FAIR: Immigration and Rising Income Inequality

The Federation for American Immigration has just released a study detailing the connection between out of control immigration and increased income inequality in our country. http://tinyurl.com/25sv5r Here is a summary on the report:

Rising inequality in the United States is linked to rising immigration, falling union membership and rising international trade according to economists. But, these three trends are not independent of each other, and the rise in the immigrant population contributes to the other two trends.

Since 1970, the country’s immigrant population has grown by about 26 million persons — a 272 percent increase. Over the same period, the spread between mean and median family incomes — an indicator of increasing income inequality — has grown by nearly four times the rate of increase during the prior period (1947—70) when the immigrant population was fairly stable.

Since mass immigration was unleashed by the 1965 immigration law, increases in average inflation-adjusted family income have steadily shrunk and are approaching no growth, or — if the trend continues — negative growth.

The Bush administration’s proposal to increase immigration and increase both skilled and unskilled temporary foreign workers would increase the labor supply and, thereby, accelerate the trend in rising income inequality and the erosion of the middle class. http://www.fairus.org/

My favorite syndicated columnist Froma Harrop has written yet another excellent piece titled "The working class is not stupid about immigration." As someone who tells it like it is, Ms. Harrop takes aim at labor unions like the Service Workers International Union who are supporting amnesty for illegal aliens and politicians who would sell out working families. http://tinyurl.com/288jef Harrop writes:

"Democrats who think they can get away with throwing blue-collar America to the wolves in return for new immigrants' votes should think again. Many Latinos who are native-born or legal immigrants — however sympathetic to fellow Hispanics who want to come here — do understand how the labor market has been rigged against them. The open border is why median wages are higher in Alabama than they are in Texas."

"And there are other low-income groups who fancy their interests matter. T. William Fair, head of the Miami Urban League, appears in ads calling amnesty for illegal workers "a slap in the face to black Americans" and "an economic disaster." Some predict a new coalition of working-class blacks, whites and not a few Latinos questioning certain Democrats' loyalty to their cause. (Cheap-labor Republicans are already on notice.)"

"Controlled immigration is a good thing, and a little wage competition is an acceptable price for bringing new blood and energy into the country. But the numbers really do matter. If some unions and Democrats choose to deny the economic realities, they should at least be open about their motives. It would be highly risky to assume that everyone else is stupid."

http://www.chron.com/

Fortunately, the AFL-CIO has taken a strong stand against the guest worker program http://tinyurl.com/3af82s and we have Senators like Byron Dorgan (D-ND) who are still willing to fight for the interest of America's wage earners. Senator Dorgan points out three myths about the guest worker program which are part of the propaganda campaign from the cheap labor lobby.

It is, simply put, a plan that would bring cheap labor in the back door in the form of millions of foreign workers, even as we continue to export good paying American jobs to other countries," Dorgan said.

Those pushing the guest worker program are using myths to advance it, Dorgan charged Tuesday and he acted to correct those myths at a Capitol Hill press conference. He addressed three major myths about the program, and provided accurate information on each:

• Myth #1: The guest worker program allows up to 400,000 immigrants to come to America to work at jobs in the United States. That's a "vast understatement" Dorgan said, with the actual total number, thanks to an unacknowledged "multiplier" in the program, closer to 3.6 million additional workers who don't now live in the United States.

• Myth #2: The guest worker program applies to immigrants already in the United States. Every guest worker enrolled in the program would be a new immigrant, someone who is not here now. "Each person admitted to the United States under the guest worker program is exerting further downward pressure on wages, by adding to the number of people willing to work at low wages," Dorgan said.

• Myth #3: The guest worker program involves mostly agricultural jobs and other work Americans don't want to do. In truth, "these are not agricultural jobs. There is a separate program for additional agricultural workers. These are jobs in construction, manufacturing and transportation among other sectors. That's the backbone of our blue-collar middle class," Dorgan said.

Sadly, Senator Dorgan's arguments fell on deaf ears as the Senate has voted to defeat his amendment that would have killed the guest worker program.

There is still time to stop the dangerous Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty legislation. Contact your Senators and Representatives and urge them to oppose this sell-out of American workers.
http://tinyurl.com/yqk379 And if our politicians (Republican or Democratic) should think again if they believe it is possible to pander to the cheap labor lobby and win the support of working families.

Kansas Democratic Governor signs official English law

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius has signed legislation to make English the official language of Kansas. The measure, H.B. 2140, passed the House, 114-7 and the Senate, 32-8 earlier this year.

“I want to applaud Gov. Sebelius and Representatives Mario Goico, Candy Ruff, and Don Myers for their efforts in passing this bill,” said Mauro E. Mujica, Chairman of the Board of U.S. English, Inc. “English-speaking Kansans deserve to know that their tax dollars will not continue to perpetuate unfettered government translations. Newcomers to Kansas deserve opportunities to learn the English language and assimilate into our nation. This law benefits both natives and newcomers to the Sunflower State.”

As passed by the House and Senate, H.B. 2140 would make English the official language of Kansas. Under the legislation, state agencies would not be required to conduct business and provide documents in languages other than English, except where necessary to comply with federal law, protect public safety, and maintain Constitutional rights.

Kansas becomes the 30th state overall, and the third in seven months, to enact English as its official language, following Idaho in March and Arizona last November. The seven month span marks the shortest amount of time for three new states to adopt official English legislation since Montana, South Dakota and New Hampshire approved similar laws over three months in 1995.
“Making English the official language is not some stop-gap measure designed to thwart immigration,” continued Mujica, who immigrated from Chile in 1965. “It is a long term policy that takes into account that our nation functions best when we can all communicate in the same language, and that government must promote English learning for all Americans.”

Polls have shown enthusiastic support for official English among all segments of the population. A June 2006 poll from Rasmussen Reports found that 85 percent of Americans favor making English the official language of the United States, while a Oct. 2006 survey by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found support for a state law among nearly eight-in-ten Kansans. Most recently, a survey by the Harvard University Institute of Politics found that 72 percent of 18-24 year old Americans support making English the official language of the United States.

Strong support for official English has also been demonstrated at the state and federal levels, raising the possibility for a 31st state before the end of the year. More than 20 states had official English legislation introduced in the state legislature this year, and measures are still pending in several active chambers, including Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin. At the federal level, H.R. 997, the English Language Unity Act, has the support of more than 100 Representatives, making it one of the most widely supported bills in the 110th Congress.

“While Americans continue to search for that elusive solution to our immigration problem, they are more united than ever toward a focus on assimilation,” added Mujica. “Americans do not want to live in an ‘English-only’ nation, but they also oppose the creation of an ‘English-optional’ nation. I hope that more states will follow the lead of Kansas and provide the combination of beneficial government policy and increased English language learning funding.”

U.S. English, Inc. is the nation's oldest and largest non-partisan citizens' action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States. Founded in 1983 by the late Sen. S.I. Hayakawa of California, U.S. English, Inc. (http://www.usenglish.org/) now has more than 1.8 million members.

* ELLSWORTH SUPPORTS A STRONG DEFENSE

WASHINGTON – Continuing his track record of strongly supporting U.S. troops, Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) voted to restore military readiness and strengthen national defense. The House Armed Services Committee passed the 2008 Defense Authorization bill unanimously last week, and the House passed the bill today with overwhelming bipartisan support.

“As a member of the Armed Services Committee, my number one priority is providing our brave men and women in uniform with the weapons, equipment, and training they need to complete their missions,” said Ellsworth. “This is critical not only for current conflicts, but to ensure our Armed Forces are ready to respond to emerging threats throughout the world.”

The bill creates a Defense Readiness Production Board to identify critical weapons and equipment shortfalls and develop creative solutions to increase defense industry capacity and fill those shortfalls. It establishes a $1 billion Strategic Readiness Fund to meet this goal. In addition, the bill provides an additional $250 million to improve soldiers’ training in a full-spectrum of combat scenarios.

“There is no question the War in Iraq has had a crippling effect on our military. They simply do not have the weapons, equipment and training they need,” said Ellsworth. “We let these problems go unaddressed for too long. It will be a long road back to restoring readiness levels, but we took an important first step today.”

The bill addresses National Guard readiness concerns. In testimony before the Commission on the National Guard in January 2007, Lieutenant General Steven Blum said, “88 percent of the forces that are back here in the United States are very poorly equipped today in the Army National Guard.” Articles published late February about the possible early redeployment of National Guard troops from four states, including Indiana, conveyed similar findings with military officials indicating troops were currently short of some equipment needed for deployment. Indiana National Guard troops from the 76th Infantry Brigade Combat Team in Indianapolis have since been called up for redeployment to Iraq.

The bill requires the Department of Defense to conduct quarterly state-by-state assessments of National Guard capability to meet homeland and military responsibilities. Currently, there is no system in place to assess the National Guard’s ability to respond to natural disaster or national crisis. It also provides $1 billion to address shortfalls in ‘critical, high-priority equipment’ for National Guard units.

“National Guard units across the nation are playing a vital role in the security of our country; not only serving valiantly in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also responding to national crisis and natural disaster at home,” said Ellsworth. “However, their ability to respond to tomorrow’s crisis depends on the steps we take today. This Congress cannot afford to leave these shortfalls unaddressed, and I’m glad to see us taking action in this bill.”

The bill includes numerous provisions to further strengthen national defense. It provides $4.6 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles which could reduce casualties from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) by as much as 80%. It also includes billions of dollars for body armor, up-armored humvees, and other weapons and equipment for troops. It authorizes expanding the U.S. Army by 36,000 soldiers to alleviate the stress placed on soldiers and families, and provides $2.3 billion for military construction to accommodate the larger force.

“We need to treat our troops as if they were our own sons or daughters,” said Ellsworth. “Nothing but our full support is acceptable to me, and I think this bill accomplishes that goal. I am proud to support it.”


* PRO-IMMIGRATION CONTROL MAYOR WINS DEMOCRATIC, REPUBLICAN NODS

WASHINGTON, May 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- When Hazleton, Pennsylvania, Mayor Lou Barletta took the bold step of implementing local ordinances to curb illegal immigration in his city, he was widely described as "controversial." Barletta's strong stance against illegal immigration was so "controversial," in fact, that the two-term Republican not only won yesterday's Republican primary with 94.4 percent of the vote, but he won the Democratic nomination through a write-in campaign by nearly a 2-1 margin. Given the opportunity to express their views on Barletta's battle against illegal immigration, Hazleton residents did not so much as elect him to a third term, but virtually anointed him their mayor for the next four years.

The voters' judgment on Mayor Barletta presents an interesting contrast to a local election that took place in Herndon, Virginia, exactly one year ago. In that local election, the central campaign issue was the mayor's and city council's decision to fund an illegal alien day labor center, in spite of widespread public opposition. While Mayor Barletta was re-elected by acclaim in Hazleton, the mayor and all but one of the Herndon council members who voted to accommodate illegal aliens were swept out of office.

"FAIR congratulates Mayor Barletta not only for his remarkable and convincing victory in yesterday's election, but for his strong and principled stance against illegal immigration," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "Mayor Barletta has not only demonstrated how local governments can take an effective stance against illegal immigration in their communities, but he has proven that doing so is politically popular."

Since Hazleton moved to curtail illegal immigration by imposing local penalties against employers who hire and landlords who rent to illegal aliens, similar local policies have been adopted by cities all across the United States. "Mayor Barletta's sweeping bipartisan reelection proves, once again, that the assortment of illegal alien rights and civil liberties groups who file lawsuits challenging local ordinances and otherwise make a lot of noise, represent absolutely no one but themselves. When it comes to enforcing laws against illegal immigration, there simply is no controversy," declared Stein.

Barletta's convincing affirmation of his policies against illegal immigration comes precisely amidst Senate deliberations on legislation that would grant amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens, which is supported by President Bush. "According to the latest polls, the only people who are held in lower regard by the public than President Bush is Congress. The readiness of the people in Washington to sell out the interests of working Americans on immigration is emblematic of why they are held in such low esteem," Stein noted. "Back home, where Americans live with the consequences of unchecked illegal immigration, politicians who are prepared to enforce laws and protect ordinary citizens, enjoy overwhelming public support. The message out of Hazleton yesterday was very clear: Supporting immigration enforcement is perhaps the least controversial political position in America today."

Website: http://www.fairus.org/

Blue Dogs Applaud Chairman Skelton for Demanding Fiscal Accountability in Iraq

Members of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition held a press conference on Tuesday with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton on the upcoming Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization bill and the need for fiscal accountability in Iraq.

The Blue Dog Coalition applauded Chairman Skelton for including key provisions of H.Res.97 in the Defense Authorization bill. H.Res.97 was previously introduced by Blue Dog members and calls for transparency in how Iraq war funds are spent. Specifically, the Defense Authorization bill addresses the lack of oversight and accountability in the war by requiring that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report every six months on the handling of contracts in Iraq.

In addition, Blue Dog members applauded the inclusion of measures in the Defense Authorization bill which establish essential management goals for the Department of Defense and expand the authority of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction to include all reconstruction funding regardless of source or fiscal year.

“By including these Blue Dog-sponsored provisions in the Defense Authorization bill, Chairman Skelton has demonstrated a firm commitment to restoring fiscal accountability and responsibility to the government’s funding of the war in Iraq,” said Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications. “I encourage all members of Congress to embrace this goal and vote for passage of the Defense Authorization bill this week.”

“As a former soldier, it makes me very proud to be able to fight for accountability and oversight in Iraq and to demand answers here at home,” said Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), Co-Chair of the Blue Dog Task Force on National and Homeland Security. “With this bill we said that it would no longer be acceptable for billions of dollars to vanish and thousands of weapons to disappear without anyone asking a single tough question. I thank Chairman Skelton and my fellow Blue Dogs for their help in implementing long-overdue fiscal discipline and openness for war operations.”

"Fiscal responsibility and accountability are a Blue Dog's pedigree,” said Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Co-Chair of the Blue Dog Task Force on National and Homeland Security. “As the quagmire in Iraq deepens, neither has been observed. That is why inclusion of our Iraq legislation in the Defense Authorization bill is a critical "leash" on out-of-control behavior."

"Accountability is no longer optional for the federal government," said Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA). "Americans deserve to know where their tax dollars are going, and Iraq and Afghanistan are no exception. This Defense Authorization makes sure our tax dollars are going where they belong - protecting our troops, not lining the pockets of contractors. This bill will scrutinize every single contract and contractor to ensure it's in the American public's best interest."

“While I strongly support providing the equipment and resources our troops need to complete their missions, we cannot afford to exempt funding for the Iraq war from responsible scrutiny. The taxpayers deserve to know their money is being spent wisely there,” said Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN). “This is a common sense idea to ensure U.S. resources are directed at bringing a successful conclusion to this war, not lost to corrupt contractors, war profiteers, and enemy fighters.”

This action taken by Chairman Skelton and members of the Blue Dog Coalition comes on the heels of a damaging report issued by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction detailing continued and egregious abuses in the government’s funding of the war in Iraq. Inadequate facilities and non-functioning equipment built by highly paid contractors, insufficient monitoring of government contracts, and billions of dollars unaccounted for due to inefficiencies and bad management are just a few of the examples of waste, fraud and abuse detailed in the report.

The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States. Currently there are 43 members of the Blue Dog Coalition. For more information, visit the Blue Dog website at http://www.house.gov/ross/BlueDogs/.

Blue Dog members participating in the event included: Rep. Allen Boyd (FL-02), Co-Chair for Administration; Rep. Dennis Moore (KS-03), Co-Chair for Policy; Rep. Mike Ross (AR-04), Co-Chair for Communications; Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Whip; Rep. Jim Cooper (TN-05); Rep. Brad Ellsworth (IN-08); Rep. Jane Harman (CA-36); Rep. Tim Mahoney (FL-16); Rep. Jim Marshall (GA-08); Rep. Patrick Murphy (PA-08); Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11); Rep. John Tanner (TN-08); Rep. Gene Taylor (MS-04); and Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-01)

* TONY HALL TO ADDRESS PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATIC DINNER

Former Ambassador and Congressman Tony Hall (D-OH) will speak at the Democrats for Life Annual Hall of Fame Conference and Dinner to be held at the Phoenix Park Hotel in Washington, DC on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. At the dinner portion, Democrats For Life of America will honor Tony Hall, a long-time pro-life advocate in Congress and within the Democratic Party. While doing a web search on Tony Hall, I found an excellent address that he gave eleven years ago to the 1996 Democratic National Convention which is still very timely.

REPRESENTATIVE HALL: "Mr. Chairman and fellow Democrats, I have the high honor of speaking to you today about an issue that's very dear to my heart, the needs of the vulnerable in our nation, the poor, the sick, the elderly, the children, and the unborn. The moral test of government, Hubert Humphrey said, is how that government treats those that are in the dawn of life, the children, those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly, and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick. I have had the privilege of working with the poor and the hungry of our nation and I can tell you that hunger affects the lives of more than 20 million Americans each year. Too many of our children go to bed hungry every night and more than 2500 verses in the Bible address the pain and of the hurting and the afflicted."

"How are we as a nation and as individuals, how are we responding to this call? I'm proud that we Democrats are continuing to fight for several Federal initiatives -- school lunches, food stamps, nutrition for mothers and children. Each is an essential part of the basic safety net for needy people. But compassion is more than government programs. It's also people helping people through private efforts. And one reason I'm proud to be a Democrat is that Democrats support compassion and action. Democrats open their doors to those in need, literally."

"In my community, the Democratic Party of Dayton, Ohio has opened up its building to shelter and feed homeless and hungry families. And by doing this, we are showing that Democrats stand for more than just winning elections. We stand for helping people."

"I'm a pro-life Democrat. I'm one of about 40 Democrats in the Congress. And many of us have felt left out by our party's position on abortion for many years. But this year is different. For the first time, the Democratic Party has included in our Platform a conscience clause on this divisive issue. It says, "the Democratic Party therefore recognizes that individual members have a right to abide by their conscience on this difficult issue and are welcome participants at every level of the party."

"The Democratic Party is indeed the party of true inclusions. And it is the party where every American can feel welcome and at home. We Democrats believe that our government and our whole society will be judged on how we treat the least of these among us. So we renew our pledge to be a voice for the voiceless and we reaffirm our commitment to the principle that public service is not an end in itself but rather a means to serve others. With God's help, let us make the United States the compassionate and tolerant nation it was established to be. Thank you very much."

For information on the Annual Hall of Fame Conference and Dinner, go the Democrats for Life at http://www.democratsforlife.org/

*PRO-ENFORCEMENT CAUCUS GAINS DEMOCRATS

Border Line http://tinyurl.com/23r6f7 reported last Friday that a pro-immigration enforcement caucus in the U.S. House has gained some Democratic members.

"The House Immigration Reform Caucus, which pushes for stronger enforcement against illegal immigration, announced this week it has 10 new members, pushing its total to 101."

"The new members include three Southern Democrats — Reps. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Bart Gordon of Tennessee and Gene Taylor of Mississippi."

"This could prove significant as Democratic leaders try to shore up their rank-and-file to support legislation that would give illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship and create a large guest worker program."

It is encouraging that populist Democrats like Gordon, Shuler and Taylor are taking a stand for protecting American workers rather than pandering to illegal aliens.

Dissent Magazine: Can the Populist Moment Last ?

Writing in the Spring 2007 edition of Dissent Magazine, Benjamin Ross asks the question, can the Democratic populist moment last ? http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=%20763

Last November, Democrats won middle and working class voting precincts by railing against "free trade" policies and excessive compensation packages for corporate CEO's. The Democrats recapture of Congress in the 2006 was in large part due to the return of voters with socially conservative-economically populist views.

So far the Democratic Congress has shown populist leanings by passing a minimum wage increase and legislation that would lower the interest rate on student loans. Still, there are concerns that a business as usual approach is creeping in.

The newly reached agreement between Congressional Democratic leaders and the Bush White House on free trade treaties with Columbia, Panama, Peru and South Carolina has drawn skepticism from some populist Democrats in Congress. Some Democrats strongly doubt that the Bush Administration will enforce the environmental and labor standards touted by Democratic leaders including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Representative Mary Kaptur D-OH told the Associated Press that "the strongest voices for workers and the environment were not included in the negotiations and were not informed of the deal."

If the "free trade" compromise is any indication of where the new Congress is going, populist voters may conclude as in the Clinton years of the 90's that neither party is looking out for the interests of working Americans. In fact, the mix of free trade advocacy and social liberalism during the Clinton-Gore policies seemed to express a less than subtle contempt for the socially traditionalist labor voters that had loyally supported the Democratic Party since FDR. Many
"New Democrats" envisioned a socially liberal "yuppie" party filled with educated, high-tech workers and Republican Bob Dole even mentioned upscale "Soccer Moms" in the 1996 Presidential debate. Now that many of the tech jobs have moved overseas and the middle class is feeling much greater economic anxiety, it seems that populism has a new lease on life. The problem is that many of our politicians in both parties are beholden to Wall Street and the "K' Street lobbyists rather than to the public.

As Ross points out, working class populist-social traditionalist voters never really disappeared but for the past twenty years both parties have been concentrating on winning over upscale voters with conservative views on economic matters and liberal views on social issues. Such voters are seen as more important as they are more affluent and far more likely to contribute to campaigns that working and lower middle class social traditionalist-populist types. The power of elitist social liberals within the Democratic Party has been increased by the proliferation of single issue groups favoring causes like abortion and gay-lesbian rights.

Ross also notes that in 2006, Republicans were able to resist in the Democratic trend in key House races in upscale and socially liberal "hedge fund" areas like Greenwich,Connecticut and the suburbs of cities like Chicago and Seattle. Ross writes:

"The economically liberal and socially conservative have always been a large segment of the electorate. A 1999 Pew Research Center survey categorized one-third of all Democrats in a “socially conservative” group. Together with the “partisan poor” who had similarly traditional attitudes on religious and social issues, they made up the majority of all Democratic voters. Nearly a third of Republicans fell into a “populist” group that had decidedly anti-business views. Yet in the Congress of that year there were few Democrats, and certainly no Republicans, with such combinations of opinions. What caused the severe underrepresentation of populist voters in Congress, and what changed to enable populists to arrive with such sudden force?"

"The answer to this question lies in the enduring inequalities of class. Numbers do not translate automatically into political power. For one thing, the media are dominated by elite opinion, in its divisions over social issues and in its agreements about economics. On issues such as trade and the minimum wage, where elite and mass diverge most sharply, the views of the great majority of the American people are presented as the fringe of the debate. The fundamental human right of workers to organize earns hardly a mention."

"An even more important factor is the financing of political campaigns. The cost of campaigns has skyrocketed since the 1970s; a serious challenge for a House seat costs upward of a million dollars, and Senate races often exceed ten million. Economic progressives have found it hard to keep pace with the rising price of politics. Unions, with their membership stagnant, were unable to compete in the financial arms race; the Catholic and Jewish ethnic networks that helped pay for New Deal-era campaigns moved to the right on economics as memories of immigrant generations faded; and the generation of progressive political donors formed by the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War had less inclination to Democratic partisanship than the generation formed by the New Deal and the Second World War."

"By the 1990s, Democratic campaigns relied heavily on single-issue contributors motivated by noneconomic issues—feminism, the environment, gay rights, gun control, and others. The party also drew its funds from relatively friendly business interests in such sectors as entertainment, finance, and computer software. Between these two groups there was considerable overlap in views, and frequently in membership, with the business people inclined toward social liberalism and the social liberals often sharing the globalist views of the businesses. An across-the-board progressive like Paul Wellstone could still mobilize social liberals to finance his campaigns. But candidates of the stripe of Jim Webb and Heath Shuler were largely shut out of the process."

"In the waning years of the George W. Bush era, the politics of campaign finance has changed entirely. Money floods into Democratic coffers driven by outrage at the Iraq War, the erosion of civil liberties, and the influence of a religious right that has become part of the Republican Party machine. Although most of the individual contributors probably hold more or less the same opinions about questions of public policy as the single-issue donors of the 1990s, they are motivated by a profoundly different political outlook. Democrats have become thoroughly partisan. Their overriding objective is to end Republican control of the government. To that end, any Democrat with a chance of winning will be supported—and in most of the places where seats can be gained, that means populists."

"The last few years have been a time for putting party before issues. Iowa Caucus-goers of 2004 rejected Howard Dean in the hope of defeating Bush, and the bloggers of 2006 promoted the insurgent primary candidacies of social conservatives Webb and Tester. Among donors, similarly, partisanship trumps economics. The paychecks of thousand-dollar campaign contributors will surely not be enlarged by a higher minimum wage, yet they cheer Nancy Pelosi’s determination to put this vote-winning issue at the top of her agenda. Democratic candidates, assured of the funds needed to run a campaign, are set free to represent voters rather than money."

"It is this rapid change in the temper of the political class, and of its campaign-contributing subclass specifically, that fueled the sudden populist surge of 2006. When this partisan temper cools, as it will if Democrats recapture the presidency in 2008, the populist tide will inevitably recede with it. That is not because populist voters will be less numerous, but because the conditions will be less favorable for translating their numbers into political power."

"The tide will recede, but it will not likely fall back to its previous ebb. Political motion develops its own momentum, and especially so when it carries a previously excluded group into the halls of power. Once included in the political debate, populist views will be hard to shut out. Democratic contributors educated by the 2006 election returns will remain open to supporting populist candidates. The loss of economic security in an era of globalization will continue to draw voters’ attention to social inequalities. And, we may hope, Democrats will seize this populist moment to enact structural reforms in campaign finance and union rights, so that the votes of the many carry a little more weight against the campaign contributions of the few. " http://www.dissentmagazine.org/

I agree. We need a populist Democratic Party rather than two parties representing Wall Street. While I favor a moderate to conservative course on social and national security issues, Democrats must represent the interests of workers and consumers rather than the powerful corporate interests that have have ruled our country for the past 25 years.