The Business of America is Equality, not Business.

Okay, so back in 1925, a guy named Calvin Coolidge is reported to have said, “The Business of America is Business.” But that is not the case. The actual statement was: "After all, the chief business of the American people is business." However, Coolidge goes on to say that, "Of course the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence." So the 30th President of the United States is continuously misquoted by historians and the press, when the actual quote is available to anyone with a web browser. I wonder why that is?

The same is true of the often misquoted line from Timothy in the New Testament, “Money is the root of all evil.” In fact, the statement is : “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10, KJV.) I guess something gets stuck in our heads and we just keep repeating it. Or is it something else, something a bit more insidious?

Now, I'm not going to start some great conspiracy theory of the Illuminati or some other secret group that is dedicated to keeping the lower classes in their place. But you have to wonder why thoughts like these are constantly put in our heads. I mean if you take the misquotes as ideals of capitalism, then we must be out of our minds to continue as capitalists. Especially when you consider that money is power in our modern world. An accurate quote from Baron John Acton is:”Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” The baron was speaking of monarchies at when he said this, but the saying can be applied to wealth in this century. And the evidence is abundant.

The 2010 Supreme Court decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is the latest step of the wealthy and privileged to exert their power in the form of Political Action Committees, or PACs, over the poor by claiming the right to act as private citizens under the First Amendment. This flawed decision means a corporation can spend as much money as it chooses to promote the candidate of their choice, regardless of the qualifications or political affiliation of the candidate. Wealthy individuals as well, although barred by Federal Election rules from making single massive contributions to a candidate, can now give without limitation to these PACs. At the very least, this places the candidates who do not favor corporate policies at a disadvantage, since they will not receive the same funding as the favored candidates. At worst, this allows the wealthy and the corporations to inevitably place a stranglehold on the U. S. Congress that will lead to the only benefits for the wealthy and nothing for the poor.

Am I being an alarmist? Hardly. If you look at the trends around the country to curtail the rights of workers and the middle class, you can see the signs. We now have 23 states with Right To Work laws, laws that prevent unions from building their funds to fight unfair management practices. The argument is that unions are no longer needed to defend workers because the NLRB and OSHA are government agencies with the purpose of protecting labor. But a closer examination of this argument shows these agencies are simply administrative and have no real power to intervene. Their recommendations end at congress, if the corporation is unwilling to accept them, and if the congress is filled with corporate elected representatives, I am sure you can imagine what will happen to those recommendations.

So the bottom line to all this? We need to elect men to office who are willing to re-balance the laws of this nation to level the field for all. In order to do this, three fundamental goals must be accomplished.

1. Term limits must be imposed on all members of congress. Career politicians are much more subject to corruption and are much harder to catch. They learn the “ins and outs” of accepting PAC and Special Interest money without being caught. They learn to deceive, and once they learn that, someone has something over their head. To quote the plaque on Colson's wall during the Nixon administation, “When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”

2. The Citizen's United ruling must be overturned. Whether this be by an amendment to the Constitution specifically limiting the rights of the individual to mean the individual citizen, or by an attorney who is capable of arguing this through the Supreme Court, the idea of Corporate Personhood needs to be eliminated.

3. Eliminate the tax shelters and Social Security caps for the wealthy. It seems to me unconscionable those who have benefited most from living in a free nation by the labor of those who have provided their income are unwilling to contribute their fair share of revenues. Exercising our legal right to tax fairly, and eliminating caps on Social Security earnings for the individual will not significantly affect the lifestyle of the wealthy, but it will help this nation to provide vital services which are in danger of being cut to the millions of Americans who need them.

There are other issues to be addressed, but these three will level the field, and return us to what the founders intended … A Citizen Government!

The Impact of Indiana and the Republican Party on Illinois

Labor suffered a major blow yesterday when Governor Mitch Daniels signed a "Right to Work" law into effect in Indiana. He did so, not surprisingly, with the blessings and support of the Republican party. According to the Indiana Star Press,

Daniels and other Republican supporters characterized the measure as needed for Indiana to attract jobs.

But that sentiment is not echoed by all concerned.

Senate Minority Leader Vi Simpson, D-Ellettsville, disputed the promise of new jobs, saying “there is no empirical evidence... that right to work creates one job.” “It’s a downward spiral to lower wages and fewer benefits,” she said.

The Denver Post in Colorado, a state where Right to Work legislation has yet to be passed, had this to say:

Indiana became the Rust Belt's first right-to-work state Wednesday in a move that is sure to embolden advocates seeking to curtail union rights across the country. But whether other states can replicate the conservatives' success in Indiana is less certain. The political factors that aligned in Indiana were unique, and it is unlikely the same thing could happen in other states — at least for now.

There are currently 23 Right to Work States (see map below), states that have effectively eliminated the rights of Unions to represent their workers with adequate means. You see, the RTW legislation doesn't eliminate unions, or union shops, but it does prevent the unions from collecting dues from workers who decline to join. This means less money for the union to hire legal representation for collective bargaining, contract disputes, and regulations concerning worker safety and conditions. It also means less clout for Unions against Management in the Political arena.

Since 2010, Corporate personhood with respect to Political Spending has become a major issue in the United States.

The corporate personhood aspect of the campaign finance debate turns on Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): Buckley ruled that political spending is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, while Citizens United ruled that corporate political spending is protected, holding that corporations have a First Amendment right to free speech.

That decision has allowed corporations to pour massive contributions into the campaigns of candidates who will support corporate goals, whether or not those goals coincide with the constituency the candidate is supposed to represent. Even worse, union membership has fallen significantly with the elimination of manufacturing jobs here in the United States.

At the apex of union density in the 1940s, only about 9.8% of public employees were represented by unions, while 33.9% of private, non-agricultural workers had such representation. In this decade, those proportions have essentially reversed, with 36% of public workers being represented by unions while private sector union density had plummeted to around 7%. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics most recent survey indicates that union membership in the US has risen to 12.4% of all workers, from 12.1% in 2007. For a short period, private sector union membership rebounded, increasing from 7.5% in 2007 to 7.6% in 2008.[10] However, that trend has since reversed. In 2009, the union density for private sector stood at 7.2%.[11]

So what does this mean to us in Illinois? According the Labor, nothing good.

Right-to-work is plain-and-simple union-busting. It is designed to encourage "free riders," and to weaken or destroy unions. And that’s exactly what it has accomplished in the states that have these laws. Worst of all, it has translated into lower wages and benefits, a diminished standard of living, substandard legal protections and more dangerous working conditions for all workers – not just union members -- in right-to-work states.
In 2003, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that 19 of the 25 states with the highest worker fatality rates were right-to-work states, while just three of the bottom 25 states were right-to-work states. A study by the Economic Policy Institute showed that workers in right-to-work states earned an average of 6.5% less than their counterparts in states without the law. None of the 22 right-to-work states had an average annual pay level above the U.S. average.
When wages fall, state tax revenues fall. That means less funding for education, transportation and other vital programs. Right-to-work is bad not just for union members, but for everyone.

It would seem Right To Work legislation is a godsend for those who want to bust unions in favor of boosting the economy. But boosting it for who? According to the data I've cited above, the economy might get a boost, but the boost will be in the pockets of the Corporations, not the workers, who will reduce wages, benefits, and safety standards for workers in order to make a buck. Thankfully, our own Governor Quinn, a Democrat, does not share Indiana's enthusiasm:

As Indiana lawmakers head toward final passage of so-called “right to work” legislation, Gov. Pat Quinn is calling it a bad move that won’t help Indiana compete with Illinois for business.
Mocking the legislation as the “right to work for less” bill, Quinn joined opponents who have called such laws an assault on organized labor.

According to OpenSecrets.org, Republican Aaron Schock is beholding to Business for 87% of his more than $2,000,000.00 campaign war chest. Republican Bobby Schilling receives 57% of his donations from business. (I guess Bobby doesn't have Aaron's / LaHood's clout.)

So what's the bottom line? It would seem from my perspective that the age old battle of Unions versus Management is still as heated as ever, but the Republicans are stacking the deck in their favor. If you vote, and you should, and you are in a union or realize the importance of unions in our society, Vote Democrat!

States in teal are Right To Work states.

Update on the Woodmancy Campaign

Matthew Woodmancy is on the primary ballot for March 20th, running against a very able opponent who apparently stands for absolutely nothing.
I mean, I understand that some politicians like to keep their politics close to the vest, but Steve Waterworth's blog reads like a third rate Dear Abby. And I have yet to read one bit of information about the man other than he has unsuccessfully run for office twice. Not once. Twice.
Matt Woodmancy, on the other hand, has made full disclosure on his facebook page and now on his website. His platform is posted for all the honest world to see and he doesn't back down. He's participated in reddit discussions with constituents, has agreed to participate in the League of Women Voters Debate on February 29th in Macomb, and will continue to speak out against the corporate owned politicians that are ruining this nation.
Can anyone tell me the appeal of Waterworth? I'd really like to know.

Budget Hearing, Plaudits, and Assorted Proclamations

Another regular session of the council tonight and the business agenda seems pretty ordinary. But appearances can be deceiving.

Let me back up a little bit. I left work about 5 til 6 tonight, turned on the radio and caught the beginning of Outside the Horseshoe on WCBU. An interesting discussion on the current system of electing At-Large Council members. Supposedly set up to include more minority candidates and opportunities for African Americans to serve on the council. Not that I disagree with that concept, in principal. But did I miss something, or did the rest of you? Didn't we settle all this around 1965 or so? Personally, I would like to see people elected on the merits of their qualifications, not on the basis of their color. You know this slippery slope everyone likes to point to? Well, here we are attempting to slant the odds in favor of one group or another, at the expense of sound leadership. And we wonder why we have corrupt or incompetent leaders. Oh well, back to the Council.

I arrived about 6:20, the council is already reciting the pledge of allegiance. Standing room only in the chambers, due to the large number of proclamation recipients. I'm standing in the hall outside the rear door to the chamber having walked the four flights of stairs due to an inoperative elevator [Reminder to self to get back in shape]. The Salvation Army is the first group to be recognized on their 125th Anniversary. They clear the room, and I manage to get in to grab a chair. Next Proclamation, November is Lung Cancer Awareness Month. Jim Magee speaks briefly and passionately about the devastation of lung cancer in Peoria county. Seems we lead the state in cases, even greater in number than Cook County. The disease has no respect for race, religion, or age, apparently, but Mr. Magee does leave us with a message of hope, saying the treatments and prevention measures are working.

John Sharp is at the Press Table. No sign of Billy or C.J.

Next is the proclamation for Community Foundation Week, and Mayor Ardis introduces Mark Roberts, the founder, CEO, President, and apparently chief cook and bottle washer of the Peoria Community Fund, a not-for-profit foundation that supplies support for other not-for-profit organizations. He speaks to the $8,000,000 in local funds provided to various organizations in 2011, praises contributors for their help, and asks they keep giving to help others.

Last Proclamation is the 2011 Citizens Academy Graduation. 37 people are recognized, about 32 of them in attendance in blue polo shirts with the Citizens Academy logo on the chest. Steve Fairbanks and Jenny Fulton preside, and the Mayor gets a photo op.

The room clears as the council prepares to get down to business. Now an interesting side note, apparently these last folks attended the Citizens Leadership Academy to be more involved in their community, yet when the opportunity to participate as citizens and offer comments about the actions the council are about to take, they leave. Hmmmmm. In the words of the King of Siam, "'Tis a Puzzlement."

Minutes for the previous two meetings are approved, and on to the first item of business - the Public Hearing regarding the 2012 City of Peoria Budget. Mayor Ardis invites members of the community to address the council regarding the proposed budget.

Speaker #1 is Lorraine Bryson, a member of the Tri-County Urban League speaking on behalf of Social Service Agencies. There are many people in the chambers wearing a cut out of a child on their chests, apparently supporters there to represent their agencies. Bryson is concerned that the proposed budget will reallocate CDGB funds to Public Safety efforts instead of these agencies. She speaks passionately as to the services being provided by these agencies, services that include aide for low income families and abused children, elderly, and homeless people. Basically she is arguing, convincingly, that their actions are preventative in nature, and help to reduce the need for enforcement. She believes that the reduction in funds will have long terms effects on the community. She also notes that a reduction in funds from the City will also affect the various agencies ability to receive grants, particularly those who require matching funds. Lorraine concludes by stating the 2010 funds have been used to support more than 1,500 children, provide after school programs for children at risk, provided for at least 1,000 special needs children, and have even been used to help first offenders to rejoin the community and leave the criminal lifestyle.

Speaker #2 is Roberta Parks, a representative of the Peoria Chamber of Commerce, who praises the City Council on making the tough cuts that need to be made in order to keep the city strong. Now, if I give a less than accurate account, you have to know that this woman talks at the speed of a locomotive and apparently loves to hear the sound of her own voice. She provides a list of reasons they like the budget, which include the reorganizing of staff structure, the consolidation of departments [the word synergy is used], staff layoffs, reduction of services due to a floundering economy [not her words, but essentially what she said], early retirement of 200 or so employees, shared services [county and city], outsourcing of some services, reinvestment in infrastructure, no significant tax increases, and pension reforms.

Last, but certainly not least, is Savino Sierra, our often ignored and somewhat maligned citizen observer. He objects to the cuts in the budget, saying that not only will it result in a loss of leadership and services, but also in morale in the city. He says he has more to say, and will continue to attend meetings to speak to his concerns. God bless Savino Sierra.

The room clears again as the consent agenda is read aloud. Items A, B, C, E, F, H, I, K, and N are approved without comment unanimously. Item G is pulled from the agenda by Beth Akeson, Items D, L, and M are pulled by Sandberg.

Item D pertains to amending the budget for 2011 to authorize the payment of $109,986.00 to the Springdale Cemetery Management Authority. Gary begins to speak and loudly announces the people he wanted to hear what he had to say were leaving the chamber (Lorraine Bryson and her constituents) and asked them to stay to hear this motion. Gary begins by reviewing the history, well known to most of us, of the Springdale Cemetery fiasco that has led to an increasing budget deficit to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Since the City of Peoria entered into an agreement with the County and the Peoria Park District to maintain and manage the facility, the deficit grows annually. The 2010 deficit was $359,000.00. Sandberg is making the case that because of this obligation, the money to support other programs is not there. Councilman Spears points out that while we own the cemetery, we apparently have little or no control over the budget. He wonders if the council can put a cap on the spending. City Manager Urich we may submit a request to the managing board to request a reduction in budget. Spears answers and says that means NO, we cannot control their spending. Urich admits that the managing board has an open checkbook to administrate the cemetery. Spears points out it will never pay for itself. Urich says, Valid point. I could continue to give you a blow by blow, but the end result is Ardis jumps in and establishes that cemeteries are by their nature a losing proposition, that many volunteers are participating in the maintenance and restoration of Springdale, and there are a lot of issues that are not being considered. Motion is called and passed unanimously.

Item G is an ordinance to vacate Iowa Street from Grant Street in order to further the use of that area to the expansion of the Komatsu company (not stated that way, but the proposal is to further the commercial goals of Komatsu, which is in keeping with the Peoria mandate to provide jobs). Beth Akeson asks that Mr. Ordaz is allowed to speak. He is representing both the Detweiller Marina Association and the Averyville Township Association. His main objection is not to the action itself, but that this was proposed and about to be passed without so much as a by your leave to either of these groups, both of which will be affected by the ordinance and subsequent development. He feels the management of Komatsu and the City should meet with these groups and other affected groups to gather impact on activities or provisions for Quid Pro Quo concessions to the community in the form of bike paths, parks, etc. There is a long discussion concerning the motion, Beth and her supporters are asking for a deferral of four weeks to give all parties a chance to determine the impact. Weaver and others are concerned that the delay might have a negative effect on the business. Mayor Ardis assures him it will not. Gulley does not see the reason for delay and does not think the delay will alter the outcome. He asks the council to vote against the delay. Akeson again asks for support for the delay. Ardis calls the question, the delay is granted with Gulley being the only NO vote.

Items L & M are pertaining to the Police and Firemen's Pension Board Reports. Sandberg has pulled these two items because he believes we are not getting enough return on the investments being made with these funds, and feels we should reevaluate our strategy there. After a lot of meaningless discussion, the decision is made not to change anything, despite Sandberg's concerns. Both motions pass unanimously.

Okay, so here is where I get to make a few comments about the proceedings. As to the budget, I believe Ms. Bryson made some valid points about supporting programs that are preventative in nature. I am certain that the police would agree if they were to give it some thought. If these agencies can care for abuse victims and keep them from perpetuating the chain of abuse, they are worth their weight in gold. I think the city needs to weigh their options carefully. God knows we do need some additional public safety presence in the area, but how about we explore the funds being used by other agencies to see if they can be trimmed. Regardless of what the Chamber of Commerce thinks. Frankly, I am not sure why Ms. Parks even spoke. She had no input other that to tell the council what a great job they did in eliminating jobs, reducing pensions, and reducing public services while allowing other non-essential projects to move forward. And Savino Sierra is absolutely correct. A large reduction in services, the elimination of jobs, and the cutting back of pensions will have a negative effect on morale in this city. Such a reduction will lead to more problems, not fewer problems, and cause additional problems for an already over tasked police force.

As to the other events, I'll let you figure them out.

Occupy notes

Sort of strange that some people are willing to argue the opportunities are still there. Occupy is challenging the way people think, but so many people are so afraid of the alternative. Talked to a fellow salesman who thinks the Occupy movement is just a fad, that they are a bunch of malcontents looking for a hand out.

Maybe they are. Maybe they have been taught to expect one. After all, the welfare system is a hand out, not an incentive to grow personally or professionally. We have generations (generations?) of people raised in the welfare system, so many generations there are some who cannot envision life without welfare. They have lived in government supplied housing, eaten government supplied food, have their lights and gas and water and trash paid with government monies. And when they attempt to get away from the Welfare system, they are immediately taxed or fined or placed in a position where their attempt is chastized or punished.

Strange, isn't it? We scream and yell and object to welfare, and yet we perpetuate it.

A History of Slavery

once they used chains
and distance
or occupation
troops assigned to guard the enslaved
or isolation
reservations to keep them in line

but over the years
they learned
to use pockets
and possessions
and hid the slavery
in a miasma
of obligation
and patriotism
and freedom

Slavery is alive and well
and practiced openly
within the guise of freedom

fredericksmith

A few random thoughts about Occupy

So the people of the nation are finally sick and tired of the lack of government action for the people. Hmmmm. Nothing new, really, if you think about it. In the 60's we had sit-ins to protest all sorts of things on college campuses and other places. The anti-abortion folks have staged sit-ins at various clinics over the years. Usually, after the first day or so, the police get involved and the people causing the disruption of businesses or services are usually hauled away in paddy wagons and booked on misdemeanor charges. Sometimes it gets out of hand and the police overreact, and the people overreact, and someone gets hurt.

But here is where it gets interesting. These people are not going away. Why? Because most of them have no where to go! These are the huddled masses, but now they are huddled on the streets and in the public parks and in your face for the world to see. Many of them cannot get work, cannot get help, cannot get adequate medical treatment or health care. Most of them are like most of us. Scared.

And that is the long and the short of it. We are all scared. What will happen next? Our President, hell, our entire legislative and executive branch, is doing nothing to remedy the problem. All that HOPE was an empty promise that has failed to bring us any closer to a solution. I'm not blaming the Dems or the Reps for the current problems. The Dems just happen to be in charge at the moment, and we are an election away from changing that. But one thing is certain. The Status Quo must go.

We are the 99%, the disenfranchised, the abandoned, the citizens who were promised the American Dream. We are the voters, the taxpayers, the parents, the children, the soldiers and sailors and marines and guardians who were told we were fighting to preserve a way of life that is no longer accessible to us. We are the 99% who have no hope of ever achieving the prosperity our parents achieved. We have grown up in a world promising justice and prosperity and hope, and have only apathy and poverty and despair.

We are the 99%. We are the reason the 1% have the wealth and power. Our blood and sweat and labors have created it. And our anger and discontent can take it away. Look around you. Your police and firefighters and emergency personnel are the 99%. Your soldiers and sailors and marines and guardsmen are the 99%. Your average citizens are the 99%. Your factory workers, your government employees, your teachers, your administrators are the 99%. If we choose to stop what we are doing, the 1 % will have NOTHING!

Just a few random thoughts. Take them as you will. But if you take them seriously and are one of the 99%, I can tell you how to get the attention of the world. For a single day, STOP! Bring the money machine to an immediate and screeching halt.

Like I said, just a few random thoughts.

What will you choose?

I'm not much for blind faith. It took me a more than a year of reading scripture and contemplation to finally take the plunge (no pun intended) and be baptized as a Christian. I tend to look into things and not take them at face value. But when I find the value, I tend to support things adamantly, and persistently.

This does not mean I am always right. I have been wrong in the past, and will make mistakes in the future. But I have come to accept that as part of the Human Condition, a failing of our shared mortality. We, as a species, want to be right. And when we are wrong, we can do one of two things. We can admit the wrong and try to make it right, or we can go forward from that moment in the hopes we will eventually be right.

Tonight, we will install the elected At-Large Members of the City Council. We have elected them as our leaders, and we are now committed to hearing their voices and watching their actions, at least for another 4 years. We have elected two new members, in hopes their voices will be the voices of the people they represent, the voices of the people of Peoria.

Let us pray they are guided with wisdom, patience, and fortitude.

Labor Rally at the Courthouse

I had the privilege of attending the Labor Rally at the Peoria County Courthouse yesterday afternoon with Matthew Woodmancy, a local man who is running for the U. S. Congress in 2012. Randy Stevens was the organizer of the event, and I have to say the man is a very accomplished speaker who knows how to rally a crowd. Between 200 and 300 union brothers and sisters were there, braving the elements and standing shoulder to shoulder to support the cause of fighting against the movements lately to diminish the rights of labor to collective bargaining and fair wages.

There were representatives of AFSCME, Teamsters, AFL-CIO, Boilermakers, and several others who spoke to several incidents for Mine Workers and truckers who are undergoing attacks by management, and our Peoria NAACP was also there to pledge their support for the cause. One of the main themes was the Rally in Chicago this weekend. It seems there are still several seats on the bus if you want to attend. Contact Randy Stevens through his Facebook page and let him know.

The most impressive part of the rally for me was the powerful message from several of the local speakers: VOTE! I guess it is the poor turnout from the April 5th election that has this topic on everyone's lips, but it should be there all the time.

We always have suggestions about how to improve our society and our schools. How about this one? How about we start teaching our children (by example) that it is their right and their responsibility to VOTE! How about we start teaching our children that they matter, that they have a voice in our society, in our community, no matter who they are, no matter what they do, no matter what name they call God, no matter who they love. How about we Take Back Peoria with our VOTE!