This is your base speaking. Demographically speaking, I mean. I’m a white, middle-class, college-educated, Republican-turned Democrat (thanks, Sarah Palin!) woman who voted for you in 2008 because I absolutely supported your concern for those marginalized by the Great Recession, and your emphasis on providing jobs through investment in infrastructure and recognition that our hope for the future lies in providing excellent, affordable education for our youth. And I agreed with your strong statements of support for Social Security as we know it.

I read and I listen, and I am deeply concerned about various actions you have taken in contrast to your earlier promises. I can only guess at the minefields you negotiate every waking hour—powerful interest groups from the NRA to the radical Republicans who want to continue the fiscal policies that created the recession in the first place, to people in your own party who just want to get reelected. But you are our President, and I depend on you to be wise and strong enough to stand up to these special interests—whatever the cost.

As you well know, your most dependable allies are wondering where you stand on Social Security. The willingness of Republican candidates to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, children, and the poor is anathema to us, and we are anxiously awaiting a strong statement from you that you are sticking by the position you held as a candidate in 2008.

A few of us remember that you said, as a presidential candidate, that Social Security did not contribute to the deficit. As far as adjustments that could be made, you stated in an October 16, 2008, campaign video, “The best way forward is to first look to adjust the cap on the payroll tax… Ninety-seven percent of Americans will see absolutely no change in their taxes under my proposal…. What it does allow us to do is to extend the life of Social Security without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age.”

That resonates with me, Mr. President. In my opinion, you could do a great service to the nation by explaining, in that effective way you have, just what happened to the Social Security trust fund during Lyndon Johnson’s presidency when he was faced with paying for both the Vietnam War and the Great Society. And you could tell the public how every president since has included Social Security and all of the other trust funds in their proposed budgets. I explained this in a blog entitled “Social Insecurity” back in May, but if you were to explain the matter yourself, your audience would be vastly greater.

You would not only make me happy—Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would be overjoyed. He is a vocal supporter of Social Security in largely its present form, but he agrees with you that it would be appropriate to raise the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax so the wealthy will be paying their fair share. At the same time, you could lend your support to the Senator’s Middle-Class Tax Relief Bill (S3412) that, remarkably, just passed the Senate but has little chance in the House.

On second thought, you’d better leave well enough alone. How many times have people supported legislation only to abandon it when you showed your support? Politics!!!

Mr. President, to wisely conduct your office, you must be a student of history. In this regard, I call your attention to Robert Caro’s estimable biography of Lyndon Johnson. You awarded Mr. Caro the National Humanities Medal for his work, so you are surely aware that he wrote as much about the foundational principles of our nation’s government as he did (and continues to write) about his human subject.

Perhaps you recall his account of President Harry Truman’s response to the reactionary, obstructionist Senate of the late 1940s which refused to pass progressive legislation when it was sorely needed. In a political climate that recalls our own, “Journalists discussed the institution in clichés: ‘The inefficiency of Congress is a national scandal.’ (The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Master of the Senate, page 101)

President Truman, also known as “Give ‘em Hell Harry,” embarked on a national campaign against the “Do Nothing Eightieth Congress.” The Senate remained insular, at the time, due to its historic protective structure, but eventually it had to respond to the public outcry articulated by a man of social conscience, a man such as yourself.

President Obama, these times call for another “Give ‘em Hell” president. When the middle class is being assaulted by economic forces beyond their ability to endure, they need a champion willing and able to stand up to the powerful interests of the most wealthy. Like Harry Truman, you are knowledgeable, you are articulate, you have a social conscience. From the beginning of your public service, you have been a spokesman for those who couldn’t speak for themselves. Because of this you are under widespread attack. You know your reelection is at stake. Your advisors are doubtless trying to modulate your message and steer you away from controversial subjects.

But if “politically correct” influences succeed in tailoring your message to the point that it doesn’t conflict with the Republican platform, you will alienate the young, the idealistic, the independent voters who brought you into office with confidence for a better future.

Stay strong, Mr. President! Speak your heart! We have your back!

What can you do—you are only one person? True, but you are only “six degrees of separation,” on average, from any other person on Earth. You become powerful when you share information with your friends and ask them to share it with their friends—it becomes a global revolution. As Stephen King suggests in The Long Walk, when these “society-supported sociopaths” come, step aside, and find the strength to run…

The preamble to the Constitution of the United States says, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, …do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Sounds like a revolution by the people and for the people.

It was a good idea. Three branches of government: legislative, judicial, and executive to provide checks and balances.

How has the will of “we the people of the United States” fared over the years? In 2002, William P. Meyers wrote, “Many have noted that the will of the people has tended not to prevail, and that a majority of people eligible to vote are so discouraged that they do not vote. The main reason for this is the buying and selling of elections and politicians by the wealthier class of citizens and their special interest groups. A year or more before elections take place, the winner is decided by those who vote with dollars. But this is a defect in democracy, not a reason to abandon it. The answer is to cure the defect, not to attempt to destroy our representative democracy.”

On January 21, 2012, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, thus saying that Wall Street had a voice in the election process. Since that time we have seen large corporations pour billions of dollars into political campaigns, drowning out the voice of the American people.

This decision, known as Citizens United, did not cure the defect—it amplified the “selling of elections and politicians by the wealthier class.”

Congress has the responsibility to cure defects caused by a decision of the Supreme Court. But, alas, Congress has profited from this arrangement to such a degree that our representative democracy has literally been bought by Wall Street. Congress’ duplicity is eroding traditional values and freedoms Americans had fought for—then taken for granted.

That accounts for two branches of the representative democracy, the judicial and legislative which have been bought out by Wall Street—again amplifying the “selling of elections and politicians by the wealthier class.”

There is a third sinister force. One example is the FreedomWorks SuperPAC of former U.S. House Republican Leader Dick Armey (R-TX). Dick Armey has said “his group’s aim (is) to elect tea party-minded conservatives to Congress to force the White House on a far-right path. ‘We’ll build a legislative wall… We’ll either be walling a Republican president in, or walling a Democratic president out.’” If a few unelected persons could be successful in such a strategy, it would seriously diminish the executive branch of our representative democracy. If we “the people” allow this to happen, we will have sold out a 236-year experiment in democracy that has not been duplicated in recorded history.

The process is well under way—but not hopeless.

We must act concertedly and NOW.

What can you do—you are only one person? True, but you are only “six degrees of separation,” on average, from any other person on Earth. You become powerful when you share information with your friends and ask them to share it with their friends—it becomes a global revolution. As Stephen King suggests in The Long Walk, when these “society-supported sociopaths” come, step aside, and find the strength to run…

President Obama (Official Portrait)

On March 24, 2012, I sent An Open Letter to President Obama.

Since I have not yet gotten a response from the President, I Googled the definition of political intelligence and found a “News Release from Senator Grassley.” which states: “On Tuesday the Republican Majority Leader of the House and the Democrat Majority Leader of the Senate worked together to thwart the will of 60 Senators and 286 Members of Congress.

“First, the Majority Leader in the House said that the definition of political intelligence was so ‘vague’ that he couldn’t possibly figure out how to define it.

“That’s the excuse given for stripping any regulation of it from the STOCK Act. To me, that came as something of a surprise.

“I would like to read Section 7 part b of the version of the STOCK Act that was rammed through the House of Representatives:

“Definition – for purposes of this section, the term ‘political intelligence’ shall mean information that is derived by a person from direct communications with an executive branch employee, a Member of Congress, or an employee of Congress; and provided in exchange for financial compensation to a client who intends, and who is known to intend, to use the information to inform investment decisions.

“That seems pretty straightforward, doesn’t it?”

Those are the words of Senator Grassley, and they are easy to understand: The Majority leaders of the House and Senate decided that they did not want to give up the financial compensation from their clients who intend “to use the information to inform investment decisions.”

What is this financial compensation worth to Congress? The emasculated STOCK Act, which has gone to the President for signature, does not outlaw the “$402 million a year political intelligence industry”, one means of congressional enrichment.”

Senator Grassley calls this “unregulated political espionage.”

Mr. President, we are asking you to refuse to sign this bill in its present form and tell the world why you cannot. You can put an end to unregulated political espionage. Stand with Senators Burr, Coburn and Bingaman and Representatives Campbell and Woodall to send this bill back to the Senate for reinsertion of the critical political intelligence language.

________

Footnote: On Wednesday, April 4, 2012, President Obama signed the STOCK Act, although Eric Cantor, under the pretense of providing “further study,” had stripped out the $402 million political intelligence language.

What can you do—you are only one person? True, but you are only “six degrees of separation,” on average, from any other person on Earth. You become powerful when you share information with your friends and ask them to share it with their friends—it becomes a global revolution. As Stephen King suggests in The Long Walk, when these “society-supported sociopaths” come, step aside, and find the strength to run…