Local Issues Matter: Let's Craft a Message

One role that CSCC could play would be to promote the importance of local issues. For many voters in the Valley (and throughout the country), the idea that voting actually affects their lives has been lost. So many issues seem way beyond our control. Local issues are a way to help them reconnect, especially in voting for state and local offices.

What are some issues we could craft a message around? Here are some ideas:
Electricity deregulation--did you vote for that?
Thruway: talked about for 40 years. Let's move on that. Vote.
Health care in Pennsylvania: Critical.

What ideas do you have for using local issues to motivate voters?

Carney leads Hackett 46-36

Interesting result in the battle of the Chris's, also known as the PA-10 House election. According to an independent Lycoming College poll, Chris Carney is leading Chris Hackett 46-36.

Income Disparity and More on Tax Plans

[Another set of illustrative graphs and analysis from Lewisburg statistician Jason Roy. -JG]

Below is a graph that shows what percentage of the total income in the U.S. is earned by people in the top 0.1%, by year (source: Piketty & Saez, 2003). It shows that income inequality is now at the highest level since the late 1920s, with the richest 0.1% earning greater than 10% of all income.

The next graph below shows the expected percentage (%) change in after-tax income in 2009, adjusted for family size, if the McCain or Obama tax plans are implemented (source: Tax Policy Center). Values above the dotted line indicate an increase in income. For people in the first 4 quintiles of the income distribution (i.e., the poorest four-fifths of the population), they would have more income under the Obama proposal. On average, people in the highest quintile (i.e., the top one-fifth, or those making more than $111,000 a year) will have less income after taxes with the Obama proposal and do better under McCain. However, that is largely driven by the very wealthiest individuals, those making over $600,000 a year. This graph also displays (on the far right) the after-tax income for the richest 0.1% of Americans. Under McCain, those people would have about 5% more after-tax income, whereas under Obama, they would have about 11% less. (Keep in mind the richest 0.1% of americans make more than $2.87 million per year.)

With income inequality at historic levels, Obama is asking the wealthiest to pay a little more, and is giving bigger tax breaks to the poorest. McCain, on the other hand, is giving the biggest tax breaks to the wealthiest. The other thing to note is that our national debt is also at a record level (in real dollars, adjusting for size of GDP). As mentioned in a previous post, McCain's plan will increase the debt by $1.5 trillion more than the Obama plan.

Women's Movement and 'Hypocrisy'

We had two CSCC members write excellent, strongly-worded emails in response to this letter in last weekend's Daily Item accusing women of 'hypocrisy' for not supporting Sarah Palin; one got published yesterday, the other did not. But here we present both letters. The first (the one that was printed) is from Martha Holland:

According to the letter in today's Daily Item (9/22), women should joyfully support Sarah Palin because she is a woman; one who, the writer claims, embodies all the values of the women's movement. That we don't support her makes us, in his eyes, liberal female elitists and full blown hypocrites. I would like to respond by saying that there are plenty of us who, despite our opposition to Sarah Palin, are hard-working moms who love God and country, respect the opinions of others and believe that we can have a rational conversation about our differences without resorting to hateful labels and name-calling.

The reason we do not support Sarah Palin is because she is running for vice-president on a Republican ticket that is no different from what we have had for the last eight years.For the last eight years, the Bush-Cheney administration has brought us an unending and destabilizing war based on lies (that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he was responsible for the terrible events of 9/11). For eight years, this administration has dismantled regulations that protect us from corporate greed and malfeasance. Now we have an economic crisis that is the worst since the great depression. This same administration wants to spend $700 billion to bail out the big companies whose questionable policies have caused this mess but does not want to include help for the millions of ordinary citizens who have lost their homes and livelihoods because of this crisis. We oppose the McCain-Palin ticket not because we are looking at ideologies but because we are looking at results. An examination of the McCain-Palin platform shows that they are sticking to the same basic policies of the last eight years, policies which can only bring us more bad results.

Sincerely,
Martha Holland

The second one (unpublished) is from Jason Roy:

In response to the letter writer who claimed that the "women's movement" has "shown their true colors" as hypocrites: I think there is a misunderstanding about what the women's movement was all about. The goal of the women's movement was not to get any and every woman into a position of power, regardless of their qualifications. The goal was to give women the same opportunities as men.

It is a sign of progress that Hillary Clinton came close to winning the Democratic nomination for President. It is a sign of progress that Sarah Palin has been nominated for Vice President on the Republican ticket. You are correct in saying that "they will support women, but not all women. Only women that fit into their ideology..." It would be quite discouraging if women felt obligated to vote for a candidate that they disagreed with on most issues, simply because the candidate was of the same gender. We have always had the opportunity to vote for or against male candidates who were running for office. We are beginning to have that opportunity with female candidates. If people make a decision on Sarah Palin based on her qualifications and beliefs, and not on her gender, it is a sign of progress, not hypocrisy.

Sincerely,
Jason Roy

Reality Is Not Balanced

I had this letter published yesterday in the Daily Item, in response to this letter that was printed on Saturday:

To the letter writer who recently accused The Daily Item of spouting liberal "propaganda": have you conveniently failed to notice the syndicated columns from right-wing conservatives George Will, Jonah Goldberg and Maggie Gallagher? Or the right-leaning Associated Press articles? Or the front-page stories that frequently show our (Republican) state representatives in a positive light? Now perhaps you can sympathize with many of us who dislike the "conservative propaganda" that appears in this paper.

In particular, the writer complains about a lack of "balance." During the past eight years, too many of us have accepted the idea that "balance" means good journalism. For every story, news outlets feel the need to find someone—regardless of their qualifications or whether they’re right—to provide an opposing or "balanced" viewpoint. The 24-hour cable news networks have fostered this idea, since it’s much easier for them to find two talking heads to debate each other instead of doing real investigative reporting. But facts are not always balanced: sometimes, the facts support one idea and not the other. We should expect our newspapers to provide us with pertinent facts about the news of the day, not to bend over backwards subscribing to this false theory of balance. The last few weeks have not been good for John McCain: he has released untruthful ads and been chastised for them, scandals swirl around his vice presidential pick, and he has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the economy or how to fix it. Failing to report these stories, or "balancing" them with old, questionable conservative talking points about Obama’s past, would do nothing to honestly inform readers.

Jove

As Stephen Colbert famously said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias...."

Whose life?

This thoughtful letter by our own John Cooper appeared in Sunday's Daily Item, partially in response to this letter from earlier in the week:

To the good folk (13 Sept. 08) who are planning their votes this year on the basis of their ‘Pro Life’ position, I’d like a bit of clarification:

For whose or what’s life are you ‘pro’?

All life? What about the plants that you destroy for food, construction or clear-cutting? What about the weeds you poison or pull up?

Oh, only animal life? What about the animals you eat or whose bodies you use for shoes or clothing? What of the insects you poison, the spiders you kill, the teeming myriad of critters whose lives you indifferently extinguish daily just by your very living and breathing?

Ah, you say, just human life? Which humans’ lives? The millions of children born each year into disease-infested squalor and poverty with no prospect whatsoever of healthy or happy lives? The hundreds of thousands of premature deaths due to the practice of punishing foreign governments by imposing ‘sanctions’ on their people? Or the hundreds of thousands of victims of America’s wars of military subjugation against those we don't agree with? Had those no right to life?

Mmm, I see, you are only ‘pro’ American lives? What about those squandered lives lost or abused in our military’s wars based on lies and distortions? Don’t they count? What about the lives of our own, ordinary citizens condemned by poor health-care, poverty and malnutrition to premature deaths by an economic and social system that enriches the rich and impoverishes the poor?

I could go on but you see my point? Sloganeering with vapid clichés whose practice belies their slogan does little to enhance the credibility of either the slogan or the sloganeer.

John Cooper

Faith and Facts

This excellent letter by our own Joe Manzi was printed in Saturday's Daily Item:

On Saturday, November 8^th, your paper printed a letter to the editor entitled "Pro-life politics." I take issue with the writer’s simplistic responses to complex issues. First he stated that John McCain "knows that life begins at conception." He also refers to the Iraq invasion and occupation as a "good Samaritan mission to release the innocent people of Iraq from tyranny, bondage and servitude." These statements illustrate two trends in our nation that are disturbing and often lead us to wrong conclusions and to disastrous actions.

First is the trend by many, especially of the Religious Right, to equate belief with fact. In this instance one could argue that if life begins at conception, what is the nature of that life, is it a human life, and if not when does it become a human life? The answers to these questions are often based on faith, our religious beliefs, and as such we should preface our answers with I believe, not I know. Belief is based on faith and opinion, not fact and should not be presented as or confused with fact.

The second is the trend, again especially by people to the right of the political spectrum, to confuse myth with reality. Too many of us subscribe to the myth that America always acts with good intentions and takes the morally right course. Thus we get statements claiming that our invasion of Iraq is a "good Samaritan mission." Let’s recognize that the United States, for all its amazing achievements and its outstanding two hundred year experiment with democracy, is after all a nation of citizens and leaders who are fallible and capable of wrong decisions and, yes, even immoral behavior. One only has to look to our inhumane history of slavery and our equally cruel and barbaric treatment of Native Americans to know that we as a nation do not always take the moral high ground.

Until we stop confusing faith with fact and myth with reality we cannot have an intelligent logical debate process and we cannot hope to solve the many problems confronting our nation here and abroad. Sadly, the writer of "Pro-life politics," like all too many voters, relies on faith and mythical perceptions in deciding who to vote for, rather than on a thought process based on factual information, and that is why we get Presidents like Bush and dangerous policies like his "preventive strike" theory that led us to invade Iraq--a nation that posed no threat to us, and to which we have inflicted unimaginable suffering and hardships--at tremendous human and financial cost to our own nation.

Sincerely,
Joe Manzi

Oil Production and Consumption

As a new "featured column" on the blog, I've asked Jason Roy, a statistician who lives in downtown Lewisburg, to provide us with a simple graph or chart each week that illustrates or sheds light on some important issue. This week, Jason has sent us the following item regarding oil consumption and the notion of "drill, baby, drill":

A key issue on the minds of a lot of voters is oil production and consumption. Gas prices have had an impact on many families and businesses. A difference between Obama and McCain is their views on offshore drilling. During his convention speech John McCain said "We will drill new wells off-shore, and we'll drill them now. We'll drill them now." Offshore drilling would come with some environmental risks. So, a reasonable question is whether the benefits outweigh these risks.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted that "the U.S. government's own Energy Information Administration says that removing restrictions on offshore drilling wouldn't lead to any additional domestic oil production until 2017, and that even at its peak the extra production would have an 'insignificant' impact on oil prices." That same report predicted that new offshore drilling could eventually produce as much as 200,000 barrels per day. While that sounds like a lot, it is extremely small relative to current foreign and domestic oil production, as seen in the graph below:

This is a key part of the argument against offshore drilling: it's not just that it will take 10 years or so to produce results. (Most people have heard that part by now.) It's that it would produce such a tiny, tiny amount of oil compared to total U.S. consumption.

Lower Taxes, Less Debt

I submitted this letter to the Daily Item over the weekend. I don't know if it will get printed or not, but interestingly enough, I was glad to see that today's editorial page reprinted this column from the St. Petersburg Times which is remarkably similar in both tone and content. I wonder if it's just a coincidence, or if the editors actually consider the letters they receive when choosing what syndicated columns to print? If so, that would be very encouraging.

Lower Taxes, Less Debt
As a father, I worry about how much I pay in taxes now, and how much debt we are leaving to our children. John McCain's ads say that Barack Obama wants "higher taxes," but many sources last week—ranging from a letter in Sunday's paper ("Misleading ads") to the ladies on The View—pointed out several falsehoods in McCain's other TV ads. This
made me wonder: who will really lower my taxes more?

Factcheck.org and the Tax Policy Center, two nonpartisan groups, both agree: not only will Obama's plan make my taxes lower than McCain's will (because our family makes under $250,000 a year), but it's also expected to leave behind a smaller national debt—$1.5 trillion smaller! At "www.factcheck.org," they give a specific example that an average family making between $37,000 and $66,000 a year would save $1,118 on their taxes under Obama's plan, and only $325 under McCain's, while families making less than that will see even larger percentage tax cuts with Obama. This sounds like a "no-brainer" to me! I know I'll be voting for Barack Obama.

[Update:] I forgot, I wanted to post this link to the Washington Post graphic comparing the two tax plans, McCain's and Obama's. This really says it all, and we need to convince the 80-95% of voters whom Obama's plan favors that it's in their best interest.

Lead not follow

Here's my letter to the Daily Item from 9/11/08, which is based on comments I made at the CSCC meeting on 9/4/08. My suggested headline was more understated: "Community College a good idea." They also removed my paragraph break.

Lead not follow

I am happy to see that Rep. Russ Fairchild has joined the call for creation of a community college in Sunbury (“Community college seen as boon for region”). Why haven’t we heard more ideas about how to be proactive in thinking about economic development? Here’s an example of an idea that could truly be a win/win proposition.

There seems to be a pattern of reactive leadership rather than visionary leadership in the Central Susquehanna Valley. It’s one thing to join a parade already in motion, quite another to put one together and get it in motion. Now that the community college proposal is underway, let’s hope we don’t have to wait as long for it as we have for the Central Susquehanna Valley Thruway.

Loren Gustafson
East Buffalo Township


I should have added that the Thruway idea has been around since 1968!

As chance (or editorial manipulation, not sure which) would have it, at the bottom of page 1A was a story about Russ Fairchild reacting to Gov. Rendell's proposal to delay taking off the electric rate caps. (His concern is that it would be unfair to us in Union County who are already having to pay huge increases. Fairness requires that we all suffer together.)

I thought I might be the only one who had noticed this tendency toward "reactive leadership." Then I got a phone call last night from a guy who said he'd seen my letter and wanted me to know that Mr. Fairchild was the reason he hadn't voted a straight ticket for 12 years. I thought he meant he voted for Democrats and crossed party lines to vote for Russ Fairchild. On the contrary, he meant he voted for Republicans but voted against Rep. Fairchild.

I told him that many people seem to appreciate Rep. Fairchild's efforts to respond to the public will about the burner (15 years ago??) or more recently the sale of the Laurelton Center (something I've heard from Democrats in this area), but that I agreed with him that Rep. Fairchild could be doing more. His comment was that Russ Fairchild seems to walk behind Merle Phillips saying "Me too." He then said, and I have to admit it made my day, if you want to run against him, I'll support you. At that point I explained that I was supporting Steve Connelly, who's been in the middle of the effort to get the community college idea going. I'm not sure if I convinced him to do the same, but it made me suspect that others in this area notice that our elected officials spend a lot of time reacting (sometimes slowly), not actively planning for how to create a better future. (I should also credit the Union County Commissioners, who, I think, have tried to get people interested in being proactive through the planning process now underway.

Putting America First

This letter appeared in yesterday's Daily Item. It was written by Steva Stowell-Hardcastle, who is the volunteer team leader for the Obama campaign in Union County. Here is the (unabridged) text:

Our presidential candidates recently announced their Vice Presidential running mates. What vetting processes do these potential candidates go through in order to be second in line to lead one of the most powerful countries in the world? Are our presidential candidates putting America first in deciding who best will protect and lead us?

The President-Vice President team is similar to a married couple, or to business partners in a small locally owned business. Before anyone of us would jump into marriage or a business partnership we would want to get to know our prospective partners. What are his or her values, personality, track record, ethics, and capabilities? How would this spouse or business partner take care of our children or employees if I suddenly became incapacitated? I would be looking for someone who would be able to carry on, putting our family or employees before themselves.

When I look at the two vice-presidential nominees, I wonder which was picked for purely political reasons, and which was picked because the candidate put America first. Which one was picked for mere political gain, and which was picked for an ability to protect and lead America should the President become incapacitated? John McCain met Sarah Palin just once—once— before selecting her for his ticket. She has no foreign policy experience, though our country faces an international terrorist threat, two wars, growing tensions with Russia, and potential nuclear arms production in Iran. She has no experience in the federal government, although our economy is in recession, our healthcare costs are rising, and every year our children are less able to compete in the global economy because their schools simply don’t have enough money. John McCain has been campaigning for the presidency longer then Sarah Palin has been governor of Alaska.

Barack Obama has known Joe Biden, a native of Scranton, for years. He and his staff spent months studying twenty years worth of speeches and records from potential Vice Presidential candidates. Obama wanted to leave no doubt that his running mate—the person who would help him lead and protect our great country—would be experienced, strong, and dependable, and have the track record to prove it. And did Obama make the right choice? Biden chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He’s spent decades building personal relationships with heads of state around the world. His career is a record of commitment to fairness for the middle and working class citizen. He has protected the rights of women in our country, by defending equal pay for equal work and by writing and passing the Violence Against Women Act, a piece of legislation that has protected thousands of women and children who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Sarah Palin is surely an up-and-coming public servant and fine person. But there can be no doubt that her selection reflects McCain’s mere political game-playing, in particular an attempt to attract the vote of disappointed women and conservative Christians. This is nothing but a blatant disregard for our country’s security, should McCain become incapacitated. Palin was picked because, for McCain, the Republican Party comes first. Joe Biden can and will protect and lead America, should the task fall to him. It’s the Biden pick that puts America first.

Congratulations, Steva!

We will be making more of an effort from now on to publish Letters to the Editor (even those not published in the paper) here on the CSCC blog to encourage discussion. Have you written a letter recently? Or are about to? Send a copy to us, too!