Proposed at the Jefferson County, Washington Democratic Party Convention
Whereas President George W Bush led us into war in Iraq under false pretenses, asserting an imminent danger from Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism, which did not, in fact exist;
Whereas terrorists such as Al Quaeda hope to inflame passions against the United States and are benefiting through increased recruitment and support as a direct result of the destruction and suffering caused by the war, thus increasing the threat of terrorism;
Whereas the occupation is not moving Iraq towards democracy and stability but into a cycle of violence and counter violence in which American troops are opposed by increasing numbers of Iraqis;
Whereas the billions of dollars that are being spent on the war increases the US budget deficit, harms the economy and diverts funds from beneficial purposes;
Therefore be it resolved that we urge the United States government to ask the United Nations to draw up and implement a plan to:
.Withdraw all American troops from Iraq;
.Establish a transitional international peacekeeping force to protect the public until Iraqis can assume that function;
.Hold elections and handle the transition to a democratically elected Iraqi government.
Be it further resolved that the United States should assume a major portion of the cost of the UN Peacekeeping force and the reconstruction of Iraq while leaving the United Nations in control of the transition to Iraqi self government, reconstruction contracts and economic policy during the transitional period.
(This resolution along with all other resolutions proposed was passed along to the State Convention without comment or discussion)
April 15, 2004
June 05, 2003
The FCC - A Modest Proposal
The airwaves belong to the people. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the only way to obtain a license to use those airwaves, in a major market, is to buy a license for millions, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars. Broadcasting becomes the exclusive prerogative of the rich.
The law provides for broadcast licenses to be issued for a limited period of time. Currently, the term is 8 years, at the end of which time it is always renewed. In theory there is a possibility that in extreme cases of misuse of this public resource, the license could be taken away. Public comments can be taken, a process is followed, but the assumption is that the license will be renewed.
The result is that it is practically impossible for someone new to start a station. All the frequencies are already taken. (Qualification - there are some parts of the country with a few available frequencies, just not where most people live.)* If you had the foresight to grab a license back at the beginning of time, then you are in clover. If not, then you have to buy an existing license. Prices get into the hundreds of millions of dollars, if you can find somebody who is willing to sell. Many licensees are in it primarily to speculate in the price of the license. Any interest to actually run a station is secondary. (I can't substantiate that statement. It goes to the state of mind of a corporation. However, with rising purchase prices for licenses, appreciation of license value represents an opportunity that corporations simply cannot ignore. If speculation in licenses makes them more money than actually running the stations then it is only natural that that will be their major interest.)
So, given this situation, monopolization of the market by a few mega-corporations is practically inevitable. Nobody else can afford to break in. It is profoundly undemocratic and all the worse since it is the public's resource. Congress and the FCC are supposed to protect the public interest but they have been reducing their restrictions and oversight. They are actually protecting the interests of the monopolists.
Now for my proposal. We can change this situation and restore the airwaves to the public, increasing diversity and promoting the free flow of ideas essential to a democracy. All it takes is a small change of emphasis and a huge change of attitude.
What would happen if the license were to actually expire at the end of its term? It would not be automatically renewed, in fact it wouldn't be renewed at all. Somebody else would get a chance to broadcast. Speculation in licenses would end. Since it would expire in a few years, its value would be greatly reduced. In fact, we might want to forbid the sale of a license. If a licensee didn't want it, they could turn it back to the FCC to be reassigned. There are lots of people who would want the chance to broadcast, if only they could get a license. The FCC says as much on their website. In fact, that is what drives the speculation in licenses.
When a license expires it will need to be reassigned. The fairest way to do that would be a lottery. The current FCC assumption that the applicant with the most money is to be favored** has no basis and is profoundly anti-democratic. Many small stations do just fine with quite modest budgets. Actually, with less money tied up in the license, there should be more money available for equipment and programming.
When a broadcaster gives up their license, they would still be eligible to try to get a new one for the same frequency, or a different one, on an equal basis with everybody else. They could sell their equipment to the next licensee, or equipment could be leased for the term of the license.
The public would have to get used to a constantly changing array of broadcast stations. Some might not like losing their favorite station, but certainly many people lose their favorite stations today. Stations are bought or just change their format and programs all the time. You can take it for granted that nothing lasts. At least with new stations coming on the air all the time with a variety of programming choices, we should have a good chance of finding something else to our liking. We will be forced to seek out new sources for news and entertainment, which will help nurture the free and diverse flow of information our democracy needs.
The transition will be difficult. Current owners will not be happy to give up their monopolies. A broadcaster who has huge amounts of money tied up in their license will not like to hear that it has no resale value. Perhaps there could be some ameliorative measures but it is not always in the public interest to protect speculators when their investments go bad. It is, after all, necessary to reform the system precisely because the public interest has been abused.
I have no illusion that this is a perfect system. Perhaps there are negative aspects I haven't thought of, or further refinements that will be needed to prevent abuse. Certainly it can use more study and contributions from many people. I do think that we need to think about how to restore democracy to our public airwaves and not just react to each new outrage as it occurs.
*see the FCC website: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/getstat.html. "Potential applicants for radio and television services should be aware that frequencies for these services are always in heavy demand. For example, the Commission received approximately 30,000 inquiries from persons seeking to start radio broadcast stations last year. Where broadcast frequencies remain available, competing applications are routinely received. Thus, you are cautioned at the outset that the filing of an application does not guarantee that you will receive a broadcast station construction permit. You should also be aware that in many areas of the country, no frequencies may be available on which a new station could commence operating without causing interference to existing stations, which would violate FCC rules. For that reason, we do not recommend that you purchase any equipment before receiving a construction permit from the FCC."
**see the FCC website: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/about/index.html where they assert that the willingness to pay more means that the license will be used more effectively - "The auction approach is intended to award the licenses to those who will use them most effectively." and on http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/about/auctiondesigns.html, "This provides information about the value of the licenses to all bidders and increases the likelihood that the licenses will be assigned to the bidders who value them the most."
The law provides for broadcast licenses to be issued for a limited period of time. Currently, the term is 8 years, at the end of which time it is always renewed. In theory there is a possibility that in extreme cases of misuse of this public resource, the license could be taken away. Public comments can be taken, a process is followed, but the assumption is that the license will be renewed.
The result is that it is practically impossible for someone new to start a station. All the frequencies are already taken. (Qualification - there are some parts of the country with a few available frequencies, just not where most people live.)* If you had the foresight to grab a license back at the beginning of time, then you are in clover. If not, then you have to buy an existing license. Prices get into the hundreds of millions of dollars, if you can find somebody who is willing to sell. Many licensees are in it primarily to speculate in the price of the license. Any interest to actually run a station is secondary. (I can't substantiate that statement. It goes to the state of mind of a corporation. However, with rising purchase prices for licenses, appreciation of license value represents an opportunity that corporations simply cannot ignore. If speculation in licenses makes them more money than actually running the stations then it is only natural that that will be their major interest.)
So, given this situation, monopolization of the market by a few mega-corporations is practically inevitable. Nobody else can afford to break in. It is profoundly undemocratic and all the worse since it is the public's resource. Congress and the FCC are supposed to protect the public interest but they have been reducing their restrictions and oversight. They are actually protecting the interests of the monopolists.
Now for my proposal. We can change this situation and restore the airwaves to the public, increasing diversity and promoting the free flow of ideas essential to a democracy. All it takes is a small change of emphasis and a huge change of attitude.
What would happen if the license were to actually expire at the end of its term? It would not be automatically renewed, in fact it wouldn't be renewed at all. Somebody else would get a chance to broadcast. Speculation in licenses would end. Since it would expire in a few years, its value would be greatly reduced. In fact, we might want to forbid the sale of a license. If a licensee didn't want it, they could turn it back to the FCC to be reassigned. There are lots of people who would want the chance to broadcast, if only they could get a license. The FCC says as much on their website. In fact, that is what drives the speculation in licenses.
When a license expires it will need to be reassigned. The fairest way to do that would be a lottery. The current FCC assumption that the applicant with the most money is to be favored** has no basis and is profoundly anti-democratic. Many small stations do just fine with quite modest budgets. Actually, with less money tied up in the license, there should be more money available for equipment and programming.
When a broadcaster gives up their license, they would still be eligible to try to get a new one for the same frequency, or a different one, on an equal basis with everybody else. They could sell their equipment to the next licensee, or equipment could be leased for the term of the license.
The public would have to get used to a constantly changing array of broadcast stations. Some might not like losing their favorite station, but certainly many people lose their favorite stations today. Stations are bought or just change their format and programs all the time. You can take it for granted that nothing lasts. At least with new stations coming on the air all the time with a variety of programming choices, we should have a good chance of finding something else to our liking. We will be forced to seek out new sources for news and entertainment, which will help nurture the free and diverse flow of information our democracy needs.
The transition will be difficult. Current owners will not be happy to give up their monopolies. A broadcaster who has huge amounts of money tied up in their license will not like to hear that it has no resale value. Perhaps there could be some ameliorative measures but it is not always in the public interest to protect speculators when their investments go bad. It is, after all, necessary to reform the system precisely because the public interest has been abused.
I have no illusion that this is a perfect system. Perhaps there are negative aspects I haven't thought of, or further refinements that will be needed to prevent abuse. Certainly it can use more study and contributions from many people. I do think that we need to think about how to restore democracy to our public airwaves and not just react to each new outrage as it occurs.
*see the FCC website: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/getstat.html. "Potential applicants for radio and television services should be aware that frequencies for these services are always in heavy demand. For example, the Commission received approximately 30,000 inquiries from persons seeking to start radio broadcast stations last year. Where broadcast frequencies remain available, competing applications are routinely received. Thus, you are cautioned at the outset that the filing of an application does not guarantee that you will receive a broadcast station construction permit. You should also be aware that in many areas of the country, no frequencies may be available on which a new station could commence operating without causing interference to existing stations, which would violate FCC rules. For that reason, we do not recommend that you purchase any equipment before receiving a construction permit from the FCC."
**see the FCC website: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/about/index.html where they assert that the willingness to pay more means that the license will be used more effectively - "The auction approach is intended to award the licenses to those who will use them most effectively." and on http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/about/auctiondesigns.html, "This provides information about the value of the licenses to all bidders and increases the likelihood that the licenses will be assigned to the bidders who value them the most."
December 15, 2002
Dear Al Gore
Dear Al,
I've been thinking about you since I just read a couple of articles by Sarah Vowell about you, about how you were too smart, too nerdy for today's politics and what a shame that is.
I have also listened to sound bites from the last few months, in which you have been critical of the impending war and of Republican economic policies. I have to say that you sounded pretty good. You didn't hedge your bets or worry about offending somebody every time you opened your mouth. What a refreshing change from practically every politician in the country, especially the Democrats. How are the Democrats going to attract support if they don't stand for anything?
Well, I just heard that you decided not to run for President. Probably a smart move. You would have been attacked from all sides and advised to death by well meaning consultants. Your strong direct appealing words wouldn't have lasted long.
You know, I am still furious over the way you blew the 2000 election. Oh, I know that you got more votes and really did win but it shouldn't even have been close. I know you are capable of delivering a strong, passionate message. At the convention and again the day before the election you made speeches that talked about empowering ordinary people and outlining the real differences between Democrats and Republicans. You made me want to support you then. Unfortunately, the rest of the campaign was so lackluster that even when you were right, you failed to engage me or make me want to vote. I would have voted for Nader if my state hadn't been so evenly divided. What almost saved you was fear of what Bush would do. We had no idea, of course, but what we did know was bad enough.
Now we see a President out of control. Republicans are on the attack, with an unabashed policy of enriching the rich with no controls, no thought for the rest of us. Democrats range from cheerleaders for the Republicans to silence. Nobody will say a thing in favor of the majority, the non-millionaires.
And yet, people are acting. Quietly organizing, publicly demonstrating. During the debate in Congress on the resolution authorizing attacking Iraq, representatives received thousands of letters opposed. They were deluged by opposition but most of them wouldn't go against the tide. There is no integrity in the process.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the responses, or lack thereof, to Trent Lott. The Senate Majority Leader, of course, said that he wished that Strom Thurmond's segregationist campaign for President in 1948 had succeeded. He couldn't have been clearer in his support for the policies that Thurmond espoused in that campaign. Thurmond was absolutely opposed to Civil Rights, just as Lott has consistently, in word and deed, opposed Civil Rights legislation. His statement last week showed that he still holds these views. There is no other way to understand it. At first, even the Democratic leadership said nothing, or tried to explain that Lott didn't really mean it. Nobody pressed Lott to explain exactly what he did mean. They only criticized him when it became clear that it would be politically advantageous to do so. And then they said as little as possible. They rushed to accept his apology that managed to not actually apologize for anything. This is the way they do things. They have to be forced to take a stand. Otherwise they just go right along with the corporatism that is rampant today.
I don't know what to do. Do we go Green? Do we try to take back the Democratic Party? Maybe we need a Gene McCarthy to really challenge the leadership and rally the opposition.
I've been thinking about you since I just read a couple of articles by Sarah Vowell about you, about how you were too smart, too nerdy for today's politics and what a shame that is.
I have also listened to sound bites from the last few months, in which you have been critical of the impending war and of Republican economic policies. I have to say that you sounded pretty good. You didn't hedge your bets or worry about offending somebody every time you opened your mouth. What a refreshing change from practically every politician in the country, especially the Democrats. How are the Democrats going to attract support if they don't stand for anything?
Well, I just heard that you decided not to run for President. Probably a smart move. You would have been attacked from all sides and advised to death by well meaning consultants. Your strong direct appealing words wouldn't have lasted long.
You know, I am still furious over the way you blew the 2000 election. Oh, I know that you got more votes and really did win but it shouldn't even have been close. I know you are capable of delivering a strong, passionate message. At the convention and again the day before the election you made speeches that talked about empowering ordinary people and outlining the real differences between Democrats and Republicans. You made me want to support you then. Unfortunately, the rest of the campaign was so lackluster that even when you were right, you failed to engage me or make me want to vote. I would have voted for Nader if my state hadn't been so evenly divided. What almost saved you was fear of what Bush would do. We had no idea, of course, but what we did know was bad enough.
Now we see a President out of control. Republicans are on the attack, with an unabashed policy of enriching the rich with no controls, no thought for the rest of us. Democrats range from cheerleaders for the Republicans to silence. Nobody will say a thing in favor of the majority, the non-millionaires.
And yet, people are acting. Quietly organizing, publicly demonstrating. During the debate in Congress on the resolution authorizing attacking Iraq, representatives received thousands of letters opposed. They were deluged by opposition but most of them wouldn't go against the tide. There is no integrity in the process.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the responses, or lack thereof, to Trent Lott. The Senate Majority Leader, of course, said that he wished that Strom Thurmond's segregationist campaign for President in 1948 had succeeded. He couldn't have been clearer in his support for the policies that Thurmond espoused in that campaign. Thurmond was absolutely opposed to Civil Rights, just as Lott has consistently, in word and deed, opposed Civil Rights legislation. His statement last week showed that he still holds these views. There is no other way to understand it. At first, even the Democratic leadership said nothing, or tried to explain that Lott didn't really mean it. Nobody pressed Lott to explain exactly what he did mean. They only criticized him when it became clear that it would be politically advantageous to do so. And then they said as little as possible. They rushed to accept his apology that managed to not actually apologize for anything. This is the way they do things. They have to be forced to take a stand. Otherwise they just go right along with the corporatism that is rampant today.
I don't know what to do. Do we go Green? Do we try to take back the Democratic Party? Maybe we need a Gene McCarthy to really challenge the leadership and rally the opposition.
November 10, 2002
The Stock Market as a Ponzi Scheme FAQs
The more I think about this, I feel like some paranoid nut spouting conspiracy theories. The problem is that for the life of me I can't find the flaw in my logic. Since the stock market bubble burst, with so many CEOs and other executives coincidentally cashing in their stock just before the crash, I have noted some similarities with the classic Ponzi or pyramid scheme. I have not been alone in this. However, as I consider the matter carefully, I can't see any important difference at all. The inescapable conclusion is that the stock market, as it operates today, is a pyramid scheme that would be shut down in a minute if somebody tried to start it up as a new enterprise. The plan to divert Social Security money into the stock market lends a new urgency to this question.
I found this definition of a pyramid scheme on the SEC Web site.
"In the classic "pyramid" scheme, participants attempt to make money solely by recruiting new participants into the program. The hallmark of these schemes is the promise of sky-high returns in a short period of time for doing nothing other than handing over your money and getting others to do the same.
The fraudsters behind a pyramid scheme may go to great lengths to make the program look like a legitimate multi-level marketing program. But despite their claims to have legitimate products or services to sell, these fraudsters simply use money coming in from new recruits is used to pay off early stage investors. But eventually the pyramid will collapse. At some point the schemes get too big, the promoter cannot raise enough money from new investors to pay earlier investors, and many people lose their money."
Consider then how the stock market operates. Read the above paragraphs substituting "stock Market" for "pyramid scheme". Investors are lured into the market with the prospect of high returns. What you hope for is that lots of other people will want to buy the same thing that you got, thus driving the price up. What you buy is nothing that is of value in and of itself. You can't eat it or fix your house with it or enjoy its beauty. You just hope that new participants are recruited into the scheme so you can sell out at a profit.
Stock Market Ponzi FAQs:
Q: Don't you own a share of the company when you buy stock?
A: In theory, yes. If you are a billionaire you might own enough stock to actually control the company. Your 100 shares gets you no voice in how the company is run. The only actual right you have is the right to sell out to new recruits to the scheme.
Q: What about dividends?
A: Most companies don't pay dividends. They would rather push the stock prices up. People used to own stocks in order to share in the profits via dividends. But the dividends are mostly a small part of the reason to own stocks. We wouldn't care about the Dow if we were in it for the dividends.
Q: Don't stock offerings serve an important purpose in raising capital for companies?
A: The primary purpose of stock offerings is to create a feeding frenzy in the market, drawing in new recruits and driving the stock price up so the insiders can profit. Private channels are much more important ways to raise capital for new ventures. By the time it gets to the stock market, they are just trying to bring in the chumps.
Q: Stock prices go up when companies show a profit and down when they lose money. Doesn't this show that there is something substantial behind stock prices?
A: Hello! Where were you during the tech bubble? From Amazon.com on down, lack of profits did not dampen the rising stock prices. What investors care about is whether other investors will buy a given stock. This depends on "investor confidence". Stocks are bought and sold on a short term basis by the big investors. They will buy a stock when a company does better than expected because they expect others will do the same. This is true even if the news is that the company loses less than expected. Investors will run from a company that makes a profit but a little less than expected in a given quarter to one that loses a little less than expected but still loses.
Q: Who benefits?
A: Many ordinary Americans watched their saving skyrocket during the 90s. Some of them actually got their money out before the crash. The big winners, however, were the insider traders. Ken Lay made millions of dollars by manipulating Enron's stock price and then selling out his shares just before the crash. Although the headlines went to Enron, this pattern was not all that unusual. Many companies used "creative accounting" to lie about their profitability and lure in new investors to push the price up.
Q: They couldn't all be crooks?
A: Maybe not, but consider this. Most CEOs are paid largely in stock options. This means that they can only make obscene incomes if they drive the stock prices up. So, they will do almost anything to drive stock prices up.
Q: What happened to regulation?
A: Good Question.
Q: But seriously ...
A: OK. The SEC requires that companies submit audited financial statements. Auditors are supposed to independently evaluate management figures and give their stamp of approval only if the books really reflect reality. Auditors, such as Arthur Anderson, have found that they are under tremendous pressure from their corporate clients to rubber stamp management's claims. Companies are not eager to pay higher audit fees in order to increase the chance that an audit will come up with unfavorable results. Auditors have been fired for delving too deeply. Meanwhile the SEC is supposed to be overseeing this process and conducting its own investigations but it is underfunded, especially compared to the corporate giants they are supposed to be investigating. Under the current administration the top posts in the SEC are held by people with close ties to the corporate world who seem uninterested in meaningful regulation.
Q: How does all this affect me?
A: Most pension plans are heavily invested in the stock market, so they are vulnerable. Worse yet, companies have largely switched to 401c(3) individual investment plans that encourage us to invest our pension money ourselves. This really puts us at an unfair advantage vis a vis the "big boys". People are watching their pensions evaporating before their eyes.
Q: At least I'll have Social Security?
A: That depends on Congressional action to insure that there are actually sufficient funds available when you retire to pay your benefits. Proposals to convert a portion of Social Security into individual accounts to be invested in the stock market can be seen as another attempt to lure more chumps into the market so that they can be fleeced.
Q: Isn't that a little extreme?
A: I told you I was feeling like a paranoid nut about this. You tell me where I'm wrong.
Q: Sure, the market is down now, but it will go back up again, won't it? After all, stock prices fluctuate but over the long run they always go up.
A: Just remember that the only reason stock prices go up is that there are more buyers than sellers. As long as there are new recruits to the scheme it can keep going but as the SEC says about pyramid schemes in general, "At some point the schemes get too big, the promoter cannot raise enough money from new investors to pay earlier investors, and many people lose their money." There is nothing more substantial than a lot of PR behind it all.
I found this definition of a pyramid scheme on the SEC Web site.
"In the classic "pyramid" scheme, participants attempt to make money solely by recruiting new participants into the program. The hallmark of these schemes is the promise of sky-high returns in a short period of time for doing nothing other than handing over your money and getting others to do the same.
The fraudsters behind a pyramid scheme may go to great lengths to make the program look like a legitimate multi-level marketing program. But despite their claims to have legitimate products or services to sell, these fraudsters simply use money coming in from new recruits is used to pay off early stage investors. But eventually the pyramid will collapse. At some point the schemes get too big, the promoter cannot raise enough money from new investors to pay earlier investors, and many people lose their money."
Consider then how the stock market operates. Read the above paragraphs substituting "stock Market" for "pyramid scheme". Investors are lured into the market with the prospect of high returns. What you hope for is that lots of other people will want to buy the same thing that you got, thus driving the price up. What you buy is nothing that is of value in and of itself. You can't eat it or fix your house with it or enjoy its beauty. You just hope that new participants are recruited into the scheme so you can sell out at a profit.
Stock Market Ponzi FAQs:
Q: Don't you own a share of the company when you buy stock?
A: In theory, yes. If you are a billionaire you might own enough stock to actually control the company. Your 100 shares gets you no voice in how the company is run. The only actual right you have is the right to sell out to new recruits to the scheme.
Q: What about dividends?
A: Most companies don't pay dividends. They would rather push the stock prices up. People used to own stocks in order to share in the profits via dividends. But the dividends are mostly a small part of the reason to own stocks. We wouldn't care about the Dow if we were in it for the dividends.
Q: Don't stock offerings serve an important purpose in raising capital for companies?
A: The primary purpose of stock offerings is to create a feeding frenzy in the market, drawing in new recruits and driving the stock price up so the insiders can profit. Private channels are much more important ways to raise capital for new ventures. By the time it gets to the stock market, they are just trying to bring in the chumps.
Q: Stock prices go up when companies show a profit and down when they lose money. Doesn't this show that there is something substantial behind stock prices?
A: Hello! Where were you during the tech bubble? From Amazon.com on down, lack of profits did not dampen the rising stock prices. What investors care about is whether other investors will buy a given stock. This depends on "investor confidence". Stocks are bought and sold on a short term basis by the big investors. They will buy a stock when a company does better than expected because they expect others will do the same. This is true even if the news is that the company loses less than expected. Investors will run from a company that makes a profit but a little less than expected in a given quarter to one that loses a little less than expected but still loses.
Q: Who benefits?
A: Many ordinary Americans watched their saving skyrocket during the 90s. Some of them actually got their money out before the crash. The big winners, however, were the insider traders. Ken Lay made millions of dollars by manipulating Enron's stock price and then selling out his shares just before the crash. Although the headlines went to Enron, this pattern was not all that unusual. Many companies used "creative accounting" to lie about their profitability and lure in new investors to push the price up.
Q: They couldn't all be crooks?
A: Maybe not, but consider this. Most CEOs are paid largely in stock options. This means that they can only make obscene incomes if they drive the stock prices up. So, they will do almost anything to drive stock prices up.
Q: What happened to regulation?
A: Good Question.
Q: But seriously ...
A: OK. The SEC requires that companies submit audited financial statements. Auditors are supposed to independently evaluate management figures and give their stamp of approval only if the books really reflect reality. Auditors, such as Arthur Anderson, have found that they are under tremendous pressure from their corporate clients to rubber stamp management's claims. Companies are not eager to pay higher audit fees in order to increase the chance that an audit will come up with unfavorable results. Auditors have been fired for delving too deeply. Meanwhile the SEC is supposed to be overseeing this process and conducting its own investigations but it is underfunded, especially compared to the corporate giants they are supposed to be investigating. Under the current administration the top posts in the SEC are held by people with close ties to the corporate world who seem uninterested in meaningful regulation.
Q: How does all this affect me?
A: Most pension plans are heavily invested in the stock market, so they are vulnerable. Worse yet, companies have largely switched to 401c(3) individual investment plans that encourage us to invest our pension money ourselves. This really puts us at an unfair advantage vis a vis the "big boys". People are watching their pensions evaporating before their eyes.
Q: At least I'll have Social Security?
A: That depends on Congressional action to insure that there are actually sufficient funds available when you retire to pay your benefits. Proposals to convert a portion of Social Security into individual accounts to be invested in the stock market can be seen as another attempt to lure more chumps into the market so that they can be fleeced.
Q: Isn't that a little extreme?
A: I told you I was feeling like a paranoid nut about this. You tell me where I'm wrong.
Q: Sure, the market is down now, but it will go back up again, won't it? After all, stock prices fluctuate but over the long run they always go up.
A: Just remember that the only reason stock prices go up is that there are more buyers than sellers. As long as there are new recruits to the scheme it can keep going but as the SEC says about pyramid schemes in general, "At some point the schemes get too big, the promoter cannot raise enough money from new investors to pay earlier investors, and many people lose their money." There is nothing more substantial than a lot of PR behind it all.
November 28, 2000
Blame Florida
It is tempting to blame Bush for suing to stop the votes from being counted, or Gore for endless legal manouvering to somehow make the election come out his way, or little old ladies in Palm Beach who can manage 15 Bingo cards but couldn't figue out the ballot, or Katherine Harris for having too much make-up or the Florida Supreme Court for intervening or the US Supreme Court for intervening... The list goes on.
I blame Florida because nobody there seems to have a clue about how to hold a fair election. This is not a partisan issue because both Democrats and Republicans have built and maintained the system, if you can call it that, that failed to produce a result. We have to accept that whatever happens now, half the country is going to feel cheated. Why? Because Florida can't count votes.
How do you know who won a close election?
1) There have to be voting machines that accurately record the votes cast. Machines are necessary, whether they use gears and levers; punch cards, optical scanners or some other technology, because they are fast and generally accurate. Most ballots will be quickly and accurately read by a good machine. A bad machine, however, will lend itself to outright cheating or confused results. Machines that have been found to produce significantly inaccurate or incomplete results should be replaced. There should be a system to audit the results as part of the certification of the election. The purpose of the audit should be to verify the accuracy of whatever voting system is in use and/or to identify problems so they can be dealt with.
2) There has to be an agreement about what constitutes a vote. Clearly, if the intent of the voter can be reasonably determined, then that intent should prevail even if there are technical problems. An extraneous mark, incorrect ink color or a hanging chad should not disqualify a ballot, even if the machine can't read it. Ballots that are disqualified by the machine should be examined by a human being to determine what the intent of the voter was. This only works if the machine can flag the problem ballots so a person can find them and look at them. If there are a small number of problem ballots, it will be easy to examine each one. If there are a lot of problems, it may be indicative of problems in the machine, so they should be examined carefully and corrective action should be taken.
3) There has to be a procedure in place before the election that provides for a recount under certain well defined circumstances, such as a winning margin of less than 1/2 of 1%. Candidates also have to have the option of requesting a recount.
4) There has to be a well defined procedure for conducting a recount. The same standards should apply for the whole election. This will specifiy what gets counted, who conducts the recount and what counts as a vote. The purpose of the recount is to provide a more accurate result than the original count. Special care should be taken with ballots that have been disputed or rejected by the machines to insure that all qualified voters have their votes counted. Observers from both sides and the news media should be able to verify that everything is done properly and according to the accepted procedures.
So how does Florida stack up?
1) The punch cards used in some Florida counties were woefully inadequate. There is a long history of uncertainties created by chads that are not completely removed. In many cases the attempt to vote is foiled by a bad machine. This is clearly a scandal. Florida has had these problems for years and has not dealt with them. Now it has reared up to cast the Presidential election in doubt.
Additionally, the infamous butterfly ballot has proved to be a huge mistake. Thousands of voters were confused and either voted for the wrong candidate or for two candidates by mistake. Over 4% of the votes cast in Palm Beach County were disqualified for this very reason. Out of 25 people in line at the polls, one person did not have their vote counted. That is outrageious.
2) Every county in Florida has their own standard for whether to count hanging chads or dimples. Palm Beach county counts dimples only if a given ballot has lots of them. Other counties count them regardless. Even within a county, the election boards had to decide as they went along what to count and what not to count. Other states have established a standard and stuck to it. Florida could do neither. As a result the election officers trying to do their job were subject to public pressure, lawsuits and suspicion that they were not acting impartially. It cast the result of the election in doubt.
3) Florida does provide for an automatic recount in very close elections. This part of the process worked well. Nobody disputed that there should be a recount due to the closeness of the election.
4) The recount procedures in Florida were wholly inadequate. The intial recount by machine did nothing more than was done election night. Problem ballots were not examined. The machines read the ballots a little differently but there was no reason to think that the second time was more accurate.
The manual recount was not done statewide, leading to charges that it was an attempt to select areas that would help one candidate.
There was no attempt to isolate the problem ballots and determine the intent of those voters. Instead the manual recount spent incredible amounts of time reviewing ballots that been read accurately by the machines in the first place.
A more productive procedure would have started the recount with a machine recount, folowed by manual examination of ballots rejected by the machines. The same standards should be used statewide. Then any other disputes about any challenged ballots should be examined and resolved according to preset procedures. At the end of this process there would be a pretty clear result with little room for legal challenges.
Of course, Florida isn't the only place with these kinds of problems. We all should examine procedures in our own states and localities to make sure they live up to these standards. This messed up election should be an impetus to clean up our act.‡
I blame Florida because nobody there seems to have a clue about how to hold a fair election. This is not a partisan issue because both Democrats and Republicans have built and maintained the system, if you can call it that, that failed to produce a result. We have to accept that whatever happens now, half the country is going to feel cheated. Why? Because Florida can't count votes.
How do you know who won a close election?
1) There have to be voting machines that accurately record the votes cast. Machines are necessary, whether they use gears and levers; punch cards, optical scanners or some other technology, because they are fast and generally accurate. Most ballots will be quickly and accurately read by a good machine. A bad machine, however, will lend itself to outright cheating or confused results. Machines that have been found to produce significantly inaccurate or incomplete results should be replaced. There should be a system to audit the results as part of the certification of the election. The purpose of the audit should be to verify the accuracy of whatever voting system is in use and/or to identify problems so they can be dealt with.
2) There has to be an agreement about what constitutes a vote. Clearly, if the intent of the voter can be reasonably determined, then that intent should prevail even if there are technical problems. An extraneous mark, incorrect ink color or a hanging chad should not disqualify a ballot, even if the machine can't read it. Ballots that are disqualified by the machine should be examined by a human being to determine what the intent of the voter was. This only works if the machine can flag the problem ballots so a person can find them and look at them. If there are a small number of problem ballots, it will be easy to examine each one. If there are a lot of problems, it may be indicative of problems in the machine, so they should be examined carefully and corrective action should be taken.
3) There has to be a procedure in place before the election that provides for a recount under certain well defined circumstances, such as a winning margin of less than 1/2 of 1%. Candidates also have to have the option of requesting a recount.
4) There has to be a well defined procedure for conducting a recount. The same standards should apply for the whole election. This will specifiy what gets counted, who conducts the recount and what counts as a vote. The purpose of the recount is to provide a more accurate result than the original count. Special care should be taken with ballots that have been disputed or rejected by the machines to insure that all qualified voters have their votes counted. Observers from both sides and the news media should be able to verify that everything is done properly and according to the accepted procedures.
So how does Florida stack up?
1) The punch cards used in some Florida counties were woefully inadequate. There is a long history of uncertainties created by chads that are not completely removed. In many cases the attempt to vote is foiled by a bad machine. This is clearly a scandal. Florida has had these problems for years and has not dealt with them. Now it has reared up to cast the Presidential election in doubt.
Additionally, the infamous butterfly ballot has proved to be a huge mistake. Thousands of voters were confused and either voted for the wrong candidate or for two candidates by mistake. Over 4% of the votes cast in Palm Beach County were disqualified for this very reason. Out of 25 people in line at the polls, one person did not have their vote counted. That is outrageious.
2) Every county in Florida has their own standard for whether to count hanging chads or dimples. Palm Beach county counts dimples only if a given ballot has lots of them. Other counties count them regardless. Even within a county, the election boards had to decide as they went along what to count and what not to count. Other states have established a standard and stuck to it. Florida could do neither. As a result the election officers trying to do their job were subject to public pressure, lawsuits and suspicion that they were not acting impartially. It cast the result of the election in doubt.
3) Florida does provide for an automatic recount in very close elections. This part of the process worked well. Nobody disputed that there should be a recount due to the closeness of the election.
4) The recount procedures in Florida were wholly inadequate. The intial recount by machine did nothing more than was done election night. Problem ballots were not examined. The machines read the ballots a little differently but there was no reason to think that the second time was more accurate.
The manual recount was not done statewide, leading to charges that it was an attempt to select areas that would help one candidate.
There was no attempt to isolate the problem ballots and determine the intent of those voters. Instead the manual recount spent incredible amounts of time reviewing ballots that been read accurately by the machines in the first place.
A more productive procedure would have started the recount with a machine recount, folowed by manual examination of ballots rejected by the machines. The same standards should be used statewide. Then any other disputes about any challenged ballots should be examined and resolved according to preset procedures. At the end of this process there would be a pretty clear result with little room for legal challenges.
Of course, Florida isn't the only place with these kinds of problems. We all should examine procedures in our own states and localities to make sure they live up to these standards. This messed up election should be an impetus to clean up our act.‡
November 10, 2000
Gore Wins
The Presidential Election hinges on the results in Florida. The Florida results depend on three things as of this afternoon (Friday 11/10/00).
1) The results of the recount, which AP reports as giving Bush a 327 vote lead.
2) 2,000-3,000 outstanding absentee ballots, which won't be final until November 17.
3) 19,000 double-punched ballots in Palm Beach County. This represents 4.2% of the total ballots cast in that county for President and more than 58 times the 327 vote lead Bush currently holds. If these 19,000 ballots represent voters who were trying to vote for Gore, then Gore truly won Florida. Any recount has to include consideration of these ballots. They should be studied to see which candidates were voted. Press reports are tha t all or most of these were voted for Gore and Buchanan. I'll wager that this is not due to people who couldn't make up their minds between these two. If these ballots show people voting a straight Democratic ticket then it is pretty safe to say that th ey intended to vote for Gore. That intention should be honored. Even if that applies to only a small number of these ballots, it is more than enough to swing the election to Gore.
Voters have been reporting since Tuesday morning that they were worried th at they had punched their ballot incorrectly in trying to vote for Gore and voted for Buchanan instead. These reports were coming in long before anybody could have guessed how close the election would be. Many people have come forward to report that the y made this mistake. A large number of ballots marked for both of these candidates suggests that people started to punch the wrong hole and then corrected themselves. Unfortunately they ended up with both holes punched. It is very difficult to tell with a punch card ballot whether you voted correctly since the candidates names do not appear on the ballot itself, only on the machine.
The question is, what is to be done?
1) The election can be re-voted in the area affected by the ballot problems. This opens up the campaign again as both sides flood the area with campaign ads and workers to try to influence the outcome. I feel sorry for the people of Palm Beach. It could be a real mess. Besides, would only voters who voted last Tuesday be eligible or could non-voters decide that they want to vote now too? It seems unfair to let them vote again and not the rest of us. Maybe Nader voters would change their minds, knowing the closeness of the election. Maybe Buchanan voters would. No, the election happened we can't redo it.
2) The double-punched ballots can remain disqualified. After all, that is the normal procedure. That seems to be the Bush Campaign's position. Voters should have exercised more care in voting. If they thought they voted wro ng, then they should have requested a new ballot. Indeed, second guessing the intentions of voters is dangerous.
This option will result in Bush's victory. Many Gore Supporters will feel cheated by a deceptive ballot and some will believe that the elec tion was stolen. Bush will serve his term under a cloud. But he will have majorities in both the House and Senate.
3) Some or all of these ballots can be accepted as Gore votes. It seems certain to me that this was the intention of the people who cas t those ballots. Since only a small percentage of these ballots would make Gore President, It is safe to assume that a majority of the voters voted for Gore. Surely the will of the voters should be recognized.
Bush supporters may feel that the election was stolen away by highly suspect tampering with the ballots. Gore will serve out his term under a cloud. He will also face a Republican Congressional majority.
However, this election showed one thing. The country is incredibly evenly split between D emocrats and Republicans. It would be a fair reflection of this situation to have a Democrat as President and a Republican congress. After all, The Democrats won the popular vote for President by a hair and the Republicans won Congress by a hair. The E lectoral College is evenly split.
I believe that the Florida election officers, both campaigns and the American people are acting in good faith to try to find the "right" answer. The punch card ballots are difficult to use under the best of circumstan ces and the ballot could have been laid out differently. This was not an attempt by anybody to affect the outcome of the election. Both parties participated in this situation.
I also believe that the will of the voters can only be recognized with the ac ceptance of the disputed ballots as Gore votes. Gore won more votes, even if there was a technical problem that resulted in an unwanted second punch. 4.2% of the voters in Palm Beach County were disenfranchised by a poorly designed system. This is shock ing! This apparently has been going on for years, although not as badly. Why hasn't anybody noticed this and moved towards a system less prone to failure? I certainly hope that this would be a result of this election, not just in Florida, but throughout the country. If we have learned anything, it is that every vote counts and we have to design a system that accurately records every vote.
1) The results of the recount, which AP reports as giving Bush a 327 vote lead.
2) 2,000-3,000 outstanding absentee ballots, which won't be final until November 17.
3) 19,000 double-punched ballots in Palm Beach County. This represents 4.2% of the total ballots cast in that county for President and more than 58 times the 327 vote lead Bush currently holds. If these 19,000 ballots represent voters who were trying to vote for Gore, then Gore truly won Florida. Any recount has to include consideration of these ballots. They should be studied to see which candidates were voted. Press reports are tha t all or most of these were voted for Gore and Buchanan. I'll wager that this is not due to people who couldn't make up their minds between these two. If these ballots show people voting a straight Democratic ticket then it is pretty safe to say that th ey intended to vote for Gore. That intention should be honored. Even if that applies to only a small number of these ballots, it is more than enough to swing the election to Gore.
Voters have been reporting since Tuesday morning that they were worried th at they had punched their ballot incorrectly in trying to vote for Gore and voted for Buchanan instead. These reports were coming in long before anybody could have guessed how close the election would be. Many people have come forward to report that the y made this mistake. A large number of ballots marked for both of these candidates suggests that people started to punch the wrong hole and then corrected themselves. Unfortunately they ended up with both holes punched. It is very difficult to tell with a punch card ballot whether you voted correctly since the candidates names do not appear on the ballot itself, only on the machine.
The question is, what is to be done?
1) The election can be re-voted in the area affected by the ballot problems. This opens up the campaign again as both sides flood the area with campaign ads and workers to try to influence the outcome. I feel sorry for the people of Palm Beach. It could be a real mess. Besides, would only voters who voted last Tuesday be eligible or could non-voters decide that they want to vote now too? It seems unfair to let them vote again and not the rest of us. Maybe Nader voters would change their minds, knowing the closeness of the election. Maybe Buchanan voters would. No, the election happened we can't redo it.
2) The double-punched ballots can remain disqualified. After all, that is the normal procedure. That seems to be the Bush Campaign's position. Voters should have exercised more care in voting. If they thought they voted wro ng, then they should have requested a new ballot. Indeed, second guessing the intentions of voters is dangerous.
This option will result in Bush's victory. Many Gore Supporters will feel cheated by a deceptive ballot and some will believe that the elec tion was stolen. Bush will serve his term under a cloud. But he will have majorities in both the House and Senate.
3) Some or all of these ballots can be accepted as Gore votes. It seems certain to me that this was the intention of the people who cas t those ballots. Since only a small percentage of these ballots would make Gore President, It is safe to assume that a majority of the voters voted for Gore. Surely the will of the voters should be recognized.
Bush supporters may feel that the election was stolen away by highly suspect tampering with the ballots. Gore will serve out his term under a cloud. He will also face a Republican Congressional majority.
However, this election showed one thing. The country is incredibly evenly split between D emocrats and Republicans. It would be a fair reflection of this situation to have a Democrat as President and a Republican congress. After all, The Democrats won the popular vote for President by a hair and the Republicans won Congress by a hair. The E lectoral College is evenly split.
I believe that the Florida election officers, both campaigns and the American people are acting in good faith to try to find the "right" answer. The punch card ballots are difficult to use under the best of circumstan ces and the ballot could have been laid out differently. This was not an attempt by anybody to affect the outcome of the election. Both parties participated in this situation.
I also believe that the will of the voters can only be recognized with the ac ceptance of the disputed ballots as Gore votes. Gore won more votes, even if there was a technical problem that resulted in an unwanted second punch. 4.2% of the voters in Palm Beach County were disenfranchised by a poorly designed system. This is shock ing! This apparently has been going on for years, although not as badly. Why hasn't anybody noticed this and moved towards a system less prone to failure? I certainly hope that this would be a result of this election, not just in Florida, but throughout the country. If we have learned anything, it is that every vote counts and we have to design a system that accurately records every vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
