Monday, February 15, 2016

The Pragmatic Case for Bernie Sanders

 

Political and social change emanate from persistent pressure for a just world, not settling for what is “realistic” before even getting to the negotiating table.

 

  • Christopher D. Cook
  • 6:00 AM ET
  • As Bernie Sanders defies expectations with a resounding New Hampshire victory and a virtual tie in Iowa, Democratic Party leaders still insist Hillary Clinton is the pragmatic choice to beat Republicans and bring effective leadership and change—if incremental—to Washington. Clinton and her supporters frame the race, and her appeal, as a matter of “ready on day one” leadership and “get things done” practicality. But what does the record show, and what do leadership and pragmatism really mean?

On the pragmatics of electability, nearly every major national poll consistently shows Sanders equaling or bettering Clinton against all Republicans. Polls show Sanders nearly tied with Clinton nationally and rising. On electability, if anything, Sanders has the edge right now. There is nothing empirical to suggest Clinton’s superior electability—quite the contrary given her loss to Barack Obama in 2008 and her flagging campaign this year. While Clinton might gain more moderate Independents (particularly against a polarizing Republican nominee), Sanders can inspire massive Democratic and liberal Independent turnout and likely win over many white working-class swing voters.

Clinton’s most persistent attack—parroted by mainstream media—claims that Sanders’s agenda is perhaps laudable but unrealistic. Moderation is more effective, she claims. However, this is a misreading of American politics and factual comparisons of the candidates’ track records.

The Clinton pragmatism frame is a strangely naïve and fatalistic misjudging of political culture and dynamics. During most of his eight years in office, President Obama has tacked to the center in hopes of bipartisan compromise on everything from gun control to the budget, only to be met by relentless Republican obstruction, even labeled a “socialist dictator.” Republicans did much the same during Bill Clinton’s first term—pushing him more deeply into the political center, where, with plenty of support from Hillary, President Clinton and the Gingrich Congress gutted welfare, enacted a deeply compromised crime bill, and reversed bank regulations (something Hillary is OK with even after the financial crisis).

No matter where a Democratic president is on the spectrum, Republicans block and push rightward. In her campaign, as in the past, Hillary Clinton has compromised her agenda before the political battle even begins.

Based on her record and political positions, it is not credible for Democrats to hope that a Clinton presidency can deliver progressive change. It is not pragmatic to hope that Clinton, by dint of her centrist leanings, can work with Congress on anything other than a centrist agenda—at best. To the extent that she gets things done with a Republican legislature, based on an electoral mandate of centrism, there is zero prospect of progressive reform on Wall Street, corporate accountability, wealth inequality, or campaign finance. In politics, if you demand a mile, you get a foot; demand a moderate inch, and at best, you get a centimeter.

On the other side of the ledger, history shows that political and social change emanate from persistent pressure—organizing and arguing for a more just world, not settling for what is deemed “realistic” before getting to the negotiating table. Remember when gay rights and gay marriage were “unrealistic”? Remember when voting rights, desegregation, and other basic justice were far from “pragmatic”? They became real through years of dedicated, principled, idealism—by insisting the unrealistic become real.

Clinton’s brand of pragmatism surrenders progressive change to centrism.

If liberals and progressives support a $15 per-hour minimum wage, universally accessible health care, fair taxes on corporations and wealth, and meaningful reforms of Wall Street and campaign finance, they should elect a president who actually fights for these things. Sanders has spent his whole political life in pursuit of these ideals, and his campaign has moved these conversations to the fore; Clinton’s record on the other hand shows a consistent pattern of following, not leading on these issues. Clinton’s brand of pragmatism surrenders progressive change to centrism even before negotiations begin.

Change is not, as Clinton has claimed, a matter of “magical” thinking or waving a “wand”—it is about pushing ideas, building movements, and challenging the status quo. Even before the general election, Clinton is campaigning on a deflating and defeatist politics of half-a-loaf “pragmatism,” aiming lower on minimum wage, opposing free college, opposing single-payer health care. With Sanders, there is no question he will push for meaningful progressive change. No candidate can guarantee passage of their platform—but at least Sanders makes change possible.

On the question of leadership, Clinton’s other central campaign theme is her record of experience. As first lady, Clinton failed at health-care reform. She never pushed for single-payer health care and never built a coalition for anything beyond a compromised managed-care system. She also supported three of Bill Clinton’s signature measures, which all proved disastrous: welfare rollback, which unraveled safety-net supports for poor families, low-income women, and millions of working-class Americans; the omnibus crime bill with its three strikes and mandatory minimum sentencing, which contributed to a generation of long-term, largely African American inmates and felons; and NAFTA, which helped impoverish millions of Mexican and Central America farmers, leading to mass migration and social and economic upheaval.

In one undistinguished term as U.S. senator, Clinton opposed gay marriage, voted for the Iraq war, and supported the Patriot Act, among other positions. As secretary of state, while logging impressive global mileage, Clinton pushed for aggressive regime change in Libya, and she worked hard to expand corporate military contracts and fracking abroad. Whether the American public finds her record favorable or not, it is not one of progressive, forward-looking leadership.

Sanders has consistently demonstrated leadership, speaking out, introducing legislation, and laying the political groundwork on a wide array of issues, including: gay rights (long before they gained mainstream support), workers’ rights and union rights, universal single-payer health care, family and medical leave protections, and expansions of Social Security. On nearly every major issue—labor and economic justice, to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, welfare reform, NAFTA, the Keystone XL pipeline, and the Transpacific Partnership—Sanders has taken clear consistent stands, while Clinton has waffled, backtracked, and leaned to the center.

There is no magic wand to accomplish change. No candidate or president can promise change—he or she can only make it possible. What makes change happen, history and current U.S. politics show, is principled and courageous commitment and integrity—not Clinton’s fatalistic pragmatism, which insists that pushing for more is unrealistic and therefore capitulates before the fight even starts. On the other hand, it is entirely pragmatic to expect a President Bernie Sanders to fight hard for the justice and equality issues he has championed his entire political life—giving these ideas a chance, rather than no chance at all.

ABOVE IS FROM: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-pragmatic-case-for-bernie-sanders/462720/

Illinois' new auditor general questioned about campaign expenses

  •  

    •  

  • By Judith Crown, Better Government Association

     

    • Posted Feb. 14, 2016 at 10:00 PM
  • Frank Mautino is off to a rocky start as Illinois auditor general.
    Not long after the former Democratic state representative from Spring Valley and House deputy majority leader took office Jan. 1, he was faced with questions about his use of campaign funds.
    Reports filed with the State Board of Elections show the Committee for Frank J. Mautino made loan repayments to a local bank that far exceeded the amount borrowed. The committee spent large sums on car repairs and gasoline at a single service station. In addition, Mautino’s political fundraising continued after he was confirmed as auditor general.
    The auditor general’s office serves as a financial watchdog over state agencies. The office ensures departments spend and report funds properly and comply with state and federal rules and regulations. Mautino succeeds William Holland, who retired after 23 years on the job.
    “The auditor general must adhere to the highest ethical standards,” said state Rep. Jason Barickman, R-Streator, co-chairman of the Legislative Audit Commission that oversees the auditor general’s office. Some of the reported campaign expenditures “don’t pass the smell test,” he said.
    Among the campaign spending in question:
    * Mautino’s campaign paid about $95,000 for repayment of loans and interest between 1999 and 2015, reports show, even though he took out loans from the bank totaling only $26,000 beginning in 1994.
    * Mautino’s campaign committee spent nearly $250,000 for car repairs and gasoline at the same service station in Spring Valley — Happy’s Super Service Station — since 1999 and more than $200,000 of that in the decade between 2005 and 2015.
    That averages to more than $50 a day for gasoline and repairs. About one third of the payments to Happy’s are in rounded numbers such as $1,500 or $800, unusual for garage bills, which typically tally specific charges for parts, labor and tax.
    * After his confirmation as auditor general on Oct. 20, Mautino continued to raise funds that he said were needed to shut down his legislative office and to clear campaign debts. His quarterly disclosure statement filed with the State Board of Elections as of Sept. 30 showed that had nearly $10,400 in funds and no debts or obligations. He raised $17,500 in the final quarter of the year.
    'Irregular' spending
    Mautino said in an interview last month that his final race in 2014 depleted his campaign funds and he “had bills to pay,” including the cost of closing his legislative office and paying staff.
    As for the other aspects of his campaign expenditures, Ryan Keith, a spokesman for Mautino, said in a late January statement that Mautino’s committee “fully disclosed and reported all spending by the campaign in compliance with Illinois campaign finance and disclosure laws. His reports fully detail campaign expenditures that were made to help defray the standard, reasonable expenses incurred while Frank performed the governmental and public service duties of serving as state representative of his large, mostly rural district.”….
  • The Edgar County Watchdogs, which was at the forefront of raising questions about Mautino’s spending patterns, is pushing the auditor general to provide receipts and other documentation for his transactions. Meanwhile, Adam Andrzejewski, founder of OpenTheBooks.com, is calling on Mautino to step down….
  • To continue reading, go tohttp://www.sj-r.com/news/20160214/illinois-new-auditor-general-questioned-about-campaign-expenses?rssfeed=true

Another anti-Dunkin mailer hits, but criticized as “political lynching” Saturday, Feb 13, 2016

image

 

* Juliana Stratton’s campaign just sent this one out. As you’ll see, it uses the allegations made in the second Ken Dunkin restraining order, which has not been recanted…

* Maze Jackson has responded on Facebook, by the way

I have remained pretty quiet on the Ken Dunkin material that was mailed by Alderman Brendan Reilly to get points with the boss Speaker Madigan. But I must say that as a Black man, I am HIGHLY offended at what was depicted in the mailer/flier that Reilly distributed.

To tell you the truth, I got into some trouble as a young man and if your dig really deep I am sure you can find a mugshot and charges, but that does not define who I am today. I know many Black men and women who faced some relationship challenges early on and have learned from those mistakes and gone on to be productive members of our community, but if someone took a look into their past, they could probably find something. An argument that got loud with an ex, a DUI, or a marijuana charge. Could you imagine if someone decided to dig it up from 20 years ago and try to define you as that TODAY? Do you know how many people, particularly Black people would be screwed.

Alderman Reilly spliced together a police report (if you want to discuss police reports ask LaQuan McDonald or David Koschman how those work out) and a mugshot (we know how they use Black people mugshots) to paint Dunkin as an abuser, although in the report the alleged victim categorically denies Reilly’s portrayal.

So we are clear…Black people will accept a White North Side Alderman criminalizing Dunkin in that manner? Are we that gullible? Are we that stupid? Clearly Reilly thinks so. Look, you can disagree with Dunkin’s politics all day long, but the man has a family and kids. To have that that crap mailed to their house and for them to see it at school is unconscionable. And for Dunkin’s opponent to suggest that she did not authorize the mailer, but she heard whispers, and that it should be looked into while claiming to be an advocate for criminal justice reform should be an offense to our community. Political lynching in full effect…

He does make a very good point that people can be a whole lot different now than they were 20 years ago.

But there were three alleged Dunkin victims. Only one is saying something different now.

- Posted by Rich Miller   Comments Off   

Above is from:  http://capitolfax.com/2016/02/13/another-anti-dunkin-mailer-hits-but-criticized-as-political-lynching/

Other posting regarding Dunkin-Stranton Race:  http://boonecountywatchdog.blogspot.com/2016/02/sun-times-editorial-on-dunkinrauner.html

http://boonecountywatchdog.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-rath-of-rauner.html

http://boonecountywatchdog.blogspot.com/2016/02/attack-ad-skewers-rep-dunkin-over-ties.html

http://boonecountywatchdog.blogspot.com/2016/02/connecting-cash-dunkin-vs-stratton.html

No budget, no problem; Rauner to pitch next year's plan

 

  • Dan Petrella dan.petrella@lee.net

 

SPRINGFIELD — A week after President Obama called for bipartisan compromise in speech before the General Assembly, Gov. Bruce Rauner will address that deeply divided body about his plan for next year’s state budget — despite the fact that Illinois doesn't have a budget for the current fiscal year.

The first-term Republican and the Legislature remain deadlocked after eight months.  Despite impending layoffs at public universities, disruption of social services, and reality that Illinois is digging itself billions of dollars deeper into debt due to declining revenue and court-mandated spending, there’s no resolution in sight.

Democrats say Rauner continues to insist on passing portions of his union-weakening “Turnaround Agenda” before he’ll agree to tax increases to balance the budget. The governor says  he and fellow Republicans are seeking structural reforms to increase revenue by growing the economy, but Democrats offer only tax hikes and budget cuts.

One thing on which lawmakers from both parties agree is that while state law requires the governor to present his budget plan for next year, Rauner’s speech needs to focus on resolving the current impasse, too.

Rep. Dan Brady, R-Bloomington, who serves on the House Budget Oversight Committee, said Rauner on Wednesday may offer a two-year plan that includes granting him authority to move money around within this year's budget to cover shortfalls in areas that aren’t protected by the courts, such as higher education.

“Because of the quicksand that we’re in … the governor is going to need a lifeline extended to him from the General Assembly, Democrats and Republicans, allowing him the authority to do budget transfers that none of us like,” Brady said. “But it’s going to have to be done if we’re going to try and have some form of a budget yet in this fiscal year.”

Although a similar solution was used to plug holes in last year’s budget after a temporary state income tax increase was allowed to partially roll back, Democrats appear unlikely to go along again this year.

Another issue on which there seems to be some consensus, both inside and outside state government, is that new revenue is needed to put the state on firmer financial footing.

In a report released Thursday, the Chicago-based Civic Federation, a nonpartisan budget watchdog, recommends: raising personal and corporate income tax rates back to their pre-rollback levels of 5 percent and 7 percent, respectively; taxing non-Social Security retirement income; expanding the sales tax on services; and temporarily removing the sales tax exemption for food and over-the-counter medicine, among other ideas.

These increases should be coupled with spending cuts aimed at paying down the state’s unpaid bills and other changes to deal with ballooning pension costs, according to the report.

“There is nothing politically attractive, there is nothing easy about what the state of Illinois faces,” said Laurence Msall, the organization’s president.

Ralph Martire, executive director of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, said his organization has been making similar revenue recommendations for years.

“If you don’t do those things, you can’t solve your problem,” Martire said. “And that’s not ideological. That’s math.”

The Responsible Budget Coalition, a group of more than 250 social service agencies, labor unions and other organizations across the state, also is urging the state to “choose revenue.”

“We want to hear the governor say his No. 1 priority is a budget that invests in families and communities and that he won’t use them as leverage for his non-budget agenda,” said coalition spokesman Neal Waltmire.

Rep. Mike Smiddy, a Hillsdale Democrat, said what he doesn’t want to hear Wednesday is another recitation of Rauner’s "Turnaround Agenda."

“If he continues to bring out the issues time and time again, I think it’s going to be very difficult for the state,” Smiddy said.

Above is from:  http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state-and-regional/illinois/government-and-politics/no-budget-no-problem-rauner-to-pitch-next-year-s/article_b782f3ef-6549-5d5f-aeda-60996ceccdc7.html