Paul Soglin: Waxing America

Right Wing Congress Is Right; Sort Of

The House has passed and now the Senate is contemplating adoption of the NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT.  The legislation is designed to provide national uniformity in regulating the labeling and safety standards for food.  It is supported by most Republicans and of course, the Grocers Association of America:

Consumers across the country deserve consistent information. Virtually every other piece of information regarding packaged food is uniform at the national level, including allergen labeling, nutrition information and pesticide tolerances.

The legislation is opposed by most progressive and consumer organizations. Consumers Union says:

Under the guise of national "uniformity," this bill would eliminate critical state laws that protect consumer health while leaving in place an inadequate federal system based on the lowest common denominator of protection.

As drafted, the bill would wipe out state food safety laws and regulations that are not "identical" to federal law - even in areas where the federal government has not acted. The bill could directly harm consumers by increasing their exposure to food-borne illnesses, undermining the authority of state food safety officers, and overturning state food labeling laws.

Organic Consumers Association says:

The House of Representatives has passed a controversial "national food uniformity" labeling law that would take away local government and states' power to require food safety food labels such as those required in California and other states on foods or beverages that are likely to cause cancer, birth defects, allergic reactions, or mercury poisoning. This bill would also prevent citizens in local municipalities and states from passing laws requiring that genetically engineered foods and ingredients such as Monsanto's recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) be labeled

But WaxingAmerica is troubled by the nature of the opposition. Patt Morrison in the Los Angeles Times defines the nature of the problem:

Uniformity for food. It sounds so wonderfully orderly, doesn't it? But the true moving force behind uniformity is un-informity. Nationalizing food standards means gutting state codes that tell you more about what you eat than the feds require...

California can't secede and become Bear Flag Republic 2.0 — I've already checked into it. But California could lead the charge in a new states' rights campaign among the many other states that would find their own laws kneecapped by the shamelessly named Food Uniformity Act.

Are you with me? Everybody sing:

Oh, I wish I was in the land of non-genetically modified cotton,

Cuz fed'ral laws, they are so rotten …

And there is the rub. Progressives have always championed federal action ahead of state's rights. After all it was the feds that brought us consumer safety in the muckraking days of Californian Upton Sinclair, the trust busting legislation from the Progressive Era, the Civil Rights and the clean air and water legislation of the 1960s.

But now that the Republicans have control of the Congress and the White House, Democrats are fearful of federal preemption for which they clearly argued so eloquently forty years ago.

If and when they get control, this means Democrats will advocate federal law that raises the minimum wage, new rounds of consumer and environmental legislation to end pollution and global warming, and a national health insurance plan that preempts state law.

The problem is not that federal law trumps state law under the Commerce Clause; the problem is a political one. There is a solution. Win some elections rather than adopt a reactionary nineteenth century slogan that inhibits a progressive national agenda.

Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ballot Backfiring on Right

Since they placed the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage on next November's ballot, the entire issue is backfiring on Wisconsin's extreme right wing.  Now we have a poll by WisPolitcs.com that shows the issue is a dead heat:

WisPolitics Poll: Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Splits Wisconsinites
7/9/2006

...The poll, conducted June 18-19, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Here is the question:

...If approved, (the proposal) would be placed in the state constitution. The proposed language reads, and I am quoting now, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

VOTE FOR: 48.5 percent
VOTE AGAINST: 47.8 percent
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED: 3.7 percent

The more important finding is this:

But the most intense reading appeared to come from self-identified liberals in opposition, meaning the fight against the amendment could help bring out Democratic-leaning voters this November.

Created as a wedge issue designed to embarrass Democratic Party candidates, and to bring out social conservatives at the polls on election day, Wisconsin's November vote may also do quite a bit of the opposite, helping Jim Doyle in the process.

Also of notice is the treatment of the subject in Sunday's Wisconsin State Journal. The Your Views section covered the subject, but was eclipsed by Scott Milfred's commentary:

Young will grow older and legalize gay marriage

...As a barely young person, I guarantee you that support for gay marriage among the younger generations of Americans is only going to increase.

And eventually this narrow majority of support for gay marriage will become an overwhelming majority among the young. And people like me will increase support among the old folks, too.

It's a given. It's a done deal.

It's why, before too long, gays and lesbians will marry throughout the United States.

There's nothing the opponents of gay marriage can do to stop this from happening. All they can hope for -- and they certainly are hoping and fighting hard for this -- is that it will be later than sooner.

While I do not share Milfred's trust that it is a done deal, as social conservatives are certain to 'swift-boat' the issue as long as they are breathing, there is no question that those under forty have a far more mature understanding of the issue than their seniors.

As I said in a post the last week of March (one of four on the subject):

Charlie Sykes, Come on Over

This is an invitation to Charlie Sykes to complete the thought he started in his Isthmus piece, GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: I'M UNDECIDED and oppose this unnecessary and mean spirited constitutional amendment.  Sykes wrote:

There’s a reason this November’s vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage may be defeated:

Conservatives who, like me, are undecided...

...Gays who wish to marry don’t want to tear down marriage. They want in on it.

Charlie, you answered your own questions. Let me make a suggestion -go talk to young people..the generation under 30,no 35.  While the Madison West High student body is probably more liberal than most, I recall a recent survey that showed two things that ought to make us older partisans take note:  these kids overwhelmingly oppose affirmative action and support gay rights, including marriage. There is a little slap along side the head for both the left and the right.

Frankly this younger generation is bit befuddled by all of this anger over gay rights. They were raised in an environment of openness and honesty about gays and they are going to carry that into their adulthood.

Charlie, come on over.

This is an invitation to Charlie Sykes to complete the thought he started in his Isthmus piece, GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: I'M UNDECIDED and oppose this unnecessary and mean spirited constitutional amendment.  Sykes wrote:

There’s a reason this November’s vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage may be defeated:

Conservatives who, like me, are undecided...

...Gays who wish to marry don’t want to tear down marriage. They want in on it.

Charlie, you answered your own questions. Let me make a suggestion -go talk to young people..the generation under 30,no 35.  While the Madison West High student body is probably more liberal than most, I recall a recent survey that showed two things that ought to make us older partisans take note:  these kids overwhelmingly oppose affirmative action and support gay rights, including marriage. There is a little slap along side the head for both the left and the right.

Frankly this younger generation is bit befuddled by all of this anger over gay rights. They were raised in an environment of openness and honesty about gays and they are going to carry that into their adulthood.

Madison Water: Asleep At the Wheel

My friends at The Capital Times editorialized on the Madison water situation:

Editorial: The water pressure

It may not be fair to blame Mayor Dave Cieslewicz for the rising concerns regarding the quality of Madison's water.

In many senses, the mayor is a victim of circumstance. He happens to be in charge at a point when problems with the city's water system have been revealed. Those problems appear to have a lot to do with old wells and old pipes, rather than with mayoral missteps or misdeeds...

...The mayor has acted aggressively, and we think appropriately, to address problems with the water supply and an aging water system.

I disagree.  The problem was known to city officials for two years.  It has been at least a year since Nakoma area residents have expressed real concerns about the matter.  The test is the classic standard: "When did you know it; what did you do about it?"  The answers (two years ago; nothing) are not very satisfying. 

As I said in a previous post:

My focus is on how this was handled. It is symptomatic of a larger problem. Knowing there was a deadline for refinancing Overture, the mayor waited until the last few weeks before coming up with a plan. Those delays actually killed his own plan. He did not leave adequate time to study it and compare it to other options. Then we have this manganese issue. And finally, after years of escalating violence, just this last month we get a task force appointed to address gang issues. I didn't say it, the mayor did:  "Out of sight, out of mind."

Massachusetts Lawmakers Humble Wisconsin Legislators of All Stripes

In a move that would stun and amaze Wisconsin legislators, the Massachusetts House and Senate have adopted a statewide health insurance plan.

Mass. lawmakers approve ambitious health care plan

BOSTON, April 04 (Reuters) - Massachusetts lawmakers overwhelmingly approved an ambitious health-care bill on Tuesday that would make it the first U.S. state to require nearly all residents to be insured or face penalties.

The Massachusetts policy holds both businesses and employees responsible for health care coverage. Businesses with more than 10 employees that do not provide coverage for all staff must pay a $295 fee annually per uninsured worker...

...The plan comes at a time when about 46 million Americans are uninsured and there is growing concern across the country over the diminishing number of people who can afford the soaring cost of insurance premiums...

But the 145-page Massachusetts legislation -- passed by the Democrat-controlled House in a 155-2 vote and unanimously approved by the state Senate -- underscores how states are exploring their own ways of fixing the problem.

Meanwhile back in Wisconsin we spend our time on TABOR, the Bride of TABOR, Conceal and Carry (where Democrats are just as culpable as Republicans), gay bashing, and other non-productive forms of self indulgence.

A lesson for Republicans: note that there were only two legislators in the entire state who opposed the bill.

A lesson for Democrats: note that this was done on a statewide basis, not at the local level.

A lesson for all voters: we can throw out these jerks who take up space in Bob La Follette's name and  treat us as pawns to manipulate their own prime objective: stay in office, raise money, stay in office, and make money.

Tax Reform Starts with A New Legislature

Questions from Lisa Subeck at Madison: Go West and Turn Left.

1. Paul states that the problem with taxation is not the amount collected but that it is collected from the wrong people and that there is compelling evidence that government should actually spend more, especially for education. While I agree with Paul, I see a problem with where this leaves local governments and school districts. What are these local entities, lacking control over the tax structure set forth by the state and federal government, to do? Cut spending and reduce or eliminate vital services? Or increase property taxes to maintain services, knowing that this may be a hardship for some residents?

The problem emanates from a perversion on a hundred year old Progressive Era ideal. The idea was to collect income taxes, and subsequently sales taxes on a statewide basis, and then redistribute the money to the various municipalities, counties, and school districts that on a needs basis. If the redistribution formula was not a critical element, then the state could have passed on the taxation authority to the local units of government.

To this day, with the relatively recent exception to allow  counties to collect a 1/2 cent sales tax, the state continues to reserve for itself all taxation powers that utilize the sales tax and the local income tax.

Unfortunately there are a sufficient number of legislators who either enjoy the power of making local units come to them and beg for revenues or who are untroubled by the formulas which are badly flawed.  The formulas include elements that account for population and poverty, but they make a bad assumption: that the value of real estate in a community is correlated to the number of families and/or school children living in poverty.

The local entities Lisa refers to are challenged.  First, lacking adequate state shared revenues, they must utilize the property tax to the maximum to pay for local services.  Secondly, and this is critical, they must maintain a continued dialog with the state regarding tax reform.  It should be noted that every commission and study in this area since the Kellett Commission some forty years ago has failed to provide proper reforms.

My own view is that it is necessary to go after every legislator who refuses to support reforms, regardless of party, and to run candidates in every district, no matter how dismal the prospects of winning.

The state controls the revenues, the state has the power to impose spending caps not tied to reality.  For years Democrats and lefties have focused on individual pieces of legislation, which has led to death by a thousand nicks.  The left must focus on the fundamental issue, which is reform of taxation, revenues, and distributions.

It is real simple:  without sufficient revenues and fair taxation, government does not work.

Given the choice posed by Lisa, given that there are a number of property tax relief programs in Wisconsin, particularly for seniors, I favor, Or increase property taxes to maintain services, knowing that this may be a hardship for some residents?  Keep in mind taxes can be raised both statewide and nationally without hurting either seniors or lower income families, or middle income families for that matter.

2. Paul suggests sales tax as a fairer and more progressive alternative to property taxes for school funding. Again, I agree. Those who spend more are typically those who have more to spend. How do we put the necessary pressure on higher levels of government to promote this or other more fair systems of taxation? Is this a realistic expectation in Wisconsin's current political climate? And how should local school districts function while waiting for such change?

We have to rethink our position on a number of taxation issues, including the sales tax. A study now over ten years old, conducted by the city of Madison, showed that replacing a portion of the property tax with a sales tax was equitable for most economic groups and in fact was more progressive than the property tax.  The group that would be hurt the most, to the tune of $35 a year, was university dorm residents who would pay the sales tax, but would not see the property taxes on their housing decline, since there are none. (Something can be done for that, like lowering dorm fees $35 a year, a good idea in its own right.)

A sales tax with continued exemptions for housing, medical expenses, and food, is, as Lisa notes, a tax that effects those who 'spend more,' and it acts like an excise tax.

Now we are back to the original question.  We have to change the legislature. We need more progressive representation to advance real taxation reforms, not phony tax-cutting handcuffs on local governments like TABOR and all its sloganeering progeny.

The prospects are grim but we have no choice.  If a movement with the intensity of Madison's anti-smoking forces launched a campaign on a statewide basis, the reforms would take place. It is time to stop focusing on individual environmental, choice, and other progressive issues and focus on revenue reforms.  A legislature capable of enacting the appropriate revenue reforms would probably do those other things as well.

Reynolds Roof in Ruins: What, Me Worry?

The Wisconsin legislature is considering legislation to tighten up practices in the construction industry: Contractors might have to go to school -Bill In Madison Aims to Boost Regulation of Construction Trades.

...Residential contractors couldn't pull a building permit unless certified by the state under the legislation recommended by state Senate committee last week and heading to the Senate floor, David Zien (R-Eau Claire), senate president pro tempore, said Monday. Zien said the bill could go before the Assembly soon as well.

"About 30,000 homes are built each year in Wisconsin, representing about $6 billion in private investment," Zien said. "Requiring continuing education and proficiency is long overdue. People are getting into the building business, not following code, making their own rules. We hear the horror stories."

Trade groups support the move, which strengthens and clarifies current requirements, Zien said.

Wisconsin Builders Association, in fact, requested better governance, said Jerry Deschane, the Madison-based group's deputy executive vice president.

When the government regulates an industry, one of two forces are working, and maybe both.  Historically, Progressive regulation that grew out of muckraking in the food, garment and mining industries was an alliance between reformers and progressive politicians.

Sometimes the reforms come from the industry itself either from a desire to force out marginal operators or to improve industry practices before the reformers heavy hand enters the picture.  In any case, the debate is usually over the degree of regulation between industry supporters and critics.

That is until Tom Reynolds, (R-West Allis) is in the house:

No organized opposition has materialized, Zien said. But there is at least one known opponent - Sen. Tom Reynolds, a West Allis Republican.

"Unless I hear from people in my district that they are actively desiring this, my vote is for less government and less regulation," Reynolds said.

Seems that Reynolds just can't pull the trigger when it comes to health and safety.

What Me worry?

Wisconsin Democrats, Guns, and The Governor

Wisconsin Democrats in the State Senate have joined with Republicans to approve 'conceal and carry', this time, by a 'veto proof majority.' 

I get phone calls from the Wisconsin Democratic Assembly or Senate Campaign Committees:

(omitting the pleasantries)

Caller: Mr Soglin I am calling from the Wisconsin Assembly Democratic Committee can we put you down for $200?

Me:  I only give to Democrats.

Caller: Great, solicitation envelope will be sent to you tomorrow unless you want that on your charge card now.

Me: I said I only give to Democrats....

Caller: We are Democrats...

Me:  I said Democrats, real Democrats. You get nothing. I only donate to Democrats. I pick the candidate, I send the check to the Democrat. When the day comes that you can tell me that just half the people you distribute money to are Democrats, you will get a check.

Caller:  I am sorry you feel that way...

Me: It's not your fault that despite retaining at least a one-third membership in both the Assembly and the Senate, Democrats cannot muster enough support to sustain Governor Doyle's veto on 'conceal and carry,' which is opposed by 2/3's of all Wisconsin residents, and 75% of all Democrats.

                                                      *********************************

There is no need for 'conceal and carry' in Wisconsin.  You don't need me to reiterate that 'conceal and carry' is unnecessary, unsafe, and unwise.  But that is an argument to be made with Neocons and the NRA.

My argument is with so-called Democrats who in a instant would oppose this bill if they were confident they could be a majority party based on real issues.  Scared and intimidated, they say privately, "You know I have to do this..."

And I recall what Gaylord Nelson said about his opposition to the War in  Vietnam: 

The people of Wisconsin can get a new Senator, I cannot get a new conscience.

Bill Chistofferson's The Man From Clear Lake

Democrats did not become a minority party by failing to enact 'conceal and carry' ten years ago,  They became a minority party by failing to have a credible agenda for middle America. That agenda need not be conservative. It needs to be credible; credible and progressive.

Permits and Free Speech: From Mifflin Street to Manhattan

From the civil rights movement to Madison's Mifflin Street Block Party* America's streets are literally coated with the blood of those who would not pay for a permit.  In the south it was Birmingham:

Petitioner, a Negro minister who helped lead 52 Negroes in an orderly civil rights march in Birmingham, Ala., in 1963, was arrested and convicted for violating 1159 of the city's General Code, an ordinance which proscribes participating in any parade or procession on city streets or public ways without first obtaining a permit from the City Commission...

A few years later it was opponents of the Vietnam War:

On Wednesday, 28 August, as the convention was nominating Hubert Humphrey as the Democratic candidate for president, about 3000 of the demonstrators prepared to parade to the convention hall. They had been denied the parade permit. Police told the demonstrators to disperse. In five minutes, several busloads of police reinforcements arrived.

Then, the events that came to be known as the 'Chicago Police Riot' occurred, while the whole world was watching. Members of the Chicago Police Department waded into the crowd....

The fight for freedom of expression continues into the twenty-first century:

A federal judge Friday declared Pittsburgh's law for granting parade permits unconstitutional and granted a preliminary injunction barring its implementation. (2002)

This week in New York City we have director of the movie Final Solutions suing the Big Apple after being arrested for standing on the sidewalk:

According to the lawsuit, Sharma was arrested while visiting New York to make a film on the lives of ordinary people, including taxi drivers, in the post-9/11 world. After filming various midtown scenes with a handheld camera, he was standing on a sidewalk, when police detained him, held him for hours, and interrogated him. He was told he needed to have a permit for future filming, Sharma said. On his return to New York in November, he applied for a permit so that he would not be harassed again. The Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting, he said, denied his request and refused him a written explanation. The Mayor’s Office has no written permit standards and requires applicants to have a $1 million insurance, said the lawsuit. ‘‘As a result, I am not able to film in New York,’’ he said.

It is one thing to charge a fee or require a permit for holding a party that raises money from the sales of food, beverage, and stupid t-shirts, or for a major motion picture filming that blocks off traffic and requires additional city staff, including police, to provide for pubic safety. 

It is clear violation of the Constitution to require a permit, insurance or a fee for marching, protesting or for that matter, nothing more than loitering and hanging out on the public sidewalk.  The next time you step back with your phone camera, your Brownie, or your Nikon to get a good shot of Fido and Daisy, wonder who might be writing up your ticket.

*Sorry, Daily Cardinal, but I couldn't find a decent history of the Block Party.  For the uninitiated, the first Saturday, in May, 1969, Mifflin Street residents decide to "do it in the road," sans permit, insurance bond, or license.  With speakers set up on the porch of 512 W. Mifflin a few residents began dancing, in the road.

Three hours later, for the first time during the antiwar movement a white community said no to police occupation. This was no Birmingham, circa 1963; people were not going to sit down and passively await arrest. An area almost two square miles was under siege. All for a damn permit for a legal block party and protest.

AFL-CIO Takes on Wal-Mart

The AFL-CIO is going head to head with not just Wal-Mart, but with the core of what is wrong with corporate America: socialism for the rich.

As part of the AFL-CIO “Fair Share Health Care” campaign, activists will work with state legislators to win legislation to require companies to pay their fair share for health care. Fair Share Health Care legislation will reduce the bill taxpayers pay to cover profitable employer’s employee expenses, ease the financial strain states face in growing Medicaid costs and help level the playing field between companies that provide good jobs and benefits and those that don’t.

The Seattle Post reports:

Labor unions announced Thursday they would pursue legislation in 31 states this year to require large employers, including Wal-Mart, to spend more on health care benefits or contribute to Medicaid...

and, as we would expect:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the unions' effort, if successful, would make it harder for companies to survive. Bruce Josten, the group's executive vice president, said U.S. companies already have to pay for health care costs, unlike competitors in Europe and Asia.

What did they expect?   They, the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, asked, they pleaded, they connived, and they forced  unfair international trade on the American people.  If there was ever proof that they wanted to lower the standard of living and the wages for the average American worker down to the sweatshop wage slave in China, this is it.

Watch what happens in Congress. Obviously, the AFL-CIO knew they were wasting their time with this legislation in the House of Representatives.  The strategy to take a multi-state approach will work.  Within a year or two, moderate Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats will see the writing on the wall and will be fashioning their own legislation to keep up with the states.

Southern states and so called right-to-work states will spiral to the bottom as they suffer the dual slides of an unhealthy workforce and the public tab for paying for it.

Florida School Vouchers: Struck Down

In what has to be a serious blow to those who advocate school vouchers in violation of the principle of separation of Church and State, the Florida Supreme Court knocked down the state's school voucher program:

Chief Justice Barbara Pariente, writing for the majority of the court, said the Opportunity Scholarship Program "diverts public dollars into separate private systems parallel to and in competition with the free public schools," which are the sole means set out in the state constitution for educating Florida children...

...The 1st District Court of Appeal had ruled that the system violated the separation of church and state in the Florida Constitution, but the state Supreme Court did not address that issue. (emphasis added)

Shortly we will hear the whining from the Neocons about 'activist judges.' First let us remember this is Florida, not some raging Blue State like Massachusetts.  More importantly, this is not an example of judicial activism, this is an example of judicial conservatism. The court found that the legislature violated the State Constitution in their extremism. The Court conserved centuries old law and principle.