Congress Speaks on Surveillance Program

Bipartisan Backlash Grows Against Domestic Surveillance

Response to an article by James Risen
New York Times, July 18, 2013

Is there really a Congressional backlash against domestic surveillance? And, if so, what are its chances of success in reforming this surreptitious practice? Here are some responses to major parts of this New York Times report. The Italicized text is from the NYT article.

“The Obama administration faced a growing Congressional backlash against the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance operations . . . as lawmakers from both parties called for the vast collection of private data on millions of Americans to be scaled back.”

Is this backlash real? Or is it a just public display of pseudo-concern to assuage the concerns of their constituents?

“Senator Al Franken, Democratic of Minnesota, said in an interview that he planned to introduce legislation mandating public disclosure of programs.”

How much public disclosure? We already have some disclosure, thanks to whistleblowers, who had to break the law to make some things public. Besides, it is not just disclosure we need, but rigid controls, strict oversight, ongoing auditing of procedures and practices; and objective, unbiased reports from the Inspector General on at least a quarterly basis, with monthly status and progress reports.

“. . . Republicans and Democrats told administration officials that they believed the government had exceeded the surveillance authorities granted by Congress, and warned that they were unlikely to be reauthorized in the future.” (emphasis added)

Believed? Isn't there enough evidence to prove they exceeded their authority? Warned? A warning isn't action or even a guarantee that there will be action taken. Unlikely? Another weasel word. That means only that they don't want to commit to any specific action. And, why wait for reauthorization in 2015? If what they are doing is bad enough to deny reauthorization, two years form now, why isn't that sufficient to revoke their privileges now?

“Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, said that no one in Congress believed that the counterterrorism laws enacted since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were meant to allow for the collection of phone records of virtually everyone in America.”

If that were true, then why didn't the specifically exclude it in the laws? Before the Computer Age, phone tapping was a primary way of gathering intelligence. Why wouldn't it occur to them that collecting everybody's phone records could become a valuable source of information as well? And, why didn't they write their legislation to specifically exclude collecting phone call information? There are so many loopholes and vague terms in that legislation that different people can interpret it in different ways.

“”The government is stockpiling sensitive personal data on a grand scale,' said Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida.”

And they are doing it in secret. Much of the information they collect is of no meaningful value at the present time. But they hold onto it for five years, just in case there may be some future use for it.

“Intelligence officers, contractors and personnel only need a rubber-stamp warrant from the FISA court to then learn virtually everything there is to know about an American citizen.”

Members of the FISA Court deny the rubber-stamp procedure, but what is an intelligent person to conclude, when only 11 requests were denied in the 34-year period ending in 2012, while 33,938 requests were approved?

“. . . several lawmakers said that the data collection was unsustainable, and that Congress would move to either revoke the legislative authorization for the bulk collection now or at least refuse to renew it when it expires in 2015.“

At least someone is thinking somewhat along the right lines. However, I still have to ask this question: If they truly believe that the government is doing something untenable and want to do something about it, why would they even consider waiting another two years and let the government continue “business as usual” during that time? Are they perhaps thinking that the issue won't seem as important then, so they won't have to do anything?

“Mr. Sensenbrenner interrupted James Cole, a deputy attorney general, to say, 'Unless you realize you’ve got a problem, that is not going to be renewed.'”

Realizing you've got a problem is not sufficient. You have to rectify the problem, or it will persist. We need corrective action, and strict oversight now and rigid processes to prevent abuses in the future.

“Much of the controversy involves the agency’s bulk collection of telephone data, which includes which numbers have called other numbers and time and length of calls, but not the content.”

It is my opinion that the primary emphasis is on the telephone metadata because that is the easiest to defend, as long as they record only what they say they do, and never gather or search content. However, I think the other collections are far more invasive and, therefore, more important. This includes items with specific content that is open to damaging misinterpretation and violations of Constitutional rights of unreasonable search and seizure, as well as immunity from self-incrimination.

Government requests include accessing and searching business or personal information – and not just telephone metadata. They also gather specific information from e-mails and text messages, and any attachments. These can include privileged attorney-client communication, sensitive communication between you and your doctor, and even communication between you and your accountant, tax preparer, financial advisor, bankers, etc. They can also collect information from sites visited, uploads and downloads made, on-line shopping and purchases –- you name it: if it is digital they can access it, including IDs and passwords for your credit cards and bank accounts. They can get such a broad array of information that they can get to know you and your pattern of living better than your closest friends. And they are able to do all this behind a shroud of secrecy, without your even suspecting that they are doing it to you. That is why we need strict control over such surveillance, access, and analysis It is too dangerous otherwise.

“In a letter to top administration officials, the group will ask that the government start opening up the surveillance process by allowing companies to publicly disclose the number of secret requests for data they receive from the N.S.A., the number of individuals the requests cover, and whether the requests involve the content of communications or other data, according to a draft of the letter and interviews with officials from the companies and organizations involved.”

What would this accomplish? Just reporting gross numbers is virtually meaningless and does nothing whatsoever to control the intrusive capture and usage of information.

“The group, which includes Apple, Google, Facebook and Twitter, and organizations including the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, urge in their letter that the government publish the same information, and that Congress should enact new legislation mandating greater openness in the surveillance process.” (emphasis added)

What constitutes “greater openness?” Publishing raw numbers would probably be greater openness, but it does nothing to protect hundreds of millions of people from having their private information collected in the first place, or having it exposed to illegitimate or undesirable usage.

“The letter does not demand an end to the domestic surveillance.”

It might not have to if it had a high level of justification, some rigid controls and close oversight.

“But it is still significant because it allies the corporations that are directly involved with the government’s surveillance collection with some of the most vocal critics of the administration’s efforts to keep the N.S.A. domestic spying program in the shadows.“

To me, this appears to be more of a public relations ploy on the part of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook and Twitter. They can make this a win-win case for them if they can create the impression that they are on their customers' side, not big government, even if big government prevails in the end..

“Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. 'I think the situation is extremely fluid, but I know a lot of people are interested in doing something.'”

Being “interested in doing something” and actually doing something worthwhile can often be two totally different things.

“Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, said in an interview that he planned to introduce legislation mandating public disclosure along the same lines as the recommendations in the coalition’s letter, while Representative Rick Larsen, a Washington Democrat, said in an interview that he was planning to introduce similar legislation in the House on Thursday.”

If “public disclosure” means just publishing a bunch of total numbers, as mentioned above, this is meaningless.

“On Tuesday, Mr. Sensenbrenner and Representative Zoe Lofgren, the California Democrat who is the ranking minority member on the judiciary panel, sent a letter to Mr. Holder and James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, also asking that the companies be allowed to disclose more information publicly about government demands for data.” (emphasis added)

“Be allowed?” How about “be required?” “More information?” How much is more?”

“Mr. Sensenbrenner released a letter Wednesday from the Justice Department, defending the scope and the legality of the government’s surveillance operations. The department said that it was necessary for the N.S.A. to collect such large volumes of domestic telephone data to perform the analysis necessary to identify suspected terrorist activity.”

Just saying it is necessary may reflect that letter writer's opinion, but it doesn't make it a fact. It also does not establish any legality for such collection, while the Constitution does establish rights for Americans to protect them against such invasions of privacy.

"Mr. Franken said that he believed the administration now agreed that there needed to be greater public debate and disclosure, even though the White House has continued to defend the secret programs. “I think that if there were greater transparency, Americans would have a better understanding of these programs,” he said." (emphasis added)

They might have a better understanding, but that doesn't mean they would approve of them.

"While prominent Internet companies are pushing for fuller disclosure, some of the nation’s largest telecommunications firms were not willing to sign on, according to several people involved in the coalition. Some of those businesses have previously received legal immunity from Congress for their involvement with the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, and have close and longstanding ties to the N.S.A."

These companies actually are paid by the government for providing this information. I would also be suspicious of any company who has “close and longstanding ties to the N.S.A.”

“But the Silicon Valley Internet firms that did sign did so because they are increasingly concerned that the N.S.A. controversy that erupted in the wake of Mr. Snowden’s disclosures could damage their credibility, particularly with customers overseas.” (emphasis added)

I am sorry, but I think their credibility has already been damaged. They would be better off if they backed less surveillance that is highly restrictive, with more stringent control, to ease the damage they have already incurred.

“'The commercial issue is whether people around the world are going to trust American Internet companies with their data,' said Andrew McLaughlin, the chief executive of Digg, a social news Web site, and a former White House Internet policy adviser in the Obama administration. 'If you are in the government in Germany, you might think twice about using an American company as your cloud partner. You might see American companies not winning those kinds of contracts.'”

And well they should think twice about using a company that is open to divulging any and all private information their citizens may have revealed, both directly through actual communications or indirectly through metadata.

We still have a long way to go, but I don't think Congress is even going in the right direction on this issue. I still think they might be decoying us in the wrong direction to divert our attention from the real issues in this controversy.  Then, I believe they will make a few cosmetic changes, declare victory for the people, and the government will move on with little or no change.

Why America is No Longer a Democratic Republic

Why America is No Longer a Democratic Republic

Based on an editorial by David Model, posted at OpEdNews

Cited here are quotations from David Model, a college professor, author, and public speaker.. They are excerpts from his recent editorial titled Media Circus Obsession: Obfuscating the Real Deficiencies of U.S. Democracy, In addition to the statements below, Mr. Model presents what he sees as thirteen defects in our government that keep America from being a democracy.Aside from his list of thirteen defects, these are the comments I see as being of greatest interest to Americans who dread the erosion of democracy in America.

“When commenting on the impact of elections on democratic ideals, it is necessary to look beneath the symptoms and identify the real problems.”

“Barnum and Bailey would turn green with envy at the circus masquerading as an electoral campaign currently in the United States.”

“Electioneering spectacles are both artificial and superficial but are really just a symptom of the underlying infringements of democratic ideals.”

”United States, Britain and Canada are the only three democracies that have not implemented some variation of proportional representation but have clung to the First-Past-The-Post system, a majoritarian system, in which only a plurality is needed in each voting district to determine the outcome.”

.”.. it (is) virtually impossible for smaller parties to gain any ground in the elected chambers of government. ”

.”..the Electoral College ... enhances the possibility of the winner having fewer popular votes than the loser.”

”American election campaigns are incapable of informing the public about the real stances of candidates on all the issues and revealing the true character and integrity of the candidates.”

”In many European countries paid advertising has been banned due to the overriding manipulative nature of a thirty second ad designed by public relations and advertising experts who are only interested in selling a product rather than informing the public.”

”Many democracies have also banned donations by any groups such as corporations and unions …”

“... the ideal method for funding elections would be based on a fair formula by which the government would either provide all the money or a balanced combination of government funding and individual donations with strict limits.”

“In the U.S., there is a two party system in which both parties are beholden to corporate donors …”

“In 2011, a total of $3.3 billion was spent on lobbying by 12,633 lobbyists translating into $6,168,000 spent on each member of the House and Senate on average and 23.6 lobbyists per each member of both Houses.”

In 2012, many pundits are predicting a total expenditure of $5 billion for all campaigns, the major source of which are wealthy benefactors or corporations.

“Lobbying virtually destroys political equality in the United States thereby undermining the principle of "by the people, for the people" and "dedicated to the principle that all men are created equal.”

“It is impossible to govern with only the public interest in mind when candidates are beholden to the people who funded their victory.”

“As for ordinary citizens, they may be able to meet with their member of Congress or Senate but the extent of their influence is often minimal.”

“The bailout during the financial crises ignored those who suffered the most, namely those who lost their jobs, the poor and those who lost their homes.”

“Leadership in Congress has been accorded too much power which can be used to serve ideological ends rather than the public interest.”

“In the United States, Supreme Court appointments are tainted by ideological considerations.   The Citizens United and the Florida Recount cases demonstrate the role of ideology in the Court's judgments.”

.”.. the criminalization of dissent and militarization of the police have resulted in a multiplicity of violations of civil and legal rights not to mention the First Amendment.”

“Corporate ownership and advertising and the symbiotic relation between big corporations and the government have reduced the media to stenographers of power.”

I hope the items quoted here will prompt you to read Mr. Model's entire editorial on the subject. And, of course, you will have to read his full statement to review the thirteen defects he sees in our government today.

Restoring the American Dream - Part I

           CITIZENS IN ACTION CAN DEFEAT GOVERNMENT INACTION

“I remain just one thing, and one thing only – and that is a clown. It places me on a far higher plane than any politician.” – Charlie Chaplin

The “Occupy” Movement. This movement has been active since September 17, 2011 . It was formed to bring attention to the fact that there are strong financial ties and mutual support between Wall Street and Congress that have contributed to some gross inequality, inequity, and iniquity. They drew attention to their cause by establishing encampments in cities across the country. Support comes not just from New York, but from all over the country and all over the globe. These are the cries of the weak, the needy, the down-trodden, the unfortunate, the disenfranchised, and of people of principle who unite with them in their struggle, not just for equality, but for survival.

“If you ask the government for permission to protest it, you deserve to be told no." – Jim Lesczynski, Manhattan Libertarian Party Chair

The Grievances. There are massive numbers of problems that beset our country and it people today, The Declaration of the Occupation of New York City by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators outlined 21 major grievances, and even then noted that the list was not all-inclusive. With a little more thought, that list could easily have numbered 100 or more.

"Our tradition is one of protest and revolt, and it is stultifying to celebrate the rebels of the past, while we silence the rebels of the present." – Henry Steele Commager

"During the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy … “My G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy. " – David Stockman, (former Director of Ronald Reagan's Office of Management and Budget)

The Over-Riding Point. The most important sentence in this Occupy Wall Street document sums up all the frustration and suffering that the people of our country have been forced to endure. It states,

“No true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic interests. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.” – Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

Four key words in this statement are “corporations ... run our governments.” This is especially true at the federal and state levels. The bottom line is: All of the other issues spring from this one root problem.

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Big Money Drives Politics. Politicians need huge amounts of money to campaign for public office. Corporations (and the financial elite) need strong support in our legislative branches to ensure that their wealth will be protected and will continue to grow. The money brokers thereby become power brokers, helping to finance the campaigns of candidates who will protect the power elite's interests in return.

"A relatively small number of deep-pocketed donors exerted an outsize influence on Tuesday's [election] results," – Michael Luo/Griff Palmer, New York Times (11/3/10). "The big corporations are going to try to get what they paid for. – Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO President, New York Times (11/3/10).

Money can't buy you love . . . but it can frequently buy you an elective office. Typically, in federal elections the candidate that raises the most money wins about 90 percent of the time. Most of this money comes from wealthy donors who expect something in return. And, whenever politicians accept huge monetary donations from deep-pocket sources, they are likely to feel indebted to do something for them in return, to ensure that those same sources will contribute again in future elections. Because money plays an undue role in how politicians are elected, it also plays an undue role in how they act. Even Glenn Beck agrees.

“Wall Street owns our government. Our government and these gigantic corporations have merged.” – Glenn Beck, New York Times (9/19/09)

How Many Millionaires Does It Take to Take Control of the Politics of a Whole State? In the October 10, 2011 issue of The New Yorker, Jane Mayer reported how one conservative millionaire did exactly that. In North Carolina, a swing state that is expected to be important in the 2012 elections, one millionaire bankrolled the campaigns of 22 conservative candidates for the state legislature. Eighteen of them were successful, giving majority status to the Republicans in both houses of the state legislature for the first time since 1870.

“For an individual to have so much power is frightening. The government of North Carolina is for sale.” – Chris Heagarty, Democratic candidate for the North Carolina legislature in the New York Times (10/10/11)

Money talks, and politicians listen . . . and they respond in kind to the benefit of corporations and the wealthy.. Was it just a coincidence that three of the five top corporate donors to the candidacy of Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008 (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and Citigroup Inc.) were all among the top ten financial firms to be bailed out, to the tune of $80 billion? That amount of money could have provided from $25,000 to $50,000 for 1.6 million to 3.2 million homeowners to escape foreclosure and potential family ruin. The big three donors were seen as being “too big to fail,” but 1.6 million to 3.2 million homeowners, individually or collectively, were apparently not “too big to fail.” Let's face it. Big money owns Big Business, and Big Business owns the government (at both the federal and state levels).

If you are a major contributor and go to Washington, you might have a chance to have lunch with a senator or representative; or if you are a really big contributor, you might even end up at the White House. The closest chance you or I have at having lunch at the White House is buying a hot dog from the vendor on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the building. – Marc A Triebwasser, How Corporations Influence the Government (1998 )

Congress Members' Loyalties Once elected, members of Congress frequently ignore the people whom they are elected to represent. Their first priority is to get reelected. Their second allegiance is to their political parties. Third comes their financial backers. Then come their supporters – the people who voted for them, followed as a distant fifth the people in their district who did not vote for them,. And, dead last, come the needs and welfare of our country and all of its people.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation. — James Freeman Clarke (1810–1888), Unitarian clergyman, writer

So, when Congress members say that they are going to consult with their constituencies, it isn't necessarily the people in their representational district to whom they are referring. They are just as likely to be conferring with their financial backers and lobbyists. When they do meet with their true constituency, it is just as likely that they will be trying to convince them on his or her stand of an issue rather than soliciting their input on the subject. A Congress member's constituency should be all of the people in the country. Next, it is supposed to be the voters or residents in a district represented by an elective officer. However, it doesn't always turn out that way. Here is a more realistic way of how many Congress members view their constituencies

Wall Street's Views of the OWS Protest. With regard to the Occupy Wall Street movement, one Wall Street money manager recently expressed disappointment that their New York Congress members had not “come out swinging for an industry that donates heavily to their campaigns.” He stated, “They need to understand who their constituency is.” He is saying, in effect, “To hell with the people; we are the ones they really represent.” Unfortunately, there is a great deal of truth to that premise.

"We've got government to the highest bidder. We've got auction block democracy. It's not true that each voter counts for one and only one; that's the way it's supposed to be in a democracy. Money determines who gets to run for office, how people run for office, it determines what people do while in office and the fact of the matter is the vast majority of people are cut out of the loop." – Senator Paul Wellstone (1992)

Continue to Part II

Restoring Democracy - One Vote at a Time

Our country is in the midst of its biggest political, social, and economic crisis since the Great Depression. This crisis was not caused by the people of the country, but by a runaway Congress. Congress has been bought by big money interests whom they dutifully serve at the expense of "the 99%." Our two major parties constitute a corrupt political duopoly that does the bidding of the wealthy plutocracy, and together they are transforming our country from a democratic republic into a fascist state.

Some of our politicians are preaching reform, such as reversing the Citizens United ruling, but this at best is just a token effort. These proposals are piecemeal approaches and very much like tossing a bone to a dog to keep him from biting. We cannot expect Congress to solve our root problems on their own, because Congress is the root problem. However, there a process we can implement that should motivate them to act on our behalf.

The one thing politicians fear most is the loss of their elected positions. Threatening them with this is probably the best way for us to get their attention and to let them know that we mean business. We will need to demonstrate our undivided strength as a threat to their retaining their positions. Then, if they don't act in our best interests, we can continue the process until they are all voted out.

So, how do we regain our rightful control over the government and restore power to the people? We stage a peaceful revolution -- a rebellion at the ballot box. In the Congressional primary elections, we need to vote against every Democrat or Republican incumbent, because they are all beholden to their parties and to the financial elite who contribute billions of dollars to their elections. But we must make sure not to replace them with other members of the same party machinery who will just continue their predecessors' practices. In short, we must cast our votes for independent or third-party candidates wherever possible and never for a candidate of the two major political parties.

There are more than 310 million citizens in this great country. A little more than 3 million belong to the top 1%, leaving 307 million in the bottom 99%. As long as we have the “one person, one vote” rule, we have the numbers; we have the strength; and we have the clout to vote them out.

In the last presidential election, there were 206 million citizens who were eligible to vote, but only 131 million actually did, leaving 75 million who chose not to vote. If we can get just 20% of that 75 million to vote as recommended herein, we can send a very powerful 15 million vote message to our politicians – enough to sway even the hardest of hearts..

We must communicate our plan to both voting and non-voting citizens alike. In this election, more than any other in the past 30 years, the American people are truly responsible for doing something that can improve their lives for many years to come. If we can energize and mobilize a sufficient number of citizens to vote against all Democrats and all Republicans in the primary elections, we would certainly get the attention of these lawmakers and send a very loud populist message that immediate drastic action is needed if they want to stay in office.

In the general elections, we need to recognize that candidates from the two major parties are still part of the problem. We should vote to reject all of the Democrats and Republicans running for Congress this year. However, there may be some rare situations when one candidate, regardless of how bad he or she may be, might still be strongly preferable to any available alternative. In such circumstances, the voter should feel to vote his or her own conscience, as the lesser of two evils.

This process should also be applied at the state level (especially the governor's position), because the states are often the breeding grounds for future national politicians, and governors frequently appoint replacement representatives whenever a mid-term vacancy occurs.

In both elections, we need to get our message across that we aren't willing to settle for the status quo; we aren't going to settle for less than our forefathers ordained; and we aren't going to accept anything less than the American Dream. Either they return our democracy to us or we will turn them out of office.

Congress Ignores the Will of the People

Who Do These People Think They Are? In short, they think they are our rulers and we are their servants, instead of it being the other way around. We elect them to serve their country and its people. Instead, they represent their own best interests and those of the wealthiest one percent. The fact is that most of them care much less about the country's welfare and much more about their own welfare and that of the richest among us.

Do We Have the Right People in Congress? Absolutely not! Members of Congress are the select few (535, to be exact) chosen from our entire population of 307 million who have been elected to represent the best interests of the entire country. Each House member represents an average of more than 700,000 citizens, and each Senator represents an average of more than 3 million citizens. That's a pretty heavy burden to bear, so it stands to reason that these representatives should be selected from among the cream of the crop of the political elite when it comes to intelligence, creativity, leadership, and the ability to accomplish meaningful legislation on behalf of their. Based upon the performance and achievements of the both the 112th and the 113th Congress (so far), we and they have failed miserably.

Who Are Their Constituencies? As stated elsewhere in this blog, Congress members have multiple constituencies, interests, and priorities. Often, these conflict with one another. That is when their priorities come into play. Here is my summation of the priorities of typical politicians at the state and federal levels.

• Once in office, their first loyalty is to themselves and doing anything they can to ensure that they get reelected. One of the greatest fears of any Congress member is to get voted out of office.
• Next is their allegiance to their political parties to ensure that enough of their members get elected to push their political agendas through their legislation. This will also help gain party support when the officeholder seeks reelection.
• Third are their financial backers – the corporations and the super-rich who contribute heavily to Congressional campaigns, and who run ads supporting their anointed candidates while excoriating their opponents. This includes lobbyists, PACs, Super PACs, 527 Groups and other special interest groups. The ;politicians have to give something back to these entities in order to secure their financial support for reelection. Money talks, and politicians have perfect hearing – especially whenever the words “contribution”, “donation,” or “check” are mentioned.
• Fourth come the people who voted for them. In public, most Congress members say these people are their constituents, but you can see just how high they come on their priority list. During election years, you will see them pandering to those whose votes they need to get reelected. In other years, they will do little for their benefit. However, when they do something for them, they will trumpet it from the heavens as though they are the second coming of the Messiah.
• And dead last come the rest of the people in the country whose best interests they are also supposed to represent. This group represents the overwhelming majority of us. This is supposed to include voters and non-voters alike, whether children or adults, and whether they are eligible to vote or not.. However, most legislators tend to consider their state or district constituencies to be only those who voted for them prior elections.

Why Do They Ignore the Will of the American People? The simple reason for this is “because they can.” They know that they can thwart the will of the American people and still get reelected. They can do this for the following reasons:

1. There is a built-in bias toward incumbents. Poll results released in October, 2011, showed that Congress had an approval rating of only 9%. However, another poll released in December, 2011, showed that:, although 76% of the people feel that most members of Congress don't deserve to be re-elected As a result, in 90% of the races, the incumbent gets reelected.
2. Incumbents are able to raise more money than new office seekers. And it is well known that in more than 90% of the elections, the candidate who raises the most campaign funds wins the election.
3. Electoral districts in most states are determined by politicians. As a result, the party in power generally secures a redistricting plan that is designed to keep party incumbents in office. Gerrymandering may be a dirty word to voters, but it is a Godsend to incumbent politicians because candidates from opposing parties are generally helpless in opposing this process.

This is by no means an all-inclusive list of why it is so hard to unseat incumbents. With the deck stacked so heavily in their favor, it is little wonder that politicians turn a deaf ear to the people of this country.

What is the Effect of Incumbent Bias? When the same people get elected to Congress again and again, we get the same old ideas, the same old practices, and the same old cronyism . In essence, we have a stagnant Congress, but one that has a stranglehold on our country . These politicians don't care much about the will of the people, and they don't care at all about public opinion, whether expressed in letters, e-mails, tweets, or polls, because they have rigged things in favor of their election, term after term after term. This is certainly not to the advantage of our country.

People First. The people must come first, not last, and those who do not see that, agree with that, and legislate to that end do not represent the people and deserve to be voted out of office. That includes virtually every member of Congress, and it is almost impossible to determine the few who are the good apples in a basket of rotten ones. So, we might have to sacrifice a few of the the good ones for the sake of our country, its citizens, and our democracy.

Use Your Clout and Vote Them Out. It is time for us to muster our collective elective strength and vote as many incumbents out of office as we possibly can. We need to send a very strong but clear message to the remaining representatives that we are “mad as hell and we aren't going to take it any more.” At the same time, however, we don't want to vote in party politicians who are going to fall right in line with their cohorts and work for the same priorities as their predecessor. We don't just need new blood in Congress. We need a new source of that blood, and it preferably won't come from either the radical right or the extreme left. We need progressive populists who know the Constitution and what it stands for, and who will to restore to this country once again a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Why Is Our Congress So Dysfunctional?

A Reading Guide:

Lois Beckett at ProPublica has compiled an excellent list of articles dealing with why our two political parties in Congress are constantly engaged in death grips on one another and just won't let go. Here are some brief excerpts from some if the articles (with some added boldface emphasis from me).

Congress’ approval ratings are abysmal, and the failure of the congressional“super committee to find a compromise on reducing the national debt has set off a new round of recriminations.

… Democrat Max Baucus of Montana, told the Washington Post, “We’re at a time in American history where everybody's afraid — afraid of losing their job — to move toward the center.”

… Congress has actually taken a turn for the worse — more gridlock, more grandstanding, less compromise to get things done.

Old rules are being used in newly aggressive, partisan ways, and routine Congressional activities have become politicized ...

The use of filibusters to block votes in the Senate used to be a last-ditch tactic, but in 2010 Republicans were filibustering even routine Democratic initiatives, effectively paralyzing the Senate .

The confirmation process of many of the president’s nominees  has also lagged, creating gaps in the Treasury and Federal Reserve, leaving regulatory agencies without leaders..

It has also resulted in prolonged judicial vacancies, which has sparked criticism from the Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who said that the delays are impairing the judicial system.

Norman Ornstein’s Foreign Policy article, “Worst. Congress. Ever.” provides a helpful overview of what’s the matter with Congress, from a man who’s been a Congressional expert for decades.

(Ornstein and Thomas E. Mann wrote a 2006 book, The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to Get it Back on Track

Members of Congress are raising money instead of building working relationships in DC

In the Boston Review’s Fixing Congress issue, Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee (recently named the House’s “last moderate” by New York Times columnist Joe Nocera) published a detailed chronology of how fundraising has changed Congress. Cooper notes that campaigns now cost millions of dollars, and that members of Congress are expected to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in party dues, as well as make large donations to other candidates in their party.

George Packer’s New Yorker story on dysfunction in the Senate — perhaps the most vivid and comprehensive take on this issue—also elaborates what kind of impact fund-raising pressure has on senators. “Of any free time you have, I would say fifty per cent, maybe even more,” is spent on fund-raising, one senator told Packer. “It sucks up time that a senator ought to be spending getting to know other senators, working on issues ...” 

William J. Bennett argues: “Don't mistake broken government for the growing pains of a democratic republic.”

Lois Beckett's complete article, along with reference sources, can be found at ProPublica's Reading Guide: Why Is Congress So Dysfunctional?

Coming Up: 

	How Congress Has Occupied Wall Street.
	Big Problems with Our Two-Party System
	Elections :Heart of Democracy or Height of Hypocrisy?
	In Presidential Debates, Duopoly Reigns

We Must Drive Big Money Out of Politics!

Fundamental Reasons Why We Must Do This To Save Our Democracy.

Words of Wisdom From Two Great Republican Presidents

Introduction. The thoughts expressed herein are a reflection of my personal interests and beliefs. They are the reason for this blog. We have a great country, but it is not as great a country as our forefathers envisioned. The problems that beset us today are not new. We have faced them and conquered them before. We must once again regain our democracy or forfeit it forever.

Popular Government Must Triumph. "Our country -- this great Republic – means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy, the triumph of popular government, and, in the long run, of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him."

Promises Without Action Are Empty.  “… words count for nothing except in so far as they represent acts. This is true everywhere; but, it should be truest of all in political life. A broken promise is bad enough in private life. It is worse in the field of politics. No man is worth his salt in public life who makes on the stump a pledge which he does not keep after election; and, if he makes such a pledge and does not keep it, hunt him out of public life."

“In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will."

Duty of Humankind.  Theodore Roosevelt referred to Abraham Lincoln as “the man to whom we owe (the) most,” and cited a couple passages from The Great Emancipator:

"I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind."

Labor Is Superior To Capital.  And again:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Special Interests Are Entitled To Justice ...”Now, this means that our government, National and State, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive the special interests out of politics. That is one of our tasks today."

… But Not To Political Power.  “... every special interest is entitled to justice, but not … to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation.”

The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being.”

Control of Corporate Political Activity. “There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done”.

“It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.”

Corporate Accountability. “I believe that the officers, and, especially, the directors, of corporations should be held personally responsible when any corporation breaks the law.”

Duty of Congress. “The duty of Congress is to provide a method by which the interest of the whole people shall be all that receives consideration."

Change Is Needed. “The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise.”

“We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows. We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.”

Government Intervention Required. “This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.

The Path To Ruin. “Those who oppose reform will do well to remember that ruin in its worst form is inevitable if our national life brings us nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism.”

Government Responsiveness To The People. “If our political institutions were perfect, they would absolutely prevent the political domination of money in any part of our affairs. We need to make our political representatives more quickly and sensitively responsive to the people whose servants they are. More direct action by the people in their own affairs under proper safeguards is vitally necessary.”

Removal of Non-Responsive Representatives. “I believe that the prompt removal of unfaithful or incompetent public servants should be made easy and sure in whatever way experience shall show to be most expedient in any given class of cases.”

Government Should Serve People, Not Special Interests.  “One of the fundamental necessities in a representative government such as ours is to make certain that the men to whom the people delegate their power shall serve the people by whom they are elected, and not the special interests.”

The Bottom Line.  “The object of government is the welfare of the people. The material progress and prosperity of a nation are desirable chiefly so long as they lead to the moral and material welfare of all good citizens.”

The Moment Of Truth.  Although I agree with and embrace all the statements made above, I cannot claim authorship of any one of them, Although we are at a time in history when these statements and observations are extremely appropriate, they weren't made in recent times, but they were made to address the same type of situation such as we now have. The people who made them were both Republicans who saw the same kinds of problems for our country that beset us again today. The bulk of the comments were made by Theodore Roosevelt, with a couple of additional comments from Abraham Lincoln. These are all extracted from a speech that Roosevelt delivered approximately 100 years ago. His message is just as pertinent today as it was back then. The full text of his speech can be found at http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=501.

It Is Time To Reclaim Our Democracy.  The past has repeated itself inasmuch as big financial interests (private, corporate, and political) have once again wrested our democracy away from the people and usurped it for their own gains. Can we also repeat the past and rid ourselves of their stranglehold, thereby restoring democracy to its rightful place with the people of America? Our country's fate is in our hands.

Coming Next:  First, Let's Define Democracy.