Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics And Public Policy Today 20161013

Crime. Number two, we need 911 for corporate crime. Lets call it 611. If you know of a crime, call it. That goes along with the whistle blower. The one thing you should know, finally, about corporate crime, is this city in the pocket of the corporate criminals and the corporate criminal lobby. There is a coalition of players, including center for auto safety, taxpayers against fraud and better markets pushing back sort of the anticorporate crime lobby. You can join with them if you want to sign up. Thanks very much. [ applause ] thank you, russell. You know, ralph nader often talks about the corporate crime waive besieging the country. There is your evidence. Maybe well see it on cspan or cnn or fox sometime soon. Our next speaker is a Senior Advisor with friends of the earths nuclear campaign, which works to reduce the risk of Nuclear Power to the public. He was appointed chairman by president jimmy carter in 1977, where he stopped the construction of eight large Nuclear Power plants, and pioneered a massive conservative energy program. He has been general manager of large public agencies, including the Los Angeles Department of water and power, the new york power authority, and the sacramento municipal utility district. He is the author of many books. David freedman. [ applause ] energy is the ultimate good news bad news story in the world. The lights go out, everything stops. I mean, its the magic that keeps our cellphones charged. It is just an invisible everything about our life that we enjoy. But it is also the two most awesome threats to mankind that exists. If we dont control Atomic Energy, and stop it from blowing us up, the burning of fossil fuels is creating such a greenhouse effect to heat the earth up to make it uni nhabitable. Listen carefully to what i have to say, these things that will be discussed wont make much difference if we dont stop the awesome threat of the atom bomb, of the atom. If we dont get off of this pois poisonous diet, called natural gas and oil. And if we keep on making these speeches about the threat of Climate Change, but dont fight for the kind of actions that will really reduce it and eliminate it, were hypocrites. Plain and simple. [ applause ] let me be blunt about it. I hold the people that make the speeches about Climate Change so eloquently, and offer nothing much that Mother Nature can notice, i hold them in higher disregard than the dumb folks that just dont believe in the Climate Science at all. If you understand the problem and then dont take or even advocate the actions to cure it, you got a lot more explaining to do than the dumb folks that just dont know whats going on. Now, most of the younger people in this country have forgotten about the nuclear threat, but that doesnt mean it went away. In the age of terror, we ought to be doubly afraid of radioactive trojan horses in our midst, which is what the Nuclear Power plants are, and thats the path to the bomb. How in the name of heaven do you think north korea ended up with nuclear bombs, because we promised them a Nuclear Power plant. There is no peaceful atom. Once a country, you know, enriches you rauranium, they ma bombs. Weve got to go back that Atomic Energy is an awesome threat. The good news is, and i have the pleasure of discussing this with president carter the other day, im 90. He is 91. We said we never thought we would have the joy of living long enough to see solar power cheaper than Nuclear Power, and thats what we have today. Were out of our cottonpicking minds if we continue with Nuclear Power with the awesome danger it poses and the lesson. How can we tell the iranians not to make a bomb if we continue advocating Nuclear Power plants. We just dont have a decent mirror. And then there is the not only the danger of the power plants itself melting down, but they generate waste that after 50 years, we havent figured out what to do with it or where to put it and it stays radioactive for centuries and centuries. There is a moral issue about continuing to make waste that we dont know how to handle. There is only one answer. It is called birth control. We need to stop making it. And we need to bring the Nuclear Issue up to the forefront on par with Climate Change, and it is something that we need to get under control. The great news is that a modern day edisons have learned how to harness the sun and harness the wind where we can do that, and actually cheaper than Nuclear Power or fossil fuel plants. It is kind of breaking my heart to see that on the technical side, we have invented the answer, and we dont have the intestinal fortitude or common sense to override the power of the yentrenched. If the threats are even half as awesome as i describe them, and they are, we have to believe the scientists and we have to understand the nuclear problem. We face these threats to eliminate the one home we have, mother earth. Frankly, we dont have the am unto send everybody to mars, and i dont think that if we all went up there, there is resources for us to live. We dont have any other option. Our only home is not getting yet burning up, but it is heating up and about to catch on fire to the point where it will become uninhabitable. We are relying on the marketplace to solve us. Now, give me a break. We could pass all the carbon taxes in the world, which weve been trying for 40 years unsuccessfully to pass, and it would not electfy the railroads. It would not require detroit to start making all Greenhouse Gas free motor vehicles, and it wouldnt require the Home Builders to have a Greenhouse Gasfree home. You know, when a problem is really tough like say getting rid of ddt, we just freaking outlawed it. If we had lead in toys, we didnt have lead tax. We just outlawed it. Why in the name of common sense is not any of the socalled liberals or our president even advocating something as straightforward as simple as a one sentence law. Everything new must be Greenhouse Gasfree. [ applause ] i mean, why are we going to all these indirect measures kind of hoping that maybe it will happen when the threat is described as the most awesome thing to ever happen. If your Family Doctor called you up and told you that your kids were eating a poisonous diet and prescribed a different diet, it really didnt even cost any more, i think 99 out of 100 people would switch diets. Thats what we have on our hands. We are weve got 30 years left, according to the scientists, and they could be wrong one way or the other. 30 years to go down to zero in the use of fossil fuels. Now, you dont need to be an Energy Expert to figure out that if we reduce fossil fuels 3 a year every year, it would not be that awesome a task, we have the technology to substitute solar wind storage. And if we mandated it happen, it could happen. My suggestion is that we pass a law requiring a 3 a year reduction in fossil fuels, and to the extent that someone doesnt comply, then they are taxed a large amount of money per unit of carbon by the Internal Revenue service, and it is a nonbypassable tax that the company has to absorb that they cant pass on. The problem with the socalled carbon tax is the people pay. They just pass it on and it doesnt necessarily require the right behavior. My idea would be to require the right behavior, and then to the extent that a company doesnt obey, then they have to pay a tax out of the corporate profits, and that now, i know what youre thinking. All of those ideas, freedman, they sound good, but they wont Pass Congress. Well, hell, i know that. Nothing will Pass Congress right now. If thats the test what were for, were doomed. There is one sure way of failing, and thats not trying. And harry truman didnt think that healthcare would pass when he first proposed it. I mean, if we dont give the young people an Energy Policy worth fighting for, what good are we . It might take a while to get it passed, it might be that we can get it passed in a number of states first. And then it will be shown to be enforceable without hurting anybody. In fact, prices will end up being lower. But unless we give the, if i might put it this way, the Bernie Sanders folks an Energy Policy worth fighting for, then it is never going to happen. And we need to stop having a test of what the existing congress or the existing president will pass. Because this democracy cant function unless we have something worth fighting for, fight for it, and get people in congress and in the white house in the years to come that will enact it. But i think there are enough green states in this country right now that if we got together on a program of saying, no were not going to rely on adam smith to cure the most awesome problems on earth. Were going to accept the fact that we must start now. You know, the politicians will tell you and announce, we have a great goal in 2050, were going to do suchandsuch. In 2040, were going to reduce pollution 40 . Ask them what theyre doing in 2016. In 2017, in 2018. Because scientists are telling us that we have got to reduce the emission of Greenhouse Gasses on a steady path downward between now and 30 years. And right now, it is still going up. And you know, it is an applause line to say youre for 100 renewable, but the question is what are we doing to get there. I say when something is really important, why at do we have a government for. To do the things you cant do individually. If there ever was an issue that required governmental action, it is the climate issue and the Nuclear Issue. It is really not that hard. I mean, i think we have the luxury of being able to make a transition. So we could pass laws that in effect said by 2025, every car sold in america has to be Greenhouse Gasfree. We could say in a few years, every new building, the building has to be Greenhouse Gasfree. The technology is there to make it happen. We know how to make electric cars. We can even make Hydrogen Fuel cell cars, heat bumps in buildings and use the Renewable Energy to heat our homes. We sure know how to electtrify the railroad. Rural america, with 2 loans back in the 30s, a program of green bank and 2 loans would ele ele electrify, become renewable. It could make millions of jobs. It could be the greatest adventure this country undertook in a long, long time. But incidentally, it might save our homes from getting burnt up. That is what is under way now. I know im probably speaking to the converted here. And we spend too much of our time talking to each other. My request to this audience and the people that see this talk is to find somebody that is not concerned, and get ahold of them, and make them concerned. And every time you see a member of congress, or anyone in public life, tell them our house is on fire, by gosh. We need to put it out. And the nuclear threat, all it takes is some terrorist stealing a tiny bit of plutonium out of someplace in the word and blowing up new york city. The Indian Point Nuclear plant, 25 miles from new york city, is a far greater threat than isis is. Yet nobody hardly ineven knows exists. Weve got to start making this our priority. Otherwise all the other priorities wont matter. Thank you very much. [ applause ] thank you, David Freedman for that humorous yet sobering, sobering yet humorous account of the dangers facing us in climate policy. Our next speaker is a former tax lawyer from washington, d. C. , as visiting professor at mount julio college, seminar on poverty. He is in the process of preparing materials that will be free on line, which will be for high schoolteachers to teach students about the federal income tax, the federal Corporate Income tax, and one on Social Security and medicare. He is the author of if americans really understood the income tax as well as ten tax questions the candidates dont want you to ask. John fox, welcome. Thank you very much. First of all, it is a privilege to be here to hear these marvelous speakers. So im delighted this conference is going on. I want to talk to you this morning about a topic dear to my heart that strikes fear in the hearts of most americans. Taxation. I want to tell you about talks ive been giving over the last two years, which may lead you to think, john, are you really serious . But i am. For the last two years, ive been giving talks to High School Juniors and seniors in u. S. Government and economics classes about how to think about a fair and sensible individual income tax. Okay, now you can smile. But the fact is that the teachers find it very useful. They tell me they wouldnt have any idea what to teach, and yet they learn so much of my talk is relevant to what they do teach. Best of all, they tell me that most of the students, not all, of course, but most of the students get it. And the other thing is, it is really fun to do. Now, ive been giving these talks because im convinced that the dreadfully low level of discourse and debate about tax issues is attributable in good part to the failure of our Education System to address it. This has left the public uninformed and so vulnerable to politicians say about it. I believe this is more than just a major failure in our civics education. I believe it is dangerous. So in the few minutes i have with you, here is what i tell students in the course of an hour. Taxes fund the agencies and operations of the federal government, but they do much more. Federal tax policies help shape who we are as a nation, and what we will become. They touch upon nearly every aspect of our lives. Just think about all those provisions in the tax laws. Health care, housing, education, jobs and businesses of every kind, marriage, divorce, death, children, child care, charities, charitable giving, the environment, on and on and on. In my view, except for the u. S. Constitution, federal tax policies collectively represent the most comprehensive expression of american values. Yes, i tell the students, your personal wellbeing and that of our nation depends upon found and sensible tax policies, and i tell them that if you Pay Attention whe attention for this one hour, you will know more about tax policies than 99. 7 of all americans. Maybe not 99. 4, im not sure. So why focus on the individual income tax. For two reasons. First of all, it by far produces the greatest revenue to fund all Government Programs. What about the Corporate Income tax. No, the individual tax produces more than four times the amount of the Corporate Income tax for all sorts of reasons you can imagine. Secondly, the individual income tax has become something of a monster. Ideal income tax would be reasonably fair, reasonably simple, and economically sound. But our income tax is frequently unfair, unimaginably complicated. Americans need to understand why, and the imperative to fix it. Now, why is it such a monster . Because it attempts poorly in most cases to do much more than collect taxes on our income. Now, while it imposes progressive tax rates that run from 10 to 39. 6 , those tax rates apply only to taxable income. The fact, is and you dont hear this generally, only about half of all individual income is subject to tax. More than 100, well more than 100 tax breaks shelter the other half of all individual income, and that means that last year, close to 7 trillion of individual income went untaxed, and i did say trillion. In general, those tax breaks dont make social or economic sense. Now, when i refer to income, im referring to any form of economic gain, whether direct such as salaries or Fringe Benefits at work, which ill be talking about in a moment. When i refer to a tax break, im not talking about the ordinary and necessary expenses that businesses are entitled to, and ordered that they be taxed appropriately on their profits. Im talking about special relief involving our personal lives unrelated to any trade or business. Now, a fair tenant of a basic tenant of a fair tax is one that fac taxes, equal size with equal incomes would pay roughly the same. But far too often, our tax burdens depend on our ability to avoid taxes. Not on our ability to pay them. You see, under our tax system, your actual tax liability, whether youre winner or loser, depends in good part on the number of tax breaks and the size of those tax breaks that youre entitled to. So here are three principle examples. Winners and losers. They are somewhat simplified. Winners work for employers who pay all sorts of Fringe Benefits. Disability, Health Insurance, contributions for child care, handsome contributions to retirement plans for them. Thousands of dollars never appear on their tax return, even though you know they have real economic value. The loser works for an employer who pays perhaps the same, but all of it is salary, so all of it is on her tax return. Second, winner owns his or her own home, perhaps a Vacation Home as well, and deducts the interest on both homes. For example, the winner might own a principle residence that he bought for 650,000 or borrowed 600,000, borrowed 350,000. Deducts interest on that, property taxes, any number of homes, even five or six Vacation Homes. The loser rents. Rents her house or apartment. The loser doesnt get a deduction for any part of that rent. Third, a winner receives a good deal often of his income from investments. From investments and stocks and mutual funds, which receive a favored tax rate. The loser, she works. Her income is from salary, and all of that income is subject to progressive tax rates. Now, just because it is a tax break doesnt mean it is bad. But it does mean that we ought to ask why is it there. Who benefits from it. Who doesnt. Who are the winners. Who are the losers. What are the social and economic costs. What are the outcomes. Indeed, most of the tax programs, most of the tax breaks are the equivalent to Government Programs. Theyre simply channelled through the tax laws. Now, here is a major difference. If a Government Program exists, it has a budget. It must be reviewed annually by the federal government, by the particular congressional committee. Tax breaks have no budget. They never have to be reviewed unless some committee requires it. Notice the relationship between tax breaks and tax rates. The more income that escapes taxation, the higher tax rates have to be for everyone. Simple example. If the government needs to raise 20 of revenue for every 100 of income, a flat 20 rate would suffice if all 100 were eligible for the tax. If only half of the income, 50 is subject to tax, you need a rate of 40 . So this is so important, because the vast majority of tax breaks provide the greatest tax savings for people with the highest income. Let me demonstrate this with two major examples. These are things that we take for granted, and we all tend to believe in them. Health insurance premiums paid at work. As so many of you know, those premiums, no matter how high for the most cadillac of all policies, are not subject to income tax, or Social Security tax. Even though they are clearly a form of income. You know that if the Employer Paid you that amount of money and you paid the insurance company, it would be the same economic result. But theyre off the charts. They never, no matter how large, appear on your tax returns. So listen to. This over the next five years, estimates are that Something Like 740 billion of tax savings will result from the exclusion just of Health Insurance premiums at work. Now, thats a big program. I think we should be asking who benefits most from it. Who doesnt benefit. And what are the other costs. Well, the math is simple. This is something the students get right away. For every 1,000 of premiums that are not going to be taxed, if you would have been taxed and you think about tax rates running from 10 to 39. 6 today, if you would are been taxed at the 39. 6 , you saved 396. If you would have been taxed at the save only 100. If that premium had been added to your income, but your income is so modest, you wouldnt have been taxed any way. You saved nothing. So thats the dollars and cents. Employers typically provide much larger policies for the executives, for top management. I wrote an oped some years ago about Goldman Sacks that provided premiums of 40,000 a year, i think it is a 40,000 a year for their top 400 managers. These are the top income earning in the world, among the top. And they each saved at the time roughly 14,000 a year in taxes, which was the cost of a basic policy. Essentially the government giving them a basic policy, through this exclusion. Now, this also produces a concept that i think is really important of double losers. Who are the double losers here. Well, these are employees who work for companies, and millions of americans do, who dont provide any Health Insurance at work. They make a little too much money to get medicaid and they have to go out in the marketplace and buy their Health Insurance. But because the huge exclusion for Health Insurance drives up the price of Health Insurance, and the cost of all health care, they have to pay more for all of that. Because others get the benefit of this enormous exclusion. The Affordable Care act has helped, but it has only tempered this outcome. Here are a couple of policy questions i leave with you. Why should the government provide the greatest tax savings for Health Insurance premiums, for the people with the highest incomes, who could afford to buy those policies, without any government assistance. Secondly, why should the government ever subsidize a Health Insurance policy, other than a basic one. So now let me turn to the second. The most sacred deduction, and you all know it and it is in the constitution. It must be. The Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. Somewhere in the second amendment, it must be there. Now, the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction allows people to deduct the interest on up to 1 million of loans to buy a principal or build a principal residence as a Vacation Home. You could borrow 60,000, 350,000 to buy a Vacation Home, and deduct all the interest on that. The public is encouraged to believe the Home Mortgage interest is essential to increase the number of homeowners, particularly ordinary homeowners and strengthens the economy. As in the wizard of oz, lets peak behind the rhetorical curtain, and really look at this decision, which is really the third reel in congress. They wont touch it. Saving taxpayers 400 billion, thats a big program, so lets imagine, i know that you all have imaginations, that is youre here. Congress eliminated the mortgage Interest Deduction. They eliminated the deduction, but authorized hud and urban housing to issue tax free to all the people that would have got the deduction at exactly the same amount of their tax savings, so they end up in the same position and government is out 400 billion. Imagine it is monday morning, in fact, it is morning. And im the chair of the house ways and means committee. Something ive always wanted to be. And im going to tell you how proud we are for the distribution of that 400 billion. And down the middle there will be the bottom half of all taxpayers. I apologize, but you on the right, youre the top half of all taxpayers. And the five of you, including mr. Freedman, youre included, youre in the top 5 . The students in the top 5 always smile. You can see it. The people over here always look grim. In any event, the 400 billion is allocate, im happy to tell you, 2 goes to the bottom half of all taxpayers. You get 8 billion. The other 392 billion goes to the top half of all taxpayers. And to you five, he is putting up his thumb, to you top 5 , you get 40 , or 160 billion over the next five years, so you can buy or build that house of your pleasure. Thats 20 time what s what the half get. If this were on television, you would think maybe it is saturday night live. But it isnt. Thats exactly how approximately how that 400 billion will be distributed over the next five years. And it has real repercussions. First of all, the myth that it creates more homeowners. In fact, england, canada, australia have no mortgage home Interest Deduction, nothing like it, and they have roughly the same ownership of homes as we do. In fact, some have a higher p percentage. It drives up the prices of homes. This is no freebee. This isnt free money. And most interesting, both liberal and conservative economists say that are our economy would be stronger, not weaker, if less of the capital were allocated to home ownership, particularly expensive homes, so more capital would be available at lower Interest Rates to new businesses to existing businesses to expand, add jobs, et cetera. Who might be the double losers . Well, how about renters. Now, there is not a lot of research on this, but just think of the common sense. If so much capital is allocated to home ownership, then less is to apartments, places you can rent. Renters absolutely have much less income than home other thanes o owners on average. They have huge subsidies for homeowners to pay for their housing costs. So as mr. Friedman said, what should congress do. The leading Tax Commission under the Bush Administration and under the Obama Administration have concluded we should reduce many of them, eliminate the inefficient ones, unfair ones. And expose more income to tax, and make more sense out of all this. You you know what happened. Congress ignored it. As mr. Friedman said, a fair and sensible income tax is worth fighting for. Reform should be over time, not to disrupt the economy, but if congress moved in that direction, more people would pay in accordance with their ability to pay and they would save and work and the greatest economic return, rather than focusing on their tax savings. Assuming the government and there are some things that should be in the tax laws, so assuming that some social and economic provisions ought to be in the tax laws, lets think about tax credits. Every dollar of tax credit savings you 1. It doesnt matter what your marginal tax bracket is. So if you know 1,000 and you get 1,000 tax credit, you dont owe anything. If you owe 1 million, you owe 1 million minus 5,000. Now, the tax credits also should be refundable in many cases, where they are social programs. Because refundable tax credit like the earning of tax credit, which says the people working but dont have a living wage will help them get a living wage. If you make it refundable, if you dont owe the income tax, a you will get a direct grant. Both commissions said that about the Home Mortgage interest. Congress ignored it. Finally, you might have the largest credits for people who need the help most. And the least credits for people who need the help least. So this is how i end my talk with the students, and i end it with you. I say to them, i hope that some of you are brave enough, if you are at a political rally, and i hope you go to the political rallies, and you hear a politician say im going to propose a new deduction to help ordinary workers, you hardworking workers. You raise your hand, and youll say why are you proposing a tax break that saves the most money for people with a highest income who need the assistance least. And the least tax savings for people with low and moderate incomes who need the assistance most. Thank you very much. [ applause ] all right, to introduce our next speaker, mr. Nader will be returning. Is that right . Thank you, john fox. In fact, we have copies of your ten questions politicians dont want to answer. We can give them out, especially to the hood College Students, who have arrived. [ applause ] and going to demonstrate, they have the highest Attention Span of all College Students in the country today. No smartphones. Great pleasure to introduce Joan Claybrook who has worked on congress for almost 50 years. The congress is the most powerful instrument of our democracy to transform our country. Just look at the power it has in the constitution. The power to tax, the power to spend. The power of oversight, investigation. The power to confirm nominations for the courts and high executive branch officials, and many other powers. They also have the eye of the media, and thats why we all have to Pay Attention to the congress. It does spend about 22 of our income, and what it does and doesnt do can either ennoble the country, or get the country in trouble. The people are supposed to be sovereign. The constitution starts with we the people not we the congress or we the corporation. And yet, 1,500 or so corporations, give or take, pretty much control a majority of the congress on many issues that affect everybody. Health safety, economic wellbeing, and environment. So there is this gap between the constant pressure by thousands of lobbyists on capitol hill, and the withdrawal of most of the people in this Country Holding their members of congress accountable. There are only 535 of them. They put their shoes on everyday like you and i, and as Warren Buffett once said, were 300 Million People, how come we cant control 535 elected politicians. What joan has done, and she is going to demonstrate this, is show how a citizen lobbyist can go up on capitol hill and get things done. What does the citizen lobbyist, environmental, consumer, whatever, what do they bring to senators and representatives. They bring a set of facts, documenting perils for corruption or what have you, they bring their own determination and creativity and strategy. They bring a reflection of Public Opinion, majority of Public Opinion like safe cars. They like clean air. They like clean water. Sort of a left right lung issue, and so forth. And they bring the ability to selectively pick your allies where they are in congress in Strategic Committee locations and so north forth to get a foo. Theyre up against corporations who have far more lobbyists outnumbering the citizens. The Drug Companies at one time when they were pushing the drug benefit bill had 520 going up on capitol hill. 450. Thats only the drug industry. They have a lot of money. They pour it into pacs. They have a lot of persistence. Their job depends on their success in congress. They have their own specialized media, like the chamber of congress. And they are able to offer jobs to Congressional Staff, or members of congress after they leave the congress, which is a very little appreciated tool that they have. Now, youre going to hear how one citizen lobbyist actually dealt with this mountain of opposition, and on more than a few occasions, prevailed. She was the longtime president of public citizen. Before that, she ran Public Citizens Congress watch. She did work on capitol hill. But when she goes up on capitol hill, equipped with those items that i just mentioned, senators from both sides have a hard time ignoring her. So i want to introduce what the Auto Companies once called the dragon lady, Joan Claybrook. [ applause ] well, i think weve heard the talk and i think could go home now. So it is a pleasure to be here today. This is a great conference. Its extremely important to assemble citizens, organizers, and citizen leaders to talk about what they do, what theyve learned, and to convey it as broadly as possible. So im going to talk about the congress, which everyone is quite awed by. Im going to give you a list of ten principles for getting bills enacted and give you a few kp s examples of how we use them. Giving millions of dollars in Campaign Money or hiring lobbyist is not a strategy option for the Public Interest groups. Indeed, business entities spend billions on lobbying Congress Every year. It is amazing how often citizen groups not win in knock down legislative battles. Ralph mentioned that one of the strategies is hiring Congressional Staff or members of congress when they leave their post. Sometimes they hire the former chief of staff of a particular member, who is a chairman of a committee, lets say the ways and means committee, a very important committee. So that they can just they spend 20,000 a month hiring that person, so they can influence that member on one particular bill. Thats how much money they spend. Well, when i came to washington from baltimore, a number of years ago on a fellowship in congress, i was scared to death. A member of congress was had me awe struck. And then a friend suggested that when i met the first member of congress, that i envision him and most of them were men at the time, in long red underwear with a silk hat. Well, that was very helpful, more than you can imagine. My first interview was with marv udall and looked like Abraham Lincoln and the red outfit popped into my mind and i thought oh, my god, and i giggled and it relaxed me and i was on my way. Never again was i awe struck. It is a great technique. Citizens should not be intimidated by high level officials, ever. Remember, they work for us. In fact, members are very sensitive to pressure. Particularly, members of congress. And they always want to be liked. Never forget that. Because if you get angry with them, the next thing you know, theyre going to come back and want to make friends with you. So dont worry about it. And dont forget that the u. S. Constitution gives us explicit authority in the First Amendment to petition the government to address our grievances. We are in fact carrying out the constitution. So ten principles. First is to divide and conquer and then organize, organize, organize. Dont be overwhelmed by 430 members of the house, ralph put it in perspective, with 3 million americans, why cant we control them. When youre doing the work, remember congress has many subparts. They have committees, subcommittees, leadership groups, they have state and issue caucuses, and thats where the real work occurs. Rather than having to worry about 435 members of congress, you really only have to worry about 40 or 50, those are the ones that will make the decision on your bill. And thats very doable. Second of all, second principle, fieb find a leader. You need a leader, a member of congress in each house who is a skilled ledge lgislator, a stro leader makes the difference between winning and losing. Work with your leader to draft the bill with helpful congressional legislative that he or she will arrange. Help the leaders a change your goals and their goals and that includes getting media. Leaders are really critical. Thirst, no the rules governing your legislation. Congress has many rules, just like the courts have their own rules. You and your leader must know the pertinent rules that will decide the outcome of the bill. I wont go into all the details, but lots of rules. Work closely with the Congressional Staff, while always connecting with the member. They they can facilitate your work by telling you whats going on inside congress, they often hear first whats happening on your legislation. They hear of emerging opposition and you always want to Pay Attention to your opposition. They will hear about possible hearings or floor action or key rules. They can help build and support the Congressional Staff offices. And so the staff are really the gatekeepers for the members. You need their support. And when i say you, i mean you as a group not you as an individual. I think ralph nader is the only person who by himself got a bill enacted into law. That was 50 years ago. So you need to have a group. You need to organize. Five, you need to prepare materials to support your bill. You need to argue why you want this piece of legislation. Youve got to make sure they are 100 accurate, concise, interesting and designed to persuade with graphs and pictures if pertinent. Different documents must be prepared for congressional offices for the media and for coalition groups. Because you want to build a coalition. That is how you get legislation through from the consumer perspective. They must include data, research, resources listed at least in at least one of your documents, you can get information from the internet, from libraries, from the congressional record, from freedom of information act request, to government agencies, from free government publications, university professors, other Public Interest experts, the Government Accountability office and so on. So there are lots of sources for you to get your information and by the way also from the industry thats relevant to what youre talking about. But the bottom line is a onepage summary. A onepage summary is dynamite because when i first started working as a lobbyist General Motors would come in with notebooks. Ralph was so cheap he wouldnt let us have a xerox machine so we had to use a mimeograph machine which is a pain in the neck, maybe some of you have never heard of a mimeograph opinion its so old. If you made a mistake you had to erase it with liquid and wait until it dried and retype it. We did onepage summaries. It was too much trouble to do more than that. With a member of congress you hand them one sheet of paper, they take the piece of paper, they fold it like this, they fold it like this and put it in their pocket. Now, where would you want to be with your information and that member of congress . You want to be on his inside pocket. So always remember give them a very concise material. Six, develop as broad a coalition as possible to advocate for the bill. Join with consumer groups and victim groups. Labor entities, strange bedfellows such as individual businesses or business groups that sometimes break off from the rest of them. Prominent individuals, other nonprofits, groups concerned with the substance of your bill, for example, if its an environmental bill all the environmental organizations, citizens from the Congressional District with maximum organizing and minimum procedure for participating. Seven, find and involve victims of the harm that youre trying to remedy, focusing particularly on victims from your leaders district and those from members who oppose the legislation. If you bring in a victim and have it presented to somebody that oppose the legislation they kind of melt and thats what you want to do, you want to melt your opposition. Eight, Media Coverage of your bill or your issue is critical to your legislative success. You want to get the media to tell people about t the broader circulation the better, ie the New York Times or Washington Post or wall street journal, ap, Television Networks but these are hard to achieve but there are also thousands of other Media Outlets from regional dailies to politico to 24 Hour Television and radio news, social media on the internet and so on and to get the media to Pay Attention you need to tell a sympathetic story why youre doing this, you need to explain the story, you need to engage in a major fight, the media loves fights, they love battles. Get prominent people involved, hollywood, sports, et cetera. Put on a show like crash testing a car, i know thats easier said than done, but one example ive used. Prepare accurate fact sheets synthesizing the issues and facts. Be very, very, very, very, very, very persistent. Competition for Media Coverage is very fierce and so you want to really entice them into it. Nine, get the executive branch if possible to support the bill. This can be critical to your success. It has vast resources, can provide essential information and agency head or president can express an opinion which really helps. It can release a report or paper that turns the tide. It can threaten to veto on express support through the office of management and budget. Getting the right people early in the administration is very important. It doesnt always work but its important. And, ten, the Educational Value of congressional value on your bill is unquestioned. Members will engage and educate other members who support or oppose the bill getting out of committee to get to the floor which is what you want. Getting Committee Members to support is essential to get it debated on the house floor or the senate floor. To be successful you need a variety of the best witnesses to argue for the bill, including some victims, if possible. Always victims. Legal or technical experts representatives from the coalition, high level officials and so on. A report will be prepared for consideration on the floor of each house. Read the report in draft if possible to make sure it has covered your issues effectively and some staff thats where the staff come in, they might let you do that. Okay. So this is not an he is easy set of principles to achieve but it is how you actually have to work to get a bill enacted into law. And theres a wonderful publication called how a bill becomes a law that you can get from your member of congress which goes into more detail with a little bit less emphasis on victims which what ive added to this. So now id like to give you some real life examples of some experiences that ive had in trying to get bills enacted into law. Amendments to the freedom of information act in the 70s were highly technical legal provisions, but our house leader was not an attorney and he wanted to compromise a way on specific remedies. As i said, you want strong leaders. He was not. Luckily senator ted kennedy secured these provisions without insulting or angering the house leader. A weak leader can cause extra work and can worse yet can ruin the hard work thats been put into your legislative effort so always try to get strong leaders, bipartisan sponsorship of controversial proposals achieves miracles. It really is amazing. As ralph points out in his excellent book unstoppable if you want to read a fun book about how you really get action on not only congress but on other issues read unstoppable by ralph nader. We wanted window stickers on the windows of new cars showing how each vehicle performed in crash tests. Highly controversial idea. The Auto Industry was vehemently opposed to it but we persuaded republican senator mike da wine to propose this as an amendment to a democratic bill and it just sailed through. The Auto Industry melted. They didnt know how to oppose somebody who was sort of their guy. Another example is that we stopped fedex in their huge push for longer trailers. They wanted to go from 28 to 33 feet. The length of an 8 story high building on the highway. I mean, it was like a train on the highway. Its multimillionaire ceo fred smith personally lobbied, many senators to whom he gives big campaign contributions, but senator Diane Feinstein agreed to oppose this provision and we needed a republican so we had to sort of do a little search and we found that true a transportation leader in of all places mississippi who opposed these larger trucks because mississippi highways really couldnt handle them and he got senator roger wicker in the senate to work with Diane Feinstein and it was a winning combination. Along with our full bore lobbying to educate and inform members of the deadly consequences of these bigger trucks, we had pictures of the trucks, we had victims of the trucks, we had pictures of fedex trucks having crashes with these extra trailers because they were allowed in a few states. Our Truck Safety Coalition outsmarted the mogul with all the bucks. So its a matter of strategizing, creativity, telling the truth and having some visual ability to communicate it. The importance of staff is one of my favorite ones was revealed when senator trent lott, have you all heard of trent lott . You know who he is, right . He and i had had a huge battle over Campaign Finance reform so he did not like me. He took over the Highway Safety subcommittee and he wouldnt let me testify on a bill dealing with rollovers so we went to the top staffer of the committee chair, he was not the chair, we went to the chair, ted stevens of alaska who didnt have a dog in this fight as they say who arranged for a small private meeting with us, senator stevens, senator lot and ranking senator of hawaii. Lot was very irritated he walked into the meeting really mad, but he came because his chair had told him he had to. And we presented our case in about ten minutes, very concise, about the dangers of rollover in cars and why something needed to be done in the congress and he really got interested in the safety issues and one of the things he said was, you know, i get it. He says, my son makes me strap those babies inside front ways and back ways and upside down and inside out, those are his grandchildren. And so he began to imagine and understand what we were talking about. He then heard a brief presentation by the Auto Industry but by then his mind was made up. In the end result he became our advocate, got a bill requiring rollover Safety Standards enacted into law in six months, all we needed was the opportunity to present our case. So we knew we had to connect with this senator who didnt mike me and wanted us not to talk to him. Afterwards i ran into him in the hall and he said i guess you like me a little bit better, joan, now that i passed your bill. He is from mississippi. One effort we made in texas was to line up the House Committee chair and we connected somehow with his minister whose daughter had been killed in a rollover crash. Now, that was really potent, it melted him, and doctors often lobby, you know, the congress, they use the Family Doctor to do it. Victims are the best path to getting members of congress to advocate legislation and that happened with the moat or coach bill, there had been no Safety Standards for motor coach for years. And so when some students were killed in a crash going to a sports event the senators from ohio who was where the school was located, from georgia where the crash occurred and that included john lewis, Kay Bailey Hutchison in texas where there were a lot of these crashes and she had been on the Transportation Safety board and understood why all these things are needed, seat belts and roof crush and exit capacity. And so we got the bill introduced and then the moat or coach industry said it was going to cost tens of millions of dollars to put this into effect. Once again we questioned that. So we looked it up and there are 700 Million People who travel rides, individual individuals every year on these buses. So we figured out the cost was about 10 cents per person per ride. And when we revealed that, the opposition couldnt make their case. So once again we won. I will tell you about cargill they didnt want to have placards carrying agriculture chemicals, which are extremely dangerous. They said it costs too much. We went on the internet and found out they cost 53 cents each. So you always have to question what the arguments on the other side are. So we delivered one to the each member of congress to explain the falsehood industry claim. We said is a firefighter worth 53 cents. [ applause ]. So i would just like to say that theres so many things you can do. We have given awards to members of congress. They have done great work. They have given awards. They want to be loved. We have taken ads in their local newspaper which is very cheap and thanked them for what they did. We delivered to their office to put on the wall. We persuaded bill clinton to veto the a critical liability bill by surrounding him with victims. And he was so happy to be to that bill even though he hated vetoing bills. And so i will just say we also helped Robert Redford defeat the interior secretary that gerald ford nominated because he was in banking fraud. We lost the voting committee, but we raised such a stink and got so much media involved they continued the investigation. They proved he engaged in fraud and had to resign. So you never know where the end is going to be. Since were on the honest side of the ledger and were the ones who raised key issues that people care about, we often win even though we have someone to help us. Thank you so much. [ applause ]. Thank you, Joan Claybrook. If youre looking for a road map on how to get things done in correct me if i am wrong, i think it is wise to look joan up. Our next speaker is Program Director at fair, fairness and accuracy and reporting and host of the syndicated radio show counter spin. She has appeared on nightline, Cnn Headline News and testified on the budget reauthorization for pbs. She is author of civil rights since 1787 and stop the next war now, effective responses to violence and terrorism. Jeanine jackson, welcome. [ applause ]. Should i use aha. I have to say i did not write those books. I contributed to those books and was happy to do so. Im very honored to be here today in support of my in combination of working with my childhood hero, ralph nader. And i wanted to say, first of all, to those of you who are here today the, certainly for those of you watching, if our question is what can we do about the media, and i think thats our question, youve already answered the first part. Youve already provided the first part of the answer, which is to inform yourself independently of it. You know, im speaking now about Corporate Media because i think thats the power that needs breaking through. So going to events, talking to people, reading a wide range of things, joining clubs, reading things from Different Countries and different perspectives, all of this allows you to talk around the dominant media, right, and provides you facts and stories that you have to check the information that youre getting. I wish it were simpler. I wish i had a magic key. But the truth is i have been thinking hard about this 30 years. And this really is the answer. Its not easy. Americans work more hours people in any other industrialized country. There is no substitute for informing yourself independently as a citizen. There just isnt. So what else can we do about Corporate Media . That starts with understanding the fundamental problems with the system that we have. And thats why i think being a critic can be constructive. Because a careful understanding of the problems suggest a response. So the first thing is information is a public good. Journalism is a public service. But media is a business. For reasons that are not natural but historical and political, we in the United States have determined the that main sources of information are going to be Media Outlets owned and controlled by forprofit corporations and they will be funded by primarily forprofit organizations. This is not how it had to be, but this is where we are. This structure creates conflicts, pressures on journalists to use something other than journal isistic judgment on what to cover and how. They are baked into the structure, i want to say. It is not a matter of reporters being bad people, being lazy. Certainly some of them are. But these problems are structural. Conflicts of ownership. Super pacs may be bad for america they are very good for cbs. Now, hes not lying. Broadcast media make a tremendous amount of money from political advertising. Thats part of the relationship. Okay. Politicians need media to get their message out. And Media Companies need politicians both for favorable legislation that allows them to kind of override Public Interest obligations and consolidate. But also where they back a dump truck of money up to the door every four years for political advertising. The only people not cut in on that deal of course is the public. For us were actually harmed by a process by which people can pull political strings without transparency or accountability such as super pacs encourage. The point is cbs is making decisions that are Business Decisions because cbs is a business. Okay. Its just that the impact of their Business Decisions have effects on all of us throughout our life. Because television, for example, is not a toaster with pictures as regulators have said. Sometimes the conflict comes because the owner of a media outlet also owns other things. Clothing factories with contracts in bangladesh, for example, or internet retailers. Things that ought to be subjects of journalistic scrutiny. But the same owner opens the media outlet and the object of scrutiny. And so it just doesnt happen. Or owners are just power players in a local community. They dont want to upset others like the police, like the local hospital. They literally have dinner with those people and they dont want to upset them. All of these structural conflicts affect the climate in the newsroom. So thats the ownership piece of it. What about sponsors . Because sponsors fund news programming, they write the checks. They can and do exert pressure. Even they they will tell you they never feel it that. Pressure is there. I have some favorite examples that i like to use. One of them is Time Magazine doing a special issue on the environment. And they get a sole sponsor. That is the ford motor company. Now, an editor goes on record saying, of course theyre not going to talk about auto pollution. And he said we dont run airline ads next to stories about airline crashes. You know, so of course theyre not going to when they have a car company doing an environmental issue. Again, were the only ones left out because we see, oh, a special issue on the environment. We think reporters are making journalistic decisions. What do we need to know about Environmental Issues at this point. And thats not whats happening. And the fact that he says it outloud is not a secret. It is is not a secret in the industry, the influence that sponsors have. A different way of slicing it, cocacola sends a letter to magazines saying, which sorts of stories they would prefer their ads worth skillions of dollars to run alongside or not run alongside. They want them next to editorial. But only certain kinds of editorial. Im going to read you this list. Hard news, sexrelated issues, drugs, prescription or illegal, medicine, cancer, diabetes, aids et cetera, health, eg, physical or mental conditions, negative diet information, anorexia, quick weight loss, food, political issues, Environmental Issues, articles containing vulgar language, religion. More celebrity swimsuit coverage, anyone . I make sure im sure crumpled it up and threw it on the garbage. But cocacola was comfortable sending it. That thats the climate, the situation. They can say to a magazine we want what you and i think of as news, they think of the climate in which their ads appear. Even public broadcasting. Constrained from the beginning by a short political leash and consequent. They are propelling us to a new chapter in aviation history but not that they are created by lockheed martin, major sponsors of the program i think a lot of folks think this is something we want to know. They want money, eyes on the set, the Massive Public audience. Thats not quite it. Media want the biggest possible audience that advertisers want to reach. Thats not everybody. There is little known thing called discounting. They pay less to reach audiences that are less desirable. A few years back there was an article about the no urban mandate. Sponsors refusing to pay full rates or to advertise at all on stations reaching primarily black audiences even when testing shows that the audiences can afford, are able and willing to buy the product being advertised. In one case they said we just dont want them in our store. When people say it is is green. Its still black and white. Fair has 30 years of examples. The Media Watch Group that i work for has 30 examples of this sort of fear and favor. I really could go on and on. Not reporter who are bad people but reporters that want to keep their job. Okay. So i was told to be positive. And i want to be positive. Because i really do believe that understanding the problem suggests the response. So if the problem is the pressures on the limitations created by this ownership structure, then the response is constant awareness of what we are reading and the growth and support for Media Outlets with different structures, different people they feel account bible to. We are growing those Media Outlets. They are sprouting up. Outlets publicly supported, combination and private and public. Every kind of funding situation, structural situation will have its limitations when we talk about journalism. What we want is a mixed landscape like other countries. Some things public, some things private, some things a mixture. If pursuant to that we want legislation to break up dominant media conglomerates, im all for you. [ applause ]. Thank you. Right now we want to grow those alternatives we have. The other major problem with news is top down bias. News media give ample platform to powerful places. Its not just women of dollar, lbgtq, but industry spokespeople and other journalists. We hear a lot from the people we hear from. Simply put, Corporate Media define news as what powerful people say and do. So our response again vigilance, Critical Thinking as you consume media. But then the growth, encourage and support from Media Outlets that have different structure, yes but have is a different definition of what news is and who gets to speak. Even if they run by the university and it doesnt take ads, ask yourself whose voices am i hearing . Who is involved in the story im not hearing from. It is not is it clever or diverse, what is its relationship to power . Does it say things that powerful people dont want said . How many times have you seen a hardhitting story about sweat shops and said it representatives from mcdonalds or walmart declined to speak with us. And thats the end. That failure to interrogate the power is the whole epicenter of the crowd. The way they mislead us about ourselves and our political possibilities. Maybe what makes me maddest is the way they mislead us about ourselves and our military pockets. I always remember this lead on a usa today story on activism in seattle around the wto. Little noticed by the public. The upcoming World Trade Organization summit has energized protesters around the world. You see how that works . You can be a member of the public, and thats okay. But as soon as you join with other people and try and change something, you become a protester and thats different and its not okay. You went from mainstream to marginal, and you didnt even change your clothes. When media say Police Killed an unarmed black men and black people are angry. Everyone is angry who wants an end to racialized police violence. But you can see how media can distort the problem is and obscure the situation and make you feel more alone than you really are. And the antidote to that is people. Everything that Corporate Media present as an unsolvable problem, people are solving somewhere out there. And we need to hear those stories. Those examples are the antidote to fear. What we read, ask questions and talk to one another around and without media organizations. We can break through power. And if the newspaper says we cant, well, dont believe everything you read. [ applause ]. Thank you very much, jeanine jackson. I hope people watching this on cspan or live stream will take some of her thoughts and apply it to the local media which is more accessible obviously. Local tv, radio, newspapers. Go down and see the editor, see the producers, talk to the reporters rather than just withdraw and be disgruntled. My pleasure to introduce in the next is selling isment on Small Claims Court oliver hall. He came to the our attention when he was a law student at boston college. He wrote an article on the obstruction to thirdparty candidates to get on the ballot and other obstacles. Somehow he thought that a twoparty duopoly, excluding competition, more rigorously than ever before in our history. By all these barriers undermine the concept to a competitive democracy. So he came to washington and he became my lawyer fighting Ballot Access restrictions and the main partys efforts to reduce competition to themselves by keeping thirdparty candidates off the ballot or harassing and draining resources, keeping them off the debates. And a whole variety of ways, confronting them with political bigotry is and is discrimination for which there is no penalty. Keep someone off the ballot and with unethical means or harassing. And he was very, very persistent. And he wrote beautiful briefs. Some of his Petitions Supreme Court were praised by demanding attorneys. And he extended his persistence to his role as a consumer. And he got ripped off like everybody else gets ripped off. And he began to use Small Claims Courts. And Small Claims Courts are everywhere, as he will point out. Most are by loan sharks, landlords in poor areas, creditors. They used the Small Claims Court. And he believes millions of americans should use the Small Claims Court. They are very easy to use. You dont need a lawyer. Here is oliver hall. [ applause ]. When we have such a dearth of choices and so many commentary about that issue. As ralph said, im founder of a nonprofit called center for competitive democracy. We work to eliminate barriers to participation in the political process. So i guess ralph gave some indication. But the question arises, what does that have to do with Small Claims Court. Let me come back to that. I would like to start with a story. The year is 1980. The place, San Francisco. Not the tony area. Not russian hill or pacific heights. But south of the city near the airport. You may not know San Francisco International Airport started as an airstrip in a cow pasture in 1927. Within a few decades they had jumbo jets from tokyo, london, sydney, australia. The people who lived near that former cow pasture found the noise was someone irritating. As a matter of fact, it rattled their windows, shook their homes, woke them up at all hours of the night. Well, what would you do in that situation . What would you do . You basically cant live in your own house. Well, a woman named Gretchen Eisenberg went to Small Claims Court. In september 1981, they filed a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco, the operator of the operator, and alleged a claim of nuisance and requested the jurisdictional limit, which was 750. Maybe the city didnt Pay Attention to that. But then her neighbor did the same thing. And then neighbor, another neighbor, and another neighbor. By the end of the month, 170 separate small claims actions had been filed by neighbors of the airport. They all made the same claim and they all requested the jurisdictional limit, 750. And 116 of them won. Then they filed another 183 in Small Claims Court in San Francisco. Well, that got the citys attention. And the city itself went into court. Not Small Claims Court but local superior court, and requested a writ to enjoin the Small Claims Court from a adjudicating anymore of these claims. And the superior court rejected that. And the court of appeals in california affirmed, said this is a totally appropriate way to use small claims. And this is actually in keeping with the purpose of Small Claims Court, which was to allow people to a adjudicate claims either because its too expensive or maybe the money involved for each individual plaintiff is not sufficient to justify any lawyer for taking a case. So they were free to keep suing the city of San Francisco. Thats what they did. They compared a master complaint. They organized. They held workshops. They shared information and resources with each other. And they banded together to hire expert witnesses to testify on behalf of each plaintiff and to consult with lawyers. And they kept on going like that. Now, this is obviously a pretty unusual case, right . But not just because they filed so many different small claims actions relating to the same yon going violation or harm, but because people just dont use Small Claims Courts anymore. How many people here have filed an action in Small Claims Court . Well, thats pretty good. Certainly less than half. But pretty good. But, you know, Small Claims Court is the original Peoples Court before judge judy, judge wapner there were Small Claims Courts. They were founded in the early part of the 20th century. It originated with oscar pound who wrote an article that was very influential and essentially called for the creation of Small Claims Courts because there were all these claims that people have in their everyday lives. Obviously we still have them today, which dont rise to the level that you want to file an expire lawsuit and hire a lawyer. But they deserve to be adjudicated. People deserve to get justice even if the harm is relatively small. And today Small Claims Courts exist in every state. The procedures vary somewhat. But they all share basic characteristics. You dont need a lawyer. Anybody can file a small claims action. The costs are minimal. The procedures are simple. It is really lightning fast in terms of litigation time. The filing fees are very low. They range from 15 to about 150 depending on the state. And the maximum claim value ranges from 2,500 in kentucky and rhode island to as much as 25,000 in tennessee. So thats real money. Its worth your time but what has happened with Small Claims Courts . Some people here have used them. But the fact is that the original purpose has fallen by the wayside or at least it has been overshadowed. As early as 1982, an empirical study of Small Claims Courts have them as the forgotten court. Because the idea of giving the little guy a chance to get his small claim adjudicated had really fallen by the wayside. The dock the ets are dominated by debt collectors and businesses and not by individuals seeking redress as a result of business practices. For example, a study of the california Small Claims Court in 2002 found that 56 of the plaintiffs were corporate or business plaintiffs, while only 36 were individuals. So what you see is that Small Claims Courts have been functionally hijacked by the very interests they were ended to check. There was a story in the boston globe in 2006 that mentioned the benefit of Small Claims Courts is that they have these relaxed standards. But whats happened is businesses have taken advantage of those relaxed standards to be able to go after, you know, small debts owed to them by individuals. Well, this brings me back to my original question. What does Small Claims Court have to do with my work as what i like to consider myself as a civil rights attorney . Well, nothing directly. But it relates in this way. When we talk about breaking through power, litigating a case takes years, decades even. Its a very difficult thing to do. But Small Claims Court is everything following along online, on tv. Anyone can do it. And im living proof of that. I have won money judgments. Ive collected them. When i was still in law a store sold me a used computer as new. And it turned out to be a total lemon. And the thing just died after a little while. And they wouldnt even take a look at it unless i paid them another 100 bucks. I said im not going to pay you 100. This thing is broken. I ended up having to the sue them and they had to pay me more than i paid for that computer. So i went out and bought a new computer. The system works. Everybody can and should take advantage of this resource. It is something that is there that is totally underutilized. Anything that you litigate in a normal court you can litigate in Small Claims Court. Nuisance, negligence, harassment. There are particular statutes that provide a private cause of action for violations of the statute the chute. One is the telephone Consumer Protection act. Has anyone been harassed by a tele marketer lately . Im on the do not call list. I get calls all the time. It provide 500 per violation or actual damages, which is higher. And for knowing violations you could get triple damages, 1,500. So think about that the next time. Look at your caller i. D. Think about whether you want to take action. Another one is the fair debt collections practices act. It also provides a private right of action for harassment by debt collectors. You can get damages and attorneys fees on that statute. The one i tend to focus on is the Consumer Protection act that each state has enacted. Each of these states has Consumer Protection statute. It allows anybody to sue a corporation for violation of the statute. Here in d. C. , the statute provides for 1,500 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater. And it also allows for attorneys fees. I have sued under that statute, and i have won. So it is something you can do. And that brings me to i guess what i would like to the wrap up with, which is, you know, we come to the events like this. Were presented with so much useful information. But off times we feel it is maybe in the level of abstraction or the problems are too big. We dont know how to attack them. Here is something specific you can do. Everybody, when you go home today or if youre watching online or on tv, google your states statute. Familiarize yourself with the procedures. Importantly, look at what the remedy thes are. Look at what you can win if you avail yourself of this resource. And then the next time verizon, comcast or bank of america, one of these corporations we all deal with on a daily basis hits you with a bogus late fee and refuse to remove it from your account or any number of abuses we have all encountered, think about taking them to Small Claims Court. You can do it. And ill tell you, it feels pretty good to make them pay you in that circumstance. I wanted to just return to Gretchen Eisenberg to wrap this up, the woman who first sued the San Francisco airport. If you go to wikipedia now and you read the entry about the San Francisco airport, it boasts it was one of the first airports to implement a fly quiet program. Which grades airlines on their noise when they fly in and out of the airport. And not only that, but it was one of the first airports to conduct a residential sound abatement program, retrofitting program. And it turns out the San Francisco airport to date has spent 153 million and has insulated some 15,000 nearby homes. And if wikipedia is to be believed, and im not sure this part is to be believed, that it was a very successful effort. The point is they put in the effort. And this took place sometime in the early 1980s. So by my calculation that was right around the time ms. Eisenberg and her neighbors filed the 353rd small claims action against the airport. And thats what we call the large potential of Small Claims Courts. Thanks very much. [ applause ]. Hi. Im back. I hope you all enjoyed my invigorating speech on small claims sports. Next is senior staff of the waste to Wealth Initiative is and he also serves on ilsrs board of directors. He specializes in helping cities and counties recover increasing amounts of materials from the waste stream and adding value to the local economy please welcome neil seldman. [ applause ]. Well, good morning still. Its certainly nice to be here. It is a pleasure to be part of this presentation. I will be talking on my experience and 40 years of working with citizens fighting batted incinerators and solving problems in the waste stream. But i also come from a background of manufacturing. As an academic i have studied the process of change in many of our historical revolutions, the french and Russian Revolution where societies were disintegrating and our own American Revolution where society was emerging in business and the civil rights were emerging. Our philosophy is that scale and ownership in the economy are critical. They are critical for sustaining Civil Society and all the benefits that were struggling to make our democracy become. We have the country has a history of this. Of course the Legendary Tea Party was a number of local businesses reacting against the Global International corporation, forcing them to purchase some of the things they didnt want and at prices that were exorbitant. Very similar to our economy today. We feel that the Small Business community, and ill use examples from the recycling and antiincinerate. Reversing citizens united, jurymandering. If the election doesnt go away, these problems that plague our country will still be there. We will not run away. We will tighten our belts and work harder. And the importance of Small Businesses in our economy is one that Small Businesses and family farms they breed independent people, people who have independent resources, can think for themselves, can do their own research and can connect with other people through their business and civic relationships. The fight for Small Businesses can be the same as the fight for citizen rights. They were an important component. As i said before, they were necessary if not sufficient, an aspect of the initial revolution. But even today we can rely on them for fighting taxes, fighting for fair tax for fair regulations. And to stop the regulations that are throttling creativity, innovation as David Freeman mentioned in the energy field and others have been mentioning in other fields. They are very potent enemies of allies in fighting incinerators. You may know new york state was the first to tax the internet. Without taxes gives these corporations 6 to 9 advantage over local businesses. New york state was the first state to do that. Many others have followed. Not all. And Small Businesses were a critical component of the coalition that forced the legislation several years ago. Small Business People are rooted in the community. Their kids go to the same schools, the same churches, the same swimming clubs, the same public facilities as their neighbors and Business People. They immediately get involved in civic activities when they perceive their own interest and the interest of their neighbors and other elements of is Civil Society. My two favorite examples, i will draw from the waste field are representative bill pestrell, medical doctor started fighting incinerators, became mayor, and now is in the house of representatives. My favorite story, however, as oliver has his first story about the San Francisco airport, mine is about a woman named penny wheat, who is just a regular person living in Alachua County where gainesville is. They were proposing a giant incinerator. She testified against it. Literally this goes to the early 80s and was told to go back to her kitchen. She did do so. And she organized her campaign for the county commission, which she won by more votes than any other politician in the history of the county. And she became quite a powerful element in Decision Making not only on solid waste but of course the incinerator was defeated, citizens were organized. They put together their own plans. Now alacuha is one of our leading zero waste cities at 50 recycling, trending towards 80 , 90 . If you want to have a healthy economic system, you have to have Small Businesses and small farmers. Both are in great decline. Both are under tremendous threats from every aspect of society and every aspect of business. The networks that are being built are being built by people who want a better economy for all. Local businesses allow communities to have a collective efficacy to solve problems, to join together, reverse even Climate Change. There is one very interesting project, marin county carbon showing particles from food waste can reduce Climate Change. And other changes that Small Businesses in the recycling and waste field are emerging. The key here is the growth of Small Business means the market share of monoopolies are diminished, which leads us to use our impact on local government to dictate wage conditions, working conditions, whether unions should be allowed in this process or not. Let me get now to the field that ive most been involved in. People say im knee deep in garbage. Im quite proud of it. It is 40 years of work. A little bit more than 40 years. It has resulted since the late 60s in a remarkable multigender, multirace, multiclass and multiethnic and multigender and Age Coalition that has consist can epbtly defeated proposed incinerators, 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 tons per day. You may have heard in baltimore citizens just defeated a 4,000 ton per day incinerator. And the capacity to stop something bad is fairly prevalent in society. It happens a lot. But to the stop something thats bad and not only propose a solution but to gain control at the local level to solve that problem is very unique. And its been a very worth while career working with Small Businesses, community groups, and environmental groups to accomplish these. Just to give you a very quick set of numbers to put this in context, the sector of waste is anywhere from 70 to 100,000 billion a year in the country. 60,000 businesses supported by 40,000 Government Programs. Over 1 million jobs have been created in the last 40 years with recycling to give you a sense of comparison. For every 10,000 tons of garbage you put in the ground or incinerator in which you destroy the material, you create one job. For every 10,000 tons of material you recycle, you create 4 to 10 jobs just in processing. And then hundreds of jobs as these materials move out to industry and agriculture. The most labor intensive and skill intensive activity is the repair of electronic scrap. For every 10,000 tons repaired, you create just under 300 jobs. These are transformative jobs. Understanding technology and of course to use that technology to improve your education. And contacts with other people. The system in the United States today delivering 200 million tons of raw material to industry and agriculture. In the 1960s, it was not even counting less than 5 of materials that were recycled. Following the war, world war ii, of course where a great many were recycled. Not only is this recycling a very physical positive thing in our economy in terms of the cost of raw materials, et cetera, it has also shown that organized citizens, ad hoc citizens getting together have stopped wall street from bonding these 500 million and 600 million facilities. It stopped the virgin Material Companies from expanding because everything you recycle material. Anything you make out of virgin material you can make out of recycled material. It has helped beat incumbent officials and bureaucrats. So in order to not destroy materials but to recall their value, add value and create independent cities that are, again, manufacturing things, we have worked with many, many groups, churches, youth groups, cultural groups, Environmental Justice groups to show that local manufacturing from Recycled Materials is an important pathway to the future. And finally, i would say that the recycling movement in the United States since lets call it the post world war ii recycling movement, empowering people in the 70s, 80s, 90s and to this day, the most important thing we produced are citizens. They are active, not passive. They vote. They the take responsibility for holding office. These are the citizens that we need. Need. But all know we dont need a majority of organized people to get our agendas across but we do need active citizens who have been activated by concerns in their own community and everybody touches garbage every day. Anything that becomes garbage passes through a human hand than human hand can decide whether to make it garbage and destroy that material or to put it in a different place to use for community and even regional and National Economic security. Thank you for your time. [ applause ] thank you, neil seldman. Who can give us another example of resources and the most unlikely places if we only think about where to look for them. I believe for our next speaker, ralph nader will be returning to introduce him. Is ralph in the house . All right, make yourselves comfortable. Hell be back. Thank you, neil. My pleasure to introduce dr. Michael jacobson. It was many years ago that i interviewed him when he was at m. I. T. Getting his ph. D. And ill never forget the interview. We were interviewing all kinds of graduate students to come to work with us in washington. And those are the days when they stood in line looking for Public Interest work. And he was finishing his ph. D. In microbiology from m. I. T. And one of the questions i asked all the students who i was interviewing was, are you in it for the long run . Or do you just want a couple years to get it on your vitae and then you go to work for the establishment. And i asked mike, are you in it for the long run . He said yes. And here he is. Decades later. And his work has been extraordinarily effective because hes a multifaceted advocate. There would be these big food conventions where they would give awards to someone who developed a new artificial chemically doused whip for dessert. And mike would rush on the stage and criticize it before he was dragged off the stage. The level of degradation of the food supply from a to z when mike got under way would be stunning to young people today. The only bread that was sold in the supermarkets largely were wonder bread and tip top bread. When you went to the supermarket, you didnt even have to look at the label. When you picked the bread up, your fingers and thumb collided. Now you have much more variety. At any rate, he built, he started with us for a short period of time. Then he left with two other young scientists, started the center for science in the Public Interest which is the Premier Group today. Some of you get the newsletter nutrition action. If you dont, you really should. It has a huge circulation and it comes with information you can use and its very colorful and very succinct. And mike said he doesnt want to give a speech today. He wants to have a discussion. So we want mike to come up here and well have a discussion. Thank you. [ applause ] you know, ralph, that your little introduction reminded me of that going up on the stage, that was we gave the annual bon vivant vichyssoise memorial award to the biggest junk Food Producer of the year and i dont know how many of you remember bon vivant vichyssoise soup it killed people because it was contaminated with botulism. We thought that should be memorialized. And the award was a beat up old garbage can that we would bring with us to the annual convention of the institute of food technologists who was a Membership Group that devised cool whip and jello and all kinds of other kraft lined and lines supermarket shelves to try to give a little attention to the issue. See, hes a genius at informing the media with irresistible displays and demonstrations. And he would appear on the donahue show, the mike douglas show, merv griffin show and he would have based on the recipes of the processed food companies, he would say, if you eat a cheese burger or a hamburger, heres how much fat slithers down your throat. He would hold it up. I actually did this once, too. He would hold it up. It was like this. People would go like this. To this day, i meet people on airplanes who say i saw you on mike douglas. What do you remember . That stuff. From hotdogs and so on. I think, you know, and joan was alluding to it also, of trying to dramatize the issues with something concrete, something people can relate to. And you remember the junk food hall of shame that we had at public citizens Visitor Center that really captured peoples attention. By depicting how much fat or the artificial coloring or what actually went into our food. One thing about mike and his associates is that they deal with the massive silent violence that kills people and gives them diseases. You know, most of the media deals with overviolence of street crime, police brutality, wars, that sort of thing. But when you consider how many people die in this country from silent violence, 60,000 die from air pollution, over 1,000 a week. Epa figures. About the same amount die from workrelated diseases. And trauma in the job. 700 die every day, according to Johns Hopkins report, every day, from mishaps that are preventable in hospitals, including malpractice, hospital induced infections. And mike has focused, before we get into the other things, i identify csbi and nutrition action, mike, with you focused on three ingredients in our food that a lot of people are being overdosed with. Fat, sugar, and salt. Can you go through, a, what it was like before you came to washington, what kind of progress is made now, before you do that, how many people have died, whats the estimate, how many people have died or gotten sick from those three . Over, well, per year, probably 150,000 people or so. Excess sodium from salt, about 100,000 a year. Sugar, the best estimate i have seen is from the main food in which sugar is used, soda pop. 25,000 people die every year because of the obesity and diabetes. And fat is complicated because there are different kinds of fat. Some much better than others. The worst ones, the worst fat is trans fat. And thats from partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. We could talk more in detail, but harvard scientists estimated that was causing in its heyday, the 1990s, 50,000 to 100,000 excess deaths every year. So just astonishing. These are from the ingredients that people thought for decades totally harmless. Salt and sugar are on our kitchen tables. And trans fat has been used in crisco, was used in crisco, no longer, since about 1910. So everybody was familiar with it. And you know, just thought it was innocence. You have pounded on trans fat with great substance. I mean, he is sort of a watchdog on the food and Drug Administration department of agriculture and his staff, along