Political Culture: In Defense of … ACORN?

Glenn Beck scored another pelt for his demagoguery-fur coat this week, when Congress voted to cut all federal funding for the community-organizing group ACORN in the wake of those seedy undercover videos Beck has been pitching all month. (Hope Glenn realizes that demagoguery fur starts to smell like old tires when you weep on it too much.) I’m sure Beck is very proud of himself for finally landing a solid punch on this target, considering that his fellow conservatives hadn’t been able to lay a glove on the group despite flailing away at it for years. But I’d suggest that, in the context of all the other Republican ugliness of the last several months, their Javert-like pursuit eventually is going to wind up saying a lot more about them than it does about ACORN.

Mind you, I’ve got no sympathy whatsoever for those staffers who offered all sorts of untoward advice to a couple of right-wing David O. Selznicks pretending to be a pimp and a ho engaged in human trafficking. And the fact that similar scenarios played out in a couple of different ACORN offices suggests an organization with some serious boundary issues when it comes to dealing with the more illegal and/or despicable aspects of inner-city life. (I don’t care that surreptitious videotaping is a nasty thing to do, and I don’t want to hear about entrapment. Is there no clause in the ACORN training manual stipulating that staffers might occasionally use the simple phrase “I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to ask you to leave”?)

ACORN certainly deserves some time in the penalty box for its staffers’ transgressions – a nice grilling at a congressional hearing, perhaps, or a period of J. Edgar Hoover-like oversight of all the organization’s activities that receive federal funding. Unfortunately, de-funding the group entirely, and ending its participation in next year’s Census, will do considerably more damage to the cause of American democracy than it will do to ACORN. And the method used by Congress to implement that penalty – using legislation specifically to punish a single organization — reeks of Democratic flop sweat, not to mention a desperation to avoid the sorts of scandals that laid Republicans low in 2006.

The fact that we reached this point at all is a tribute to the Republicans’ obsessiveness, and their well-rehearsed ability to keep picking at a scab until it finally bleeds. Indeed, the ACORN brouhaha – in which years of fruitless attempts to tar the group with allegations of voter fraud have finally resulted in a scandal that has nothing whatsoever to do with votes or elections — is a slightly (but only slightly) less tawdry rerun of Ken Starr’s progression from Whitewater to Paula Jones to Monica Lewinsky. That, too, was a relentless quest to pin something – anything! – on an institution whose very existence offended the right wing.

At least the harassment of ACORN is slightly (but, again, only slightly) more rational than the pursuit of Clinton was. After all, while ACORN is not an arm of the Democratic Party, the constituency it serves is a key part of the Democratic base of voters, and ACORN’s success in registering millions of lower-income, inner-city, mostly African-American voters over the years has directly benefited Democratic politicians. Such voter-registration drives proved to be a sharp thorn in the side of Karl Rove’s push for a “permanent Republican majority” – to the point where Rove and his minions instigated a major scandal of their own by pressuring U.S. Attorneys to prosecute bogus allegations of voter fraud, then replacing prosecutors who refused to do so.

The “ACORN” acronym didn’t become a household word during the Bushies’ 2004-06 PR campaign – perhaps because ACORN’s reputation was sufficiently high, and the importance of its activism to America’s inner cities sufficiently well established, that the Bush administration itself steered more than $14 million to ACORN over its two terms in office. It wasn’t until after the U.S. Attorneys scandal had helped shame Rove and Alberto Gonzales out of the White House — and until an African-American and former community organizer had become a leading candidate for the presidency – that Republicans latched onto ACORN as a symbol of the sort of … how to phrase this delicately … black hooliganism that Democrats were counting on to wrest power from its rightful (and Right-full) owners.

Oh, I’m sorry – did I just accuse Republicans of exploiting racial insecurities in an effort to attract white voters?

Here’s what ACORN actually does. Founded by a group of lower-income Arkansas mothers in 1970 to press for subsidized school lunches, veterans’ rights and funding for hospital emergency rooms, ACORN has blossomed into the nation’s biggest community-organizing group. It has half a million dues-paying members, and chapters nationwide that employ more than 1,000 staffers. In the last four years alone, ACORN has designed, and lobbied successfully for, minimum-wage increases in five states, and is currently active in seven more. The organization also has led legal efforts in several states that have forced major banks to limit the interest and fees they charge to homeowners, and ACORN has spearheaded legislation in nine states to end predatory-lending practices.

Compared to all that, it seems an afterthought to mention that during the last election cycle alone, ACORN registered 1.3 million new inner-city voters. But as far as Republicans are concerned, voter registration may as well be all ACORN does, because it has the most immediate impact on their electoral prospects. Since the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, it has been no secret that Republicans are desperate to drive down the African-American vote By Any Means Necessary. In 2000, those means included purging 50,000 registered voters off the rolls in Florida – a key element in Bush’s “victory” there. In 2004, those means included Ohio’s Republican secretary of state arranging for far too few voting machines in African-American precincts, resulting in long lines and thousands of voters either turning away in frustration or being locked out of their polling places at the end of the night. All of that doesn’t even take into account robocalls that lie to inner-city voters about changes in the locations of polling places or in the dates for voting; rumors that are planted about police looking for parole violators at the polls, and documented cases of “security guards” being paid by the GOP to intimidate black voters; and, of course, the Republicans’ repeated efforts to impose enhanced voter-identification requirements without providing poor people with sufficient means to obtain such IDs.

And now ACORN. The group seemed last year like a useful tool for Republicans attempting to belittle Barack Obama’s own work as a community organizer; this year, the continuing drumbeat of criticism of the group served mostly as one more means (among many) of de-legitimizing Obama’s victory among the ever-shrinking, yet ever-more-rabid Republican base. The trouble for the GOP, however, has been that ACORN never was shown to have engaged in significant voter fraud. In the isolated cases of false names being registered by ACORN “stringers,” who were paid by the number of signatures they obtained, ACORN itself reported the violations and threw out the improper registrations.

Of course, none of that has mattered to Beck and the other Fox News blowhards, who diligently search for fresh meat for the baying teabaggers. They’ve kept up their attacks, and finally they’ve found a way to document an ACORN impropriety. And … nobody’s surprised. Nobody’s surprised because the relentlessly bad press ACORN has received over the last year – for no good reason except Republicans playing politics – had left it, even before this month, with a soiled reputation and few vocal defenders. The American public, which famously can’t even place Iraq on a map, knows nothing of ACORN except what the Republicans have told them (enabled, of course, by the mainstream media, which played the voter-fraud allegations for considerably more than they were worth last fall). And when ACORN employees finally did do something worthy of those attacks, Democrats overreacted in a craven effort to save themselves from being tarnished along with the group.

So, fine. ACORN now is crippled in the public eye (and deservedly so, at least for a while), but more importantly it is crippled in its financial ability to engage in the laudable activities that have served inner-city communities for 40 years. And now Glenn Beck, and the Republican Party that steps to his tune, can go off in search of other people and institutions to toss into the coliseum with their ravenous beast base.

But in the context of “he’s an Arab” and “palling around with terrorists” and the birthers and “you lie!” and the Joker-face posters and the assault weapons at town halls and all the rest of it, the Republican Party’s ACORN obsession sure looks like it’s grounded in something uglier than pure, zero-sum partisan politics. President Obama, for obvious reasons, isn’t allowed to agree with Jimmy Carter, but if you don’t think there’s a racial component in the tactics and language of the disloyal opposition, you’re kidding yourself. Is power so important to the GOP that it’s worth engaging in morally repugnant and even illegal activities to ensure that Americans of a particular race don’t get a chance to vote (or hold high office)? And does the vitality of conservative ideals require politicians and pundits to stoke racial fears, and to convince millions that their own president is somehow the “other,” in a way that utterly shreds our character as a people?

And, most frighteningly, now that you’ve done all this (and finally succeeded in bringing down one of your targets), what’s your next move?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Numberscruncher: FedEx and Economic Recovery

Ben Bernanke said that the recession is over, but what he thinks isn’t important. The more important arbiter of the business cycle, Federal Express, reported its earnings last week. Profits were down 53% from the year prior. Profits were expected to be down, but they did not fall as much as expected. That’s because FedEx is seeing improvement in its freight and ground-shipping divisions. That means that the economy seems to be turning around, because FedEx’s performance is a leading economic indicator.

People ship items because they have received orders for them. The freight business in particular represents shipments between suppliers and manufacturers and then between manufacturers and retailers. The primary measure of economic growth, gross domestic product, measures the total amount of goods and services in the economy at the consumer level. That avoids double-counting, but it also means that producer activity will show changes before the GDP does.  That’s why the FedEx news is so exciting. If manufacturers are starting to order materials, then they must be seeing demand. If so, the recession that officially began in December of 2007 may finally be ending.

FedEx’s financial results will be a measure of economic performance as the business cycle unwinds. Overnight shipping via a private carrier is a luxury. The United States Postal Service has cheaper rates; it costs just 44 cents to send a first-class letter from Maine to Guam, although it probably won’t arrive the next day.  An increase in spending on FedEx indicates not only an improvement in the economy, but also a willingness to spend more for better service. (more…)

Dw. Dunphy On… “You Lie!”: The Backstory

The outburst heard ’round the nation, at least until Kanye West co-opted the mike: South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson’s interjection during President Obama’s health care pitch to Congress. A million would-be pundits and chat show hosts have ruminated on it, the masses have reviled him as well as lauded him, backing their positions up with donations to electoral funds, and even former President Jimmy Carter has weighed in. Carter’s belief that “You lie!” was racially motivated seems genuine but, at the same time, heavily influenced by Maureen Dowd’s column on the subject, titled “Boy Oh Boy.”

I’m split down the middle on the racism of the comment. Standing alone, it bears zero indication of racial prejudice. It can be interpreted in a thousand ways, and has, but itself is not inflammatory. It’s all in how the listener interprets it that gives it the bulk of the controversy, and so there’s no way of crying racism beyond a shadow of doubt. As two words stitched together, intention is loaded with nothing but doubt. At the same time, though, the fact that the very white Congressman Wilson felt he could just blurt this out while the very black President was giving a speech, a disrespect he might not have shown were it a good-ol’-boy fellow in Obama’s stead, is one that would cause people to see prejudice.

I could go on for several more paragraphs about how George W. Bush was soundly boo’ed at the last few congressional speeches he made, but then I would have to weigh the emotional impact of the sound ‘boo’ versus implying the President is a liar. For some, they’re equally insulting; for others, the two hardly compare. I speculate that your take on it will depend on what side of the aisle you choose to sit on (and perhaps your willingness to reach across said aisle would play into the equation as well.) (more…)

Sugar Water: Off the Record, I’m a Liar

sugarwater.gif

When things are said off the record in the world of politics, they should stay off the record. Unless I need something to write about, of course.

Last week I brought you an exclusive report on the scripted outbursts Rep. Joe Wilson almost said in place of “You lie!” when responding to President Obama’s position on illegal immigrants receiving universal health care. I obtained the list of outbursts from a congressional aide named Mark Cloth, who asked not to be identified, but I’m not a real journalist with “ethics” or “common decency” — either slip me a Benjamin or suffer the consequences.

I went ahead and used Cloth’s name, but it turns out he was using an alias inspired by Deep Throat, from All the President’s Men. He duped me, but I’m not mad. The way I see it, we both got what we wanted, and neither of us had to look at the other one naked.

On Monday the president was about to be interviewed by John Harwood when the CNBC reporter casually asked him what he thought of Kanye West’s outburst at the MTV Video Music Awards on Sunday night, comparing the hip-hop artist to Wilson. West had interrupted Best Female Video winner Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech by grabbing the microphone from her and complaining that Beyoncé deserved the award instead. Obama’s opinion was “He’s a jackass,” which got some laughs from people in the room, but the president quickly tried to make sure his off-the-cuff comment would stay off the record.

Yeah, right. The tape was already rolling, and Terry Moran, co-anchor of ABC’s Nightline, apparently overheard the pre-interview conversation, because he soon jumped on his Twitter account and wrote, “Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a ‘jackass’ for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won. Now THAT’S presidential.” And that’s unprofessional, Moron — unless you somehow got a Benjamin out of it, that is. (I wonder if he had to look at Vice President Biden naked.)

(more…)

Numberscruncher: The Poorer Americans

With pure obviousness, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that median household income in the United States fell to $50,303 in 2008, a 3.6 percent decline from 2007. Adjusted for inflation, that is the biggest one-year decline in 40 years. Also, 39.8 million Americans now live in poverty, and 46.3 million Americans lack health insurance. The poor getting poorer, alas, does not make news. What’s interesting is that the rich got poorer, dragging the numbers down more than might otherwise be expected and reversing a decades-long trend.

To put it another way: the Bush tax cuts did not trickle down, nor did they create a rising tide that lifted all the boats. All they did was increase the Federal deficit. (And people think Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a class traitor? FDR had nothing on GWB.)

Professor Richard Green at the University of Southern California, who follows the real estate market, combined the census data with his knowledge of the housing market, and he reached an interesting conclusion: Americans can’t afford the houses on the market now, so real estate prices have further to fall.

One trope trotted out at the beginning of every recession is the idea that certain businesses will do just fine either because the customers are so rich that they won’t be affected by the recession or that the price is so low that people will always be able to fit it into their budget. As the millions of American children who now eat store-brand macaroni and cheese with Hunt’s ketchup can attest, this is not always the case.  Price is not always in line with value.

Some high-end customers never were rich; they were spending money they did not have, possibly borrowed against their houses. Some rich people are not so rich anymore, and not just because they invested with Bernie Madoff. Some rich people are also very smart, so even though they have the money, they know that the Mercedes dealer is hurting and median housing values are falling and thus expect a deal. And some rich people don’t think it is wise to flaunt their wealth during a time when so many people are hurting.

Meanwhile, the tax cuts that were supposed to cure all, that many persist in believing will cure all, didn’t. The so-called Laffer Curve, known as the taxable income effect, says that at some increased level of taxation, government revenues fall because people have no incentive to work. But what tax level is that? Since the 2003 tax cut, the highest rate in the United States is 35%. In 1980, it was 70%.

One way to think about taxes is that it is the price of being employed in America. Of course there is a price; we want things that the government provides, ranging from national defense to national parks. This nation has more opportunities for employees and entrepreneurs than many others, and that comes with some cost. But what is that price? If you owned a retail store that sold jeans, you might try pricing them at $1000 per pair. But at that price, no one would buy them and your revenue would be zero. You could give the jeans away, but then your revenue would also be zero. But what price within that range would not only cover your costs, but maximize your profits? Is it $30 per pair? $300? Who knows? It will depend on who your customers are and what they want.

I’m not arguing that a tax increase would increase incomes, but I can’t rule it out. It’s possible that higher taxes might force people to work harder so that they have enough money to buy what they want after the government gets its cut. It’s also possible that a tax increase would trample on the tiny green shoots of recovery that we may be seeing now. But I do know this: the Bush tax cuts did not lead to prosperity. We are saddled with a deficit from the tax cuts and spending on two wars, made worse by a stimulus package needed to bring us out of a nasty recession.

Sugar Water: Say It Ain’t So, Joe (Just Say It in Two Words or Less)

sugarwater.gif

Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina became a household name on Wednesday when he “heckled” President Obama during the commander-in-chief’s speech on health-care reform before a joint session of Congress. After Obama assured lawmakers that any systemwide overhaul wouldn’t extend health benefits to illegal immigrants, Wilson rebel-yelled, “You lie!”

According to congressional aide Mark Cloth, who wished to remain anonymous but didn’t bribe me enough to warrant serious consideration, Wilson was seen drinking 12-ounce cups of espresso for several hours before the president’s speech. The fourth-term conservative Republican lawmaker was also “high on pro-life and a two-day marathon of Lou Dobbs Tonight on his DVR.”

The cheapskate aide also revealed that Wilson’s supposedly spontaneous outburst was carefully scripted in order to convey the most effective opposition to Obama’s health-care initiatives, with dozens of drafts written over the past several weeks. In the end, however, simple noun-verb agreement combined with pro-wrestling body language proved to be the most direct route to getting Wilson’s point across.

And what’s so bad about simplicity? We live in a time of “tweets,” after all. Call Rep. Joe Wilson what you will, but he’s taught me a valuable lesson about keeping Sugar Water short and simple from now on, because otherwise all those words in my brain just pile up alongside all those newspaper clippings gathering dust on my desk, and suddenly it’s been almost two months since I wrote an actual column.

Granted, I spent all of August traveling around the country to President Obama’s town-hall meetings so I could stand beside angry Americans and shout “Rubber baby buggy bumpers!” over and over again — none of them heard me since they were all busy yelling nonsensical words and phrases themselves — but now I’m back. America, I need this forum. And you need me. Even if you have no interest in bribing me.

(more…)

Political Culture: Gimme Some Truth

The words were spoken in London, casually, almost flippantly, and were directed at an audience that was sure to treat them in the spirit they were intended. It was not until the words traveled to the United States, and were heard by an audience of narrow-minded hypocrites for whom they were decidedly not intended, that they created a ruckus that led to censorship, destruction and even death threats.

No, silly, I’m not saying that Natalie Maines is bigger than John Lennon (or Jesus, for that matter). What I am saying is that both of them – all three of them, actually – learned one very important lesson the hard way: Speaking your mind can be a very dangerous business. It can even get you killed.

Here at Popdose and throughout the Western world, this week’s (admittedly consumerist) Beatlemania revival has offered plenty of opportunities to reflect on their music, their influence … the astounding greed of their record label over a 45-year period … (Did EMI really have to sell the stereo and mono mixes separately, particularly considering that every album from Please Please Me to Revolver was short enough that they could have easily crammed both versions onto a single CD?) But as long as we’re sitting around dissecting the effects of the remastering process on “Happiness is a Warm Gun,” or tapping colored buttons in time to the scrolling visuals on the Rock Band version of “Revolution,” we may as well pause to marvel at the historical import of the Beatles’ efforts – and John’s in particular – to use their stardom to advance causes and engage in social commentary. In this, as in their music, they created a template that has been imitated and amended by generations of celebrities in their wake, for better and for worse. (more…)

Numberscruncher: The Beatles by the Numbers

Four poor kids from Liverpool formed a band and became the greatest rock group of all time. And they made a lot of money. Although most musicians make their big money on tour, the Beatles have not performed live since 1966. Two of its members are dead, so there won’t be a reunion tour (although that hasn’t stopped Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey).

But the money rolls in, and for all of the members or their heirs. To celebrate the release of The Beatles: Rock Band and the release of remastered and mono boxed sets of the Beatles’ albums, this week’s Numberscruncher will look at some of the band’s money matters.

Musicians are paid several ways. They are paid for their professional services whenever they perform, which is why touring can be a good deal for a band with a loyal fan base. For a recorded performance, the artist may have received a one-time fee or may be eligible for a royalty from each sale or play. Then, if they wrote the song, they receive a payment for the use of it, whether when performed by the band or by someone else. That songwriting royalty is split in half, with a share going to the songwriter and another share going to the publishing company that handles the licensing and distribution of the song and the sheet music. Publishing involves a lot of clerical and administrative work that most musicians are not interested in doing, so the separation makes sense. (more…)

Political Culture: Inglourious Democrats?

Like (I suspect) most viewers, I wasn’t too troubled by self-recrimination at the end of Quentin Tarantino’s must-see exercise in “Jewish revenge porn,” Inglourious Basterds. (The description comes from the Jewish Daily Forward, not from me.) I wasn’t worried about Q’s preposterous deviations from history, nor was I concerned that some Jewish folks might not appreciate – indeed, might be appalled by – their forebears’ cinematic transformation from victims to vigilantes. Screw the strictures of morality, the heavy burden of humanity! The way I figure it, most people leave the theater thinking just one thing: Man, if only the Jews had been able to open up a can of whoop-ass on those damn Nat-zees – that woulda been sweet.

My wife – a (sorta) Jewess who emerged from the film similarly exhilarated, and ready to grab a baseball bat for some impromptu strip-mall justice – recovered her faculties quickly and asked to stop in at Big Box Boox (i.e., Barnes & Noble) to pick up some chick lit. So she went off to fiction and I stopped at the bestseller rack, where I was confronted by an entirely different array of “revenge porn.” The titles included Mark Levin’s “conservative manifesto” Liberty and Tyranny (which leaves some question as to where his sympathies lie), Glenn Beck’s Common Sense (the first of two oxymorons in this column), Dick Morris’ Catastrophe and Michelle Malkin’s Culture of Corruption. The latter two tomes, which see fit to pass final judgment on the new administration, were released in June and July, respectively – which, even accounting for the sped-up timeline for publishing political books, means they were written no later than March or April … before the stimulus bill had even been signed into law. (more…)

Numberscruncher: Think Win-Win!

I hate corporate jargon at least as much as the next person, and “Think Win-Win!” is one of many good reasons to be self-employed. Still, it represents an interesting idea: how do we find solutions to problems that make everyone better off? To too many managers, the phrase means “I’m going to screw you but will try to convince you that you are now better off”, but that doesn’t mean it never happens.

Economics is the study of how to satisfy infinite wants with finite resources. Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian economist who died in 1923, was interested in exposing flaws in the Italian government. He found that about 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the people. Furthermore, he found that in almost every society, a small percentage of the people have the bulk of the wealth. The exact proportion could vary; in some places, 20% of the people held 80% of the wealth, and in some places, 5% of the people held 95% of it. Pareto developed equations to explain the phenomenon, which look scary (you can take a gander on the Wikipedia page.) The explanation is easier: every time you increase the amount of an item in a distribution, whether it be wealth, population, or catastrophic accidents, its frequency will decline by a set proportion. Hence, fewer people are wealthier than poor, fewer cities have large populations than small populations, expensive car accidents are less common than fender-benders. This is the genesis of the so-called “80-20 rule” that is almost as beloved by managers as “think win-win!”

Pareto then theorized that the problem with this distribution is that no one can be made better off without someone being worse off. That, he said, was why poverty is intractable. To improve the lot of the 80% of the people without wealth, those who have it would have to give some up, and they wouldn’t like that. Economists say that this type of distribution is “Pareto optimal”. It may not be optimal for society, of course, but hey, there is no free lunch. (Economists like to say that a lot, too.) (more…)