Moving Susquehanna Valley Forward

A Flawed Primary Process

by

The two presumptive presidential nominees have begun campaigning for the general election. As the primary process draws to a close, the natural progression is for the country to turn its attention to the November election.

I think it is important for us to take a moment to reflect on a flawed primary process and what can and should be done to make the system more fair, transparent and accessible.

The system cries for uniformity. Party leaders and state legislators should not control election rules and the nomination process; a universal election process should be established across the country.

For starters, there should be a single primary date. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire have as so much influence by kicking off the primary season, when they are not at all representative of our nation in terms of demographics or even issues? Why should Californians vote long after the nominations have been secured?

Voting procedures and voting rights should be consistent from state to state. Some states hold primaries, other caucuses, and some even hold both. In states that hold both, it is entirely possible for a candidate to win the caucus but not the primary or vice versa.

This year, in states where caucuses were held, troubling issues arose. For one, the process is not conducive for large voter turnout. In some cases, voters were turned away because the facility was unable to accommodate large crowds. In other cases, nominees were determined while voters still stood in line. In some precincts where the race was too close to call, dice were rolled or a coin was flipped to determine the winner.

The primary process also has its failings because individual states can choose who can and cannot vote. Independent (or 3rd party) voters are precluded from voting in closed primary states, such as Pennsylvania, unless they surrender their independence and actively join one of the two major parties.

Then there is the issue of delegates.

The presidential election process is not a direct election. Voters elect delegates who will represent specific candidates at the party conventions. The two parties determine how these delegates are selected and allocated in each state. Democrats elect pledged delegates–individuals who run on the ballot, pledging support for a particular candidate. Republican delegates, on the other hand, are not bound to any one candidate. Voters vote for a republican delegate not knowing who he/she will support at the convention.

The controversy over super delegates in the Democratic Party also cannot be ignored. Super delegates are party leaders given, in essence, two votes: one at the ballot box and one at the convention. Super delegates may, and often do, pledge their support early on to steer the direction of the primary process. They may switch their support to another candidate but are not required to do so (even when a candidate receives overwhelming support in a given state).  There is no denying the intent of super delegates: so party leaders may influence the outcome of the nomination process.

Voting rights in America are also in peril. This election year comes on the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down key components of the Voting Rights Act, which precipitated passage of new voting restriction laws in 16 states.

There is little justification for these laws as confirmed cases of voter fraud are extremely rare. Instead, these restrictions result in voter suppression, disproportionately impacting the poor, the elderly and minorities. More often than not, these laws are politically motivated and are intended to dissuade voters of a particular political party.

Long lines have also plagued the primary process leaving voters to wait for hours, due to an inadequate number of voting facilities.

All this doesn’t take into account the unprecedented deluge of campaign contributions in our democratic process as candidates, super PACs and special interests are poised to spend billions to sway the outcome of this election.

We like to believe our democracy superior to all others; yet the process for electing our president, the leader of the free world, is extremely flawed. It is time to put democracy ahead of politics and overhaul the system.

 

In Defense of Quigley

by

John Quigley was forced to resign as Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) over a terse email he sent to environmental advocacy groups regarding inaction on key environmental policies.

It’s important to note that Quigley took his role as DEP Secretary seriously and was dedicated to protecting Pennsylvania and Pennsylvanians. In a state where industry has considerable influence over laws and rule making, he was trying to fulfill DEP’s mission to “protect Pennsylvania’s air, land and water from pollution and to provide for the health and safety of its citizens through a cleaner environment.”  He was…doing his job.

Specifically, Quigley had been facilitating the lengthy and tedious process of overhauling Chapter 78, regulations which oversee oil and gas operations, and working to finalize Pennsylvania’s Clean Power Plan–an effort to reduce carbon emissions.  Two lofty goals in a state where natural gas and coal have dominated the energy scene and millions of dollars are spent each year to sway legislators in their direction.

The Chapter 78 revisions have been under works for over five years and began before Quigley was appointed Secretary. The process included two public input periods (drawing nearly 28,000 comments) and twelve public hearings.

The two major objections raised by conservatives in regards to the rules are: insufficient clarification between large-scale and smaller operations and missed filing deadlines. However, it is hard to take even these criticisms seriously when republicans have been working to obstruct the rule-making process long before it was ever near completion.

The new language eventually will go before the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) for final review and approval. The legislature could potentially block the rules though the Governor has the ability to veto that action.

Quigley’s email was sent the day after both House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committees passed bi-partisan resolutions repudiating the new regulations and urging IRRC to reject them.

Republican Senator Gene Yaw, majority chair of the senate committee, made the motion to pass the resolution, claiming that the DEP had circumvented the regulatory process.

Senator John Yudichak, a democrat from Luzerne County, supported Yaw’s resolution. Many in the environmental community believe Yudichak was behind the campaign to remove Quigley. Why would a fellow democrat work so hard to remove the governor’s appointee?  It is believed that Yudichak’s loyalty lies with the coal and gas industry in his district. He has been a vocal opponent of stricter oil and gas regulations and also voted to delay Governor Wolf’s Clean Power Plan. Far from an environmental-friendly legislator, he scored only 38% from Clean Water Action’s most recent scorecard.

Quigley was pushing too hard (and by pushing too hard, I mean he was doing what we should expect him to do as DEP Secretary) to finalize regulations that the conservatively controlled legislature has been against all along.  He was putting the health and well-being of the people and the Commonwealth above special interests. He was trying to keep people and communities safe.

Legislators like Yaw and Yudichak do not seem to be too concerned about our water or air; they don’t care about a changing climate…they seem only to be concerned about the profitability of energy companies.

I was very impressed and grateful when Governor Wolf appointed Quigley to serve as DEP Secretary knowing his reputation as Mayor of Hazleton and former Secretary of the Department of Conservation & Natural Resources.

Now, I find myself disappointed. I see the Governor surrendering to a political witch hunt that gives conservatives another opportunity to obstruct good sound environmental policy.

John R. Faraguna is President is a founding member of the Susquehanna Valley Progressives.

Playing Politics with the Supreme Court

by

Justice Antonin Scalia’s death was unexpected and sad. He served on the high court for thirty years and was the longest serving justice of the current court. Whether you agreed with his decisions or not, he was a charismatic man who embraced an originalist view of the Constitution.   Upon hearing of his death, Republicans chose not to honor his legacy but instead to politicize his passing by using it as a tool to obstruct the democratic process.

Just moments after his death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell proclaimed, “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The Constitution states that a president’s term is four years and Obama, on the day of Scalia’s death, had 342 days left in his administration. Article II, Section 2 affirms the President’s power to appoint justices to the Supreme Court with the Senate’s consent. The Senate need not approve the nominee but does have a duty to vet carefully any candidate nominated by the President.

Republicans claim to have precedence on their side. But according to the New York Times, in this past century, six out of eight Supreme Court nominees considered during an election year were approved.

There is clearly hypocrisy on both sides. Republicans point to the so-called “Biden Rule,” referring to Vice President Joe Biden’s senatorial speech back in 1992, in which, speaking hypothetically, he opposed election-year Supreme Court appointments.  Yet, in 2008, Senator Mitch McConnell had argued against the “Thurmond Rule” (named after a long-serving South Carolina Republican) in which judicial nominations would not be reviewed within six months of a presidential election.  McConnell said, “There is no such rule.”

Indeed, there’s no such rule. In fact, in 1988, the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed President Reagan’s Supreme Court nominee, Anthony Kennedy, after his first nominee had been rejected. Kennedy was unanimously approved by the Senate in February 1988 despite the fact that it was a presidential election year in which the sitting vice-president was seeking the presidency.

While Senator Pat Toomey opposes any action, he admits that the Constitution is on the President’s side. “President Obama certainly has the authority to do so,” Toomey stated.  “But let’s be clear — his nominee will be rejected by the Senate.”

The Republican Party seemed united on their intent to thwart a sitting president’s constitutional power. Then Obama nominated a moderate whom the Republicans have a record of supporting. Merrick Garland is a well- respected federal appeals justice who prosecuted both the Oklahoma City bombing and the Unabomber cases.  He has received past bipartisan support as a Supreme Court nominee, including from Senator Orrin Hatch (Utah-R) who said in 2010, “I know Merrick Garland very well…he would be very well supported by all sides.”

In a recent poll, 8 in 10 Americans believe the Republicans are playing politics with the Supreme Court.  The majority of Americans want the Senate to take action on the President’s nominee. And now, it appears, so do some Republican senators. Kansas Senator Jerry Moran has stated publicly that the nominee should receive a fair hearing. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) also support hearings.

Senator Toomey recently announced that he’ll meet with Garland. However he contends that there will be no further action on the nomination until Americans “weigh in and select a new president.” Yet, Americans did elect a president…in 2008 and 2012. Obama is still president and has the responsibility and authority to fill the vacancy.

The issue Republicans have is not with an election year or even with Obama’s choice of nominee. These tactics are nothing more than the Republicans hijacking an essential branch of our government for their own political gain.

In 2004, Justice Scalia uttered the prophetic words, “one shudders to think what sort of political turmoil will greet the next nomination to the Supreme Court.” He also expressed concerns about the “intrusion of politics into the judicial appointment process.”

Then again, some may argue that Scalia had a desire to uphold the Constitution.

Merrick Garland deserves full consideration by the Senate and Americans deserve a democratic process not corroded by politics.

Democratic Socialism: Uniting the Very Best of Democracy and Capitalism

by

I support a social democratic form of government and have even benefited from such a system. Chances are, so have you.

There seems to be a lot of confusion around democratic socialism. Simply put, it is a government that ensures equal representation for all; one that prioritizes the people above special interests and profit. It is not communism. It is not the government take-over of private businesses. Democratic socialism retains a capitalist system, but one that is well-regulated and fair.
Many Americans view socialism with suspicion while not even realizing how much they have gained from its existence. The United States does not benefit from a fully democratic socialist government, like many prosperous nations (e.g, Finland, Sweden, and Norway); however, we do have many examples of socialism in our country.

It is important to note that socialist programs provide essential services that contribute to the quality of life, health and safety of its residents. In many cases, socialist programs are implemented where there is no free-market solution. If you have traveled on roads or highways or traversed a bridge, you have benefited from socialism. There is little profit in managing our massive transportation system. Therefore, the government, through fees and taxes, makes it possible for Americans to travel freely and safely across the country.

Communities usually take a socialist approach toward improving the quality of life for its residents. If you have borrowed a book from a library; visited a museum or historical marker; traveled to a local, state or nation park or relied on public amenities such as street lights, water/sewer systems, and emergency services — you have benefited from socialism.

Socialism has been used to support those who have limited resources. Programs such as Social Security and Medicare were established decades ago to ensure that senior citizens have income and access to healthcare. Medicaid, food stamps, WIC and other assistance programs are intended to provide basic necessities like food, shelter, and healthcare to American when at their most vulnerable.
Unemployment insurance imposes a small tax on employers and employees to provide temporary income for those who are out of work. It is a social safety net especially for non-unionized workers who may not have job security and can be fired at will.

Most Americans have participated in one of the oldest forms of American socialism: public education. Since the 17th century, our leaders have recognized the benefits of an educated populace. Today, over 50 million students are taught annually through public elementary and secondary schools. Since the average education costs between $10,000 and $14,000 per child, per year, most parents would not have the means to afford such a vital opportunity for their children.
The U.S. Postal Service, founded in 1775, is a socialist system that has benefited every single American at some point in his or her life. A 49-cent stamp allows anyone to send a letter across town or clear across the country.

The U.S. military is not only America’s, but the world’s, largest and most expensive socialist program. The military serves to protect Americans from a variety of threats and dangers. U.S. taxpayers, sole supporters of the military’s budget, pay $57.52 million each hour to maintain the Department of Defense. This cost does not include veterans programs and VA hospitals, which are fully-socialized facilities, owned and managed by the government.

These and other types of socialism help and support Americans. Some work very well and efficiently while others may require more investment or improvement.

It would be useful, I believe, for our tax bills to itemize how our tax dollars are spent. Perhaps if Americans could see how much each of these services cost us individually and the overall benefits they provide to society, we would be more likely to embrace the ideals of socialism.
Finally, when you combine the best qualities of socialism (caring for society as a whole), the best of democracy (efficiency, transparency and fairness) and the best of capitalism (a well-regulated system with incentives to innovate) you are rewarded with a democratic socialist form of government that is advantageous for everyone, especially the average person.

Corporatists Making Deals that Hurt America

by

I suspect many are not aware of what the TPP is, but it is something that can have a profound effect on all of us. It is the Trans Pacific Partnership. It is a trade deal has been negotiated by the Obama Administration with eleven other Pacific Rim countries. It has been called by some “NAFTA on steroids.” Ross Perot talked about the “great sucking sound” of jobs leaving our country with NAFTA. Will it increase to a roar with the TPP?
The TPP was a negotiation in which corporations had the dominate input. It was negotiated in secret and the only concern of corporate negotiators is always only corporate profits, not the best interest of the American people. A major reason most Americans are unaware of this deal is that our media is controlled by corporate giants who don’t really want us to know. We should consider whether past trade deals like NAFTA and the WTO (World Trade Organization) have improved the lot of the average citizen. What may be good for the corporate CEO may not be good for their employees.  Has the lot of the American people improved with past deals? The answer to that is a simple NO! For the corporations and the wealthy they have been just grand. Good paying jobs have left the country and have been replaced with low wage jobs.
Past agreements have been supported by both major political parties. Both are parties of business and love corporate donation dollars. In the past trade deals both parties have supported the corporations and not the people.  You would think there would be a great deal of conservative opposition to this and past trade deals because under these negotiations we have given foreign corporations the ability to make our country liable for our own laws.
We often hear from conservatives when it comes to the United Nations, but past trade deals have made our laws open to actions by foreign governments and corporations. Under past agreements, our laws can be challenged if a corporation believes its future profits are threatened by one of our laws. As one who is concerned about the environment, a law which protects our health and environment can be challenged by foreign corporations.  Secret trade courts make rulings on these challenges.
We no longer have the right to know from what country the fish in our supermarkets came. We now are being sued by a Canadian corporation, because of the President’s decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline, for $15 billion dollars of our tax dollars. Whether or not you agree with the President’s decision, you should be offended that a private, foreign corporation can dictate what our country can do. These are just two examples. Don’t you believe that we should have the right to know from where our food comes? Don’t you think we should have the right to determine what may enter our country? Evidently people like Representative Marino don’t think so.
It seems apparent that any true conservative would oppose such a deal. The problem is that many of our politicians who claim to be conservatives are really corporatists. Representative Marino has already voted for fast track. This means that when the TPP comes before Congress there can be no debate or amendments. His constituents can be sure he will support its passage. If you don’t think that American workers should have to compete with low wage workers from countries like Vietnam, please let him know. Let him know that no corporation or government should have the ability to challenge our laws. Progressives and conservatives should be united against the TPP.
One interesting aspect of the right’s support of this deal is that they have reflexively opposed any of President Obama’s proposals. Even when it was originally one of their ideas. But this is too important for their corporate masters for them to oppose. They are demonstrating that without question they are not conservatives. The major opposition to the TPP is coming from more progressive members of Congress. On this issue, some in Congress appear to be more principled.  Those who consider themselves progressives should finally understand that on economic issues, President Obama is very much a corporatist.