[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] [sf-core] Re: AMMONS vs. ROSENBERG Debate Results
David Johnson
davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net
Sun Feb 16 15:49:06 UTC 2014
" In spite of her vigorous self-promotion, I do not think that Carol in the legislature would vote any differently from the way Rosenberg would. >From her past performance, I would expect her to work to rise within the Democratic party establishment, rather than oppose it."
What evidence do you have to support the above statement Carl ?
Her track record for the last ten years has been one of community activism, which more often than not, involved fighting and opposing the States Attorney, The Police, and other officials and vested interests.
That is a FACT you ignore.
If there is so little difference between Rosenberg and Carol Ammons, then why is the local Democratic Party establishment and the State Democratic Party establishment including Mike Madigan and Rahm Emanuelle fighting so hard to prevent Carol from being elected. Including Madigan sending a paid Staffer this last week to help Rosenberg ?
I would support Carol if ONLY the above were the case, and not including her decade of local activism.
I KNOW who my enemies are Carl, and Mike Madigan, Rahm Emanuelle, et al, are DEFINTELY servents of the corporate neo-liberal agenda.
David Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: Astrid Berkson
To: C. G. Estabrook ; Brussel Morton K.
Cc: Barrett, James R ; Peace-discuss ; Jenifer Cartwright ; sf-core ; occupycu at lists.chambana.net
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: [OccupyCU] [Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Re: AMMONS vs. ROSENBERG Debate Results
carol did not make points with the party when she turned the jail program into a justice program. in fact she made some pretty serious enemies. and anyone who depends on rahm emanuel and madigan for everything will serve them, not us
"May this be the worst day of your life".
Old Irish blessing.On 2/15/2014 6:43 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
Thanks for your response, Mort.
Objections to Obama for his crimes of commission (especially military) and omission (especially economic) seem to me quite appropriate, up to and including impeachment - and trial for war crimes. To dismiss those objections as principally the product of racism is at best disingenuous - even if there are racists who object to him, for whatever reasons.
Obviously Illinois (and the US) needs a general shift of the tax burden to the wealthy (even a progressive income tax is not adequate) - but that’s not under discussion at all. A Keynesian argument can be made for a general corporate tax cut (as the state Democrats propose) in preference to the selective cuts suggested by “enterprise zones,” which lead to beggar-thy-neighbor competition among jurisdictions. But it would have to be accompanied by substantial taxes elsewhere - Tobin taxes and wealth taxes - and no one is suggesting that.
In spite of her vigorous self-promotion, I do not think that Carol in the legislature would vote any differently from the way Rosenberg would. From her past performance, I would expect her to work to rise within the Democratic party establishment, rather than oppose it.
I think we’re dealing here with what Freud called “the narcissism of small differences”: it’s been described as “the need to find, and even exaggerate, differences in order to preserve a feeling of separateness and self.”
Chomsky points out that that’s functional for the entire political system: “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”
The differences that David Johnson noted aren’t great. It seems to me that many earnest local liberals of our acquaintance are colluding (as the psychoanalysts might say) with Carol in the accentuation of those differences. Perhaps they're acting from the despair that led American liberals to substitute identity politics for class politics under the attack of neoliberalism, so that typically Democrats today are about where the moderate Republicans of our youth were. The promise of hope and change precisely covers despair and stasis.
Regards, Carl
On Feb 11, 2014, at 11:40 AM, Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net> wrote:
Carl,
An interesting, even and informative, response… My thoughts:
It is more than possible that some of the objectors to Obama do have a racist agenda. It is not clear (to me) that Carol Ammons believes that all objections to Obamas reign are racist, as you seem to imply. Pertinent questions would be to ask what Carol thinks about Obama's health plans (as opposed to a universal medicare-like (or other single payer plan), whether she supported Obama's surge into Afghanistan, about his drone war on supposed terrorists (not to speak about American citizens), about his implied compromises(?) on social security, about his defense of the NSA, about his defense of the Patriot Act, about his not closing down Guantanamo, about his persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning, about his continuing imperialistic actions (Cuba, Venezuela, …), about the military budget, etc., etc. Those are not Primary issues, but they are primary issues.
It seems to me that the differences David Johnson noted—how large a minimum wage ought to be, what the corporate tax rate ought to be— are not trivial in the context of this state primary, but are clues to the mental approaches the candidates really have.
My impression is that one candidate is the Democratic establishment candidate with money, one presumably backed by Madigan; the other is not. Significant?
Carl's last paragraph, first sentence, is less than convincing (to me), likely wrong speculation.
--mkb
On Feb 11, 2014, at 9:01 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
Jenifer--
Contrary to your periphrastic imaginings, I’ve seen no indication that the Democratic candidates for the 103rd IL House seat differ on abortion: it’s not an issue in the primary.
The fact is that there are few if any issues in the campaign - and that’s the problem. A local political website wrote, “…it is important to remember that Rosenberg and Ammons are largely the same on the issues – something else that came out during last week’s debate."
David Johnson, an acute observer, found two "major differences" in their debate: the nature of corporate tax cuts, and the dollar amount of a minimum wage rise. I suggested these differences are minimal - if they exist at all.
I’ve mentioned my dismay at hearing Carol suggest that opposition to the policies of the Obama administration is racist: I think on the contrary that there are excellent reasons to oppose Obama. Her recent contretemps with the mayor of Champaign suggested that opposition to her is racist. Surely her supporters are not arguing that she should be elected because she’s African-American.
We are famously called upon to be “a nation where [candidates] will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” - and it’s here that questions have been raised about her cutting corners in the advancement of her electoral career.
On her record and her position on the issues, I see little reason to think that she will vote as anything other than a reliable member of the pro-business Democratic majority in the Illinois House (as would her opponent) - a majority even less progressive than the governor. I’d rather vote for someone - a Green, say - who would oppose that anti-democratic majority: who would vote for paying the state bills by taxes on wealth, who would vote for a state single-payer system, etc. But Carol is part of a system that ensures that that is not being offered.
Regards, Carl
On Feb 11, 2014, at 2:22 AM, Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
The principal objector's thinking about women's issues is well known, so regardless of the excuses he's come up with, I'm guessing the real reason is that Carol Ammons supports Planned Parenthood.
From: Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
To: C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com>
Cc: "Barrett, James R" <jrbarret at uiuc.edu>; Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; sf-core <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>; "occupycu at lists.chambana.net" <occupycu at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2014 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Re: [OccupyCU] AMMONS vs. ROSENBERG Debate Results
I find it curious that you appear to be putting all " progressive, ostentatiously pro-labor viable Black candidate(s)" into the same bag (as M. Obama). What do you have against Carol Ammons (as against her opponents) aside from the fact that she has the same color as Obama (which could mislead us in our choice).
--mkb
On Feb 6, 2014, at 12:33 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
The national Democrats offered "a progressive, ostentatiously pro-labor viable Black candidate who is willing to speak in Terms of class inequality" for president, and his mendacity got us an administration of assassination and austerity.
Doesn't that suggest that we should ask what "progressive, ostentatiously pro-labor viable Black candidate[s]" on the local level actually propose, rather than voting for them out of debased identity politics?
--CGE
On Feb 6, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Barrett, James R <jrbarret at uiuc.edu> wrote:
Very discouraging. I doubt anyone agrees with all of her
views, but we have a progressive, ostentatiously
pro-labor viable Black candidate who is willing to speak in
Terms of class inequality and we're supposed
to invest our limited time into attacking her? That's sick.
Jim Barrett
________________________________________
From: sf-core at yahoogroups.com [sf-core at yahoogroups.com] on behalf of C. G. Estabrook [carl at newsfromneptune.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 9:39 AM
To: David Johnson
Cc: sf-core; Peace-discuss; occupycu at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [sf-core] Re: [OccupyCU] AMMONS vs. ROSENBERG Debate Results [1 Attachment]
[Attachment(s) from C. G. Estabrook included below]
David--
As you know, "enterprise zones" are a neoliberal technique, originally proposed by 'supply-side' economists. Their current proponents acknowledge successful criticism by looking for newer, more marketable names - e.g., "technology zones."
It's not clear that states and municipalities should be competing to give breaks to corporate entities on the threat that they might move away and take jobs - or on the promise to bring them. See e.g., Durl Kruse' letter (attached) regarding the Champaign City Council's "Tax Increment Financing District" that will give Kraft "a $3.6 million tax subsidy to build a new warehouse."
Durl writes, "One must wonder if this TIF project represents the flexing of corporate muscle by threatening the community 'not to build if not approved,' and when given the opportunity, to directly manipulate TIF laws for corporate gain at taxpayers' expense."
Clearly, the supposed benefits of such a program should generalize. You can make an argument for "an across the board corporate tax cut" to promote trade and employment. Such business taxes should be replaced with taxes on concentrated wealth and speculation - i.e., taxes on investable assets, and Tobin taxes.
Given the entrenched (non-democratic) political power of capital, wealth taxes and Tobin taxes are not on the horizon in Illinois, unfortunately. (The Democrats should of course be opposed on this point.) The best we can do in the near future seems to be a progressive income tax and social subsidies, including perhaps the state single-payer system that you've been working for.
Regards, CGE
On Feb 5, 2014, at 10:21 PM, David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote:
The differnce is that Rosenberg supports an across the board corporate tax cut with no conditions.
Carol Ammons " Technology Zone Program " gives a tax break to a company ONLY if a company ;
1) increases employment by the greater of 10 % of its current workforce or a minimum of 3 new full-time employees
2) Pays wages of 20 % or more above the median income of Champaign County
3) Employ a minimum of 5 full-time employees
Not to mention that Rosenberg is an attorney who works for Carle Clinic and takes poor and elderly people to court for not paying hospital bills.
Carol has been a community activist for over a decade, opposing the : Police, States Attorney and other local officials / vested interests at times when necessary in the pursuit of social justice.
Again, the choice is clear to me who would be the better advocate for Working people in the 103rd District
David Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: C. G. Estabrook
To: David Johnson
Cc: <"Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@mail0.frost.chambana.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [OccupyCU] AMMONS vs. ROSENBERG Debate Results
Didn't Carol support 'enterprise zones' (under another name), which are even more substantial corporate tax cats - for favored corporations?
On Feb 5, 2014, at 9:24 PM, David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote:
I just returned from the Ammons vs. Rosenberg debate, for the Illinois 103rd State Rep Democratic Primary race.
The major differences between the two candidates were ;
Rosenberg SUPPORTS cutting corporate taxes and OPPOSES the $ 15.00 per hour minimum wage.
Carol Ammons in contrast OPPOSES cutting corporate taxes and SUPPORTS the $ 15.00 per hour minimum wage.
Rosenberg also stated that Carol Ammons experience in local government on the County Board and the Urbana City Council does NOT make her more qualified than him in terms of experience.
He stated that ;
" Springfield is a different BEAST than local government and I am more qualified to deal with that."
The difference could not be any clearer to me.
What was also interesting was that I submitted TWO questions for the candidates, first via e-mail several days before the debate and early on at the debate.
Neither question was asked !
The questions were ;
1) Would you be willing to co-sponsor the current House Bill to enact a universal health care system in Illinois ( H.B. 942 ).
and
2) Would you co-sponsor House Bill H.B. 3754 that would dissolve the Illinois Charter School Commision
I wonder why the Moderators avoided asking these questions ?
David Johnson
__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)
Visit Your Group
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use .
__,_._,___
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140216/4b4b33d1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list