Petition: Don’t Prosecute Whistleblower Who Revealed Torture Program

Sign the Petition: http://forcechange.com/26047/dont-prosecute-whistleblower-who-revealed-torture-program/

BY JOSH SAGER ON JULY 7, 2012 

Target: The Department of Justice

Goal: To stop the prosecution of John Kiriakou — an ex-CIA agent who is being prosecuted for revealing the United States torture program.

During much of the Bush administration, the United States military and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) captured, imprisoned and tortured numerous suspected “enemy combatants”. These combatants were held in secret prisons or on foreign US military bases and were not given access to any legal or humanitarian assistance. For years, the United States public was unaware of the terrible actions of its government, but eventually the US torture program was leaked.

Once allegations of torture surfaced, the US government attempted to cover itself from liability through the relabeling of torture techniques as “enhanced interrogation” techniques; these techniques included waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and mock executions — all of which are recognized torture techniques under international and domestic law.

John Kiriakou was the first primary source to publicly call the actions of the United States torture, rather than the official falsehood “enhanced interrogation”. Unfortunately, the United States government retaliated by charging Kiriakou under the 1917 Espionage Act for his exposure of “confidential information”. Kiriakou’s only “crime” was to expose the war crimes of the United States government to its people, and he should be protected as a whistleblower.

Sign this petition to demand that the Department of Justice stop its prosecution of John Kiriakou for his exposure of torture. It is absurd to charge a man who exposed torture to the public for espionage, particularly given the fact that the torturers (even those who admit their crimes publicly) have yet to feel any consequences for their crimes.

PETITION LETTER:

Dear United States Department of Justice,

You are currently prosecuting John Kiriakou, an ex-CIA agent, for the offense of revealing the United States torture program. In 2007, Kiriakou gave several interviews to media outlets, during which he revealed information about the CIA interrogation program and refuted the legal fig-leaf of the term “enhanced interrogation”. Kiriakou’s actions, while they did reveal confidential information, are clearly those of a whistleblower and should be protected rather than punished.

The exposure of illegal actions by the government, particularly where there has been a cover-up by officials, is not treason. The prosecution of whistleblowing who release such information appears to be politically motivated retaliation, if not an intentional attempt to intimidate future leakers.

I, as well as everybody else to sign this petition, implore you at the DOJ to drop the prosecution of John Kiriakou for his whistleblowing activities. Whistleblowers are necessary and prevent our government from escaping accountability by simply classifying all things which make it look bad. Your agency is threatening a man who exposed war crimes, yet you have declined to prosecute the perpetrators of the war crimes which were exposed; this is not justice.

Sincerely,

[Your Name Here]

Petition: Tell Mitt Romney that Drilling for Oil in National Parks isn’t an Energy Solution

Tell Mitt Romney that Drilling for Oil in National Parks isn’t an Energy Solution

Sign the Petition: http://forcechange.com/23673/tell-mitt-romney-that-drilling-for-oil-in-national-parks-isnt-an-energy-solution/

ENVIRONMENT, PETITIONS — BY JOSH SAGER ON JUNE 11, 2012 6:34 PM 

Target: Presidential candidate Mitt Romney

Goal: Convince Mitt Romney that opening the entire United States, including national parks, to oil drilling is not a valid plan to solve the nation’s energy problem.

Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican candidate for president, currently supports a policy of drastically increased drilling as a solution to the looming energy crisis in the United States. The United States is on an unsustainable energy consumption trajectory and will need additional energy sources if we desire to preserve our current lifestyle; as the potential future leader of the United States, Romney’s plans surrounding energy policy are vital, as are any consequences caused by these plans.

The official Romney campaign position on oil drilling is as follows: “Governor Romney will permit drilling wherever it can be done safely, taking into account local concerns.” While Romney’s energy plan is arguably ineffective, due to the limitations surrounding non-renewable resources, the primary problem with it is that protected national park land would be opened to oil exploration.

Under candidate Romney’s current energy plan, national parks – such as Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon – would be opened to oil drilling and likely despoiled during the extraction process. Oil drilling is an environmentally dangerous process and will lead to the inevitable degradation of our national parks.

Putting aside the facts that the increased use of carbon-based fuels will exacerbate global climate change and that oil is not a renewable resource, drilling in national parks is not worth the damage that it causes. We need to preserve our country’s national parks, and cannot allow the short term need for energy to overshadow the permanent damage that can be done to our national treasures. Sign this petition to protest candidate Romney’s energy plan and stop the potential despoiling of our national parks.

• PETITION LETTER

Dear Candidate Mitt Romney,

Your current energy plan consists of opening the entire United States, including protected national land, to oil drilling. This plan, while it will increase short term energy supplies for the country, will lead to the inevitable degradation of our national parks.

Put plainly, the opening of national parks to oil drilling is not an effective policy and will harm the United States in the long term. The potential oil production gained from pillaging national park land will eventually disappear, yet the damage done to our national parks will remain forever.

Our national parks and historic landmarks should be protected from all encroachments, particularly encroachments which have the potential to render the protected land toxic for generations to come. I, as well as everybody else to sign this petition, implore you to abandon your plan to open national park land to oil exploration – there are safer, cleaner and less destructive methods of fixing our country’s energy problems.

Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]

Petition: Stop New Hampshire From Privatizing its Prison System

Stop New Hampshire From Privatizing its Prison System

PETITIONS, POLITICS — BY JOSH SAGER ON MAY 27, 2012 6:11 AM 

Sign the Petition: http://forcechange.com/21900/stop-new-hampshire-from-privatizing-their-prison-system/

Target: The New Hampshire Department of Corrections

Goal: Do not continue the plan to fully privatize the New Hampshire prison system for adult males.

The New Hampshire Department of Corrections is currently in the middle of a process aimed at fully privatizing the prison system for adult male inmates in their state. The Proposal by the NH Department of Corrections, offered at the end of 2011, proposed several different options for the prisons contract and asked for private prison corporations to submit plans and bids to the state. If a plan and price is agreed upon, and this privatization plan finalized, New Hampshire would become the state with the largest percentage of its prisons being privatized.

Private prison corporations claim that their prisons are cheaper for the state, more efficient, and just as safe as publicly run prisons; unfortunately, these claims have not been upheld up by the facts. As shown by a study, performed by the Arizona Department of Corrections (in relation to their private prisons), private prisons cost slightly more money to the taxpayer to operate and supply an inferior product.

In order to reduce their costs and increase profits, private prisons utilize several tactics which harm the public: They cherry-pick prisoners who are less expensive to imprison and don’t operate rehabilitation programs within their facilities. As healthy inmates save money on medical costs and non-violent inmates save money on the costs of guards, most private prisons intentionally stack their populations with these types of prisoners; the sick and violent prisoners remain in the public prisons system, for the public to pay for directly. Once in a private prison, most inmates will not receive sufficient rehabilitation programs, because such programs cut into the bottom line of the corporation; rehabilitation helps prevent future crime, and the private prisons’ rejection of it for a personal gain raises the risk of future damage to society (recidivism).

In addition to supply an inferior product and costing more, private prisons lobby to increase criminal penalties. By lobbying politicians to criminalize more actions, increase sentence lengths, and apply minimum sentencing laws, private prisons attempt to increase the number of people in their institutions.

This petition is directed at the New Hampshire Department of Corrections and is intended to convince them of the terrible mistake which they are verging on making. Private prisons are ineffective and lead to a perversion of the ideals of the justice system; the goals of the justice system should be justice itself, not turning a profit. Please sign this petition in order to join in this protest and protect the integrity of the justice system in New Hampshire.

PETITION LETTER

Dear New Hampshire Department of Corrections,

Your agency is currently considering the mass-privatization of the prison infrastructure in your state. Unfortunately, this course of action has proven to be expensive, ineffective, and with some serious negative externalities.

States which have privatized portions of their prison infrastructures (for example, Arizona) have not experienced decreases in costs. In addition to the lack of a decrease in cost to the taxpayer due to privatizing, private prisons have sub-standard rehabilitation programs and provide a lower quality of life to their prisoners compared to state prisons; you are literally paying more for less when you privatize your prisons (under the current privatization model).

Once installed in a state, private prisons lobby state legislatures to increase criminal penalties, in an attempt to increase the prison population. The more people who go to jail, and for longer, the more of a profit these corporations make (particularly if these criminals are non-violent offenders). The mal-incentive created by attaching a profit motive to imprisoning American citizens will inevitably lead to tragic results.

I would not expect you to take my word on these claims against your plan to privatize without evidence: Please review this study, created by the Justice Policy Institute, or other non-private prison industry studies assessing the consequences of prison privatization to confirm the validity of these claims.

I, as well as everybody else who signed this letter, implore you to reject the idea of prison privatization in the state of New Hampshire. Please look at the available evidence and choose the safer, less expensive and more effective option — keeping prisons run by the states, as institutes of public service — rather than transforming them into a for-profit industry.

Sincerely,

[Your Name Here]

Petition: Demand Accuracy in Casualty Reporting for Drone Strikes

Demand Accuracy in Casualty Reporting for Drone Strikes

PETITIONS, POLITICS — BY JOSH SAGER ON JUNE 1, 2012 5:25 AM

Sign the Petition: http://forcechange.com/22425/demand-accuracy-in-casualty-reporting-for-drone-strikes/

Target: President Obama

Goal: Stop considering all military-age males killed in drone strikes to be “enemy combatants,” which can lead to under-reporting of civilian casualites.

For the past several years, the United States has been utilizing drone strikes in order to kill those suspected of terrorist activity. These drone strikes have been promoted as very effective in killing terrorists, completely safe to American troops, and having a low collateral civilian casualty record. Unfortunately, recent revelations as to how the military classifies civilian casualties versus killed enemy combatants have shown that the US drone program may have  serious problems in the accuracy of its casualty reporting.

Current casualty statistics, intended to show the effectiveness of drone strikes, count all military-age males killed in drone strikes to be “enemy combatants.” Unless those killed as collateral damage of the drone strike are posthumously proven to be innocent, which is particularly difficult considering the fact that missile strikes often leave their victims unrecognizable, they are reported as hostiles. This method of reporting casualties is absolutely inaccurate and can only lead to the underreporting of civilian causalities caused by drone strikes.

If all males of military age killed in drone strikes are reported to be enemy combatants, barring proof otherwise, it will inevitably lead to the over-reporting of killed combatants and the under-reporting of dead civilians (as many killed civilians are counted as combatants). This method of reporting will skew the analysis of the effectiveness of drone strikes and will minimize the number of innocent people reported to be killed in collateral damage.

To put this situation in perspective: If two suspected terrorists were killed with a missile-strike during a soccer game and eight other players (young males) were killed, it is conceivable that the casualty statistics would reflect ten killed enemy combatants, rather than two dead combatants and eight dead civilians.

Regardless of whether one supports the drone program, everybody can agree that reporting of casualties caused by drone strikes should be as accurate as possible. Inflating the numbers of combatants killed, while minimizing the number of civilians killed, is simply bad reporting and will lead to people supporting bad policy.

This petition is directed at President Barack Obama, and is intended to convince him to push for changing the methods by which drone strike casualties are reported. Those confirmed to be terrorists should be counted as such, but all who are killed as collateral damage should be considered innocent until proven guilty. While this change will not help the families of the innocents killed in drone strikes, it will allow us to accurately assess whether the civilian cost to life from drone strikes justifies the benefits.

PETITION LETTER

Dear President Barack Obama,

Currently, the United States is engaged in a widespread armed drone campaign. While many Americans see this campaign as controversial, this letter is not addressing the use of drones, but rather the methods of reporting casualties.

It has recently come to the attention of the public that all male, military age, casualties, of drone strikes are, by default, considered enemy combatants. Only through a posthumous investigation, which is sometimes impossible, can such a casualty be considered a non-combatant.

This method of classifying casualties from drone strikes is deceptive and can only result in inaccuracies in the statistics of drone strikes; many casualties who are actually civilians will inevitably classified as enemy combatants.

I, as well as everybody else who signed this letter, ask you to push for the re-classification of drone strike casualties. Casualties of drone strikes should only be considered enemy combatants if there is conclusive proof of guilt, and the default classification of casualties should be non-combatant. You were a constitutional law professor, thus you know – and probably taught your students – that the American Justice system is built upon the ideal of a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven; while drone strikes are not a domestic legal situation, there is no reason why this assumption should not apply in the reporting of casualties from drone strikes.

Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]

Petition: Stop Oklahoma Doctors from Legally Refusing Contraception to Rape Victims

Stop Oklahoma Doctors from Legally Refusing Contraception to Rape Victims

HEALTH, PETITIONS — BY JOSH SAGER ON JUNE 3, 2012 2:00 AM 

Sign the Petition: http://forcechange.com/22696/stop-oklahoma-doctors-from-legally-refusing-contraception-to-rape-victims/

Target: Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin

Goal: Oklahoma must not allow doctors to refuse contraception to rape victims.

The law of the state of Oklahoma currently has a “conscience clause”, protecting healthcare providers who refuse to provide a specific service to a patient based upon personal beliefs. If a doctor, nurse or pharmacist believes a service or procedure to be immoral or antithetical to their personal morality, they cannot be forced to provide it or be punished for refusing service.

A state “conscience clause” is a serious issue, because it threatens the integrity of women’s health wherever it is part of the law. Christian fundamentalists dislike contraception and abortion, thus areas with large amounts of religious ideologues can become areas where women’s healthcare is virtually unavailable.

A concrete example of this problem can be seen in the recent case at Canadian Valley Hospital, where a raped woman was denied contraception and a rape kit. A woman, whose name is currently being held private, went to the hospital for treatment of injuries from a rape, as well as for emergency contraception. Once at the hospital, hospital personnel – a doctor and a nurse – refused to give the woman either emergency contraception or a rape kit; this refusal was justified through a citing of the state “conscience clause” and a statement that their personal consciences reject emergency contraception pills. The raped woman eventually traveled to another hospital and received both contraception and a rape kit, but this does not diminish the problem created by the conscience clause.

This petition is directed at Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin and is intended to convince her to advocate the removal of the conscience clause from the state law. People who become doctors and nurses should utilize every treatment and medication necessary to benefit their patients, regardless of their personal religious beliefs. Doctors who don’t want to treat patients because certain treatments conflict with their religion, should switch fields, become researchers or specialize in a field of medicine which removes them from needing to provide the controversial service (similar to how doctors who don’t agree with stem cells, self-select away from that particular area of medicine).

• PETITION LETTER

Dear Governor Mary Fallin,

Oklahoma law currently contains a conscience clause for healthcare providers (See: OK-SB 1878), creating a situation where women’s health services has become compromised. Women in Oklahoma who require contraception, particularly if they were raped, deserve access to all legal medical services, restrained only by their own moral codes (rather than the codes of religious medical providers).

Regardless of ones’ beliefs on contraception, for as long as it is legal, all medical professionals should be required to provide it to their patients upon request. Medical professionals who do not desire to be required to provide certain services should simply specialize in areas of medicine which do not put them in the position to violate their consciences.

The “conscience” provision does not benefit the public and can only lead to the imposition of a doctor’s religious views over the choices of female patients. I implore you to push for a change in the law of your state; demand that the legislature amend the law to remove the conscience exemption and protect the rights of female patients across Oklahoma.

Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]

Petition: Stop WI Police from Stealing Bail Money

Stop Wisconsin Police From Stealing Bail Money

PETITIONS, POLITICS — BY JOSH SAGER ON MAY 26, 2012 2:00 AM 

Sign the Petition: http://forcechange.com/21765/stop-wisconsin-police-from-stealing-bail-money/

Target: The Brown County Drug Task-force

Goal: To stop the Brown County Police Department from robbing people who are trying to provide bail money.

Brown County, located in eastern Wisconsin, is currently experiencing a serious problem with its police department’s handling of bail money. In numerous cases where citizens are arrested in Brown County, particularly when the arrests are for drug offenses, the police have been seizing the bail money using their asset forfeiture policy.

“Asset forfeiture” laws allow for the seizure of property obtained through money gained in an illegal manner; once seized, this property is liquidated and a portion of the profits are given to the police department. The tactic of asset forfeiture is intended to punish drug dealers and to assist in funding the police departments which arrest drug dealers.

Many civil rights groups have claimed that asset forfeiture laws give the police a financial incentive to arrest more non-violent offenders and that these laws disproportionately affect the poor. Asset forfeiture disproportionately harms the poor because, as no lawyer is provided by the state to fight asset forfeitures, many poor people are simply unable to fight back, regardless of their guilt.

The Brown County Police Department has taken the concept of asset forfeiture to an entirely new level: When friends and family members of those arrested call in to the police to arrange bail, they are told (incorrectly, as a check is acceptable) that they must bring cash to the police station. Once the bail money is delivered to the police, they use drug sniffer dogs do determine whether the money has drug residue on it and, if it does, they seize the cash for themselves. Even in cases where the bail money has a paper trail directly from a bank, thus is obviously not from a drug deal, the money has still been seized under asset forfeiture.

Various studies, run by the federal government, have shown that between 75% and 90% of all currency currently circulating in the United States has enough drug residue to trigger a positive drug test. As drug residue is so commonly found on bills, this disqualifies it as proof of any wrongdoing in court and makes the seizure of money by the police wholly inappropriate; if the police officers were to empty their pockets, statistics would indicate that a majority of their money would be covered with drug residue as well.

A combination of the request for bail to be in cash and the systemic testing of said cash, even though the result is inevitably positive, proves intent on the part of the police to seize bail money.

Given the preponderance of the evidence against such use of seizure laws, the actions of the Brown County police department are little better than legitimized theft. Our police departments should protect our citizens from being victimized by those who wish to take our property, not join in on the victimization of citizens using the authority of their badges. Please sign this petition to protest the specious use of asset forfeiture laws to rob American citizens when they are simply trying to provide bail money to their loved ones.

PETITION LETTER

Dear Brown County Drug Task-force,

It has recently come to the attention of the public that your department is utilizing asset forfeiture laws to seize bail money, even in cases where this money obviously is not obtained from drug sales. While asset forfeiture laws are on the books in Wisconsin, this is never how they were intended to operate and utilizing them like this is little better than theft.

A vast majority of money in circulation has drug residue on it, including the dollar bills in your own pockets, thus the use of such residue to justify asset seizure is wholly unfair.

Please, remember why you became police officers – to protect and serve – and stop this victimization of the families of those who you arrest. Even if those who you arrest are guilty of a crime, it does not justify your department defrauding those who come in to post bail.

I, as well as everybody else who has signed this petition, implore you to immediately stop the policy of testing and seizing bail money from those who post bail within your jurisdiction.

Sincerely,

[Your Name Here]

Petition: Andy Gipson

Don’t Let Mississippi Republican Get Away With Promoting Violence Towards Gays

PETITIONS, POLITICS — BY JOSH SAGER ON MAY 22, 2012 2:00 AM 

Sign the Petition: http://forcechange.com/21469/dont-let-mississippi-republican-get-away-with-promoting-violence-towards-gays/

Target: Mississippi Republican Party Chairman Joe Nosef

Goal: Demand that the Mississippi State Republican Party denounce the violently ant-gay comments of state representative Andy Gipson.

Mississippi State Representative Andy Gipson (R-MS) wrote a comment on his Facebook wall that promoted violence towards gay individuals. Any call for violence by a public figure, even one shrouded in a religious quote, should not be tolerated by the public and the offending individual should be compelled to condemn their violent remark. It is important to note that this is not intended to suppress the First Amendment right to free-speech, but rather the representative’s advocating for violence. For example, it is protected speech – if disrespectful – to condemn gays, but it is not protected speech to suggest that they be dealt with violently.

Gipson’s Facebook post read as such: Been a lot of press on Obama’s opinion on “homosexual marriage.” The only opinion that counts in God’s: see Romans 1:26-28 and Leviticus 20:13. Anyway you slice it, it is a sin. Not to mention horrific social policy.”

While the Romans bible verse condemns homosexuals as immoral, it does not promote violence towards gays and is not the focus of this petition; however, Leviticus 20:13 translates as “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” (English Standard Bible).

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but the use of a bible passage explicitly supporting the murder of homosexuals is far outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse. As Gipson quotes this passage of the bible after claiming that “God’s opinion” is the only one which matters, it is clear that he is explicitly supporting violence towards gays – who, at most recent count compose of over 5% of the US population.

It is absolutely unacceptable for a serving politician to condone violence towards an entire segment of the population, particularly in the face of the increasing number of anti-gay hate crimes in the US, yet Gipson has refused to apologize. This petition is directed at the chairman of the Mississippi Republican Party and is intended to convince him to compel Rep. Andy Gipson to retract his inflammatory and violent remark. – Perhaps the state leader of his party will be able to make Rep. Gipson see just how inflammatory his comments were, and make him change his mind.

PETITION LETTER

Dear Mississippi Republican Party Chairman Joe Nosef,

A member of your state party has recently posted a highly offensive remark on Facebook. This post promotes a bible verse, declaring the proper punishment for homosexuality to be death (Leviticus 20:13).

While every American is entitled to their own views, religious or otherwise, they are not entitled to promote violence towards a minority group. It is vitally important that a public official, particularly an elected official, not advocate violence, regardless of the context. In the United States, there are numerous unbalanced individuals who have been known to take violent action based upon the statements of public figures (Ex. recent police shootings caused by paranoia that guns will be taken away), and it is important that public figures take steps to remove even the suggestion that violence is appropriate.

Gipson is a member of the Mississippi Republican Party, thus you, as the party chairman, may be able to convince him to recant his statement. Our demand that Gipson recant his comment is not to imply that Gipson cannot claim his belief that homosexuality is a sin or even that he believes public policy should not accommodate gay rights, but simply the renunciation of promoting violence as a punishment for homosexuality.

Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]

Petition: Debt Ceiling Deal

Tell Republicans not to Threaten another Government Shutdown

PETITIONS, POLITICS — BY JOSH SAGER ON MAY 18, 2012 11:18 AM 

Sign the Petition: http://forcechange.com/21178/tell-republicans-not-to-threaten-another-government-shutdown/

Target: Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

Goal: To demand that the Republican Party honor the debt ceiling deal so the economic recovery is not put at risk.

In 2011, there was a near shut-down of the federal government over an increase to the debt ceiling. In order to reach an agreement, thus preventing a shutdown, a deal was struck between the Republicans in the Legislature and President Obama. Unfortunately, recent comments by Republican politicians point towards an impending reneging on the terms of this deal, potentially causing another shutdown.

The deal reached between Obama and the Republican legislature had multiple parts, and didn’t give anybody everything that they wanted. The debt ceiling was raised by $400 billion immediately upon passage of the compromise, and could periodically be raised further by the Obama Administration, but these increases could be subject to a congressional motion of disapproval (which Obama could simply veto).

In return for capitulating on the increase to the debt ceiling, the Republicans got several concessions:

1. Spending was to be cut by more than the debt increase.
2. Democrats capitulated on the desire for tax increases.
3. A balanced budget amendment to the constitution was brought to a vote (it failed).
4. A bipartisan super-congress was created to deal with debt reduction, and automatic triggers for a lack to agree guaranteed cuts.

Despite the terms of the debt deal being agreed upon, Republican Party leaders have recently signaled a desire to make the debt ceiling a fight again. In an interview this week, John Boehner signaled a potential impending fight over the final installment of the debt ceiling increase, as agreed upon last year: “Allowing America to default would be irresponsible. But it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process.”

Regardless of one’s partisan affiliation, most people can agree that another potential government shutdown will cause immense damage to the country’s fragile economic recovery and would harm millions of Americans. Millions of American families would not receive benefits and could fall below the poverty line and, depending upon the length of the shutdown, government jobs could be lost; we cannot afford either of these consequences, particularly considering the absolutely unnecessary nature of the fight. A deal was struck to avert this crisis last year, and those terms (whether or not one likes them) should be stuck to by both Democrats and Republicans.

This petition is intended for the two top legislative branch Republicans, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, and is intended to dissuade them from reneging upon the 2011 debt ceiling compromise. We, as a country, cannot afford needless political brinksmanship in our currently fragile economic situation.

PETITION LETTER

Dear Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,

As the federal legislative branch leaders of your party, you are in a position to avert an impending political crisis. The debt ceiling must be raised again, as agreed upon during the negotiations last year, lest the fragile economic recovery collapse. The only serious consequence of the last debt ceiling fight was a downgrade by the rating company Standard and Poor’s, but we may not be that lucky this time.

Whether or not you fully support the terms of the debt ceiling deal, it remains that this deal was willingly struck and has been held to by the Democratic Party. A vote was held on your constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget, spending was cut, the super-congress met for weeks, and no new taxes have been levied, thus showing that the Democratic party has held its end of the bargain.

The Republican Party should not violate the terms of their side of the debt ceiling deal, lest they lose all future bargaining credit and risk causing the U.S. economy to fall back into recession. If the Democratic Party cannot trust the Republican Party to keep their end of a political agreement (or vise-versa), the process of debate and agreement between the parties decays.

Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]

Petition: Reinstate Glass-Steagall

Protect America from Future Banking Collapses

CONSUMER PROTECTION, PETITIONS — BY JOSH SAGER ON MAY 17, 2012 2:00 AM 

Sign the Petition: http://forcechange.com/21087/protect-america-from-future-banking-collapses/

Target: The Democratic National Committee

Goal: To convince the Democratic National Committee to adopt the reinstatement of a law which insulates the country from future banking collapses as a major policy platform for 2012.

For most of the 20th century, the Glass-Steagall Act separated investment banking institutions from investment banking firms. This separation was intended to prevent investment bankers from using other people’s money, obtained through commercial banking, in their investments. For decades, Glass-Steagall protected Americans from banking crises but in 1999, it was repealed. The repeal of Glass-Steagall created increased instability in the banking industry, promoted reckless investing, and eventually contributed to the financial collapse of 2008.

With the removal of Glass-Steagall, there exists a system of socialized losses and privatized gains in many investment banks. When the investments of the bankers gain money, they take the gains as income and repay the commercial banking wing of their bank; despite suffering no risk, these bankers take home huge profits for their bets on investments. However, when the investments of the bankers lose money, the investors socialize the losses through passing the debt back to the commercial banks and incur no personal losses. By separating risks and the gains, a moral hazard is created in the industry of banking and there is great potential for banking crises.

It is very easy for somebody to make unreasonable bets with other people’s money and, in the absence of Glass-Steagall, this philosophy is endemic in the banking industry. Risk is disregarded when making investments because there is no personal downside to the investor, only the potential for profit. Once investments go wrong (and they inevitably will), the government must either bail out the commercial bank, in order to protect the banking patrons (anybody who has money in a large bank), or leave these people responsible for the debt created by the mal-investment.

By signing this petition, you will be showing your support for a return to sane banking policy to the Democratic National Committee. If enough Americans show support for reinstating Glass-Steagall, it will compel the DNC to get behind it as a major policy position.

PETITION LETTER

Dear Democratic National Committee,

A return to the Glass-Steagall Act would help stabilize the banking industry, curb risky investing, and decrease the likelihood that another bank bailout would be necessary to protect the savings of the American people. It makes no sense to court a banking disaster, for no benefit other than increased profits for a small minority of bankers; we have seen what the end result of this path is.

While several Democratic politicians and candidates have endorsed a reauthorization of Glass-Steagall, the Democratic Party as a whole has not named it to be a core policy position. The DNC should throw its full support behind a return to Glass-Steagall. A return to Glass-Steagall Act regulations is not just good policy but also an important rallying point for increased accountability for the banks.

I, as well as everybody else who signed this petition, implore you to take up the fight for Glass-Steagall and to restore sanity to our banking regulations. We will support your efforts to protect our savings as well as to prevent future banking collapses and stand behind your efforts on our behalf.

Sincerely,

[Your Name Here]

Petition: Reform the Filibuster

Break the Gridlock in Washington by Reforming the Filibuster

PETITIONS, POLITICS — BY JOSH SAGER ON MAY 16, 2012 2:00 AM 

Sign the Petition: http://forcechange.com/20991/break-the-gridlock-in-washington-by-reforming-the-filibuster/

Target: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Goal: Persuade Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to reform the filibuster and decrease governmental gridlock.

In recent years, Washington DC has been virtually paralyzed by the overuse of the filibuster in the Senate. This filibuster is a tactic which allows a minority in the Senate to continue debate indefinitely, thus stopping a bill from being voted on. In order to break a filibuster, 60 votes (a supermajority) are required to end the debate and begin voting; as 60 votes are very difficult to get in our hyper-partisan political environment, the filibuster is a very powerful obstructive tactic.

What originally was intended as a tool of last resort, allowing the minority to protest a bill which they absolutely object to, has become the norm. The filibuster abuse situation is akin to if a labor strike were to go from an extreme tactic to the norm: work would stop and the productivity of the corporation/government would grind to a complete halt.

With a de-facto filibuster attached to virtually every piece of legislation entering the Senate, a supermajority is needed to get almost anything done; this is not conducive to a functional government, nor is it how the filibuster, as originally designed, was intended.

Originally, the filibuster required a senator who wished to continue the filibuster to speak continuously for the duration of their filibustering – if there is nobody willing to continue the filibuster, debate ends and the voting begins. In 1957, Strom Thurmond set the current record of longest continuous filibuster (fighting the Civil Rights Act) by a single senator at 24 hours and 18 minutes. Unfortunately, the current operation of the filibuster has changed to allow a senator to simply declare a filibuster then go home, making it a tactic without a cost.

While the filibuster is important to preserve, as the minority must have some power to object to or stall extreme legislation, it should not be without cost. In order to sustain a filibuster, the filibustering senator/party should be required to continuously speak for the duration of the time they wish to prolong debate. By making it unreasonable to filibuster everything, as has been done recently, gridlock in Washington can be reduced and tyranny by the minority can be broken.

This petition is directed at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and is intended to persuade him to reform the filibuster by restoring it to its original rules. By signing this petition, you are signaling your support for the reform of the filibuster, not to remove it as a tactic, but to make it have a cost to the obstructing politicians; though this change, we can reduce gridlock in Washington DC and compel our politicians to stop partisan games and actually address policy.

PETITION LETTER

Dear Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,

As you are evidently aware, the filibuster has been abused in recent years, bringing the progress of the federal legislative branch to a halt. I am contacting you today to ask that you push towards reform of the filibuster tactic, while still keeping it as an option for the minority.

Out of the many ways which can be used to reform the filibuster, simply restoring the original rules of the filibuster is arguably the most effective method. By requiring the filibustering senator or party to have a continuous presence on the Senate floor for the duration of the filibuster, it is possible to retain the right to filibuster, yet disincentivize its use in all but the most extreme cases. While the filibuster is now being abused, it is an important tactic for the minority to have in order to stop extreme legislation, thus removing it wholesale is far more dangerous than this simple rule restoration.

I, and everybody else who has signed this letter, implore you to restore the filibuster rules to their original form, thus making it harder for a minority in one legislative branch to bring Washington to a halt. By making it possible, albeit very unpleasant to filibuster, it will allow Washington to move away from petty partisan gamesmanship and towards legislating solutions to the serious issues that currently face our country.

Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]