Alan Grayson

Letter From Birmingham Jail

2013-05-18T12:17:10-04:00

Tomorrow marks the 50th anniversary of the first publication of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail." King was jailed for campaigning against racial segregation in Birmingham, in violation of an injunction against anyone "parading, demonstrating, boycotting, trespassing and picketing." His letter was written on the margins of a newspaper, scraps of paper that another prisoner gave to him, and then a legal pad that his attorney left behind. It has been an inspiration to millions of people; I am one of them. Here are some excerpts:

MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN: . . . .

I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly....

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff[ly] creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Fu town is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you go forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience....

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists....

I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham, and all over the nation, because the goal of America [is] freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation-and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands....

One day the South will recognize its real heroes. There will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. There will be the old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy-two-year-old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest." There will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?...

Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Trade Sell-Out: Out of the Mouths of Citizens...

2013-05-15T20:19:29-04:00

If you have received my emails for a while, you know that I sometimes refer to you all, affectionately, as "Alan's Army." You are passionate, smart and dedicated. But last week you were something else: Amazing.

I told you about a proposed partnership between multinational corporations and their sellout tools in government (aka the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). The TTIP features "investor-state" dispute resolution, which invites huge corporations to file lawsuits to prevent government actions that they just don't like, such as health and safety regulations. Similar trade agreements have allowed the World Trade Organization to strike down country-of-origin meat labels, dolphin-safe tuna labels and limits on candy-flavored cigarettes marketed to kids.

I asked you to send your thoughts to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), who will help decide whether to enter into this corrupt abridgement of American sovereignty.

Alan's Army responded -- and how! In all, 9,625 of us submitted comments. Let me tell you how our response stacks up. Before we got involved, the USTR received only 113 comments in 88 days -- many from corporate lobbyists. We added almost 100 times that amount, in a little more than 24 hours. Again, amazing.

Now, let's make our voices heard again. Tomorrow the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over trade, will hold a hearing on the TTIP. I plan to deliver a letter to the Committee expressing my disdain for this betrayal, and more specifically, that 30-pieces-of-silver investor-state dispute resolution clause. You can join me.

Click hereto sign my letter opposing the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

I would love to have 10,000 citizen soldiers of the Alan's Army on board. You did it once. Can you do it again?

And please, share this with your friends. We want our Army to grow.

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson

P.S. Some of you responded with eloquence. Others with anger. And a few of you were just plain nasty (and you know how much I enjoy that). Here are a few of my favorite comments:

As Thomas Jefferson put it, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Paul from Sharon, MA

Corporations are running this world already. They need to be severed at the knees. This is Fascism, plain and simple. - Ralph from Blackduck, Minnesota

SERIOUSLY? YOU MUST BE COMPLETELY CRAZY TO CONSIDER ALLOWING CORPORATIONS TO SUE GOVERNMENTS! CRAZY OR EVIL. - Georgia from Novato, CA

I am opposed to this misnamed trade agreement in its entirety. It should more properly be called a cowardly corporate surrender document. - Jim from Ballston Spa, NY

American citizens can afford no further capitulation to greed-driven economics and legislation. It is time for those who have always bought their solutions to finally learn the word "No" lest we slip further into ownership by corporate powers and cease to be a nation of the people for the people. - Christina from Maplewood, MN

I am dead set against this agreement and the Trans Pacific agreement as well. What the hell are you guys smoking, anyway? - Bryan from West Linn, OR

I smell NAFTA (NO AMERICAN FACTORIES TAKING APPLICATIONS) and GATT (GANGSTERS AGREEMENT ON TRADE AND TARIFFS). - Mike from Seattle, WA

This is unconscionable! Why are we even considering this? Oh, I forgot...corporations are now more important than people. NOT!!! - Dee from Madison, WI

This is the worst of all the stupidest things I have ever heard of. - Stephen from

Rochester, NY

If this insanity continues I will start pledging allegiance to the United Corporation of America! - Cornelius from West Amherst, NY

Unbelievable. Did Mitt Romney start this piece of crap? - Thomas from Phoenix, AZ

Let's Whip the GOP on Social Security

2013-05-13T14:12:20-04:00

How to protect Social Security, in two easy steps:

Step One: enlist an army. We've done that -- 3,000,000 people have signed petitions demanding "No Cuts" to Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Step Two: bring the politicians face-to-face with our army. Here's how:

I've set up a website where you can help me get every Member of Congress on the record about Social Security and veterans benefit cuts. Go to www.CitizenWhip.com, and I'll show you how to ask your Member of Congress what he or she thinks. Then, after a few days, I'll ask you to tell us what he or she said in response. We'll collect all of the responses in one place, and then we'll know which Members of Congress are for and against these cuts. And by Election Day on Nov. 4, 2014, so will their voters.

The polling on Social Security is very clear -- voters like it just the way it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Southern voters like it. Northern voters like it. Democratic voters like it. Republican voters like it.

Social Security is like birthday cake. Everyone likes birthday cake.

For years, certain Members of Congress have been quietly telling their Wall Street paymasters they will cut Social Security benefits, and divert that money to Wall Street. They've been hiding this from their voters, many of whom have no idea that their Social Security benefits are being threatened. It's time to "out" these would-be Judas Members of Congress, by forcing every Member to state publicly his or her position on these important questions.

What's your Member of Congress's position on Social Security and veterans benefit cuts? Help us all find out.

One thing that's neat about this project is that by participating, you will learn a little bit about what it's like actually to be a Member of Congress. In Congress, a "whip" counts the votes for or against something. For instance, I'm the "Regional Whip" for House Democrats in Florida and Georgia. Typically, a whip is a member of a legislature, but in this case, it's you. A citizen. You're the whip. That's the reason why our site is called "Citizen Whip."

If we can make this work, we'll have a new relationship between citizens and Congress. Citizens won't just vote, call and e-mail. They'll also whip.

So, let's get your Member of Congress on the record. Click here.

Welcome to the Grayson Citizen Whip Team. This is just the beginning, and you're part of it.

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson

Time to End the Free Trade Sellout

2013-05-09T15:15:34-04:00

Until Friday, you have the chance to make your voice heard about a pending massive corporate giveaway now being promoted by the U.S. Trade Representative. It's a chance that you should take.

The agreement the trade representative is seeking comments on is the "Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership." Even the title makes you ill, doesn't it?

Known as a "NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) with Europe," the "partnership" is actually a deal between multinational corporations and their minions in government. It features "investor-state" dispute resolution, which would permit foreign corporations to file lawsuits to prevent government actions that they don't like, such as health, environmental and safety regulations. If this sounds crazy, that's because it is.

But there's a twisted corporate "logic" behind it.

Trade policy has historically been associated with tariffs. But since President Richard M. Nixon invented a new way of negotiating trade deals in the 1970s, these deals have attacked what's known as "non-tariff barriers" to trade.

Interesting concept, but it has degenerated into handcuffs on government, slapped on at will by special interests. Let's say your country or state passes a consumer protection law -- such as one that says fishing companies must label tuna caught using methods that kill dolphins. A Mexican corporation that sells tuna in the United States might declare this is a "non-tariff barrier" to trade, undercutting Mexican sellers of tuna versus American ones (though it applies equally to both).

Under the guise of a "free trade" agreement, the government could be sued, and have the dolphin-safe tuna law overturned.

This actually happened, in 2012. The World Trade Organization ruled against the American dolphin-safe tuna labeling law. So this is not just a theoretical possibility. "These provisions elevate corporations to the level of nation states and allow them to sue governments over nearly any law or policy which reduces their future profits," the Sierra Club warns.

Canada has been sued under a similar clause in NAFTA for refusing to export its water. Canada has also been sued for keeping a pollutant out of its gasoline supply, and for taxing windfall profits by oil companies. This next wave of trade agreements may prioritize corporate rights over the privacy of our personal data, restrict regulation on fracking and (as Senator Elizabeth Warren [D-Mass.] has warned) roll back much-needed rules on large banks.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has probably never met a regulation it didn't want to repeal or violate. The chamber is even arguing that the Volcker Rule, which restricts gambling with tax-payer protected deposits by large banks, violates U.S. trade policy.

"The Volcker Rule's discriminatory provision," the chamber has asserted, "certainly does, at a minimum, send the wrong message internationally and gravely complicates the long-standing U.S. goal of liberalizing trade in financial services."

Why are we even thinking about handing over our sovereign rights to huge corporations who care nothing about us? It's not as if these agreements bring us any net economic benefit. Since NAFTA went into effect in 1994, the United States has lost almost four million manufacturing jobs. Moreover, huge U.S. subsidies for corn have helped to make it impossible for millions of Mexican families to survive on the farm.

NAFTA accomplished something that hardly seems possible - impoverishing both U.S. workers and Mexican ones. Since we ratified a Korea Free Trade Agreement just a year and a half ago, U.S. exports from Korea are down, and imports are up.

Can't we learn from our mistakes? Why are our leaders regularly treating us like lambs being led to the slaughter?

The first Amendment gives us the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Anyone paying attention to these Judas-kiss trade "deals" is feeling mighty, mighty "aggrieved."

The window for comments closes tomorrow. So give them a piece of your mind today.

You can comment on the "Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership" by visiting TradeTreachery.com.

Sequester Threatens Top-Secret Military Research

2013-02-26T10:07:12-05:00

One of the nice things about being a member of Congress is that I have security clearance, and you don't. (Sorry!) So I know about the threat that the looming sequester poses to a crucial top-secret military research project. Since we're friends, I'll tell you about it.

The U.S. Army has discovered that a small round white object, when hurled from close range at the upper extremities of an enemy combatant, can have a devastating impact, sometimes inducing unconsciousness. Deploying this weapon often results in immediate disorientation in the enemy combatant, reflected in his abrupt non-vertical motion and transient imbalance. The Army refers to these powerful weapons as "Ballistic White Spherical Objects," or BWSOs.

Although it packs quite a wallop, the BWSO is surprisingly compact. It measures only nine inches in circumference, small enough for a properly trained U.S. soldier to hold one in each hand. A fully-functional BWSO weighs only five ounces, making it practical for a U.S. soldier deployed on the battlefield to carry several of them, simultaneously, in his kit.

Remarkably, U.S. military experiments have demonstrated that the BWSO is completely resistant to electromagnetic pulses (EMPs), and other advanced electronic countermeasures. In the wake of an EMP caused by a nuclear blast, BWSOs evidently will continue to function in the prescribed manner, unless they are vaporized.

BWSOs are especially useful in close combat, demonstrating the ability to project substantial force over small distances. Yet the effective range of BWSOs is proving to be very similar to that of grenades (for reasons as yet unknown). The effective range of BWSOs has been ascertained to be substantially greater than that of bayonets.

Currently, our entire supply of military-grade BWSOs comes from Costa Rica. Recognizing the obvious wartime threat, Pentagon military planners have considered the scenario in which the Chinese Navy blocks both the Pacific and the Caribbean sea lanes. The planners have assured the Joint Chiefs of Staff that we will nevertheless be able to maintain our supply of BWSOs because, since Costa Rica has no military, we can just take whatever we want.

(A nation without a military -- imagine that. But I digress.)

BWSOs are white objects, as the acronym implies. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is, however, in the midst of a year-long study at a secret location to determine whether BWSOs remain effective when they are red, green, blue or even purple. If these tests prove successful, then next year, DARPA will test striped BWSOs, and in the following year, plaid.

Every BWSO features 216 pieces of red thread, or "stitches" (not to be confused with the medical treatment for combat wounds). These "stitches" sometimes cause a completely unexpected feature upon deployment -- a curvature in the arc of the BWSO's trajectory. At first this was believed to be an optical illusion, or perhaps a gravitational lensing effect, in accordance with general relativity. However, detailed telescopic studies performed by orbiting military satellites, in both the visible light and infrared parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, have confirmed that this effect is genuine.

Properly trained, a soldier can deploy the BWSO with mind-boggling speeds approaching 100 mph, or almost twice the velocity of a car on an interstate highway adhering to the national speed limit (if such a thing can be imagined). Interestingly, this is true of both English-speaking and Spanish-speaking drivers, and both automatic transmissions and "stick shifts." At such velocity, scientific studies at Guantanamo Bay and certain "black ops" CIA locations have demonstrated that the impact of a BWSO upon the skull of an enemy combatant is devastating, especially when the enemy combatant is in chains.

Because BWSOs are usually non-lethal, they are also being studied for usage by internal security forces. One advanced concept is to deploy them from domestic drones. In the United Kingdom, tests are being conducted to see whether they can be integrated into the existing complement of equipment used by English "bobbies," whereby one "pitches" and the other one "hits."

The U.S. Army's current BWSO research program -- placed directly at risk by the sequester -- focuses on the maximum speed with which BWSOs may be deployed. In this key project, the Army has identified and procured the services of certain experts in the field. These experts cannot be identified, for obvious reasons, but they definitely aren't not named "CC Sabathia," "Johan Santana" or "Barry Zito." (Disturbingly, intelligence reports conclusively demonstrate that "Justin Verlander" may or may not be cooperating with foreign military forces in a similar manner, thus posing the very real threat of an "arms race.")

Due to earlier budget cuts, the Army found that it could not pay the normal daily rate for these experts, which is $600,000 for approximately two hours of work. The Army found, however, that it could procure these services for half-price, or only $300,000 for each two-hour "start," if it conducted these tests between mid-October and late March.

These essential tests are being threatened by the sequester. If the sequester goes into effect at the end of this month, then we may never understand why Army test data indicate that Santana's deployment of the BWSOs appears to be slowing. (Could it be a gradual increase in the strength of the Earth's gravitational field?) Or why Zito's declining ability to force the BWSO trajectory to arc occasionally seems to leave the BWSO hanging in the air, much like a ripe pumpkin.

We cannot leave America defenseless. We cannot let the terrorists win. Remember, they hate us because we are free. But the cost of that freedom is precisely whatever the current military budget happens to be, before any terrorist-coddling sequester cuts.

Virtually all of the media coverage of the impact of the sequester on the U.S. military-industrial complex has focused on the loss of jobs, as if hiring people to kill other people is some kind of national full-employment program. But having read all the way down to here, at least you, Dear Reader, you understand that there is a lot more at stake.

Oh, and we're also cutting the air traffic control budget by nine percent. That should have some interesting consequences.

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson

P.S. Please sign our petition against Social Security and Medicare cuts at www.no-cuts.com, if you haven't already.

'Would You Like to Buy a Pen?' She Asked Me

2013-02-18T15:45:42-05:00

As we approach the self-immolation known as "The Sequester," I find myself thinking about a woman in West Africa, asking people, "Would you like to buy a pen?"

She was a middle-aged woman, wearing a bright-colored dress. Judging by wear and tear, it may have been the only dress she owned.

She was standing on the steps in front of a small department store, which was selling pens by the dozen. She repeated softly, in French, to passers-by, "Voulez-vous acheter une plume?" And she held up a pen.

I didn't need a pen, but I did need to know what she was up to. I asked her how much her pen cost. She quoted a fair price. I gave her that much, plus some more. She gave me a pen that I didn't need. And she had enough money to eat something that day. Or so she said, en francais.

Back to "The Sequester," the 12 percent budget cut for the military (leaving aside soldier pay and benefits), and the 9 percent budget cut for other federal programs (leaving aside Medicare and Social Security). Opponents of the sequester are focusing on the military cuts. Their theory seems to be that the American public has been signing blank checks made out to "DoD" for so long that there is no way that we'll stop now. Or maybe they think that we will subliminally translate the words "defense cuts" into "some crazy Arab is going to blow me up" without anyone actually having to say that, much less make the case for it.

I have a nodding acquaintance with polling, so I understand that foreign aid might be the least popular federal program right now, second only to black helicopters. But our immunization program alone saves three million lives each year. Our emergency food assistance program fed more than 66 million starving people last year. Possibly including the lady who sold me that pen.

And the total cost of all that food was equal to one-sixteenth of a new aircraft carrier. In fact, for the cost of one aircraft carrier, we could feed every hungry person in the entire world.

So let's see. A nine percent cut in the foreign aid budget means that six million more people go hungry. And American taxpayers save 44 cents a month. Not even enough to buy one hamburger.

Further translating this into Americanese, give some thought as to what the sequester will do to the food stamp program, or the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. A lot of Americans will be going to bed cold and hungry.

I know that I will never see that lady with the pen again. Even though I remember her, she probably doesn't remember me -- if she is still alive. She is not going to vote for me, and she is not going to contribute to my next campaign. Nor will her relatives, nor will her friends. I'm not sure why I cared whether or not she was hungry, but I did, and I do. It's just part of being human, I guess.

So here is one argument against the sequester that you're not hearing elsewhere -- it will cause a lot of pain. A lot of hunger, a lot of disease, a lot of death. I understand that this argument is hopelessly unfashionable, and completely contrary to the zeitgeist of fear and hatred that dominates our political discourse. But there it is, nevertheless. I sure see it. Maybe you do, too.

Courage,
Rep. Alan Grayson

An Unconstitutional Two-fer

2013-01-27T16:46:22-05:00

This week, the Republican leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives did something that you wouldn't think is even possible: they introduced (and then the House passed) a five-page bill that, despite its brevity, may violate two separate provisions of the United States Constitution.

The bill increases the debt limit by some unspecified amount, but only for those expenditures "necessary to fund a commitment by the Federal Government that required payment before May 19, 2013." What does "necessary" mean here? I don't know, and the bill doesn't say. What about "commitment" and "required" -- what do they mean? Don't know; doesn't say. Given sovereign immunity, I'm not sure that any payments by the federal government are ever "required" per se. What if the Government said, "are you going to make me?"

Up until now, the federal debt limit has been a number. Now it's a concept, and an undefined one at that. I find it hard to square that vagueness with Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which states that: "The validity of the public debt ... shall not be questioned."

Not content with establishing that constitutional dilemma alone, the Republican leadership then made Congressional pay dependent on passing a budget. The bill says that if the Senate doesn't pass a budget, then Senate pay (which is monthly) is postponed to the first week of 2015. Specifically, it changes pay from $14,500 a month to zero per month, and then something like a $300,000 lump sum on Jan. 2, 2015.

I imagine that the polling on that looks good, but what about the 27th Amendment? The 27th Amendment provides: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." The Republican leadership bill "varies" Senate compensation by postponing it for two years. (It also sticks a finger in the eye of the Senate, but what else is new?)

If you follow Tea Party yammerings, as I do, then you recognize that this "no budget, no pay" idea had been floating around in the Tea Party porcelain bowl for several years now. Right after it was introduced, the Republican Chairman of the Government Operations Committee (who presumably knows a thing or two about government operations) pointed out that this postponement would violate the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. (As Texas Gov. Rick Perry would say, "Oops.") Then he said he was mistaken. But maybe when he said that he was mistaken, that's when he was mistaken.

For goodness sake, we Members of Congress all swore to uphold the Constitution just two weeks earlier. The leader of the House Republican Caucus actually administered that oath to us. Couldn't they at least have waited a little longer?

To make things even worse, just a few days before this bill came up, the House Republicans arranged to have Members of the House read the Constitution out loud on the Floor of the House. Were they all wearing earplugs?

And yet these right-wingers keep telling us that they are "constitutional conservatives."

Fakers.

Anyway, I voted "no." Because there is no way to vote "this is absurd."

Tea Party Republicans, please don't propose any bills that directly contravene the plain wording of the Constitution. If you were capable of embarrassment, you would be embarrassing yourselves.

Courage,

Congressman Alan Grayson

Why Unions Are Different

2013-01-15T13:36:42-05:00

When I was elected to Congress in 2008, I asked to join the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). Why? Because I was a government employee. The AFGE negotiates benefits for government employees, including me. If I were going to benefit from that, I felt that I should pay my dues. I'm not the "free rider" type.

I was told that this was an unusual request. In fact, no one could remember any Member of Congress making that request before. That didn't bother me in the least. I joined the AFGE, and paid my dues.

There is another, deeper reason why I wanted to join the union: I don't see a lot of other organizations fighting for the common good.

After I was elected again in November, I was inundated with correspondence from all sorts of groups who wanted me to do something for them. Not for us. For them. Gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme. Now, to be fair, some of these requests were for worthwhile causes. More were not. Either way, it was "gimme."

With one exception.

Here is a letter that I received from Joseph Hansen, the President of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW):

Congratulations on your election to the 113th Congress.

The American people spoke loud and clear on Election Day.

They want a Congress that works for all Americans, not just a wealthy few.

They want a Congress that fights for Main Street, not Wall Street.

They want a Congress that helps create good-paying jobs that can support a family.

They want a Congress that balances the budget responsibly, by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share while protecting programs like Social Security and Medicare.

They want a Congress that protects the rights of workers, women, and minorities.

Most of all, they want a Congress that works with President Obama to give more families access to the American Dream.

I look forward to working with you toward that end.

Sincerely, Joseph T. Hansen.

Amen to that, brother. Yes, President Hansen, I look forward to working with you toward that end.

You see what's missing from this UFCW letter? Gimme, gimme, gimme.

On the letterhead of the UFCW's stationery is the motto, "A VOICE for working America." That's something that I would be proud to have on my stationery, too.

This is a time of hyper-partisan warfare, when selfishness parades itself as a virtue. But amidst all that smoke there are still some of us -- the UFCW, me -- who can discern the bare outlines of something called "the common good." The common good -- that's our flag. And that's why unions are different.

And the rocket's red glare,
The bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night,
That our flag was still there.

Courage,

Congressman Alan Grayson

Legislation Constipation

2012-12-26T22:32:55-05:00

Here are what I modestly and humbly refer to as "Grayson's Laws of Legislating":

1) Vote for what you're in favor of.

2) Vote for what you can live with, if you must do that to get what you need.

What we've been seeing in the House of Representatives lately has been a series of massive and pervasive violations of Grayson's Laws of Legislating. Instead of "I'll vote for X because it's right," or "You don't like X and I don't like Y, but I'll vote for X and Y if you vote for X and Y," it's "If I don't get Z, I ain't votin' on nothin'." And that's the problem.

Let's take one very pertinent example: the impeding tax increases on taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year. I don't know a single member of the House, Democratic or Republican, who has said on the record that he or she is in favor of raising taxes, starting next Tuesday, on taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year. Let's suppose that you crafted a one-sentence bill reading as follows: "There shall be no income tax rate increases for the 2013 tax year on taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year." Let's suppose that you then administered sodium pentothal (truth serum) to every member of Congress. Let's suppose that you then had a vote on that bill. Obviously, it would pass the House by 435 to 0, or something close to that. Followed immediately by unanimous passage by the Senate, and the president's signature.

(Here is another entertaining thought experiment: Just for fun, administer sodium pentothol to Rush Limbaugh, too. You'd have three hours of total silence on the airwaves.)

So anyway, in the case of "no income tax rate increases for everyone but the rich," Grayson's First Law of Legislating is sufficient. Everyone's in favor of it, so everyone votes for it. Done.

It turns out that many, many components of the so-called "fiscal cliff" could be resolved quite simply by applying Grayson's First Law of Legislating. I think it's fair to say that a majority of the members of Congress, right or wrong, are in favor of raising the debt ceiling before the government's borrowing capacity is exhausted. I think it's fair to say that a majority of the members of Congress, right or wrong, are against a 27 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors, starting next week. I think it's fair to say that a majority of the members of Congress, right or wrong, are against an 8 percent cut in air traffic control on Jan. 1. If you had single votes, up or down, on 90 percent of the components of the "fiscal cliff," the outcome would not be in doubt.

And as for the remaining 10 percent, then you've got Grayson's Second Law of Legislating to apply. I really, really don't want to see unemployment insurance benefits cut off for millions of unemployed workers, seven days after Christmas. Maybe Rep. Skullinrear (R-Tea Party) doesn't care. But Rep. Skullinrear really, really doesn't want to see a 12 percent cut in defense spending from sequestration next week. I may not share Rep. Skullinrear's morbid preoccupation with blowing stuff up. Nevertheless, his morbid preoccupation with blowing stuff up, together with my odd aversion to seeing families living in cars, gives the two of us something to talk about.

Mick Jagger, that eminent political scholar, had it all figured out more than 40 years ago. You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you just might find -- you just might find -- that you get what you need.

But in the House, that's not what we're seeing at all. Instead, we see what might be called the "Young John McCain" Law of Legislating. Senator John McCain has written that when he was a toddler, he sometimes got so furious that he held his breath until he passed out.

Now John Boehner is doing it. Boehner is holding his breath until America passes out.

It's been 10 months since the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board coined the term "fiscal cliff" when he called attention to the "massive fiscal cliff of large spending cuts and tax increases" that will go into effect less than a week from now. Ten months. But in all of that time, there has been nothing in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives even remotely resembling a line-by-line vote on whether each one of those spending cuts and tax increases, individually, is good or bad. Just John Boehner holding his breath until the Democrats "agree" to extending tax breaks for the rich, and cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits.

It's the worst case of legislation constipation that I've ever seen. But that's what happens -- what ought to happen -- when the folks in charge say over and over again, "I'm in favor of X, but I won't vote for X, or even allow a vote for X, unless I get Y."

We're going to need some kind of patch to get through this. But I hope that the Powers That Be learn from this mistake. Slice it all into little pieces, and then vote each piece up or down. It works. And it's a lot more practical than hoping that John Boehner, or Barack Obama, pulls a rabbit out of his hat.

Courage,

Alan Grayson

Oh, you can't always get what you want.
Oh, you can't always get what you want.
Oh, you can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes,
You just might find, you just might find,
You get what you need.

- The Rolling Stones, "You Can't Always Get What You Want" (1969).

The 'Chained CPI' Cut: If You Can't Dazzle Them With Brilliance...

2012-12-20T16:22:10-05:00

Let me get right to the point. I'm against the proposed "chained CPI" cut in Social Security because it substantially undermines the protection against inflation that Social Security recipients enjoy under current law. The existing cost of living adjustment ("COLA") already understates actual increases in the "cost of living;" the chained CPI would exacerbate the problem.

I understand that the vast majority of Americans -- including, quite possibly, most people reading this -- have no burning desire to learn anything about the chained CPI. It has, however, become a major part of the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, and so it has become one of those things that people have to learn about, for their own protection.

Where we are now in the fiscal cliff negotiations is that Speaker Boehner is talking about reducing the federal deficit in the exact same way that Governor Romney did -- Boehner says that he wants to, but he won't tell us how. President Obama, boxed in by the poll-driven sense that he must-must-must propose something "balanced," is "balancing" the reduction of tax breaks for the rich against the reduction of the protection that seniors have against inflation. On the merits, however, reducing that protection is undeserved, unwise and unfair.

Social Security benefits are automatically adjusted each year to reflect increases in the cost of living, as determined by the consumer price index (CPI). The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the CPI each month.

Here is how the "chained CPI" would change things: Let's say that the cost of gasoline tripled, from $3.33 per gallon to $10 per gallon. Most people would call that a 200 percent increase in the price of gas. That's how it would be calculated under the CPI today. Under the chained CPI, however, it would be calculated at less than 200 percent, because some people couldn't afford to pay $10 a gallon. They would drive less. They might have to take the bus to work. They might take a "staycation" instead of a vacation.

Because a tripling in the price of gas basically makes everyone poorer, and thus less able to buy gas, the chained CPI doesn't count that as a 200 percent increase. It reduces the percentage increase in proportion to the amount of gas that people can no longer afford to buy.

In fact, the bigger the price increase (and the poorer people get), the bigger the gap between the actual price increase and the chained CPI adjustment. This effect starts off small, and barely noticeable, but then as time goes by, it swells like a blister. In fact, it swells from $1.4 billion in the first year to $22 billion in the tenth year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So the chained CPI is inflation protection that, by design, inflation itself erodes. Ain't that just grand?

To make things worse about the chained CPI, there is no evidence that the existing CPI is somehow overpaying seniors. On the contrary, as John Williams has pointed out at Shadowstats.com, if the government simply calculated the CPI today in the same manner as it did through 1990, then every year, the CPI increase would be approximately 3 percent higher. If the government calculated the CPI today in the same manner that it did before 1980, then every year, the CPI increase would be approximately 7 percent higher. That's the sort of thing that happens when you pretend (as the CPI now does) that a computer with a CPU that is twice as fast is the same as a computer that costs half as much.

And let's be honest: you know plenty of Social Security recipients. Have you seen any of them driving a brand-new Lexus, thanks to a COLA increase?

The political proponents of the chained CPI are hoping that you don't understand it. Because when you do understand it, you won't support it. We should be doing more to protect seniors against inflation, not less.

The chained CPI calls to mind something that W.C. Fields once said: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with . . . " With the chained CPI.

Courage,

Alan Grayson

"And time goes by, so slowly,
And time can do so much.
Are you still mine?"

- The Righteous Brothers, "Unchained Melody" (1965).

My Thanksgiving: A Turkey Sandwich at Walmart

2012-11-24T18:57:39-05:00

I did not spend Thanksgiving evening with my wife and my five children. I spent it, instead, handing out turkey sandwiches to workers in Walmart. And showing my support for one brave soul who walked off the job in protest against exploitation.

Walmart "associates" make an average of just more than $10 an hour. That means that if they manage to get a full 40 hours a week -- and many don't -- they get paid $1,700 a month, before taxes. Somehow, that is supposed to pay for their food, shelter, clothing and medical care, and that of their children. Quite a trick.

In state after state, the largest group of Medicaid recipients is Walmart employees. I'm sure that the same thing is true of food stamp recipients. Each Walmart "associate" costs the taxpayers an average of more than $1,000 in public assistance.

How underpaid are Walmart employees? This underpaid: if every one of them got a 30 percent raise, Walmart would still be profitable.

Walmart employees in the United States are not unionized. Walmart has used every trick in the book to prevent its employees from organizing. In 2005, in Canada, Walmart closed a store that had voted to go union. Recently, in Orlando, Walmart fired an employee who had just talked about unionizing. When he came back into the store, many days afterward, to say hello to his former colleagues, they handcuffed him.

It's time to do something about this.

So on Thanksgiving, knowing that Walmart employees were missing dinner with their families, we walked into the local Walmart and handed out dinner to them. We gave them a paper bag that had three things in it: (a) a turkey sandwich, (b) a bag of chips, and (c) a letter explaining their right to organize.

There were two points to this. One was to inform the workers of their rights. And the other was to demonstrate to them, vividly, that they are not alone.

The Walmart manager had the police escort us out of the building. For handing out sandwiches. And for showing Walmart employees that they are not alone.

One brave "associate," who had had enough of this mistreatment, walked out with us. Which is her right, under the law, to protest Walmart's unfair labor practices. In fact, a while back, 200 employees walked out of a Walmart store, all at the same time. That really shook up the bosses.

By the way, she made sure that she finished serving her customer before she left. She's that kind of person. WalMart actually could use a few more like her.

I showed my support. I gave her a hug.

And so it begins. Walmart accounts for more than 10 percent of all of the retail sales in the United States. It is the largest private employer in the world, with more than two million employees. And even though those employees comprise barely 10 percent of its cost of doing business, Walmart exploits them mercilessly. Now Walmart employees are starting to organize, starting to fight back.

Who will win? I don't know. But I do know whose side I'm on. And I know that I'm not alone.

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson

An Eye for an Eye, Unless You're Rich

2012-10-28T18:22:40-04:00

As we lurch uncontrollably toward Election Day, choosing our next set of lawmakers, I've been looking for a way to cast some light on what is at stake. I think that I've found it in the oldest legal code -- the Code of Hammurabi, from 1772 B.C.

In general, the Code of Hammurabi established the law as a force much like William Blake's "tyger" in "Tyger, Tyger, Burning Bright": it has a "fearful symmetry." How many times have you heard the phrase, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"? That is shorthand for these sections of the Code of Hammurabi:

196. If a man has knocked out the eye of a patrician, his eye shall be knocked out...

200. If a patrician has knocked out the tooth of a man that is his equal, his tooth shall be knocked out.

I think that I can hear you say, "Whoa! I never heard that bit about 'patrician' or 'equal' before. What's that all about?"

Well, I'll tell you.

The Code of Hammurabi explicitly set separate laws for patricians, a/k/a the 1 percent, and plebians, a/k/a the 99 percent. Patricians enjoyed the full protection of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Plebians did not. Here is what they got:

198. If [a man] has knocked out the eye of a plebian ... he shall pay one mina of silver.

199. If he has knocked out the eye of a patrician's servant ... he shall pay half [of the servant's] value [to the patrician]...

201. If [a patrician] has knocked out the tooth of a plebian, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver.

(Today, a mina of silver would be worth about $600.)

Here is another example:

202-204. If a man has smitten the privates [ouch!!] of a man higher in rank than he, he shall be scourged with 60 blows of an ox-hide scourge, in the assembly. If a [patrician] has smitten the privates of a patrician of his own rank, he shall pay one mina of silver. If a plebian has smitten the privates of a plebian, he shall pay ten shekels of silver.

(A shekel of silver today would be worth about $10.)

And another one:

209-213. If a man has struck a free woman with child, and has caused her to miscarry, he shall pay ten shekels for her miscarriage ... If it be the daughter of a plebian that has miscarried through his blows, he shall pay five shekels of silver ... If he has struck a man's maid and caused her to miscarry, he shall pay two shekels of silver.

So here is the point: in the wrong hands, the law itself becomes a means -- a very powerful means -- of discrimination. And in many respects, it already is. Look at the tax code. Look at banking law. Look at abortion laws. Look at the laws on marriage equality. And look at the system itself: most people have the same access to the so-called "justice system" as they do to the Ritz-Carlton.

And whose hands are "the wrong hands"? How about the hands of a gentleman who has never had to dirty his hands at any time during his entire life? A gentleman "to the manor born"? The spiritual heir to Thurston Howell, III?

We already have reached a point where inequality is so extreme that the median wealth of whites is seven times higher than that of African Americans, and African Americans are seven times more likely to be incarcerated.

When we choose our legislators in a few days, let's remember this: the laws that they pass can be a force for equality, or a force against it. That's not only a big difference, it's the biggest difference of all.

Courage,

Alan Grayson

Put a Little Love in Our Hearts

2012-10-23T14:53:28-04:00

Good news and bad news. The good news is that President Obama won last night's debate. The bad news is that the entire debate, questions and answers, seemed premised on the false assumption that virtually everyone else on this planet wants to kill us.

Here is a list of the topics last night: (1) Libya embassy attack. (2) War in Syria. (3) Why we shouldn't cut military spending. (4) Israel or the U.S. attacking Iran. (5) The war in Afghanistan. (6) "Divorcing" Pakistan. (7) What is the greatest future threat to our security?

In other words, seven variations on the same theme: xenophobia. Fear of foreigners.

Let's go over the basic facts. There are two large oceans that separate us from 191 of the 193 other countries in the world. Our northern border has been peaceful since 1812. Our southern border has been peaceful, more or less, since 1848. In the 229 years since the Treaty of Paris, establishing our independence, foreign military forces have attacked American territory only twice -- in both cases, on the outermost periphery.

So how is it that a "foreign policy" debate can be devoted entirely to the single, narrow subject of who is going to kill whom? It appears that the military-industrial complex has not only occupied huge chunks of the federal budget, but also huge chunks of our political discourse, and even our thinking.

Why is it that every candidate for public office keeps pressing that big, red PANIC button? Isn't there anyone out there who will try to put a little love in our hearts?

Here are some questions that should have been asked last night, but weren't:

(1) What should we do about the 10+ million undocumented people in this country, more than half of whom came here from Mexico?
(2) Speaking of Mexico, the drug war in Mexico was the most deadly armed conflict in the world last year, killing more people than the war in Afghanistan and the civil war in Syria combined. What should we do about it?
(3) We have run the largest trade deficit in the world every year for roughly the past 20 years. This year, it's half a trillion dollars, again. Other developed countries like Japan and Germany run consistent trade surpluses. What should we do about this?
(4) The United States is the only industrialized country without universal healthcare, paid vacations and paid sick leave. Why is this? What should we do about it?
(5) Climate change obviously is a worldwide issue. Should the United States participate in efforts to mitigate it? If so, how?
(6) There is tremendous suffering now in both Greece and Spain, with unemployment of 25 percent+. Should we do anything to help people in those countries?
(7) In poor countries, three million people die each year of respiratory infections, 2.5 million die each year of diarrhea, and two million die of AIDS. Virtually all of these deaths are avoidable. Should we avoid them?

As Charles P. Pierce of Esquire put it, before the debate last night:

Trade is foreign policy. The environment is foreign policy. Energy policy is foreign policy. Human rights are foreign policy. Drought is foreign policy. Starvation is foreign policy. War is generally only foreign policy when one of those other things I mentioned get[s] completely out of control. However, as I suspect we will see argued enthusiastically from both sides tonight, war, and not its historic causes, has come to define foreign policy. Increasingly, it has come to define us as a nation as well. This is a problem that, I predict, will not be addressed at all this evening...

He was right. It wasn't addressed at all.

Look -- the world is a beautiful place. I know; I've seen it. This planet is full of people just like us. It's not full of monsters and demons and ogres and beasts. And there are solutions to problems other than "shoot it," "bomb it," "burn it," and "kill it."

Let me make this as simple as possible: The Earth -- love it or leave it.

Courage,

Alan Grayson

Think of your fellow man,
Lend him a helping hand,
Put a little love in your heart . . . .

Another day goes by,
And still the children cry.
Put a little love in your heart.

If you want the world to know,
We won't let hatred grow,
Put a little love in your heart.

And the world will be a better place.
And the world will be a better place.
For you and me --
You just wait and see.

Put a little love in your heart.

Jackie DeShannon, "Put A Little Love in Your Heart" (1968).

Romney's Secret Plan to [Fill in the Blank]

2012-10-17T15:44:00-04:00

I watched the presidential debate last night. There was a general absence of NASCAR moments, although Romney's insistence that the president actually didn't say what the president actually did say about the Benghazi attack came close. Leaving that aside, the impression that I was left with is that Romney is running a giant con game, and the American people are his marks.

Romney has a secret plan to cut unemployment.

Romney has a secret plan to eliminate the federal deficit.

Romney has a secret plan to cut the cost of higher education.

Romney has a secret plan to eliminate tax deductions and exemptions and credits.

Romney has a secret plan to cut federal spending.

Romney has a secret plan for equal pay for women.

Romney has a secret plan for health care reform.

Yeah, right. Whatever. And that was just the first 30 minutes.

This is showing my age, but I remember Richard Nixon's secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. As I pointed out in a speech on the Floor of the House, Nixon's secret plan was so secret that even Nixon didn't know it. Because it didn't exist; it was a campaign gimmick. But 1968 America was so hungry for peace that 43.4 percent of the voters bought it, and that was enough to put Nixon in the White House. Nixon then continued the war in Vietnam with U.S. troops for four more years. At the cost of 20,000 more American soldiers dead, and who knows how many Vietnamese?

Over the metaphysical poker table, Romney is saying to the ghost of Nixon, "I'll see you one secret plan, and I'll raise you ten more."

Many elections turn on the issue of credibility. This presidential race will turn on the issue of gullibility. The Romney campaign begs the question: Are we really so easily taken in? Are we all babes in the woods? Did we all just crawl out of the cabbage patch? Has Uncle Sam become Uncle Sucker?

I hope not.

Courage,

Alan Grayson

They Want to Destroy Social Security (Circa 1935)

2012-09-23T10:19:29-04:00

Yesterday, I wrote that all the crocodile tears that the Right Wing sheds for the supposed insolvency of Social Security are just a cover story for what they really want to do, i.e., destroy Social Security. My Tea Party opponent is a perfect example of this: He calls Social Security a "Ponzi scheme"; he calls Social Security and Medicare "robbery"; he calls them unconstitutional; and somehow we're supposed to believe that he's the one to save them.

So it has ever been. So it will ever be.

Germany introduced Social Security in 1889. It came to America "only" 46 years later, in 1935. When the Social Security program was introduced here, one of its most vociferous critics was former Republican President Herbert Hoover. Having led America into the Great Depression, Hoover wanted to make sure that no one led it out. (Does that ring a bell?)

According to an Associated Press report on May 6, 1935, and a New York Times report on May 22, 1938 (sorry, no NYT link), Hoover attacked Social Security in apocalyptic terms. Regarding the security for seniors that the program would provide, Hoover said that "we can find [the same economic stability] in our jails. The slaves had it [too]." Hoover said that programs like Social Security would put Americans in cages: "Our people are not ready to be turned into a national zoo."

It's odd that Sarah Palin hasn't deployed the same metaphors. Yet.

Hoover said that rather than indulging in programs like Social Security, Americans should "cling to their family life, to their homes, to their individual self-respect, to their rights, to their individual liberties." He urged that we must not shift "from the self-made man to the government-coddled man."

I know that this sounds just like Paul Ryan, but it was Herbert Hoover. Really.

Hoover added that the way to achieve genuine "social security" was not through government handouts, but by "saving pennies and producing more."

Yes, those pennies sure add up, don't they? Save five of them, and you've got a nickel. Or, in Mitt Romney's case, a quarter.

Hoover said that he believed in private charity, not government handouts. He predicted that government programs like Social Security would destroy private charity, "one of the most fundamental of inspirations in the spiritual growth of the family or individual."

Now you know whom Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum got their ideas from.

With unemployment in America approaching 25 percent, Hoover said that social programs like Social Security simply weren't needed to feed, house and clothe people. "We could do that by the simple methods of bread lines, barracks and dungarees." The government could do nothing to ameliorate these problems; the only answer was "courage and vision in adversity."

This sounds like something that Mitt Romney would say, right? Either that, or something equally vacuous.

Herbert Hoover led the Republican effort to strangle Social Security in its crib. And now, 77 years later, Republicans are trying to suffocate Social Security as it lies in bed.

At least they're consistent.

When a right-wing Republican talks about how to "save" Social Security, I don't know whether to laugh or (like John Boehner) cry. Republicans have as much interest in saving Social Security as they do in saving the whales. Or the rainforest. Or the Queen. Or the last dance. Meaning none.

Courage,

Alan Grayson