Archive for the 'Policy' Category

The following is a guest post from Denise Juneau, Democratic candidate for Montana’s Superintendent of Public Instruction. This post is part of a series designed to allow our readers to get to know Montana candidates and should not be construed as an endorsement.

U.S. Representative Dale Kildee has a terrific way of referencing the appropriate role for the federal government in education. He says that providing education is a state responsibility, a local function, and a federal interest. We appreciate the interest and assistance of our federal partners, but I argue for a federal role that is supportive of state efforts – not one that attempts to control our important work - or that seeks to simply penalize our schools without providing sufficient resources to address areas that need improvement.

Through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB), the most recent version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal government has a new set of requirements for public education that hopes to improve schools through a strict accountability process. Public schools that receive federal Title I funds are subject to a progressive list of sanctions based on student performance on state standardized assessments. If a certain percentage of students do not score “proficient” on the state assessment, a school is labeled as “in need of improvement” and faces increased sanctions until removed from the list for improving their test scores.

I have specific concerns with NCLB, which are detailed below, but primarily focus on the policy’s assumption that the worth of a school can be measured by the average test score of its students. Although academic achievement is a critical goal, I believe schools have a much more nuanced role for students and communities than raising test scores on math and reading. Despite its limitations, NCLB has shed light on achievement gaps between groups of students in our schools, and we must remain ever vigilant in our efforts to close those gaps through concentrated focus and support. State efforts such as Indian Education for All, Quality Educator Loan Assistance and various scholarships available for summer and postsecondary programs represent important steps towards meeting the needs of ALL of Montana’s students. I will work to continue such programs, and ensure their existence in the face of federal requirements.

I see the role of State Superintendent in relation to the federal government as two-fold: conduit and advocate. Not only will I provide strong leadership as a conduit - interpreting and implementing complicated federal legislation, but will work as an advocate to represent the needs of Montana in the creation and enforcement of federal education policies. Let me expand on these two important roles:

Conduit: The State Superintendent must have a sophisticated understanding of the complex and fluid requirements and funding mechanisms in a federal law such as NCLB, and how these requirements translate to local contexts in Montana communities. It is my job to lead the Office of Public Instruction in interpreting and implementing the law to fulfill these requirements in the ways most responsive to the needs of Montana. My experience as an attorney, teacher and state-level administrator uniquely equips me with the experience and skills needed to apply complicated legislation to local educational contexts.

Advocate: An equally important role of the State Superintendent is to be an advocate for the state when the federal government creates such legislation. NCLB is scheduled for reauthorization most likely within the next two years. Representative George Miller (D-CA), as well as the Department of Education, has already put forward a number of proposed changes and members of Congress are soliciting feedback from the states. I have developed some important recommendations for how these changes can best serve a state such as Montana. For example:
- Provide flexibility for rural states so schools can get back to their job of educating the “whole student” – including Montana’s long tradition of arts and humanities. NCLB has narrowed the curriculum and has teachers spending the entire month of March preparing students to “take the test.” We need to vitalize our schools, ensuring that learning remain joyful, balanced, and works toward a sense of good citizenship, not just high math and reading achievement.
- Develop additional ways to determine the quality of schools that go beyond a single test score, since we all understand that one test score does not paint the entire picture. For example, an evaluation of a school should consider its contribution to the growth of students in academic areas (test scores, grades, courses taken, graduation rates) and social areas (attendance, behavior, attitude towards school, civic participation, etc).
-Properly fund the legislation on the federal level so NCLB is no longer an “unfunded mandate”. NCLB includes many requirements that place additional financial and administrative burdens on both the state and districts, without providing additional resources to help school out of the sanction process.
-In addition to highlighting and working on areas of potential improvement, we need to also promote the good things that are happening in our schools every day. Montana is full of bright, capable and motivated students, teachers and administrators who deserve to be recognized for their many accomplishments.

Happy April 15th. Make sure you mail in your taxes to the government today, or apply for an extended deadline to file.

The residents of DC are mailing in their taxes today to the government as well; the difference being, they don’t have voting representation in the Senate and House. Taxation without representation.

I wrote a post a while ago about how Baucus was one of the 3 people in congress holding back DC’s right to representation. Now there is some disagreement about how to go about getting the vote for DC, and the consequences for doing so. There are a whole lot of reports and analysis available at www.dcvote.org. And one in particular handed over to our own Senator Baucus to address his concerns:

Washington, DC -Advocacy organizations, DC Vote and DC Appleseed, have presented Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) with a memo from Latham & Watkins LLP that addresses the Senator’s concerns about the DC Voting Rights Act (S. 1257).

On September 18, 57 members of the Senate voted in favor of cloture - to bring the bill to the floor for debate. Sen. Baucus was the lone Democrat who voted against this bill that would provide the more than half a million residents of Washington, DC, a voting member in the House of Representatives. In a statement after the vote, Baucus expressed concern that “Montana’s voice [in the House of Representatives] would become less influential” should the bill become law.

Latham & Watkins, found that the effect of the DC Voting Rights Act “will not weaken Montana’s representation in the House, but, to the contrary, has the potential to eventually increase it.”

The team’s research resulted in two significant findings. First, in a fifteen-year period from 1991 to 2006 (from the 102nd to 109th Congress), just 1.2% of roll call votes in the House were decided by a margin of three or fewer votes. Of the same votes, only 41, or less than one-half of one percent, resulted in a tie or a one-vote margin. To date, there have been no ties and only a single one-vote outcome in the 110th Congress.

Secondly, the findings show that the DC Voting Rights Act will not harm Montana because, by increasing the House’s membership, by one jurisdiction in DC, “the measure results in smaller congressional districts and thus actually improves Montana’s prospects of gaining a second representative by reducing the average number of persons per congressional district.” According to the “Hill method” of apportioning seats in the House, at the time of the 2000 census, Montana would have needed an additional 8,168 people to gain a second seat in the current 435-seat House. In a 437-seat House, however, Montana would have faced a somewhat smaller population hurdle of 7,829 people in order to qualify for a second House seat.

“These findings prove what we have known all along,” said Ilir Zherka, DC Vote Executive Director. “Giving the 580,000 residents of the District a seat at the table of American Democracy will not affect Montana’s voice in Congress.”

Zherka added, “The heart of the issue is that all tax-paying Americans deserve a voice in government. The complaint of ‘dilution’ has been a rallying cry against increasing the franchise throughout history - when women were given the vote, when African Americans were given the vote and when the voter age was decreased. Our democracy has only been strengthened with each milestone in our country’s voting history. We hope that Sen. Baucus will reconsider his position and vote on the right side of history.”

see the full report here. (Emphasis mine).

I stand by what I have said before: “I cannot vote for someone to represent me in Congress, who doesn’t defend the most basic right of democracy : representation.”

I’m also going to give Baucus a chance to do the right thing, and I am going to remind him that I strongly support DC voting rights by calling him today, tax day, at 1-800-332-6106.

So here is part two.  If you have any questions about the characteristics of a President that I am referring to, check out my post after the Metcalf-Mansfield Dinner in Butte. 

OBAMA:

1.  CURIOSITY.  One of the things I like most about Barak, is that he listens.  He doesn’t just hear sounds as people talk to him, he engages with others, and really absorbs what they have to say.  I am a little less clear about who his inside circle would be, but last night he mentioned establishing a post for a Native American. 

“It’s very important that there’s somebody in my White House who on an ongoing basis is keeping me informed, keeping me abreast,” said Obama. “It’s the same reason we want an annual summit with tribal leaders in the White House. I want tribal leaders all across the country to feel as if they have direct access to me, that they’re not going through layers of bureaucracy.”

The Illinois senator said he understands the need to make a difference within communities that are typically given few opportunities to be heard. He said he never forgets his ancestry or the unique position he’s in to become president of the United States.

He is in the process of establishing and outreaching to create a circle.  And I like it.  I hope he gets people who are willing to look him in the eye and say “You are wrong”.  The title quote on his webpage is “I am not asking you to believe, not just in my ability to bring about change in Washington . . .I’m asking you to believe in yours.” 

2.  CREATIVE. Lee Iacocca talks about being able to manage change in his definition of creativity.  There is no doubt that both campaigns have grabbed onto the idea that change is what is needed.  Seeing as there is no possibility of Bush back in the White House, I would say change is inevitable.  I’ll bet you $5 there will be a change. 

The difference for me, and it is subtle if you aren’t paying attention, is how Obama talks about change vs. how Clinton talks about it (”I am going to . . ” “I will”).  The best part is, when Obama talks about the change that needs to be created, he uses the word “we”.  I find myself included in Obama’s circle. Figuratively at this point, never having met the guy, but someday I might, and I am willing to bet that same $5 that he will listen to me. 

3.  COMMUNICATE. “Facing reality, and telling the truth.”  There is no doubt that Obama has had his share of attacks.  What I really appreciate is his ability to look us in the eye, and tell the truth.  This is a quality I consider to be absolutely non-negotiable in a President.  Misleading, inflating, and outright lying about facts in order to better position oneself or to obtain a desired outcome has become a common characteristic in politicians, and it disgusts me. 

4.  CHARACTER. Lee says ” . . . knowing the difference between right and wrong and having the guts to do the right thing”.  I have been against the war from the get go.  I don’t really have any cold hard evidence of the fact, but I know many family and friends who would sign affidavits testifying to this fact.  Obama ran for office opposing the war.  And won.  That is no small statement about the content of Obama’s character. 

Now I will be the first to admit that he has skipped out on a key vote in this matter; don’t think I didn’t notice.  But I also truly believe Obama when he talks about ending the war.  I also know that Obama has the guts to stand up for the change he is calling for, and doing the right thing.

5.  COURAGE. I know this is number 5 on this list, but it is the one I saved for last to write about. I think Obama’s courage is summed up best in a speech he wrote from the heart, in order to answer some questions about the people in his life.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough.  Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask?  Why not join another church?  And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way 

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man.  The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.  He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In that single speech, Obama hit all 9 C’s of Leadership for me. Talk about COURAGE. 

6.  CONVICTION.  Again, Obama has conviction in spades.  Not only does he have conviction for himself, but he inspires others to their own convictions.  Now that is a leader.

7.  CHARISMA.   No doubt.  I believe that while I might not agree with every single thing Obama says, I know that he will sit down and listen, and take into consideration the opinions of others.  I trust him, in ways I just can’t trust other candidates.

8.  COMPETENT.  Yes. I just like the idea of someone who doesn’t know the system as well, or who owes as many favors, and who is less susceptiable to the dark sides of the system as it exists. 

Not only that, but the fact that Bill Richardson came out in support of Obama over his good friend Clinton, and could be a strong VP (*crosses fingers*) for Obama, and shore him up in areas where Obama might not have “the experience” that so many people cling to. 

9.  COMMON SENSE.  Of course Obama has more common sense than Bush, that is not a hard accomplishment.  I also see more truth, sensibility, and statesmanship from him than I do from any other candidate.  Hands down. 

*******

I just had to say this again, it has been ringing in my head all day, and one of the clearest things I think I have personally said about the issues of gender and race in this election.  And this goes for all of the contenders, and some distant past contenders who have shocked me at their inability to see beyond DNA.  Which is what this issue boils down to in the end. You have some, I have some, and at least 99% of it is the same in every human. 

I note a distinction between generations.  I don’t know exactly what it is, other than what our parents protested for in the 60’s.  Equal rights, man, woman, child, black, white, red, blue, age doesn’t matter, disabilities can be accommodated, everyone is equal.  YOU TAUGHT US THIS.  Why are you fighting the very beliefs you raised us on?  I just don’t understand. 

We are approaching the perfection you envisioned.  I don’t care if the next candidate is a man, a woman, black, white, green, blue or yellow.  I care about the content of their character.  Did I miss something?  I don’t think so.

Probably not the most concise thing I have ever said, but certainly one of the best.

Alright, tomorrow might just bring the promised cartoons, and the trouble making of spending the day with the bloggers.

*******

I almost forgot, I was going to end this post with a scene from a movie coming out on Tuesday for rental.  If you only see one this week, Lions for Lambs should be it.  It asks more questions, provides few answers, and actually involves the audience.

The scenes I am referring to are a discussion between a college professor, and a student.

“Political Science, Doc?  What is scientific about it, outside of the psychology of how much shit voters will swallow before they notice?  The science part is really only about how to win.  Not how to govern, not how to make anybody any better, just how to win . . .”

[snip really good stuff, but I am getting to the essence here] 

“You almost convinced me.  Almost convinced me.”

“What?”

“That you really know what you are talking about.  You’re great with words son.  But you know what would make them even better?  If they had a heartbeat.  If they were rooted in any kind of experience.  If you knocked on doors, licked envelopes, showed up for a damned public rally.  Just put yourself on the line in any meaningful way.”

“Licking envelopes . . . that’s putting myself on the line, huh?”

“Its certianly more than just talking”

*******

P.S. Should my wildest dreams come true, and Robert Redford read that passage in the context I am highlighting it, and should he be so moved as to forward me a copy of his booklet on how to deal with Montana’s that was prepared for filming The Horsewhisperer; well that would be cool, I want it for the cabin. 

Well as usual, I got riled up.  I love these events.  I could spend a good long time talking about all that happened tonight in Butte, (and I am sure I will this week, I have cartoons drawn on scene by bloggers) but right now I want to talk about the ride to and from Butte.

As many of you know, the Firecracker came with me, but also, for the first time I dragged in my “Aunt” and “Uncle”.  A couple of our family’s best friends, that have earned those titles; and that I have known since I was three, living in Lewistown, and watching cattle branding on a ranch in Grassrange. 

Yeah, I was in the car with three, ummmm lets call them: people-who-have-been-on-the-planet-for-more-days-than-I-have, people whom I really respect. These are the people who raised me.  The Firecracker has heard me railing on about Obama for months, but my Aunt and Uncle have only had limited exposure.  Even so, I was riding down in the car with one undecided, and two Clinton supporters.  So on the way down, I decided to read from Where Have All The Leaders Gone” by Lee Iacocca.  (Mind you, this is a book that was published in April 2007, so written at least in January 2007, and a lot has changed since then.)  And while it might be slightly off to publish all this without permission, I think this is exactly the application of thought that Lee was going for in publishing his book.  So I expect to be patted on the back for bringing it to a wider audience.

*******

Lee had a few things to say.  Ok, more than a few things, and most of which I agreeded with.  But he also proposed the 9 C’s of Leadership, on how to chose a candidate.  While most of the initial C’s give a description of the leadership that we are missing, then bash Bush; there is something in the C’s that noone in the car disagreed with.  Here they are, with me paraphrasing the meaning that Lee lays out:

1.   ”A leader has to show CURIOSITY.  He has to listen to people outside of the “Yes, sir” crowd in his inner circle.  He has to read voraciously, because the world is a big, complicated place.”  Ok, Lee did a good job on describing that one

2.  “A leader has to be CREATIVE, go out on a limb, be willing to try something different.”  Okay, good description again.  Lee goes on to say “Leadership is all about managing change - whether you’re leading a company or leading a country.  Tings Change, and you get creative.  You adapt.”

3.  “A leader has to COMMUNICATE.  I am not talking about running off at the mouth or spouting sound bites.  I am talking about facing reality, and telling the truth.” 

4.  “A leader has to be a person of CHARACTER.  That means knowing the difference between right and wrong and having the guts to do the right thing.”

5.  “A leader must have COURAGE.  I am talking about balls.  (That even goes for female leaders.) . . . Courage is commitment to sit down at the negotiating table and talk.”

6.  “To be a leader you’ve got to have CONVICTION - a fire in your belly.  You’ve got to have passion.  You’ve got to really want to get something done.” 

7.  “A leader should have CHARISMA.  I’m not talking about being flashy.  Charisma is the quality that makes people want to follow you.  It’s the ability to inspire.  People follow a leader because they trust him.

8.  “A leader has got to be COMPENTENT.  That seems obvious doesn’t it?  You’ve got to know what you’re doing.  More important than that, you’ve got to know what they’re doing. . . A leader has to be a problem solver, and the bigger problems we face as a nation seem to be on the back burner.”

9.  “You can’t be a leader if you don’t have COMMON SENSE.”  { Cece - someone who knows when someone is pulling the wool over your eyes. Back to Lee, referring to Bush, and his lack of common sense:} “You know - Mr. they’ll welcome-us-as-liberators-no-child-left-behind-heck-of-a-job-Brownie-mission-accomlished Bush.”

Oh yeah.  This is a good book.  That was just snippets of the first 10 pages.  Buy it. The reasoning on how to chose a leader, is but a scratch on the surface of what is in this book. In particular, I love his analysis of the idea of building a 300 mile fence to obtain “homeland security” on our southern border, not to mention his take on other “walls” that have been built.

*******

Again, on the way down to Butte, I read these points from first chapter to my gang.  And we all agreed.  These were things that were qualifications for being the President of the United States, after all, we, as voters, are choosing to give them the job.  We are the employers.

Like I said before, a lot has happened and changed since Lee wrote this book.  I certainly know more about Obama and Clinton, and have spent time reviewing their candidacies, than I did in January of 2007. 

CLINTON:

1.  CURIOSITY.  Yeah, no.  Clinton is nothing if not insider politics.  She is surrounded by a group of people who tell her that she is doing the right thing.  What about listening to those who say, “Nope, I don’t agree.”  She doesn’t have it, and in my consideration, one of her greatest weaknesses.

2.  CREATIVE.  I will give her creativity in her youth, and willingness to go out on a limb; however since gaining office to lead NYers, I could hardly say that she embraced change. Indeed, she has failed to show up for what I consider to be key votes in the direction the US will take in the future.

3.  COMMUNICATE. Not at all in the way that Lee references it. “Facing reality, and telling the truth.”  Time and time again, facts have shown how Hillary has mislead the public about her past.

[I just realized I am going to be up all night writing this, and I have to work at 9:45 am]

4.  CHARACTER.  I am iffy on this one.  I myself, have been in a relationship or two with someone chose to stray.  I chose a hardline position on the issue, after seeking and trying resolutions, and in the end, I am single.  Happier, more content, more myself, and single.  That is not to say that Hillary made the wrong choice.  She made hers. 

At the same time, to choose a low paying job, to fight for justice that previously didn’t exist, I admire the heck out of her for her commitment to others.

5.  COURAGE.  As much as I might disagree with Clinton’s present strategy in the campaign, I have to say she has balls of steel.  No doubt about it.  My issues are with her unwillingness to give in to the will of the people, and her unwillingness to follow the rules (MI and FL).  That bothers the carp out of me, and it should you as well.  I want listening skills, communication, openness to ideas, and the ability to admit that a mistake happened from the next President.

If she would only say “I was mislead, as many of you were, by the word of George Bush.  I trusted him to tell me the truth, and so I voted to give war powers to him.  I made a mistake, I failed to read the intelligence prior to voting.  I am human and fallible.  I was dupped just like many of you in our insecurity after 9/11.  I made a mistake, but that doesn’t change what I know now.  And here is how I see us getting out of this mess . . ”

Be human.  I swear we will accept it.  Look at your husband.  We might not be proud of what happened; but we will be willing to forgive.  Just admit your mistakes.  Seriously.

6.  CONVICTION.  No doubt.  Point to Hillary.

7.  CHARISMA.  Yes.  Hillary is an amazing woman, who has accomplished so much for so many.  I won’t contest that fact. 

I note a distinction between generations.  I don’t know exactly what it is, other than what our parents protested for in the 60’s.  Equal rights, man, woman, child, black, white, red, blue, age doesn’t matter, disabilities can be accommodated, everyone is equal.  YOU TAUGHT US THIS.  Why are you fighting the very beliefs you raised us on?  I just don’t understand. 

We are approaching the perfection you envisioned.  I don’t care if the next candidate is a man, a woman, black, white, green, blue or yellow.  I care about the content of their character.  Did I miss something?  I don’t think so.

8.  COMPETENT.  Yes Hillary is competent, she knows the system.  I just like the idea of someone who doesn’t know the system as well, or who owes as many favors, and who is less susceptiable to the dark sides of the system as it exists.  (YAY TESTER!)

9.  COMMON SENSE.  Yes.  Way better than Bush.  At the same time I have to say No.  Who in their right mind would lie about qualifications that are on video?  Need I say more?

*******

Suffice it to say, the ride back from Butte was interesting.  Most points that the two for Clinton brought up, based on our prior reading of the qualifications we agreed on, I was able to bring facts to light that disproved their decision to vote for Clinton.  A lot of the points I mentioned to you, were the same ones I argued in the car on a Montana freeway, busier than I have ever seen it in my life time.  It was enchanting to watch the stream of cars coming home to Helena from Butte.

I have to say just one more thing.  It takes a lot of guts to run for office, to open oneself to such scruntinay and examinations; not only from some one as time pressed as I am, but to people who are paid to do the job.  I admire people who take that chance.  It is not to be undervalued, their desire to serve the public.  But when the desire appears to be overwhelmed with personal ambition, I hope we are all smart enough to take a step back, and examine their motives. 

This is long, and I promise to do the same for Obama tomorrow or Monday.

Something kept me awake last night – it was the sound of jackals mixed with the clinking of champagne glasses. I knew something big had happened. Sure enough when I got up this morning, I read that Castro had stepped down.

I suspect I know how this post will be perceived. In the United States certain thoughts are impermissable. Americans have short memories. Iraqi history goes back only to 1990. Iranian history goes back only to 1979. And Cuban history goes back only to 1959. Nothing existed in those countries before that time.

I’ve noticed this phenomenon before, as when I talk of US support for Saddam Hussein throughout his brutal reign and up until 1990, or of the US overthrow of Mossadegh and democracy in Iran in 1953. People acknowledge that such things could have happened, and then Poof! The subject disappears. We are right back where we started – 1990, 1979, and 1959. That far back, and no further.

Our government is good at demonization. Take a bad guy, one who does not support us, and Hiss! Evil! Evil!. Put Saddam or Castro in opposition to their enemies, and they come off as simple, sometimes brutal, and certainly anti-democratic backwoods bosses. But that is of no consequence. After all,the U.S. itself does not believe in democracy, and supports thugs all over the globe. The key to understanding the U.S. attitude about Saddam and Fidel is this: They were strong enough to defy the U.S. and survive. That is why they became the epitome of evil.

Castro, for example, lived in a world in which the US was guilty of crimes often more brutal and bloodthirsty as anything he ever attempted. He imprisoned his enemies. He had real and dangerous enemies. But today there is a prison on the island of Cuba where people are tortured, where they disappear, where they are held without charges, without benefit of habeas corpus. It’s located on Guantanamo Bay. It’s run by the U.S. It’s the only gulag I know of on the island of Cuba.

And then there is the matter of Fulgencia Battista. He was the fascist dictator who preceded Castro. I say “fascist” knowing the meaning of the word, using it here to mean the marriage of private power and the state – Battista enjoyed U.S. support as he allowed the Mafia, United Fruit, sugar interests and other U.S. corporations free reign on the island. Everyday citizens were kept in poverty. Battista’s secret police were feared. Those who conspired or rebelled disappeared. Cuba had its ruling class, most of whom fled to Florida in the early ’60’s. Cuba before Castro was a typical third world country – extremes of wealth and poverty, massive discontent, and little that could be done about it.

Castro came to power with popular support, and has remained popular on the island oh these many years, surviving attacks, invasion, assassination attempts. He was surely a cat with nine lives. Cuba is no shining democracy. Religion has suffered, as have civil liberties (which did not exist before 1959 anyway). But odd things have happened – health care and education for ordinary people. Everyone has a place to sleep and unemployment is very low. They are poor, to be sure, but due in no small part to the illegal US embargo.

Here in the U.S. we ignore the existence of the embargo, and point at the island and say “Look! Look! See how their system fails!” (If we acknowledge the embargo, it is only in the context of “Yeah, but it is not working”.)

If the U.S. suffered from ordinary morals, it would simply have left Castro alone and allowed him to run his course. Castro, like Bush, used fear as a governing tool. The U.S. cooperated, supplying him with things that people were afraid of. Without the fear of invasion and subversion and terror, things might have gotten better there – who knows – U.S. corporations might have been invited back. Fascism might be healthy and alive again! (Or, as we like to call it, democracy).

It seems as though the Cuban people are screwed no matter which way they turn. Castro and the U.S. were both anti-democratic. One of the two offered education and health care to ordinary people. Who was better for them?

There’s an air of moral superiority in this country from people who don’t even know our own activities. A short history course would be in order, say, for example, a reading of the Church Committee hearings of the 1970’s. Or LBJ’s famous words about the CIA - that they were running a “damned murder incorporated in the Caribbean”.

The island is no paradise. Cubans flee to the U.S. I would too - I too would want to be in a place that was not embargoed, where I could make some money and speak out against my government. Cubans could do better, but they could also do worse. They could once again be run by U.S. corporations. They could resume their role of living in poverty while supplying cheap labor and resources to the U.S. It could be 1959 again. May soon be.

Today the U.S. exports troops and military hardware all over Latin America, saying we do it for the sake of democracy. Castro exports doctors and medicine, and we say it is because he is a tyrant. It’s crazy, but that’s the way Americans think.

In pondering the stimulus package, I can’t help but wonder why we think that this is a good deal. Sure, each of us would like free money, but it isn’t really free at all. I mean, since we already have a deficit, wont this just be another loan from China? Wont most of it be spent at Wal Mart and Taget, effectively putting that money right back into the hands of the Chinese?

I know the counter argument, it will spur growth, which will ultimately lead to increased tax revenues to pay off the deficit. I would assert that a better use and bigger stimuli would be to rebuild infrastructure. Remember those bridges and levies that we are up in arms about for two weeks after every tragedy. What if we spent the 150 billion on rehabilitating our infrastructure, creating high paying jobs in the labor sector which would spur the economy. Killing two birds with one stone sounds like a better idea to me.

Maybe its just me.

The big story in the Chronicle today is Bozeman Mayor Jeff Krauss’s refusal to sign the recently passed Iraq anti-war resolution.

Krauss said he opposed the resolution for two reasons: he considered it inappropriate for the city to be discussing a federal issue; and U.S. troops’ perseverance in Iraq is saving lives.

I have written before about Krauss’s first point; whether or not local governments should be involved in federal issues. My finding then, which I still agree with, is that local governments are taking up this (and other) mantles in the absence of any kind of actual inspirational leader in our federal government executive. This is what I had to say at that time (about Kyoto):

I am constantly reminded, and impressed, by localized government entities that speak/act on issues of national (or in this case, international) importance. The number of city and county governments that have officially spoken up in support of the Kyoto Protocol is a fine example of this kind of local action, and this new agreement is an assertive extension of that kind of movement. This five-state venture is the most recent development in a series of pacts that these states have been working on for a while now.

When there is no real leadership; when nothing is getting done, more localized leadership has stepped up to fill in the void on issues like global warming, Iraq, and gun control.

Of course, we can (and we often do) argue about Krauss’s second point; that our presence in Iraq is worth the price(s) we are paying. If Krauss really thinks that a city government has no place in federal issues, then how does a Mayor have authority to speak to the effectiveness of U.S. troops in Iraq? It is a bit of a catch 22, but in the end this resolution passed and will go on to President Bush, Montana’s congressmen, and the Bozeman-area state reps, with or without Krauss’s signature.

In the space normally reserved for the mayor’s signature on the official copy of the resolution, two of the three commissioners who voted in favor of the resolution will sign instead, said City Manager Chris Kukulski. That is the protocol spelled out in the city charter. In addition, the resolution will note that Krauss refused to sign.

Over in the comments at Rebels Are We, a little conversation started up between myself and Mike of The Last Best Place.  Essentially, this conversation centered around Mike’s belief that we should return the ‘abortion decision’ to the states via the elimination of the Roe vs Wade precedent.

If the people of Montana are in favor of abortion, put it to a vote. The same goes in Alabama and elsewhere. Will it ultimately create a a patchwork of laws nationwide? Sure it will, but we forget that we’re already a patchwork of 50 individual states , 13 of which existed essentially as sovereign governments until 1787. If we’ve already agreed upon the notion that Montana values are not New York or California or Mississippi values why pretend otherwise?

I disagreed, saying that passing the buck 50 times doesn’t move us any closer to reaching agreement or solving any of the problems associated with abortions.  I did, and still do, contend that in places where abortion has been made illegal, there has been no noticeable change in the number of abortions performed.  However, this isn’t quite the point I want to bring up here.  Mike made an interesting claim when he said “Sure it will, but we forget that we’re already a patchwork of 50 individual states”, because Mike Huckabee touched upon that exact subject when he spoke of abortion recently:

“It’s the logic of the Civil War,” Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. “If morality is the point here, and if it’s right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can’t have 50 different versions of what’s right and what’s wrong.”

“For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can’t simply have 50 different versions of what’s right,” he said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

While I don’t agree with Huckabee’s specific position on abortion, I do agree that taking a controversial issue and splitting into 50 controversial decisions isn’t helpful, no matter how local those decisions might be.  Especially because most pro-choice advocates believe this is a Constitutional issue (whether or not you agree with their interpretation), it doesn’t just work to hand it off to the states.  However, I do at least understand the desire to allow the appeal of approaching these issues from a federalist standpoint; letting smaller units make their own decisions is more likely to make people happy.

Which is why I wanted to bring the question here.  Despite the appeal, and possible utilitarian nature, of shifting decisions such as abortion to the individual states, does it just create more problems allowing 50 possible interpretations and stances of moral issues such as this?

Hard to believe but F.E.M.A. manufactured a completely false news conference and what is worse is that senior management had workers at F.E.M.A. go along with the plot to make F.E.M.A. look good.

Worse, is that now they are handing out written slaps on the wrist for this stupid idea. If you or I had done this at work we would have been fired on the spot. What’s next with this arm of government?

Counting commas…

I can’t even count the commas and zeros the government is talking about to fund the war in Iraq. The current physical year, August, September and October is some 196 Billion dollars and the President now wants an additional 46 Billion dollars as emergency funding to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course this would have to by-pass the normal funding channels, which I highly doubt the Democrats (and many Republicans) will support that “open” checkbook. Also, please keep in mind the National debt – How many Trillion dollars?

The bottom line is too many commas and too many zeros for any average person to count or understand the enormity of $$$ being spent to fight what? Our freedom? It surely isn’t yours or mine.

The question to any of the hopeful candidates running for President would be – When and how would you stop all of this bloodletting?

Keep in mind that with this much money we could be solving a lot of families without insurance to insure their kids. With this much money we could have the resources needed to fight the raging fires throughout the United States. We could use this money to rebuild the New Orleans area from the throngs of Katrina. Need one go on?

The time is NOW my friends. We cannot let this to continue with no end in sight. We must take care of number one (us) before we can even begin to think about number 2, 3, 4.

I am not a farmer nor an agri-economist, so I do not claim to be an expert on the topic or farm subsidies. A short piece caught my eye the other day concerning Jon Tester and subsidies for farms converting to organic methods. According to the piece, Tester has authored legislation that would pay up to four annual payments of up to $20,000 to farms converting to organic processes. The logic seems pretty sound to me:

“Organic agriculture is the fastest growing sector of agriculture today, and if we want to increase prices at the farm gate, this is one of the ways to do it. And it will help Montana producers meet the needs of the organic sector for those who chose to use it.”

We all know the benefits of certain organic practices, they are scientifically verified and make common sense: less chemicals that touch your food is better. The main question here is ‘Is this a good investment of our tax dollars?’.

Overall, we want cheap food, right? We have cheap food in this country due to subsidies, right? Not according to this analysis on corn subsidies from Iowa State University:

Suppose that the removal of farm programs caused the price of corn to increase by 5 percent. The price of pork would then increase by about 0.53 percent. That is, pork chops that cost $3.00 per pound with farm subsidies would increase in price by less than two cents per pound. If corn prices were to rise by 10 percent with the removal of subsidies, then pork chops would cost only three cents per pound more than they currently do. Because corn represents a smaller share of the final value of beef and dairy products, retail prices for these products would go up by a smaller amount (in percentage terms) than the price of pork.
-
It is difficult to come up with examples in which subsidized U.S. commodities have a greater than 10 percent share of final retail value. And at this maximum share, it would take a doubling of commodity prices to increase consumer prices by 10 percent. But no credible analyst has ever estimated that farm payments result in such a large supply expansion that their withdrawal would cause commodity prices to double. The idea that U.S. commodity policy is really a cheap food policy is a myth.

Well, that makes sense. What this discussion doesn’t account for is the number of farms that might close shop if subsidies end. Farming is really difficult work, there are much easier ways to make a living (says the computer programmer). It turns out that there are many other implications to subsidies:

Asked about the implications of eliminating farm subsidies, Rich Pottorf, chief economist with Doane Agricultural Services in St. Louis, said that “There’s no doubt a removal of subsidies would cause a horrible upheaval in agriculture, that land prices would drop and rural areas would be in horrible pain.”
-
Alan Libbra, a farmer from Madison County, Illinois, took the point further. “When people my size get pushed, the businesses they use get pushed out with them…. That just kills these little communities, kills the employment and kills the tax base.”
-
Their point is that farm subsidies help more people than just the farmers who receive them. They also help those whose incomes and opportunities are tied to business done with those farmers. What is so interesting about this, and what is not acknowledged or apparent in the article, is that this same argument can be turned around to describe the people who are hurt by the subsidies.

This brings us back to Tester’s proposal. Isn’t organic farming really a value-adding proposition? The end product is the same as the non-organic farm? Food. The difference is that it comes with a branding that instantly adds to it value. Organic food sells for more. The initial investment is higher, but if the profit margin is the same the overall income of the farmer will increase. That farmer will ostensibly have more disposable income that will likely be returned to the local economy. If that increased money put into the local economy is greater than the initial investment, isn’t that a net gain for the economy as a whole?

In a nutshell, the subsidy is worth while if, and only if the total benefits outweigh the total costs. Of course, that money had to be collected from tax payers. Of course the tax money was collected at a cost to the economy. The central question is: would the benefits of the original taxpayers in the economy outweigh the benefits of an investment in organic farming?

Apparently the change in your pocket is not legal tender to pay for traffic fines. A man in Washington State is attempting to pay a $700+ fine with buckets of change.

In addition, the State Drivers Bureau is threatening to revoke his driving rights because they are refusing to accept his coins!

Geez, the last time I checked U.S. coins ARE legal tender aren’t they? I’d bet they will be hard pressed to find a “policy” that says you cannot use coins to pay a legal debt anymore than they could argue that the coins are not legal tender.

This could get interesting

Months of argument and anticipation for Petraeus’ September testimony have come down to one word, procrastination.  While he was willing to make some minor recommendations; namely transitioning to pre-surge levels over the next year, Petraeus said it was too soon to make any more serious commitment to any troop level decisions:

The precise timing of such reductions, which would leave about 130,000 troops in Iraq, could vary, depending on conditions in the country. But the general has also said that it is too soon to present recommendations on reducing American forces below that level because the situation in Iraq is in flux. He has suggested that he wait until March to outline proposals on that question.

Of course, recommending that the majority of troops remain would just cause more public outcry and make the President’s plan look even worse; deciding to start bringing them home would paint the Democrat’s endless attempts as successful.  So the only choice left was to postpone the choice itself.

If you want to, watch Petraeus’ congressional testimony, when it starts.

I found a funny post by Craig over at Montana Politics yesterday. The title of the post is ‘Logical Conclusions’. Let’s see if it lives up to the title by looking at it piece by piece.

So the Dems and the Unionistas (but I repeat myself) are pushing for Montana grocery stores to offer the same wages as in California.

Snark aside, it is true that Unions and some Democratic legislators are seeking pay raises for Montana employees of these stores. Let’s carry on.

First of all, consider that Albertson’s and Safeway are already two of the more expensive grocery stores around.

Keep that in mind.

Secondly, consider that their business (at least in the Helena area, and presumably elsewhere) has been negatively impacted by stores such as Wal-Mart and Costco.

OK, but also remember that Safeway chose to remodel their entire store to look like an upscale gourmet food outlet just before they raised their prices.

Now, if you go ahead and increase wages and benefits, guess what will happen. Here are three scenarios that I would guess would be highly likely.

Now, here is where Craig draws his three logical conclusions:

a.) Employment at the store will remain constant, while the product prices go up. This, in turn, will cause more people to seek out alternatives such as Wal-Mart or Costco. This will cause profits to go down, and where do you think they will cut costs. Most likely they will either cut hours, or lay off employees. Lose-lose.
-
b.) Employment will drop immediately, as profits are razor-thin in that business anyhow, and guess who’s going to be the first to go. The employees who are lowest on the pay scale and seniority scale. Lose-lose.
-
c.) Try to keep employees, but cut them all to part-time positions to reduce the cost of benefits. Lose-lose.
-
Seems fairly obvious to me.

The three possible conclusions that Craig sees to raising the wages are all lose-lose situations. There is no upside to raising the wages. In all scenario’s, labor loses.

These are not all the facts though. The first thing that ought to be mentioned is that these employees have only gotten two raises in the last 8 years.

Union workers at the two stores have had across-the-board raises only twice in the past eight years, as the companies instead have given annual lump-sum “bonuses” that often amount to a few cents per hour, said Nicolai Cocergine, president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local No. 4 in Butte.
-
The annual payments don’t even cover increases in the cost of living, and the companies are offering “meager” lump-sum payments again in the latest proposed contract, he said.

But in that same time, the CEO’s of Albertson’s and Safeway have been pulling in a combined total of 20 million per year. While the grocery workers in Montana have been working on expired contracts and losing ground, the CEO of Safeway cashed in millions in stock options in August. It goes on. Safeway has spent over $380,000 in lobbying fees in the first half of this year, while the employees here in Montana are making less this year than last considering cost of living?

Now, remember above when I reminded you that there was a rise in prices at the Helena Safeway soon after they did the expensive upgrade to make it look like a gourmet bodega? Well, you might note that they spent over $100,000,000 in advertising for that campaign.

While we are consider things, consider this:

Shares of supermarket chain Albertson’s (ABS, news, msgs) fell 39% over the past four years. Despite this dismal record, Albertsons CEO and Chairman Larry Johnston collected a total of $76.2 million in that time.

You see, the top execs are making plenty. Despite what you read above, the companies had combined revenues of $75,874,900,000 and profits of $1,004,200,000 in 2005. That is one billion dollars in profits.

A two dollar raise in pay for the 1200 full and part time employees of the two companies in Montana would cost about $4,368,000 per year (assuming that the average work week is 35 hours). Though this could easily be absorbed in just the two salaries (or stock options) of the CEO’s, that really isn’t the point of this post.

The point of this post is that the lose-lose conclusions that Craig posits don’t always have to be a boot to the face of employees. You see, Craig implies that the only logical conclusions to increasing eployee salaries are ‘lose-lose’. What Craig is missing here is the importance of job satisfaction. I will add a fourth possible conclusion to Craig’s list:

d.) The initial cost to the grocery chain is barely a blip on their profit screen, but the additional two dollars an hour is a big deal to the workers. With higher job satisfaction and improved moral, customer relations improve. Increased customer loyalty raises revenues at the Montana stores resulting in overall lower prices. As a side affect, lower turnover rates reduces training costs resulting in employee bonuses that improve moral even more.

Sounds like magic, huh? It certainly could happen that way. Consider the model Costco uses.

In fact, Costco has the lowest employee turnover rate in retailing. Its turnover is five times lower than its chief rival, Wal-Mart. And Costco pays higher than average wages — $17 an hour — 40 percent more than Sam’s Club, the warehouse chain owned by Wal-Mart. And it offers better-than-average benefits, including health care coverage to more than 90 percent of its work force.

And the CEO of such a brilliant company? Must be worth millions?

But the most remarkable thing about Sinegal is his salary — $350,000 a year, a fraction of the millions most large corporate CEOs make.
-
“I figured that if I was making something like 12 times more than the typical person working on the floor, that that was a fair salary,” he said.

I think it is, and his employees think it is, that is one of the reasons that they love it there. Now, back to the Safeway/Albertson model here in Montana:

“The workers have struggled to help these companies be profitable,” and the companies aren’t reciprocating, Cocergine said.
-
He said Safeway and Albertsons “brag to their workers how profitable they are” in company newsletters and communications, yet won’t offer a raise in wages or properly fund their share of the employees’ health care fund.

So yeah, there might be something more than the simplistic view that raising employee salaries is a lose-lose situation. I am not an economist, but I just have a gut feeling that if the employees are happy and well taken care of, it will benefit the company in the long run. I have a feeling every time things get bad in a company, it ought not be the most vulnerable people on the bottom that bear the brunt of it, especially when they don’t get to share in the good times. It doesn’t always have to be lose-lose for the folks that are making the wheels turn.

While Craig goes on to other posts to mock the type of populist notion that I am raising here, Sinastra that I am, I think that it bears reconsidering the the trickle down theories of feeding the bosses in hope that they will throw us a bone. Suppose that labor costs were suddenly cut in half for Safeway, do you really think that they will pass that savings on to us? Really? Or do you think those increased profits will stay up at the top. I haven’t seen anything coming from them to indicate that.

The trickle down model doesn’t work. Didn’t work in the serfdoms and fiefdoms of medieval Europe, it didn’t work with the share croppers of early America, didn’t work in Reagan’s morning and it doesn’t work on Wall Street today. In my mind, they are thinking about it all wrong and no matter how you slice it, it ends up with a boot to the face of the common man.

There are other ways though, ways that work and are mutually beneficial to all the players.

Sinegal admits that “paying high wages [to his employees] is contrary to conventional wisdom.”
-
And conventional wisdom in this case comes from Wall Street. Analysts seem to be the only critics of Costco and Sinegal. They think the company could make even more money if it paid its workers less — like Wal-Mart does.
-
Sinegal is unfazed by his critics. “Wall Street is in the business of making money between now and next Tuesday,” he said. “We’re in the business of building an organization, an institution that we hope will be here 50 years from now. And paying good wages and keeping your people working with you is very good business.”
-
What Sinegal has proven is that a company doesn’t have to be ruthless. Being humane and ethical can also make you money.

So yeah, I want to thank the 24 Democratic legislators that stood up for Montana workers. I think that it can be a win-win situation for Montana if the CEOs of those companies can take two minutes to think past what their stock options will be worth in two weeks.