28 November 2012
I just got an email from the White House asking me to tell the President and Congress why it is important to keep taxes from going up on the middle class. They would like me to explain what $2000 is worth to our family. Here is how I responded:
$2000 is a month living in our home. It is the new computer for our high school student. It is a couple months of food on our table.
We are not even halfway to the $250,000 cutoff the President is considering for raising taxes, but we believe in our government and its ability to bring us together to do things we cannot do alone. As members of the middle class, we are willing to give up this $2000 right now if it goes toward health care for all, services for the poor, maintenance of vital infrastructure, and education for all our children. We are ready to pay the price of living in a vigorous society that builds a bright future.
So, please, take our $2000 and build a stronger America for all of us. We would rather start paying now, than saddle our children and grandchildren with a decayed America that has forgotten the price of freedom.
I welcome tax increases. I see our tax-sheltered society as a shameful abdication of responsibility to future generations. I hope we come to our senses and start building a stronger society together again, because I fear the one we are building as individuals is getting more ragged and divided every day.
Look at the image the White House presents as representing this cause. A family becomes shoppers. A house alone and isolated. Pavement and suburban grass. This is the ideal we are striving for? I think this vision is part of the problem, it separates us from each other, it encourages us to carry as much as we can into our mortgaged houses. Will we wake up?
A caring society is worth much more to me than $2000. Let’s build one! Tell the White House what you want to do with your $2000.
15 November 2012
Two years ago I created the 51 is a majority campaign. It didn’t catch on and neither did filibuster reform in the US Senate. This time around I hope the Democrats in control of the Senate will realize that they have to fix the filibuster.
For the past few years the requirement to get any work done in the Senate has been 60 votes. This is so common that 60 votes is the new normal. But the Senate was designed to work as a body that, for the most part, respects majority rule. The filibuster is a tool for the minority to raise serious concerns, but was never intended to be invoked on nearly every piece of legislation that comes through the body.
We must reform the filibuster, and I want my Senators out front on this one. There is a proposal being put forward by Senators Merkley, Udall, Gillibrand, Harkin, and Warren to make sure the filibuster is a “talking filibuster,” one that requires Senators to actually stand up and say what they believe if they want to block the action of the majority. Why are Senators I respect, like Amy Klobuchar, Al Franken, Michael Bennet, and Sherrod Brown not out front on this. We must have filibuster reform to get anything done in the next two years.
Please, write your Senators and sign the petition to reform the filibuster. Here’s what I said to my Senators (write Amy and Al yourself if you are in Minnesota):
Dear Al and Amy,
I hope and expect you will support filibuster reform. Make the filibuster a “talking filibuster” that requires a Senator blocking a vote by arguing that more debate is needed to do so by taking the floor and making a case to the American people.
Abuse of they filibuster has crippled the US Senate for long enough. A talking filibuster will protect the minority with enough power to block truly controversial legislation, but it will ensure that the filibuster is reserved for only important cases.
Please, be swift and clear in your support of filibuster reform. Fix the Senate!
UPDATE (19 Nov 2012): Amy Klobuchar has signed onto the effort! Thanks, Amy. Now are are just waiting for Al.
9 November 2012
Let me start by saying I support marriage for same sex couples. I think marriage, the public commitment to build a life together and support a family, strengthens our society whether it is between one man and one woman, one man and one man, or one woman and one woman. I am eager for the day Minnesota welcomes this commitment from all. I am particularly excited that this week Minnesotans rejected a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Now I’ll get to the harder pill to swallow…
I think Minnesota should move slowly to changing its law to facilitate marriage between same sex couples. If the DFL (Minnesota’s “democrats”) moves to legislate that change ASAP, now that it controls both the legislature and the governorship, it will come back to haunt us all too soon. The conversations opened by the beautiful campaign of Minnesota United need to continue, we need to continue to open hearts and minds to the coming change. We need some time to allay the fears of many friends and neighbors.
I fear some in the party are pushing to make marriage a priority in the next legislative session. I think we first must build a new budget, fund education properly, add some new revenue to the picture, then we will be ready to address marriage. This year should be a year of fundamentals: a year to undo damage done to us by leaders who refused to pay the cost of a vibrant modern society, to avert our slide into mediocrity.
I also note that the marriage amendment drove our voter turnout this year. More citizens voted on the marriage amendment than voted for president! I believe the marriage amendment made our new DFL lead statehouse possible. We will need that turnout again in 2014 if we are to keep the governorship and legislature facing the future. After a year of deep conversations on the issue and some practical accomplishments under our belt, 2014 will be the right time to take on marriage equality. I believe this change will spark joy and reveal the demons of the right as myths. It will be a very positive story for Minnesota. I want that positive energy as close to the next election as possible.
In order to build our constituency for change through respectful conversations, in order to get some important gritty work done in the legislature this year, and in order to place a positive story closer to the next election cycle, I hope Minnesota’s progressive community takes a deep breath, enjoys our recent victory, and targets 2014 as the year of marriage equity in Minnesota.
18 January 2012
I was distressed to learn that all four of my favorite senators are co-sponsors of the Protect IP Act, or PIPA. This is a terrible bill that does more to threaten the technical and philosophical foundations of the internet than it does to actually protect intellectual property. Please, encourage your own representatives to oppose or withdraw support for this legislation.
Dear Dear Al, Amy, Michael, and Sherrod,
I am writing you, my four favorite senators because I hope I can get your attention. You are all four co-sponsors of the Protect IP Act and I believe you are making a grave mistake. I hope you take the time to read this letter personally, and reconsider your co-sponsorship.
You all know that I am a life-long Democrat. Amy and Al know that I have been an active DFL organizer in Minnesota and campaigned hard for their election here in SD64. Though I’ve never lived in Colorado, I’ve known Michael since we could count our age on our hands and campaigned for Sherrod long before he became a senator. I am more proud than I can say of all of you, and your presence in the US Senate gives me hope for our country.
However, Protect IP is fatally flawed. I have worked with technology for over 30 years, I’ve built tools on the web since 1993. While we all tend to imagine that the code supporting the internet is deep and robust, let me tell you, it looks a lot like the code that holds together our country, vast and contradictory. Protect IP assumes that some simple tweaks can solve the problem of piracy: that is a lie. Piracy will stay with us, what Protect IP will actually break is the foundation of the internet.
Al, you wrote to me that “We must protect American jobs from piracy, which has become rampant on the Internet. We don’t tolerate shoplifters in stores and we should not tolerate them online.” I agree that piracy and shoplifting are bad. But I ask you all to consider consequences. When someone shoplifts from a store, do we shut down the store? Do we require that all stores prevent all theft? What would our society look like if we did? Visualize this for a moment. Metal detectors or full body scanners at every entrance? Customers always treated as potential thieves? Stores that have “sponsored” shoplifting cut off from their bank accounts? It is hard for those who are not technologists to imagine what Protect IP looks like to those who would have to implement it, but it is a lot like a world where shoplifting is treated with such disproportional harshness.
Yes, we have to protect jobs. But consider how many jobs depend on the internet as a whole. Consider how many jobs are created by the open network that is easily accessible to all inventors and investors. Consider the chilling effect of Protect IP on legitimate commerce and expression. Consider the ease with which it will be abused.
I understand the entertainment industry is important, and their concerns about piracy are well founded; but Protect IP is a terrible abuse of government power and a vast overreaction to the problem. You are being hoodwinked by an industry that will do well enough without this “protection.” You are sponsoring an internet that will at best encourage the development of tools to facilitate repression around the world and at worst be the germ of an American repression we will all live to regret.
I am so proud to have you all in the Senate. But I can’t tell you how sad I am that all four of you are co-sponsors of this dreadful bill. This one is a show-stopper for me, if you can’t see past the lobbying of the entertainment industry to the truth of what Protect IP does, then I am afraid I will have to question the role of my party in the protection of freedoms that are so much more vital than intellectual property.
Please, reconsider your co-sponsorhip of this bill. Please do everything you can to make sure it does not actually see the light of day. See that it gets tied up in committee, or suffers some other face-saving demise. Please, make sure Protect IP is never actually the law of this land.
With deepest respect and thanks for all you do,
2 December 2011
As the financial crisis of 2008 hit us squarely in the gut, I was telling Mary that it would be interesting to see how the Fed would get interest rates below zero. They swung rates to zero so quickly that it was clear if interest rates had to go below zero they would have to invent some new excuse. It would be odd to hear on the new that interest rates had gone “negative,” but I was looking forward to something like that.
Let me say a word about negative numbers: they don’t exist. Or, more correctly, they are a fiction we invent to help us do math, but in the real world, they don’t exist. If you see a negative number in the real world, it simply means zero was put in the wrong place. Is the temperature –20 degrees? That just because we put zero in the wrong place on the F scale.
Today I finally realized how the Fed did it. Watch this piece by John Stewart…
How did the Fed create negative interest rates? Through the secret beyond-TARP program they loaned banks 7 trillion dollars at –3% interest! To create a negative interest rate you have to pay someone to take your money, right? That’s just what they did! By giving banks $7,000,000,000,000 at 0.01% interest, and then borrowing that same money back from banks at 3% interest, the effectively gave money away to the banks: that 3% is the negative interest rate. It is the payment for taking our money.
I’d have to do more digging and math than I have time for right now, but I think we now see how the Fed was able to get the lending rate below zero. I am not so upset about that, but I am incredibly upset that they did this in secrecy. Why not let the public know this was going on? Why not let congress know how big a hole we were in? No wonder this depression is taking so long to crawl out of, it was (is?) nearly a black hole!
6 August 2011
We woke up this morning to this question from Nate:
what does the down grade from AAA to AA+ mean? How will it affect us? just wondering
How can I resist a question like this from my 13-year-old? I’m glad he’s thinking about the issue. Here’s how I responded. What would you say?
It’s kind of like a movie review. The rating is a review by Standard & Poors of America’s likelihood that we’ll repay the credit other people give us. Before we were three stars (the best), now we are 2.5 stars (pretty good). I think the impact will be not very large because I think most investors have their own sense of the USA and our credit worthiness. We are in the news all the time, and the news has been scary weird of late. Anybody with have a brain-cell should be worried about our future ability to pay back debt, so they’ve already gotten a bit jittery about buying that debt from us. In other words, I don’t think the movie review matters as much when everyone has seen the movie for themselves.
That said, the fact that smart investors will get jittery about our debt is a problem. It means we won’t be able to borrow as much, and since our lifestyle in the USA has been built on that borrowing, it means that tough times lie ahead. That, however, is not news. Where else can we get the money we need if we can’t borrow it? I think we have to face the fact that our taxes are too low and we each need to help pay for the services our government provides, or cut those services. Services we can cut should begin with the military. Taxes we should raise begin with those on the wealthy.
So, that’s the picture from my little brain,
14 July 2011
The state of Minnesota was just mugged. There were no negotiations, there was no compromise. Our legislative Republican majority did not make a single new proposal during two weeks of government shutdown. Our Democratic Governor Mark Dayton, on the other hand, came out with idea after idea seeking compromise and only got obstinate “no way” responses from the other side. To me this began to feel like a real crime, like a mugging. The criminals had no intent to compromise and no interest in their victim. Our only choices were to hand over what they wanted or get shot. As we all know, the sane thing to do when you are being mugged is to hand over the goods and hope the criminals don’t kill you. Today Governor Dayton handed over the goods, we’ll see how severe the damage is over the coming year.
While I am disappointed that the Governor had to eventually accede to the awful proposal the Republicans made before the shutdown began, I also don’t think there was much choice left. He gave in to a plan that even former Republican Governor Arnie Carlson says “represents some of the very worst” financial planning he’s ever seen. It is a plan that extends the financial gimmicks Minnesota has been playing to absurd levels, stealing even more money from already strapped schools by delaying state payments to school districts and giving away future tobacco payments in order to raise the revenue required to scrape together a budget. In order to keep a few more dollars in millionaire pockets, the tea party “conservatives” have left Minnesota in even worse fiscal health than ever. This is a disastrous budget that will keep Minnesota on its downward trend for years to come.
Still, the Governor did get a few concessions. Some terrible social policy language was stripped from the Republican proposal, a 15% state workforce cut was avoided, and a $500M bonding bill will accompany the budget outside the usual odd/even year cycle for this sort of thing in Minnesota. Dayton is not up for reelection until 2014, he’ll get at least one more chance to push for a budget that turns Minnesota around.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are busy claiming victory for a plan that will expose them for the hypocrites and liars they are. They claim to value fiscal responsibility and demand a budget of smoke and mirrors. They claim to value every voice, yet refuse to negotiate with the Governor in good faith while their state is in crisis around them. Today they got exactly what they wanted, and our job as Democrats will be to remind them that this was a Republican plan from beginning to end, forced on the state at virtual gunpoint.
Every single Minnesota House and Senate seat is up for election again in 2012, thanks to redistricting brought on by the recent census. This plan credited to the Republican right should give us the foundation we need to take back the Minnesota legislature in 2012 and give Dayton some partners he can work with.
2 May 2011
I hope the story of the killing of Osama bin Laden proves to be simple and straightforward, but I am worried about a couple loose ends. There seems to be a contradiction between what the President and his aides were saying about the circumstances of bin Laden’s death, and we in an unseemly hurry to rid ourselves of his body.
In his announcement the President said: “After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.” The key word to my ear is “after.” This indicates that bin Laden was not killed in the chaos of the firefight, but at some more deliberate moment following. A statement like this would have been very carefully crafted, and yet it is at odds with a New York Times story this morning.
When American operatives converged on the house on Sunday, Bin Laden “resisted the assault force” and was killed in the middle of an intense gun battle, a senior administration official said, but details were still sketchy early Monday morning.
I have not seen any reports nailing down the actual time of the assault on bin Laden’s compound, but sources seem to indicate it was on Sunday. The news of the success of the mission broke in the US media on Sunday night. Given time zone differences, this would indicate that the attack probably occurred within the first twelve hours or so of Sunday in Pakistan. It has been reported that American forces buried bin Laden at sea, again, from the New York Times:
Muslim tradition requires burial within 24 hours, but by doing it at sea, American authorities presumably were trying to avoid creating a shrine for his followers.
I hope that is accurate, but I can’t help having a very bad feeling about this combination of circumstances. We are told there are DNA samples to prove that we killed the right man, and I frankly don’t have much doubt about that. But are there photographs to document our treatment of him while he was in our hands, dead or alive? Unfortunately we can no longer assume the US took the high road, and if we did anything to be ashamed of during these critical hours of justice being served, you can be sure we will see it exposed slowly and painfully over the coming months and years.
2 May 2011
This morning I woke to the news that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US special forces in Pakistan. I believe that bin Laden reaped what he had sown. I will not mourn his death or worry overmuch about the means by which he was brought down. But on first blush I am, again, worried about the soul of America. The first hint I had of the event was the sound of cheering crowds I heard on the radio. I thought the wedding story was carrying on for far too long. Instead, when Mary showed me the front page of our local paper, with its image of the impromptu celebration in front of the White House, my heart skipped a beat. We are dancing on a grave. How proud can I be about that?
While I accept that the means used to bring bin Laden down were necessary, I also realize that they should be distasteful to a powerful democracy. This was a covert operation, a dark attack that ended in an assassination. We did what we had to do, we did what bin Laden made us do. We have become something we should be at least a bit wary of. To think that this closes the book on 9/11 is very shortsighted. Dancing, cheering, and celebrating this transformation hardly seems worthy of who we were before 9/11, but it may be a fair indication of who we have become since. That leaves me feeling all kinds of sadness for our country today.
21 March 2011
I believe school is an intensely social experience. Raising my kids in a respectful multicultural environment is what East Metro Integration District has been about. Kids can be friends with anyone, they talk with each other, they share and know one another. Their comfort with each other will make the world a better place as they take their place in it. EMID is also an environment where smaller scale makes it possible to develop practices that could transform education, if only we had the fortitude to listen to the lessons. Unfortunately, some of the most transformative practices, such as multiage looping classrooms, have already been sacrificed on the alter of state standards and testing. Even our year-round calendar, which teachers and parents know prevents the summer “backslide” and keeps kids engaged all year long in learning, is under stress because it actually puts our kids at a disadvantage when they participate in statewide standardized tests (administered during a calendar window rather than a student-contact-days window).
Focussing solely on the achievement gap misses much of what happens in a school. EMID serves not only the kids in our schools, but educates the educators in 10 districts. Integration funds carve out an important space for innovation, for testing new ideas while giving kids the confidence and space to know one another and each others cultures.
But while this bill renames integration to innovation, it will significantly harm EMIDs ability to do this vital work. I sit on our site council, I attend our board meeting, I know how dependent we are on the foresight and understanding of this committee. We need your support, I hope we get it.