| Number 91 | October 20, 2000 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, I am as surprised as any of you that I have written an entire Nygaard Notes about the implications of a Democratic majority in Congress. I actually had an entirely different issue almost completely written. Then this happened. I'll be darned. If the subject doesn't interest you at all, just ignore it, and accept my apologies. I'll see you in two weeks, as I am taking next week off to catch up on stuff. I hope readers do not misinterpret my pro-Democrat voting piece this week as some sort of endorsement of the Party. Heaven forbid! What it is, really, is a suggestion to think of your vote as a tactical move to place some old "sixties-style" progressives and civil-rights veterans in positions of real power in the legislative branch. Getting people like John Conyers, a member of both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, into high-ranking positions in the government was the fondest hope of innumerable activists and voters when they cast their votes at the height of the Civil Rights movement (when Conyers was first elected to the House). So go vote, since it might allow some of us to spend less time defending the gains of the past and more time building the gains of the future. As always, please don't think of voting as the be-all and end-all of political change. It's just another tactic we can use to open up some doors. I hope you're doing other stuff, too! See you on November 2nd, Nygaard |
|
As I was listening to National Public Radio in the car after the third presidential debate, I heard one of the NPR commentators summarizing the questions that had been asked and the candidates' responses. I heard the commentator say,
|
|
I am taking next week off to catch up on the roughly 1,368 things that I am behind on; mostly clerical and other boring things having to do with the "business" of the Notes. A "working vacation," if you will. Issue Number 92 will come out on November 3rd. I'd like to tantalize you with some little teaser about the subject of Number 92, but I have no idea yet of what it will be about. I don't think it'll be about the elections, although you never know with Nygaard Notes. |
|
It's been said that if voting could really change things it would be illegal. There's some truth to that, but to therefore reject voting altogether is to fail to honor the memories of the many people who have fought and died over the course of U.S. history to extend the franchise to women, blacks, and the propertyless masses. Not to mention the people fighting and dying in other countries at this moment in their struggle for the same right. I said last week that the possibility of the Democrats taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives was "exciting." This excitement was stimulated by an E-mail circulated by Michael Moore, lefty movie-maker and, lately, Nader champion. His E-mail (entitled "The Black House" and reprinted on AlterNet as "Get Ready for a Black Congress-- you can read it at www.alternet.org) pointed out that "Thanks to the seniority they have accumulated, no fewer than TWENTY-TWO members of the Congressional Black Caucus stand to take over the chairmanships of 22 House committees and subcommittees!" And he went on to point out that this was not good news simply because of skin pigmentation, but that these African-American Representatives "have, for the most part, consistently voted for labor, women's rights, education, controls on corporations, cleaning up the environment and standing firm against free/sweatshop trade bills. They are the first to question U.S. meddling into the affairs of other countries, and the last to send our young people off to war." In addition, Moore pointed out that 32 members of the Progressive Caucus stand to become Committee or Sub-Committee chairs, as well, in a House controlled by Democrats. Like myself, Moore sees little difference between Democrats and Republicans, on the whole. But the particular Democrats who will become committee chairs, and the particular Republicans they will replace, make meaningful your vote for whoever your local Democrat may be. And it doesn't really matter what the philosophy of that particular Democrat is – they will be a junior member who can't do much harm; their main virtue at this point is to get some bad people out and some good people in to the important positions of committee chairpersons. In a separate article in this issue of Nygaard Notes, I give some specific information on what might happen in the event that the Democrats take control of the Senate (5 seats needed) or the House (8 seats needed). The point? Unless you have a third-party candidate in your area with a chance to win, your U.S. Senator or Representative is going to be either a Democrat or a Republican. I encourage all progressive, liberal, and radical people, no matter what state you live in, to go out this year and vote for whomever the Democratic candidate may be for the U.S. Congress or the U.S. Senate in your area. Having a Democrat in that seat is not going to bring any significant forward movement, and will change our abominable foreign policy hardly at all. The Democratic Party is not going to lead the way to a more just and humane society, or even attempt to challenge the basic structures of power in our increasingly-divided society. But the lessening of the Republican-led frontal attacks on poor and working-class Americans will give progressive grassroots organizers a little more breathing space. Both of the major parties are similar to big plantation owners: they have the land and you'd better stay off it. The difference is that the Democrats usually only will sic their dogs on you if you go near their property, while the Republicans will go ahead and send the dogs out looking for you no matter where you are. There is a difference. Go vote. |
|
Many people may not understand the power of Committee chairs in the United States legislature, so let me say a word about them. One of the things Committee chairs do, backed by the majority of their fellow party members, is to call public hearings on the issues of the day. These hearings often get all over the newspapers, setting the tone for new legislation, or for the repeal of existing legislation. These hearings can give people lots of funny ideas that are often not good at all. As an example of the power of these hearings, back in June I wrote about the hearings held in 1998 and 1999 by the Senate Finance Committee concerning the Internal Revenue Service. In those widely-reported hearings, all sorts of people paraded before the committee telling fantastic stories of persecution by the IRS, leading to the ultimate passage of a law called the "I.R.S. Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998." Since that law was passed, tax audit rates for the poor have increased by a third, while falling 90 percent for the wealthiest Americans. Most of the testimony was subsequently found to be false, but the law had already passed. This is power. (See Nygaard Notes #74, "A Vast Range of Abuses") Under a Democratic Senate, the Finance Committee would be chaired by Montana Democrat Max Baucus. He's hardly a revolutionary, but he would be quite a change from current chairman William Roth, as we'll see below. I think we could expect some different issues to be highlighted by a Baucus-led committee, and that's important. Equally important, we can expect to be spared the fear-mongering hearings aimed at promoting the ultra-right agenda of the modern Republican Party that we have seen under Roth. In other Senate Committees the potential change from Republican to Democrat stands to be even more dramatic. Just to give a flavor, I will report a few (among many) interest-group ratings for the current Republican Committee or sub-Committee chair and for the would-be Democratic chair. I will use ratings from a pro-choice group (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, or NARAL), a trade Union (United Auto Workers, or UAW), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the right-wing Christian Coalition (CC). In the Senate: The Senate's Finance Committee is in charge of Social Security, many health programs, trade agreements, and, of course, IRS oversight. Let's compare current Chairman Roth with prospective Chairman Baucus:
The Senate's Agriculture Committee is in charge of food stamps, farm pesticides, and school nutrition, among other things. The current Republican chair is Richard Lugar of Indiana; the Democratic chair would be Tom Harkin of Iowa.
The Senate's Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs Committee is in charge of public housing, nursing homes, urban mass transit, and, of course, banks, among other things. The current Republican chair is Phil Gramm of Texas; the Democratic chair would be Paul Sarbanes of Maryland.
The Senate's Foreign Relations Committee is in charge of U.S. policy as it relates to international law, treaties, IMF, World bank, and the U.N., among other things. The current Republican chair is Jesse Helms of North Carolina; the Democratic chair would be Joe Biden of Delaware.
The Health, Education, Labor And Pensions Committee is in charge of child labor, arts and humanities, mediation of labor disputes, and the wages and hours of labor, among other things. The current Republican chair is James Jeffords of Vermont; the Democratic chair would be Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.
The Indian Affairs Committee is in charge of Indian land claims, Indian health, and Indian education, among other things. The current Republican chair is Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado; the Democratic chair would be Daniel Inouye of Hawai.
In the House: The Judiciary Committee is in charge of civil liberties, prisons, and "subversive activities" among other things. The current Republican chair is Henry Hyde of Illinois; the Democratic chair would be John Conyers of Michigan. (John Conyers is the sponsor of a bill to explore the idea of reparations for the descendants of slaves in the United States; hearings on such a bill would be held by the Judiciary committee.)
The Ways and Means Committee is in charge of trade agreements and Social Security, among other things. The current Republican chair is Bill Archer of Texas; the Democratic chair would be Charles Rangel of New York.
The Resources Committee is in charge of mineral resources, marine affairs, and "relations with Native American tribes" ("native tribes" are a "resource?") among other things. The current Republican chair is Don Young of Alaska; the Democratic chair would be George Miller of California.
The Commerce Committee is in charge of biomedical research, consumer affairs, energy policy, and health, among other things. The current Republican chair is Tom Bliley of Virginia; the Democratic chair would be John Dingell of Michigan.
The Education and the Workforce Committee is in charge of prison labor, school food programs, labor standards, and education, among other things. The current Republican chair is William Goodling of Pennsylvania; the Democratic chair would be Bill Clay of Missouri.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. Although these interest-group ratings are not the greatest way to judge anyone, as they often use limited criteria or rate only on a single issue, I think the pattern is clear in the above examples. The average Republican Senate committee chair scores 20 on abortion rights, the average Democrat gets a 93; in the House those numbers are 0 (zero) and 95. On labor issues, the Republican Senators average 22, Democrats 93; in the House, 18 and 94. Civil liberties scores the Republican Senators at 31, Democrats at 83; in the House it's 10 and 92. And the very conservative Christian Coalition scores the average Republican Senate committee chair at 74, and the Democrat at 7; in the House it's 97 and 3. In no way do I mean to "endorse" any specific candidate, or to encourage you to turn away from any credible third-party candidate who may be running in your area. The "two" party system needs shaking up, and I would love to see some genuine progressives in the Congress, from whatever party. Still, it's worth considering the difference between having a Tom Harkin instead of a Richard Lugar in charge of Agriculture, or a Charlie Rangel instead of Bill Archer at Ways and Means. If you decide not to vote at all, I hope it's because you are too busy organizing your friends and co-workers, and not because you've completely given up. |