Obama's campaign and presidential Five Day Pledge for public input of bills sent to him needs clarification

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Sunlight Foundation

Searching for Clarity in the Five Day Pledge

By John Wonderlich on 05/26/09 @ 5:07 pm

Picture: White House press secretary Robert Gibbs (R) with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.


Today’s Washington Times has a review of President Obama’s pledge to post legislation online before signing it, where Press Secretary Gibbs is paraphrased:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the clock starts ticking when a
link is posted to bills when they are in their final version, such as a
conference report, even if they haven’t passed Congress.

Here’s (I believe) the exchange from Friday:

Q Robert, on the signings today, I’m wondering, the President had pledged
to put bills up on the Web for five days before he signed legislation. And is
that just pretty much out the window?

MR. BURTON: It’s been five days.

MR. GIBBS: I think we posted conference reports several days in
advance. I can get you the exact days.

Q The conference reports?

MR. GIBBS: The conference reports that after they’ve voted on become
the gross legislation that’s delivered here that the President ultimately signs
that becomes public law.

Q So you’re — is that a finalized version of it that went out or
–

MR. GIBBS: Well, a conference report, as you know, is an unamendable
piece of legislation that has to be approved by both Houses, language has to be
simultaneous, it gets sent down here, and we sign it. So if a conference report
is — if something is delineated as a conference report or if there’s not a
conference committee and there’s a separate piece of legislation, if the Senate
passes a bill — if the House and Senate pass different versions of a bill and
the House agrees to accede to the Senate version, then the Senate version might
be put up before the House votes on it. Once they vote on it, both Houses have
passed identical legislation, and it comes down here.

Q So it’s effectively a finalized version. It just hasn’t –

MR. GIBBS: It’s not effectively — it legally is, yes.

Q Okay.

Compare that to this post from WhiteHouse.gov from January 20th:

One significant addition to WhiteHouse.gov reflects a campaign promise from the
President: we will publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five
days, and allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it.

The only other update from the White House has come in this post, which says:

The President remains committed to bringing more transparency to government, and in this spirit the White House will continue to publish legislation expected to
come to his desk online for public comment as it moves through Congress.

A little clarity would go a long way here. The White House will either start to fulfill campaign promise, whether it’s meaningful or not, or they won’t. The least acceptable choice, though, is to continue to redefine online, or bill.

For a clearer version of the pledge, here’s the version Politifact cites:

“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the
public has the opportunity to review them,” Obama’s campaign Web site states .
“As president, Obama will not sign any nonemergency bill without giving the
American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.”

That’s pretty clear. Posting a link from WhiteHouse.gov to THOMAS of a conference report that is expected to pass doesn’t cut it.


>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama Falling Short of Promised Online Openness; Does it Matter? (readwriteweb.com)
• Transparency, a poem (allthingsreform.org)

For sale in June Theresa Amato book “Grand Illusion: the Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny”

Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Ballot Access News

Theresa Amato, Nader Campaign Manager in 2004, Speaks to Maine League of Women Voters State Convention May 2nd, 2009

The League of Women Voters is holding its state convention May 1-2, at Bowdoin College, Brunswick. The speaker for May 2, at 1 p.m. through 2:30 p.m., is Theresa Amato, Ralph Nader’s campaign manager in 2000 and 2004. Because Amato is about to publish a book about Nader’s 2004 campaign, focusing on the historically unprecedented attempts by the Democratic Party to prevent voters from voting for Nader, it is virtually certain that Amato’s talk will focus on ballot access. The book, to be published soon by The New Press, is titled, “Grand Illusion: the Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny.”

[This Ballot Access News article accepts comments]

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

President Obama must do more to lower the nation's deficits during his stay in office

The White House. Image by Fabio Gava via Flickr

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Taxpayers for Common Sense

Do More on the Deficit

Volume XIV No. 9 - February 27, 2009


In his address to Congress, President Obama pledged to cut the annual budget deficit in half by the end of his term. The problem is, this goal would keep deficit levels higher than the record deficits we have seen over the last eight years.

The bottom line is we have to do better. The largest budget deficit during the Bush presidency was $454 billion in 2008. At the time, that was a record. Everyone knows that record will be smashed to bits with the deficit estimated (pdf) to exceed $1.7 trillion in 2009. Right on the heels of that is a predicted deficit of $1.2 trillion in 2010.

We understand the argument that the country is in a deep recession, committing unprecedented funds to a bailout of the financial system and to stimulate the economy, so there is a need to carry large deficits in the short term. But, the budget the Administration released predicts the economic recovery starting in 2010, thus deficit reductions should and can be more aggressive before the end of the Presidential term in 2013.

[more...]


>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Related articles by Zemanta

• What is a deficit hawk to do? (gregmankiw.blogspot.com)
• Obama's $3.5tn budget sparks row (guardian.co.uk)
• One big budget (economist.com)
• Obama's Fiscal Responsibility Summit (usbudgetwatch.org)

Four reforms for stronger, more competitive democracy

The President delivers the annual
State of the Union Address in the
House chamber.
Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Campaign Legal Center

Our Democracy Is Stronger With More Competition

Posted October 9, 2008 by Meredith McGehee
The following opinion piece was published in Roll Call today.

We are just days away from the end of one of the most exciting presidential races in a generation. It is the first open-seat race in more than 50 years, one with no presidential or vice presidential incumbent running, and one where the primaries mattered long past Super Tuesday. There is an unsettling sense of mystery, anxiety and urgency running across America.

This race is like a roller coaster, making us want to scream at the top of our lungs, yet thrilling us at the same time. At times, many of us, particularly in battleground states, have wanted it to end, but will we be sad when it’s over? Could the American people really take it if elections were always like this?

What is causing this nerve-wracking exhaustion — this fear, this rush?

It is something so rare in American politics that we may not even recognize it. It’s called competition. Real, adrenaline-charged competition. Don’t-know-the- outcome competition. Power-up-for-grabs competition. And it’s kinda fun for a change.

But why is real political competition so scarce in a democracy? How did competition — which is supposed to be the American way — become the exception and not the rule? Competition is supposed to be our democratic system’s way of holding our elected representatives accountable. Where did we go wrong and what can we do about it?

Instead of the usual 90 percent- plus re-election rate for incumbents, can we imagine actually having a sense of competition for Congressional races? Can we imagine, instead of the ever-growing spectacle of money grubbing, a competition of ideas? An incumbent’s biggest worry these days is often from the fringes of his or her own party in the primary election. The result has been increased polarization on Capitol Hill, where the aisle dividing Democrats from Republicans has become a veritable no man’s land to be crossed at one’s political peril.

It should not be this way, and our democracy is weaker because of it. Competition must be and can be re-injected into American politics without running afoul of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, at least to date, has rejected the notion that increasing competition is a constitutionally insufficient grounds for upholding some proposed reforms. But there are means by which we can rescue our system from the scorched-earth partisanship prevailing today without running afoul of the high court:

Update the presidential public financing system. Don’t let the 2008 presidential election fool you into believing the next elections will be as hard-fought and as unpredictable as this one. This open-seat race is indeed unique. The odds of non-incumbent challengers being able to raise sufficient funds to run a competitive race against an incumbent president or vice president are getting longer. And the bigger the budget, the more candidates end up beholden to their large contributors and especially their large bundlers. Election to the most powerful political office in the world should be determined by an individual’s character and ideas, not by an ability to raise the most money and thus become the most indebted to donors.

Implement redistricting reforms at the state and federal levels. Politicians should not be allowed to choose their voters instead of voters choosing their politicians. But that is the system we have for most state and federal races. Competitive races are the exception and not the rule. Even in the political perfect storm of the 2006 cycle, a mere 14 percent of House elections were decided by 10 points or less. Challenges are more likely to come from the fringes of one’s own party than from the other party, only feeding the polarization on Capitol Hill. Promoting reforms like independent redistricting commissions and increased transparency of the process are vital to easing the gridlock. But two bills to address the issue, introduced more than a year ago, can’t even get subcommittee hearings.

Use the publicly owned broadcast airwaves to promote political discourse. Most Americans don’t even realize that the airwaves used by television broadcasters are public property and that these broadcasters are given licenses for free to use those airwaves. Over the past 20-plus years, policy makers in Congress and at the Federal Communications Commission have allowed the broadcasting industry to decide for themselves how to fulfill their public-interest obligations and “pay” the American people for the airwaves they are using to make billions of dollars. We need to create a system that allows viable candidates to earn access to the publicly owned broadcast airwaves so they can communicate with voters without undue dependence on big contributors.

Enact a new system of financing Congressional races. Even in the 2006 elections, which saw both chambers change hands, not even two dozen House incumbents were defeated in the general election and not a single one of them was a Democrat. Some districts have become so safe that even scandals and indictments cannot dislodge the incumbents. We need a system that at its core prevents corruption and the appearance of corruption, and that will also foster increased competition in order to increase accountability. A model that includes a mix of private and public money with voluntary participation is a good place to start.

Of course, passing any significant change to make Congressional elections more competitive will face a barrier even steeper than the Supreme Court: overcoming the resistance of the incumbents who like the current system and their own safe seat just fine.

But the stubborn resistance to change inside the Beltway should not be the death knell for reforms. American voters are getting a taste of competition in this election, and all indications are that we like the feeling that we have choices and that our voices matter. It is not too much to ask in a democracy that competition be the rule and not the exception.

Meredith McGehee is policy director of the Campaign Legal Center and also heads McGehee Strategies, a public-interest consulting business.


>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Presidential candidates focus their times and resources on a handful of states

Presidential candidate John McCain.
Image via Wikipedia
Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise. From: FairVote

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Laura Kirshner, Presidential Election Reform Program
October 9, 2008
(301) 270-4616
lkirshner@fairvote.org

The Swing States of America

Candidates Focus Their Times and Resources on a Handful of States
and Follow Voting Patterns of 2004 Presidential Election

As the presidential campaigns enter their final four weeks, it is clear that, just as in the 2004 presidential campaign, they are focusing their attention solely on a declining number of battleground states. The non-partisan organization FairVote is maintaining a daily tracker of visits to states by the four major party nominees since September 5, the first day after the Republican national convention. This data will be used to follow up FairVote's groundbreaking 2006 report Presidential Election Inequality about our nation's shrinking battleground in presidential elections.

FairVote's executive director Rob Richie commented on FairVote's findings: "What we are seeing is a division of the country into the have's and have-not's when it comes to presidential elections. This division has a stark impact on which eligible American voters participate and on which issues the major parties highlight in the final weeks of our one national election."

The top ten states receiving the most campaign attention are strikingly similar to the top ten states in 2004, while a total of 29 states have not received even a token visit by a candidate. Following is a list of the states receiving the most visits by the major party nominees for president and vice-president.

Most visited
states in 2008 % of visits
1. Michigan--12.4%
2. Ohio--10.3%
3. Pennsylvania--9.3%
4. Colorado--8.3%
5. Virginia--8.3%
6. Missouri--7.2%
7. Florida--6.2%
8. Wisconsin--6.2%
9. New York--5.2%
10. New Mexico--4.1%

Most visited
states in 2004 % of visits
1. Florida--21%
2. Ohio--16%
3. Iowa--13%
4. Wisconsin--11%
5. Pennsylvania--8%
6. Michigan--7%
7. Minnesota--5%
8. Colorado--3%
9. Nevada--2%
10. New Mexico--2%

The seven states appearing on both lists are Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Colorado--all among the nation's dozen closest battlegrounds in 2004 and likely to be so again in 2008. The three states from the 2004 list that are not on this year's list are Iowa, Minnesota and Nevada--all considered battlegrounds. Michigan tops the 2008 list, but recently was abandoned as a target by John McCain's campaign and is unlikely to receive attention in the campaign's final weeks. New York's inclusion in the top 10 this year is solely a byproduct of major international meeting that had nothing to do with efforts by the candidates to tilt the balance in the state. Aside from the New York, the only two new states are Virginia and Missouri.

Perhaps the bigger story is that so many states are not even close to making top-ten lists when it comes to campaign attention. The vast majority of states are "safe" states. The battle for votes in these states never takes place, since candidates take their electoral votes for granted. As a result, these states receive no campaign attention and no visits from candidates. Voters in these states are effectively disenfranchised by their lack of power, and this inequality has serious consequences. The candidates design their campaigns to appeal to voters in battleground states, and they address only those issues that concern those voters. Voters in other states may have drastically different needs and concerns, but a winning campaign strategy prevents candidates from taking up these issues.

For several election cycles, the states considered to be battleground states in a 50-50 elections have been largely the same. Election after election, most voters are still left out of the campaign spotlight while a handful of swing-state voters get all the candidates' attention. The impact of this disparity can be measured by voter participation. In 2004, eligible voters under 30 living in one of the 10 closest battleground states were more than a third more likely to participate than were voters in the rest of the nation.

Swing states also benefit from the massive amounts of money they receive from campaigns. Since the beginning of last year, Barack Obama has spent over $24 million in Pennsylvania, over $14 million in Ohio, and over $16 million in Florida. Similarly, John McCain has spent over $28 million in those three states. The vast majority of states have received less than $1 million in campaign advertisements, with six states receiving nil from Obama and 16 states receiving nothing from McCain. John McCain has spent a measly $180 on campaign advertisements in his home state of Arizona!

FairVote has posted its full candidate trackers at http://www.fairvote.org/president, where visitors also can download a copy of Presidential Elections Inequality. We will continue to collect data on campaign visits up until Election Day to see how the focus of each campaign changes. We expect the number of states receiving campaign visits to shrink even further as the campaigns progress. Just as the candidates are cutting back on their visits to Michigan, we expect them to do the same to free up resources for a steadily shrinking pool of swing states. The only states that will receive the final campaign visits will be the ones split most closely down the middle.

We will issue weekly updates of our candidate tracker, supplemented by data on campaign financing. We also will plan to release an updated version of our Presidential Elections Inequality report soon after the election that will allow us to anticipate what states are likely to be battleground states in 2012 Our report will include a detailed analysis of campaign attention based on visits, spending, and advertisements in each state by each of the two major party campaigns and their independent backers.

For a complete listing of the four major party candidate visits to all 50 states, visit http://fairvote.org/president/?page=2450.

View an HTML version of this press release at http://www.fairvote.org/press

FairVote is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that studies the impact of electoral rules and systems on turnout, representation and electoral competition.


>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Tell Tom Brokaw to question candidates in second presidential debate about our nation's fiscal future

Tom Brokaw.
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Peter J. Peterson Foundation

Demand Answers From The Next Presidential Debates!

In the first presidential debate last week, moderator Jim Lehrer asked the candidates, "If I hear the two of you correctly, neither one of you is suggesting any major changes in what you want to do as president as a result of the financial bailout? Is that what you're saying?"

Neither Senator McCain nor Senator Obama had substantive answers.

Click here to demand answers at the next debates. Sign our petition today and we will forward your responses to Tom Brokaw, moderator of the upcoming debate on October 7.

When our leaders don't take steps to fix serious and undeniable problems, all Americans pay the price. As disruptive and damaging as today's mortgage sub-prime crisis is, we're looking at a "super sub-prime" crisis that, if left unaddressed, will hurt many more Americans - and hurt much worse.

Our politicians promise neat solutions, but these are convenient myths. The truth is,

We cannot grow our way out of these problems. To do so, our economy would have to grow by double digits in real terms for decades. Even during the relative prosperity of the 1990s, the economy grew at an average rate of 3.2% per year.

We cannot solve the problem simply by eliminating earmarks and pork-barrel spending, cancelling the Bush tax cuts, and ending the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Combined, these actions would get us only 15% of the way to solvency.

With two debates left, McCain and Obama must answer real, hard questions about our financial future.

Here's what you can do: Act now to demand answers at the next debates. Our suggested questions are attached below, but feel free to add your questions when you sign the petition.

Here are our suggested questions for the upcoming debates:

1. How will you make fiscal responsibility and intergenerational equity a priority?

2. How will you slow the rate of growth in health care costs that threaten to bankrupt America?

3. How will you encourage the country to save more and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign lenders?

4. Will you put everything on the table - statutory budget controls, entitlement reform, and current tax policies - to encourage bipartisan action?

5. Will you support the creation of a bipartisan commission to review everything on the table and make recommendations with a guaranteed up-or-down vote by the next Congress?

We need a President who will tackle these critical issues, help educate the public, and lead a bipartisan effort to make meaningful reforms a reality. Join 150,000 of your fellow Americans who have expressed their concern at www.pgpf.org. Tough choices and shared sacrifices will be required, but solutions exist. Together, we can bail out America - and the time to start is now.

For our future,

Dave Walker, President and CEO
Peter G Peterson Foundation

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Related articles by Zemanta

• Tell your congress members to support strong whistleblower rights for government employees

The Secret Money Project- Follow the independent groups' big money commercials this election season

Image via WikipediaGovernment reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Center for Investigative Reporting

Election 2008: The Secret Money Project

The Center for Investigative Reporting and National Public Radio have launched a joint initiative tracking the hidden cash in this election season. The Secret Money Project catalogues and examines the sometimes-shadowy independent groups seeking to influence both the presidential and Senate races.
In 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads kneecapped Democratic
presidential candidate John Kerry’s campaign. This year’s crop of
independent ads has the potential to be equally powerful. Outside advocacy
groups can raise unlimited sums of money and operate under more secrecy than the candidates or party committees. Check out The Secret Money Project on NPR.org:
[ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92513698 ]

+ INTERACTIVE MAP: Who's paying to influence voters in your state? Watch the
ads and learn who's behind them in a state-by-state interactive map:
[ http://tinyurl.com/4wq5pt ]

+ BLOG: A blog of breaking news and analysis by reporters Peter Overby (NPR)
and Will Evans (CIR):
[ http://www.npr.org/blogs/secretmoney/ ]

+ DIG DEEPER: See profiles of key advocacy groups, showing their background,
context and funding sources. A leadership directory details the interconnected
web of political operatives behind the advocacy groups:
[ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92458631 ]

+ SEND US TIPS: Readers can report new ads, automated calls, and other
political efforts by independent groups:
[ http://www.npr.org/contact/election_secretmoney.html ]

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Center for Investigative Reporting
2927 Newbury Street, Suite A
Berkeley, CA 94703-2565
p: 510.809.3160
f: 510.849.1813
e: [ center@cironline.org ]
w: [ http://www.centerforinvestigativereporting.org ]


>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Major party presidential candidates out-promising, out-spending each other

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: National Taxpayers Union

For Immediate Release Sep 25, 2008
For Further Information, Contact:
Peter J. Sepp, Natasha Altamirano, (703) 683-5700

As Election Day Nears, Presidential Candidates Continue Out-Promising, Out-Spending Each Other

(Alexandria, Va.) -- As John McCain and Barack Obama jockeyed for position in the race to appear "leader-like" over the economy and in upcoming debates, the latest update of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation's (NTUF) candidate cost analysis project shows that despite their different styles, the major party Presidential hopefuls have one thing in common: both their agendas would add billions more to the taxpayer's tab every year.

NTUF's fourth and final round of assigning price tags to the candidates' platforms since January 29 found that Sen. McCain (R-AZ) would increase yearly federal spending by $92.4 billion, compared to Sen. Obama's (D-IL) $293.0 billion. NTUF also released a first-time analysis of Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, who would instead cut annual federal spending by $200.9 billion. The studies include proposals through September 19.

"Both the McCain and Obama campaigns have tried to keep pace with the political issues of the day -- largely by responding with proposals for new programs and regulations that could reach deeper and deeper into taxpayers' pockets," NTUF Senior Policy Analyst Demian Brady said. "On the other side of the spectrum, Bob Barr's Libertarian philosophy is strongly reflected in a platform that is built upon cutting programs and slashing spending."

Though it appears that Obama's platform cost has dropped since NTUF's last update on June 3 ($343.6 billion), excluding a previously unavailable savings estimate for reducing troop levels in Iraq ($90.5 billion annually), Obama would actually boost annual federal outlays by $383.4 billion -- a 12 percent jump from June, Brady noted. Obama's annual spending platform has increased by about 34 percent since January 29 (when it was $287.0 billion). Likewise, McCain's spending total has jumped by 37 percent since June 3 ($68.5 billion) and by more than 13 times the amount he was backing in January ($6.9 billion).

"If eight months on the campaign trail can mean an increase of tens of billions of dollars in yearly federal outlays, imagine what four -- or potentially, eight -- years in office could bring," Brady said. "Both candidates have talked about reducing wasteful spending, but neither has been specific enough."

Obama's latest study includes 65 new proposals and updated costs for existing proposals, most notably the Iraq-related savings mentioned above and $25 billion for a second economic "stimulus" package. McCain's analysis reflects 46 new or updated proposals, including a new cost estimate for a health care program known as the Guaranteed Access Plan, which would cost $8.5 billion annually, and a new proposal to freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for one year, which would save $15 billion. Barr's biggest cuts come from defense ($92.4 billion in annual savings from withdrawing troops from Iraq) and education ($68.0 billion in annual savings from eliminating the Department of Education).

NTUF's latest analyses include cost calculations based on hard data for hundreds of proposals that would affect the federal budget -- dozens of which have unknown fiscal effects. NTUF assumed the most conservative estimates based on a variety of sources, including the candidates' own projections; summaries from the Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service, and the White House Office of Management and Budget; and results from equivalent legislation from NTUF's BillTally cost-accounting system.

NTUF is the nonpartisan research arm of the National Taxpayers Union, a citizen group founded in 1969. Note: For more on the candidate cost analysis project, visit www.ntu.org.

-30-

View the candidate cost analyses in PDF:

Bob Barr

John McCain

Barack Obama

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Related articles by Zemanta

• Candidates say they'll probably support bailout bill
• Tell your congress members to support strong whistleblower rights for government employees

Help Open the Debates this Thursday, September 25th

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: VoteNader.org

ACTION ALERT: Help Open the Debates this Thursday, September 25th

The National Day of Action is going to happen across the country tomorrow. Nader/Gonzalez supporters are setting up protests and events in Colorado, California, Vermont, Ohio, Iowa, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Georgia, New York and many other states.

Inform your community that the corporately funded Commission on Presidential Debates discriminates against third party candidates and independents. Visit votenader.org/debates for more information and sample letters.

There's still time to organize an event in your community and pass out fliers. Check out our new National Day of Action Fliers by clicking here.

Everyone can do something.
Here's what you can do from your home state:

1. Make Phone Calls from 10a-2p Pacific/1p-5p Eastern to:
   


• AT&T 1 800 283 6407 (Main corporate sponsor of the first debate)
• Jim Lehrer 703-998-2170 (Moderator for First Debate)
• PBS 703-739-5290 (Request for them to hold a REAL debate)
• Commission on Presidential Debates 202-872-1020
• Obama/Biden '08 866-675-2008
• McCain/Palin '08 703-418-2008


2. Call and tell 5 friends to make these calls too!


3. Write a Letter to the Editor


• Your Local Community Newspaper
• The New York Times e-mail: letters@nytimes.com
• The New York Times fax line: (212) 556-3622
• The New York Times US Mail: Letters to the Editor, The New York Times, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018


4. Organize a Protest at High Profile Locations


• Media Headquarters (Local Newspaper, TV, Radio)
• Financial Headquarters (Anything Related to Recent $700 billion government bailout)
• Government Building (Protest particularly ineffective Representatives/Senators)
• Democratic or Republican Headquarters

Make Posters, Flyers, or Handouts (You can print them out at votenader.org/debates)

Please Send us pictures, or media from your day of action event to action@votenader.org.


>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Related articles by Zemanta

• Prepare for Thursday's National Day of Action to Open the Debates
• Campaigns Blow Off Voters During Final Stretch Of Debates
• Campaign teams hammer out rules for debates

Tell McCain and Obama: We need a real debate on the economy

New York Stock Exchange, New York, NY
Image via WikipediaGovernment reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: CREDO action

Cancel the debate? Are you kidding?

McCain and Obama must debate on Friday. We can't afford to cancel this debate — we need to know how McCain and Obama differ on economic issues before we cast our ballots. John McCain thinks we don't need a presidential debate on Friday night. We at CREDO disagree. We need a real debate on the economy, and we need it now. The presidential candidates should hold their debate Friday as scheduled, and address the proposed $700 billion Wall Street bailout. We've been hearing a lot this week about how our economy is in a crisis — maybe the worst crisis since the Great Depression. Politicians on the left and the right have made all kinds of claims about exactly how much or little we should panic and what that means for the policies we should enact. The Bush Administration, for its part, has continued to insist that we must give the largest free lunch in history to the Wall Street tycoons who got us into this mess to begin with, We at CREDO disagreed strongly with this position, and we put forth some of our own policy recommendations in accordance with Robert Reich's suggestions.1 If these issues are so serious, then that's only more reason to have a national dialogue about them, and to understand how Senator McCain and Senator Obama would handle them as president. Americans have a monumental decision to make this November, and we need as much information as possible in order to make the best choice. We reject the notion that canceling the debate is the best way to focus on the economy. Rather, let's use the debate to spotlight the importance of economic issues. Click here to encourage Senators McCain and Obama to hold their debate on Friday as planned, and to focus on the economic issues facing our nation. As Americans caught in a pivotal moment in our nation's history, we deserve nothing less. Thank you for working to build a better world. Kate Stayman-London, Campaign Manager CREDO Action from Working Assets Source: 1. CREDO's petition on the proposed bailout

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Related articles by Zemanta

• 'John McCain playing politics with Wall St crisis' Democrats say
• McCain suspends campaign, Obama plans to continue
• John Mccain Trails in Polls Wants to Delay Barack Obama Debate to Work on Wall Street Bail Out Plan

Prepare for Thursday's National Day of Action to Open the Debates

Ralph Nader. Image via WikipediaGovernment reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: VoteNader.org

Open the Debates

The Open Debates webpage is your central resource for information on the Nader/Gonzalez "Open the Debates!" effort. We will be adding Calls to Action, resources and materials, backgrounders and talking points for our volunteers to use in their efforts to raise awareness and push for recognition of the Nader/Gonzalez agenda in the national debate leading up to election day.

Here are four ways you can take action on Thursday to Open the Debates:

1. Write letters to the editor, to the corporations and organizations sponsoring the CPD debates, to the debate moderators and broadcast organizations, and to your friends and family members. Watch this space for links to writing samples you can use for your campaign.

* The debate schedule and moderators' contact information is listed below.
* Click here to see the corporate sponsors for the CPD debates, with contact information for your phone or letter-writing campaign.

2. Call the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), Obama and McCain Campaigns, Talk Shows, and National and Local Media Outlets.

* Contact information for the Commission on Presidential Debates, the debate broadcasters, and the other presidential campaigns is listed below.
* Click here to go to our talk radio call-in information page, and check back often for updates.

3. Print posters, fliers and literature to pass out and hang up at college campuses and other high traffic areas, and banners to display to morning and evening rush hour traffic. You'll find links to downloadable materials on the right-hand side of this page. Once again, check back often for additions to the collection.

4. Protest outside the Democratic and Republican headquarters in your community, at corporations that sponsor the debates, at radio stations, newspapers and media outlets not covering Ralph Nader.


Links to more information on the debates:

Click here to go to our "Open the Debates!" video page, where we will post videos from campaign appearances and special guests, with the "Open the Debates!" message.

Click here to go the the votenader.org Issues page on the need to open the presidential debates as part of a broader agenda of electoral reform.

Commission on Presidential Debates
1200 New Hampshire Ave NW #445
Washington, DC 20036
202-872-1020
http://www.debates.org/index.html

Schedule & Moderators 2008

Friday, September 26th, First Presidential Debate
The University of Mississippi, Oxford
Jim Lehrer
Executive Editor and Anchor, The NewsHour on PBS
MacNeil/Lehrer Productions
2700 South Quincy Street
Arlington, VA 22206
703-998-2138
onlineda@newshour.org



>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Related articles by Zemanta

• Debate Pact Lets McCain and Obama Spar
• Tell Sen. Graham and Rep. Emanuel to make public the Commission on Presidential Debates contract

527 'Secretary of State Project' scoring Democratic victories for Secretary of State in key presidential election swing states

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Center for Public Integrity

ELECTION ’08: Scoring Secretary of State Seats for Dems
By Sarah Laskow | September 08, 2008, 1:50 pm

Plagued by memories of Florida’s Katherine Harris [2000 presidential election] and Ohio’s Ken Blackwell [2004 presidential election], a little-known 527 group helped win secretary of state posts for Democrats in five swing states during the last election cycle. Now the group has its sights on four more.

The Secretary of State Project, which as a 527 non-profit group can exert influence on elections, raised more than $500,000 in 2006 to ensure no right-leaning secretary of state will swing the 2008 presidential election to the GOP, as they did in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. So far the group has scored victories in Nevada, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, and Ohio.

The SoS Project organizers formed the group “to protect our elections from dirty Republican tricks,” according to the group’s website. In many states, secretaries of state oversee voter registration, election rules, voting machines, and recounts. Positioning allies in these slots became a key strategy and a natural starting point.

[...]

[Original article accepts comments]

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ohio establishes same-day registration and voting window, GOP threatens to sue
• Massive Voter Fraud Reported
• Free 2008 Voter's Self Defense Manuals from Project Vote Smart

Tell Sen. Graham and Rep. Emanuel to make public the Commission on Presidential Debates contract

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Open Debates

Open Debates Action Alert

Dear Open Debates Supporters:

The Commission on Presidential Debates, which was created by the Republican and Democratic parties, still refuses to make public the contract negotiated by the Obama and McCain campaigns that will govern our presidential debates. This lack of transparency is unacceptable. It is time to take action.

Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) of the McCain campaign and Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) of the Obama campaign directly negotiated the secret contract that will dictate the terms of the upcoming presidential debates.

PLEASE CALL the offices of Sen. Graham and Rep. Emanuel and demand that they make public the debate contract. They are elected officials who are obligated to serve the interests of the voting public:

Phone number of the Office of Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC): 202-224-5972 Phone number of the Office of Rahm Emanuel (D-IL): 202-225-4061

Also, PLEASE CALL the Commission on Presidential Debates and demand that it makes public the debate contract. The Commission claims that its mission is to “provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.” Hold them accountable to their mission.

Phone number of the Commission on Presidential Debates: 202-872-1020

Please let us know what happens.

Open Debates is teaming up with nine other pro-democracy organizations to issue the following press release today demanding the release of the debate contract: http://www.opendebates.org/makecontractpublic.html

Additionally, you can hear Open Debates Executive Director George Farah on the radio show “CounterSpin” at the following link: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3610

Thank you for all your support!

-- Open Debates Team


>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Related articles by Zemanta

• Debate Pact Lets McCain and Obama Spar
• Campaigns Blow Off Voters During Final Stretch Of Debates

Presidential candidate McCain is effectively getting an $84 million subsidy for his campaign

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: WashingtonPost.com

McCain Able to Skirt Limits of Federal Financing

Thanks to loopholes in campaign financing and spending rules, Sen. John McCain may benefit from accepting federal funds instead of being limited by the decision. (By Jeff Swensen -- Getty Images)

By Matthew Mosk

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 17, 2008; Page A04

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama put his fundraising machine on display in Beverly Hills last night, tallying more than $9 million at star-studded events that included a $28,500-per-person dinner and a private concert by Barbra Streisand.

Obama's record $66 million haul in August and the money that poured into his campaign last night have helped feed the impression that the senator from Illinois will have a substantial financial advantage over Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) heading into the final weeks of the presidential campaign. But presidential strategists and campaign finance experts yesterday expressed surprise that Obama's decision to become the first presidential nominee to swear off public funds for the general election -- and McCain's decision to finance his bid with a single $84 million infusion from the federal government -- has not given Obama a clear financial edge.

"Sen. Obama's advantage is not emerging as people thought," said Lawrence M. Noble, a former Federal Election Commission general counsel and an Obama supporter.

The reason has less to do with Obama's fundraising -- he has now raised $440 million, more than any presidential candidate in history -- than it does with McCain's ability to maneuver within the confines of the Watergate-era funding program, Noble said.

With backing from the Republican National Committee, McCain has taken advantage of loopholes such as "hybrid" television advertisements and joint fundraising committees that may keep him close to financial parity with Obama.

[...]

[Original article includes comments]

. >All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw .

Federal budget plans should comply with pay-as-you-go rules

Image via Wikipedia Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Concord Coalition

Concord Coalition Says New CBO Numbers Show Why Candidates' Budget Plans Should Comply With PAYGO

Washington -- With today’s release of new projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) showing deficits for as far as the eye can see -- even under very optimistic assumptions -- The Concord Coalition strongly urged enforcement of congressional pay-as-you-go rules (paygo) as a critical first step in restoring fiscal discipline. Waiving paygo for popular items such as extension of expiring tax cuts and relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would increase the deficit by $5.1 trillion over 10 years, including added debt service costs. Given the high stakes for our nation’s fiscal and economic future, Concord said that the presidential candidates as well as Congress should apply paygo as a starting point for their tax and spending proposals.

“Honoring paygo requires more than rhetoric about tough choices. It requires that tough choices are actually made and enacted into law. This is not a mere bookkeeping exercise. It has real world consequences for our economic future. Deficit financing of new initiatives, including legislation to extend expiring tax cuts, would run up the national debt and its associated interest costs, drain national savings, increase our reliance on foreign lenders and reduce future incomes,” said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of The Concord Coalition.

“There is no such thing as a free tax cut or a free spending program, and deficit financing only postpones and multiplies the bill when it is eventually paid by younger generations. This is a real and critical economic issue. The adverse effects of larger deficits on economic growth often outweigh the positive effects of lower tax rates or higher government spending. And choosing instead to pay now for tax cuts, even through offsetting increases in revenues, does not have to involve trading off economic growth, if done in the spirit of tax reform,” said Diane Lim Rogers, chief economist of The Concord Coalition.

For many years, The Concord Coalition has produced a “plausible” scenario using CBO numbers to show what the budget outlook would look like if spending and tax policies are adjusted to reflect recent trends rather than the official baseline. These adjustments:

• Assume a phase-down, but not a phase-out, of funding for Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Assume that regular appropriations grow at the same rate as the economy.
• Assume that all expiring tax cuts are extended.
• Assume continuing relief from the AMT by adjusting it for inflation.
• Include debt service cost on the above changes due to added borrowing.

Under that scenario, deficits would total $7.8 trillion over the 10-year period from 2009 to 2018. As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), deficits would steadily rise from 2.9 percent to 5.1 percent by 2018 and average 4.2 percent over the 10-year period. The government's debt held by its outside creditors (debt held by the public) would rise from 38 percent of GDP to 60 percent by 2018. Interest on this debt, which is an expense borne by taxpayers, would climb from about $240 billion this year to $638 billion by 2018.

This exercise is meant to warn against the dire consequences of failing to change course. It is not meant to establish an acceptable standard against which policy proposals should be measured. Unfortunately, in a race to the bottom, that is exactly what the presidential candidates are doing. Instead of measuring the budgetary impact of their respective budget plans against the official baseline, they argue that their plans should instead be measured against the much less favorable outlook shown in Concord’s plausible scenario or similar projections.

The political logic behind this baseline switch is obvious. Measured against current law (i.e., the official CBO baseline) the candidates’ plans would significantly expand the deficit. Measured against a much worse scenario such as Concord’s plausible baseline, their plans show improvement. They can thus claim to be “lowering” the deficit when, in fact, it might remain exactly where it is now or even go up.

“The deficit status quo is unacceptable. Not only should policymakers strictly enforce paygo, they must also begin taking steps to close the long-term unsustainable gap between revenues and promised benefits for Medicare and Social Security. The fact that we've had higher deficits before as a percentage of the economy and managed to dig our way out offers no reason for complacency. Circumstances are very different from the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. The end of the Cold War allowed us to shrink defense expenditures from 6 percent of GDP in 1985 to 3 percent by 2000. While defense spending has not gone back to Cold War proportions, it has risen back to over 4 percent of GDP. Our national savings rate has plummeted from over 8 percent to essentially zero and, as a result, the portion of our debt held by foreign lenders has shot up from less than 20 percent to nearly 50 percent. More fundamentally, the boomers' retirement in those days was a generation away. Now, the first boomers have already begun to qualify for Social Security. In total, we face a much more urgent and difficult situation than we did 20 years ago,” Bixby said.

Concord Coalition Plausible Baseline: http://www.concordcoalition.org/learn/budget/concord-coalition-plausible...

###

The Concord Coalition is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to balanced federal budgets and generationally responsible fiscal policy. Former U.S. Senators Warren Rudman (R-NH) and Bob Kerrey (D-NE) serve as Concord's co-chairs and former Secretary of Commerce Peter Peterson serves as president.

CONTACT:

Jonathan DeWald

(703) 894-6222

communications@concordcoalition.org

.
>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear
.