United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

I do not write about issues related to my disability because it’s a personal matter. For the record, however, I usually can push my wheelchair to where I need to be. I drive myself to where I need to go. I can get in and out of most public buildings. Many people, including my wife, often don’t think of my disability when discussing day-to-day matters, which is the way I prefer it.

Unfortunately, there are daily reminders that I’m not entirely independent. Often, these reminders take the form of barriers to my full participation in society. Some may sound a bit petty –– an insufficient number of parking places for persons with disabilities (not “disabled parking places,” which a fifth grader can tell you means that that the parking places themselves are disabled). There is a law that figures the proportion of persons with disabilities who may drive or require transportation to the number of able-bodied people for every parking lot serving a building open to the public. It is rarely enforced.

In California, drivers who are not disabled use approximately one third of the placards that identify them a disabled driver. Occasionally, a doctor will shade the truth for a patient, but the majority of those non-disabled drivers with placards obtain them from a family member or relative.

Of course, there are those who don’t bother with going through the hassle of obtaining an illegal parking placard and simply park their car in a space for disabled drivers. When I see this occur, especially by some young person driving a sports car, I occasionally yell at them, “at least you could fake a limp!”

As I said – I can be petty.

One final thing about driving – many large parking lots that the City is supposed to review for conformity with the law include parking spaces for the disabled that are not to specifications. This generally results in parking spaces for disabled persons who are ambulatory and don’t require wheelchair ramps because the spaces are too narrow to extend the ramp or lift and exit the vehicle in a wheelchair without being trapped by another car.

There are other examples, many of which include inaccessible rest rooms, doorways, and stairs in public buildings.

There are little reminders every day, like the curb cuts at intersections in the Gaslamp that are (illegally) too steep and once caused me to flip backwards out of my chair and land on my head in the middle of the street. That concussion was equal in severity to some I suffered while playing college football.

Then there are those who seem afraid that proximity to me and my wheelchair may be infectious somehow and scurry away, furtively glancing back to see if I’m following.

Of course, the antithesis is the overly solicitous stranger who wishes to “assist” me, often by grabbing the wheelchair from behind and pushing. One word – whiplash. Oh, and occasional crushed fingers. Or, detours into lawns or streets.

If you want to help, please ask. I’ll be polite and, on a particularly difficult day, I may even take you up on your offer.

The foregoing was far too much about me. 

This missive is about the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I received an email this morning from The American Association of People with Disabilities. I accept their emails because they only send me something when there is an important issue of which I would ordinarily be unaware until after the fact. Plus, they rarely ask for money.

 It seems like an innocuous group of folks. The have a Board of Directors that has the requisite number of those representing mainstream disability advocacy organizations and those representing corporate America, the latter of which likely funds the organization (it’s a tax write-off as well as a evidence of their corporate citizenship). However, I would rather American Airlines build a plane in which I can reach the first seat while in my wheelchair and hop on instead of all 6’2” and almost 200 lbs of me being lifted by untrained and undersized individuals the three or four feet to my seat and unceremoniously dumping me in the vicinity of said seat. Is it really too much to ask? Apparently, the answer is yes, it is.

But, again, I regress.

President Obama signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009 and sent it to the Senate in May, 2012, were the Foreign Relations Committee considered it’s ratification.

On July 26, 2012, three Republican Senators (Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)) joined the 10 Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to pass the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said the treaty “raises the standard to our level without requiring us to go further. Proponents say it would merely require the rest of the world to catch up to the United States' high standards created by the Americans With Disabilities Act while protecting Americans with disabilities abroad.

However, Neanderthal Republicans on the Committee were concerned with myriad non-issues. Presidential aspirant Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) proposed language saying the treaty “does not create any abortion rights.” All nine Republicans on the panel voted for it.

Democrats said that would have allowed treaty signers to discriminate against people with disabilities — refusing to provide the full range of family planning services under domestic law — in violation of the spirit of the treaty. Instead, Kerry offered an amendment saying the treaty does not address “the provision of any particular health program or procedure,” meaning the treaty doesn't create any new abortion rights beyond the duty not to discriminate against people with disabilities.

The anti-abortion rights Susan B. Anthony List, however, said abortion itself is often a form of discrimination against people with disabilities.

“Ironically, when special needs children are identified in the womb, they often become a prime target for abortion," SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement. "Over 90% of children diagnosed with Downs syndrome in utero have their lives abruptly ended. Abortion in no way promotes the rights and dignity of people with disabilities,”

Republican Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) led the opposition to the treaty, fighting for a reservation to the treaty that would have stated that the United States “does not accept any obligation under the Convention to enact legislation or take other measure in any fashion.” DeMint and other Republicans were allegedly concerned that signing the Treaty, like everything generated by the United Nations, undermines American sovereignty — in this case, a plot to keep Americans from home-schooling their children and forcing an expansion of abortion rights.

The Republican concerns are entirely specious. The treaty requires virtually nothing of the United States. It essentially directs the other signatories to update their laws so that they more closely match the Americans with Disabilities Act. Their concerns, rather, came from the world of U.N. conspiracy theories, black helicopters, and a “new world order.”

If the Treaty did have such sinister aims, it would not have the support of veterans groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican Senators John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), and conservative legal beagles Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh.

Republicans were forced to tread lightly, however, with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), finding it necessary to preface his opposition with the qualifier that “our concerns with this convention have nothing to do with any lack of concern for the rights of persons with disabilities.” Right. He’s worried about the black helicopters.

Senate Republicans on the Committee filed their minority views and a resolution of advice and consent to ratification, including 3 reservations, 8 understandings, and 2 declarations, some of which include:

1.      “This Convention shall be implemented by the Federal Government of the United States of America … to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters … [and limiting] the Federal Government's taking measures … [that] may include enforcement action against state and local actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or other Federal laws …”

2.      “… Individual privacy and freedom from governmental interference in certain private conduct are also recognized as among the fundamental values of our free and democratic society. The United States of America understands that by its terms the Convention can be read to require bro ad regulation of private conduct. To the extent it does, the United States of America does not accept any obligation under the Convention to enact legislation or take other measures with respect to private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”

3.      “The United States of America understands that this Convention, including Article 8 thereof, does not authorize or require legislation or other action that would restrict the right of free speech, expression, and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”

4.     “ … [W]ith respect to the application of the Convention to matters related to economic, social, and cultural rights, including in Articles 4(2), 24, 25, 27, 28 and 30, the United States of America understands that its obligations in this respect are to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of any such rights insofar as they are recognized and implemented under U.S. Federal law.”

5.     “The United States of America understands the Convention to require the protection of rights of individuals with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including individuals in other protected groups, and does not require adoption of a comparable worth framework for persons with disabilities. OMG! We wouldn’t want to extend “special rights” to the disabled as the Democrats have done with gays!

6.     "The United States of America understands that the Convention is a non-discrimination instrument. Therefore, nothing in the Convention, including Article 25, addresses the provision of any particular health program or procedure (ABORTION). Rather, the Convention requires that health programs and procedures are provided to individuals with disabilities on a non-discriminatory basis.” So, women with disabilities are restricted to the same extent as are other women in Republican efforts to restrict reproductive rights."

The treaty, with the Minority Report and the Republican’s 3 reservations, 8 understandings, and 2 declarations, goes before the full Senate today.

Before you do anything else, tweet or call your Senator – NOW!

GOP split resurfaces after Shelley Moore Capito announcement

I enjoy watching the Republicans eat their young and become increasingly irrelevant.
 
GOP split resurfaces after Shelley Moore Capito announcement - David Catanese - POLITICO.com

Jobs and Growth, Not Austerity

The U.S. economy, once in free-fall toward a new depression, has begun to recover. But we are still mired in a prolonged slump marked by mass unemployment, rising poverty, and declining wages. And the fragile recovery is threatened by obsessive concern with cutting deficits that has infected both parties.

As even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recognizes, it is long-term unemployment, not excessive deficits or debt, that is now inflicting the greatest human toll and economic damage. Polls show that voters agree joblessness and a bad economy are much higher priorities than deficits.

Yet too many in Washington are fixated on cutting public spending to balance the budget, not on how to put people back to work and get our economy going. There is no theory of economics that explains how we can deflate our way to recovery. Businesses are not basing investment decisions on how much Congress cuts the debt in 2023.

As Great Britain, Ireland, Spain and Greece have shown, inflicting austerity on a weak economy leads to deeper recession, rising unemployment and increasing misery.

In a deep recession, deficit reduction is a moving target. If you cut spending and consumer purchasing power in an already depressed economy, unemployment rises and revenues fall — and the goal of a smaller deficit keeps receding like a mirage in a desert. When private purchasing power is depressed by the aftermath of a financial collapse, only public investment can make up the gap.

The budget hawks have the sequence backwards. Public outlay for jobs and recovery come first, growth is restored, and revenues follow. Budget cuts in a deep slump lead only to a deeper slump.

The government should invest in areas vital to our economy — to repair crumbling infrastructure, to build 21st-century smart-grid, public transportation and renewable energy systems, and to create public and private sector jobs. We should also help states prevent layoffs of teachers and other public servants, make early care and higher education more affordable, and create public service jobs throughout the nation. It can do so by borrowing at record low interest rates. We can also stimulate recovery without increasing deficits by increasing taxes on the wealthy and pumping the proceeds directly into the economy.

Both bipartisan and conservative deficit reduction plans — Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenici, and the Republican budget — magically assume a recovery to "normal" levels of employment. Yet, the economy is nowhere near normal growth, and budget cutting will only retard growth. At the end of the year, we face a congressionally-created "fiscal cliff," with automatic "sequestration" spending cuts everyone agrees should be stopped to prevent a double-dip recession. That threat has led to backroom negotiations, backed by a multimillion dollar public relations campaign, toward a "grand bargain" that would maintain tax give-aways for the rich; cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; and impose new, job-killing spending cuts. This is no bargain, and it should be rejected.

President Obama should be commended for proposing a new jobs program. But unless the balance of power in Congress changes dramatically, there is a serious danger that after the election the austerity lobby will prevail.

We need jobs first. With recovery, deficit reduction will come of its own accord thanks to increased revenues in an improving economy. That was the case in the three decades after World War II — when the debt to GDP ratio declined from over 120 percent of GDP in 1945 to under 30 percent by 1978.

In 1945, our leaders placed a priority on putting people to work, not cutting spending. So government doubled down with public investments like the GI bill, housing, and highways — and widespread collective bargaining and equal opportunity laws made sure the rewards of growth were widely shared. 

Today, we need the same scale of public investments that made sure the greatest generation and their children enjoyed growth, opportunity, and shared prosperity.

In the face of today's weak economy, the Federal Reserve has vowed to sustain extraordinary measures until unemployment comes down and the economy picks up. But as Chairman Ben Bernanke observed, very low interest rates alone cannot fix this economy. To make sure the American people are not crippled by another lost decade of joblessness, we need presidential leadership — and congressional action — to spur jobs and growth, not dangerous austerity.

The views set forth above are endorsed and supported by the following economists: 

Gail Blattenberger, University of Utah

Robert Blecker, American University

Carrie Boden, Arlington Independent School District, AISD

Ted Boettner, West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy

Peter Bohmer, The Evergreen State College

James Boland, International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, IUBA

James Booker, Siena College

Robert Borosage, Institute for America's Future

Howard Botwinick, The State University of New York Cortland

Roger Even Bove, West Chester University (Retired)

James Boyce, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Gerard Bradley, New Mexico Voices for Children

Elissa Braunstein, Colorado State University

Doug Brown, Democratic Socialists of America

Bruce Brunton, James Madison University

Robert Buchele, Smith College

Howard Bunsis, American Association of University Professors, AAUP

Mary Byrne, Salem State University

Marianne Callahan, Internation Association For Feminist Economics

Martha Campbell, The State University of New York, Potsdam

Jim Campen, University of Massachusetts, Boston

Timothy Canova, Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center

Jim Carpenter, Milwaukee Area Technical College

Raymond Castro, New Jersey Policy Perspective

John Dennis Chasse, United University Professions

Jim Campen, University of Massachusetts, Boston (Emeritus Prof of Econ)

Howard Chernick, Hunter College, City Univ. of NY

Joan Costa Font, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)

Jim Crotty, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Paul Christensen, Hofstra University (retired)

Kimberly Christensen, Sarah Lawrence College

Jens Christiansen, Mount Holyoke College

Nathaniel Cline, University of Redlands

David Cohen, Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO

Jennifer Cohen, Whitman College

Oliver Cooke, Richard Stockton College of New Jersey

Jane D'Arista, Political Economy Research Institute, UMass, Amherst

Flavia Dantas, The State University of New York, Cortland

Paul Davidson, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics

Charles Davis, Indiana University

Susan Davis, Buffalo State College

Gregory DeFreitas, Hofstra University

Amitava Dutt, University of Notre Dame

James Devine, Loyola Marymount University

Ranjit Dighe, State University of New York at Oswego

Michael Dover, Cleveland State University School of Social Work

Laura Dresser, Center on Wisconsin Strategy-University of Wisconsin, COWS-UW Ma

Nata Duvvury, National University of Ireland, Galway/ IAFFE

Peter Earl, University of Queensland, Australia

Todd Easton, University of Portland

Ross Eisenbrey, Economic Policy Institute

Justin Elardo, Portland Community College

Gerald Epstein, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

John Evans, Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD

Lawrence Grossberg, UNC Chapel Hill

Christopher Gunn, Hobart and William Smith Colleges

Robin Hahnel, Portland State University, Department of Economics

Catherine Lynde, University of Massachusetts, Boston

Carroll Estes, Institute for Health and Aging, University of CA, San Francisco

Jeff Faux, Economic Policy Institute

Steven Fazzari, Washington University in St. Louis

Rabbi Michael Feinberg, Greater New York Labor-Religion Coalition

Marshall Feldman, The University of Rhode Island

Thomas Ferguson, Roosevelt Institute

Rudy Fichtenbaum, Wright State University

David Fields, University of Utah

Deborah Figart, The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey

Kade Finnoff, University of Massachusetts, Boston

Richard Flacks, University of California, Santa Barbara

Samuel Flint, Indiana University Northwest

Maria Floro, American University

Frederick Floss, Buffalo State College

John Foran, University of California, Santa Barbara

Catherine Forman, Southern Connecticut State University

Max FraadWolff, The New School Graduate Program in International Affairs

John Gallup, Portland State University

Angel Garcia Banchs, Central University of Venezuela; Econometrica

Heidi Garrett-Peltier, Political Economy Research Institute

Paul Garver, International Union of Foodworkers (retired)

Robert Scott Gassler, Vesalius College

David George, LaSalle University

Teresa Ghilarducci, Schwartz Chair in Economic Policy Analysis, The New School

G. Reza Ghorashi, Stockton College

Don Goldstein, Allegheny College

Stephen Gorin, Plymouth State University

Ulla Grapard, Colgate University

Daphne Greenwood, Colorado Center for Policy Studies and Dept of Economics, UCCS

Jo Marie Griesgraber, New Rules for Global Finance

Stephany Griffith-Jones, Initiative for Policy Dialogue-Columbia University

Lawrence Grossberg, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill

Joe Guggenheim, Economist

Hazel Dayton Gunn, Union for Radical Political Economics, URPE

Sanjiv Gupta, Dept of Sociology, Univ of Mass-Amherst

Robert Guttmann, Hofstra University

Jacob Hacker, Yale University

Robin Hahnel, Portland State University, Department of Economics

Douglas Hall, Economic Policy Institute

John Battaile Hall, Portland State University

Mark Hamilton, Milwaukee Area Technical College

John and Debby Hanrahan, DC Statehood Green Party

Geoffrey Harcourt, School of Economics, University of New South Wales

Heidi Hartmann, Institute for Women's Policy Research

John Harvey, Texas Christian University

Sue Headlee, American University

James Heintz, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Conrad Herold, Hofstra University

Roger Hickey, Institute for America's Future

Leo Hindery Jr., US Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative

Peter Ho, University of Denver

Joan Hoffman, John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Emily Hoffman, Western Michigan University

Barbara Hopkins, Wright State University

Kenneth Houghton, Independent Consultant

Mohamed El-Hodiri, University of Kansas

Julio Huato, St. Francis College

Heather Hurwitz, University of California Santa Barbara

Dorene Isenberg, University of Redlands

Richard Jackman, London School of Economics

Sanford Jacoby, UCLA

Arjun Jayadev, University of Massachusetts Boston

Robert Johnson, Institute for New Economic Thinking

Joel Johnson, Maine Center for Economic Policy

Stacey Jones, Seattle University

\Avis Jones-DeWeever, Ph.D., National Council of Negro Women

Helene Jorgensen, Independent Economist

Pramod Junankar, University of New South Wales, Australia

Arne Kalleberg, University of North Carolina

J K Kapler, University of Massachusetts, Boston

Jeffrey Keefe, Rutgers University

Soohaeng Kim, SungKongHoe University

Mary King, Portland State University

Eric Kingson, Syracuse University

Richard Kirsch, Roosevelt Institute

Timothy Koechlin, Vassar College

Andrew Kohen, Emeritus Professor of Economics, James Madison University

Robert Kuttner, American Prospect

Supriya Lahiri, University of Massachusetts Lowell

Melaku Lakew, Richard Stockton College of New Jersey

John Langmore, University of Melbourne

Richard Layard, London School of Economics and Political Science

Joelle Leclaire, Buffalo State College, SUNY

Thea Lee, Deputy Chief of Staff of the AFL-CIO

Robert Leighninger, Living New Deal Project

Keith Leitich, Pierce College, Puyallup

Hank Leland, SEIU

Margaret Levenstein, University of Michigan

Charles Levenstein, University of Massachusetts, Lowell

Henry Levin, Teachers College, Columbia University

Marc Levine, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Mark Levinson, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

David Liebschutz, Siena College

Michael Lipton, Sussex University (Research Professor of Economics)

Paul Lockard, Black Hawk College

Thomas L Power, University of Montana

Robert Lynch, Washington College

Arthur MacEwan, University of Massachusetts Boston

Jeff Madrick, Rediscovering Government

Mark Maier, Glendale College

Jean Maier, Sierra Club

Arindam Mandal, Siena College

Cheryl Maranto, Marquette University

Ann Markusen, University of Minnesota

Daniel Marschall, George Washington University

William Mass, Unviersity of Massachusetts, Lowell

Julie Ann Matthaei, Wellesley College

Peter Matthews, Middlebury College

Anne Mayhew, University of Tennessee (Retired), Economist

Richard McIntyre, University of Rhode Island

Hannah McKinney, Kalamazoo College

Walter McMahon, University of Illinois, Retired

Michael Meeropol, John Jay College Of Criminal Justice, CUNY

John Messier, University of Maine Farmington

William Milberg, New School for Social Research

Marcus Miller, University of Warwick

John Miller, Ehaton College

Jonathan Millman, University of Massachusetts, Boston

Jeff Mills, University of Cincinnati

Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy Institute

Gary Mongiovi, St John's University

Manuel F Montes, South Centre

Leslie Moody, Partnership for Working Families

Monique Morrissey, Economic Policy Institute

Fred Moseley, Mount Holyoke College

Philip Moss, University of Massachusetts, Lowell

Tracy Mott, Department of Economics, University of Denver

Jamee Moudud, Sarah Lawrence College

Kevin Murphy, Oakland University

Marta Murray-Close, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Michele Naples, The College of New Jersey

Julie Nelson, University of Massachusetts Boston

Reynold Nesiba, Augustana College

Anne Nolan, Attorney, and Labor and Living Wage Activist

Michael Nuwer, The State University of New York Potsdam

Phillip O'Hara, Global Political Economy Research Unit (GPERU)

Paulette Olson, Wright State University

Nancy Ortiz, Social Security Administration

Pierre Ostiguy, Bard College

Kimberly Otis, Center for Partnership Studies

Christine Owens, National Employment Law Project

Aaron Pacitti, Siena College

Spencer Pack, Connecticut College

Thomas Palley, AFL-CIO

Jairo Parada, Universidad del Norte

Richard Parker, Harvard University

James Parrott, Fiscal Policy Institute

Nelly-Eleni Pavlidou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Jose Pereira, Universidad de Santiago

Kenneth Peres, Communications Workers of America AFL-CIO

Karen Pfeifer, Smith College emerita

Robert Plotnick, University of Washington

Karen Rosel Polenske, MIT

Robert Pollack, Boston University

Robert Pollin, U. Mass and Political Economy Research Institute

Marilyn Power, Sarah Lawrence College

Mark Price, Keystone Research Center

Ashley Provencher, Siena College

Edith Rasell, United Church of Christ

Robert Reich, U.C. Berkeley

Michael Reich, University of California, Berkeley

Cordelia Reimers, Hunter College, CUNY

Stephen Reynolds, Department of Economics, University of Utah

Max Richtman, National Committee to Preserve Social Secuirty and Medicare

Malcolm Robinson, Thomas More College

John Roche, St John Fisher College, Rochester NY

Charles Rock, Rollins College, Economics Department

James Rock, University of Utah

Maya Rockeymoore, Global Policy Solutions

John Roemer, Yale University

Sergio Romero, Boise State University

Stephen Rose, Georgetown University

Nancy Rose, California State University, San Bernardino

Gina Rosen, University of California, Los Angeles

Michael Rosen, Milwaukee Area Technical College

Joshua Rosenbloom, University of Kansas

Marguerite Rosenthal, National Jobs for All Coalition

Sergio Rossi, University of Fribourg, Switzerland

Benjamin Russak, UCLA - Master's Student in Urban Planning

Steve Savner, Center for Community Change

Larry Sawers, American University

Tyler Saxon, Colorado State University

Ronald Schettkat, Schumpeter School, University of Wuppertal

Ted Schmidt, SUNY Buffalo State

John Schmitt, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Markus Schneider, University of Denver

Juliet B Schor, Boston College

Elliott Sclar, Earth Institute - Columbia University

Jean Shackelford, Bucknell University (emerita)

Sumitra Shah, St. John's University (retired)

Anwar Shaikh, New School for Social Research

Nina Shapiro, Saint Peter's University

Hilary Shelton, NAACP

Heidi Shierholz, Economic Policy Institute

Richard Shirey, Siena College

Nicholas Shunda, University of Redlands

Laurence Shute, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, University of Huddersfield

Damon Silvers, AFL-CIO

Curtis Skinner, National Center for Children in Poverty

Peter Skott, University of Massachusetts

Bryan Snyder, Bentley University

Luz Sosa, AFT-Local 212

Roberta Spalter-Roth, American Sociological Association

Peter Spiegler, University of Massachusetts-Boston

Stephen Spitz, Progressive Democrats of America, PDA

Case Sprenkle, University of Illinois Econ. Prof. Emeritus

William Spriggs, AFL-CIO

J. R. Stanfield, Professor Emeritus, Colorado State U.

K C Stanfield, DePauw University

Howard Stein, The University of Chicago (emeritus)

Seguino Stephanie, University of Vermont

Mary Stevenson, University of Massachusetts Boston

James Stewart, Penn State University

Diana Strassmann, Rice University

Frank Stricker, California Faculty Association, CFA

Myra Strober, Stanford University

David Taylor, Internactional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Lance Taylor, New School for Social Research

Peter Taylor-Gooby, University of Kent

Peter Temin, MIT

David Terkla, University of Massachusetts Boston

Frank Thompson, University of Michigan

Alexander Thompson, Vassar College

Chris Tilly, University of California, Los Angeles

Joseph Ricciardi, Babson College

Bruce Roberts, University of Southern Maine

Richard Sims, National Education Association

Gerard Toal, Virginia Tech

Jim Tober, Marlboro College

Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Charles Tontar, Merrimack College

Mayo Toruño, California State University San Bernardino

John Tower, Retired from Oakland University

Amy Traub, Demos

Scott Trees, Siena College

Dale Tussing, Syracuse University

Chethan Udayashankar, Capital University Law School

Leanne Ussher, Queens College, CUNY

David Vail, Bowdoin College

William Van Lear, Belmont Abbey College

Bryan Van Namen, Demandside Economics

Rick Vanderploeg, University of Oxford

Tara Veazey, Montana Budget and Policy Center

Roberto Veneziani, Queen Mary University of London

Matias Vernengo, University of Utah

Matt Vidal, King's College London

Valerie Voorheis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Marlboro College

Paula Voos, Rutgers University

Don Waldman, Colgate University

Robert Waldmann, University of Rome in Tor Vergata

Robert Watt, University of Birmingham

John Weeks, Professor Emeritus, University of London

David Weiman, Barnard College

Scott A. Weir, Wake Technical Community College

Thomas Weisskopf, University of Michigan

Robin Wells, Roosevelt Institute

Rayack Wendy, Wesleyan University

Russell Williams, Wheaton College

John Willoughby, Department of Economics, American Univefrsity

Justin Wolfers, University of Michigan

Rick Wicks, Economics Dept., Göteborgs Universitet, Sweden

Marty Wolfson, University of Notre Dame

Brenda Wyss, Wheaton College, MA

Jacqui Yeagle, Alaska Center for Public Policy

Linda Wilcox Young, Southern Oregon University

Norman Waitzman, University of Utah

Richard Wertheimer, Child Trends (retired)

James Winkler, United Methodist General Board of Church and Society

Jon Wisman, American University

June Zaccone, National Jobs for All Coalition

Ajit Zacharias, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College

David Zalewski, Providence College

James M. Zelenski, Regis University

Ben Zipperer, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Marcia Zuckerman, Boston Workmen's Circle

It's the Math

I've been listening and re-listening to this video of Rachel Maddow's show following Tuesday's election. It’s not gloating. It’s the truth. And, the Republicans still don’t get it. Amazing.

No, I didn't get to the candidates, but ...

Okay. So, I spent a little too much time on dissecting the ballot propositions. It's Election Day, and try as I might, I could not create the time to share my thoughts on some of those individuals who are stupid enough ... I mean, egocentric, no, uh ... wait, I need to check my Thesaurus. 

Got it.

" ... share my thoughts on some of those individuals who are" resolute enough to run for political office.

However, given the extreme differences between the President and his challenger, Brian Bilbray and Scott Peters, Bob Filner and Carl DeMaio ... heck, even between Sherri Lightner and Ray Ellis, you have already decided for whom to vote or decided not to vote. 

The last part about choosing not to vote got me to thinking (as everyone reading this takes a deep breath, concerned about where I'm going with this).

Did you know:

According to official estimates, the state’s total population is approximately 38 million. Of those, 23.8 million (62.63%) are citizens of voting age. This year, voter registration increased to its highest level in history, with 18.2 million (76.47% of total population) registered to vote for this year’s election, up from the previous high of 17.33 million that was set in February 2009.

Of those 18.2 million voters, 12.75 million (70.05% of registered voters and 53.57% of all California residents eligible to vote) are expected to cast ballots today. Those 12.75 million voters, which is only 33.55% of all California residents, will decide the fate of 10 statewide ballot propositions, 53 California Congressional seats, 80 State Assembly seats, 20 State Senate states, one US Senate seat, and thousands of local elections.

Therefore, only about 1/3rd of the population of the state will decide whether we continue to kill certain criminals, raise taxes for schools, prohibit union members from exercising their right to support the candidates of their choice, and requiring the labeling of genetically altered food. There are other issues, as well as decisions as to who represents us in congress, the state legislature, and hundreds, if not thousands of local government officials and issues.

At this moment, there are people laying down their lives for the right to govern themselves – a right and responsibility in which citizens across the nation choose not to participate. Here in California, with all the problems facing our state, we need to exercise our precious right to vote.

We, as voters, have the right to demand that our elected officials answer for their actions. One of the most important aspects of our democracy is the participation of the people in choosing their political representatives. The power of voting is the power of change. Voting is the power of making a mark in history by voicing your opinions.