FACT CHECK: Socialists in the United States Congress?

The Twitterverse and various blogs were ablaze today (13-AUG-2010) about a supposed list of U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen that are members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Most of this can be traced back to the following blog link.

American Socialists Release Names of 70 Congressional Democrats in Their Ranks
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/american-socialists-release-names-of-70-congressional-democrats-in-their-caucus/

Is it true? The blog claims that the list appeared in a now-unavailable October 2009 newsletter. The blog does contain a link to an alleged copy of the web site on Scribd.com as proof of the allegation.

I was unable to find an independently verifiable copy of the supposed newsletter.

However, many of the names on the alleged list do match up with current members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, whose membership is listed on an official U.S. government House of Representatives web site.

Are the various members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus actually socialists? I cannot make that claim based on the evidence. However, one member, Senator Bernie Sanders, is officially labeled "Independent" but is a self-described socialist--as mentioned on his Senate web page in a biographical newspaper article. Strangely, I agree with Senator Sanders on auditing the Federal Reserve Bank, but then again, so do many in both the House and the Senate.

Another member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, had a revealing slip-of-the-tongue during testimony, as shown in the following video.

While I cannot say whether the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are indeed members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), I can say that the DSA tends to support the policies of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

In a frequently-asked questions document from the DSA website titled "What is Democratic Socialism?", on page 3, the DSA answers the question, "Aren't you a party that's in competition with the Democratic Party for votes and support?"

"No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus."

In fact, according to DiscoverTheNetworks.org, the Congressional Progressive Caucus "worked in open partnership with Democratic Socialists of America" unil 1999. See also DiscoverTheNetwors.org's page regarding the SDA.

It is also interesting to see that DSA's "friends and allies" in labor are major campaign contributors to members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

My Congressman, Sam Farr, is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. According to the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org), his major campaign contributors are from out-of-state political action committees (PACs) associated with public-employee unions and labor unions. The United Auto Workers (UAW) and Aerospace Workers Union are particularly interesting because Santa Cruz, California has neither automobile or aircraft manufacturing. Many of the organizations have ties back to the AFL-CIO, which itself has ties to American socialism. Unanswered question: Are organizations like the AAJ, the National Association of Realtors, and American Medical Association (AMA) also considered trade unions?

1. American Association for Justice (AAJ) $82,000 (formerly known as the "Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) )"
2. Teamsters Union $81,500
3. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) $77,750
4. American Federation of State/County/Municipal Employees (AFSCME) $72,500
5. Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $72,000
6. United Auto Workers (UAW) $64,000
7. Laborers Union $57,000
8. National Association of Realtors $56,250
9. National Education Association $51,500
10. Sheet Metal Workers Union $45,000
11. Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $41,500
12. United Food & Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) $41,505
13. American Medical Association (AMA) $41,250
14. National Beer Wholesalers Association $41,000
15. American Federation of Teachers $40,200
16. American Crystal Sugar $36,500
17. Carpenters & Joiners Union $34,500
18. PG&E Corp $30,925
19. National Association of Letter Carriers $30,750
20. Blue Diamond Grower $30,500
    

Looking at the campaign donations for other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the pattern is similar (see full list as the end of the article). In fact, public-employee and labor unions are some of the largest political donors, and mostly to a single political party. I wonder how many union members are happy that their mandatory union dues help fund the campaigns of the Congressional Progressive Caucus?

Top 124 All-Time Political Donors (1989-2010)

Note the political leaning of a group's donations. Many of the unions given 95%+ to the Democratic Party.

Not surprising, similar campaign contribution patterns and influences exist in California state politics.

I must admit a strong personal bias against some on the list. As a free-market Constitutionalist that believes in small, limited government, more local control, and sane fiscal policy, their political views likely differ significantly from my own. Judging from the mission statement on their web site, I likely agree on the problems but also likely disagree with their proposed solutions.

I also personally find more than a few on the list professionally incompetent, including Congressman Barney Frank for his many, many transgressions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (NOTE TO MASSACHUSETTS: http://www.retirebarney.com/)

I have similar disdain for many Congressmen/women from my own state of California, including Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Congressman Pete Stark, Congressman Henry Waxman, and Congresswoman Linda Sánchez. Speaker Pelosi is no longer an active member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She gave up her membership when she became Speaker of the House (although I'll bet she is still with them in spirit). I was surprised to see Congressman Mike Honda on the member list (maybe I need to change my opinion of him). Seeing so many California Congressmen/women on the list may explain why California is such an economic basket case.

See also ...

• Democratic Socialists of America web site
• Congressional Progressive Caucus web site
• Center for Responsive Politics web site
• DiscoverTheNetworks.org web site
• "Socialists in the House"
• "Democratic Socialists of Congress: Meet the Members"
• "American Socialists leak names of Congressional members in their ranks"
• "The socialists in Congress"
• "Progressive Democrats of America" about
• "Progressive Voters of America" about

Using information from the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org), I separated the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus into four groups, based on a subjective review of his or her major contributors. Where appropriate, there is a link to an associated video highlight of the Congressman's/women's sheer brilliance.

[YES] = Most top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions
[MOSTLY] = Many top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions
[MIXED] = Some top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions, but some are not
[NO] = Few top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions

Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (as of 2-JUN-2010)


Co-Chairs

Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07) [YES]

Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06) [YES]

Vice Chairs

Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33) [YES]

Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05) [YES]

Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18) [YES]

• (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: "Was it the Korean War or the Vietnam War? I get confused")

Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02) [MIXED]

Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10) [YES]

Hon. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04) [MIXED]

Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08) [YES]

Senate Members

Hon. Roland Burris (IL) [NO]

Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT) [YES]

Hon. Tom Udall (NM) [YES]


House Members

Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02) [MOSTLY]

Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31) [YES]

Hon. Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) [YES]

Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01) [YES]

Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03) [MOSTLY]

• (VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS: "Rank has its privledges")

Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08) [MIXED]

Hon. André Carson (IN-07) [MOSTLY]

Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL) [NO]

Hon. Judy Chu (CA-32) [MOSTLY]

Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11) [YES]

Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01) [YES]

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05) [MIXED]

Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09) [MIXED]

Hon. John Conyers (MI-14) [YES]

• (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: "Read the bill")

Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07) [YES]

Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07) [YES]

Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04) [YES]

Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03) [MOSTLY]

Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17) [YES]

Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02) [YES]

Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51) [YES]

• (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: "I'm a Congressman. I demand special treatment.")

Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04) [MIXED] Lots of financial institutions

• (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: "Statements on Fannie and Freddie just before the collapse")

Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11) [MIXED]

Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) [YES]

Hon. John Hall (NY-19) [MIXED]

Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17) [YES]

• (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: "I don't care about the Constitution")

Hon. Alcee Hastings (FL-23) [MOSTLY]

Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) [YES]

Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15) [YES]

Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02) [MIXED]

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30) [MOSTLY]

Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04) [YES]

• (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: "Guam might tip over and capsize")

Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) [YES]

Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13) [MIXED]

Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09) [YES]

Hon. John Lewis (GA-05) [YES]

Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02) [YES]

Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3) [MIXED]

Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) [MIXED]

Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07) [NO]

Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07) [MIXED]

Hon. James McGovern (MA-03) [YES]

Hon. George Miller (CA-07) [YES]

Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04) [YES]

Hon. Jim Moran (VA-08) [NO]

Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08) [MOSTLY]

Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-All) [YES]

Hon. John Olver (MA-01) [YES]

Hon. Frank Pallone (NJ-06) [YES]

Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04) [YES]

Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10) [YES]

Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01) [MIXED]

Hon. Jared Polis (CO-02) [NO]

Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15) [MIXED]

Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37) [YES]

Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34) [YES]

Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01) [YES]

Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-39) [YES]

Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09) [YES]

Hon. José Serrano (NY-16) [YES]

Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28) [YES]

Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13) [MOSTLY]

• (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: "On the national debt, which is a sign of wealth(?)")
  
• (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: "Demonstrating his inate charm with a voter")
  
• (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: "On the limits of federal power - at 2:50")

Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02) [YES]

Hon. John Tierney (MA-06) [YES]

Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12) [YES]

Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35) [YES]

• (VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS: "Socializing, Nationalizing -- so what's the difference?")
  
• (VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS: "On Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac")

Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12) [MIXED]

Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30) [MOSTLY]

• (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: "Demonstrating his renowned understanding of the issues"

Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL) [MIXED]

What Influences California Politics More, Business or Union Money?

According to a recent California Watch article, "Business groups dominate list of legislative donors."
http://californiawatch.org/watchblog/study-business-groups-biggest-backers-ca-legislators

True enough, but I disagree with the implication of the article, which is too simplistic in my opinion. You have to look at the CONCENTRATION of all that money. The business community is a diverse group, with some common interests, and some interests specific to a given industry. Businesses tend to give roughly evenly to both parties while labor unions give overwhelmingly (over six times mores) to a single party, the Democrats.


Think those business contributions help Republican candidates? For the sake of argument, lets add the combination of business contributions plus union contributions, using the numbers from the article. The union money swamps any advantage to the Republicans.

Republicans: 50.61% (47.22% biz, 3.39% union)

Democrats: 57.94% (36.23% biz, 21.71% union)

According to campaign finance web site maplight.org, here are the top interest groups that contribute to California state politicians. I think that it becomes fairly obvious that some of our elected "public servants" have become servants of the public employee unions.
http://maplight.org/california

• Construction unions: $4,668,606
  
• Attorneys & law firms: $2,839,023


• STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE UNIONS: $2,683,162


• POLICE & FIRE FIGHTERS UNIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS: $2,367,871


• Native American tribes & governing units: $1,838,174


• Property & casualty insurance: $1,565,431


• Telecommunications: $1,354,935


• TEACHERS UNIONS: $1,299,214


• Pharmaceutical manufacturing: $1,219,631


• Physicians: $1,062,987

Of these groups, here are the ones that are employed by state, county, or local governments. Some of the construction unions also indirectly receive state benefits for government contracts, although that is more difficult to track. Many state and local projects MANDATE union-only employees.

Click the link to see who received money from each type of interest group.

STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE UNIONS: $2,683,162
http://maplight.org/california/interest/L1200/view/all

POLICE & FIRE FIGHTERS UNIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS: $2,367,871
http://maplight.org/california/interest/L1400/view/all

TEACHERS UNIONS: $1,299,214
http://maplight.org/california/interest/L1300/view/all

Allow me to use my state assemblyman, Bill Monning, as an example. He received over $100,000 from these public employee unions.
http://maplight.org/california/legislator/1323-william-monning/interests

• Construction unions $82,529
• Attorneys & law firms $64,144
• STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE UNIONS $55,150
• POLICE & FIRE FIGHTERS UNIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS $27,501
• TEACHERS UNIONS $23,700
• Physicians $23,040
• Property & casualty insurance $14,750
• Native American tribes & governing units $13,500
• Other unions $11,500
• Telecommunications $11,500

Bill Monning's Top 10 Individual Contributors
http://maplight.org/california/legislator/1323-william-monning/individuals

• Operating Engineers Local 3 $17,900
• California Medical Association $16,390
• California State Council of Laborers $15,400
• CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF SERVICE EMPLOYEES $14,400 (SEIU)
• CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION $14,400 (CTA)
• AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES $14,200 (AFSCME)
• CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS $11,901
• CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION $11,500
• SERVICE EMPLOYEES LOCAL 1000 $9,200 (SEIU)
• CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS $8,300 (CFT)

Still don't think that union money matters? Let's see which groups are the heaviest hitters in California politics, according to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).

Big Money Talks - California's Billion Dollar Club
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/reports/Report31110.pdf

The Billion Dollar Money Train - Fundraising By Candidates For State Office Since Voters Enacted Contribution Limits
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/reports/billion_dollar_money_train.pdf

Independent Expenditures: The Giant Gorilla in Campaign Finance
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/ie/IEReport2.pdf

These same trends continue at the national level. Here is a list of the Top 100 Political contributors. Note the organization and how much of their spending goes to a single party.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

Correlating California's Economically "Stressed" Counties and Water Politics

A May 3rd news story listed the 20 most "stressed" counties in the United States. Twelve of the 20 counties (60%) are in one state, California. According to the the analysis, "stress" is measured by adding the unemployment rate plus the foreclosure rate plus the bankruptcy rate. Looking at the interactive map, the California counties suffer primarily from very high unemployment.

1. Imperial County, Calif., 31.27


2. Merced County, Calif., 28.29


3. Lyon County, Nev., 27.96


4. San Benito County, Calif., 27.26


5. Sutter County, Calif., 26.41


6. Yuba County, Calif., 25.8


7. Stanislaus County, Calif., 25.46


8. Iosco County, Mich., 24.89


9. San Joaquin County, Calif., 24.78


10. Nye County, Nevada., 24.19


11. Lapeer County, Mich., 24.03


12. Cheboygan County, Mich., 23.89


13. Luna County, N.M., 23.82


14. Lake County, Calif., 23.78


15. Kern County, Calif., 23.62


16. Tulare County, Calif., 23.17


17. Madera County, Calif., 23.04


18. Fresno County, Calif., 22.72


19. Clark County, Nevada, 22.65


20. Boone County, Ill., 22.59

Mapping the stressed California counties reveals a pattern recognizable by most farmers living in the California's San Joaquin Valley. While I'm no farmer, I did grow up on a citrus orchard in Tulare County.

Many of the affected counties are part of California's Central Valley Project (CVP), the critical lifeline delivering water to California's Central Valley (San Joaquin Valley) farmers. Here are these same counties plotted on top of a map of the CVP.

Click image to enlarge in separate window.

The CVP's canals are often in the news due to a controversial decision to reduce water deliveries in order to protect an endangered fish called the delta smelt.

Wall Street Journal: "California's Man-Made Drought"
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574384731898375624.html

Newsweek: "Dying on the Vine: Water Shortage Wilts California's San Joaquin Valley"
www.newsweek.com/id/211381

Driving through the Central Valley last Summer, it was the driest that I had seen. Some farmers claim that this is all a crisis created by the government, as shown by this now-famous sign reading "Congress Created Dust Bowl."


No doubt, government policies have complicated deliveries. However, as described in a response by the Department of the Interior, the delta smelt isn't the only reason for the lack of water deliveries. California has suffered through three years of drought and there are long-neglected improvements required to the CVP. Some of these fixes require careful coordination between California state politicians and the federal government.

While I don't have conclusive evidence showing a direct correlation between the lack of water and unemployment, the link appears relatively obvious. Agriculture depends on water and employment in the affected counties relies heavily on agribusiness. It is also obvious that people in the affected counties are indeed stressed.

More Information ...

Dead and Dying: California's Central Valley Dust Bowl
beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/dead-and-dying-californias-central-valley-dust-bowl

Central Valley Project
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Project

L.A. Times: "U.S. speeds up water deliveries to San Joaquin Valley farmers"
articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/27/local/la-me-water-drought27-2010jan27

California Law, Arizona Law, and Immigration Enforcement

As graphically emphasized in a YouTube video by Arizona's Governor, you can learn a lot just by reading.

With all the national and international controversy over Arizona's new immigration law (SB 1070), one might wonder about California's existing immigration law. Read on and be amazed.

QUESTIONS:

• Are California's sanctuary cities in clear violation of federal law and of California Penal Code, Section 834b? If so, why isn't 834b being enforced?
  
• Are arrests of illegal aliens being reported by California's sanctuary cities? If not, is this not also a violation of California law?
  
• How is California's law materially different than Arizona's controversial immigration law?

California Penal Code, Section 834b:
www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=833-851.90

834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is ARRESTED if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is ARRESTED, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.

(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.

(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan and Her College Thesis

As I write this, Elena Kagan is President Obama's nominee for a life-long appointment to the United States Supreme Court, the ultimate legal authority in the nation. She has no prior judicial experience but is apparently known to President Obama through Harvard University. Consequently, I was interested when politcal web site RedState.com provided an electronic download of her college thesis titled, "To the Final Conflic: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933." I downloaded the thesis from RedState.com before Princeton University demand that it be removed for copyright reasons.

Ms. Kagan's this is an interesting read although a bit long. It provides an interest history of the American socialist movement and its association with labor unions and industrial organizations.

Her thesis makes me wonder whether Ms. Kagan actually believed or currently believes any of this stuff or was merely fulfilling a requirement for a degree. Some of her words can clearly be interpreted as pro socialist. Some of her words go beyond mere reporting and analysis to advocacy. If she were a nominee for a life-long appointment lacking any judicial experience by any other president, this thesis would likely be ignored. However, seeing the direct connection between the Obama White House and the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU) labor union--among others--this thesis may be telling.

Why do I mention SEIU? Because it spun directly out of the American Federation of Labor (now the AFL-CIO), which is mentioned in her thesis. Both the SEIU and member organizations of the AFL-CIO, such as AFSCME, are major contributors to Washington politicians with over 90% of the funds going to a single political party.

Here is a snippet from the Conclusion of her thesis, starting on page 127, which I believe is being quoted within the fair use limits of U.S. copyright law. My comments are highlighted.

In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States (true when she wrote the thesis in 1981 during the Cold War but perhaps no longer true since the election of President Obama with help from various labor organizations). Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness (and examples of socialism's greatness would include ...?). Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation's established parties? (could it be because there is scant evidence of any of the socialist's policies and methods ever producing a successful and sustainable state?)

After lamenting the demise of various socialists groups, Ms. Kagan's thesis ends with the following section from page 130.

... The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one's fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe (are the majority of Americans today's "entrenched foe"?). Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.

By their own words, be they known? I certainly support the right of anyone to hold whatever political views they want. However, if someone is potentially appointed for a lifetime to the Supreme Court, I would like the views of the nominee to be clarified.

More Elena Kagan Information:

• Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) Report,
  http://www.scotusreport.com/resources
  

Other views:

• Politico, "White House to release Kagan theses"


• Ken Blackwell, "Elena Kagan: Estranged From America"


• Newsweek, "Clues from Princeton"

Why Acronyms Aren't Always a Good Idea in Politics

Acronyms are a common fixture in politics. For example, many people have likely heard the term RINO for Republican In Name Only. However, acronyms can easily backfire on a campaign, especially when the opponent's campaign is filled with clever wisecrackers.

Carly Fiorina's Sentate campaign attempted to brand her opponent Tom Campbell, who is a well-established, fiscal conservative, as a FCINO via her campaign's bizarre Demon Sheep advertisement. What does FCINO mean? According to the Fiorina campaign, it means Fiscal Conservative In Name Only. The Campbell campaign cleverly shot back with Fact Checking Is Not Optional.

Likewise, President Obama's Organizing for America is selling T-shirts proudly proclaiming that "Health Reform is a BFD." What does BFD mean in this context? Exactly what you think. It's a polite version of Vice-President Biden's candid and quiet comment to President Obama, caught on an open microphone. I saw an alternate version of the shirt, slightly modified, that proclaimed instead that "Health Reform is a BFD, Big Financial Disaster." Question: Does anybody know who sells these?

A Hidden Gem: Even Authors Get It!

With Tax Day rapidly approaching, I thought I would share a little gem discovered while reading Steve Martini's political thriller, Shadow of Power, embedded on pages 126 and 127.

As dreaded April 15th engulfs me, I have just finished another frustratingly-confusing 80-plus-page love letter to my favorite uncle, Uncle Sam, who seems in constant need of ever more money. My accountant assures me that all is correct, but how am I to know for sure?

I thought about highlighting the particularly good or entertaining sections of this gem but then realized that I would end up highlighting most of it anyway.

"Only the insane of the eighteenth century could foresee that a bleak two lines added to the Constitution a century after its creation, authorizing the collection of a federal income tax, could result in a seventy-year rampage by government to mentally rape its own citizens with millions of pages of totally unintelligible tax laws, rules, regulations, and forms.

"Today we have special federal tax courts because the law is so convoluted that ordinary federal judges are presumed too ignorant and unschooled to understand the complexi­ties of laws and forms that every citizen down to the village janitor is required to understand, to obey, and to sign under penalty of perjury and threat of imprisonment.

"Nor could it be possible in the Age of Reason to foresee a Social Security system that if run by a private business would result in their arrest, prosecution, and conviction for operating a Ponzi scheme. In the real world, taking invested funds in the form of Social Security taxes, paying current claims, and skimming the rest for other purposes is called embezzlement. When government does it, it is simply called politics. In either case the arithmetic is always the same. When the scheme goes belly-up, its operators, if they're smart, will be in Brazil, or, in the case of Congress, retired, which is the political equivalent of being in Brazil.

"With all of this, the people in what is touted as the great­est democracy on the planet have no effective recourse. They cannot act directly to fix any of the obvious open sores or seeping wounds in their own government, because the founders didn't trust them with the only effective medicine, the power to amend their own Constitution. That is reserved the power to a serpent its creators never saw. 

"Short of revolution, something Jefferson urged take place at least every twenty years, the average citizen is left to pound sand by casting a largely empty vote to replace the devil-in-office with the devil-in-waiting and hope that the caustic nature of power to corrupt can somehow be neutralized.

"Praying for the devil to grow a halo, we all plod on, one foot in front of the other, trusting that somehow we will not follow the Soviet Union over the national cliff."