people prospered unjustifiably from the depletion of the pension system, the high-stakes gambling that replaced normal financial practices, and depressed wages for the majority of workers.  The very wealthiest citizens realized that by expending a small percentage of their wealth they could buy the loyalty of politicians who would pass laws for their benefit--and to the detriment of the rest of us.  Then those same politicians told us that we needed to work harder and sacrifice more.  Both the wealthy and their political underlings strive to create discord among the wider population.  

As Rod Serling told us 50 years ago, if we continue to blame those who are actually part of our community, we will quickly destroy ourselves.  

I have considered Jack Abramoff dishonest and egomaniacal since I first read of him.  Even if he is grossly overstating the truth, this opinion piece makes my case better than anything I could do or say.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-18/-willing-vassals-in-congress-do-lobbyist-bidding-jack-abramoff.html#disqus_thread

The other candidates running for the Democratic nomination in the 5th district are good, talented people with more experience than me.  But at this point the pledge to close the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K street is the most important issue.  

We can make our government work again.  That is my goal.  I invite you to read the above article and ask yourself why I am the only candidate addressing this fundamental problem.  

I am typically cynical of any idea that is labeled win/win.  Most of the problems we face can only be solved with complex and difficult action in both the public and private sectors--involving sacrifice by some politically powerful players. 

That being said, I think unemployment and climate change can be addressed jointly.  This is partially true because our political "leaders" have been completely inept at addressing either issue during our current economic crisis.  Unemployment seems stuck at its current woeful level and the data regarding CO2 emissions worsen almost daily.

My plan is to provide a sliding scale grant to property owners (homeowners, landlords, and commercial building owners) for improving the energy efficiency of their buildings.  

For example a homeowner who decreased energy usage 19% percent for an 1800 square foot home would receive a grant of $9000.  

The owners would be able to determine how they achieved the increased efficiency.  So free market forces would be encouraged to find better and less expensive ways to make buildings use less energy.  For older buildings, insulation and new windows could do the trick.  Building owners who are committed to green technology could pursue solar or geothermal options.  The bottom line is that because this is a grant program the government does not pick winners and losers.

To minimize fraud in the energy audits, community college students could be trained to perform the audits.  There could also be incentives included within the program for high school and college students to design integrated plans for reducing energy consumption in public buildings.

This plan would put people to work in both trades and engineering.  It would begin to address issues with CO2.  It would give young people a way to be both civic-minded and improve their job skills.  Even for a cynic like me, this is a plan that can be called a win/win.  

Conservatives are praising the Boston Red Sox--the newly crowned baseball champions.  Fox News promises fair and balanced coverage throughout the day.  Fox and Friends will feature Series MVP John Lackey while Sean Hannity will have an hour-long interview with Terry Francona, who will explain how his conservative values helped him lead the team to ultimate success.  

House leaders John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Paul Ryan held a press conference to ask "Democrats to put aside their petty partisan sniping and join us all as part of Red Sox Nation."  When the results were announced at the Republican Presidential Debate several candidates had responses.  Rick Perry stated that "the Boston team used the same strategy I employed to create nearly a million jobs in Texas."  Ron Paul said he congratulated the new champions "but the game won't really be fair until it eliminates umpires."  Herman Cain told the audience that baseball is America's Pastime because it "features 9 players versus 9 players for 9 innings."  Mitt Romney promised to appoint Theo Epstein "Job Czar in a Romney administration."  John Huntsman started to speak: "But St. Louis and Texas . . ."  However he was quickly drowned out by booing and several cries of "un-American" and "Rino" from the mostly Tea Party crowd.  

The unfortunate truth of politics is that many in the GOP no longer hold positions--they have beliefs that they cling to no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.  

Conservatives continue to deny climate change despite new research by a scientist who was prominent because of his previous skepticism.  

Most Republican politicians and even some conservative economists continue to proclaim the virtues of fiscal austerity and a balanced-budget amendment.  This despite the honesty of such long-time party leaders as Bruce Bartlett, who calls such ideas "political theater."  

Of course most of the electorate knows that the Red Sox didn't win this year.  Polls show that close to 2/3 of the public support Democratic positions.  Yet only about half ever support Democratic candidates.  Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg says he had found that most voters don't trust Democrats to be any more representative than Republicans.

I believe the "money and power" that the average voter decries is truly a Siren's song.  People go to Washington, even those with the best intentions, and become seduced by the influence of the 1%.  The only solution I see is a Ulysses' contract.  Thus my two-way pledge. 

I am not foolish enough to think that I can single-handedly solve our political problems.  But I do think both parties telling people that the Red Sox didn't win is a good place to start.  

As I mentioned in my last post, our Congress is catering to the wealthy and powerful.  But it is worse than that, the wishes of the poor and middle-class are ignored.  As Ezra Klein stated in a recent blog post:

Martin Gilens, a political scientist at Princeton University, has been collecting the results of nearly 2,000 survey questions reaching back to the 1980s, looking for evidence that when opinions change, so too does policy. And he found it—but only for the rich. Policy changes with majority support didn’t become law except when that majority support included voters at the top of the income distribution. When the opinions of the poor diverged from the opinions of the rich, the opinions of the poor did not appear to matter. If 90 percent of the poor supported a policy change, its chances of passage were no better than if 10 percent of the poor supported it.

The link to Professor Gilens's research is here: http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/69/5/778.full.pdf

Folks have asked me why I think I am qualified to run for Congress.  I answer them in all seriousness that one of my main qualifications is that I lost my job in 2007 and know the toll unemployment takes on an individual and his/her family.  It is time that the House of Representatives begins to represent everyone.  If the trend that Professor Gilens found continues, the dream of the Founding Fathers will be broken and unattainable for future generations. 

It was Will Rogers, or maybe Mark Twain, who said we have the best Congress money can buy.  So it is no surprise that lobbyists fare better than the millions who are unemployed--would Republicans back the president's job bill if it had million-dollar-a-year lobbyists asking for its passage? 

Still it is outrageous when the best indicator for the success of a company's stock price is not the number of patents it creates, not the number of new products it introduces, not the percentage of nobel laureates it employs but the amount it spends lobbying Congress.  Most top companies can only hope to invest $1.00 and get $1.25 returned.  However a recent study by Strategas, an investment research company, "found the outright return on lobbying costs, according to one of the various studies that served as inspiration for the Strategas index, was $220 for each $1 spent."  

Details can be found at: http://www.economist.com/node/21531014

While it is obvious that big business uses their first amendment right to petition the government, it is nonetheless truly outrageous that OUR elected representatives are so thoroughly bought.  More people must demand that each and every candidate take concrete action to stop selling our democracy.  I may not win, but I am not going to stand by while these outrages continue.  

My best wishes are with the people participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement.  As the original demonstrations in New York continue and expand to other locations, the citizens involved are raising awareness around important issues.  Every measure of economic success indicates that "the other 99" are and have been ignored and perhaps even exploited.  

That being said, I hope we all appreciate that our Constitution protects the right of assembly and speech.  While there is much that is wrong with our current economic/political climate, the means to begin changing them are built into our system.  Those calling for various versions of anarchy are well-intentioned but ultimately wrong.  We need to make drastic changes--to the system we have.  

One of my good friends said if folks asked me why I was running I should paraphrase Thoreau and ask them why they aren't all candidates for something.  If the majority (the other 99 if you will) of us start demanding candidates that limit fundraising, focus on ideas, and pledge not to become just another commodity for the 1 percent, then the demands of those participating in Occupy Wall Street will be mostly met.  

I was listening to NPR the other morning and heard an interview with Ellen Schultz about her new book Retirement Heist.  Schultz details how corporate titans enriched themselves while greatly diminishing the future security of their workers.  While I knew the broad details of the "pension crisis," I was unaware of just how egregious the abuses were.

Yet many people I talk with who still have some type of pension say they "feel lucky."  After listening to Ms. Schultz, I kept thinking about Stockholm Syndrome.  It seems to me that something similar has happened to American public opinion.

In the past 30 years inequality has increased dramatically.  The ratio between top executive pay and the pay of their working-class employees has increased from 30/1 to 300/1.  The measurement economists call intergenerational elasticity, basically the likelihood of one's children moving up the economic ladder, is decreasing.  Productivity gains no longer benefit the workers who are more productive: for most of the 20th century average wages increased almost exactly as much as productivity.  For the past 20 years, the wages of 95% of Americans have only gone up about 70% as much productivity has gone up.  Those at the top of the economic heap (the top 1% and especially the top 0.1%) have reaped the rest of the benefits from workers producing more.  

Still, most people I hear say they merely want to have some of the things that are increasingly out of their reach.  So almost everyone settles for a week at Disneyland or a long weekend skiing while the ever more fortunate few fly private jets to exclusive resorts or helicopter to Aspen several times each winter.  

A recent issue of "The Economist" focused on the future of jobs.  An article said that for those of us not at the top of the wealth ladder "one strategy could be to find a high-flyer and stick close.  Even if joining their posse is out of reach, there are still horses to be fed and watered."  Serving the super-wealthy is apparently the growth industry of the future.  

This is not the future I want for my children or my country.  We must first understand how we have become captives of the rich-deserve-to-get-richer ideology if we are to change the future.  

Two issues that are central to my campaign for Congress have been prominent in the news recently.

1. People are fed up with Congress.  A new Gallup Poll found that an all-time high of 81% of the public is dissatisfied with our legislative branch.  More than 2/3 have little or no confidence in the current members of our national legislature and half feel the same way about everyone seeking elected office.  The Gallup poll is here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149678/Americans-Express-Historic-Negativity-Toward-Government.aspx
2. The listeria outbreak related to cantaloupes is likely to be linked to more deaths.  This is the issue I wish I were wrong about.  When I began talking to folks several months ago, I was the only candidate making food safety an issue (in fact, when I wrote the Issues portion of my website two months ago I didn't even include any mention of listeria).  My career in insurance has taught me that a problem that occurs repeatedly is often the prelude to a catastrophic event (in insurance circles we say frequency breeds severity).  If we do not fully address the problems with our food production and delivery systems, I fear that the next outbreak could have hundreds or thousands of victims.  The time to improve our laws is now.

These two issues are really linked.  Many people have told me that the "cost" of getting into Congress is raising more than $1,000,000.  As long as this is true, corporate lobbyists, whether with the food industry or the financial industry, will be much more satisfied with how Congress operates than the majority it supposedly serves.  

I agree with the idea that the super-wealthy should pay at least the same percentage tax rate as the middle class.  But the so-called Buffet Rule is, per se, only a small part of the solution in addressing the growing inequality in the United States.  Thus I support a restructured capital gains tax (see the Issues section) and a Financial Transactions Tax  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax.  Investment is a needed part of a healthy economy.  But what caused the financial crisis and recession was much closer to Wall Street titans gambling than it was to long-term investment.  Part of the answer must be restructuring taxes and updating regulatory authority to avoid another Minsky Moment http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/minskymoment.asp#axzz1YxhDHqSS

The President's deficit-cutting proposal has been met with faux outrage by conservatives. Many conservative politicians and pundits have accused President Obama of fomenting class warfare. That is complete nonsense. I think about two news items I heard within a few days of each other in July. The first indicated that summer camp administrators had noticed that there was a significant increase in the use of private jets by their wealthy campers. The second item reported the same week in the New York Times stated that many families were no longer able to "splurge" at dollar stores due to the recession. When these two stories were reported I heard not one peep of outrage about class. Warfare has been waged by the wealthiest on the middle and working classes throughout history. And for the past 30 years in the United States, they have used campaign cash to win almost every battle. Enough! I think the president's proposal should be a starting point. My own position is that we need to fix the capital gains tax so that speculation (or more accurately high-stakes gambling) is not confused with investment. I also acknowledge that the entire budget process reflects priorities. Our elected representatives need to use the budget to get people back to work, educate our children for a sound future, and protect our environment. Our budget does not need to reflect the priorities of only those who make thousands of dollars of campaign contributions.

The New York Times has one interesting article and one pointed opinion piece today that I think are more related than they might seem.  

The article reports on the differing views of Constitution Day, which is today, September 17.  People associated with the Tea Party hold the view that "the federal government is a creeping and unwelcome presence in the lives of freedom-loving Americans."  Like most issues that have any political aspect, there is a view that is diametrically opposed.  Progressives "see the Constitution not as a limit on federal power but as the spirit behind many progressive laws."  

My own take is that the framers were careful wordsmiths.  So what is necessary to understand the Constitution is close reading.  If that is done, it seems apparent the Constitution is more concerned with liberty than freedom.  In fact, freedom is only specifically mentioned in the Constitution in the First Amendment. Religious practice and speech are meant to be off limits from the Congress. However, like the Declaration of Independence, the preamble to the Constitution makes liberty conspicuous.  Often liberty and freedom are synonymous.  I think there are distinct and important differences in meaning.  

Freedom means without any restrictions.  I am free to disobey the law.  I am free to abuse the power I have over others.  

Liberty is more accurately defined by the civil relationship we have to each other.  Thus you can take indecent liberties with a minor (the very concept of indecent freedom is unknown).  Or a person is not a liberty to share a confidence which they gained in trust.  In this more precise sense liberty creates both rights and responsibilities.  And any governing document must outline how a civil society will organize so that individual freedom is redirected so that pluribus becomes unum.   

This is where the op/ed about food comes in.  Joe Nocera describes how any tax on the food industry, even one with wide support meant to fund improved safety throughout the production and distribution systems, is opposed by conservatives as "significant overreach" by the government. The underlying philosophy in opposition to the tax and its use is that food producers should be free from regulation so that they can maximize profits, which will benefit all involved through improved methods.  As the recent outbreak of listeria linked to cantaloupes proves, this is not how things work in the real world.

I believe that in our system everyone is at liberty to profit from their efforts and investments.  However, those of us who buy products, especially products as essential as food, are justified in expecting that same liberty requires a high-level of safety that can only be coordinated by the government that the framers created with the Constitution we celebrate today.   

Republicans have been telling us for as long as I can remember that the government is wasteful.  And for the past 20 years, many Democrats have accepted that as partially true.  However, during the Health Care debate all the data indicated that Medicare is significantly more efficient than the health care market.  Now a study by the Project on Government Oversight indicates that federal employees are more taxpayer friendly than private contractors.  

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/09/by-dana-liebelson-the-us-governments-increasing-reliance-on-contractors-to-do-work-traditionally-done-by-federal-empl.html

This study should generate much debate: and the methodology needs to be confirmed by other studies.  That being said, when taxpayer dollars are at stake we should rely on empirical arguments not partisan dogma.  

to ask what is wrong with our political system.  Today we learned what most in the middle class knew--median income for American families has fallen to 1997 levels.  The average folks suffer while a select few earn tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars each year.  Inequality was bad before the financial crisis; now it is worse.  The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate to fight inflation and stabilize employment.  Yet as one of the Fed governors said, if inflation were as far above historic norms as unemployment is action would be swift and sure.  Our leaders seem intent on protecting investors at all costs while ignoring the suffering of working families.  It is time for action.  It is time that our elected officials and their appointees commit to making our economy work for everyone not just their financials backers.