Walker Betrayal of Trust revealed – truth needs to be framed, then repeated…again and again

Unless you were living under a rock, or completely ignoring all local and national news outlets (not to mention Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, etc.), the release of court documents by Federal Appellate Court Judge Frank Easterbook  today shed much needed light on the conduct of Scott Walker, his campaign, and conservative allied groups leading up to the launch of the John Doe. Read Exhibit C of the released documents – which provide valuable insight into the campaign coordination that went on at a national level (read the links for in depth coverage). Perhaps the most revealing email exchange is from Scott Walker to Karl Rove on May 4, 2011:

Bottom-line: R.I. helps keep in place a team that is wildly successful in
Wisconsin. We are running 9 recall elections and it will be like running 9
Congressional markets in every market in the state (and Twin
Cities.)

This case before the 7th Circuit is the real deal. Judge Frank Easterbrook is no political hack, unlike Judge Rudolph Randa. Easterbrook is a University of Chicago graduate (JD) and senior lecturer, appointed by Ronald Reagan. Of Easterbrook, Dean of the U of C law school says:

Easterbrook is an important influence on legal education through his judicial opinions. Course after law school course has changed for the better as Judge Easterbrook’s opinions have made their way into the curriculum. So long as he decides cases, and decides them in a way that cuts to the heart of an issue with such skill and pressure, no area of law can be dull.

According to Wikipedia, another of Easterbrook’s colleagues calls him “the world’s greatest living jurist.”

The facts are clear – Walker coordinated with allied conservative groups at a national level during the recall election, and was answering to national conservative powerhouse Karl Rove. As we all know, the facts are not enough and are easily ignored. So how do we frame them effectively…so that even moderate conservatives will understand the significance of these activities?

For the sake of argument, let’s say that Walker et al walked the fine line just this side of the law. Why? Because conservative dominance of the courts means that decisions after Citizens United will err on the side of “money = speech.” What is more important are the moral implications of his (and the organizations’) actions. What is really important is the fact that Walker betrayed the trust of everyone who voted for him.

In the conservative moral frame (see previous posts and “Resources” page for detail), the worst thing the strict father can do is betray the trust of the family. The family metaphor applies to the state, and what Walker has done is (metaphorically) cheated on his Wisconsin family with powerful ideologues like Karl Rove. Worse, he is answering NOT to his Wisconsin constituents, but to Karl Rove – someone much more powerful and wealthy than the typical Wisconsinite. Walker has betrayed the trust of the people. 

This frame cascades to every issue in this campaign – who has reaped the benefits of the current administration’s economic policies (and who has been harmed)…who has benefited from his education policies (and who has been harmed)…the give away of our state’s natural beauty to powerful and wealthy profiteers…the list goes on and on.

In greater detail, the public (government) and those who serve the public have a moral obligation to protect and empower those they serve, to the best of their ability. In the progressive moral frame, that means acting on our empathy to be responsible for others as ourselves, and expanding freedom and opportunity for as many people as possible without impinging on the freedom of others (responsibility for others – and again, the mere pursuit of wealth through greed is not a freedom). Even in the conservative frame, there is the idea of accountability to the tenets of being faithful to one’s family – metaphorically, the state.

The way to make these truths about Walker exposed in the John Doe resonate with both progressives and conservatives – say WHY it matters:

Walker betrayed the trust of  Wisconsinites who elected him with people more powerful and rich than they are…

Then say how.

Then say it again.

And again.

And again.

By doing so, you can cognitively change the way people think about this (and every other) issue, and it will have an impact far beyond any single election.

Marriage Freedom Fighters show the way…in messaging

Way behind on blogging to current events and progressive messaging right now,  and I have promised education and environment issue framing blogs to some folks…

But the recent ruling by Federal Judge Barbara Crabb overturning Wisconsin’s ban on marriage freedom is a perfect example of how powerful framing is – if done correctly. The rapid paradigm shift in public discourse on the issue provides a lesson and opportunity for progressives to continue moving public discourse forward on other issues just as rapidly. It has to do with education, the environment, and every other issue. So while we continue to follow this story and celebrate with people who continue to struggle against oppression and phobia, a lesson in neural power.

First, it is critical for us to understand why, for conservatives, marriage is a moral issue. Conservatives actually believe their position on gay marriage is moral, just as progressives believe they are moral on the issue. Why? It has everything to do with the metaphorical basis of the conservative ideology – the “strict authoritarian father.”

In the conservative moral frame, the strict father is the highest authority (see previous posts for more detail about the conservative frame). This means authority “over” the family, and the metaphor extends through a hierarchical structure to everything in the conservative moral frame. This is critical, as much of what progressives consider to be overtly racist, sexist, or homophobic is a natural function of the hierarchy in the conservative frame. The hierarchy is highly metaphorical, embedded, and everywhere: father over the family, men over women, man over nature, rich over poor, whites over non-white races, Christianity over all other religions, United States over other nations, and of course – straight over gay people. The hierarchy must exist in the strict authoritarian father frame, and as you instinctively know, it is everywhere. For conservatives, it is part of their moral frame.

For progressives, it is a moral issue as well. Fortunately, a little over one decade ago, the leaders of the pro-marriage freedom progressives in California recognized the morality of the issue – and framed it as such. While he was in Madison recently, George Lakoff conveyed the story.

Prior to a decade ago, as many in the LGBT community will recall, the issue of gay marriage was a “gay rights” issue. Professor Lakoff, cognitive scientist at UC-Berkeley met with the organizers in California. The organizers had conducted extensive research on how to message the gay marriage issue, and Lakoff encouraged them to do what they instinctively thought was effective framing of the issue. Lakoff encouraged them to stop talking about “gay rights” and “gay marriage” (the issue) and focus on why the issue is moral (values). Fortunately, they followed their hearts – literally.

The issue of “gay marriage” in the progressive frame is about love and freedom. That is how public discourse was changed so quickly. People, even those who consider themselves conservative in one way or the other (unless they are sociopaths), are capable of empathy for others. Communicating over and over again about “love” and “freedom,” in the context of gay marriage, reinforced and activated the progressive moral frame – and inhibited the conservative frame – in millions of people across the country. This is, quite simply, how public discourse changed. It is also how progressives can continue actively changing public discourse in Wisconsin.

The progressive value of freedom applies to every issue, and needs to be talked about again and again. Quite simply, we want our communities and our state to expand freedom, not impinge upon freedom. We want communities where we care for (love) all of our neighbors. Through the Public (government), we must all act together to empower and protect everyone’s freedom in Wisconsin to…(insert issue i.e. get a great public education, marry the person they love, enjoy and protect our pristine land and water, etc.). And “expanding freedom” cannot mean impeding other’s freedoms for personal greed (sorry Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce).

By following the example set so beautifully by “Marriage Freedom Fighters,” we can work together to change public discourse and move Wisconsin Forward again!

 

 

Your donation will help keep this critical work going in Wisconsin…

 

Economics and Inequality – Changing Public Discourse

It has taken a groundbreaking book by French Economist Thomas Piketty (“Capital in the 21st Century”) to bring media and pundit attention to a problem which all legitimate economists have been concerned about for years. Pikkety very elegantly points out that income inequality is not only systemic, but it has systemic effects on virtually every aspect of life. This is something conservatives are keenly aware of; and a large reason, I believe, that in the current campaign term conservatives have jettisoned social issues for broader expansion of Friedman School market economic policy.

The problem for progressives in Wisconsin is that while all the macroeconomic data and facts about income inequality point to progressive solutions for our economic woes; the conservative frame of economics dominates policy, media, and language used by even the most progressive economists and policymakers. This is a critical problem. As we know from cognitive science research, trying to counter the conservative frame of economics by merely stating counterfactuals in their frame will only reinforce their frame. This is known as “negation.” Only by expressing economics in the progressive frame and providing context for the facts can this shift be achieved. So how do progressives do this in Wisconsin? First – understand the conservative frame of economics. Second, understand how to frame economics as a progressive. Finally, always frame economic facts in the progressive frame…again and again.

The conservative frame of economics is structured and expressed through the strict father metaphor of family (think James Dobson). The basic moral system goes like this: The strict father is the highest authority in the family, and as such is the highest MORAL authority. To be successful, one must be disciplined, and therefore moral. If one is not disciplined, you must be punished (usually inflicting physical pain) in order to become disciplined, and until you are disciplined, you deserve your poverty. Once you are disciplined, you will be moral, and therefore successful. While this is a complex moral system metaphor, it is easy to see it imprinted across conservative policy.

In addition, the conservative moral view of democracy is such that pursuit of one’s self interest is paramount. As such, the Public (government) and any other impediment to the pursuit of self-interest is immoral. So what does this say about economics and inequality from the conservative frame? Everything…

In order to be successful, you must be disciplined and therefore moral. If you are poor, it is because you are undisciplined and deserve your (physically painful) punishment in the form of poverty. When you become disciplined, you will be able to “pull yourself up” and be successful. It is immoral for you to receive help which you do not earn (via the Public), as that will prevent you from becoming disciplined.

Moreover, in the conservative frame, the market itself is moral, and functions as the strict father – punishing those who are undisciplined, and rewarding those who are disciplined. To conservatives, the market is the decider, making moral decisions on who prospers, and who gets punished. For this reason, the Public has no moral basis for impeding the market. The market economy is, in essence, a moral actor in the conservative frame.

The language evoking the conservative frame in economics is everywhere. It has culturally evolved over 40 years to be accepted by even progressive economists such as Paul Krugman. We know that this will continue to reinforce the entire moral frame of conservative economics – remember – all politics are moral. Here is an example from the current Wisconsin Gubernatorial race, demonstrating that even the Democratic Party candidate Mary Burke reinforces the conservative frame of the economy.

Mary Burke led the European Division at Trek…creating good jobs right here in Wisconsin. She took the same private sector approach as Secretary of the Department of Commerce... She’s the only candidate in the race to have created jobs in the private sector, and the only one to have started her own business. (Mary Burke Campaign website)

“I think we can have that sort of transformational difference — from government providing all the answers to where it empowered a partnership with employers, particularly small businesses, and created an environment for more jobs.” (Scott Walker Campaign website)

Remember, all politics are moral. We learn morality through deeply embodied metaphors which exist physically in our brains through decades of repetition and experience. Note that both candidates have “job creation” as the core of their economic platform. The Democratic candidate does not offer a contrasting view of the economy and employment. The phrase job creation evokes and activates the conservative moral frame of economics, and therefore the entire conservative moral frame as described above. How?

Using the term “job creation” accepts and reinforces the concept of the market, corporations, and wealthy individuals as moral (since they are successful, authoritarian “fathers” who rule by punishment). As such, it is only they who have the moral right to decide who is sufficiently disciplined and deserves a job. Under this moral system, if you do not have a job, it is your own fault for being undisciplined, and therefore you are immoral and deserving of your unemployment. The market and corporations are moral, it cannot be their fault. Again, this imprints onto every conservative issue, as one can easily observe. By evoking the “job creation” part of the frame, it activates the ENTIRE conservative frame, unconsciously reinforcing the entire conservative moral structure. This is a critical problem well beyond any political campaign. What to do…how do progressive reframe economics?

We have to start with a fundamental economic truth which comes out of the progressive frame, and is denied by conservatives – “Private enterprise and prosperity are impossible without the Public (all of us).” There are no successful businesses or individuals without the investment we all make in each other and our communities. The progressive view of democracy says just that – democracy is caring citizens acting through the Public (government – all of us) to expand freedom for everyone. The core of this frame is simple - EMPATHY. We must start talking economics in the frame of empathy and progressive freedom.

Another key is to understand and express the fact that corporations employ people because they will generate more profit. Therefore, WORKERS ARE PROFIT CREATORS. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be hired. There are no magic jobs creators who do so out of goodwill – profit is the motivator. This says a tremendous amount when we frame economic inequality this way:

It is workers who create profit for the wealthy and corporations. As such, those workers deserve a fair portion, as a family supporting living wage, of those profits for their work. This in turn will increase economic freedom and opportunity for more people, as it will increase the wages (share of profits) people will have to buy more goods and services. The cycle will be perpetual, bringing about greater income equality and access to capital for more and more people.

Further, the prosperity a private individual or corporation experiences is not possible without the public. The more wealth and capital one has, the more public resources and services they use – courts, infrastructure, government services, finance system, etc. It is their moral and patriotic duty to pay their fair share of taxes, as an investment in the Public which supports their prosperity. Hiding revenue and lobbying against progressive taxation is a betrayal of Public trust, immoral, and unpatriotic. It is greed, plain and simple, and this needs to be said!

When economics is considered in this frame, it takes on a very different meaning. It evokes a frame where there is economic freedom and opportunity for everyone, not just the wealthy and privileged. Where corporations gladly pay a progressive and fair share of taxes to support the investment we all make in them through public education, infrastructure, court systems, financial system, and public servants – instead of lobbying to destroy the Public.

It also evokes a moral frame where all workers are valued as profit creators, and therefore receive a fair share of those profits, to live free from fear of want now and in retirement. It evokes a sense of freedom, opportunity and fairness for everyone – not only the well connected and privileged.

These things need to be said ALL THE TIME when framing economics:

1. Private prosperity and enterprise are not possible without the Public (all of us)

2. Democracy is caring citizens acting through the Public to expand freedom for everyone.

3. Workers are profit creators, who deserve a fair, living wage share of those profits.

4. Empathy – we have a responsibility for others as ourselves.

Finally – reject the idea of the “job creator” and NEVER acknowledge it again. It is a fiction, which denies fundamental truths about a systemic economy where we are all connected, and are reliant on each other.

I am expecting a great deal of discussion and questions on this topic, as this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are deep, primary metaphors; moral hierarchies in the conservative frame; and deeply embodied frame structures at work here. To achieve a paradigm shift, we have to start being aware, and communicating effectively in our progressive frame.

Time for a “New Enlightenment” in Wisconsin

The time has come for the return of Badger Democracy, and for the emergence of a “New Enlightenment” in Wisconsin politics and policy. This new blog will focus on how, as progressives, we can focus our neural and cognitive power collectively to bring about a paradigm shift in Wisconsin politics – and it starts with the real grassroots, not a political party.

That is what our “Wisconsin Freedom Campaign” is about, and the momentum is building. Based on the work of scientists like George Lakoff, Antonio Damasio, and Giacomo Rizzolatti, we are using recent science to change messaging and communications to harness the neural power we all have – to effectively express our progressive values about issues. With all of us working together, we can create a paradigm shift, and bring about a New Enlightenment in Wisconsin.

This blog will address current issues, election, and campaign messaging. If you need or want more detailed information about the science, see the “Resources” page of this blog. I will break current messaging down for you, how it influences public discourse, and give you ideas of how to change public discourse to become more progressive. I also welcome your feedback, questions, and constructive comments on the “Contact” page. Let’s go…


Messaging in the Race for Governor

On April 15, in advance of the official Walker re-election announcement,  the Democratic Party of Wisconsin (DPW) issued a memo to communications leaders statewide. The title of the email was “#ScottWalkerFailed: Rapid Response Talking Points,” and it outlined the messaging strategy for defeating him. From the perspective of cognition and effective messaging, it is a disaster. Here’s why, and what we as progressives should be doing and talking about (again, if you need a review of the science basics, see the powerpoint on the “Resources” page):

1. Using the standard campaign model “talking points” will not work. We must use positive, progressive, and proactive messaging – even when undermining conservatives…here’s why:

  • When you say “Scott Walker” over and over again, you increase name recognition. Also, since Scott Walker embodies the conservative frame, you unconsciously activate and reinforce that entire frame.
  • To “fail” is not a bad thing. You can try to do something morally right and beneficial to everyone and fail miserably. A great leader will get up and try again – and the people will rally behind and support the underdog who has failed.
  • Combining “Scott Walker” and “fail” is a messaging disaster. It unconsciously reinforces Scott Walker as the authoritarian figure acting morally to do something difficult; and that he is deserving of public support to try again. This entire “Scott Walker fail” campaign functions as an ad for Scott Walker, and puts him in a moral light.

Placing a list of facts as to why Scott Walker has failed, after reinforcing his moral frame, only reinforces the conservative, pro-Walker frame.

2. Instead of using the same, negative talking points, here is what to do – create a positive message expressing progressive values, and use it on EVERY issue in EVERY campaign! Start with understanding these core truths:

  • We the People ARE the Public, with a moral responsibility to protect and empower our fellow citizens.
  • Private enterprise and prosperity are not possible without the Public.
  • Democracy is only possible when caring citizens act on their empathy through the Public to expand freedom for everyone.
  • Without the Public, there is no democracy, and no freedom.

3. Build positive, progressive messages on every issue that evoke the progressive frame BEFORE you cite facts. This will give facts the context necessary to be accepted, connect issues through values, and will inhibit activation of the conservative frame. Here are 5 important issues:

  • Fiscal Policy
  • Private enterprise and prosperity are not possible without the Public (our investment in each other).
  • There can be no prosperity when the Public (all of us) is being systemically destroyed!
  • Our (progressive) economic policy is all about expanding freedom for everyone!
  • Conservative economic policy impedes people’s freedoms.
  • (Follow with facts to back it up!) 
  • Education
  • Public Schools provide opportunity and freedom for every child to learn necessary skills and knowledge.
  • Without public education, there is no democracy, and no freedom.
  • We have a responsibility to invest in our future through public education.
  • Public Schools are the heart of the community.
  • Private prosperity not possible without the Public (Education)
  • (Follow with facts to back it up!) 
  • Labor Unions
  • Do NOT say “collective bargaining” – this evokes the conservative frame. Say “negotiate for fair portion of profits”
  • Unions stand for the freedom of people to organize in a democracy.
  • Unions empower people to be free from want and fear through living wages, adequate benefits, and humane labor practices.
  • Corporations will not pay your worth without a union – your labor has higher value with a union than as individual.
  • Workers are “profit creators.”
  • Wages must be a fair portion of profit created.
  • Public workers are public servants.
  • Private enterprise and prosperity are not possible without the Public (servants/employees/workers).
  • (Follow with facts to back it up!)
  • Voting Rights/Voter Suppression
  • Voting is necessary to democracy and freedom!
  • Any legislation to restrict voter access is anti-freedom!
  • Our state/nation has a long history of voting rights’ expansion – current legislation impedes on the basic freedom to vote.
  • Support voting freedom by fully funding early voting statewide.
  • (Follow with facts to back it up!)
  • Environment
  • Do NOT say “resources” – this is in conservative language (resources are to be used) – talk about “the land,” “our water,” “our air,” etc.
  • Private prosperity for all depends on the Public (land, water, air, etc.).
  • To be free, we must have clean water to drink, air to breathe, and land to enjoy and live on.
  • Recent mining laws are anti-freedom – corporations are stealing our land, water, and pollute our air to line their pockets.
  • Rich and powerful corporations are polluters and privateers of OUR land, water, and air. (“Privateers” are corporate profiteers who get rich with public assets –for privatizing a formerly public service like education or public land and water)
  • (Follow with facts to back it up!) 

4. Contrast the positive message by using this positive, progressive frame of democracy to undermine Walker (do NOT say “Scott Walker” or “Governor Walker” any more) and the conservatives:

  • Walker has betrayed Wisconsin – for people richer and more powerful than you. (or “Walker doesn’t care about people like you”)
  • Walker has taken out a balloon mortgage on our kids’ futures, just to give more money to the rich.
  • Walker is giving our future investment in education to privateers who are getting rich at our kids’ expense. (“Privateers” are corporate profiteers who get rich with public assets –for privatizing a formerly public service like education or public land and water)
  • Walker is giving our money to big corporations that aren’t accountable to us, for a few to get rich.
  • Walker is giving corporate privateers our land to get rich off of and it won’t be there for our kids to treasure.
  • (Follow with facts to back it up!)

                 5. Use progressive language and values to positively frame and express an issue, undermine your opponent, and to put your facts into context. Always answer or respond to a question or attack in the progressive frame. Don’t respond in the conservative frame. Learn to “pivot” – that is, answer the question YOU want to answer. 

For example: 

                You are asked: “Are you for or against voucher school expansion?”

First, think about the fundamental progressive moral frame (what progressive freedom and democracy are from #2 above), and don’t answer in the conservative frame. If you talk about “voucher expansion,” you have reinforced the conservative frame!

Second, reframe – Start with something like, “Public schools are the heart of our communities, and we have a responsibility to invest in the future of our communities. Without great public schools, we have no future prosperity, and no democracy.”

Third, follow up with a short fact“Public subsidies for unaccountable private schools are systemically destroying our great Wisconsin community schools.” (There is a great deal of research to support this statement)

Finally, you can undermine Walker“In fact, Walker is giving our future investment in education to privateers, unaccountable to us, who are getting very wealthy from it. This is a betrayal of trust. Our responsibility is to give every child the freedom and opportunity to learn necessary skills and knowledge. This is only possible through public education. ”

It takes about 20 – 30 seconds to pivot the frame, with practice. This is about expressing your core values effectively, and activating the progressive, empathetic values that exist in almost everyone – even people that are conservative!

Activating that frame, or neural circuitry, will inhibit activation of the conservative frame, and strengthen the progressive in people. Doing this repetitively will literally change brains – and public discourse.

Stay tuned for more…and your questions, comments, and feedback are welcome (as are contributions to support this crucial work)!


			

Moving on…and up

It’s been quite a ride. Twenty-six months ago, I launched Badger Democracy blog to comment on what was (and still is) happening politically in my beloved Wisconsin. This blog has also filled in a void of information left by a media that has been steadily in decline. Thanks to the literally thousands of you who have read Badger Democracy over the past two years, and especially those who continue to engage in the political process.

But as the title of this post says, it is indeed time for me to move onward, and upward. As many of you already know, I recently co-founded and am heavily committed to the “Forward Institute.” We are a non-profit, non-partisan policy research and messaging organization, and we are already creating some buzz and making some waves. Our recent study, Wisconsin Budget Policy and Poverty in Education has received statewide press coverage. It is also changing the way policy makers and legislators are thinking and talking about education issues in Wisconsin. We’ve received bi-partisan support, and continue to engage and collaborate with statewide grassroots groups, and other 501c3 organizations.

As a final request on this blog, I am asking all of the 1,000 ++ who follow this blog to keep up with, and follow the Forward Institute’s research and future work, and even engage with us wherever possible. We founded to fill another void. We are Wisconsin’s first truly independent think tank, and we are here to do the research and messaging work that grassroots organizations can’t do themselves, then share it statewide.

We are doing a great deal of that work right now…in fact we’ll be in Black River Falls this weekend to take part in the Regional Frac Sand Mine Conference. We are also looking for independent funding sources outside of relying on the people we will be serving and working with. But as many of you know, that is always slow to develop. Our expenses are relatively small right now, but any contribution of any size would be greatly appreciated, to help offset the little things we need as we continue to grow. And yes, we are a 501c3 – so just let me know, and I can get you a receipt. You can use the donation button below, or contact me with any questions.

We are all making a difference. Stay engaged, stay strong, and please keep in touch through Forward Institute or email. Badger Democracy will stay on this site, as will the archives. Thanks again, and I look forward to the day when we are all back in the Capitol celebrating the restoration of our Wisconsin, always moving FORWARD!

Solidarity,

Scott Wittkopf

Chair, Forward Institute (scott@forwardinstitutewi.org)


			

And here we go again in Wisconsin…of idiots and ideologues

Hear me, people: We have now to deal with another race – small and feeble when our Fathers first met them, but now great and overbearing. Strangely enough they have a mind to till the soil, and the love of possession is a disease with them. These people have made many rules that the rich may break, but the poor may not. They take their tithes from the poor and weak to support the rich and those who rule. (Chief Sitting Bull, Powder River Conference, 1877)

Is there a better processional for the parade of idiots and ideologues in the 2013 Legislative Session? The People who were here long before Wisconsin became a state were led by visionaries that understood the motivation of a white man corrupt with power.

A Mining Bill is poised to pass out of both committees this week, on the fast track to a swift vote within weeks. A bill which would mean devastation to one of the world’s great supplies of freshwater. Water which means life not only to an indigenous people, but those who have since settled and call the Bad River watershed and Lake Superior Basin home. But damn the torpedoes, science, and those inconvenient geological facts…full speed ahead Mr. and Ms. Chairman/Woman, we have (paying) corporate constituents to serve.

The only hope for defeat of this bill lies in the Republican-controlled Senate, and the possibility that four of its members still listen to a little voice most of us hear as a conscience. Dale Schultz, Mike Ellis, Robert Cowles, and Luther Olsen may be the only sane Republicans left in this biennial assemblage of insanity we still call a “Legislature.” This writer holds out hope that the smokescreen of empty jobs promises is wearing thin in a state moving closer to honorable entry into socio-economic “Dixie”…and further away from its progressive roots.

Has there been a time in our state’s recent history which more closely resembles oligarchy than democracy? The unholy triumvirate of Walker, Fitzgerald, and Vos…let’s face it, in 2010 Jeff Fitzgerald was nothing but a figurehead. Vos is, and has been pulling the strings all along. I digress. This triumvirate has the state government in lockdown, controlling the message in and out, controlling debate, the media, and god forbid anyone should sing in the Capitol. Every moment of every day is a campaign. Public policy is built on a campaign strategy, and supported by money. Lots of it. If you are on the right (literally) side, the money pool is almost unlimited. If you are on the wrong side…well, money doesn’t follow losers. And no money, no access.

Even the Capitol press corps is being kept on a short leash, with passes and access being strictly controlled by the powerful few. Say the wrong thing, write the story the wrong way, come across as the least bit partisan (read – report what we tell you to), and no access for you. End of story, end of job as a Capitol correspondent. This sort of power concentration is rare in Wisconsin. Scott Walker has power, and he is using it.

Walker is raising unprecedented amounts of money, and spending a lot of it on his legal defense fund. Let’s all be honest here…something stinks about the way Walker has campaigned, raised money, and conducted his business in and out of office. His administration is loaded with insiders, fixers, and power mongers. No interest in governing, just power and money. Crooks, liars, sharks. The smart money is that there is something illegal here…but that same money doubts the political will of a Milwaukee County DA to take on the Walker machine. But the Feds? Reminds me of something…

Richard Nixon in 1972. Re-elected, destroying McGovern in a landslide. Everyone knew, but few said it, that Richard Milhous Nixon was a crook. The media knew – but sat on the story until after the election. Once there was blood in the water, the media went in for the kill. Before Watergate, Nixon was untouchable, and had concentrated more power than almost any other president in history. The scary part is, once the scab was ripped off, no one knew how bad the wound was, or how long it would take to heal. Maybe it never has…and maybe we failed to learn the lessons of too much power in the hands of a man like Nixon…or Scott Walker. And so here we go again…in Wisconsin.

There is some light, in this dark time of plutocracy. There are voices rising above the din, who don’t rely on a Capitol press pass. We are getting one back tomorrow. John “Sly” Sylvester is back on the air Monday, February 4th from 3 – 6:30 pm. Sly will be on one of the last remaining locally owned and independent stations in the entire country – 93.7FM WEKZ. He’ll now have a three state reach – Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa. Sly will also be contributing to the good fight against Democrats who are mere posers in our neighboring states – like Rahm “NAFTA, TIF King, Kill Public Schools” Emanuel, and Pat “screw the pension fund” Quinn. Station link to listen live here.

I’ll be listening. Why? Because in this time of incredible propaganda, Sly is honest about what he says and believes. He’ll question and confront both Republicans and Democrats who turn their back on Wisconsin working families. And that is important.

The new debate on economics and education will continue to demonize teachers and other public employees. It will perpetuate the myth of impending fiscal doom to preserve the wealth of those paying to spread that myth. Scott Walker will continue to do what Sitting Bull warned about in 1877: They take their tithes from the poor and weak to support the rich and those who rule.” It is voices like Sly’s we need to call out the Walkers, Fitzes, Vos’ Emanuels, Ryans, and Johnsons of our time for what and who they are. Greedy, power-hungry, sharks and fixers who are out for blood. The life blood of Wisconsin – its people and resources in exchange for money and power.

A final quote before sign-off…a warning shot across the bow of our fragile democracy:

When democracy granted democratic methods to us in times of opposition, this was bound to happen in a democratic system. However, we…never asserted that we represented a democratic point of view, but we have declared openly that we used the democratic methods only to gain power, and that, after assuming the power, we would deny to our adversaries without any consideration the means which were granted to us in times of our opposition.

No, that was not from a Walker secret conversation with Robin Vos.

It was Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, 1935 propaganda pamphlet, quoted in Vol. I “Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression,” US Government Printing Office 1946 

Vigilance. Always vigilance.

Mining Bill will be voted on in Committee February 6

This afternoon Wisconsin State Senator Tom Tiffany and Rep. Mary Williams announced an Executive Session in both Senate and Assembly Committees taking up SB/AB1 (The Mining Bill).

The Assembly Committee will take up The Mining Bill in Executive Session:

Wednesday, February 6, 2013
10:00 AM
417 North (GAR Hall)

The Senate Committee will take up the Mining Bill the same day:

Wednesday, February 6, 2013
10:00 AM
201 Southeast

The Executive Session will occur three days prior to the hearing scheduled in Ashland by Senator Bob Jauch and Rep Janet Bewley, who serve constituents that would be directly impacted by a Taconite mine in the Penokee Range. That hearing is scheduled for Saturday, February 9 at the AmericInn in Ashland.

No “official” hearing is scheduled in the region, and based on the scheduled Committee hearings and likely vote to message to the full legislative bodies, the current mining bill appears to be fast tracked in spite of significant technical and legal issues with the bill as written.

A representative in Mary Williams’ office confirmed to Badger Democracy this afternoon that the bill would be voted on to refer out of committee on February 6.

The hidden danger in the Mining Bill version 2013

Tomorrow, Wednesday January 23 at 9:00 AM, Room 411 South at the Wisconsin State Capitol will be the only scheduled hearing  (for now) on the new Mining Bill.  The hearing takes place before a joint committee, and will undoubtedly be contentious. One of the greatest miscarriages of justice in this process has been the omission of participation, and lack of  recognition of the Bad River Nation and the impact on this legally sovereign entity.

This is intentional, as there is a hidden danger in the new Mining Bill which has received little attention in the press. The result, if this bill is passed, will be a bad law – which is what happens when corporate influence holds outsized sway over a legislative body. The only jobs that will be created if this bill passes will be for attorneys, and rightly so. The current bill has language that will virtually deregulate one of the greatest hazards to freshwater and the Great Lakes – sulfide ore. The passage of this bill could lead to mining activity that would turn surface water into acidic runoff, ruining the environment in one of the greatest freshwater basins on earth.

Senate/Assembly Bill 1, page 3 contains the Legislative Reference Bureau’s analysis of the change in “sulfide ore” regulation:

Current law prohibits DNR from issuing a permit for metallic mining in a sulfide ore body (a mineral deposit in which metals are mixed with sulfide minerals) unless it finds, based on information provided by the applicant, that two conditions are satisfiedUnder the bill, these conditions on issuing a permit for metallic mining in a sulfide ore body do not apply to issuing a permit for iron mining.

The expedited release of sulfide ore deposits into surface water, and the damage it causes has been well documented over several decades:

The acidic discharge and metal-laden leachate from mining activities is known as acid mine drainage (“AMD”)…AMD is one of the most damaging and widespread pollutants associated with the mining industry throughout the world.  As of 1997, over 60 mines or mineral processing plants were on CERCLA’s National Priorities List, indicating contamination so severe that it requires federally-funded cleanup. (S.R. Jennings, D.R. Neuman, and P.S. Blicker (2008). “Acid Mine Drainage and Effects on Fish Health and Ecology: A Review”. Reclamation Research Group Publication, Bozeman, MT for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anhorage Field Office. Available online at http://www.pebblescience.org/pdfs/Final_Lit_Review_AMD.pdf)

Among some legislators associated with this bill, there is confusion regarding iron ore mining and sulfides. This confusion has been propagated by GTAC, in the hopes of keeping the facts (and legislators) in the dark. Part of the confusion is based on facts regarding iron ore mining:

It is important at the outset to clarify some common confusion surrounding sulfide mining and to distinguish it from other traditional forms of mining in the region. While iron mining has a long history and still continues in the upper Midwest, it does not involve the mining
or disturbance of sulfide ores. Iron is generally mined out of an iron oxide ore, not an iron sulfide ore, and iron oxide ores do not degrade and toxify the same way that sulfide ores do. (Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, “Great Lakes: Basic Information.” http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/basicinfo.html)

The Penokee Range Taconite is unique, however. A report issued by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and scientists at Michigan Tech in March, 2012 draws the distinction:

This issue can be confusing because iron sulfides (e.g., pyrite, iron disulfide) are among the most prevalent of sulfide ores, so they are often the leading causes of acid mine drainage (“AMD”) in a sulfide mining operation. This does not, however, mean that iron mines are always associated with sulfurous AMD. In fact, the presence of sulfur in an iron ore is considered a weakening factor, rendering the ore undesirable for iron extraction. Iron sulfides are simply a common byproduct of the extraction of other metals from sulfide ore bodies. 

A taconite mine that disturbs sulfide ore bodies, on the other hand, would present the same hazards as non-ferrous metallic mines. The Gogebic Taconite mine under development in northern Wisconsin is an example of a taconite mine that may disturb sulfide minerals.

A recent article published by The Wisconsin Academy titled “Ironwood: The Rocks of the Penokee Range” confirms and details the unique geological features of the formation:

Figure 2. Block diagram showing the Ironwood Formation and adjacent bedrock layers. The view is looking toward the west (from U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1730)

Geologist Tom Fitz details the composition of the “Tyler Formation;” the large, wedge-shaped layer above the “Iron-Formation” layer (see figure, above).

There is also pyrite present in the Tyler Formation, some of which would end up in the tailings as well. When pulverized and put in contact with oxygen and water at the Earth’s surface, pyrite and other sulfide minerals can undergo chemical reactions that create sulfuric acid. This acid can leach harmful metals and compounds that end up in groundwater and surface water.

It is also possible that sulfate ions released during the weathering of pyrite would affect the growth of wild rice and other elements of the sensitive ecosystem found downstream from the mine. 

 The legislation passed in January 2012 by the Wisconsin State Assembly would have decreased the rigor required in scientific studies regarding potential impacts, making assessment of potential damages difficult. At the same time it would weaken many environmental regulations that protect the Bad River and its tributaries from significant water quality changes.

THAT is the hidden danger in the current Mining Bill. The authors have created a special exception for Iron Mining, taking away the regulations and processes that will protect the surface water and Lake Superior watershed from the harmful sulfides created from extracting iron ore through a heavily pyrite layer. The waste runoff created from destruction and disposal of the sulfide ore will have a longterm impact on regional water quality:

Figure 4. Map of the Bad River Watershed showing the location of the iron ore and the Bad River Reservation

The major corporate entities poised to benefit from the bill have intentionally perpetrated a fraud in this bill, and it endangers the very lifeblood of North Central Wisconsin – the water. The reason? They cannot mine the ore because of the low price of iron, and make millions of dollars in profit unless they are able to pollute the water – and they know it. THAT is why they created this provision in the bill. From the NWF Mining Study cited above:

Wisconsin’s sulfide mining law has perhaps the greatest regulatory scope of any of the
U.S. jurisdictions surveyed…Notably, state agencies are charged with the essential task of completing the environmental review for the project in the application phase, rather than the permittee. Special attention is paid to siting criteria and water quality, and the financial assurance mechanisms are written to ensure that any necessary cleanup will be fully funded by the permittee.

If you wanted to make a quick, multi-million dollar deal on a mine, this is how you would do it.

For the record, this has NOTHING to do with creating jobs. It’s about creating a “boom” economy in North Central Wisconsin, so a few people can make a quick buck.

Who cleans up when the bubble bursts, as it always does?

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey and “Conscious Capitalism” – putting lipstick on a pig

John Mackey is the co-CEO of Whole Foods Market, its founder, and a self-proclaimed independent libertarian. Mackey has also recently authored a book, “Conscious Capitalism.” While he speaks in platitudes about corporations acting as conscientious citizens of the world, Mackey’s actions as CEO of a major corporation betray his real motivation.

Mackey was forced to back pedal from his comments on the Patient Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”):

Technically speaking, it’s more like fascism. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. In fascism, the government doesn’t own the means of production, but they do control it — and that’s what’s happening with our health care programs and these reforms.

Mackey is dead wrong on the government-corporate relationship under fascism. Italian historian and fascism authority Emilio Gentile gives the authoritative description:

Corporative organization of the economy that suppresses trade union liberty, broadens the sphere of state intervention, and seeks to achieve, by principles of technocracy and solidarity, the collaboration of the ‘productive sectors’ under control of the regime, to achieve its goals of power, yet preserving private property and class divisions. (Payne, Stanley G (A History of Fascism, 1914-1945). University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 5–6)

More importantly, it is time to call Mackey’s vision of capitalism (and Whole Foods Market) what it is, and this writer does not use this term loosely. “Corporate fascism” is an accurate and apt description of the Mackey philosophy. Consider Gentile’s definition. above, in light of Mackey’s actions and writings.

Mackey is a staunch proponent of a corporate-centric economy, with no government or regulatory intervention. Both Whole Foods Market and Mackey are anti-union, anti-worker’s rights. The Mackey philosophy would see a collaborative corporate control over the means of production, to achieve its own goals of power through corporate solidarity (WMC, US Chamber of Commerce, etc.). Preservation of private property and class division are a necessity for the Mackey vision, as there can be no cheap labor production without class division. Ironically, Mackey is a proponent of the expansion of state intervention, as long as it is on behalf of corporate welfare expansion. There is plenty of proof to support this assertion…

On November 16, 2011, Mackey penned an op-ed by invitation in the Wall Street Journal, titled “To Increase Jobs, Increase Economic Freedom.”  In a response to Mackey’s article written on February 1, 2012, Badger Democracy addressed the fundamental arguments in the op-ed:

1. Cut the size and cost of government - 100 years ago, government spending was 8% of GDP; today it is 40% of GDP. This additional money spent by the government could be used to “create jobs.”

2. Cuts should be made in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense – many of these services could be privatized, using the “success” of Chile and Singapore as models.

3. Stimulate the economy by cutting taxes and regulations - Mackey explains that cutting taxes would “increase revenue… as entrepreneurs create new businesses and new jobs and as people earn more money.”

In his own op-ed, Mackey supports further provisions which would continue the US economy down a dangerous path. Greater corporate consolidation of power, greater consolidation of wealth, greater class inequity, and greater corporate influence on policy which would regulate said power.

The dagger in Mackey’s theory is a recent report in the conservative-leaning Financial Times, also reported in the New York Times. The article cites a steady decline in earned wages and a steady rise in investor income through profit and interest:

“58%…is the share of US national income that goes to workers as wages rather than to investors as profits and interest. It has fallen to its lowest level since records began after the second world war and is part of the reason why incomes at the top – which tend to be earned from capital – have risen so much. If wages were at their postwar average share of 63 per cent, workers would earn an extra $740 billion this year, about $5,000 per worker, according to FT calculations.”

More power and wealth for the corporate fascists, with less taxes and accountability means more money to influence and drive politics and policy:

 

Corporate Taxes Paid by US Corporations, 1950-2010

(Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis analysis)

Corporate income tax graph

 

Cheap labor production is possible due to the expansion of the wealth gap and class disparities:

 

 

John Mackey’s Whole Foods Market has also forced employees to “vote” to cut their own wages and benefits. Wages have been cut due to reduction in hours, and employees will be forced to contribute more in spite of enormous corporate growth:

In 2007, WFM profits (after taxes and expenses) totaled $182.7 million. Four years later, in 2011, profits totaled $342.6 million – nearly double in 4 years.  For the first sixteen weeks of 2011, total profits were $88.7 million; for the same period in 2012, profits totaled $118.3 million. Store expenses have decreased by 38 points in 2011, including 28 points due to wage cuts. In real numbers, most stores have executed 3% cuts in labor over the past fiscal year, resulting in most employees seeing a 5-8% cut in wages (due to hours being cut).

Of course, Mackey built Whole Foods with his own two hands, with no government help (sarcasm)…therefore, government should stay out of his business. This is the great lie of corporate fascism. Mackey and his ilk want the government to work for them. The doctrine of so-called “corporate conscious” follows in the words of Gentile:

…broadens the sphere of state intervention, and seeks to achieve, by principles of technocracy and solidarity, the collaboration of the ‘productive sectors’ under control of the regime, to achieve its goals of power.

The corporate fascists would have us believe the great lie of their own self-determination and success, that personal strength and sacrifice alone built their empires. Mackey is as guilty of this as any of them. Whole Foods is a prolific recipient of government intervention and welfare on its own behalf.

In 2011, an $8 million tax break for a new Washington DC Whole Foods development raised questions of return on public investment and why public money was even needed:

And why does this project require a special subsidy to move forward in the first place?  This Whole Foods already would qualify for a set of tax incentives for grocery store development, including a 10–year property tax break on the store itself.  Moreover, while some projects near Nationals Park have languished in the recession, this area is likely to be part of the emerging rebound, thanks in part to prior public investment by the District.  Finally, if a Whole Foods will revitalize this neighborhood as it did in Logan Circle, why won’t private market interests step up to make it happen?

In the same year, Whole Foods received $4.2 million in tax subsidies to open a Detroit area store, uncovered only by FOIA requests:

The documents, obtained by the Chaldean News under the Freedom of Information Act and provided toCrain’s, show that Whole Foods is asking for $4.2 million in city, state and federal incentives to open a store in downtown Detroit.

According to the exchanges, the 21,000-square-foot project is expected to get $1.5 million in local and community foundation funds, $1.2 million in federal tax credits under the New Market program and $1.5 million in state incentives.

Michael Sarafa, president of the Bank of Michigan and co-publisher of The Chaldean News, questions the use of incentives to lure a national grocery chain to Detroit. He said there are 83 independently-owned grocers in the city, many of them owned by Chaldeans, who did not receive incentives.

 

Controversial “TIF” funds are being used for construction of a Whole Foods-anchored development in St. Louis, hardly in a blighted area.

The new Whole Foods development in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago is being partially funded by an $11.3 million “TIF” in an already well-developed area.

Mackey is now on the record confirming that Whole Foods will begin eliminating full-time employees as a result of “Obamacare” being fully enacted. This in an interview with Greta Van Susteren:

…there will be a strong temptation for businesses to keep people under 30 hours, so they don’t have to provide health care. And you will have a lot of part-time workers and fewer full-time workers, a lot of people underemployed.

Whole Foods prided itself, we’ve always had a higher mix of full-time to part-time workers like 80 percent full-time and 20 percent part-time, which is very rare in retail. But as I suspect as our health care costs are driven up by health care reforms then we’ll end up gradually lower our full-time ratio to a much lower number.

There is no fiscal truth to this statement. As proven in Whole Foods’ own financial statements and a previous Badger Democracy blog, the company’s health care costs per employee are actually lower than they were before “Obamacare’s” passage. The reason for Whole Foods’ higher total costs is simple – the company is growing. With government and public help.

It is time to take the lipstick off the pig. The philosophy of John Mackey should be called what it is. Corporate freedom, rights, and independence over all – even the individual. No worker’s rights, no government regulation or intervention EXCEPT on behalf of the corporation and its own interests. In short…corporate fascism.

And Mackey calling “Obamacare” fascism? Pure projection.

 

Supreme Court Denies Van Hollen petition on Voter ID

In considering Wisconsin State Attorney General JB Van Hollen’s November 7, 2012 petition to bypass the Court of Appeals and consolidate the two Voter ID cases (League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Network, Inc, et al. v. Scott Walker, et al.,and Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP, et al. v. Scott Walker, et al.), the state’s high court denied the petition on both counts.

In the decision published this afternoon, the Court again refused to take up Voter ID, pending the Court of Appeals hearing, and also refused to consolidate the two cases.

This represents the second refusal of the State Supreme Court to take up Voter ID ahead of the Court of Appeals. On September 27, 2012, the Court denied another similar Van Hollen request, citing the motion as being “premature.”

Van Hollen has made enactment of Voter ID a centerpiece of his term as Attorney General, in spite of the staggeringly low occurrence of voter fraud in previous elections.