t.a. barnhart's blog

Rachel Maddow introduces us to the kind of Republicans progressives can find common cause with: union Republicans. A very interesting, and encouraging, report.

Happy new year. It’s the last day of the first week of the year, so I think, technically, I can still say “Happy new year”. This is also my blog, so screw it; I’m going to say it. And publish it.

Resolutions are a part of many people’s new year, of course. I don’t do resolutions. I don’t trust myself with them. Were I to make a significant resolution and then keep it, god knows what the consequences would be. Maturity, accomplishment, personal growth? I’m not sure the world is ready for that. Not from me, anyway.

Instead, my new year’s practice is to sit home alone, drink cheap wine, and weep silently. This is one of the practices that has made me the man I am today. Unfortunately, in the past couple of years I have had the luck to have a number of markedly superior people enter my life; the excellence of these people has rubbed off on me, and it appears that bitter, lonely suffering will no longer suffice.

The best of these people is Kriste York. Her story is pretty amazing: brain tumor and stroke, standing on the abyss, learning to walk again, etc. The stuff of a Hallmark tv movie (do they still make those?). Somehow, she and I have become pretty good friends (mostly via Facebook; suck it, haters) and her impact on my life is nothing short of amazing. I knew her before her near-death experience, but we had drifted apart. And then, once we re-connected, I decided that if she was willing to be my friend, I was going to let her be my mentor. What that means is between the two of us, but I will share how that impacts my path in 2012.

Following her surgeries and recovery in 2009, Kriste began to mark her new year with the date of her medical adventures. As part of that, she chose to mark each year with a word. (And rather than me explain how that works, read her own words at her blog — a blog she started, and now loves, at my suggestion; our friendship is a two-way street, something that never ceases to amaze me). Since Kriste is my mentor in how to live life fully, I started thinking about a word for myself. And as 2011 came to a close, a word came to mind:

Connect.

I was really angry and sad that no one invited me anywhere over the holidays, that I had no invites to any New Years Eve parties, and none to watch the Ducks in the Rose Bowl. You would think after a few years in this city, and knowing quite a few people, not to mentioning having busted my butt on a lot of shared projects, I might get something. If you thought that, you’d be mistaken. But the realization came to me: no one invites me to do anything because I don’t invite others.

I needed to be the one doing the connecting. Waiting for invitations to connect to other people’s lives was never going to work. I need to instigate the connections. This is not something I do well. I am a shy person; I like my solitude. Also, I have spent most of my life hating myself. So it feels right to be rejected by others; it’s pretty much what I’m worth.

Except Kriste tells me otherwise (as do Bruce, Sonya and a few others). She tells me this explicitly. (To be fair, she tells almost everyone she knows the same thing, but I need the message desperately. And she follows it up with acts of friendship that prove it’s more than mere words.) Because she’s chosen to give some of her limited energy and time to me and our friendship, I take her seriously. I believe her. I refuse to insult her by wallowing in the oh-woe-is-me.

As a result, in 2012, I will be exploring in Kristesque style what the word “connect” means in my life. One thing I do know at this point: it does mean that hiding away in my room will not be an option. Whatever else I do this year, my trajectory will be outward.

Consider yourself warned.

Anne Lamott is one of my favorite writers; she's my writing guru. Anyone who has the slightest hankering to put pen to paper, as the saying goes, should read her seminal book on creativity, Bird by Bird. Now and then, she writes an op-ed for the LA Times. This past Labor Day, she wrote about unions. And while a staunchly pro-union piece, it was an unusual approach: Legos.

A year ago, I got a huge box of medium-size Lego blocks and figurines, and we have been holding rallies ever since. Power to the People. And while we're at it, Solidarity Forever.

She and her 2-year-old grandson, Jax, have created a small universe of union members and activists:

There's Mavis, a blond Molly Ivins type and the leader of the International Ladies Garment Workers' Union, and Al, a longshoreman. There are two matching zookeepers who are older, and brothers, born to the same green plastic mother (at a hospital where the nurses are proud union members).

Lamott, as she notes, was raised by parents who taught her to be proud of unions. As an adult, she’s added to her upbringing with her Christian faith:

I guess it is a plank of the Christian right to be anti-union now. But remember, there are still a lot of us in the Christian left, and we don't feel that way.

Hey kids!

I hadn't realized this blog had been left untouched for so long. I've been so busy with The Action TAB that I totally forgot about this place. I haven't had a lot extra to say, not to mention the time to say so. But I just got noodged by a name-called Twitter hack trying to be a NW-area Drudge — dear god, I have no idea why — and he is right, of course. Blogs need to be kept updated. Not that this is the most widely read blog in the 'verse, but, hell, it is my brand. Gotta maintain the property.

But not tonight! Cheers.

On Thursday afternoon, Sen Jason Atkinson gave those present in Hearing Room B a preview of his campaign for governor in 2014. The performance was confident, deft, and disturbing. Atkinson, like most intelligent and politically crafty Republicans in Oregon (an admittedly rare commodity), knows how to present bad policies so they sound reasonable and attractive. Given how few voters bother to look beyond the surface, the Southern Oregon Senator will be a formidable opponent to whomever the Dems nominate.

So let me help kickstart the oppo by dissecting his 13-and-a-half minute appearance before the Senate Education and Workforce Development Committee where he was presenting, yet again, the “81-day Bill,” aka SJR 24. The idea behind this proposal is simple: the Legislature must complete the state K-12 education budget by the 81st day of the legislative session. Current practice is to complete that budget, as well as most of the others, near the end of the sessions. Sen Atkinson has his opinion on this practice:

That sounds bad, of course. The trouble is, as is usually the case with untrue stories, the facts: the 2009-11 Budget (General Funds plus Lottery) spent 93.4% on education, public safety and human services. That’s a whopping 6.6% on “All other programs”. The Leg did not allocate 15-20% of the discretionary budget to “other programs” and then backtrack to whack them all by 75%. They know when they convene approximately how much they will be spending on “other”. There is no drunken-sailor spending going on; program budgets are relatively stable year to year, with projected increases or reductions known relatively well in advance. And to get that amount as correct as possible, they wait until the State Economist releases the May budget forecast — about which, more later.

Sen Atkinson has been pushing this proposal for quite a while; this is the 5th successive term he’s introduced it. It’s reached the point where the words “81-day bill” mean something:

Where did this idea come from in the first place? Why does Sen Atkinson have this driving urge to introduce this bill session after session? Refering to his initial experience in the Leg, the 1999 session, as a noob member of the House:

“I think I’ve been gamed.” This plays into one of the most potent talking points of the Republican right: the status quo controls everything, and it works against Oregon’s best interests. Not only that, his reference to “Not only was that not true…” is a complaint about the politics of education. He does not cite any facts, of course; he’s simply griping about what was said outside the Legislature about funding after the session. (The education budget for the 99-01 biennium increased $550M, most of that being $304M in Lottery Funds; it would be hard, in fact, for someone to claim, as Atkinson asserts someone did, that education was cut.)

This is freaking awesome. Over at OregonCatalyst.com, under a photo of me with the caption “T.A. Barnhart of BlueOregon “tracking” Rep. Lindsay”:

Is this “tracking” being done as a favor to all the House Democrats – who are big clients of BlueOregon’s co-founder Kari Chisholm’s business: Mandate Media? Mandate Media took in $193K from Democratic state-level candidates & elected officials in 2010.

In a word: No.

Simply put, Rep Shawn Lindsay is one of the last people I want in front of my camera. I disagree with him on policy issues across the board, and I was offended by his use of House floor “courtesy” time to inject his religion into the proceedings. But I’m not in Salem to track Republicans or dig up dirt; I’m here for a more positive reason:

"The Action TAB” will be a on-going video report of the 2011 Session of the Oregon Legislature: hearings; interviews, the progress of bills, and reports on how it all affects Oregon's progressive community. I'll report daily: video, tweets (from hearings), quickie Facebook updates, blogs (TheActionTAB.net, BlueOregon.com, more), and even radio reports. By the end of the session, I'll have compiled a record of the session, how the progressive agenda advanced, and what is in store in the coming year.

That’s from my page at Kickstarter.com, and it’s the reason 29 people donated over $1,500 to help me in my video project, The Action TAB. Nowhere in the description of my project will you find anything about tracking Republicans or accumulating material for use against them. You will find this:

I will also have material that can be used during the 2012 election to promote progressive candidates.

Here’s what’s wrong with Rep Lindsay’s paranoid delusion: the way hearing rooms are designed in the Capitol. Refer to the image at top: There are two places I can set up a camera: at the back, which is a useless angle (and too far to get decent shots even with my Canon Vixia HF10) or at the side opposite the clerk. In this location, I am slightly in front of witnesses — and if they lean forward enough, not far enough in front. With the committee dias being situated as it is, in a semi-circle, my camera is directly across from whoever is on the far side of the committee dias from me.

Which is where, I guess, Rep Lindsay’s self-aggrandizing paranoia has room to play.

Committee members have assigned seats, or so it appears. For the House Revenue Committee, which I have recorded twice this week, I am opposite Rep Sara Gelser, Rep Cliff Bentz and Rep Jules Bailey, my representative. This is a great room, with two of my favorites easily on-camera. This makes my work easier and makes me happy. With the Senate Education and Workforce Development Committee, which I have observed several times, it’s Sen Chip Shields who is at the far end from me, most readily accessible to my lens. Again: score.

(I am allowed to record behind the rail on the opposite side of the room, which would give me a better angle on the witnesses, but I cannot set up a tripod there. So I am left with this single viable option.)

The House Transportation Committee, where I recorded several hearings in my first two weeks in Salem, provides me with a disappointing layout. At the far end from me, in my line-of-sight, is where Rep Lindsay has been assigned a seat. This is a very disappointing arrangement for me. Also on that committee is Rep Jefferson Smith, but he is only a few chairs to my right (or left, depending on the room), which means he’s a difficult angle to shoot. And I say this with all seriousness: I would trade 100 Shawn Lindsays for a single Jefferson Smith.

I really wish they would trade seats.

What a lovely morning. And it’s working it’s way towards even better: wind, rain and snow. Lucky it’s Monday morning and everyone has someplace to be. Here’s some enjoyable highlights:

• There was a labor rally Saturday in Salem; the Oregonian and OPB knew about that one but the one right here in town, on Friday afternoon? Not so much.
• Jeff Mapes is no longer a reporter; he’s a blogger. And he’s the one who came up with the idea that the nickel-per-bag included SB 536 is not a fee but a tax (I could swear Sen Ted Ferroili, among others, stated that in the Senate committee hearing both Mapes and I attended). And the “debate” he “sparked”? It’s an article with a link to comments on OregonLive.com. Not exactly the Roman Forum.
• Mitch Daniels, while serving as Pres Bush’s Budget Director had no responsibility for decisions that led to the destruction of the Clinton surplus, believes tax cuts for the rich saved the nation’s economy in 2004 (and honest commentators agree with him), and is spinning as “pragmatic” his sudden surrender to Indiana Democrats over public union-busting. Ok, that last part is true.
• The only way to replace a public sector employee with a private sector contractor, who will bill the people of the state for profits public employees don’t ask for) is to pay the actual workers massively less than the public. So you 1) make thousands of workers unemployed, 2) add thousands of low-wage, low-benefit jobs, which means 3) skilled, well-paid workers are replaced by just the opposite.
• The right questions about David Wu won’t be asked by politicians or editorial boards. We need to hear from mental health experts.
• My brother, Aaron Barnhart, the tv writer for the Kansas City (MO) Star, attended Rachel Maddow’s taping in Lawrence, KS, last week. He reports on it at TVBarn.com, including how he got caught on-camera and an (audio-only) interview with Maddow after.

In December, a group dedicated to bringing people together to solve the nation’s pressing problems held a high-profile, celebrity-packed kickoff. A few people thought it was a great idea, and a few people is exactly how many went on to support “No Labels” —

Despite widespread media coverage and a December launch event that drew numerous high-profile politicians, the group has only managed to attract 18,697 signatures for its No Labels Declaration ("We are not labels — we are people”).

The writer notes that “No Labels” is similar to a few other efforts at breaking the partisan, two-party divide that share a common feature: no one cares. As counterpoint, he notes that an onine gaming petition attracted more than twice the number of signatures than the three “unity” efforts combined.

The obvious takeaway, that people don’t care about online petitions or joining a new group, may have some validity, but I don’t think that’s the real point. I think any effort to de-label people, or to insist “we are all one” is bound to fail for a simple reason: People want an identity, and labels tell us what that identity is. The assumption behind “No Labels” and such efforts is that labels are inherently bad and should be eliminated. Given that a label is just a thing, a creation of the human mind, it is not the label itself that we should question but the ideas being put forward by that label.

I have no problem being labelled “progressive” or “Democrat” or “leftie”. While these can be used as pejoratives, I reject those efforts and have been spending my recent life demonstrating that these labels indicate a person who works hard for the common good, a person with compassion for others and a desire to see a better world for all of us. At the same time, I have no qualms labeling those I see working against the common good, advocating for selfish goals, willing to trade our future for short-term gain: conservatives, tea partiers, wingnuts, neocons — depending on the extremity of their advocacy.

Labels allow us to know ourselves and each other. They also allow us to be lazy, substituting thought with cheap and easy application of a single word. But labels used in this way are devoid of meaning; they serve no purpose but to harm and divide. I am sure this is part of what led the founders of “No Labels” to act, disgust that instead of dialogue and shared action towards a common purpose we have name-calling and superficial judgments. This problem won’t be resolved by eliminating labels. “Just say no” never works. A far more effective slogan is “Just do it” — take your label and show the world what it means.

I like knowing who I am. I like being able to identify those around me who share my goals and beliefs, as well as those who do not. Labels make such differentiations possible. Humans need to know these things. We are social animals. Labels are in our dna: family, clan, species; food, foe, mate. We die without such labels, and, in our social settings, we wander aimlessly. But labels must always mean something. When I call someone “friend”, is this a fact or a necessity of social networking interaction? Is the person calling herself a “progressive” someone dedicated to grassroots democracy or simply afraid to be tagged “liberal”? Is that guy actually a “patriot” or is “jingoist” more apt?

Instead of wasting our time trying to undo what is essential to human nature, our time is better spent defining our labels intelligently. When I define “progressive” as I do, I see nothing in the label that excludes a person with conservative inclinations. Whether or not conservative beliefs are consistent with progressivism is something to be learned through political interaction; but by starting with the labels we wear and then working through, honestly and openly, what these labels mean, we can discover what values and goals we share. And that’s the first step to working out the compromises so necessary to a democratic political system.

“I think, therefore, I am”. Am what? I think, therefore, I am what I label myself to be. It’s how we start our journey to self-knowledge and, from there, knowledge of others. And then we can move to the place most of us are seeking: the common good.

The handful of you who read this blog probably also read Paul Krugman, so you’ve seen today’s column on the federal budget. As an introductory note, he writes:

How can voters be so ill informed? In their defense, bear in mind that they have jobs, children to raise, parents to take care of. They don’t have the time or the incentive to study the federal budget, let alone state budgets (which are by and large incomprehensible). So they rely on what they hear from seemingly authoritative figures.

And what they’ve been hearing ever since Ronald Reagan is that their hard-earned dollars are going to waste, paying for vast armies of useless bureaucrats (payroll is only 5 percent of federal spending) and welfare queens driving Cadillacs. How can we expect voters to appreciate fiscal reality when politicians consistently misrepresent that reality?

Budgets are, in terms of numbers, pretty transparent things: you take in a certain amount of money, you spend another amount of money, and you try to keep the two balanced while meeting your needs and satisfying your desires. For households, it’s relatively simple because, when we do bother with budgets (which few people do), we know what the expenses are for. With government, we rarely have any idea what the money is actually being used for.

We do know, as it turns out, that we know just enough to know what we don’t want cut. And, as Krugman points out, what we don’t want is the money that comes to us. If we benefit from tax-and-spend, we support tax-and-spend. Please Congress, cut someone else. Anyone else.