Right Democrat: A Mainstream Populist Voice

Revive the WPA and Put America Back to Work

2011-05-11T17:01:00.000-07:00

David Woolner makes the case for reviving the Works Progress Administration (WPA) at New Deal 2.0:

Begun 76 years ago, the WPA brought America into the modern age. Our times call for a repeat of this effort.

More than three quarters of a century ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that the “demoralization caused by vast unemployment is our greatest extravagance. Morally it is the greatest menace to our social order.” He also insisted that he would “stand or fall” by his “refusal to accept as a necessary condition of our future a permanent army of unemployed.” On the contrary, he said, “we must make it a national principle that we will not tolerate a large army of unemployed and that we will arrange our national economy to end our present unemployment as soon as we can and then take wise measures against its return. I do not think it is the destiny of any American to remain permanently on relief rolls.”

To put people back to work, FDR launched a series of programs designed to protect America’s environment (through the CCC reforestation programs and creation of the shelter belt in the Midwest to bring an end to the Dust Bowl) and build America’s economic infrastructure. The most famous of these was launched seventy-six years ago today: the Works Progress Administration or WPA. Between 1935 and 1943, the WPA literally built the infrastructure of modern America, including 572,000 miles of rural roads, 67,000 miles of urban streets, 122,000 bridges, 1,000 tunnels, 1,050 fifty airfields, and 4,000 airport buildings. It also constructed 500 water treatment plants, 1,800 pumping stations, 19,700 miles of water mains, 1,500 sewage treatment plants, 24,000 miles of sewers and storm drains, 36,900 schools, 2,552 hospitals, 2,700 firehouses, and nearly 20,000 county, state, and local government buildings.

Conservatives critics charged that the WPA was a “make work” program, but its accomplishments, which touched nearly every community in America, continue to make a mockery of this charge. The WPA put millions of skilled and unskilled laborers back to work — it was a requirement of the program that all those involved in the projects, from the architects and engineers down to the construction laborers, be hired by WPA dollars. It provided the critical economic infrastructure needed to bring the United States into the modern age.

Sadly, many of the conditions that led to the creation of the WPA are once again with us today: high unemployment and a crumbling economic infrastructure that is rapidly rendering the United States less and less competitive in the global economy. This sorry state of affairs is detailed in a recent article in The Economist, which notes, among other things, that the United States’ public spending on transport and water infrastructure has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at a paltry 2.4% of GDP. Meanwhile, Europe spends on average 5% of GDP on infrastructure and China is spending 9%. In fact, the United States, according to the article, does not spend nearly enough just to maintain, let alone expand, its existing transport and water systems. The result is that today the US ranks 23rd among the nations of the world in overall infrastructure quality, according to a recent study by the World Economic Forum.

A new and even modest stimulus package would help alleviate this critical problem and provide millions of skilled and unskilled jobs, but the deficit hawks in Congress will have none of this. They insist that such a use of government is contrary to the American way.

To this, FDR’s would no doubt reply:

[T]o those who say that our expenditures for Public Works and other means for recovery are a waste that we cannot afford, I answer that no country, however rich, can afford the waste of its human resources…

In our efforts for recovery we have avoided on the one hand the theory that business should and must be taken over into an all-embracing Government. We have avoided on the other hand the equally untenable theory that it is an interference with liberty to offer reasonable help when private enterprise is in need of help. The course we have followed fits the American practice of Government — a practice of taking action step by step, of regulating only to meet concrete needs — a practice of courageous recognition of change. I believe with Abraham Lincoln, that “The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all or cannot do so well for themselves in their separate and individual capacities.”

Isn’t it time we rebuilt our nation and put people back to work? Time for a new WPA?

David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute.

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/05/06/the-wpa-that-built-america-is-needed-once-again-44003/

Tea Partyers should be angry about income inequality

2011-03-12T10:26:00.000-08:00

The American middle class is rapidly losing ground as the top one percent get richer. John Hamilton says the tea party crowd is angry about the wrong things. The real issue is a growing income inequality which has been fueled by years of free trade policies, corporate offshoring of jobs, tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of the financial industry.

Hamilton writes:

The tea partyers have a right to be angry. They are just focused on the wrong thing.

What they should be mad about — hopping mad — is the growing inequality of income in the United States.

The distribution of our national income has become severely skewed. It is worse than in every single country of the Middle East and approaches Latin America's discord-sowing levels. On the Gini Index, where higher numbers represent higher inequality, the U.S. comes in at 45. For comparison, the numbers in Latin America range from 41 in Venezuela to 59 in Haiti. With a score of 23, Sweden leads all nations in having the most equal distribution of income.

Does this matter? It does. As a U.S. diplomat in Latin America, I saw what severe income inequality does to a society: it generates pervasive grievances that fuel a volatile and often violent politics; it fractures social cohesion; and it throttles economic development. The last point is critical. In the United States, the economic activity of a robust middle class has been an important driver of growth. Until recently, that is. In 1970, when our Gini coefficient was 39.4, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans took in 9.7 percent of national income. That was a lot, but today the equivalent figure is 23.7 percent. The wealthiest one-tenth of 1 percent receives an astonishing 12.3 percent of national income.

According to former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, middle-class economic activity is no longer generating new growth and jobs. As the purchasing power of the middle classes declined after 1970, families coped for a time. Women earned a second income; all workers put in longer hours and families drew on the equity in their homes. As those strategies are now exhausted, job growth is anemic. And because the wealthy can spend only a fraction of their income, they are not generating new growth either. (To spend an annual income of $10 million — not uncommon in the corporate world — one has to spend $27,397 every day.) Extreme income inequality benefits no one — not even the wealthy.

The growth of inequality, according to Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson (authors of Winner-Take-All Politics), was largely caused by public policy. Left alone, robust capitalism tends to produce inequality, as it did by the 1890s and again during the 1920s. It took the reforms of the Progressive Movement and New Deal to restore balance.

The New Deal and such post-war measures as the GI Bill contributed to the "great prosperity" of 1945-1970, when middle income gains actually exceeded upper income increases. After 1970, however, a "drifting" public policy ignored growing income inequality or even abetted it through de-regulation and tax policy. Hedge fund managers, for example, have their fee-derived income taxed at 15 percent. As Warren Buffet famously noted, he pays a lower rate of income tax than his salaried secretary.

A focus on income inequality lends an alternative optic on the tea party and conservative narrative that our economic difficulties have their origin in too much government — too much regulation, too much spending on the poor. Rather, the political class has been lax in its stewardship of societal good health. Remedies call for policies that would not have to be more than mildly redistributive — boosting the Earned Income Tax Credit, for example, imposing higher marginal tax rates on the wealthy and taxing capital gains at the same rate as wages and salaries. Such policies are unlikely to be adopted, however, until the public better understands income inequality in all its pernicious dimensions.

As a diplomat who spent most of his career in Latin America, I came to love the region — its peoples and cultures — and to admire many things about it. But not its inequality of income. We should not go there.

John Hamilton of Shelton, Wash., is a retired U.S. Foreign Service officer. He was U.S. Ambassador to Peru in 1999-2002 and to Guatemala in 2002-2005.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2014449005_guest10hamilton.html

China space weapons pose threat to U.S. Navy

2011-03-12T10:03:00.000-08:00

A warning about a military threat posed by China from space comes to us via Space Ref. Craig Vovault reports:

China's Military Space Surge

By Craig Covault,Aerospace America

China's surging military space program is poised to challenge U.S. aircraft carrier operations in the Pacific, as Chinese military spacecraft already gather significant new radar, electrooptical imaging, and signal intelligence data globally.

During 2010, China more than doubled its military satellite launch rate to 12. This compares with three to five military missions launched each year between 2006 and 2009. Since 2006, China has launched about 30 military related spacecraft. Its total of 15 launches in 2010 set a new record for China and for the first time equaled the U.S. flight rate for a given year.

Most U.S. public and media attention has focused on China's occasional manned flights and its maturing unmanned lunar program. But China's military space surge reveals a program where more than half of its spacecraft are like 'wolves in sheep's clothing,' posing a growing threat to U.S. Navy operations in the Pacific. India's navy is also concerned.

"This is a really big deal. These military spacecraft are being launched at a very rapid pace" says Andrew S. Erickson, a Naval War College expert on China's naval and space forces. China is becoming a military space power within a global context." At least three or four different Chinese military satellite systems are being networked to support China's 1,500 km+ range DF-21D antiship ballistic missile (ASBM) program, say U.S. analysts. The DF-21D is being designed to force U.S. Navy aircraft carrier battle groups and other large U.S. allied warships to operate hundreds of miles farther away from China or North Korea than they do today.

The ASBM "has undergone repeated tests and has reached initial operational capability," Adm. Robert Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command said recently in Tokyo. The new Chinese space capabilities, combined with development of the DF-21D, are already having an effect on the planning of future operations in the Pacific, says Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

"I'm trying to get people to think about how do we use aircraft carriers in a world environment where other countries [China specifically] will have the capability, between their missile and satellite capabilities, to knock out a carrier," Gates said recently at Duke University. "How do you use carriers differently in the future than we've used them in the past?" he asked.

The full article appears in the March 2011 issue of Aerospace America published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1510

http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/

Downstate Democrats Back Illinois Concealed Carry Law

2011-03-11T23:31:00.000-08:00

Lobbying their legislators in support of a concealed carry law in Illinois, hundreds of Illinois gun owners marched yesterday at the state capitol in Springfield as a part of Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day (IGOLD). Illinois is one of two states in the country that does not allow concealed carry. Past attempts to pass a law have stalled.

Senate Bill 82, the Family and Personal Protection Act sponsored by State Senator Gary Forby (D – Benton), would legalize concealed carry in Illinois. The bill creates procedures by which county sheriffs could issue concealed carry permits to persons at least 21 years old with no record of felonies, violence, mental illness, or substance abuse. Applicants would also be required to complete specific trainings, including classroom instruction and live firing exercises.

State Senator John Sullivan (D – Rushville), Chairman of the Senate Democratic Downstate Caucus and co-sponsor of SB 82, noted the support of several other members of the downstate caucus, including Senator Mike Frerichs (D – Champaign), Senator William Haine (D – Alton), Senator Mike Jacobs (D – Moline), and Senator Dave Koehler (D – Peoria).

Senator Sullivan has created an online petition where citizens can show their support for concealed carry in Illinois. To sign, please visit http://www.senatorjohnsullivan.com/concealedcarry.

“I agree with many people in my district that it’s time to allow responsible gun owners the right to conceal and carry in Illinois,” said Sullivan. “I invite everyone to stand with me by signing the petition on my website.”

In addition to Senator Sullivan, the following senators issued statements in support of SB 82 and concealed carry in Illinois:

Senator Gary Forby (D – Benton):
“Over 290 million people in 48 other states can responsibly exercise their right to carry concealed weapons,” said Forby. “It’s outrageous that five million people that don’t trust their law-abiding neighbors enough are blocking this right from seven and a half million other citizens.”

Senator William Haine (D – Alton):
“It is time that Illinois joins 48 other states in the Union to allow responsible citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights and protect themselves and their families,” Haine stated. “This bill assures that only well-trained, responsible citizens are allowed to carry their firearms in a concealed capacity.”

Senator Dave Koehler (D – Peoria):
“Many, many people in my district have made it clear that they support legalizing conceal and carry,” Koehler said. “I stand with them and urge them to sign Senator Sullivan’s petition. We need to show the other senators in Springfield how strongly the people of Central and Southern Illinois feel about this issue.”

House Democrats support rebuilding America's intrastructure

2011-03-10T21:33:00.000-08:00

The Hill's Finance and Economy Blog reports:

House Ways and Means Committee Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to provide financing for infrastructure investments around the nation.

The measure extends eight bond, tax credit and loan guarantee programs for states and municipalities, anchored by the Build America Bonds (BAB) program, which helped finance $181 billion in infrastructure projects in the past two years, according to the committee.

“These proven programs are vital in our effort to rebuild America’s infrastructure and economy," said Ways and Means Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-Mich.). “There are still far too many states and municipalities, in addition to the 14 million unemployed Americans, struggling to regain their footing after the Great Recession, and this legislation gives them the tools to make long-needed investments."

There is an appetite in the Senate to finance an overhaul of the nation's infrastructure that could align with the Obama administration's $556 billion proposal, or at least provide some funding for the projects included in the fiscal year 2012 budget request.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has said he'd like to see a six-year transportation infrastructure bill ready before the August recess.

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) have recently discussed renewing the BAB program, which expired Dec. 31, with a focus on transportation projects to attract a broader range of support.

The Building American Jobs Act of 2011 includes:

• Build America Bonds — extend the program through 2012, with a 32 percent subsidy rate in 2011, and 31 percent subsidy rate in 2012.

• Recovery Zone Bonds — make an additional allocation of Recovery Zone bonds to ensure each local municipality receives a minimum allocation equal to at least its share of national unemployment in December 2009. The bill would also extend the authorization for issuing bonds through 2011.

• Water & Sewer Bonds — exclude bonds financing facilities that furnish water and sewage facilities from state volume caps. The bill would also exclude bonds financing facilities that furnish water and sewage facilities from certain limitations on tribal government issuances.

• AMT/Private Activity Bonds — extend both provisions for one year (i.e., exempt from AMT tax-exempt private activity bonds issued in 2011 and current refunding of private activity bonds issued after 2003 and refunded during 2011).

• New Markets Tax Credit — allow NMTC to be claimed against the AMT with respect to qualified investments made between March 15, 2010 and January 1, 2012.

• Federal Home Loan Bank Bond Guarantees — extends ability of FHLBs to guarantee tax-exempt bonds through 2011.

• Small Issuer Exception for Bank-Qualified Bonds — extends the ability of financial institutions to purchase tax-exempt bonds of up to $30 million per issuer (from $10 million) through 2011.

• Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Exchange Program — extends the ability of states to receive a portion of their LIHTC allocation as a direct payment through 2011.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/148707-house-democrats-introduce-legislation-to-provide-infrastructure-financing

Congressman Ben Chandler Fights High Gas Prices

2011-03-10T21:25:00.000-08:00

Congressman Ben Chandler (D-KY) has filed a bill with his colleagues in Congress to lower prices at the pump. This bill will authorize penalties of up to $500 million for large companies selling oil, gasoline, and diesel at excessive prices or taking unfair advantage of circumstances during an international crisis.

“Greedy oil companies and CEOs shouldn’t be allowed to take advantage of Kentuckians trying to make ends meet in this tough economy,” Chandler said. “It is unacceptable. Gas prices are high enough already, we need to put an end to price gouging and price speculation once and for all.”

H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, will empower the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general to institute civil and criminal penalties for fuel price gouging during periods proclaimed by the president as an international crisis affecting oil markets. This legislation could also apply to speculation in the oil futures market. The civil penalty for engaging in price gouging would be a fine of not more than $100 million. The criminal penalty for a corporation engaging in price gouging would be up to $500 million.

Originally introduced by Rep. Tim Bishop, Chandler is an original cosponsor of the bill with Representatives John Yarmuth (KY), Jerry McNerney (CA), Tim Walz (MN), Mike McIntyre (NC), and Bruce Braley (IA).

H.R.964 -- Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act (Introduced in House - IH)

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 964
To protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and other fuels, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 9, 2011
Mr. BISHOP of New York (for himself, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. WALZ of Minnesota, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. YARMUTH, and Mr. CHANDLER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL
To protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and other fuels, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act'.

SEC. 2. UNCONSCIONABLE PRICING OF GASOLINE AND OTHER PETROLEUM DISTILLATES DURING EMERGENCIES.

(a) Unconscionable Pricing-

(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, at wholesale or at retail in an area and during a period of an international crisis affecting the oil markets proclaimed under paragraph (2), gasoline or any other petroleum distillate covered by a proclamation issued under paragraph (2) at a price that--

(A) is unconscionably excessive; and

(B) indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage of the circumstances related to an international crisis to increase prices unreasonably.

(2) ENERGY EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The President may issue a proclamation of an international crisis affecting the oil markets and may designate any area within the jurisdiction of the United States, where the prohibition in paragraph (1) shall apply. The proclamation shall state the geographic area covered, the gasoline or other petroleum distillate covered, and the time period that such proclamation shall be in effect.

(B) DURATION- The proclamation--

(i) may not apply for a period of more than 30 consecutive days, but may be renewed for such consecutive periods, each not to exceed 30 days, as the President determines appropriate; and

(ii) may include a period of time not to exceed 1 week preceding a reasonably foreseeable emergency.

(3) FACTORS CONSIDERED- In determining whether a person has violated paragraph (1), there shall be taken into account, among other factors--

(A) whether the amount charged by such person for the applicable gasoline or other petroleum distillate at a particular location in an area covered by a proclamation issued under paragraph (2) during the period such proclamation is in effect--

(i) grossly exceeds the average price at which the applicable gasoline or other petroleum distillate was offered for sale by that person during the 30 days prior to such proclamation;

(ii) grossly exceeds the price at which the same or similar gasoline or other petroleum distillate was readily obtainable in the same area from other competing sellers during the same period;

(iii) reasonably reflected additional costs, not within the control of that person, that were paid, incurred, or reasonably anticipated by that person, or reflected additional risks taken by that person to produce, distribute, obtain, or sell such product under the circumstances; and

(iv) was substantially attributable to local, regional, national, or international market conditions; and

(B) whether the quantity of gasoline or other petroleum distillate the person produced, distributed, or sold in an area covered by a proclamation issued under paragraph (2) during a 30-day period following the issuance of such proclamation increased over the quantity that that person produced, distributed, or sold during the 30 days prior to such proclamation, taking into account usual seasonal demand variations.

(b) Definitions- As used in this section--

(1) the term `wholesale', with respect to sales of gasoline or other petroleum distillates, means either truckload or smaller sales of gasoline or petroleum distillates where title transfers at a product terminal or a refinery, and dealer tank wagon sales of gasoline or petroleum distillates priced on a delivered basis to retail outlets; and

(2) the term `retail', with respect to sales of gasoline or other petroleum distillates, includes all sales to end users such as motorists as well as all direct sales to other end users such as agriculture, industry, residential, and commercial consumers.

SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

(a) Enforcement by FTC- A violation of section 2 shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of this Act. In enforcing section 2 of this Act, the Commission shall give priority to enforcement actions concerning companies with total United States wholesale or retail sales of gasoline and other petroleum distillates in excess of $10,000,000,000 per year.

(b) Civil Penalties-

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding the penalties set forth under the Federal Trade Commission Act, any person who violates section 2 with actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances shall be subject to--

(A) a civil penalty of not more than 3 times the amount of profits gained by such person through such violation; or

(B) a civil penalty of not more than $100,000,000.

(2) METHOD- The penalties provided by paragraph (1) shall be obtained in the same manner as civil penalties obtained under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).

(3) MULTIPLE OFFENSES; MITIGATING FACTORS- In assessing the penalty provided by subsection (a)--

(A) each day of a continuing violation shall be considered a separate violation; and

(B) the court shall take into consideration, among other factors, the seriousness of the violation and the efforts of the person committing the violation to remedy the harm caused by the violation in a timely manner.

SEC. 4. CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

(a) In General- In addition to any penalty applicable under section 3, any person who violates section 2 shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, in an amount not to exceed $500,000,000.

(b) Enforcement- The criminal penalty provided by subsection (a) may be imposed only pursuant to a criminal action brought by the Attorney General or other officer of the Department of Justice. The Attorney General shall give priority to enforcement actions concerning companies with total United States wholesale or retail sales of gasoline and other petroleum distillates in excess of $10,000,000,000 per year.

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT AT RETAIL LEVEL BY STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL.

(a) In General- A State, as parens patriae, may bring a civil action on behalf of its residents in an appropriate district court of the United States to enforce the provisions of section 2 of this Act, or to impose the civil penalties authorized by section 3(b)(1)(B), whenever the attorney general of the State has reason to believe that the interests of the residents of the State have been or are being threatened or adversely affected by a violation of this Act or a regulation under this Act, involving a retail sale.

(b) Notice- The State shall serve written notice to the Federal Trade Commission of any civil action under subsection (a) prior to initiating such civil action. The notice shall include a copy of the complaint to be filed to initiate such civil action, except that if it is not feasible for the State to provide such prior notice, the State shall provide such notice immediately upon instituting such civil action.

(c) Authority To Intervene- Upon receiving the notice required by subsection (b), the Federal Trade Commission may intervene in such civil action and upon intervening--

(1) be heard on all matters arising in such civil action; and

(2) file petitions for appeal of a decision in such civil action.

(d) Construction- For purposes of bringing any civil action under subsection (a), nothing in this section shall prevent the attorney general of a State from exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by the laws of such State to conduct investigations or to administer oaths or affirmations or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documentary and other evidence.

(e) Venue; Service of Process- In a civil action brought under subsection (a)--

(1) the venue shall be a judicial district in which--

(A) the defendant operates;

(B) the defendant was authorized to do business; or

(C) the defendant in the civil action is found;

(2) process may be served without regard to the territorial limits of the district or of the State in which the civil action is instituted; and

(3) a person who participated with the defendant in an alleged violation that is being litigated in the civil action may be joined in the civil action without regard to the residence of the person.

(f) Limitation on State Action While Federal Action Is Pending- If the Federal Trade Commission has instituted a civil action or an administrative action for violation of this Act, no State attorney general, or official or agency of a State, may bring an action under this subsection during the pendency of that action against any defendant named in the complaint of the Federal Trade Commission or the other agency for any violation of this Act alleged in the complaint.

(g) Enforcement of State Law- Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit an authorized State official from proceeding in State court to enforce a civil or criminal statute of such State.

SEC. 6. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

(a) Other Authority of Federal Trade Commission- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or affect in any way the Federal Trade Commission's authority to bring enforcement actions or take any other measure under the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) or any other provision of law.

(b) State Law- Nothing in this Act preempts any State law.

Oklahoma "right-to-work" law failed to create jobs

2011-03-01T20:12:00.001-08:00

Right-to-work laws do not boost employment growth in the states in which they
are enacted, a new Economic Policy Institute (EPI) Briefing Paper finds. In fact, Right-to-work laws may actually harm a state’s economic prospects. Does “Right-to-Work” Create Jobs? Answers from Oklahoma by Gordon Lafer and Sylvia Allegretto examines the economic consequences of enacting right-to-work laws and uses Oklahoma as a case study; while most right-to-work laws have been in place for three decades or more, Oklahoma’s law was enacted in 2001. http://epi.3cdn.net/fd70a3db178e318a6c_8um6iihw9.pdf

Right-to-work laws make it illegal for unionized workers to negotiate a contract that requires each employee who enjoys the benefit of the contract to pay his or her share of the costs of negotiating and policing it. In effect, right-to-work laws limit the effectiveness of unions to negotiate higher wages and benefits for their members. Right-to-work laws are in place in 22 states, and state legislatures in states including Indiana and Michigan are currently debating passage of new ones.

Because Oklahoma is the only state to have adopted right-to-work in the current era of globalization, its experience is particularly telling. Does “Right-to-Work” Create Jobs? finds that manufacturing employment in Oklahoma, which increased in the 10 years prior to the enactment of the right-to-work law, fell steadily in the years following it, suggesting that the law had little impact on the state’s manufacturing sector. The right-to-work law in Oklahoma did not buffer it from the country’s employment crisis in 2001-2003 or the Great Recession, either. Compared to the six states that border it, Oklahoma was no better off in terms of its unemployment rate or its rate of job growth in 2010 than it was in 2000, prior to enactment of its right-to-work law. Finally, the number of out-of-state businesses opening plants in Oklahoma decreased following the adoption of right-to-work. Furthermore, more than
160 Oklahoma employers have announced mass layoffs and 100 facilities have closed
since right-to-work was enacted.

Right-to-work laws could in fact have a negative effect on a state’s economy. When weakened unions negotiate contracts with lower wages and fewer benefits, workers spend less on housing, food and other necessities. Wages for non-union workers also decline when right-to-work is adopted, because employers no longer face pressure to match union contract standards. Local and state governments therefore receive less in tax revenues and must cut public services—services that are critical to effective economic development. In addition, the economic sectors that hold the most promise for growth are in construction and service industries rooted in local communities, not those dependent on mobile, lower wage manufacturers.

Can worker-owned cooperatives help solve the jobs crisis ?

2011-02-27T17:08:00.000-08:00

Spain's Mondragon Cooperative is owned by the approximately 89,000 employees and serves as a worldwide model for worker-owned cooperatives.

Reporting at La Prensa San Diego, Mark Day takes a look at the viability of worker-owned cooperatives as a viable economic model. Such cooperatives can vary in size from a few employees to the large Mondragon Cooperative.

Day writes:

The worker-owned cooperative, an economic workplace model that has been around for decades is making a comeback. In some parts of the U.S. new coops are sprouting up, cutting unemployment rates and revitalizing economically depressed communities.

La Prensa San Diego recently toured several cooperatives in Oakland and Berkeley and spoke with people whose lives have been transformed by the cooperative experience.

Sandra Martinez, a worker at A Taste of Denmark bakery in Oakland, recently told her story. In mid-2010, Neldam’s, the original bakery, suddenly went out of business after 81 years. The building’s owners, Kevin and Sukhee Yoo, faced with an empty property, formed a coop with 12 workers, including Martinez, re-naming it A Taste of Denmark.

“I didn’t know what a cooperative was,” said Martinez, seated at a table near the baked goods displays. “We weren’t asked for money. They wanted our experience.”

Martinez said that for the workers, the bakery’s morale changed for the better. “Before, the bosses yelled at each other and at us,” she said. “Things are less stressful now. We have a better sense of what we are doing. Besides, my pay has improved and I am guaranteed my 40 hours a week.”

Another side effect, say the bakery workers, is that A Taste of Denmark is now expanding its menu to cater to the Latino and Asian markets and has a website featuring specials and new products.

The worldwide gold standard for cooperatives is the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, based in the Basque country of northern Spain. In the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War, Father Jose Maria Arizmendiarriata, a former political prisoner of Gen. Francisco Franco, organized impoverished Basque peasants into a coop that manufactured paraffin stoves.

More importantly, the priest established a set of principles to guide the cooperatives: among them are open admission to all workers regardless of race, politics or religion; participatory democracy in management (one worker one vote); sovereignty of labor, wage solidarity, social transformation, and education.

Mondragon’s worker-owned cooperatives now include 120 workplaces, 87 of which are industrial factories that manufacture kitchen appliances, housewares, auto parts and machine tools. One is a large bank, another chain of supermarkets and still another is a university with 3,600 students.

One of the largest factories is called Fagor. Managers tout its rigid safety standards and quality control. All machines are carefully tested for safe operation and workers keep careful records of any accidents.

All of Mondragon’s workplaces have management selected by workers and yearly assemblies where workers set policies and elect their governing boards.

Mondragon executives and organizers regularly mentor worker co-ops throughout the world. Last year, Gayle McLaughlin, the mayor of Richmond, Calif., spent a week in Mondragon and shared her findings with her constituents. Discussions are now underway in Richmond to establish a coop bike shop, a natural foods café and a chain of urban gardens.

Another Mondragon-mentored project is the Evergreen Cooperative Laundry, established in 2009 in a depressed inner city Cleveland Ohio neighborhood where industrial flight has taken place in recent years. Superior technology, and better than average wages, have made the laundry a highly coveted workplace for those seeking employment in Cleveland.

Another Cleveland cooperative venture is the Green City Growers, which operates a hydroponic food production greenhouse in the midst of the city’s blighted areas. The project receives funds from the White House Office of Urban Affairs, H.U.D. and several foundations.

Back in Oakland, Quentin Sankofa, one of seven young African-American worker-owners at the Mandela Food Cooperative, spoke of the difficulties in establishing a coop in a low-income community.

The Mandela coop, located near the West Oakland BART station, provides fresh fruit and vegetables delivered daily by youths to small grocery and liquor stores in the area.

“It is not an easy thing for low income people of color to start a business, let alone a cooperative,” said Sankofa. “No banks or credit unions wanted to lend us money. But after receiving funding and other support from the nonprofit Mandela Marketplace, the food coop began to stand on its own feet,” he said.

“We received training in retail methods, the basics of nutrition and how to work together cooperatively. And we were also able to tap into redevelopment funds. Our short term goals are simply to survive these tough economic times, but long term we want to expand to a bigger space.”

The last stops on the coop tour: The Cheese Board in Berkeley and Emeryville’s Arizmendi Bakery. The Cheese Board, begun in 1967, is arguably the bay area’s most successful worker-owned cooperative. It operates a large cheese shop on Shattuck Ave. with an adjoining pizza restaurant where a jazz band plays twice daily.

Cheese Board worker owners receive $21 per hour plus coop dividends, full health care, dental and a retirement savings plan. The coop attempts to pay fair wages to its workers, a fair price to its suppliers and fair prices to its customers.

The Arizmendi Bakery in Emeryville is a spinoff from the Cheese Board, which helped set up the chain of five bakeries and lent them its recipes. Named after the Basque priest who founded the Mondragon cooperative, Arizmendi is governed by policy council, with two elected members from each bakery.

“Our idea is to replicate this model, to saturate the bay are with new coops,” said Jabari Jones, one of the Arizmendi bakers. “We need to educate the public, to convert more jobs and industries into co-operatives, to create a critical mass.”

Although there are only about 1,500 members in Northern California cooperatives, tough economic times and high success rates are spurring their rapid growth. “We are no longer considered just another alternative,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the San Francisco-based U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. “We are now part of the mainstream economy—and we are growing.”

http://laprensa-sandiego.org/featured/can-worker-owned-cooperatives-offer-a-solution-to-our-economic-woes/

Richard Aleman notes at The Distributist Review:

To the casual reader co-ops may seem a European phenomenon. However, we can look to our own shores for evidence that there is a rich history of cooperative ownership rooted in our nation. Not only do tens of thousands of co-ops operate in every sector, from fishing to agriculture, but the first cooperative, Philadelphia Contributionship for the Insurance of Houses from Losses by Fire, was established in 1752 by none other than Benjamin Franklin.

Cooperative businesses have a proven track record in the marketplace, whether in agriculture, health care, quality control, legal services, banking, utilities, technical training, and market research, to name a few. Worker-owners manufacture medical equipment, provide medical services, form local construction companies, and operate cafes and movie theaters.

The cooperative business is not only an attractive alternative for large-scale manufacturing. It is also beneficial for those wishing to start small businesses yet lacking in capital investment.

Like any other business, cooperatives set their rules and regulations, establish their articles, and vote democratically under the principle of one person, one vote. They may, if they so choose, establish managerial boards, issue target and goal requirements, and compensate worker-owners based on their investment.

While most large-scale industries reduce the level of ownership in our society and treat labor as a cost instead of a partner in the production process, cooperatives are the Distributist answer to increase widespread ownership of the means of production. Cooperatives can restore the “Made in the USA” label, are the answer to the damage wrought by the North American Free Trade Agreement, and will mobilize workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas, raising American domestic production from the ashes.

Cooperatives are not just fascinating because they serve as the Distributist approach to medium and large-scale industry. They, like G.K. Chesterton, rekindle the imagination

http://distributistreview.com/mag/2011/02/industry-a-distributist-solution-part-ii/

The Age: No Nuclear Arsenal Limit for China

2011-02-27T16:42:00.000-08:00

Philip Dorling reports at The Age:

High ranking Chinese officials have declared that there can be no limit to the expansion of Beijing's nuclear arsenal, amid growing regional fears that it will eventually equal that of the United States, with profound consequences for the strategic balance in Asia.

Records of secret defence consultations between the US and China reveal that US diplomats have repeatedly failed to persuade the rising superpower to be more transparent about its nuclear forces and that Chinese officials privately admit that a desire for military advantage underpins continuing secrecy.

According to US diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and provided exclusively to The Age, the deputy chief of China's People's Liberation Army General Staff, Ma Xiaotian, told US Defence and State Department officials in June 2008 that the growth of China's nuclear forces was an ''imperative reality'' and there could be "no limit on technical progress''.

Advertisement: Story continues below Rejecting American calls for China to reveal the size of its nuclear capabilities, Lieutenant-General Ma bluntly declared: ''It is impossible for [China] to change its decades-old way of doing business to become transparent using the US model.''

While claiming in a further July 2009 discussion that Beijing's nuclear posture has "always been defensive'' and that China would "never enter into a nuclear arms race", General Ma acknowledged that, "frankly speaking, there are areas of China's nuclear program that are not very transparent''.

China's assistant foreign minister He Yafei similarly told US officials in June 2008 that there will be an ''inevitable and natural extension'' of Chinese military power and that China ''cannot accept others setting limits on our capabilities''.

Other leaked US cables reveal Japan fears China's nuclear arsenal will grow to equal that of the US, and Tokyo has urged Washington to retain strong nuclear capabilities to deter an "increasingly bold" China from ''doing something stupid".

In top-level nuclear policy consultations in June 2009, senior Japanese Defence Ministry officials told US representatives that Tokyo's assessment was that "China is rapidly upgrading its nuclear capability beyond its relatively insignificant levels from the 1980s and the 1990s, and is trying to reach parity with Russia and the US''.

"China is displaying newfound confidence in its military capabilities and is visibly showing its strength in the region, particularly with respect to the [Japanese] Senkakus [island group],'' Japan-US Defence Co-operation director Kiyoshi Serizawa told US diplomats.

A senior Japanese Foreign Ministry official also warned that China's "troubling" nuclear build-up had to be viewed in the context of its other activities, including its 2007 anti-satellite test, cyber-attacks and growing naval capabilities.

"If China perceives the United States having difficulty accessing the region, it is more likely to do something stupid,'' said Japan-US Security Treaty Division senior co-ordinator Yusuke Arai.

In a separate discussion with US envoys, Japanese Defence Ministry officials expressed concern the Obama administration's plan to negotiate a cut in nuclear forces with Russia would encourage China's nuclear build-up. A senior Japanese official said that while China had declared a ''no first-use'' nuclear weapons posture, "no nuclear expert believes this is true''.

US and Japanese officials agreed that the opaque nature of China's nuclear build-up was troubling, and the Japanese stressed that close co-ordination was "critical" before any US decisions on "deep cuts" in nuclear weapons talks with Russia.

But after the release of the Obama administration's Nuclear Posture Review in early 2010, the US and Russia signed a new Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty on April 8 to halve their nuclear arsenals to 1550 strategic weapons over the next seven years.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates China has up to 90 intercontinental ballistic missiles (66 land-based and 24 submarine-launched) and more than 400 intermediate range missiles targeting Taiwan and Japan. The US intelligence community predicts that by the mid-2020s, China could double the number of warheads on missiles capable of threatening the US.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/no-nuclear-limit-china-20110227-1ba0l.html

Ian Fletcher: Why A Flat Tariff on All U.S. Imports Would Work

2011-02-27T16:26:00.000-08:00

Writing at The Huffington Post, Ian Fletcher makes the case for a flat tariff on all U.S. imports:

I advocate protectionism. But one standard criticism is that this would just result in politically connected industries getting tariffs raised on the products they produce. This would corrupt our economy, force consumers to pay higher prices, and serve no legitimate economic logic.

Sounds logical enough. As the 19th-century American radical economist Henry George put it, "introducing a tariff bill into a congress or parliament is like throwing a banana into a cage of monkeys."

So let's just cut that Gordian knot right now: what America needs isn't some complicated system of tariffs, but a flat tariff, the same on every imported good and service.

The exact level at which to set the tariff is an open question. For the sake of argument, we can take 30% as a hypothetical figure, because it is in the historic range of U.S. tariffs and is close to the net pressure on America's trade balance due to foreign nations' VAT or value-added taxes. The right level will not be something trivial, like 2%, or prohibitive, like 150%. But there is no reason it shouldn't be 25 or 35%, and this flexibility will provide wiggle room for the compromises needed to get a tariff through Congress.

A flat tariff would be imperfect, but it would be infinitely better than free trade and relatively politics-proof. Above all, it is a policy people are unlikely to support for the wrong reasons (AKA producer special interests) because it does not single out any specific industries for protection. It would thus maximize the incentive for voters and Congress to evaluate protectionism in terms of whether it would benefit the country as a whole--which is precisely the question they should be asking.

A flat tariff would also create the right balance of special-interest pressures: some interests would favor a higher tariff, others a lower one. This is a prerequisite for fruitful debate, as it means both views will find institutional homes and political patrons.

A flat tariff's uniformity across industries would avoid the problems that occur when upstream but not downstream industries get tariff protection. For example, if steel-consuming industries do not get a tariff when steel gets one, they will become disadvantaged relative to their foreign competitors by the higher cost of American-made steel. And why should steelworkers be protected from foreign competition at the price of forcing everyone else to pay more for goods containing steel? The only reasonable solution is that steelworkers should pay a tariff-protected price for the goods they buy, too. This logic ultimately means that all goods should be subject to the same tariff.

A flat tariff would have other benefits, too. For one thing, it would avoid the danger of getting stuck with a tariff policy that made sense when it was adopted but gradually became an outdated captive of special interests over time, always a risk with tariffs. Although it is a fixed policy, it would not be fixed in its effects, but would automatically adapt to the evolution of industries over time. In 1900, it would have protected the American garment industry from foreign (then mostly European) competition. It wouldn't do that today. As which industries are good industries changes over time, which industries it protects will change accordingly.

A flat tariff would trigger the relocation back to the U.S. of the right industries. For example, a 30% tariff would not cause the relocation of the apparel industry back to the U.S. from abroad. The difference between domestic and foreign labor costs is simply too large for a 30% premium to tip the balance in America's favor in an industry based on semi-skilled labor. But a 30% tariff quite likely would cause the relocation of high-tech manufacturing like semiconductors. This is key, as these industries are precisely the ones we should want to relocate. These capital-intensive, knowledge-intensive industries support high wages and have bright technological futures.

Another objection to a tariff is that if any industry is granted protection, it will just slumber behind it. Some industries indeed long to shut out foreign competition, reach a lazy detente with domestic rivals, then coast along with high profitability and low innovation. But a flat tariff resists this danger because it does not hand out a blank check of protection: it gives a certain percentage and no more. Any industry that cannot get its costs within striking distance of its foreign competitors will not be saved by it. This discipline, although unpleasant for the losers, is the price we must pay for having a tariff that actually works, rather than one which eliminates the discipline of foreign competition entirely and protects all industries indiscriminately.

The political bickering that a tariff varying by industry would cause also militates in favor of a flat tariff. The inability of different industries to coalesce around a common tariff proposal sabotaged efforts to achieve a tariff in 1972-74, but this is a policy around which the greatest possible number of industries can unite.

A flat tariff is also more ideologically palatable than most other tariff solutions. Above all, it respects the free market by leaving all specific decisions about which industries a tariff will favor up to the marketplace. It will thus be considerably easier for ideological devotees of free markets to swallow than some scheme in which tariffs are set by a federal agency, leading to that nightmare of free-marketeers: government picking winners. In the real world, zero government intervention in the economy is impossible, so the issue for believers in economic freedom and small government is to design policies that work through the smallest possible, carefully chosen interventions. This is precisely what the natural strategic tariff offers because it operates at the periphery of our economy, leaving most of its internal mechanisms untouched. In fact, the more wisely we control our economic border, the less we will probably need to control the inside of our economy.

(One final note: a flat tariff would need to include a rebate on reexported goods in order to avoid handicapping American exporters. This would include both goods that are transshipped without modification and goods that are exported after value-added processing. The latter includes everything from chocolate made from imported cocoa to computers made from imported chips. This is implied by its intrinsic logic as a tax on domestic consumption. Other nations follow the same logic in rebating VAT to their exporters.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/why-a-flat-tariff-on-all_b_828692.html

Catholic Church Stands in Solidarity with Wisconsin's Workers

2011-02-27T15:59:00.000-08:00

Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome E. Listecki has issued the following statement in support of Wisconsin's union workers rallying in opposition to legislation which would take away collective bargaining rights:

The Church is well aware that difficult economic times call for hard choices and financial responsibility to further the common good. Our own dioceses and parishes have not been immune to the effects of the current economic difficulties. But hard times do not nullify the moral obligation each of us has to respect the legitimate rights of workers. As Pope Benedict wrote in his 2009 encyclical, Caritas in veritate:

Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labor unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum [60], for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honored today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level. [#25]

It does not follow from this that every claim made by workers or their representatives is valid. Every union, like every other economic actor, is called to work for the common good, to make sacrifices when required, and to adjust to new economic realities.

However, it is equally a mistake to marginalize or dismiss unions as impediments to economic growth. As Pope John Paul II wrote in 1981, “[a] union remains a constructive factor of social order and solidarity, and it is impossible to ignore it.” (Laborem exercens #20, emphasis in original)

It is especially in times of crisis that “new forms of cooperation” and open communication become essential. We request that lawmakers carefully consider the implications of this proposal and evaluate it in terms of its impact on the common good. We also appeal to everyone –lawmakers, citizens, workers, and labor unions – to move beyond divisive words and actions and work together, so that Wisconsin can recover in a humane way from the current fiscal crisis.

From The Catholic Labor Network

Well over a century ago, with the rise of industrial capitalism, Pope Leo XIII issued his encyclical Rerum Novarum.

Reflecting on how the modern economy too often offered the rich and powerful an opportunity to exploit working people, he took consolation in the multiplication of "workingmen's unions" that helped ameliorate the condition of labor. "There are not a few associations of this nature," the Holy Father observed, "but it were greatly to be desired that they should become more numerous and more efficient."

Catholic social teaching on the right of workers to organize has been consistent over the century since Leo XIII wrote. While there are those who argue that unions are a relic of the industrial revolution, neither Pope John Paul II nor Benedict XVI may be counted among them. John Paul II observed in his 1981 encyclical Laborem Exercens that labor unions are "indeed a mouthpiece for the struggle for social justice" and in fact "an indispensable element of social life." In his 2009 encyclical letter Caritas in Veritate, Benedict was categorical:

"The repeated calls issued within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honored today even more than in the past."

While we do not minimize the depth of the current economic crisis, we must conclude that any measure that attempts to resolve them by depriving workers of the right to organize and collectively bargain stands in direct conflict with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

As brothers and sisters in the faith we urge our fellow Catholic legislators to seek remedies for Wisconsin's economic challenges that respects our Catholic magisterial tradition, and honor the rights of Wisconsin's workers, both public and private, to join labor unions. In addition, we invite all Wisconsin's legislators to reflect on how to best protect the values of human dignity, freedom of association, and the right of collective bargaining that are developed in Catholic Social teaching.

Info: Catholic Labor Network http://www.catholiclabor.org

"Winner-Take-All Politics" puts spotlight on Washington's role in shrinking middle class

2011-01-30T11:38:00.000-08:00

The top 1% percent income bracket continues to gain economic ground as the middle class shrinks. Paul J. Nyden has reviewed a new book titled "Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class" by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, Simon & Schuster, 2010.

Nyden writes in The Charleston Gazette:

Middle-class and working Americans prospered for a generation after World War II. But during the past 30 years, most Americans experienced meager economic improvements or none at all.

Our economic and political systems awarded major financial benefits to the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans.

Between 1972 and 2010, the richest one of every 10,000 households increased its average annual earnings from less then $4 million to $35 million, in figures adjusted for inflation.

At the same time, tens of millions of other Americans - under Republican and Democratic leaders -- lost their job security, lost their homes and struggled to pay ballooning health-care costs -- which precipitated more than half the bankruptcies filed in recent years.

Between 2002 and 2008, nearly 40 percent of home equities owned by American families were wiped out.

Today, the United States has higher income inequality than any other industrial nation.

These are among the stark themes of Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, a new book by political scientists Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson.

The federal government played a central role in promoting the dramatic rise in income inequality.

Back in 1965, when Lyndon B. Johnson was president, the average chief executive officer at large corporations made 24 times as much as the average employee. By 2007, CEOs were paid 300 times as much.

During Richard Nixon's presidency, between 1969 and 1974, domestic social programs expanded.

Nixon signed numerous regulatory acts, including: the Environmental Protection Act, Mine Safety and Health Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act, and legislation creating the Consumer Product Safety Commission and National Traffic Safety Commission.

Nixon's proposals for health-care reform, Hacker and Pierson write, were significantly more extensive than Obama's 2009 proposals.

Democrat Jimmy Carter, in the White House between 1977 and 1981, oversaw the beginning of the "liberal era's" demise.

They were "tumultuous years in which the unexpected liberalism of Nixonland turned into the unexpected conservatism of Carterland," Hacker and Pierson write.

Over the next 30 years, federal regulations, many created during Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, were dismantled. Huge deficits and debts began to accumulate.

By the late 1990s, when Democrat Bill Clinton was president, regulations controlling banks descended to pre-New Deal levels.

Gutted laws and regulations made it easier for banks to merge, relaxed restrictions separating commercial banks from high-risk investment banks, removed interest rates ceilings and ended a decades-old separation between banks and insurance companies.

Today, the ability of federal officials to monitor and regulate corporate misdeeds has been gutted.

Today's politically liberal groups are typically upper middle class. They pay little attention to economic problems, focusing on other significant issues such as environmental protection, women's rights and civil liberties.

With the decline of unions, middle-class and working Americans lost powerful advocates for pocketbook issues to counter those at the top.

In recent decades, White House occupants have done little to help unions, which played a central role in the post-World War II prosperity.

A defining moment came in 1981, when Ronald Reagan broke a strike by the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Association -- a critical defeat for labor.

Allied with Republicans, Democrat Bill Clinton fought hard to win Congressional approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement, over opposition from trade unions and several Democratic members of Congress, such as the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va.

NAFTA and the Central American Free Trade Agreement empowered U.S. companies to pay foreign workers 10 cents, or less, for every $1 they paid to American workers to do the same jobs, Hacker pointed out in his 2006 book, The Great Risk Shift.

In 1960, 40 percent of all American non-agricultural jobs were in well-paying industries like steel, auto, chemical, aluminum, textiles and mining. By 2002, just 14 percent were still in manufacturing.

For decades, "captains of industry" -- people like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and Henry Ford -- were big financial winners. They smelted steel, drilled for oil and produced automobiles.

Over the past 30 years, "deal makers and financial gamblers" solely focused on making personal profits displaced those captains.

When Barack Obama became president, he quickly abandoned campaign promises to promote passage of the union-backed Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for people in individual workplaces to vote on whether to have unions represent them.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, the retired Army general and Republican president between 1953 and 1961, backed the rights of workers to organize.

"Only a handful of reactionaries harbor the ugly thought on breaking unions and depriving working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice," Eisenhower said.

During the past generation, the Republican Party has moved steadily rightward, Hacker and Pierson argue.

The Reagan era was halfway between the "reluctant New Dealism" of Nixon and the "winner-take-all enthusiasm" of George W. Bush.

Today, our country faces enormous challenges: reforming an increasingly troubled and expensive health-care system, improving schools, dealing with impending financial strains created by an aging population.

Yet most Republicans believe our nation's top priority is to pass, and maintain, "big tax reductions for those at the top."

During the Reagan and Bush II administrations, deficits and debts skyrocketed, despite rhetoric from both presidents about reducing government spending.

In addition to approving massive tax cuts for the wealthy, government leaders have routinely increased military spending without adequate resources to pay for that expansion and new wars.

We are also witnessing a disturbing decline in public knowledge and awareness about the causes of problems confronting most Americans.

In 2008, Obama set an all-time record for presidential fund-raising. His campaign collected more than $1 billion -- a significant portion from corporate donors like insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

But corporate lobbying dwarfs campaign spending.

In 2009, corporate lobbyists reported spending almost $3.5 billion.

Banks, investment firms, insurance companies and realtors alone hired 940 lobbyists to influence the 535 members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

The rise of television and Internet sites lead many Americans to neglect real news.

"While the best-informed citizens are better informed than ever," Hacker and Pierson write, "more and more citizens are consuming less and less news."

The news media feels constant pressure to provide entertainment.

Television stations are more likely to focus on scandals, crimes and celebrities, as well as "soft news" like personal health issues.

"Hard news" gets squeezed out, especially news about complex issues that are difficult and time-consuming to explain.

Stories about what caused bank failures routinely attract less public interest than photogenic accounts of highway accidents, fatal floods, cheating spouses and pregnant actresses.

Social interaction and civic culture is also declining.

Between 1955 and 1995, membership in the American Legion dropped by more than 40 percent. Membership in fraternal orders like the Elks, Masons and Eagles also dwindled.

Deceptive reporting of political surveys also plays a negative role. When pointing out how many Americans opposed last year's health-care reforms, media outlets routinely failed to mention one-fourth of those opponents wanted a stronger heath-care bill.

Republicans often use social issues -- such as gun-ownership, school prayer and abortion rights -- to attract millions to vote against their own economic interests.

"Making government responsible to the middle class would not just be a political achievement," Hacker and Pierson conclude. "It would reshape the economy."

Renewing the widespread prosperity of our post-World War II generation cannot be accomplished without major reforms to make our political and economic systems more equal.

http://wvgazette.com/News/201101281616

Building America's Future: The Case for U.S. Infrastructure Investment

2011-01-23T14:31:00.000-08:00

Building America's Future www.bafuture.org provides a number of useful facts which document the need to maintain and improve our country's infrastructure.

The Case for U.S. Infrastructure Investment
Fast Facts on America’s Infrastructure

Infrastructure includes:

* Approximately 4 million miles of roads

* 117,000 miles of rail

* 600,000 bridges

* 79,000 dams

* 26,000 miles of commercially navigable waterways

* 11,000 miles of transit (including more than 5,000 miles of rail transit)

* More than 3,000 transit rail stations

* 300 ports 19,000 airports

* 160,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines

* 55,000 community drinking water systems

* 30,000 wastewater treatment and collection facilities

As a share of GDP, public spending on infrastructure has ranged from 2.3 percent to 2.5 percent since the mid-1980s. Before then, it had trended downward, from a peak of 3 percent in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

Few Things Make a Larger Impact on the Quality of Life for Average Americans than the Quality of Infrastructure in their Communities.

Underfunded roads and highways equal more parents stuck in traffic rather than at home with their families, an increase in unhealthy air pollution, and a decrease in overall safety.

FACT: Americans waste 4.2 billion hours and 2.8 billion gallons fuel a year sitting in traffic – equal to nearly one full work week and three weeks’ worth of gas for every traveler.

FACT: Nearly a 1/3 of all highway fatalities are due to substandard road conditions, obsolete road designs, or roadside hazards.

FACT: The national impact of crashes in 2003 was $230.6 billion (2.3% of GDP) according to U.S. DOT. (By way of comparison, Medicare annual costs in 2008 were just over 3% of GDP.)

FACT: Rough roads cost $67 billion each year an average of $335 per driver and as much as $750 in the worst metropolitan areas.

FACT: Transportation infrastructure is at capacity and projected to get worse. Congestion tripled between 1982 and 2005.

FACT: According to the Texas Transportation Institute, congestion costs Americans $78billion a year. A senior economist at U.S. DOT estimated in 2006 that the cost of congestion across all modes of transportation could approach $200 billion a year, including productivity losses, costs associated with cargo delays, and other economic impacts.

Our decaying water infrastructure is wasting billions of gallons of a nonrenewable resource, as well as putting our environment and public health at risk.

FACT: Drinking water utilities will need to invest $334.8 billion over the next 20 years, above the level of current spending, to continue to provide safe and sufficient water to the American public.

FACT: A federal investment of $20 billion in ready-to-go water infrastructure projects would create over 400,000 jobs in 2010. When transportation options are limited, the working poor bear the brunt of the burden.

FACT: Americans households spend 17.6% of their budgets on transportation (the second largest expense after housing). America’s poorest households spend more than 40% of take-home pay on transportation – a figure that has increased 33% since 1992

FACT: From 2000-2005, average American salaries went up 10.3 percent, transportation costs went up 13.4 percent.xiv FACT: Public transit users save more than $9,381 per year by taking public transportation instead of driving.

Since We Ultimately Pay for it, the American Taxpayers Deserve Safe, Efficient, Affordable and Modern Infrastructure.

FACT: One-third of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 45 percent of major urban highways are congested.

FACT: Over 4,095 dams are "unsafe" and have deficiencies that leave them more susceptible to failure, especially during large flood events or earthquakes.

FACT: The use of portable classrooms by public school systems continues to grow at more than 20 percent each year.

It’s time for fresh approaches to old problems – we must reform and modernize the way we invest in infrastructure. Getting it done right (with accountability and transparency) is just as important as getting it done fast.

FACT: A near unanimous 94 percent of Americans are concerned about our nation's infrastructure, and 81 percent are willing to pay more in taxes to rebuild it. But over 60 percent say that accountability and transparency in how the funds are spent are their highest priorities.

Infrastructure is a Key Stimulus for Economic Growth
and a Measure of Global Competitiveness.

Our crumbling infrastructure isn’t just affecting our quality of life – it’s hurting America’s bottom line, causing lost revenues and waste.

FACT: Rolling blackouts and inefficiencies in the U.S. electrical grid cost an estimated $80 billion a year.

FACT: Over the next 30 years, our nation is expected to grow by 100 million and highway traffic will double again. Even if highway capacity grows no faster than in the last 25 years, Americans can expect to spend 160 hours – 4 work weeks – each year in traffic by 2035.

FACT: In 2003, freight logistics costs were 8.6 percent of GDP but rose to 9.5 percent in 2005, the largest such increase in 30 years. A full one-third of the increase in cost was attributable to inefficiencies in the transportation system.
Time and money are wasted when semi-trucks and trains carry goods on gridlocked roads and railways or when ports are not modern enough to meet today's demands. The more efficiently we can move people and goods, the stronger our economy will be.

FACT: On an average day, some 43 million tons of goods valued at $29 billion move on the nation’s interconnected network of ports, roads, rails and inland waterways.

FACT: Traffic on more than half the miles of interstate highway exceeds 70 percent of capacity, and nearly 25 percent of the miles are strained at more than 95 percent of capacity.

FACT: By 2020, every major U.S. container port is projected to at least double the volume of cargo it was designed to handle. Some East Coast ports will triple in volume, and some West Coast ports will quadruple.

FACT: In Chicago, the nation’s biggest rail center, more containers are transferred from train to truck than in any other city in the Western Hemisphere, and the number of rail cars passing through Chicago every day is projected to nearly double by 2020 Freight congestion in Chicago already plagues the supply chain: railroads allot longer times for a freight train to pass through Chicago than to get from LA to Chicago.

FACT: The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that tonnage will increase 88% through 2035.

FACT: Freight traffic on U.S. railroads increased more than 50% from 1990 to 2003Freight bottlenecks cost about $200 billion or 1.6% of GDP per year.

FACT: A 2005 FHWA study estimated the direct cost of highway bottlenecks to truckers at $7.8 billion a year. Most of the bottlenecks—124 million hours of delay--occur at urban interstate interchanges at the cost of $4 billion. Each of the top ten Interstate bottlenecks causes more than a million truck-hours of delay a year.

FACT: Other countries are leapfrogging past us by investing in world-class ports. China is investing $6.9 billion; the port of Shanghai now has almost as much container capacity as all U.S. ports combined.

Targeted, accountable infrastructure investment is one of the most effective ways to stimulate our economy and create new jobs that can’t be outsourced.

FACT: Under the right conditions, a 1 percent increase in a country's infrastructure stock could produce a 1 percent increase in the level of GDP.

FACT: For every $1 billion in federal investment in transportation infrastructure, an estimated 27,800 to 34,800 jobs are created.

FACT: For every $1.00 invested in public water and sewer infrastructure services, approximately $8.97 is added to the national economy.

FACT: Repairing existing roads and bridges creates 9 percent more jobs per dollar than building new roads or bridges.

FACT: The United States Chamber of Commerce found that GDP per capita would increase by 0.3% for every single point of improvement in the Transportation Index. Allowing the overall transportation performance to lag behind the average index of the top 5 performing states leaves about $1 trillion of potential GDP on the table.

America is falling behind both developed and developing countries in tackling its infrastructure problems.

FACT: The U.S. is currently investing less on infrastructure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) than Europe, China and many emerging countries.

FACT: The European Union is investing $677 million to the “Marco Polo” Program to encourage shippers to move freight off European highways and onto coastal shipping routes.

FACT: By 2020, China plans to build 55,000 miles of highways, more than the total length of the U.S. interstate system.

Smart Infrastructure Investments will help Decrease our Dependence on Foreign Oil, Clean our Air, and Support Healthy Communities.

FACT: Commercial and industrial buildings account for as much as 50 percent of U.S. energy use, and residential buildings account for another 20 percent.

FACT: Retrofitting public buildings to be more energy-efficient would reduce carbon emissions and save taxpayers energy costs, while creating as many as 800,000 jobs.

FACT: Had a “smart” power grid system been in place during the Northeast blackout of 2003, it could have saved almost $6 billion in economic loss to the region.

FACT: If 10 percent of the long-distance freight that moves by truck moved by rail instead, we would save more than a billion gallons of fuel per year, and annual greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by more than 12 million tons – the equivalent of taking 2 million cars off the road or planting 280 million trees.

Our nation should also make a substantial investment in public transit, which will put people to work while helping to lower transportation costs for American families and businesses, reduce carbon emissions, and spur economic development across the U.S.

FACT: The U.S. economy currently generates more than 750,000 “green collar” jobs – a number that is projected to grow five-fold to more than 4.2 million over the next three decades.

FACT: Public transit reduces petroleum consumption by a total of 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline each year. This represents 108 million fewer cars filling up – almost 300,000 everyday.

FACT: In 2006, public transit around the country saved 3.4 billion gallons of oil and prevented 26 million tons of greenhouse gases.

http://www.bafuture.org/Websites/investininfrastructure/Images/Fast_Facts_12.10.10.pdf

The Progressive Case for School Choice

2011-01-23T13:58:00.000-08:00

Dr. Charles Glenn made a strong argument in favor of progressive support for school vouchers in a 1998 speech. Over a decade later, Dr. Glenn's words as still relevant to the debate over education reform. We need to support public education but also recognize that schools have been historically a public-private partnership. Poor children deserve the same opportunities as rich kids whose parents already have school choice.

A Progressive Case for Vouchers
Octobre 1998
Charles L. Glenn, Boston University

[a presentation to the New York Chapter, American Jewish Committee]
(1998-10 A Progressive case for Vouchers.doc)

There are two convincing reasons why Progressives should support educational vouchers. They go by the names of ‘Freedom’ and ‘Justice.’

There is also a compelling reason why Progressives should be closely involved with working out the way in which voucher programs will be designed and implemented. We are rightly not convinced that it is appropriate to simply “let the market rip” with no regard for the consequences, that government should wash its hands of its responsibility of ensuring that justice is done, in education, for those who are most vulnerable to unfair treatment, most likely to lack advocates in their interest, most in need of extra support.

Public funding for schools which are not operated by government is coming in the United States, as it came decades ago in other Western democracies: in Canada, Australia and Britain, in France, the Low Countries, Germany, Spain and Denmark, and as it has come over the past decade in Sweden and in the countries of the former Soviet bloc. Indeed, public funding for schools which are not operated by government–we call them “charter schools”–is the hottest education reform of the Nineties, supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. All that has been excluded in the US, apparently, is schools which reflect the religious convictions and choices of parents, and now parents in Cleveland and in Milwaukee are receiving public funds to send their children to such schools as well. Can anyone doubt that more cities and states will follow?

The question for Progressives, I suggest, is whether they will join in the discussions through which these programs are shaped, or persist in a state of denial while others make all the running. They might pause to reflect that in none of the countries in Western Europe where

the Left are now in political control have they proposed to abolish the present arrangements for parent choice of religious schools; it is reported in The New York Times of October 20, 1998 that the first ex-communist premier of Italy is expected to be more generous to Catholic schools than have been any of his Christian-Democrat predecessors.

But isn’t this a question of ‘Church and State’? No, that is a fundamental misconception which only emerged in the Fifties. The historical record is clear: opposition to public funding for religious schools–and even to their existence, as with the Ku Klux Klan’s campaigns for the “little red schoolhouse” in the 1920s--was based on anti-immigrant sentiment. The Protestant majority felt profoundly threatened by millions of Catholic and Jewish immigrants, and the goal of preventing children from following their parents’ unAmerican ways motivated legislation from the 1850s on blocking public funding to non-government schools. These debates–which never mentioned the First Amendment–were an echo of political struggles in Europe, especially France, where for some decades the Catholic Church fought against Liberal governments with control of the schools the most important pawn in those battles.

But in the United States it is not the Catholic Church which is creating the demand for religious schools–the Catholic “market share” dropped dramatically in recent decades–but millions of parents, many of whom are Evangelical Protestants, African-American Protestants, Muslims . . . or Jews. Thousands of new schools have been established since the 1970s, and the great majority of these have a religious character.

Isn’t it “unconstitutional” to provide public funds for the education of children in religious schools? Curiously, while the First Amendment privileges the free exercise of religion as especially worthy of protection, the effect of Supreme Court decisions over the past forty years has been to treat religion as the only forbidden motivation for school choice.

Parents may choose among publicly-funded schools because of ambition for their children, or pedagogical theory, or fear of minority children, but they have not been able to choose because of religious conviction. This reverses the legal situation in other Western democracies, which privilege and support school choice based upon religious convictions over other motivations. Such policies recognize that religion has a way of encapsulating, for many parents, a whole range of hopes, moral convictions, and loyalties that they want above
all to transmit to their children.

The signs are more positive for flexibility on the part of the courts now than they have been in many years. The Rosenberger case, requiring that government act on the basis of “content neutrality” between religious and non-religious activities, the Agostini case (here in New York City), finding that secular educational goals can be met within religious schools, and other recent decisions create strong prospects that the door will continue to open. Public funds are already going to religious day-care programs and adolescent programs, as well as to colleges, without First Amendment barriers, and the Charitable Choice provision of the federal welfare law has created a whole new ball-game. But I’m not here to argue the legal case, but the policy case, for a voucher system of funding education.

I said at the start that there were two principled reasons why Progressives should support and work for a well-designed and equitable voucher system. The first, I said, is Freedom. Parents have a fundamental right, in a free society, to decide about the values that their children will be taught in school. That right has been recognized by a whole string of international covenants, beginning with the U. N. Declaration on Human Rights (1948), which states that "parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children" (article 26, 3). Similarly, the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights guarantees “the liberty of parents . . . to choose for their children schools, other than those established by public authorities, which conform to such minimum
educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions” (article 13,3).

It is on the basis of this fundamental human right, and not of any theory about “markets,” that virtually all the other Western democracies provide public funding to non-government schools that meet public standards and that are selected freely by parents.

Nor is this anchored only in the abstractions of human rights, but also in a series of Supreme Court decisions, notably in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), where the Court famously declared that “the fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.” But, as Progressives have argued vigorously in the case of abortion, a right which you cannot afford to exercise is no right at all!

If Freedom demands that we allow parent choice, then, Justice demands that we support and promote it, especially for low-income families and those otherwise condemned to send their children–under mandatory attendance laws–to schools which they are convinced are doing or will do them harm. The learning gap in our society based upon social class and race is larger than the gap in other comparable societies. That is, the achievement gap between high-scoring and low-scoring schools in the United States is substantially larger than that in other countries with many immigrant children in their schools, like Australia or the Netherlands or France.

This is not the place to rehearse the evidence–available a number of countries--that schools based upon a religious viewpoint tend to be especially effective serving at-risk pupils. James Coleman and, more recently, Anthony Bryk of the University of Chicago found that the achievement growth benefits of Catholic school attendance are especially strong for students who are in one way or another disadvantaged: lower socioeconomic status, black, or Hispanic. The dropout rates from Catholic schools are strikingly lower than those from public schools or other private schools. This reduced dropout rate holds both for those who show no signs of problems as sophomores and for those who as sophomores are at risk of dropping out. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that Catholic schools simply do not admit or quickly expel potential trouble-makers, the studies have found that they rely much more heavily upon socialization to maintain order and motivation. Bryk and his colleagues found that “the achievement of students in Catholic high schools was less dependent on family background and personal circumstances than was true in the public sector” and “the
achievement advantage of white over minority students . . . increases in public high schools during the last two years of schooling, whereas the minority gap actually decreases in Catholic schools.”

In a society driven by educational credentials, what happens during the years of formal schooling has a dramatic life-long impact. If religious schools can offer an education that might make all the difference to a poor child or youth, it is unjust to make it impossible for their families to choose such schools, because we--who are able to do so much for our own children (including deciding where we will live)--see these schools not as benevolent but as a threat to democracy. They are, instead, a threat to an undemocratic monopoly system of vested interests.

Nothing could be more futile than to debate--as so many do--about whether an abstraction called “school choice” is a good or a bad thing. Choice is massively present in American education, and those who exercise it (most parents including those with children in public schools--and most public school teachers who are parents) would not willingly give it up. A report by the National Center for Education Statistics found that, in 1993, of families with incomes over $50,000, 72 percent had their children in private schools, public schools of choice (such as magnet schools), and schools which they had selected through residence decisions.

But, like many of the goods which we value, school choice is unevenly distributed in a way which reflects the income, the influence, and the sophistication of different groups in society. For that reason, it should be no surprise that support for school choice, as reflected in many surveys, is strongest among those who have the least opportunity to exercise it, and for whom the stakes are highest. The strongest support for parent choice of schools, including private schools with a religious identity, is among urban and minority respondents with school-aged children

Those who oppose public policies that would allow poor parents to choose what schools their children will attend, claiming that this would undermine the common public school and thus divide American society, do not apply that argument consistently. After all, if the unity of our society requires that children from different backgrounds attend school together, why should we allow the affluent to enroll their children in private schools or escape to the suburbs? Why not forbid private schools and mandate metropolitan school desegregation? We have not heard such proposals from the defenders of the public school monopoly, nor are we likely to. After all, big-city public schoolteachers are twice as likely as the general public to put their own children in private schools, and have strongly resisted residency laws requiring them to live within the school districts which employ them. Few–perhaps none--of their allies in Congress and the White House send their own children to the District of Columbia public schools.

However, there are significant negative effects from the present non-system of parent choice of schools, under which individual choices tend to increase racial and class segregation and the funding and taxation inequities between cities and suburbs. The question for Progressives, then, is not whether to have choice, but how to ensure that choice has equitable and socially-beneficial effects? This is what I’ve been devoting most of my attention to in recent years; it is a rather lonely position to be in because most of those I would expect to be my allies are committed to maintaining the government monopoly on public education at all costs.

I will not go into details here about how to make choice function equitably, but want to close by noting that nothing that I have said suggests that we should abandon public education in the slightest respect. In the first place, public education does not have to be provided in schools owned and operated by local government, as the charter school movement amply demonstrates. Public education is education which is available to all without cost and which is publicly accountable for fairness and for quality, whether provided by government or not. I wish, indeed, that all of our government-operated public schools met that standard of accountability!

In the second place, the existing public schools should be set free to function with greater autonomy and focus, freed from the smothering bureaucracy which crushes the education out of them. I was in charge of urban education and civil rights for Massachusetts for 21 years, through all three Dukakis terms, and finally grew convinced that lasting improvements could be achieved only through fundamental structural changes. That’s why I became an early supporter of charter schools, and eventually of vouchers. All public schools should be as autonomous as charter schools and should be eligible for vouchers. To the extent that they are as good as their advocates claim, they will suffer neither enrollment nor financial losses. When we abolished individual school attendance zones in Boston and a dozen other Massachusetts cities, public schools were suddenly forced to demonstrate to parents that they could serve their children effectively. Some closed, many improved. But the improvements were more limited than they should have been, because the schools were still tangled in the compulsion of any bureaucratic system to require that all of its parts behave precisely the same.

Abraham Lincoln pointed out that a nation could not survive half slave and half free. The truth applies to a nation’s educational system as well. I am not for vouchers as a way for some lucky children to escape from a bankrupt public education system, but as a way to transform that system, to abolish its choking monopolies and reshape it in ways consistent
with a free society.

1998-10 A Progressive case for Vouchers.doc

Stop NAFTA-Style Korea Trade Deal

2011-01-17T11:50:00.000-08:00

Trade Watch reports:

On December 3, 2010, President Obama backtracked on his campaign commitments to create a new American trade policy that stopped the job offshoring crisis by announcing he would bring the NAFTA-style Korea FTA negotiated by President Bush to Congress for a vote. Members of Congress from Democratic leaders to Libertarian Ron Paul announced their opposition as did unions, environmental and other organizations.

Now it is up to us to make sure that the 112th Congress makes the right decision and rejects this deeply flawed, job-killing, NAFTA-style deal. The agreement could come to a vote as soon as mid-February. The Korea agreement literally replicates large swaths of NAFTA and CAFTA. The U.S. International Trade Commission, the independent government agency that reviews trade agreements, says it will increase our trade deficit. The Economic Policy Institute says it will cost 159,000 more U.S. jobs.

The Korea FTA would promote further financial deregulation - even after the hard lessons learned through the economic crisis. And it includes the outrageous NAFTA -style extraordinary rights for foreign investors that allow them to directly sue the U.S. government in World Bank and UN tribunals to demand compensation in our taxpayer funds for the loss of ‘expected future profits’ caused by having to meet U.S. environmental, financial, health and other laws our own firms must meet. This investor-state system has led to many corporate demands for taxpayer cash in challenges of NAFTA countries public interest regulations with millions paid out so far. There are over a two hundred corporate affiliates of Korean firms in the U.S. that would obtain these new rights under the FTA to challenge local, state and national laws.

Background: This agreement is one in a series of NAFTA expansion that the Bush administration negotiated. It was signed by Bush in 2007. As a Senator and then as a presidential candidate, President Obama opposed the deal. He pledged to replace the damaging NAFTA model. In June 2010, President Obama said he would start renegotiating parts of the agreement in preparation for sending it to Congress. But he only focused on some modest changes to automobile trade issues. This came after over 100 members of Congress and over 500 unions, environmental, faith and other organizations called on him to meet his commitments and really fix Bush’s old text. The deal Obama is now pushing directly conflict with his campaign commitments.

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=3595

Ideal Taxes Association: A scaled tariff would help balance 2011 budget

2011-01-09T16:09:00.000-08:00

How can we balance both the federal budget and our massive trade deficit ? The conservative-leaning Ideal Taxes Association blog makes a compelling case for a scaled tariff:

The United States faces not only a huge budget deficit, but also a huge foreign trade deficit. A December 2010 National Review/Allstate Heartland Poll contained an extensive battery of questions on trade and U.S. manufacturing. The poll revealed strong public majorities in favor of a variety of measures that would move trade towards balance. For example, 68 percent of respondents supported a policy requiring that "a certain percentage of every high-end manufactured product, such as automobiles, heavy machinery, and transportation equipment, sold in the U.S. also be produced or assembled within the U.S., even if that means higher prices for their products."

The two deficits -- budget and trade -- are easier to balance simultaneously than to balance separately. Balancing budgets reduces demand for American products, but balancing trade increases it. Balancing trade increases long-term interest rates, but balancing budgets reduces them. Moreover, the government revenue from tariffs that balance trade would help balance budgets !

The most effective way to balance trade is through a scaled tariff. Its rate with each trade surplus country goes up when our trade deficit with that country goes up, down when our trade deficit with that country goes down, and disappears when trade with that country gets close to balance. As a result, it would not only reduce American imports, but it would also increase American exports by forcing our trading partners to take down their barriers to our products so that they could continue to sell us their products.

Import duties, such as the scaled tariff, were envisioned by our founding fathers as one of the major ways to balance the federal budget. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution begins thus: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts."

Although free trade is a worthy goal, it is not as important as balanced trade. The purpose of trade is to exchange a bundle of goods and services produced with comparative advantage in one country for a bundle of goods and services produced with comparative advantage in the other country. When trade is in balance, both trading partners benefit. But when trade is chronically out of balance, the trade deficit country loses jobs in import-competing sectors without gaining more productive jobs in exporting sectors.

During the third quarter of 2010, our trade deficit was running at a $550-billion-per-year pace. Since trade-oriented jobs generate about $100,000 in revenue each, if trade were balanced, the United States would gain about 5.5 million productive new jobs.

The United States and all other nations experiencing large, chronic trade deficits are entitled under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules governing international trade to impose barriers to imports from their offending trading partners. This rule was partly designed to insure steady growth in world trade. Balanced trade can grow forever, but imbalanced trade eventually bankrupts the trade deficit countries, ruining the markets for the trade surplus countries.

Article XII of GATT 1994, annexed to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, permits any country that has both a perilous external financial position and a balance of payments deficit in the current account to restrict the quantity or value of merchandise permitted to be imported in order to bring payments toward balance. With the United States net foreign debt in 2009 at 25% of GDP and the balance of payments deficit in the current account at 2.7% of GDP, the United States qualifies and is permitted to use import restrictions to balance trade. Such restrictions can include price-based measures such as import duties in excess of the duties inscribed in the WTO schedule for that member.

Countries that impose import duties under Article XII of GATT 1994 must progressively relax such import duties as the trade deficit grows smaller, maintaining duties only to the extent that a continuing balance of payments deficit in the current account justifies such application. Therefore, an import duty that is implemented under the authority of Article XII of GATT 1994 should go down in rate as trade approaches balance and should disappear when the balance of payments in the current account reaches balance or goes into surplus.

The scaled tariff complies with Article XII of GATT 1994 because it is suspended if the United States balance of payments in the current account goes to surplus and because its rate goes down when the United States trade deficit with a country improves.

Bills passed by the last Congress often numbered thousands of pages in length; in contrast, a scaled tariff bill would be extremely short. In fact, we have written up a scaled tariff bill that is only four pages in length, and two of those pages are the preamble!

The scaled tariff would be applied only to countries that had a sizable trade surplus with the United States over the most recent year (four economic quarters). The duty on imported goods from that country would be designed to collect, as government revenue, half of the value of the trade deficit (goods plus services) with that country. The Commerce Department would simply charge the scaled tariff at the appropriate duty rates to imported goods from the trade surplus countries and rebate scaled tariff payments to the United States exporters to the extent that they were paid on inputs to those particular exports.

The Commerce Department publishes complete trade data (both goods and services) with twenty countries. We can calculate from these data for the last four economic quarters that eleven of these countries would not have any duty applied to their goods (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, and the United Kingdom), while the other nine would have the following initial duty rates applied:

China - 36%
Venezuela - 28%
Italy - 25%
Germany - 24%
India - 22%
Japan - 16%
South Africa - 14%
Mexico - 13%
France - 12%
Taiwan - 8%

A duty of 36% on Chinese goods is just about right since the Chinese yuan is about 40% undervalued. A 13% duty on Mexican goods is also about right since Mexico has been placing tariffs on U.S. goods lately while intervening in foreign exchange markets to keep the peso undervalued.

If trade levels did not change, the tariff on just the countries listed above would take in $226 billion in revenue, enough to make a sizable dent in the federal budget deficit. But trade levels with these countries would change. As revenue from the scaled tariff declines, income earned by U.S. producers would rise. Eventually, trade would come into balance, ending the revenue from the scaled tariff while producing income tax revenue from about 5.5 million new and highly productive American jobs.

The initial economic benefit of the tariff would be a surge in the building of highly efficient factories in the United States. International corporations would locate new factories here so that they would be on the right side of America's tariffs.

A longer-term benefit would be the preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Over the past three decades, America's chronic trade deficits have converted the U.S. from the world's leading creditor nation to the world's leading debtor nation. This has led the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) to suggest that a new currency be created to replace the dollar, presumably a currency issued by the International Monetary Fund, like its so-called "drawing rights." Once replaced, the dollar would collapse in value.

But the biggest benefit of all would be to world freedom. Currently, totalitarian China manipulates the dollar-yuan exchange rate while placing tariff and non-tariff import barriers against American products so that it can grow its trade surplus with the United States. As a result, its economy grows at about 10% per year, while the U.S. economy grows at about 2.5% per year. If Congress were to pass the scaled tariff, the renewed success of the United States economy would likely turn China democratic.

On the other hand, if the new Congress wimps out and lets our budget and trade deficits stay high and chronic, the Chinese Communists will prove their argument that democracies cannot solve their own economic problems. The only question will be this: which disaster will precipitate the American crash -- spiking interest rates caused by the budget deficits or a collapsing dollar caused by the trade deficits?

The authors maintain a blog at www.idealtaxes.com and co-authored the 2008 book Trading Away Our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and Faulty Tax System Before it's Too Late, published by Ideal Taxes Association.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/a_scaled_tariff_would_help_bal.html

Daily Tech: Booming Economy Underwrites Chinese Military Growth

2011-01-01T10:59:00.000-08:00

Photo: Model of Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter

America's failure to protect vital industries from unfair foreign competition is leading to a significant military challenge from China. Where is China spending all of those American dollars from Wal-Mart and other big retailers ? A major area of China's spending is on building a stronger military. Thanks free traitors for helping to bring about the rise of China and the decline of the United States of America.

Shane McGlaun writes at The Daily Tech:

The Chinese government is spending heavily to increase its military might and is increasing spending on research into new weapon systems. China insists that it is no threat to other countries, but much of the world looks warily at the communist country and its growing power.

China's defense minister Liang Guanglie says that the country wants to modernize its military without foreign aid. Liang said, "In the coming five years, our military will push forward preparations for military conflict in every strategic direction."

Liang continues to say that China would advance its capability to fight and win future high-tech wars while boosting its conventional military arsenal. China is working on weapons that trouble some military analysts and military personnel in the U.S. with new weapons systems like the DF-21 missile which can destroy a U.S. supercarrier with a single hit.

Liang said, "We will stand on our own feet to solve the problem and develop our equipment. The modernization of the Chinese military cannot depend on others, and cannot be bought."

According to Liang, China is building up its navy, air force, and strategic missile forces. China is thought to be launching a new aircraft carrier as much as a year before analysts expected and the Chinese Air Force has a new stealth jet that has been seen recently in spy shots. The Chinese stealth aircraft is called the J-20 and is thought to be aimed at the U.S. F-22 Raptor. Some reports have claimed that the J-20 is larger than the Raptor with more weapons and fuel capacity making some think that the aircraft may not be as fast or agile as the Raptor in a fight.

Defense News reports that U.S. Defense Secretary Ronald Gates will head to Beijing soon for talks with Chinese officials. The visit will undoubtedly be in part to talk about the fact that China is allied with North Korea. North Korea recently shelled a small South Korean island killing four people, including two civilians.

http://www.dailytech.com/Booming+Economy+Underwrites+Growing+Chinese+Military+Might/article20524c.htm

CS Monitor: Cutting Social Security will not fix national debt

2011-01-01T09:11:00.000-08:00

Karen Friedman writes in the Christian Science Monitor:

Washington is panicking over the national debt. Powerful members of Congress, spurred on by recommendations made by some members of President Obama’s recently concluded fiscal commission, are planning an aggressive legislative agenda to balance the books. Part of this strategy is attacking Social Security.

Focusing on Social Security cuts is misguided on two counts. First, it wrongly assumes that Social Security is going broke and causing a long-term fiscal crisis. Second, it ignores a much more urgent financial crisis in our midst: the retirement income deficit – representing the gap between what people have saved for retirement today and what they would need to have saved by today to meet a basic threshold of adequacy in retirement.

If the new Congress is serious about both protecting economic security for older Americans and getting the economy back on track, the last thing we should do is cut Social Security. We should strengthen it, and work to create a new reliable private retirement income system on top of it.

Contrary to the widespread myth further forwarded by the commission, Social Security is neither going broke nor causing our federal deficits. It never contributed and, unless the law is changed, never will contribute a penny to the debt. It is self-financing, has no borrowing authority, and cannot pay benefits unless it has the income on hand to cover the entire cost.

Today, Social Security is running surpluses and will be in sound financial shape for nearly three decades. Even after that, its long-term shortfall can be addressed easily without cuts. If a corporation could make such claims to its shareholders, it would be cause for champagne, not gloom and doom.

What is a source for gloom is the massive retirement income deficit already facing millions of Americans. Calculated by the Center on Retirement Research at Boston College, the Retirement Income Deficit is already $6.6 trillion – five times the size of the federal deficit.

The retirement income deficit covers households in their peak earning and saving years — those in the 32-64 age range. It assumes that people will continue to work, save, and accumulate additional pension, retirement savings, and Social Security benefits until they retire at age 65, later than most people currently retire. It also assumes that retirees will spend down all their wealth in retirement, including home equity. The $6.6 trillion is thus in many respects a conservative number.

Cuts to Social Security will only make the retirement income deficit worse. Social Security was intended to provide only a minimal foundation of retirement income, with private sources making up the rest. Our current problem is that in practice, Social Security is the lion’s share of retirement for most Americans: it’s half the income for two out of three retirees and virtually all the income for one out of five.

And these benefits amount to subsistence payments: $14,000 for the typical retiree. That’s less than a full-time minimum wage worker earns flipping hamburgers.

These figures didn’t seem to have much sway over the president’s deficit commission. Even though the commission proposal failed to attain the supermajority support needed to go to Congress for an immediate vote, key members of both houses are already promising to advance its agenda next year.

This commission proposal recommends a range of substantial cuts to Social Security. These include reductions in cost-of-living adjustments, increases in both the normal and early retirement ages to 69 and 64 respectively, and draconian changes in the benefit formula. Today’s retirees will see their benefits reduced just as cuts in Medicare take effect. And, as for tomorrow’s retirees – who are just toddlers today – they will be living on Social Security benefits that will be cut by as much as 41 percent. So much for the contention by the commission’s co-chairs that they are doing this for their grandchildren.

These commissioners and legislators may think that phasing in Social Security cuts will somehow result in young people saving more for retirement on their own, but that is unrealistically optimistic given the facts we know today. Half of today’s private-sector workers have no retirement plan at work. That means they will be left to live on only the minimal payments of Social Security. Those with true pensions – ones that are employer-paid and that promise a stream of guaranteed benefits – are a dwindling breed. In 1980, two out of three American workers participated in traditional pension plans with guaranteed, lifetime benefits. Now, it’s one out of five and falling as employers cancel these plans, rescinding long-standing promises to workers and increasingly turn to do-it-yourself 401(k) plans.

But 401(k) plans are failing to close the Retirement Income Deficit. Even before the stock market drop, half of all households with 401(k) and other retirement savings plans had less than $45,000 in their accounts. For those approaching retirement, the median account balance was just $98,000 – not much to retire on.

It is hard to believe that things will get better for future generations when employers have made it clear that they don’t want the responsibility of contributing to retirement plans and do-it-yourself savings approaches have not worked.

Instead of building on the flawed commission recommendations, Congress should take a fresh, hard look at these issues with public input and open debate.

What we need is comprehensive retirement policy that protects future generations of retirees. In addition to doing everything possible to protect and strengthen Social Security, policymakers should create a 21st-century pension system on top of Social Security – one that has shared responsibility of employers, employees, and the government.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1228/Cutting-Social-Security-will-not-fix-the-national-debt

Pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak has no regrets about stand for health care reform

2011-01-01T08:35:00.000-08:00

Congressman Bart Stupak is a profile in political courage. The pro-life Democrat from Michigan sacrificed his political career to support health care reform. As Stupak prepares to leave Capitol Hill, he has no regrets about the decision. Stupak has been a consistent fighter for working familes and moral values. He is a man of principle and will be missed in public life.

The Bay City Times reports:

When U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak began cleaning out his Washington, D.C., office earlier this month, he came across a flier that he published during his first run for Congress in the early 1990s.

It read, “Health care is a right, not a privilege.”

“I coined that phrase almost 20 years ago,” said Stupak, D-Menominee. “I’ve always believed that all Americans have the right to health care.”

As he prepares to leave office, Stupak says the passage of universal health care for all Americans — a controversial issue that thrust the Congressman into the national spotlight — is the highlight of his political career.

As a career-long supporter of universal health care, Stupak naturally wanted to support President Barack Obama’s 2009 health care reform bill. But as a pro-life Democrat, he feared the bill would allow for federal funds to be used to pay for abortions.

So he, along with Republican Congressman Joseph R. Pitts submitted an amendment that national media coined the “Stupak Amendment.” The amendment prohibited such payments.

The amendment was adopted by the House, but not in the Senate’s version of the legislation. Stupak said he would not vote for the final version of the bill if his amendment was not included.

But in March, Stupak struck a deal with Obama that had the President signing an executive order that barred federal funding for abortions. The deal cleared the way for the passage of the health care bill and ignited a firestorm of criticism against Stupak.

It’s a decision Stupak says he’ll never regret.

“It was worth it,” said Stupak. “It means that people finally have the opportunity to qualify for affordable health care.”

Stupak went on to say the executive order has been upheld three times in different litigation.

In April, Stupak announced he would not seek re-election in Michigan’s 1st Congressional District. He will be replaced by Republican Dan Benishek, of Crystal Falls, who defeated several challengers, including Democrat Gary McDowell, in November.

After 34 years of public service — which also includes work as a Michigan State Police trooper and state representative — Stupak said he plans to step away from government work for now, but he hasn’t ruled out returning to politics.

“I’ve been married for 36 years and spent 34 years in public service,” said Stupak, 58. “I need to step away for awhile.”

Stupak is married to Laurie Stupak. His son Ken Stupak is an attorney in California.

Stupak likely will be heading to Massachusetts for a teaching fellowship at Harvard University beginning after the new year. He will work with graduate students in the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, pending approval from the university, according to Jake Ackman, a Harvard spokesman.

“The opportunity at Harvard is a chance for me to do something different, it’s something I’m looking forward to,” Stupak said.

Stupak’s political allies say he will best be remembered for his hybrid politics, which include pro-life and pro-gun beliefs that won over Republicans and financial and economic philosophies that brought fellow Democrats to his side.

“Bart is a unique one,” said Thomas Baldini, of Marquette, who has served as Stupak’s district director for the past eight years. “He knows what he believes in and he understands his district.

“He’s not a wide-eyed liberal, or a wide-eyed conservative, despite what some people would say because he voted a certain way on an issue.”

Stupak’s decisions regarding the health care reform bill turned out to be polarizing as former supporters turned their backs on the Congressman and spoke out publicly against him.

More seriously, Stupak dealt with threats from constituents and out-of-district residents.

Russell Hesch, 73, of West Branch, is charged with threatening Stupak and his family because of his health care vote. He’s accused of writing a letter that threatened to paint the Mackinac Bridge with Stupak’s blood.

“You always take all threats seriously,” said Stupak.

In an interview with The Times earlier this year, Stupak said his phone rang off the hook with complaints and threats.

Now leaving office, he said his “Stupak Amendment” could still be installed into the reform bill.

“It could happen, especially with a Republican-controlled House,” said Stupak. “I’d still like to see it in statute, because it’s harder for the President to overrule it.”

Another major project that Stupak said he wanted to accomplish by year’s end is finalizing the purchase of Standish Maximum Security Prison by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

In August, Stupak said federal officials were “very serious” about purchasing the prison, which closed in October 2009, but hung in limbo until last December, when federal officials considered sending Guantanamo Bay detainees to the Arenac County prison.

The Obama administration decided to house those detainees in Illinois instead — a success for local opposition groups, such as the Michigan Coalition to Stop Gitmo North, but a blow to city officials and residents that didn’t want to see the prison vacant.

Stupak said his predecessor will have to take up the fight to see the prison reopened.

“I brought it as far as I could under my watch,” said Stupak. “It’s up to Benishek to make sure that money is there.”

Though excited for the next chapter in his life, Stupak admits leaving government service is difficult for him. He remembers his father, Frank Stupak, being active in local politics, and helping him knock on doors during election seasons.

“That was me, that’s who I am,” said Stupak. “I loved going door-to-door to get out the Democratic vote.

“I remember times where my high school buddies and I would go out and take a weekend to just go and do it, pedaling for my dad.”

He said he will miss his daily interaction with other members of Congress, also.

“99.9 percent of the people in there are great people,” said Stupak. “I’m going to really miss the members, the daily interaction.

“I don’t agree with 100 percent of the people I worked with, but I know their hearts are in the right place — they all want the best for this country.

“We may disagree, but that keeps things interesting.”

http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.ssf/2010/12/northern_michigans_hybrid_poli.html

Fritz Hollings: Winning trade war is key to revitalizing U.S. economy

2010-12-25T08:50:00.000-08:00

Former Senator Fritz Hollings writes at Economy In Crisis:

Pundits keep analyzing the President trying to get the economy going and create jobs. It’s not that the President lectures like a professor. It’s not waiting for the recession to end and growth resumes. And it’s not the need for more bi-partisanship. Bi-partisanship is our trouble. The President, Congress, Republicans and Democrats in Washington, all agree on tax cuts, deficit spending, defense spending, wars, and chasing contributions for re-election. Worst of all, there’s a bi-partisan agreement to avoid competing in the trade war.

A business consultant on “Morning Joe” stated the typical political nonsense: “government doesn’t create jobs.” He had just won the Malcolm Baldridge Award. He ought to give it back. In globalization with governments competing in a trade war for production and jobs, the United States retreats. The consultant added “small business creates jobs.” Small business is not a job multiplier. Manufacture is the job multiplier. Manufacture is the creator of jobs. Manufacture is the engine of growth. Manufacture develops the middle class.

In the last ten years we’ve lost a third of the nation’s manufacture in the trade war to off-shoring. Long before the recession, Princeton economist, Alan Blinder, estimated that in ten years the country would lose 30 million to 40 million jobs to off-shoring. President Obama didn’t inherit just a recession. He inherited a financial collapse together with a job collapse from off-shoring.

Stimulation won’t do. President Bush increased the debt and stimulated the economy $5 trillion in eight years. In the same period, household debt increased or stimulated the economy another $7 trillion. The Federal Reserve stimulated the economy a trillion dollars in the remainder of 2008. By January 2009, when Obama was sworn in as President, the economy had been stimulated $13 trillion in eight years, and we were losing exactly 799,000 jobs a month. President Obama in two years has now stimulated the economy another $3 trillion and last month unemployment increased. Stimulation is spent. We’re losing jobs not only from the recession but because we are not competing in the trade war.

The United States was founded in a trade war. The Mother Country forbade manufacture in the colony and required exports from the colony to be carried in English bottoms. The Boston Tea Party that triggered the Revolution framed a Constitution calling for Congress to regulate trade – not freeing trade. In fact, the forefathers agreed to regulate trade four years before they could agree on first amendment rights. The first bill to pass the United States Congress on July 4, 1789, was a protectionist tariff. We didn’t pass the income tax until 1913. We financed and built the United States into an industrial power with protectionism for the first hundred years, causing Teddy Roosevelt to exclaim in a letter: “Thank God I’m not a Free Trader.”

After World War II, Japan started the present trade war by closing its domestic market, subsidizing its manufacture, selling its export at cost, and making up the profit in the closed market. Japan’s thrust for market share put General Motors into bankruptcy with Toyota #1. I worked with business in this trade war to protect its domestic production, passing numerous trade bills, only to be vetoed by presidents of both parties because of the Cold War. But when President Clinton passed NAFTA with Mexico, off-shoring began in earnest. And ten years ago, when China entered the World Trade Organization, off-shoring hemorrhaged. Now, Corporate America, instead of fighting free trade, cries “free trade,” “protectionism,” “don’t start a trade war.”

Globalization is nothing more than a trade war with manufacturers looking for a cheaper country to produce. Wall Street, the big banks, the financial houses, the Business Roundtable, and the United States Chamber of Commerce are a fifth column in this trade war. They’re not interested in creating jobs in the United States. They’re interested in investment off-shore to keep their profits up in the market. The CEOs are not interested in taking on labor worries with domestic production. They want to keep China profits flowing for their golden parachute. Consequently, they oppose getting into the trade war.

If the President enforces trade laws or Congress introduces a trade measure, coming down on their heads will be Tom Donahue of the United States Chamber of Commerce and the Wall Street crowd, contributing to their defeat. So business leadership, the President, the Congress, all join in a charade of “free trade,” “don’t start a trade war.”

Every excuse in the world is given for the lack of jobs except the trade war. Pundits blame the lack of jobs on education and innovation. We need a lot more education in South Carolina, but we have the skills to produce the “ultimate driving machine” for BMW and Boeing’s Dreamliner. And the best of innovation, Intel, has long since left for Ireland, China, and now Vietnam. Persons with graduate degrees can’t find jobs. Silicon Valley suffers 11% unemployment.

The best example of a President sleep-walking through the trade war is his hectoring CEOs to invest in production and jobs in-country. If you were a CEO, would you invest in-country? The first thing the banker asks is: “Can you meet the China price?” If not, even though your investment succeeds, cheaper imports from China of the same article will soon put you out of business and the loan goes bad. The harsh truth is that in globalization it is difficult to produce for a profit in the United States. In globalization only the government can make it profitable to manufacture and protect Corporate America’s investment.

In globalization, the task is for the President and Congress to make it profitable to produce in the United States. Congress can make it profitable and jump-start the economy by eliminating the corporate income tax and replacing it with a 5% value added tax. The corporate tax estimate for 2010 is $156.7 billion in revenues. A 5% VAT reaps $600 billion. Exemptions for the low income for food, health and housing still leaves $350 billion to start paying down the debt. Since the VAT is rebated on export, it promotes exports. Cancelling the corporate tax releases $1 trillion in off-shore profits that can be repatriated tax free to invest in creating jobs in the United States.

The United States now has to import the majority of what it consumes – particularly weaponry. The United States cannot be defended today save the favor of some foreign country. A few weeks ago, the Pentagon was begging Russia for helicopters for Afghanistan. The War Production Act of 1950 guarantees that the troops will always have the equipment to defend. President John F. Kennedy enforced this Act in 1961 to save the textile industry. President Obama could create millions of jobs by enforcing the War Production Act of 1950. The President could immediately exact a 10% surcharge on imports as President Nixon did in 1971 when our trade deficits were a miniscule of the trade deficits today. Section 201 of the Trade Act calls on the President to move when a vital industry like automobiles is endangered. President Roosevelt in World War II called on Chrysler to produce the tanks and General Motors to produce the B-29s. But President Bush refused, and now President Obama refuses, to move when GM was endangered and waited for it to go bankrupt and need a bailout.

Last week, The Economist headlined “The dangers of a rising China.” We are not threatened by China’s military but its economy. In 1989, after Tiananmen, we obtained a resolution in the General Assembly of the United Nations to investigate human rights in China. China went to its economic friends in Africa and the Pacific Rim, and there has never been a hearing. Weeks ago, China obtained the return of its ship captain from Japan by cutting off rare earth supplies to Japan. Last week, nineteen nations refused to attend the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo because of China’s objection. China uses our Good Neighbor Policy while we make wars to control. In globalization, “it’s the economy, stupid.”

Osama bin Laden said his crusade was in response to a second Crusade against the Muslim world. We prove bin Laden’s case by invading Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Our invasion brought al-Qaida to Iraq, and our invasion of Afghanistan turns allies in Charlie Wilson’s war to terrorists. On 9/11, the State Department reported al-Qaida was in forty-five countries – but not in Iraq. After Afghanistan we’ll still have forty-four countries to go, including the United States. Sixty-eight years ago, we liberated Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, and they have yet to opt for democracy. In the Muslim world more important than freedom and democracy is tribe and religion. We have spent over nine years force feeding democracy, trying to change a culture militarily, in Afghanistan. Now we ask young America to lose its arms, legs, and lives for five more years to force feed democracy and spread terrorism.

http://www.economyincrisis.org/content/wake-america-0

Spokeman-Review: A Dickens of a system

2010-12-25T08:41:00.000-08:00

From The Spokesman-Review:

Since the 1960s the proportion of the wealth that goes to the rich has risen steadily. The top 1 percent now captures 20 percent of our wealth, while the bottom 50 percent get a measly 13 percent.

It is a deplorable distribution of wealth and it is only getting worse. Is there any limit? We are turning into India in terms of rich and poor.

Republicans respond with tortured logic, that, after all, the rich pay most of the taxes. It is poor people’s own fault. They should have picked richer parents or not be so lazy.

A man who earns $55 million a year, or about $150,000 a day, is worth every dime, but his employee who earns $20,000 a year is a leech and is overpaid because his job can be shifted overseas for much less.

Some hundred years ago, Charles Dickens wrote “A Christmas Carol.” It pointed out the terrible inequities of the distribution of wealth of England in the 1800s. Its main character was Ebenezer Scrooge, and to this day the name is synonymous with cold-hearted misers.

Dickens died in 1870, but Scrooge is still alive and healthy, and he votes a straight Republican ticket.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/dec/18/a-dickens-of-a-system/

Michael Lind: Obama-GOP deal threatens America's infrastructure

2010-12-14T18:43:00.000-08:00

Michael Lind explains how the tax cut compromise will undermine efforts to rebuild America's decaying infrastructure:

One of the little-noticed elements of the deal on taxes agreed upon by the Obama administration and the Republican congressional leadership is the decision of the White House and the GOP not to renew an obscure program known as Build America Bonds. This decision threatens to hurt American economic growth for decades to come, by eliminating one of the most successful methods of modernizing the vital infrastructure on which American businesses and workers depend.

Build America Bonds (BABs), a variety of municipal bonds that receive favorable tax treatment, were created in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Unlike traditional tax-exempt municipal bonds, BABs are taxable and attractive to investors like pension funds that do not benefit from tax-exempt bonds. States, counties and cities issue the bonds for infrastructure projects, and the federal government pays 35 percent of the interest. The federal subsidy greatly reduces the borrowing costs for state and local governments.

Even before the recession, the American Society of Civil Engineers calculated that the U.S. needed to spend $2.2 trillion over five years not only for new freight and passenger infrastructure but also for maintenance and repair of crumbling bridges, highways, railroads, inland waterways and ports. Infrastructure spending, which would be necessary in any event, is all the more urgent during a near-depression like the Great Recession. Unlike short-term tax cuts intended to boost consumer spending, infrastructure investment can create permanent public assets and lower the costs of transportation and communications for American businesses, while mobilizing capital and labor that otherwise would remain idle.

One would think there would be a bipartisan consensus on the need to help American business by investing in infrastructure, even among conservatives and liberals who disagree on other elements of American public policy like Social Security and Medicare. A modern, efficient infrastructure is the "seed corn" of a modern, efficient economy. Because future prosperity depends on it, infrastructure investment should be the last to be sacrificed. And the Build America Bonds program is the most successful infrastructure program in years, mobilizing $170 billion in new investment since the program's inception.

And yet, according to Reuters, the Republican Party is determined to kill an infrastructure investment program that in the past enjoyed bipartisan support:

Congressional Republicans will block any inclusion of Build America Bonds, a taxable bond program popular with states, cities and other muni issuers, in the tax deal they clinched with President Barack Obama, a Republican aide said on Tuesday.

"We have a very firm line on BABs -- we are not going to allow them to be included," a congressional Republican aide said.

Although more populous states that account for a greater share of the U.S. economy naturally receive more infrastructure funding, it is not the case that BABs are some kind of blue-state or blue-city boondoggle. As the Center on Law and Public Finance points out, conservative Republican Utah accounts for the greatest amount of BABs as a percentage of GDP of any state.

In rural areas of states including Ohio, South Dakota and Michigan, state or county governments have been so strapped for cash that they are converting asphalt roads to gravel or allowing them to crumble. That's right: While our Asian and European economic rivals are building new, smart infrastructure, the United States of America is allowing its existing roads to crumble into gravel and dirt as the Roman roads did during the Dark Ages.

Read full article at
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/14/obama_tax_deal_gop_infrastructure

Corporate Power Kills Mine Safety Act

2010-12-12T10:06:00.000-08:00

From The Charleston Gazette:

When Republicans take partial control of Congress next month, hope for reforms such as worker safety laws presumably will vanish. Meanwhile, a last-hour attempt to prevent coal mine deaths -- a rush vote before the GOP takeover -- likewise failed.

The Robert C. Byrd Mine Safety Protection Act was drafted in the wake of West Virginia's Big Branch tragedy that killed 29 miners. It would toughen enforcement, for example by preventing coal corporations from endlessly appealing violation citations, thus stalling federal actions against dangerous mines.

House Labor Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., sought to suspend House rules and pass the Byrd Act, a tactic requiring two-thirds approval. He succeeded in gaining a 214-193 majority, with 26 members not voting, but fell short of two-thirds.

Every Republican except one opposed the safety effort. Rep. Shelley Capito, R-W.Va., denounced the attempt, calling it "partisan games" to bring up the bill "in the dead of night." She said the Byrd Act "imposes severe penalties on businesses, introduces dramatic regulatory changes and promotes unnecessary litigation."

Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., supported the bill. Lame-duck Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., soon to leave Congress, was absent.

Chairman Miller said the Byrd bill would save miners. He explained:

"Current law on 'patterns of violations' has so many loopholes that it invites delays and allows some coal mine operators to game the system. Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Mine was a perfect example of an operator repeatedly skirting the law and putting workers' lives in the crosshairs.

"The Upper Big Branch Mine was subject to 515 violations and 54 withdrawal orders in 2009, more than any other mine in the country. Red flags were waving about this mine's repeated unwarrantable failures. And yet, because Massey indiscriminately appealed many of these violations, it evaded stronger sanctions that would have improved conditions and saved lives."

Also, the Byrd Act would protect miners who report safety problems, give U.S. investigators more power to demand information after accidents, require weekend and night-shift inspections, and toughen criminal penalties for violations.

It's a shame that Democrats couldn't pass this lifesaving law while they still dominate Congress. We wish that party leaders would keep members in session straight through the holidays to approve many reforms while there's still time. After Republicans take power next month, it will be too late.

http://sundaygazettemail.com/Opinion/201012090707

The Case for a National Service Draft

2010-11-25T15:33:00.000-08:00

Writing at Foreign Policy, Thomas Ricks makes the case for compulsory national service:

In 1974, the military became all volunteer. In the 1980s, the Reagan tax cuts began a huge transfer of wealth to the already wealthy, top 1 percent of American society. Normally we don't connect these two events, but with the passage of time, I suspect we may come to see them together as the moment when the wealthy checked out of America and moved into physical and mental gated communities.

I've already talked about how over the last 30 years, the proportion of wealth going to the top 1 percent has gone from 10 percent of annual national income to almost 25 percent, a greater share than in the Roaring '20s. And many of the readers of this blog have contributed thoughts about the All-Volunteer Force, especially how many American parents no longer have a sense of skin in the game.

bring all this up again because when I think about the Tea Party and the broader national mood of anti-incumbency, I suspect it all is part of a growing national distrust and dislike of elites. If Washington is getting whupped today, Wall Street can't be far behind on the hit parade. While I have problems with the Tea Party, I do think it is correct to suspect that the elites are not doing their part. So where I think this winds up is probably a sharp populist backlash, in five or 10 years, when all the national bills really start coming due. Ireland today may be America soon. Get ready for increase in income tax rates. But, as the wealthy will tell you after a few drinks, occupational income is really for the little people. The real game is capital gains taxes, and the rate there is just 15 percent. I suspect it will double sometime down the road.

And while we are at it, let's have a parallel debate about national service, OK?

Bringing back a draft does not mean bringing back the draft we saw in the 1960s. Rather, I think we design a new deal that offer a three-part set of options:

The military option. You do 18 months of military service. The leaders of the armed forces will kick and moan, but these new conscripts could do a lot of work that currently is outsourced: cutting the grass, cooking the food, taking out the trash, painting the barracks. They would receive minimal pay during their terms of service, but good post-service benefits, such as free tuition at any university in America. If the draftees like the military life, and some will, they could at the end of their terms transfer to the professional force, which would continue to receive higher pay and good benefits.

The civilian service option.Don't want to go military? Not a problem. We have lots of other jobs at hand. You do two years of them -- be a teacher's aide at a troubled inner-city school, clean up the cities, bring meals to elderly shut-ins. We might even think about how this force could help rebuild the American infrastructure, crumbling after 30 years of neglect. These national service people would receive post-service benefits essentially similar to what military types get now, with tuition aid.

The libertarian opt-out. There is a great tradition of libertarianism in this country, and we honor it. Here, you opt out of the military and civilian service options. You do nothing for Uncle Sam. In return, you ask for nothing from him. For the rest of your life, no tuition aid, no federal guarantees on your mortgage, no Medicare. Anything we can take you out of, we will. But the door remains open -- if you decide at age 50 that you were wrong, fine, come in and drive a general around for a couple of years.

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/19/when_the_rich_abandoned_america_and_what_that_has_to_do_with_defense

Woman dies thanks to Florida Medicaid privatization death panel created by Jeb Bush

2010-11-24T16:15:00.000-08:00

FORMER GOVERNOR JEB BUSH LED THE EFFORT TO IMPLEMENT MEDICAID PRIVATIZATION IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. BUSH AND THE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE TURNED MEDICAID PATIENTS OVER TO PRIVATE HMO DEATH PANELS

The Florida Times Union reports:

Relatives say a Jacksonville mother would be alive today if her insurance provider hadn’t repeatedly denied her request for a liver transplant.

Alisa Wilson, 37, died Friday at 8:50 p.m. after a lengthy battle with an undisclosed liver disease, said her father, Eric Wilson.

“Her liver was gone,” Wilson said. “There was no more left. She needed that transplant two weeks ago.”

In her final days, the Wilsons desperately reached out to the media and health-law attorneys to get her approved for a transplant.

Over the summer, she was turned down several times by her insurer, a Medicaid reform HMO run by Sunshine State Health.

The family switched her to traditional “fee-for-service” Medicaid because the local transplant center at Mayo Clinic Florida doesn’t typically accept Medicaid HMOs.

Like many Medicaid recipients in Duval County, Wilson was required to join a private plan as part of a Gov. Jeb Bush-era experimental overhaul of the program.

Only Duval, Baker, Clay, Nassau and Broward counties are part of the reform pilot, but state leaders are considering expanding it statewide.

About a week and a half ago, attorneys working on Wilson’s behalf said the insurance obstacles had been worked out. By then, however, her health was too shaky to risk going under the knife.

“If they did it months ago, my daughter would be alive now,” her father said.

Representatives for Sunshine State and the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, which manages Florida’s Medicaid program, said they couldn’t speak to the specifics of the case, citing privacy laws.

Wilson’s funeral is scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 30, at Carthage Chapel Funeral Home, 929 W. Beaver St.

http://jacksonville.com/news/health-and-fitness/2010-11-22/story/jacksonville-woman-dies-after-insurer-repeatedly-denies-her

Strategy Page: China Gains Military Might as UAV Gap Closes

2010-11-21T19:55:00.000-08:00

The Strategy Page reports:

In the last decade, China has closed the gap (of a decade or more) in unmanned aerial vehicle development. China now has UAVs that are comparable, although not equal, to the American Predator and Global Hawk. China still lags, however, in user experience. American troops have over a million hours of UAV air time in combat zones. But in terms of the technology, the Chinese are there. The Chinese government has encouraged UAV development, and there are several companies currently at it, offering over 25 different UAV models.

But one Chinese firm, ASN Technology, has 90 percent of the military market in China, and a large chunk of the police and civilian business as well. While ASN has produced a UAV (ASN-229A), that looks just like the Predator, it is smaller (800 kg) while having a top speed of 180 kilometers an hour and 20 hours endurance. The ASN-229A can also carry two small missiles, similar to the U.S. Hellfire.

But most of the ASN models in use by the Chinese military are older, more like the 1990s technology found in the U.S. Army Shadow 200 (now being replaced by the Predator-like, 1.2 ton Gray Eagle). One of the most numerous Chinese army models, the ASN-206/207, is a 222 kg (488 pound) aircraft, with a 50 kg (110 pound) payload. The 207 model has a max endurance of eight hours, but more common is an endurance of four hours. Max range from the control van is 150 kilometers and cruising speed is about 180 kilometers an hour. A UAV unit consists of one control van and 6-10 trucks, each carrying a UAV and its catapult launch equipment. The UAV lands via parachute, so the aircraft get banged up a lot. A UAV battalion, with ten aircraft, would not be able to provide round the clock surveillance for more than a week, at best. But Chinese planners believe this is adequate. The unit contains repair crews, equipment and spare parts. This UAV can broadcast back live video, and be equipped for electronic warfare.

The Chinese army also have several models of smaller UAVs (50-100 kg/100-220 pounds), with endurance of 2-4 hours. The lack of persistence (the ability to stay in the air for long periods of time) means the Chinese are unable to use this most important of UAV capabilities. The Chinese now have new UAVs that are closer to current U.S. designs, but the Chinese military has not yet bought a lot of them.

While many Chinese UAVs demonstrate an American influence, some appear to be using Israeli technology. That's no accident, as four years ago, Israeli UAV manufacturer EMIT got busted after it was caught shipping UAV technology to China. EMIT was not a major player in the UAV industry, having only three models; the 450 kg Butterfly, 182 kg (400 pound) Blue Horizon, the 48 kg (hundred pound) Sparrow. The twenty year old firm has been scrambling to stay in business. The Chinese helped set up a phony cooperative deal in a Southeast Asian country, to provide cover for the transfer of EMIT UAV technology to China. Most of EMIT's production is for export, but Israel has agreed to consult with the United States about transfers of technology to China. This is because Israel has been caught exporting military equipment, containing American technology, to China (in violation of agreements with the United States.) China tends to get technology wherever, and whenever, it can.

China is offering most of its UAVs for export. One of the more interesting of these is a 220 kg (484 pound) helicopter UAV. The U8E has a top speed of 150 kilometers an hour, endurance of four hours, range (from operator) of 150 kilometers and a payload of 40 kg (88 pounds). This is sufficient for day/night cameras, laser designators and the like. Police like these helicopter UAVs, soldiers less so.

Two years ago, China revealed that it was developing a new UAV, similar to the U.S. RQ-4 Global Hawk. Called Xianglong (Soaring Dragon), it is about half the size of the Global Hawk, at 7.5 tons, with a 14.5 meter (45 foot) wingspan and a .65 ton payload. Max altitude will be 18.4 kilometers (57,000 feet) and range will be 7,000 kilometers. It has a faster cruising speed (750 kilometers an hour) than the RQ-4.

The Chinese Xianglong is intended for maritime patrol, as is a U.S. Navy model of the RQ-4. The shorter range of the Xianglong is apparently attributable to the lower capabilities of the Chinese aircraft engine industry. The Xianglong is believed to be in limited service, meaning that it is still being developed.

Chinese firms have also been developing jet propelled UAVs. Three years ago, Beijing Black Buzzard Aviation Technology Limited, offered for sale two such UAVs . Both are powered by a miniature jet engine, larger than the types used in remote control model aircraft. Both models are similar in appearance, and look more like target drones than reconnaissance UAVs. The HFT-40A weighs 57 kg (100 pounds), is 3.3 meters (ten feet) long, with a 2.1 meter (6.5 foot) wingspan. It has a top speed of 500 kilometers an hour, max endurance of three hours and can operate 80 kilometers from its base station. The HFT-60A weighs 90 kg (198 pounds), is 3.8 meters (11 feet) long, with a 2.2 meter (seven foot) wingspan. It has a top speed of 700 kilometers an hour, endurance of three hours and can operate 150 kilometers from its base station.

These two UAVs are unique, as most users want endurance and slow speed. It's unclear what market these two high speed, low endurance UAVs are being pitched to. But the Chinese government encourages such research, as it provides a technology base for the development of larger, combat UAVs. Some of these have begun to appear, serving as high speed recon aircraft for naval forces. Once these UAVs spot an American carrier, high speed cruise missiles will not be far behind.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20101119.aspx

Big Oil, Partisan Politics Block Natural Gas and Electric Vehicles Bill

2010-11-21T16:40:00.001-08:00

Reducing dependence on foreign oil is critical to America's economic health and national security. Partisan politics and short-sighted thinking has stood in the way of a real plan for energy independence. Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, argues for passage of legislation to encourage a switch to natural gas and electrical vehicles.

Weiss writes:

The Senate has one last chance to pass clean energy measures before the 111th Congress adjourns for the year. Many other clean energy and climate measures were blocked in this Congress, but there’s hope for a better ending to this clean energy legislative tragedy: The pending bill currently is composed of proposals with bipartisan authors.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) canceled a cloture vote that would have allowed passage of his Promoting Natural Gas and Electric Vehicles Act, S. 3815. Instead, he is reportedly conducting talks with one of the bill’s co-sponsors, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), to see if a bipartisan agreement over the bill’s passage is possible. It is a modest proposal that would increase incentives for natural gas trucks, create a pilot program for electric vehicle recharging infrastructure, and raise the oil spill liability fee from 8 cents to 21 cents per barrel.

Sen. Reid’s bill is based on several bipartisan proposals. Its natural gas vehicles provisions are drawn from the NAT GAS Act, S. 1408. It would provide money for rebates to purchase natural gas cars and trucks. CAP estimates that the conversion of trucks to natural gas could save 1.2 million barrels of oil per day by 2035. The Senate Democratic Policy Committee notes that, “The natural gas industry ... estimated that this program will create more than 100,000 direct manufacturing and labor jobs and more than 450,000 indirect jobs.” Its cosponsors include conservative Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), George LeMieux (R-FL), and Hatch.

The electric vehicle provisions in S. 3815 are based on The Electric Vehicle Deployment Act, S. 3442. It would speed the transition to electric vehicles by creating a pilot program to help some communities create electric vehicle recharging infrastructure for plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles, such as the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf. Its cosponsors include Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Susan Collins (R-ME), and LeMieux.

The cost of these programs would be offset by a fairly small increase in the oil spill liability fee from 8 cents to 21 cents per barrel. This would lead to an increase in gasoline prices of no more than one-thirteenth of a cent per gallon. In other words, it would boost the price of seven and a half gallons of gasoline by a single penny. To put this in perspective, gasoline prices rose 7 cents per gallon over the past month.

Big Oil companies oppose this because it would reduce oil use and increase their oil spill liability fee by a pittance. Nonetheless, Big Oil’s opposition to this tiny fee hike could be enough to convince senators to vote against this very modest bill. The negotiations over the legislation are focusing on whether to levy this small fee increase or use some other mechanism to offset its cost.

Republican senators face pressure from their leaders to oppose the bill to deny President Barack Obama even a small victory in addition to demands from Big Oil. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) made it clear that politics trumps progress when he said that, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” It is easy to imagine GOP Senate leaders following this dictum by strong-arming their caucus to vote against ending debate and passing this bill.

Republican senators who supported the NAT Gas Act and Electric Vehicle Development Act should also support S. 3815 if there is an agreement between Sens. Reid and Hatch. The bill would then pass. If past is prologue, though, enough of these senators could follow Big Oil and their Senate leadership to kill this common sense, low-cost legislation that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It would join comprehensive global warming and clean energy legislation along with other essential clean energy jobs proposals on the scrap heap of bills Big Oil and Senate Republican leaders opposed.

Let’s hope such a sad fate for clean energy can be avoided in this Congress.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/11/final_act.html

Atomic Insights: Nuclear Industry Can Lead a Revival in U.S. Manufacturing

2010-11-20T22:53:00.000-08:00

The informative blog Atomic Insights calls attention to nuclear power's potential role in revitalizing the U.S. industrial base:

Nuclear Industry Can Lead a Revival in Skilled Labor and Manufacturing in the United States

by Rod Adams

The Nuclear Energy Institute, the American Nuclear Society and the North American Young Generation in Nuclear have been investing time and money into focused workforce development programs for several years. The people leading the effort are taking the action to ensure that there are educated and trained people who are ready to meet the challenge of continuing to reliably operate and maintain our existing fleet of 104 nuclear reactors at the same time that we are reestablishing our nuclear plant manufacturing and construction industry.

The below is an op-ed describing the effort by one of its leaders.

Nuclear Industry Workforce Education Revitalizes Skilled Labor and Manufacturing Careers
By Elizabeth McAndrew-Benavides
President
North American Young Generation

In 1950 manufacturing accounted for more than 30 percent of all U.S. employment. These skilled labor careers provided an unprecedented standard of living for more than two decades following the end of World War II, allowing millions of Americans to purchase homes and autos and pay for their children to go to college.

By 2006, manufacturing employment shrunk to a mere 10 percent of U.S. employment and with it the bulk of America’s well-paying skilled labor careers. Prognosticators predicted manufacturing’s ultimate demise as a significant driver of the American economy. But a look at the U.S. nuclear industry tells a different story: a narrative where job growth in the skilled trades is on an upward trend and the industry can serve as a role model for the revitalization of the U.S. manufacturing sector through the creation of new careers and economic expansion. In fact, it already has.

At this point 13 license applications for up to 22 new reactors have been filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the industry expects four-to-eight new plants to be operating by the end of the decade. Construction activities already have begun at plant sites in Georgia and South Carolina. As a consequence, over the past three years more than 15,000 careers, not just jobs, have been created as the nuclear industry has invested over $4 billion in new nuclear plant development. Plans call for the investment of another $8 billion to be in position to supply the materials needed to begin large-scale construction in 2011-2012. Many of these careers don’t require a college degree, but have earnings potential that equals, and even exceeds, that of college graduates. Teachers can play an instrumental part in creating awareness among their students of these careers.

K-12 educators should incorporate what we call “Energy Literacy” into their teaching plans and thus can play a significant role in encouraging their students to consider the career possibilities as electrical and mechanical technicians, radiation monitors, health physicists and engineers of all kinds. The nuclear industry has resources to help educators explain to students what career opportunities are available in nuclear power. For example, FREE curriculum and lesson plans are available from groups such as the National Education Foundation and The Ford Foundation on all sectors of energy production including nuclear power. The industry offers expert speakers from diverse nuclear-oriented groups including Women in Nuclear, the North American Young Generation in Nuclear and the American Nuclear Society, and there is a successful nuclear energy mentoring program known as Power Set that could be replicated around the country.

But is there proof of a revival in the American nuclear industry that warrants teachers’ interest? You bet there is.

For example, Alstom just opened a new $300 million turbine manufacturing facility in Tennessee to supply turbines for use in North American power plants; Shaw Modular Solutions constructed a 410,000-square-foot nuclear modernization facility in Louisiana to assemble structural, piping, equipment and other modules for new nuclear plants that will employ 700 to 1,400 assembly line and skilled technical workers at full capacity. AREVA and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding broke ground last summer on a $360-million manufacturing and engineering facility in Newport News, Va., that will manufacture heavy components such as reactor vessels, steam generators and pressurizers. Expected to open in 2012, this facility will create more than 500 skilled hourly and salaried careers. And this is only the beginning.

Over the next five years, 38 percent of the current nuclear industry work force employed at the nation’s 104 operating plant will be eligible for retirement, leaving a shortfall of more than 25,000 skilled workers. In addition, each new nuclear plant will create up to 2,400 temporary and highly-paid positions over the five-year construction period and 400-to-800 new permanent careers.

Much as a major league baseball team must build a pipeline of young players in their farm system years in advance so they’ll be ready to replace retiring players, so must the nuclear industry replenish its work force to avoid any skills shortage and be ready for expansion. The nuclear industry realized this trend years ago and is doing just that.

The industry is keeping close track of the job openings and student enrollments to ensure that the pipeline of new workers fits the number of careers available. The industry has set up partnerships with 43 community colleges across the country and implemented what’s known as a uniform curriculum program to ensure that the proper educating and training of the next generation of nuclear industry workers is done in a cohesive manner. This past May, the first graduates of this program at Chattanooga State and Salem Community College in New Jersey moved into careers with average salaries ranging from $66,000-to-$72,000 a year. Since nuclear plants operate for up to 60 years, it’s as close to a lifetime guarantee of employment as possible.

The world has changed dramatically since the golden age of U.S. manufacturing and the high percentage of skilled labor and blue collar careers of the 1950s through the ‘70s. But the revitalization of the nuclear industry in America, where we expect to see dozens of new plants built over the next two decades, offers proof that, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of manufacturing’s death in the United States are greatly exaggerated.

Read the full post at:
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/11/nuclear-industry-can-lead-revival-in.html

Sacramento Business Journal: Don't let unemployment benefits expire

2010-11-20T10:48:00.000-08:00

The Sacramento Business Journal explains why Congress must extend unemployment compensation benefits:

Allowing federally supported unemployment insurance benefits to expire would deliver a sharp blow to the economy and could endanger the fragile economy, a report released Friday by the California Budget Project concludes.

The benefits provide a substantial boost to the economy because jobless workers spend the money quickly and locally. They pay the mortgage or rent, buy groceries, pay the heating bill and put gas in the car.

Unless Congress acts, emergency measures that provide additional weeks of federally supported benefits to unemployed workers who exhaust their regular state benefits are set to expire Nov. 30.

If this happens, more than 400,000 unemployed Californians will lose access to federally supported UI benefits next month alone, the CBP reports.

Discontinuing the benefits before the job market shows strong signs of recovery would force unemployed workers and their families to cut spending. As a result, businesses would have fewer customers and weaker sales — and that could ultimately cost jobs, according to the report.

California’s unemployment rate was 12 percent in October, preliminary data from the state Employment Development Department show. That’s down slightly from a revised 12.2 percent in September. The unemployment rate in the Sacramento metropolitan area was an average of 12.1 in October, down fro a revised 12.5 percent in September.

“Congress has never before cut off emergency UI benefits at a time when the unemployment was this high,” the report concludes.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2010/11/19/budget-project-dont-let-unemployment.html

Following a failed vote in the House of Representatives to renew federal unemployment insurance for only three months, the National Employment Law Project (NELP) reissued its call for a full‐year renewal of the existing programs and pointed to a rush of new federal research that supports extending the program through 2011. Newly released studies by the Department of Labor and the Congressional Budget Office affirm, yet again, the vital role unemployment insurance has played in combating the recession and rebuilding the economy.

“Everything we know about unemployment, the economy and the costs and benefits of federal unemployment insurance dictates renewing the programs for a full year – and ending the game of chicken Congress has played with America’s unemployed workers, their families and communities for the last several months,” said Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project.

“Sadly, Congress is once again heading out of town just as the federal unemployment insurance programs are slated to expire, this time right as the holiday season begins. It is critical that a full‐year renewal of the program moves to the top of the agenda when Congress returns on November 29th, to minimize the hardship and disruption to families and the economy that will result from the November 30th cut‐off,” said Owens.

“Several new federal studies are just the latest proof that Congress should enact a meaningful, year‐long reauthorization of the federal unemployment insurance programs that expire November 30th, or else the economy – and millions of out‐of‐work Americans – will take a giant step back,” said Owens. “Short‐term stop‐gap measures, like the three‐month continuation the House defeated today, are ill‐advised and however well intentioned could ultimately do more harm than good.”

On Tuesday the Department of Labor issued an independent study commissioned by the Bush Administration and co‐authored by the chief economic advisor to John McCain’s Presidential campaign, finding that since mid‐2008, the federal unemployment insurance programs have saved 1.6 million jobs in every quarter – averting 1.8 million layoffs per quarter at the height of the downturn – and that the programs reduced the unemployment rate by 1.2 points.

The DOL study also affirmed the multiplier effect of unemployment insurance: “For every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, this report finds an increase in economic activity of two dollars,” it states.

A new Congressional Budget Office study this week echoed the DOL findings, saying that “the extensions of unemployment insurance benefits in the past few years increased both employment and participation in the labor force over what they would otherwise have been in 2009."

A Census Bureau report in September found that 3.3 million people, including 1 million children, were kept out of poverty with income support provided through unemployment insurance, a NELP analysis of the study explained.

Goldman Sachs analyst Alec Phillips has projected that allowing the federal unemployment insurance programs to expire will cut consumer spending significantly and reduce already‐languid GDP growth by half a percentage point.

A Congressional Budget Office report from January ranks unemployment insurance as the most effective stimulus to the economy, generating $1.90 in economic activity for every $1 the government spends. The report ranks tax cuts for wealthy Americans as the least effective method of economic stimulus.

“There is a real disconnect in those calling for unpaid‐for millionaire tax cuts – adding $700 billion to the deficit – but then refusing to commit $65 billion for the long‐term unemployed hanging on by a thread, even though the spending on unemployment insurance produces twice its cost in new economic growth. As the CBO has reported earlier, tax cuts to the wealthy are the least effective form of economic stimulus, whereas unemployment insurance is far and away the most effective,” said Owens.

These studies parallel strong public support to continue the unemployment insurance programs. A poll released Monday, conducted by Hart Research Associates, found that Americans overwhelmingly believe Congress should continue providing federal unemployment insurance to workers who have exhausted their state benefits and are still unemployed, and that Americans firmly reject the idea that deficit concerns should lead to cuts in support for the jobless when the unemployment rate remains so high.

www.unemployedworkers.org

U.S.-China Economic Security Review Commission Report Released to Congress

2010-11-18T19:59:00.000-08:00

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission released its 2010 Report on Wednesday to Congress. The Commission’s Chairman and Vice Chairman discussed the Commission’s findings and recommendations.

In his opening statement, Commission Chairman Dan Slane said “The 2010 Annual Report reflects the Commission’s conclusions that China has failed in some notable areas to fulfill the promises it made nine years ago when it joined the World Trade Organization. Specifically, China is adopting a highly discriminatory policy of favoring domestic producers over foreign manufacturers. Under the guise of fostering “indigenous innovation” in its economy, the government of China appears determined to exclude foreigners from bidding on government contracts at the central, provincial, and local levels. In addition, China has proposed that its many state-owned corporations be exempt from WTO rules on procurement. The Chinese government quite simply intends to wall off a majority of its economy from international competition.”

In her opening statement, Vice Chairman Carolyn Bartholomew commented on China’s military modernization, saying “As a result of China’s improved offensive air and missile capabilities, the Chinese military has strengthened its capacity to threaten U.S. forces and bases in the region. Currently, China’s conventional missile capabilities alone may be sufficient to temporarily knock out five of the six U.S. air bases in East Asia. Saturation missile strikes could destroy U.S. air defenses, runways, parked aircraft, and fuel and maintenance facilities. Complicating this scenario is the future deployment of China’s anti-ship ballistic missile, which could hold U.S. aircraft carriers at bay outside their normal operating range.”

Among the topics in the 316-page report:

Economics and Trade Issues:

China’s ‘indigenous innovation’ policy to promote favored industries and limit imports.
China’s currency manipulation and its effects on the United States.
China’s purchases of U.S. Treasury securities and the implications for the United States.
China’s measures to restrict rare earth element exports.

China’s past and future role in the World Trade Organization.
National Defense Issues:

China’s growing air and missile capabilities, and the increasing capacity to strike U.S. bases and allies in the region.
China’s improving commercial aviation manufacturing capabilities, and the spillover benefits for China’s defense aviation industry.
The increasingly sophisticated nature of malicious computer activity associated with China.

Foreign Affairs Issues:

China’s increasing political, economic, energy and security interactions with Southeast Asia, and the implications for U.S. interests in the region.
Recent developments in the China-Taiwan relationship, and implications for the United States.

Energy and Environmental Issues:

China’s efforts to promote green energy in order to increase its energy security, prevent environmental degradation, and develop a globally competitive green energy industry.
Ohio’s response to China’s promotion of its alternative energy industries.
Censorship Issues:

How China’s revised state secrets laws may conflict with U.S. disclosure requirements and put U.S. investments in Chinese firms at risk.
For more information and a copy of the 2010 Report, please visit www.uscc.gov

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission is a bipartisan Congressional Commission established in 2000 to investigate, analyze and provide recommendations to Congress on the economic and national security implications of the U.S.–China relationship

Jim Webb calls for strong financial reforms

2010-10-30T20:16:00.000-07:00

Senator Jim Webb D-VA), a member of the Joint Economic Committee, called on federal regulators to implement strong reforms to prevent high-risk investing from again endangering the national economy. Webb joined 17 other senators in submitting comments to the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) yesterday to ensure that proprietary trading restrictions of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act are implemented as intended by Congress.

“After taxpayers were forced to bail out banks and other systemically significant financial companies whose proprietary trades went awry, we determined that the economy and taxpayers need strong protections against an increasingly casino-like financial system,” the senators wrote. “High-risk investing is an appropriate and legitimate activity in a free market system, but it cannot again imperil our nation’s economic well-being.”

The restrictions were added to the financial reform law to address speculative proprietary trading by bank fund managers, which creates tremendous risks for the institutions themselves and conflicts with the interests of their customers. The group of senators provided detailed guidance to regulators to help them effectively implement and enforce the statutory language. The group also provided copies of the implementation instructions to the heads of the federal agencies responsible for implementing Wall Street reform.

The FSOC is a collaborative body established as part of the financial reform legislation to monitor and address risks to financial stability. The FSOC is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury and authorized to facilitate regulatory coordination, recommend stricter standards, and break up firms that pose a “grave threat” to financial stability, among other responsibilities. The FSOC is currently requesting comments regarding the implementation of the Merkley-Levin provisions to restrict proprietary trading, also known as the “Volker Rule.” Sen. Webb cosponsored the Merkley-Levin provision during the Senate floor debate on financial reform.

“Despite having just emerged as a nation from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, powerful interests will seek to weaken the Merkley-Levin Volcker Rule protections,” the senators wrote. “We in Congress resisted those efforts and provided you with a clear mandate and broad authority to act. The American people are now relying upon you to fully carry out the law.”

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Members of the Financial Stability Oversight Council:

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act sets forth a clear mandate to end high-risk, conflict-ridden financial activities at our nation’s banks and systemically significant nonbank financial companies. It does so by ending proprietary trading within our nation’s banking entities, limiting their relationships with hedge funds and private equity funds, and restricting such activities at systemically significant nonbank financial companies, as well as explicitly prohibiting conflicts of interest.

As co-sponsors of the Merkley-Levin Amendment, which ultimately became Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, we urge the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to provide guidance to regulators that can help them effectively implement and enforce the statutory language as Congress intended.

After taxpayers were forced to bail out banks and other systemically significant financial companies whose proprietary trades went awry, we determined that the economy and taxpayers need strong protections against an increasingly casino-like financial system. High-risk investing is an appropriate and legitimate activity in a free market system, but it cannot again imperil our nation’s economic well-being.

To ensure that the Merkley-Levin proprietary trading restrictions (also called the “Volcker Rule”) are most effectively applied, Section 619 directs the FSOC to conduct a study and make recommendations on how to best implement its provisions. (Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et. seq.), §13(b), as added by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, §619 (2010).) As one of the FSOC’s initial tasks, this study will be a critical test of whether the FSOC lives up to its statutory mandate of independence, regulatory cooperation, and professional analysis. We hope that each member of the FSOC, voting and non-voting, will participate fully in this effort.

In crafting recommendations to ensure the Merkley-Levin provisions are implemented as intended, the FSOC will undoubtedly need to address many issues. We would like to focus your attention, however, on a few critical points:

The term “trading account” should cover all types of accounts that may be used to conduct proprietary trading.

The extent of permitted activities, particularly “market making” and “risk mitigating hedging,” should be strictly and clearly delineated to ensure that high-risk proprietary trading stops, while economically beneficial and risk-reducing activities continue. Capital charges governing these permitted activities should also be vigorous enough to protect the economy and U.S. taxpayers from risks arising from them.

The relationships between covered financial firms and the private funds they manage or sponsor should be carefully circumscribed to prevent those private funds from being used to circumvent the law’s limits.The terms “material conflicts of interest” and “high risk” assets and trading strategies need to be meaningfully defined so as to safeguard U.S. taxpayers from unfair practices and systemic risk.

Capital charges and quantitative limits for systemically significant nonbank financial companies should be vigorous so as both to discourage and to reduce the risks and conflicts of interest from proprietary trading at these entities.
The law’s anti-evasion provisions should be implemented in a way to ensure regulators have clear authority to prevent abusive and evasive tactics from undermining the Merkley-Levin provisions.

Implementing these provisions also means establishing a regulatory structure capable of meaningful enforcement. We urge you to consider recommending a two-tiered, cooperative regulatory structure. At the first tier, regulators should conduct real-time monitoring and enforcement. Trading and markets regulators, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission, may be in the best position to take a leadership role in monitoring trading and positions, much like they do for insider trading, position limits, and other trading provisions. The newly-created Office of Financial Research may assist in standardizing the data collection and review efforts. At the second tier, regulators should review firms’ policies and procedures and conduct in-depth portfolio-level examinations. Banking regulators, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Reserve Board, may be in the best position to conduct these broader reviews of firms. This type of two-tiered, cooperative approach would enable regulators to share the implementation burdens and also play to their traditional strengths.

You have been assigned to a vital task: to protect the American people from a financial system that has too often been distorted by proprietary trading practices and conflicts of interest that placed a firm’s own interests ahead of the interests of its clients. We recognize that reining in these practices will not be easy. Despite having just emerged as a nation from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, powerful interests will seek to weaken the Merkley-Levin Volcker Rule protections. We in Congress resisted those efforts and provided you with a clear mandate and broad authority to act. The American people are now relying upon you to fully carry out the law.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the FSOC study to implement Dodd-Frank Section 619.

Sincerely,

John Kasich covers up anti-gun record

2010-10-30T10:38:00.000-07:00

John Kasich is very consistent about some things. Kasich has never wavered in his support for job destroying "free trade" agreements and corporate outsourcing. The former Congressman loves sending Ohio jobs to China but lacks the same passion when it comes to defending the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Kasich seeking the Ohio Governorship and Mike Dewine (running for Attorney General) have a track record of support gun control legislation.

Ohio gun owners are getting fired up about the upcoming elections, and for Kasich and DeWine, this is not good news.

Recent campaign tactics by Republicans have riled gun owners and bolstered support for Democratic candidates Ted Strickland for Governor and Richard Cordray for Attorney General.

"Until recently, Kasich and DeWine have had no use for gun owners in Ohio," said Jim Irvine, Chairman of Buckeye Firearms Association. "But as election day gets closer and the polls get tighter, they're suddenly treating us like long-lost friends. It's like they're saying to gun owners, you're stupid. Ignore our anti-gun records and vote for us."

According to Irvine, the Ohio Republican Party has been sending mailers talking about each candidate's respective stance on guns.

"It's laughable," said Irvine. "In fact, it's outright insulting. Even though Kasich and DeWine are Republicans, they both have a long and infamous record of working against Ohio gun owners. Democrats Strickland and Cordray are proven, steadfast friends."

According to Irvine, Kasich has a terrible voting record. "Kasich voted for handgun restrictions in 1986, voted for a ban on deer hunting in 1992, and voted for the Clinton/Schumer Gun Ban and earned an F rating from the NRA in 1994.

"He went on to vote against stopping the harassment of law-abiding gun owners by the BATFE in 1995, voted against big game hunting in 1997, voted to restrict gun shows in 1999, and voted twice to increase background checks aimed at closing down gun shows.

"Maybe the worst came in 1999," said Irvine shaking his head, "when Kasich voted for the D.C. Gun Ban. It's not just one vote, it's a pattern of hostility toward gun owners. You just can't run from a record like that."

The National Rifle Association's John Hohenwarter observed, "Kasich's stance on the Second Amendment changes from year-to-year like the weather changes from day-to-day."

And what about DeWine? Irvine says it's even worse.

"Mike DeWine was thrown out of his U.S. Senate seat by voters in 2006 after being endorsed by the anti-gun Brady Campaign because his record 'really wowed' them. That's because he consistently cast his votes with the most anti-gun legislators in the Senate.

"In 1999, he voted to require background checks on all guns sold at guns shows yet voted against more penalties for drug and gun crimes. He opposed legislation to protect gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers from frivolous lawsuits designed to put them out of business.

"Human Events Online named DeWine among the top 10 anti-gun U.S. Senators because he was consistently the only Republican to stand up on the Senate floor and speak in favor of gutting the Second Amendment."

Political pundits frequently talk about the long memory and voting power of gun owners. So even though voters are focused on jobs and the economy, Ohio's election could actually turn on the gun issue. That would help Ted Strickland and Richard Cordray, two Democrats with a long history of supporting gun rights, be re-elected next week.

This is clear from pre-election polls showing Strickland and Cordray as the only statewide Democratic candidates in statistical dead heats.

Irvine said, "It's shaping up to be a terrible year for Democrats nationwide. But the strong pro-gun history of these two Democrats is what's keeping them in the race."

Buckeye Firearms Association (www.BuckeyeFirearms.org) is a grassroots political action committee (PAC) dedicated to defending and advancing the right of Ohio citizens to own and use firearms for all legal activities, including self-defense, hunting, competition, and recreation. They work to elect pro-gun candidates and lobby for pro-gun legislation.

Durango Herald News: Why does the GOP hate the middle class ?

2010-10-26T21:31:00.000-07:00

Nate Hodgson sums up the Republican war against the middle class perfectly in a letter from the Durango Herald News editorial page:

Why does the Republican Party hate middle America? According to 2008 census data, Americans' median household income was $52,000 with 13 percent of the population living below the poverty level - below $21,000 for a family of four. Coloradans fared a little better with a median household income of $57,000 and 11 percent in poverty.

With the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, the divide between the "haves" and "have nots" in America has skyrocketed. According to 2010 census figures, less than 5 percent of Americans earned more than $180,000 a year and they added to their annual incomes last year, while the overwhelming majority of families at the median level, $50,000, slipped closer to poverty.

The Obama administration, to its credit, has proposed closing this gap by extending the Bush tax cuts only to individuals making less than $200,000 and families making less than $250,000. The Republican Party, on the other hand, has championed tax relief for the über-wealthy at the expense of the middle class. In fact, Republicans pride themselves on a political platform that ensures the richest 1 percent will continue to own 40 percent of all American wealth.

The Republicans are supported by FOX News and AM radio hosts who bombard American airwaves with anti-tax rhetoric. Many of these self-proclaimed "conservative" celebrities would continue to see a direct personal benefit from an extension of Bush era tax cuts. These defenders of the rich, while daily skewering Obama, remain notoriously tight-lipped about the rampant wealth redistribution tactics of the upper class - for example, the wealthy executives at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America who personally benefited from the Bush-era bank bailout, even giving themselves $10 million bonuses, while the overwhelming majority of Americans saw a precipitous decline in income.

At a time when middle America is seeing a decline in income, it is time that the Republican Party do more than simply bash Obama and defend continued bail-out and tax relief for America's super-wealthy. Americans of all classes need to pull together and do their part.

http://durangoherald.com/sections/Opinion/letters_to_the_editor/2010/10/26/Why_does_the_GOP_hate_the_middle_class/

Right to Rent Legislation Would Slow Growing Rate of Foreclosure

2010-10-14T21:08:00.000-07:00

As the number of homes around the country entering the foreclosure process continues to steadily rise, a recent report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) suggests that giving homeowners the right to rent their house at a fair market price may be one of the best ways to address the nation's foreclosure crisis.

"With roughly one-in four mortgages underwater, the loan modification plans put forth so far have done little to help homeowners facing foreclosure," said Dean Baker, Co-Director of CEPR and an author of the report. "Right to Rent, on the other hand, would benefit millions, provide families with real housing security, and could go into effect immediately."

The report, "The Gains from Right to Rent in 2010," analyzes the costs of renting versus owning a house in several major cities and finds that the Fair Market Rents in these metropolitan areas is often much lower than the cost of ownership.

"Ordinarily, the gap between owning and renting is not that large." continued Baker. "Due to the enormous run-up in house prices over the housing bubble years, however, ownership costs now vastly exceed rental costs in many of the bubble markets and homeowners in these markets have much to gain from having the opportunity to remain in a home as a renter following a foreclosure."

The report documents the costs of renting and owning before and after taxes in 16 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and details substantial savings gained from renting across all scenarios depicted. The various scenarios consider the costs of mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance and maintenance costs, and mortgage deductions. An appendix is included that compares ownership and rental costs across 100 MSAs as well.

Under Right to Rent legislation, such as HR 5028, sponsored by representatives Grijalva (AZ) and Kaptur (OH), Congress would temporarily alter foreclosure laws to let foreclosed homeowners remain in their homes as renters for a substantial period of time. This would save families from being kicked out of their homes and would go far to stop the blight of foreclosures affecting many of our communities. This plan requires no taxpayer dollars and no new bureaucracy to implement.

More details on the Right to Rent plan can be found at: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/component/option,com_issues/Itemid,22/issue,35/lang,en/task,view_issue/

President Obama signs Congressman Bart Gordon's anti-methamphetamine bill into law

2010-10-14T20:33:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON – Congressman Bart Gordon’s bill closing loopholes in federal law that have been exploited by meth producers was signed into law on Tuesday by President Obama.

“Every year, Tennessee is one of the top states when it comes to meth production, use and busts,” said Gordon. “To combat this epidemic, we have to go straight for the source, making it more difficult for the producers of this drug to get their hands on precursor materials.”

The Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act (H.R. 2923) requires all retailers of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products, products used to make meth, to register with the U.S. Attorney General, and requires distributors of these products to sell only to retailers who are registered to sell controlled substances. It also provides the Department of Justice legal basis to fine those not in compliance with the law. These regulations close significant loopholes in a 2006 law that first brought these products behind the counter.

“Four years ago, Congress began to tackle this issue head on,” Gordon added. “It takes a multi-pronged approach to fight meth through regulation, education and prevention. This bill is another step in the right direction.”

As Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, Gordon has fought the spread of meth and worked to reduce its impact on communities. His committee has held hearings and advanced legislation aimed at developing partnerships and cooperation among local, state and federal agencies.

In 2007, Gordon authored the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act, which directed the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop meth detection equipment for field use. The law further required the Environmental Protection Agency to develop model, voluntary, health-based clean-up guidelines for use by states and localities with the goal of making sure the sites of former meth labs are safe and livable.

During his time in Congress, Gordon has led efforts to address and curb drug abuse in Middle Tennessee. Gordon has secured more than $1 million in federal funding to help local law enforcement crack down on meth production. He has also helped implement juvenile drug court programs in Middle Tennessee communities and worked to make drug education information more available in Tennessee’s public schools.

Republican-oriented Susan B. Anthony List faces sanctions for distorting record of pro-life Democrat

2010-10-14T20:20:00.000-07:00

Faith in Public Life reports:

FPL has extensively documented the lengthy misinformation campaign over the course of the health care debate, starting last year when opponents of reform argued that the bill included federal funding of abortion. These attacks have continued unabated in the run-up to the November election - as predicted months ago.

But now one of these groups, The Susan B. Anthony List - which is spending over $1.5 million on a campaign alleging that pro-life Representatives who supported health care reform voted for federal funding of abortion - may have broken the law in their deceptive campaign. The Cincinnati Enquirer reports today:

A three-member panel of the Ohio Elections Commission ruled in favor of U.S. Rep. Steve Driehaus today in his complaint against the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List.
The panel's "probable cause" finding means there will be another hearing to determine if the group broke Ohio law that bars making false statements in campaigns. Driehaus is up for re-election on Nov. 2. In the meantime, attorneys for both sides can begin taking sworn depositions.

Driehaus, a Democrat from West Price Hill, is fighting the group's plans to erect four billboards saying he favored taxpayer-funded abortions because he voted for the national health care bill.

Driehaus' Cincinnati attorney, Paul DeMarco, intends to depose SBA members to find out what they consider federal funding of abortions.

"They're actually conceding the argument that there is no new federal funding," Driehaus said.

The 1970 Hyde Amendment allowed federally-funded abortions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

A date has not been set for another Elections Commission hearing where evidence will be argued. The commission can then recommend a public reprimand or prosecution, which can result in fines or jail time.

"This is a big deal," Driehaus said today. "The media made a big deal about this, (Steve) Chabot calling me a liar and now the Ohio Elections Commission came out on my side."

Driehaus has said the group is attacking any pro-life Democrat who supported the federal health care bill "because they're partisan."

The group's spokesman was not immediately available for comment today.

Ohio law allows the elections commission to issue a public reprimand, or refer the case to the Franklin County prosecutor. A criminal conviction for making false campaign statements is punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a fine of up to $5,000.

We'll be keeping a close eye on this story as it develops

http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/2010/10/susan_b_anthony_list_facing_sa.html

Chet Edwards calls for Social Security cost-of-living increases

2010-10-14T17:13:00.001-07:00

U.S. Representative Chet Edwards (D-Texas) said the expected announcement Friday that the Social Security Administration will not be increasing the cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) for Social Security recipients in 2011 requires Congress to act to protect seniors. The marks the second year in a row that seniors have not received a COLA update for Social Security. Edwards has cosponsored legislation, H.R. 5987, the Seniors Protection Act to provide a $250 payment to 54 million Americans who rely on Social Security including 118,084 in District 17.

Congressman Edwards said, “Monthly expenses for prescription drugs, medical costs, and utilities continue to rise for seniors and their Social Security benefits should keep up. There is no reason an increased burden should fall on seniors and people with disabilities, especially during tough economic times. I have helped pass into law a $250 payment for seniors this year and we should continue that policy until Social Security cost-of-living-adjustments are updated.

In 2009, Edwards helped pass into law a one-time $250 payment to Social Security recipients to assist seniors living on fixed incomes. Edwards has also supported House passage of legislation that would freeze Medicare Part B premium increases to prevent seniors from taking on additional financial burdens during tough economic times especially since there was no Social Security cost-of-living increase this year. After passing the House, the legislation freezing Medicare Part B premiums stalled in the Senate.

Social Security was the primary source of income for 64 percent of retirees who got benefits in 2008, according to the Social Security Administration. A third relied on Social Security for at least 90 percent of their income. The cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, are automatically set each year by an inflation measure that was adopted by Congress back in the 1970s. Based on inflation so far this year, the trustees who oversee Social Security project there will be no COLA for 2011.

Edwards concluded, “Congress should address the COLA issue as soon as we return in November. Seniors are the foundation of our communities and protecting their retirement security and the guaranteed benefits of Social Security should be one of our highest priorities. The fact is that while other retirement savings lost an average of 32% of their value during the recession, Social Security continued to provide a reliable income for our seniors. We need to make sure it stays that way.”

New Database Exposes Job Losses Due to Outsourcing and Flawed Policies

2010-10-12T17:09:00.000-07:00

***www.WorkingAmerica.org/JobTracker***

AFL-CIO and Working America release first-of-its-kind, zip code searchable database

In the worst economic crisis in a generation, the AFL-CIO and Working America released a first-of-its-kind, zip code searchable database that illustrates how corporate outsourcing has hollowed out American towns and cities. The Job Tracker released by the AFL-CIO and its community affiliate Working America provides a new tool for people searching for information on the local impact of outsourcing. The dynamic interactive database lists information on more than 400,000 corporations and subsidiaries and uses data from dozens of public sources to allow visitors to find out which companies have exported jobs overseas, violated health and safety codes or engaged in discriminatory or other illegal practices.

On a conference call to release the database, speakers noted that experts and the public alike will now be able to easily search through a huge compilation of data on corporate outsourcing.

"Because of Job Tracker, corporations who have taken advantage of lax trade policies in America and abroad will no longer be able to hide behind the veils of bureaucracy," said Karen Nussbaum, Executive Director of Working America. "Every night on our neighborhood canvasses, we hear from people who want to know which companies are profiting off the loss of their jobs. Corporations have created a global race to the bottom and working people won't stand for it."

Visitors to the Job Tracker site can search the database by company name, zip code and industry. Within seconds, detailed results are culled from a database that draws from sources including U.S. Department of Labor's Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) records, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act notices, Occupational Safety Health Administration records and more. The Job Tracker site also enables visitors to use Facebook and Twitter and email to report companies exporting jobs in their communities.

Since 2000, the United States has lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs and 850,000 information sector jobs, many of which have been shipped overseas. Faulty trade and tax policies continue to lead to outsourcing as corporate executives boast record-breaking profits and salaries.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka noted the impact of faulty trade and tax policies that make it even easier for corporations to outsource jobs. He pointed to the benefits of such a tool for working people as they rebuild an economy that works for all and assess elected leaders' records in the election.

"We must demand that our leaders show that they stand with working families -- fighting to create jobs, rejecting unfair trade deals and putting us on a path to make things in America again," said Trumka. "For the first time, working people have one place to see the real impact of the failed policies of the past that gave corporations the ability to ship American jobs overseas. With this new data as a benchmark, working people will have the ability to separate the economic patriots from the corporate traitors at the ballot box."

As part of Job Tracker, Working America is also releasing a "white paper" entitled OUTSOURCED: Sending Jobs Overseas: The Cost to America's Economy and Working Families, which details how trade policies have outsourced good jobs. http://www.workingamerica.org/upload/OutsourcingReport.pdf Working America will share the results with members of Congress and the economic community as a new analysis on what policies must be passed to turn our economy around.

Working America, the community affiliate of the 12 million member AFL-CIO, represents workers without a union at work to mobilize around economic issues like health care and good jobs.

Pro-gun Democrats play critical role in protecting our Second Amendment rights

2010-10-12T16:26:00.000-07:00

Writing at The Volokh Conspiracy, David Kopel explains how pro-gun rights Democrats play a critical role in protecting our Second Amendment rights:

Earlier this week, I wrote that NRA would be foolish obey the wishes of Republican activists who want the NRA to endorse only Republicans, and especially to not endorse endangered House Democrats. Here are some data on NRA endorsements, and some of the actions that dozens of House Democrats have taken to merit their endorsements:

NRA Senate endorsements in 2010: 23 Republicans, 2 Democrats.

NRA House endorsements in 2010: 197 Republicans and 61 Democrats.

There were 251 Congresspersons who signed the pro-Second Amendment incorporation congressional amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago. Of the signers, 81 were House Democrats, and 19 were Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid.

A top NRA priority in Congress is H.R. 2296, to reform the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives. Of the 243 cosponsors, 76 are House Democrats.

Another NRA-favored bill is H.R. 442, the “Veterans’ Heritage Firearms Act,” would create an amnesty period to allow the registration of war trophies (e.g., an automatic rifle captured from the North Vietnamese Army) that were brought into the United States between 1934 and 1968. There are 211 cosponsors, 66 of whom are House Democrats.

The bill that would have the most significant practical effect for most gun owners is H.R. 197, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act .” Sixty-five House Democrats are among the 209 cosponsors.

Early in the Obama adminisration, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the 1994 ban on so-called “assault weapons” and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which sunset in 2004, should be re-enacted. Sixty-five Democratic Congressmen signed a letter to the Attorney General, opposing a new ban. In addition, Ike Skelton, the Missouri Democrat who chairs the Armed Services Committee, sent a separate letter to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer expressing his opposition to the Attorney General’s remarks. The show of Democratic opposition demonstrated that there was no chance that a ban could pass Congress. Since then, Attorney General Holder has not made any public statements in favor of gun bans.

As the numbers above illustrate, Democrats constitute an indispensible part of the pro-Second Amendment majority of the current Congress. Without the NRA’s strong working relationship with so many Democrats, 2009-10 would have seen the enactment of destructive legislation for gun rights, rather than the constructive legislation which has become law.

http://volokh.com/2010/10/08/nra-supports-democrats-and-democrats-support-the-second-amendment/

The following pro-gun rights Democrats have received the NRA endorsement:

AL-2: Bobby Bright
AR-4: Mike Ross
Ca-18: Dennis Cardoza
CO-3: John Salazar
CO-4: Betsy Markey
FL-2: Allen Boyd
Ga-2: Sanford Bishop
Ga-8: Jim Marshall
Ga-12: John Barrow
IA-3: Leonard Boswell
IL-11: Debbie Halvorson
IL-12: Jerry Costello
IN-Senate-Brad Ellsworth
IN-2: Joe Donnely
IN-8: Trent Van Haaften
IN-9: Baron Hill
KY-6: Ben Chandler
MD-1: Frank Kratovil
MI-1: Gary McDowell
MN-1: Tim Walz
MS-1: Travis Childers
MS-4: Gene Taylor
MO-4: Ike Skelton
NC-7: Mike McIntyre
NC-8: Larry Kissell
NC-11: Heath Shuler
ND-At Large: Earl Pomeroy
NM-1: Martin Heinrich
NM-2: Harry Teague
NM-3: Ben Lujan
NY-20: Scott Murphy
NY-23: Bill Owens
NY-24: Mike Acruri
OH-Gov. Ted Strickland
OH-6: Charlie Wilson
OH-16: John Boccieri
OH-18: Zack Space
OK-2: Dan Boren
OR-5: Kurt Schrader
PA-4: Jason Altmire
PA-10: Chris Carney
PA-11: Paul Kanjorski
PA-12: Mark Critz
PA-17: Tim Holden
SD-At Large: Stephanie Sandlin
TN-4: Lincoln Davis
TN-8: Roy Herron
TX-17: Chet Edwards
UT-2: Jim Matheson
VA-2: Glenn Nye
VA-5: Tom Perriello
VA-9: Rick Boucher
WI-3: Ron Kind
WI-8: Steve Kagen
WV-Senate: Joe Manchin
WV-3: Nick Rahall

Democratic Senators Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Harry Reid of Nevada are also proven supporters of gun rights.

http://feingold.senate.gov/opinion/10/20100708.htm

Letter from NRA praising Senator Reid for his defense of the right to keep and bear arms. http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/blogs/documents/2009/07/15/Reid_-_NRA_Letter.pdf

Pro-life Democrat Kathy Dahlkemper refutes the lies

2010-10-11T22:12:00.000-07:00

Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) is fighting back strongly and aggressively against lies about her record on abortion spread through an ongoing media assault featuring false information and financed by private organizations with undisclosed donors. Armed with the facts and the truth, Dahlkemper is telling the 3rd District not to believe the lies her opponents are selling.

To counter these unconscionable attacks, the Dahlkemper campaign is currently airing one new television ad and one radio ad in 3rd District media outlets. The ads sternly refute the falsehoods being spread about the Congresswoman's staunch pro-life principles by political organizations that are not required to disclose their funders and pay no regard to the truth or the facts.

Watch and listen to the ads at the following links: http://kathydahlkemperforcongress.com/videos/kathy-dahlkemper-life, http://kathydahlkemperforcongress.com/videos/kathy-responds-attacks, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0OgCy921cA

"When you hear my opponents talk about my views on life, know that they are absolutely false,” Dahlkemper says in a television ad. “They should be ashamed to lie about this just to win an election.”

In the radio ad, Sister Mary, a Catholic nun who knows Kathy Dahlkemper personally, speaks out against the attacks, calling Kathy “an honest woman of strong character.”

Sister Mary makes a clear, unassailable statement affirming Kathy Dahlkemper’s pro-life values: “If anyone tells you that Kathy Dahlkemper is not a woman in favor of life, just know it is not true.”

“I am pro-life and I always have been. This is who I am. It is despicable that anyone would take this most sacred issue—the issue of life—and lie about it to gain points at the polls. Western Pennsylvanians deserve better than that,” said Dahlkemper. “These ads set the record straight about me and about the people who are willing to lie to win an election.”

With these new ads, Congresswoman Dahlkemper is personally explaining to 3rd District voters the truth about her lifelong pro-life beliefs, using facts, not falsehoods, about the new health care law. These news ads also make it clear that the Congresswoman will not allow any lie or misstatement to go unchallenged by the facts and the truth concerning her pro-life positions and record.

http://kathydahlkemperforcongress.com/

Congressmwoman Dahlkemper issued the following open letter earlier this year concerning her support for the health care reform and protecting the sanctity of human life.

An open letter from Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper about the ban on federal funding of elective abortions:

Dear Friends,

Protecting the unborn was, is and always will be one of my most deeply held personal values.

That's why when confronted with my own unplanned pregnancy at 21, I chose life. It's a decision I've never regretted.

I've taken my pro-life values with me to Washington and have fought to preserve the sanctity of life. I helped ensure that the first health care reform bill prevented federal funding of abortion. When the Senate refused to put those same protections in place for the unborn, I stood firm against pro-choice groups in Washington.

Pro-life Members of Congress like me kept a hard line: no federal funding could be used for elective abortion through the new health care reform. Period.

Our work paid off when the president signed a rock-solid executive order to do just that—clearly ban the use of federal funds for elective abortions in the new health care reform law.

Now, politically-motivated groups are making false claims that Pennsylvania's new high-risk insurance pool, which offers affordable health insurance to the people in our community who have been refused by private insurers because of a “pre-existing condition,” will use federal funds for elective abortions.

That is simply untrue.

The nonpartisan, independent fact-checking organization PolitiFact rated this claim as FALSE.

The Pennsylvania Insurance Department has clearly stated, “Pennsylvania will – and has always intended to – comply with the federal ban on abortion funding in the coverage provided through our federally funded high risk pool.”

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal agency who will provide the funding, has clearly said, “In Pennsylvania and in all other states abortions will not be covered in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.”

And just in case the message was not clear, I called on HHS Secretary Sebelius to explicitly tell the states that they must strictly follow the ban on federal funding of abortion, or lose their federal funding altogether.

It's all there in black & white: no federal funds will be used for elective abortions in Pennsylvania or anywhere else in the United States.

Preserving the sanctity of life is an issue that Western Pennsylvanians care about passionately, and so do I. That's why I wanted to give you the facts.

If you would like further information about this or any other topic, please email me or call my office at 1-877-KATHY 4U (528-4948).

Sincerely,

Kathy Dahlkemper

http://rightdemocrat.blogspot.com/2010/07/health-care-reform-is-pro-life.html

$50 Billion for Infrastructure Good Start, But Not Enough, Expert Says

2010-10-11T20:39:00.000-07:00

President Obama's plan for fixing America's intrastrucure has drawn praise from the American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE's Exective Director Patrick J. Natale stated: "Our nation’s economy can’t survive without the stable foundation infrastructure provides. It allows goods to move across the country, water to flow from our taps and energy to be accessed with the flip of a switch. But, for decades, we have allowed that foundation to crumble."

Natale called for a dedicated source of funding and an increase in federal leadership on infrastructure and urged Congress to work with the Obama Administration on this critical national issue.

A civil engineering expert says that $50 billion is a good start but not enough to reverse the deterioration of our roads, bridges, water and sewer systems.

"All of the various components of our infrastructure are in serious need of attention and should be given priority, even in times of fiscal belt-tightening," says Henry Petroski, a Professor of Civil Engineering at Duke University.

"President Obama's call for spending $50 billion on America's transportation infrastructure is good news, but the amount is far from the $2.2 trillion that the American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated it would cost to bring the nation's total infrastructure up from the poor grade of D that it received in 2009 to a level that would enable the country to remain strong and prosperous."

"It is not only our roads, railways and airports that are in serious need of repair and renewal. As recent events have demonstrated, the aging water and gas lines buried beneath our streets can break without notice and give rise to flooding, fire, destruction and death. All of the various components of our infrastructure are in serious need of attention and should be given priority, even in times of fiscal belt-tightening. What we do not maintain today will surely cost much more to repair in the future."

Dr. Petroski recently elaborated on the U.S. infrastructure crisis in The Chronicle Review:

The present state of the American infrastructure—roads, bridges, water supply, and the like—has been given an overall grade of D by the American Society of Civil Engineers, which regularly issues infrastructure report cards. The engineers' estimate of how much it will cost to raise the grade from poor to acceptable is $2.2-trillion over a five-year period. Such a vast amount of money is unlikely to be available over the next decade.

When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly known as the stimulus bill, was passed in 2009, the word "infrastructure" was frequently invoked. Since then, prominent signs have gone up proclaiming that paving and other highway projects owe their very existence to stimulus money. However, less than $100-billion of the $787-billion total has in fact gone toward infrastructure construction projects.

In the meantime, our infrastructure continues to age and deteriorate. In many of our older cities, some of the cast-iron pipes that bring water to homes and businesses are a century old. Earlier this year a burst water main in the Boston area resulted in an eight-million-gallon-per-hour leak and led the governor to declare a state of emergency. Affected residents were warned to boil their water before drinking it.

As surely as water runs downhill, so will our infrastructure over the coming decade. Putting off preventive maintenance and replacing obsolete equipment are tempting ways to find cuts in a deficit-ridden municipal budget. New York City took that path during its fiscal crisis of the 1970s, and large and small cities across the country can be expected to do so in the coming years. Even if such action helps local economies recover by the year 2020, the infrastructure will be in such a sorry state that it will be near impossible for it to earn a passing grade.

Potholes know no politics; they will continue to develop as surely as rain turns to ice in winter. Bridges will corrode and collapse. Pipes will crack and burst. The physical foundations of our civilization will crumble under the weight of our complaints about it and our neglect of it. It will happen so fast that it will be impossible to keep up with its repair.

Infrastructure is a fancy contemporary term for what used to be known as public works. The change in terminology may have helped distract the voting public from seeing it as their collective obligation and a civic responsibility. But no matter what it is called, we will continue to depend upon our infrastructure for our safety and quality of life. If we do not recognize the urgency of maintaining it, we can expect the deterioration of our infrastructure to be a defining idea of what it means to be a citizen in a declining civilization.

http://chronicle.com/article/Declining-Infrastructure-D/124137/

Petroski is an expert on the history of engineering and technology, and the author of several books, including "The Essential Engineer: Why Science Alone Will Not Solve Our Global Problems" (2010); "Success through Failure: The Paradox of Design" (2006); and "Pushing the Limits: New Adventures in Engineering (2005).

Space Combats China's Job-Killing Policies

2010-10-03T20:39:00.000-07:00

Standing up against a Chinese government that has devastated American workers, Congressman Zack Space (D-OH) voted to crack down on China’s illegal policies by taking aim at China’s manipulation of its currency. By labeling it an illegal subsidy, the bill would allow the United States to retaliate against Chinese manufacturers.

“China’s policies have killed jobs in Ohio, and it’s past time for us to fight back,” Space said. “American workers know why their jobs are disappearing. China is crushing our manufacturers by illegally subsidizing all of its products.”

“Some politicians want us to sit back and watch. I won’t allow it. I won’t give international corporations a free pass to outsource more American jobs. We are going to bring the Chinese government to justice.”

China’s government-manipulated exchange rate makes it cheaper to buy yuan than the market would dictate. This undervaluation of the yuan makes Chinese goods cheaper for Americans while making American goods more expensive to Chinese consumers and consumers around the world.

H.R. 2378, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, would direct the U.S. Department of Commerce to declare China’s undervaluation as a prohibited subsidy, allowing the U.S. to respond with countervailing or antidumping duties. It passed the House on Wednesday evening by a vote of 348-79. As the letter notes, the Economic Policy Institute reported that 2.4 million American jobs were lost between 2001 and 2008 as a result of China’s policies.

U.S. News: Cutting Benefits Isn't the Way to Save Social Security

2010-10-03T11:21:00.000-07:00

Writing in U.S. News and World Report, Ross Eisenbrey rebuts the notion that the retirement age must be raised for American workers:

Raising the retirement age as a way of "saving Social Security" is like the general's line in the Vietnam War: "We have to bomb the village to save it."

No, we don't have to cut benefits as a way to save them. And that's all that raising the retirement age does: It cuts benefits for all retirees, no matter the age they choose to retire. The last increase, from age 65 to age 67, cut benefits for an average retiree by 13 percent, a loss of more than $28,000 over the course of a typical retirement. And that increase hasn't even fully taken effect yet!

It's not immediately obvious, but raising the retirement age to 68 would cut benefits even for someone who waited until 69 to retire, because today, you get a bonus for waiting until 68 or 69. But when the retirement age increases, the bonus disappears for the 68-year-old and is cut in half for the 69-year-old.

And the fact of the matter is that benefits are already less than modest. In fact, the average retiree's benefit is only $14,000—less than the minimum wage. Millions of retirees now and in the future will have no income beyond Social Security, so they can't afford any kind of benefit cut. Three and a half million seniors are already below the poverty level, even with Social Security.

Why are we even debating Social Security cuts, instead of benefit improvements? One reason is that right-wing ideologues hate Social Security and have been trying to destroy it or privatize it for decades. They want benefit cuts because they see the program as socialism (or as former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, who cochairs President Obama's deficit commission, put it, "a milk cow with 310 million tits"). Social Security does have a long-term financing problem, but the cause is growing income inequality, not the fact that Americans are living longer. Congress anticipated the baby boom's retirement back in 1983, raised the retirement age, increased taxes, and collected a trust fund that is already more than $2 trillion and will eventually peak at $4.2 trillion.

What Congress didn't anticipate was that the salaries of high-income people would rise sharply while wages for most Americans would stagnate. The limits on taxable income were set in a way that allows more and more income of the well-off to go untaxed. Most people don't know that someone making $300,000 or even $30 million a year pays no more in Social Security taxes than someone earning roughly $107,000. In 1983, 90 percent of wage and salary income was taxed, but today it's less than 84 percent. That's a huge windfall for the rich and a serious shortfall for Social Security.

What's indisputable is that Social Security does not and cannot contribute to the nation's long-term debt, so deficits are not a reason to raise the retirement age or make any other benefit cut. The program cannot borrow, so it only pays benefits that have been raised through dedicated taxes or interest earned from the trust fund's bonds. If, in 2037, as is expected, the trust fund is depleted, benefits will be reduced automatically to ensure that no deficit is created.

Americans already work longer than they did 40 years ago. And while it's true that we're living longer, the gains in life expectancy have been uneven. Higher-income men are living 5½ years longer than in 1982, but lower-income men are living only 1½ years more. And lower-income women have seen their life expectancy decline.

So the right answer to the program's financing problem isn't to make people in physically demanding jobs work until they drop. It's to make the rich pay a fair share of the taxes needed to fund full benefits. If the rich paid taxes on the same share of national income as they did in 1983, 40 percent of the funding shortfall would disappear. (If it was good enough for Ronald Reagan, how can they complain?) But they should pay more. Most Americans want to see the cap on taxable income lifted entirely. If both employers and employees paid the 6.2 percent Social Security tax on the entire salary of employees earning more than $106,800, the entire funding shortfall would be eliminated.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/09/20/cutting-benefits-isnt-the-way-to-save-social-security.html

Preserving Social Security benefits is critical to the American middle class. Republican Senate candidates like Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky are promising to support raising the retirement age. Candidates hostile to middle class interests like Paul and Rubio must be defeated. Find out where your candidates stand on Social Security and vote for those who will protect our benefits.

Taft-Hartley Act allowing state "right-to-work" laws lower wages, hurt working families

2010-10-03T09:14:00.000-07:00

The California State Council of Retail Clerks published a pamphlet about the Taft-Hartley Act in 1948. It begins:

"Let's get one fact straight from the start:

"The Taft-Hartley is aimed at you.

"It's aimed at your wages, at your hours and working conditions, at your job security. Its target is your pocketbook--your standard of living.

"It strikes at you through your union--by crippling your right to organize and maintain a union of your own choosing--limiting your right to strike and picket and boycott--by choking your rights of free speech and free press.

"You used these rights to organize your own union, to fight for a better standard of living. You used them to win higher wages, shorter hours, better conditions on the job. Your union has been your chief weapon.

"Now, the full force of the law has been turned against you--crippling your hard-won rights instead of strengthening them--weakening and, in the long run, destroying your union."

Since the Taft-Hartley Act allowed states to pass laws effectively blocking the right of employees to bargain collectively, workers have been calling for an end to this unjust laws. Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) has introduced legislation to repeal the Taft-Harley Act.

WASHINGTON,DC – Congressman Brad Sherman announced the introduction of dramatic legislation that would eliminate so-called “right-to-work” laws, which was applauded by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Sherman has a strong record of supporting working men and women and earned a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO.

Right-to-work laws require unions to represent non dues-paying employees, thereby undermining the basic premise and promise of union membership and creating free riders – people who are exempt from paying their fair share. Right-to-work laws create different standards for union membership in different states. This results not only in confusion over the regulation of union membership, but also places a higher cost on worker representation in labor rights states. Right-to-work laws have come to be known as right-to-work-for-less laws, because employees in states with these laws average about $5,333 a year less than workers in labor rights states.

Even a conservative American Enterprise Institute scholar argues that right-to-work laws would violate international labor standards that have been accepted by most of the world for decades. Similarly, in testimony at Congressman Sherman’s March 10, 2010 hearing entitled “International Worker Rights, U.S. Foreign Policy and the International Economy”, the U.S. Department of State expressed concerns about efforts to undermine the right to organize throughout the world.

“I do not believe that there should be a right to be treated unfairly or to endure unnecessary restrictions. Right-to-work laws strip unions of their legitimate ability to collect dues, even when the worker is covered by a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement. This forces unions to use their time and members’ dues to provide benefits to free riders who are exempt from paying their fair share,” said Congressman Brad Sherman. “These laws are harmful to states like California, which allows labor unions to organize, because now we have to compete with the race to the bottom as our companies have to compete with those where the workers would like better wages, working conditions and benefits but are unable to organize to get them.”

"With the introduction of legislation banning so-called right-to-work, Congressman Sherman has once again demonstrated his strong commitment to working families," said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. "Right-to-work laws undermine the economy and weaken workers' ability to bargain for better working conditions, which translates into lower pay and fewer benefits for everyone."

In 1947, Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act stripped the Federal government of its role in protecting the American workers’ right to freedom of association by allowing states to pass legislation that eliminates the ability of unions to collect dues from their members. The result is a confusing web of labor laws that encourages a race to the bottom.

Why conservatives and liberals must oppose unfair trade with China

2010-09-06T21:38:00.000-07:00

The Economic Collapse Blog makes a strong case for why conservatives, liberals and everyone else must oppose unfair trade with China:

If you are truly a conservative, there is no way that you should ever support our trade relationship with China.

If you are truly a liberal, there is no way that you should ever support our trade relationship with China.

Globalism has allowed the big global corporations that dominate our economy to make huge amounts of money, but it has also forced American workers into one gigantic global labor pool.

Are you willing to work 12 hours a day for less than $2.00 an hour in sweatshop conditions?

Well, that is your new competition.

The top 1 percent of all Americans is using globalism to make huge profits, but the standard of living for the rest of us is slowly but surely being forced down toward the rest of the world.

Is that what you really want?

If after reading the reasons below you can still consider yourself a good "conservative" or a good "liberal" and still support our current trade relationship with China please leave a comment to this article. I would love to hear your reasoning.

10 Reasons Why Conservatives Should Be Against Unfair Trade With China

1 - Conservatives are supposed to be all about creating jobs. But millions upon millions of good paying middle class jobs have been shipped off to China and they are never coming back.

2 - Once upon a time, conservatives were opposed to communism. But our trade relationship with China has enabled the largest communist economy in the world to go from third world status to superpower status. China is now the second largest economy in the world, and that would have never happened without our cooperation.

3 - Conservatives are supposed to be concerned about national security. But thanks to the massive amount of money they have made from us, the Chinese have been able to dramatically upgrade and modernize their military. At the top levels of the Chinese government, most officials still believe in the ultimate worldwide triumph of communism, and now thanks to us they have a world class military with which to advance that agenda.

4 - China has a very strict one-child policy which should be absolutely abhorrent to any true conservative.

5 - China uses mobile abortion vans to help enforce the one-child policy. How any social conservative can justify trade with China after learning this is a total mystery.

6 - If Republicans actually started fighting to protect American jobs from going overseas they could win the "angry working class vote" and take both houses of Congress and the White House in 2012.

7 - Conservatives don't like when other countries try to take advantage of the American people. Yet China is taking advantage of the American people by keeping their currency artificially low and most conservatives are strangely quiet about this. This currency manipulation has put large numbers of U.S. small businesses at a huge competitive disadvantage and has forced many of them to shut down. Essentially, this currency manipulation has enabled China to get us down on the mat and continually beat the stuffing out of us. Meanwhile, our politicians stand by and do nothing.

8 - Our trade deficit with China has enabled them to accumulate about a trillion dollars of our debt. This gives them tremendous leverage over us and is a very serious threat to our economy and to our national security.

9 - Conservatives are traditionally very protective of national sovereignty and state sovereignty. But a global economy governed by the G20, the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank is a giant step toward world government and a giant step away from national sovereignty and state sovereignty.

10 - The giant trade deficit that the United States runs is making us poorer as a nation each and every month. Each year, somewhere around half a trillion dollars of our national wealth gets transferred out of the United States. Much of that gets transferred to China. The United States spends approximately $3.90 on Chinese goods for every $1 that the Chinese spend on goods from the United States. The transfer of wealth that this represents is absolutely mind blowing. China is literally bleeding us dry.

10 Reasons Why Liberals Should Be Against Unfair Trade With China

1 - Liberals are supposed to defend unions, yet our trade relationship with China has done more to hurt unions than anything else and most liberal politicians don't seem to care. Globalism has put the average American worker in direct competition with the cheapest labor in the world. Unemployment is going to continue to increase unless something is done to stop the offshoring and outsourcing of our jobs.

2 - Liberals are supposed to care about the environment. But our trade relationship with China means that thousands of factories and businesses leave our shores and end up in China where the environmental regulations are not nearly as strict. In fact, China has become a complete and total environmental nightmare at this point. If liberals truly cared about the environment they would want to keep factories and businesses here.

3 - Our trade relationship with China (and with the rest of the world) has caused the income inequality gap in America to explode. The top 1% of all Americans have done very well in this environment while the rest of us suffer. For much more on this phenomenon, please see my recent article entitled "Winners And Losers".

4 - Dangerous products from China are pouring into the United States. Liberals should be horrified that so many of our products are now made outside the United States far from the watchful eyes of our regulatory agencies. Over the past couple of years, there has been headline after headline about dangerous products made in China. The following is just one example of this: 10 Babies Die Mysteriously At Fort Bragg: Toxic Drywall From China Used In Base Homes The Culprit?

5 - In a global economy, every piece of legislation that Democrats intend to help American workers with ends up backfiring. For example, a rise in the minimum wage or a law increasing worker benefits causes American workers to become even more expensive and gives corporations even more incentive to move jobs overseas.

6 - "Free Trade" has been the most destructive in the inner cities where Democrats have traditionally gotten a tremendous amount of support. Shiny new factories are going up all over China while at the same time formerly great manufacturing cities such as Detroit have degenerated into rotting war zones. This is not good for liberals.

7 - Democrats won't get elected if there are no jobs. Each month, more jobs leave the United States for China and the growing number of long-term unemployed workers in the U.S. is not going to be inclined to keep the same politicians in office if this continues. If liberal politicians value their jobs they should start protecting the jobs of average Americans.

8 - Free trade with China threatens to ruin our social safety net. It is a good thing to help those in need, but there comes a point where too many people jump on to the net and it breaks down. Already, one out of every six Americans is enrolled in at least one anti-poverty program. Over 40 million Americans are on food stamps. These are not good numbers for liberals.

9 - True liberals should be absolutely horrified by the exploitation of labor in China. In China, millions of people work in horrific conditions for what is essentially slave labor pay. The fact that big global corporations are getting rich from this should make the stomach of every liberal turn.

10 - The giant trade deficit that the United States runs is making us poorer as a nation each and every month. Each year, somewhere around half a trillion dollars of our national wealth gets transferred out of the United States. Much of that gets transferred to China. The United States spends approximately $3.90 on Chinese goods for every $1 that the Chinese spend on goods from the United States. The transfer of wealth that this represents is absolutely mind blowing. China is literally bleeding us dry.

Liberals and conservatives should both be able to agree that it is not a good thing for millions of American jobs to leave the United States and go to China.

Liberals and conservatives should both be able to agree that it is not a good thing that billions of dollars in wealth gets transferred from the United States to China every single month.

But will our leaders wake up and start pursuing a more logical approach to China?

Don't count on it.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-be-against-unfair-trade-with-china-and-10-reasons-why-liberals-should-be-against-unfair-trade-with-china

Economic Times: China on the verge of unleashing "carrier-killer" missiles

2010-09-06T21:24:00.000-07:00

The Economic Times reports:

BEIJING: China is close to operationalising its new super-weapon, "carrier-killer" missiles, saying they would be used to counter balance US Naval supremacy in the pacific.

"The anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBP) is close to becoming operational," the Global Times said, warning that Beijing would not allow foreign aircraft carriers near its waters.

"China undoubtedly needs to build highly credible anti-carrier capability," the paper said it an editorial.

Claiming that the missiles were a deterrent to US aircraft carrier-led battle groups operating in the Pacific Ocean, the paper said for this "not only does China need anti-ship ballistic missiles but also other carrier killing measures."

The Chinese claims comes in the wake of warnings by US Pacific Commander Admiral Robert Willard that China is developing a new version of its Dongfeng 21 missiles that can pierce through the defences of even the most sturdy US Naval vessels.

"These missiles have a range of 20,000 kms — a capability to strike targets far beyond Chinese waters," US Naval commanders have warned.

"For quiet sometime the intelligence agencies in the US and other Western countries have conjectured over China's anti-ship missile capacity. China ought to convince the international community of its reliable carrier killing capacity as soon as possible to end the speculation," the Global Times said.

In a recent report submitted to the Congress, the Pentagon has said that the China has made a string of double digit hikes in its military spending to build new range of nuclear weapons, long range missiles, submarines, aircraft carriers and cyber warfare system.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/China-on-the-verge-of-unleashing-carrier-killer-missiles/articleshow/6505639.cms

Froma Harrop: Populism, then and now, protecting the little guy

2010-09-06T20:13:00.000-07:00

Froma Harrop exposes the phony populism of Glenn Beck and his tea party followers in a Seattle Times column:

Over a century ago, William Jennings Bryan presided over mass rallies of mostly middle-class Americans angry about economic inequities. The tea-party activists gathered in Washington last weekend for Glenn Beck's event shared similar concerns. Both leaders framed their populist mission in Christian terms.

But Bryan's people knew the source of their insecurity. Beck's don't.

Bryan's populists blamed unregulated banks and industrial mammoths for oppressing the middle class on down. They wanted government to protect them from marauding monopolies.

Beck's populists see government as the marauder. Government, in his rhetoric, is the bully harassing individuals and business alike.

Populist sentiment against the business elite helped get Republican Theodore Roosevelt elected president in 1904. (He had moved up from the vice presidency with the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901.) But Beck slams Roosevelt for his reformer vision. He froths over Roosevelt's belief that the pursuit of great wealth should benefit the wider community as well as rich people as "the cancer that is eating at America."

It's always dangerous to compare periods separated by more than 100 years. Back in the late 1890s, the government was tiny, and the big corporate powers were free to trample workers and small businesses. Standard Oil and the future U.S. Steel had bigger budgets than the U.S. government. (By the way, Standard Oil et al. did not really favor "free enterprise." They favored their continuation as competition-killing monopolies.)

In sharp contrast, today's populists don't see the recent economic meltdown as the product of the financial industry allowed to run amok. The same folk agonize over growing deficits and see the widening gap between the super rich and everyone else — yet still oppose a modest tax hike on the top few percent.

In one breath, the tea partyers rail against the bank bailouts. In the next, they object to efforts in Washington to re-regulate the banks and make future bailouts unnecessary. And they see their political home in a Republican Party that tirelessly serves the interests of the Wall Street princes and the industries that dine on taxpayer dollars — for instance, health care.

It's hard to remember that Wall Street was rather sympathetic to the surging Democrats only two years ago. During the presidential campaign, the party took in 70 percent of Wall Street's political contributions. Republicans are now receiving 68 percent. (Always cynical Wall Street is betting on a GOP win.)

The financiers turned on Democrats as the Obama administration sought to re-regulate the financial industry. They denounce a proposed return to the top marginal rates of the Clinton-era as a gross injustice. They indignantly defend the ludicrous loophole that lets hedge and private-equity-fund managers pay taxes at a lower rate than the police who guard their mansions.

Private-equity tycoon Stephen A. Schwarzman recently likened the administration's attempt to close the loophole to the Nazi invasion of Poland. Hedge-fund manager Daniel S. Loeb angrily wrote his investors that "this country's core founding principles included non-punitive taxation, constitutionally guaranteed protections against persecution of the minority and an inexorable right of self-determination." Who's arguing with that?

These guys are not necessarily "conservative." They generally don't care a fig about the social issues. Some, like Loeb, are registered Democrats.

But the name of their game is to amass the highest number of billions. Nothing is ever enough. Anyone who slows the play is their enemy. And these days, it's the Republican Party that can best help them rack up their scores. (What's good for the country is generally not item No. 1 on the priority list.)

The plutocracy hated and feared Bryan, especially after he won his first (of three) Democratic presidential nominations. In 1896, Republican operative Mark Hanna went directly to John D. Rockefeller and said, "We need money to defeat Bryan." Rockefeller wrote a check.

One would think that the populists who lament the alleged decline of their economic status — and America's real economic decline — might want to stop the big players from repeating their excesses. Amazingly, they don't.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2012794316_harrop03.html

http://www.fromaharrop.com/

Thorium energy could end dependence on oil within 5 years

2010-09-04T19:14:00.000-07:00

Popular Science reports:

An abundant metal with vast energy potential could quickly wean the world off oil, if only Western political leaders would muster the will to do it, a UK newspaper says today. The Telegraph makes the case for thorium reactors as the key to a fossil-fuel-free world within five years, and puts the ball firmly in President Barack Obama's court. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html

Thorium, named for the Norse god of thunder, is much more abundant than uranium and has 200 times that metal's energy potential. Thorium is also a more efficient fuel source -- unlike natural uranium, which must be highly refined before it can be used in nuclear reactors, all thorium is potentially usable as fuel.

The Telegraph says thorium could be used as an energy amplifier in next-generation nuclear power plants, an idea conceived by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, former director of CERN.

Known as an accelerator-driven system, it would use a particle accelerator to produce a proton beam and aim it at lump of heavy metal, producing excess neutrons. Thorium is a good choice because it has a high neutron yield per neutron absorbed.

Thorium nuclei would absorb the excess neutrons, resulting in uranium-233, a fissile isotope that is not found in nature. Moderated neutrons would produce fissioned U-233, which releases enough energy to power the particle accelerator, plus an excess that can drive a power plant. Rubbia says a fistful of thorium could light up London for a week.

The idea needs refining, but is so promising that at least one private firm is getting involved. The Norwegian firm Aker Solutions bought Rubbia's patent for this thorium fuel cycle, and is working on his design for a proton accelerator.

The Telegraph says this $1.8 billion (£1.2 billion) project could lead to a network of tiny underground nuclear reactors, producing about 600 MW each. Their wee size would negate the enormous security apparatus required of full-size nuclear power plants.

After a three-decade lull, nuclear power is enjoying a slow renaissance in the U.S. The 2005 energy bill included $2 billion for six new nuclear power plants, and this past February, Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants.

But nuclear plants need fuel, which means building controversial uranium mines. Thorium, on the other hand, is so abundant that it's almost an annoyance. It's considered a waste product when mining for rare-earth metals.

Thorium also solves the non-proliferation problem. Nuclear non-proliferation treaties (NPT) prohibit processes that can yield atomic bomb ingredients, making it difficult to refine highly radioactive isotopes. But thorium-based accelerator-driven plants only produce a small amount of plutonium, which could allow the U.S. and other nations to skirt NPT.

The Telegraph says Obama needs a Roosevelt moment, recalling the famous breakfast meeting when Albert Einstein convinced the president to start the Manhattan Project. A thorium stimulus could be just what the lagging economy needs.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/thorium-reactors-could-wean-world-oil-just-five-years

The Reid Report: Five Things To Know About Rick Scott

2010-09-04T15:44:00.000-07:00

The Reid Report gives us some background on Medicare fraudster turned Republican nominee for Florida Governor Rick Scott:

Think you know everything there is to know about Rick Scott, the guy you can’t get off your TV in Florida? Here are five things to add to your knowledge base.

1. He is not an “outsider.” — Not only has Rick Scott cowed the Florida GOP establishment, he was already a crony of the Bush family, having co-owned the Texas Rangers with George W. Bush. A former Bush White House staffer has signed onto the Scott campaign, and with Jeb also in his corner, it should be clear to anyone who’s paying attention that far from being a tea party insurgency, the Scott run is more of a white table cloth rebellion by corporate titans who long for the long-lost Dubya era of tax cuts (for them) and deregulation of their industries. Looked at that way, both the McCollum and Scott campaigns were Bush restorations of a sort, which makes it easier to see why Jeb is cool with the outcome either way.

2. He didn’t always have a beef with “career politicians” — In fact, during the 2008 election cycle, Scott gave more than $45,000 to rather doctrinaire politicians like Mitt Romney, and about $30,000 to tea party anathema John McCain. He’s even given thousands of dollars to pro-”pathway to citizenship” immigration moderate Mel Martinez, to moderate Connie Mack, and to the blood bank of political careerism, the Republican National Committee.

3. He is not necessarily going to go all Meg Whitman on Florida. — Scott is now in such firm control of the party that used to hate him (but now just fears him), he’s bragging that he “probably” won’t have to spend his own cash through November (which is supposed to be the point of nominating a guy who can self-fund…) meaning he’ll get the special interests that back McCollum to start writing checks, or someone might get hurt… UPDATE: Scott has also begun hiring Bill McCollum’s fundraising team.

4. The fraud committed by his former company, Columbia/HCA, was worse than you think. — According to the 2003 press release from what was by then the Bush Justice Department, relating to an investigation that began in the Clinton years, the $1.7 million fine the company paid was the largest in history, involved criminal, not just civil fraud, stretched back to the Reagan era, and even involved defrauding the healthcare system used by our military. From the release:

Under the first of three agreements announced today, which becomes effective upon the court’s dismissal of the lawsuits, HCA will pay nearly $620 million to resolve eight whistleblower lawsuits in which the government had intervened alleging that HCA systematically defrauded Medicare, Medicaid and other federally funded health care programs through schemes dating back to the late 1980s. HCA will pay an additional $11 million to resolve separate allegations of improper HCA billing practices.

The settlement requires HCA to pay:

$356 million to resolve whistleblower lawsuits alleging that HCA engaged in a series of schemes to defraud Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE, the military’s health care program, through hospital cost reports, the year end claims submitted by hospitals to the government to reconcile payments received throughout the year with amounts they claim are actually owed. In 2001, a subsidiary of Nashville-based HCA, Columbia Management Companies, Inc., pled guilty in the Middle District of Florida to related charges on eight counts of making false statements to the United States and paid $22.6 million in criminal fines. An additional amount of $20 million of the settlement is being paid toward a resolution of cost reporting fraud allegations pursued separately by James Alderson and John Schilling, the relators who filed the lawsuits. In total, the two relators are to receive a total of $100 million as their statutory share of the settlement.
$225.5 million to resolve lawsuits alleging that HCA hospitals and home health agencies unlawfully billed Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE for claims generated by the payment of kickbacks and other illegal remuneration to physicians in exchange for referral of patients. In 2001, Columbia Management Companies, Inc., pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to pay kickbacks and other monetary benefits to doctors in violation of the Medicare Antikickback Statute and paid a $30 million criminal fine. Dr. James Thompson, a doctor who filed suit against the company in 1995, will receive $41.5 million as his statutory share of the settlement. Gary King, a former HCA employee, will receive $5 million and Ann Mroz, a former HCA nurse, will receive a share of $837,500.
$17 million to resolve allegations that certain company-owned hospitals billed Medicare for unallowable costs incurred by a contractor that operated HCA wound care centers, and for a non-covered drug that the contractor manufactured and sold to hospital patients. The 2001 Columbia Management Companies’ guilty plea concerning cost report fraud included a charge related to wound care center costs. HCA’s wound care center management contractor, Curative Healthcare Services, Inc., previously paid $16.5 million to resolve related allegations pending at one time in these same lawsuits. Joseph “Mickey” Parslow, a former HCA financial officer, will receive $2,990,000 and Francesco Lanni, a former Reimbursement Manager at the Wound Care Center at New York Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, New York, will receive a share of $680,000.
$5 million to resolve allegations concerning the transfer of patients from HCA facilities to other facilities and the claiming of excessive costs for those transfers.
$5 million to resolve allegations that HCA’s Lawnwood Regional Medical Center in Fort Pierce, Florida submitted false claims in Medicare cost reports by inflating its entitlement to funds to treat indigent patients and by shifting employee salary costs in order to increase its reimbursement from the federal health care program.
$950,000 to settle allegations made by Michael Marine that HCA improperly shifted its home office costs to hospitals. Marine will receive a share of $116,500.
And last but not least:

5. Scott is significantly less popular among Republicans than his main opponent Alex Sink is among Democrats. — Despite all of the doom and gloom pronouncement emanating out of every primary this season, as pundits predict that Democrats will lose 73 House seats — giving up seats that only exist in Charlie Cook and Mark Halperin’s minds — plus every conceivable office from governor to dog catcher, Sink actually bested Scott on election night, 669,426 to 599,696, a difference of 69,730 votes. Sink got 77 percent of the votes in her arguably non-competitive race. Scott got 46 percent. And while it’s hard to imagine Brian Moore’s supporters not heading into Sink’s camp, it’s not clear that all of McCollum’s 563,000 voters, or the voters for the third guy in the race, Mike McCallister, who got 130,944 votes without many people even knowing who he was (meaning those voters affirmatively said “no” to both McCollum and Scott) will go Scott’s way, especially if McCollum sticks to his guns and refuses to endorse him (or at this point, to even commit to vote for him.) Sure, many McCollum Republicans will write off poor Bill as a sore loser, but his view of Scott’s lack of character can’t be his alone.

Bottom line, Scott will get a majority of the GOPers who come out in November, but what kind of majority? If it’s a bare one, he’s in trouble. Sink has strong appeal among moderate to center-right voters, plus potential appeal to Republican women, who are polling in the dregs where Scott is concerned. And Scott has emerged from the bruising primary with very high negatives among his own. It’s arguable that Sink can benefit from both the Kendrick Meek voters who come out in November AND the Charlie Crist folks, who will by default be more moderate, more independent, and drawn from both major parties. Scott will get zero cross-over. He’s down to tea partiers and that’s about it. With evangelicals having trashed him during the primary, it’s not even clear he can get those souls to the polls. Will the Schlafly-Bauer axis get on board the way Tallahassee Republicans have? That remains to be seen. So far, the Christian Family Coalition’s website is silent on Scott, whose corporate impurity on abortion (and stem cell research), despite his haranguing on the issue, and his distortions and misuse of a Texas family (I smell a commercial!…) could make the Christian vote less than enthusiastic about turning out for him.

BONUS: Based on his fixation on national issues, Scott may have ambitions beyond the governorship. In fact, it’s hard to detect much interest in the mundane issues of governing the state of Florida. Scott’s latest “issue” doesn’t even deal with the job of governor. Instead, he’s joined the Club For Growth chorus against letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

http://blog.reidreport.com/2010/08/five-things-to-know-about-rick-scott/

rickscott5thamendment

Webb calls for scrutiny of U.S. funding to Chinese firms

2010-09-03T20:35:00.000-07:00

Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) today said that the awarding of two major construction contracts to U.S. firms by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a positive step forward but does not eliminate the need for a thorough examination of the MCC’s process for awarding contracts. In an August 2 letter to the MCC, Senator Webb expressed concern that, at that time, Chinese companies were the largest recipients of its contracts, which are funded with U.S. tax dollars.

“As I wrote to the MCC last month, the partnership of U.S. businesses with U.S.-funded MCC development contracts can help speed America’s economic recovery while strengthening U.S. business ties with developing countries,” said Senator Webb. “I remain concerned that hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars continue to fund contracts with Chinese state-owned companies. Chinese state-owned companies are actors of the Chinese government, designed to carry-out that government’s economic and political interests, and I do not believe that the U.S. government should be financing such activity. This issue demands oversight for both financial and strategic reasons.

“While I look forward to the conclusion of the MCC’s internal review on the participation of foreign state-owned companies, I will continue to press the MCC to terminate its policy of contracting with state-owned and state-subsidized companies. This policy is inherently against the spirit of private markets and fair competition and harms American business, foreign policy and development interests.”

According to an updated list of contracts provided by the MCC, Chinese firms are now the second largest recipients of its contracts after the U.S.

A full copy of Senator Webb’s original letter to the MCC follows.

August 2, 2010

Daniel W. Yohannes
Chief Executive Officer
Millennium Challenge Corporation
875 Fifteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Yohannes:

I am writing to express my concern that the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is enabling Chinese state-owned enterprises to expand their operations—and Chinese influence—in Africa with tens of millions in American taxpayer dollars. I was alerted to this problem by a recent Reuters report that Sinohydro Corporation, a Chinese state-owned company, was awarded a $71.6 million contract in Mali to build a new airport for the capital, Bamako. I have been informed by your staff that in addition to the Bamako airport project, Sinohydro was awarded a contract for the Main Canal Conveyance System in Mali and two contracts for the construction of roads in Tanzania.

Sinohydro Corporation is one of China’s largest state-owned infrastructure companies, ranking 89th among China’s 500 largest companies and 56th among the 225 largest international contractors in 2009. Sinohydro is well-known for its work on the Three Gorges Dam in China. Additionally, it has operations all over the world, including Angola, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Sudan and Tanzania. Some of these projects include financing from the China Development Bank, China’s state-owned development lending organization.

Many of Sinohydro’s projects have been controversial due to their environmental or human impacts, such as the displacement of thousands of people in Sudan with the construction of the Merowe Dam. Sinohydro also has been reprimanded by the Chinese government for substandard work and breaches in safety and environmental pollution.

At a time when our economy is struggling to recover, I am concerned that the funding of Chinese state-owned companies with U.S. taxpayer dollars harms American business, foreign policy, and development interests abroad. If this situation is unchanged, we risk the entrenchment of Chinese companies in Africa at the expense of U.S. companies, which cannot compete because of the cost of establishing new operations in Africa. Additionally, this action tacitly supports the Chinese government’s “going abroad” strategy to expand political influence through business and development ties.

I believe that there should be a natural marriage in the partnering of U.S. businesses with U.S.-funded MCC contracts in Africa and other regions. This partnership can aid the U.S. economic recovery, provide American jobs, and strengthen U.S. business ties with developing countries.

Consequently, I am asking that you immediately cease action on these and any other projects not awarded to U.S. companies.

As Chairman of the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee, I intend to conduct vigorous oversight on this issue to ensure that our development assistance properly uses American taxpayer funds to advance U.S. interests abroad and not to enhance the spread of Chinese influence.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jim Webb

Study: CEOs of top 50 job-cutting companies earned $598 million in compensation

2010-09-02T16:20:00.000-07:00

From The Kansas City Star:

The nation's biggest job-cutting companies paid their top executives an average of $12 million last year, according to a report released today.

The 50 U.S. chief executives who laid off the most employees between November 2008 and April 2010 eliminated a total of 531,363 jobs, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, a research group that works for social justice and against wealth concentration.

In "CEO Pay and the Great Recession," the institute said the $598 million in combined pay for the 50 executives would have paid one month's worth of average-sized unemployment benefits for each of the laid-off workers.

The top 50 layoff firms reported a 44 percent average profit increase for 2009, the report said.

"These numbers all reflect a broader trend in Great Recession-era Corporate America: the relentless squeezing of worker jobs, pay and benefits to boost corporate earnings and maintain corporate executive paychecks at their recent bloated levels," the authors wrote.

In the 17th annual executive compensation report, the institute once again focused on the gap between big-company CEO pay and average wages for American workers.

Last year, the report said, median CEO pay in the 50 largest U.S. firms was $8.5 million, or more than double the $4.1 million median in the 1990s. But the 2009 median was down from the $9.2 million median in the 2000-05 period.

In 2009, median CEO pay was 263 times the average pay of U.S. workers. In the 1970s, the CEO-to-employee pay ratio was about 30-to-1. The report noted that management guru Peter Drucker, who coined the term "knowledge worker" and was instrumental in shaping American management theory until his death in 2005, believed the ratio of pay between worker and executive should be no higher than 20-to-1.

Fred Hassan, former CEO of Schering-Plough, presided over announced layoffs affecting 16,000 workers after a 2009 merger with Merck. He resigned after the merger, receiving "golden parachute" compensation in 2009 of more than $49.6 million to rank as the highest-paid layoff leader.

To read the complete article, visit www.kansascity.com.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/01/99965/study-ceos-of-top-50-job-cutting.html#ixzz0yPslRFxq

South Korea Free Trade Agreement Will Destroy American Jobs

2010-07-18T10:30:00.000-07:00

THE ABOVE OBAMA CAMPAIGN MAILER FROM 2008 PROMISES TO PROTECT AMERICAN WORKERS FROM UNFAIR TRADE AGREEMENTS. NOW IN OFFICE, PRESIDENT OBAMA WANTS A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH KOREA PROJECTED TO DESTROY 159,000 U.S. JOBS.

President Obama has been a disappointment on trade issues. With high unemployment and a record trade deficit, Obama needs to be fighting to protect American jobs. Action to save American jobs does not require 60 votes in the U.S. Senate. With the stroke of a pen, the President could impose tariffs to protect American workers from unfair foreign competition. Imposing a 10% tariff on all imported goods would help restore balance to our trading relationships, revitalize the domestic manufacturing sector, create American jobs and lower the national debt. Instead, the President either clings to neo-liberal assumptions about the importance of free trade or lacks the political courage to reverse our self-destructive trade policies. As American workers stand in unemployment lines or face wage stagnation, Obama is now picking a fight with his political base by supporting a new free trade agreement with South Korea.

A study by the well-respected Economic Policy Insitute predicts the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea will grow by about $16.7 billion and destroy 159,000 American jobs within seven years of implementation if approved by Congress.

EPI economist Robert Scott writes:

The Obama administration has announced that it intends to finalize a new free trade agreement with South Korea (KORUS FTA) in time for the next G-20 summit in November. Although the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) projects this will have a small positive impact on the U.S. trade balance, and “minimal or negligible “ impact on U.S. employment, history shows that such trade deals lead to rapidly growing trade deficits and job loss in the United States.

The USITC has a history of vastly underestimating the negative impacts that free trade agreements have on the U.S. economy. In 1999, it estimated that China’s entry into the World Trade Organization would increase the U.S. trade deficit with China by only $1.0 billion, and have no significant impact on U.S. employment. In fact, the U.S. trade deficit with China increased by $185 billion between 2001 (when China entered the WTO) and 2008, and 2.4 million U.S. jobs have been displaced or lost. The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico also rose rapidly after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect in 1994.

With U.S. unemployment close to 10%, and an employment gap of nearly 11 million jobs, it would be foolish and self destructive for the United States to implement a free trade agreement with Korea that leads to further job loss.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/free_trade_agreement_with_korea_will_cost_u.s._jobs/

Public Citizen's Eyes on Trade blog compiled this selection of quotes concerning the proposed South Korea free trade agreement:

“Some Democrats and consumer activists have protested the pact over concerns with the financial services title of the bill that they say encourages the same deregulation policies that led to the recession.”

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2010/07/strong-opposition-to-korea-fta.html#more

- Congress Daily, “Envoys Make Case To Continue Work On Agreements,” 7/15/10

“Since Obama and Lee's June 26 announcement, groups such as the AFL-CIO labor federation and Public Citizen have raised concerns about investment, financial services trade and other provisions of the pact they say also need to be fixed.”

- Reuters, “S.Korea open to ‘creative’ fix for US autos, beef,” 7/14/10

“The stated focus on only narrow changes to the FTA puts the administration at odds with a number of FTA critics, including the AFL-CIO and members of the House Trade Working Group who are on record with a broad range of objections. A union source said …the extent of the political fight that will break out over the U.S.-Korea FTA…will depend on the substance of the improvements that the administration can obtain.”

- Inside U.S. Trade, “Administration Signals Limited Auto, Beef Fixes For U.S.-Korea FTA,” 7/2/10

“Critics of a trade pact negotiated with South Korea by President George W. Bush are beginning to make clear how difficult it will be for the Obama administration to forge an acceptable compromise by November's Group of 20 summit meeting. … The negotiations would likely have to go further than just beef and autos to satisfy influential blocs in the Democratic party. Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division, said Sunday the deal would deregulate financial services and investor protections, which would be at cross purposes with the just-finalized financial regulatory overhaul bill. ‘If the administration wants to obtain broad support on what may well be its first trade vote, it will need to fix more than beef and auto trade problems, because they have inherited a leftover Bush Korea trade pact text that includes the same outrageous foreign investor rights as NAFTA plus the strongest dose of financial deregulation ever contained in a U.S. trade pact,’ Wallach said. Two weeks ago, in a Detroit speech to the UAW, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka gave a preview of what is to come should the White House push the Korea deal. ‘In our new economy, this fight is global. We cannot ease off the fight against trade agreements that favor Wall Street over workers throughout the world,’ he said. ‘And that means the South Korea-U.S. trade deal. The days of trade agreements that protect the rights of wealthy investors and neglect the rights of workers and our environment must be over.’”

- Congress Daily, “Korea Deal Expected To Get Bumpy Ride,” 6/28/10

“Leading labor unions, including those represented by the AFL-CIO, have made it clear that the administration has to go beyond the areas of automobiles and beef in terms of changes to the U.S.-Korea FTA. These unions have also stressed to the administration that the labor community is unified in opposing the Korea FTA as it now stands, sources said. Labor sources this week argued that absent substantial and far-reaching changes, the administration will face unified and fierce opposition from the labor community. … AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka issued a statement last week urging the administration to seek changes in the areas of investment, services and procurement.”

- Inside U.S. Trade, “Critics Seek Details On Extent, Nature Of Possible Korea FTA Changes,” 7/9/10

“It now has Obama's support, but his party still shows little enthusiasm ahead of November's congressional elections. Labor unions and other core Democratic supporters say foreign trade agreements steal American jobs. That puts Obama in the unusual position of relying on help from Republicans, who have opposed in near-perfect unison his biggest initiatives, including his overhauls of health care and financial regulations. … The Democratic backlash was quick. Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., expressed surprise that Obama would ‘try to slide this poorly written trade deal past the American public when Congress has already said that the deal is not good for our economy or workers.’”

- Associated Press, “Democrats uneasy on US-SKorea deal,” 7/3/10

“US President Barack Obama is risking a revolt within his own party as he presses ahead on a free trade agreement with South Korea, setting the stage for a showdown after November legislative elections. Organized labor, a critical support base for Obama's Democratic Party, and several Democrats have already vowed to fight the deal which they say would hurt workers. … Obama himself criticized the deal as a senator.”

- Agence France-Presse, “Obama risks party showdown on S.Korea deal,” 7/3/10

“The sudden timeline for wrapping up the agreement set off a firestorm among Democrats…who say the president first needs to endorse legislation that ensures equal market opportunities for American workers. For Democratic trade critics, Obama's free trade push runs contrary to his talk during the Democratic primaries of getting tough on trade agreements and adds to already sky-high anxieties over jobs in their districts.”

- Roll Call, “Democrats Won't Rubber-Stamp South Korea Trade Deal,” 7/4/10

President Barack Obama has angered unions by picking an election-year battle with organized labor over trade. … ‘We don't think it's a good move economically or politically,’ said Thea Lee, a trade lobbyist for the AFL-CIO. … Labor argues the trade agreement will exacerbate problems in the U.S. economy and lead to the elimination of more U.S. manufacturing jobs. … The groups have a strong ally in Rep. Sandy Levin, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. … On Saturday, he blasted the Korean deal for not addressing regulatory and tax barriers that have led to one-way trade with South Korea and hurt the U.S. industrial sector.”
- The Hill, “South Korean trade deal pits Obama against labor base,” 7/1/10

Call your Senators and Representative and urge them to oppose the South Korea Free Trade Agreement. Ask your Senators and Representative to instead support fair trade by co-sponsoring H.R. 2012 known as The Trade Act. http://www.citizen.org/documents/TRADEActFactSheet2009.pdf

Will Evangelical Christians join the Fight for Economic Fairness ?

2010-07-18T09:19:00.001-07:00

More than two thousand passages in the Bible deal with God's concern about poverty and injustice. Evangelical Christians would seem to be natural allies in the fight for economic fairness on behalf of the poor and working families, however, their activism is often focused on a few social issues. Some progressive evangelical Christians have long argued that economic security for the working class is critical to family stability. A few prophetic voices warned of the similarities between social Darwinism and laissez faire economic policies, however, most evangelicals aligned with political conservatism over the last 25 years or so. Will this change as free market policies cost the working and middle class their jobs and homes ? A recent study noted in the excellent blog Working-Class Perspectives http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com suggests a possible shift among some evangelicals toward a political realignment and support for an economic justice agenda.

Mike Boyle writes:

According to the popular stereotype, evangelical Christians want little to do with working-class politics. Instead, we tend to imagine evangelicals as people who are either uninterested in politics or focused entirely on fighting the culture wars, rather than as people who care about issues like unemployment, inequality, and poverty. If the stereotype were accurate, that would be bad news for people hoping for policy changes that would benefit working-class Americans. Such changes only come about when the public puts pressure on governmental leaders, and evangelicals make up about one-third of the American public.

There are, however, good reasons to believe that this stereotype oversimplifies what is in fact a complicated topic. I’d like to review a few of those reasons here, including a survey of evangelical clergy that I conducted last year in Stark County, Ohio. Stark County, which is located near Cleveland, Akron, and Youngstown in Northeastern Ohio, is home to about 380,000 people who are spread across a diverse collection of cities, suburbs, and rural hamlets. For the better part of the 20th century, the three principal cities of Stark County—Canton, Massillon, and Alliance—were important manufacturing centers, particularly in steel and related heavy industries. Over the course of the past several decades, however, Stark County has conformed to the postindustrial storyline of manufacturing job loss and deepening economic insecurity for the working class. By 2008, 27.9 percent of families in Canton were living below the poverty line, a rate that is nearly three times the national average and also the highest among Ohio’s big cities. In March of 2009, the Stark County job market drew national and even international attention when a whopping 835 people applied to fill a vacant custodial position at the Edison Junior High School in Perry Township.

Because Stark County voting patterns have resembled national ones for a long time, Stark has also earned a reputation as “a bellwether county in a bellwether state,” making it a magnet to campaigning politicians, as well as a better-than-average spot to check the pulse of American opinion with a survey. Two hundred thirty-one clergy from the 553 congregations in Stark County filled out, at least in part, the questionnaire sent to them last year. Along with conventional questions about theology, membership, and so on, the survey gave respondents an open-ended opportunity to identify what they considered to be “the most serious issue facing residents of Stark County today.” The responses to that question don’t quite fit the stereotype.

Evangelical ministers are far more concerned with economic issues than prevailing stereotypes suggest. Ninety of the Protestant churches that answered this final question self-identified as ‘born-again’ congregations—a very good indicator of evangelical belief. Eighty-two of these churches were predominantly white, while eight were predominantly African-American. Forty-two of the 90 ‘born-again’ churches listed an economic problem of some sort as the most serious issue facing Stark County residents. Thirty out of these 42 identified the need for jobs as Stark County’s number one issue. The remaining 12 churches identified poverty, food security, and child care, among other things.

Only 22 of the 90 born-again churches, however, identified a religious problem such as “absence of faith” or “spiritual complacency” as the most serious issue facing the county. Six more identified traditional “culture wars” issues such as family breakdown and declining morality. Together, these 28 answers accounted for only 31 percent of the total, which is far less than what stereotypes about evangelicals would predict. In contrast, nearly 50 percent of the born-again churches—42 out of 90—placed an economic issue at the top of their list of concerns. Others identified crime-related issues, such as drugs and violence, or miscellaneous public issues such as racial prejudice and highway repair. A few responses were too ambiguous to categorize.

Examining these returns even more closely suggests important differences within the broad evangelical community, especially between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist clergy. Though both embrace the core evangelical doctrines, fundamentalists tend to be more separatist, literalist, and less tolerant of doctrinal differences, even on secondary issues such as dress codes and alcohol consumption. Of the 64 clergy that self-identified as ‘born-again’ but not ‘fundamentalist,’ 53 percent identified an economic issue as Stark County’s number one concern. Meanwhile, only 31 percent of clergy that identified as both ‘born-again’ and ‘fundamentalist’ did so. It is common for opinion surveys to uncover a divide of this sort between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist evangelical believers. This divide is rooted in the complex history of American Protestantism, rather than in the core religious doctrines that all evangelical traditions share.

The Stark County data are illuminating for what they tell us about evangelical clergy, but they may not reflect the views of the ordinary believer in the pew. For several decades, however, scholars have been tracking the opinions of ordinary evangelicals through surveys and polls. Although these studies have added a lot to our knowledge of evangelical opinion, they have not demonstrated a clear link between evangelical belief and economic attitudes. In fact, these studies are often inconsistent with one another. Many of them—perhaps even a small majority—do indicate that evangelicals tend to be slightly more conservative on economic issues than non-evangelicals. Others, however, find no significant difference between evangelical and non-evangelical attitudes toward the economy. Some very good studies even show that evangelicals tend to be more liberal on economic issues than non-evangelical Americans. And to complicate the picture even more, some studies show that evangelicals in other countries are more liberal than their fellow believers in America.

In any event, data from Stark County and elsewhere indicate that many evangelicals are alive to the importance of economic issues in contemporary America. This fact is not enough to demonstrate that evangelicals will support specific policy proposals. What these results do suggest, however, is that support may exist among evangelicals for economic ideas that depart from the conservative to moderately conservative American mainstream. Making the most of these openings and building support for economic strategies that benefit working-class communities will, however, take political work. Both evangelical and non-evangelical conservatives undertook this kind of work for more than a generation, and it turned out to be pivotal in delivering electoral victories to Republicans from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush and in driving the Democratic Party to the right.

Today, however, more and more evangelicals are working to convince their fellow believers that struggling on behalf of decent living standards for all people is part of what it means to be a faithful Christian. They are reinvigorating currents of evangelical protest that were once prominent in American life, as in the early labor movement and during the agrarian populist upsurge. These evangelicals—many of them young people—have been inspired by prominent believers such as John Perkins, Jim Wallis, Ron Sider, and Tony Campolo, as well as the Scriptures themselves. Already it is becoming evident that young evangelicals are more liberal on economic issues and less preoccupied with the culture wars than their parents and grandparents. Because evangelicals account for such a large segment of the public, we should be encouraged by these developments. They have the potential to affect the course of future economic policy in ways that benefit all working-class Americans, regardless of their religious background.

Mike Boyle is a Ph.D. student in Cultural Anthropology at the City University of New York whose research interests include political economy, class, and religion.

http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/evangelicals-and-working-class-politics/

Pickens Outlines Energy Independence Plan in New Whiteboard Presentation

2010-07-16T21:36:00.000-07:00

T. Boone Pickens has launched the first in a new series of whiteboard video presentations, outlining the role natural gas can play in helping to achieve President Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to cut all imports of oil from the Middle East in 10 years. The video can be seen at www.pickensplan.com/whiteboard2010.

“There are eight years left on the President’s campaign pledge to eliminate Middle East oil in 10 years, and we want to help him and our nation get there,” said Pickens. “The Pickens Plan is the only real plan that can make dramatic progress on that goal using our abundance of natural gas as a transportation fuel. We encourage Congress and all Americans to get behind this plan now - there is no more time to waste. We have an opportunity and we need to take advantage of it.”

In the whiteboard presentation, Pickens details how switching 8 million 18-wheelers to run on natural gas could cut the United States’ dependence on OPEC oil in half. This plan is included in several pieces of legislation, including The NAT GAS Act (H.R. 1835 and S. 1408), the American Power Act (S. 1733), introduced by Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), and the Next Generation Energy Security Act (S. 3535), introduced by Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Richard Burr (R-NC).

“You’ll cut down $100 billion on 8 million vehicles,” Pickens said. “$100 billion creates one heck of a lot of jobs in the United States. We’re going to fix the security issue right here with the 5 million OPEC barrels and in eight years, the problem will be solved. Every president since Richard Nixon has said ‘elect me and we’ll be energy independent.’ Not one of them delivered on it. This president is going to focus on it, and together, all Americans will solve the problem for the country.”

Halfway through the year, the United States has not made any significant changes to the amount of foreign oil imports. The latest figures from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) show that the U.S. imported 62 percent of its oil, or 362 million barrels in June 2010, sending approximately $27.3 billion, or $631,255 per minute, to foreign countries, Pickens said in his latest monthly update on foreign oil imports.

“America is as close to an energy plan as it’s been in 40 years,” Pickens said. “We can’t let any more time go by as we continue to spend $27.3 billion per month on foreign oil. We have to act now or risk watching oil rise to $300-$400 a barrel in the next ten years, with import numbers jumping to 75 percent. So instead of spending $365 billion a year on foreign oil, we would be wasting $1 trillion a year. That just won’t work. Congress needs to move fast to enact legislation promoting the greater use of natural gas as a transportation fuel. The future of our economy and national security depend on it.”

The whiteboard presentation is the first in a series of five videos that will be released in the coming weeks. Pickens’ first whiteboard presentation was released during the launch of the Pickens Plan in July 2008. It has become a hit with the online community, having drawn more than 1.5 million views.

About the Pickens Plan

Unveiled on July 8, 2008 by T. Boone Pickens, the Pickens Plan is a detailed solution for ending the United States’ growing dependence on foreign oil. That year, when oil prices reached $140/barrel, America was spending about $700 billion for foreign oil, equaling the greatest transfer of wealth in history. That figure has decreased some while oil prices have retreated, but the U.S. is still dependent on foreign nations for nearly 70 percent of its oil, representing a continuing national security and national economic threat. The plan calls for expanding the use of domestic renewable resources, such as wind and solar, in power generation and using our abundant supplies of natural gas as a transportation fuel alternative to OPEC oil.

More than 1.6 million people have joined the Pickens Army through the website www.pickensplan.com, which has had over 20 million hits. For more information on the Pickens Plan please visit our website www.pickensplan.com.

Boston Globe: In Key Contests, Democrats Championing Gun Rights

2010-07-16T20:43:00.001-07:00

The Boston Globe reports:

Democratic candidates in key states are embracing gun owners’ rights, winning favor from the National Rifle Association, a lobby that has long been the target of disdain from the party faithful.

In New Hampshire, Representative Paul Hodes, a Democratic Senate candidate, has an “A minus’’ NRA rating, potentially insulating him from progun rights attacks in a state that’s big on hunting and personal liberties.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid, in a bruising campaign for reelection in Nevada, has conservative activists buzzing because the NRA is considering endorsing his reelection.

Indiana’s Democratic Senate candidate Brad Ellsworth, who has an “A’’ rating from the NRA, may get the group’s endorsement this fall over GOP candidate Dan Coats, whom the NRA criticized in mailings to Hoosiers as being weak on gun rights.

And in Kentucky, Democratic Senate candidate Jack Conway has not only heralded gun rights but also signed friend-of-the court briefs supporting gun owners before two landmark Supreme Court rulings backing their rights in District of Columbia and Chicago cases.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/14/in_key_contests_democrats_championing_gun_rights/

Sahil Kapur explains in The Washington Independent why gun owner fears about the Obama Administration have proven to be unfounded. Gun control legislation has been dead on arrival in the Democratic-controlled Congress and President Obama signed legislation last year to allow firearms in national parks.

Kapur writes:

One year into his presidency, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gave Obama an “F” across the board on gun control issues. The Chicago Tribune joked the following month that “[o]n the list of issues for which Obama is willing to put himself on the line, gun control ranks somewhere below free trade with Uzbekistan.”

As a result, gun rights advocates remain about as unimpeded in their cause today as during the Bush administration.

http://washingtonindependent.com/91209/fears-aside-gun-rights-thrive-under-obama

Casey: Passage of Wall Street Reform a Major Step for Consumers

2010-07-16T20:22:00.000-07:00

U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) is applauding the final passage of bipartisan legislation to bring more transparency and accountability to Wall Street. The legislation now goes to the president’s desk for signature.

“This is a major victory to bring more transparency and accountability to Wall Street for the types of risky behavior that helped cause the recession and massive job loss. This bill takes significant steps to have the rules favor consumers and not Wall Street.

“Consumer protections will be greatly expanded, a watchdog will be created to put consumers first and loopholes in oversight will be closed. The Wall Street reform bill also brings more scrutiny and safeguards to the largely unregulated $600 trillion derivatives market.

“I am disappointed that political obstruction has delayed final passage of these needed reforms for months. The American people expect fast action to address the problems facing our country, not political posturing, delays and obstruction.”
Senator Casey included provisions in the final bill to increase funding for foreclosure mitigation, protect pension funds and provide more oversight for property appraisals.

Senator Casey introduced an amendment during the Senate debate on the bill to provide additional funding to help keep workers who lost their jobs in their homes and to help stabilize the housing market. The final bill included $2 billion in foreclosure mitigation funds to the Department of Housing and Urban Development -- $1 billion for an Emergency Homeowners Relief Fund and $1 billion to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) led the effort in the House to provide this funding.

Senator Casey worked with Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) to make sure that the Wall Street reform legislation adequately protects pension funds, counties and municipalities. Municipalities and pension funds in Pennsylvania have incurred massive losses in the swap markets. That is why Senator Casey worked to clarify the language in the bill to ensure such entities are protected.

Senator Casey also worked with Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) to include increased oversight of property appraisals. Inflated property values from inaccurate appraisals were one of the factors that contributed to the housing bubble.
Specifically, the appraisal language would:

• Create enforceable Federal appraisal independence standards with tough penalties.

• Provide the Appraisal Subcommittee of the interagency Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council with a consumer protection mandate and enhance its ability to monitor the performance of State appraisal oversight agencies.

• Strengthen appraiser licensing and education standards, and establish a Federal grant program to the States.

• A GAO study on the effectiveness and impact of appraisal methods, the Home Valuation Code of Conduct and the Appraisal Subcommittee.

Health Care Reform is Pro-Life

2010-07-12T18:25:00.000-07:00

A right-wing disinformation campaign has convinced millions of Americans that health care reform will result in taxpayer financed abortions. Nothing can be further from the truth. Health care reform does not fund abortion and it is likely to reduce the number of abortions.

Thomas Berg, a professor at St. Thomas University School of Law, prepared the following analysis on behalf of Democrats for Life.

Professor Berg writes:

The effect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on abortion has been the subject of much controversy, and pro-life members of Congress who voted for PPACA have received strong criticism as well as strong praise. This memorandum has three purposes. First, it provides a brief reminder that PPACA contains many provisions reflecting pro-life values and having pro-life effects. Second, it assesses the two major criticisms of PPACA concerning abortion raised by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Although the USCCB has been the most detailed and thoughtful critic of the statute on abortion-related matters, this memorandum concludes that there are convincing answers to the USCCB’s criticisms and thus it was eminently reasonable for pro-life legislators to support PPACA.

Finally, the memorandum concludes that it also makes perfect sense for a pro-life legislator to support further efforts to clarify restrictions on abortion funding and protections of religious conscience in the context of a stand-alone bill. Unlike the context of the PPACA vote, enactment of stand-alone clarifications will not destroy health-reform legislation and its many positive pro-life features and effects. But support for such further clarification should in no way be seized on as an admission that PPACA’s provisions against abortion funding were inadequate.

A. The Pro-Life Elements of PPACA

First, it is worth briefly remembering the numerous elements of PPACA that reflect pro-life values or will have pro-life effects. These positive pro-life benefits would have been lost had the health-care reform effort failed.

PPACA enacts multiple forms of support for pregnant women and for childbirth, measures supported by the USCCB and other pro-life groups.[1] For example, sections 10212 and 10213 provide funds to colleges for a variety of pregnancy and parenting resources for students—an important initiative, because one-fifth of abortions are performed on college students and because significant numbers of women give as reasons for having abortion that having a child would interfere with their education or would be unaffordable because they are students.[2] The same sections also provide other funding for support for pregnant and parenting teens. In addition, PPACA § 10909 expands the adoption tax credit and adoption assistance programs in order to make adoption a more attractive and available alternative to abortion.[3]

Indeed, the expansion of health-care access itself provides strong pro-life incentives, among its other benefits to the vulnerable in our society. Studies indicate that inability to afford a child is a factor in three-quarters of abortions[4] and that women below or close to the poverty level have abortions at a dramatically higher rate than other women.[5] Because health care is a major cost of child-bearing and child-rearing, access to affordable care reduces incentives for abortion. As Basil Cardinal Hume, the leading Catholic prelate of England for many years, remarked concerning the positive effects of guaranteed health care in that country: “‘If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it’s needed, she’s more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn’t it obvious?’”[6]

PPACA also contains a number of provisions to ensure that government support for afford health care does not support abortion. As health-law expert Timothy Jost has noted, several of these provisions are identical to provision in the House version of the bill, which was supported by the USCCB. Memorandum of Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, Washington and Lee University School of Law, at 3, http://law.wlu.edu/faculty/facultydocuments/jost/Jost_Response_to_Bishops_3.14.10.pdf (hereinafter “Jost Memo”). PPACA also makes it explicit that states may discourage abortion by outlawing abortion coverage in any policy issued through the state’s exchange. PPACA § 1303(a). Within two months of passage, two states had already passed such bans, and up to six others may follow suit this year. See Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Abortion foes capitalize on health law they fought, Assoc. Press, May 17, 2010, available on Westlaw at 5/17/10 APDATASTREAM 01:31:09 (“Abortion rights supporters are concerned that the list [of states limiting private insurance coverage of abortion] is growing as a result of the new federal law.”).

B. The USCCB’s Major Criticisms of PPACA

The pro-life benefits that PPACA brings are important. But if other parts of the statute gave significant support to abortion, those benefits would not be proportionate to justify its enactment. The USCCB has argued that the statute will support abortion. The USCCB’s criticisms deserve serious attention because they are thoughtfully made, and because it has worked over the years for broadened health-care access. But there are strong answers to both of the USCCB’s major concerns—answers that justified pro-life Democrats voting for PPACA after they secured a clarification from the President that the law would not be used to fund abortions with federal tax dollars.

1. Funding of Community Health Centers

The first concern raised by the USCCB is that the statute directly authorizes, even mandates, funding for abortion through the increased funding for community health centers (CHCs) in section 10503. As the USCCB recognizes, “CHCs have existed for a long time, and so far they have not provided abortions except in the narrow range of cases where Hyde has authorized them (rape, incest, and threat to maternal life).” USCCB Memo of March 25, 2010, at 3, http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/03-25-10Memo-re-Executive-Order-Final.pdf (hereinafter “USCCB March 25 Memo”). The USCCB also acknowledges that federal regulations prohibit abortion funding in “programs or projects for health services which are supported in whole or in part by Federal financial assistance . . . appropriated to the Department of Health and Human Services [(HHS)] and administered by the Public Health Service” (42 C.F.R. § 50.301)—and that CHCs have long been subject to these regulations because they are supported by HHS funds.[7] But the USCCB objects that CHCs have only been denied funds “because all of their federal funding, at least so far, appears to have been made through annual appropriations bills that included the Hyde Amendment,” while PPACA § 10503 “makes a separate appropriation” without including Hyde Amendment language to restrict it. USCCB March 25 Memo at 3 (emphasis in original). For this reason, the USCCB claims, these regulations cannot validly be applied to funding appropriated under PPACA. Id. at 4.

The USCCB’s analysis, however, has a crucial flaw: appropriations to CHC from PPACA cannot be segregated from the range of appropriated funds that have always been explicitly subject to the Hyde Amendment. As Professor Jost notes, the new CHC funds “are explicitly enhanced funding that will flow into a pool of funding for these programs that is otherwise subject to the Hyde amendment. Any community health center that attempted to use its funding to provide abortions would be in violation not just of the federal regulations, . . . but also of the Hyde amendment, as they would have no way to segregate the Hyde-appropriated funds from the funds appropriated by this Act.” Jost Memo at 6. The USCCB acknowledges that “PPACA appropriations may not be used for abortions in CHCs if they are commingled in a trust fund that is already Hyde-restricted” (USCCB March 25 Memo at 3 n.5), but it claims that PPACA places new CHC funding into a separate account and therefore the Hyde Amendment does not apply. See id. (“PPACA creates a new fund [the CHC Fund] into which its new appropriations shall be placed”) (emphasis in original).

The USCCB overlooks, however, that payments to CHCs do not come directly from the new CHC Fund. Rather, the statute directs that the Secretary of HHS “shall transfer amounts in the CHC Fund to accounts within the Department of Health and Human Services to increase funding, over the fiscal year 2008 level, for community health centers and the National Health Service Corps.” PPACA § 10503(d). By speaking of “accounts within” HHS and of “increasing” funding, the statute’s terms indicate that the mechanism is to make payments to CHCs from existing HHS accounts, which are subject to the Hyde Amendment, and in which Hyde-restricted money from the ordinary appropriations process would also be commingled. The statutory text alone, therefore, strongly suggests that added CHC funds cannot be segregated in a way that would ever permit their use to fund abortions.

But if any ambiguity remained in the statute, it was eliminated by executive actions interpreting it. First, the President’s Executive Order of March 24, 2010, states that the prohibitions on abortion funding from the Hyde Amendment and the longstanding HHS regulations “shall apply to the authorization and appropriation of funds for Community Health Centers under [PPACA]” and “direct[s]” HHS to ensure compliance with the prohibition. Executive Order, § 3, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-acts-consistency-with-longst. And HHS confirms, in a recent memorandum explaining the Executive Order, why “abortion funding policies for community health centers will not change.”[8] The HHS memorandum makes clear that under the statute, the CHC Fund will provide added federal funds for services not under some new mechanism, but “under the existing CHC grants program administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency within the Public Health Service (PHS)” (id.) and in turn within HHS. The “existing CHC grants program” has long been subject not only to the regulations prohibiting abortion funding, but to the Hyde Amendment itself. Thus to apply the funding-prohibition regulations here is consistent with and supported by the Hyde Amendment: contrary to the USCCB’s arguments, the application of the regulations to PPACA-based appropriations is supported by statutory authority. Since the regulations “on their face would apply to these new funds” (HHS Memo), and that application is valid, CHCs cannot use PPACA’s added funds for abortions.[9]

The clarifications in both the Executive Order and the HHS memorandum are very likely to be upheld. It is commonplace for presidents to issue executive orders directing agencies how to implement laws: “‘The ordinary duties of officers prescribed by statute come under the general administrative control of the President by virtue of the general grant to him of the executive power, and he may properly supervise and guide their construction of the statutes under which they act in order to secure that unitary and uniform execution of the law which Article II of the Constitution evidently contemplated in vesting general executive power in the President alone.’” Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 135 (1926) (quoted in Building and Const. Trades Dept., AFL-CIO v. Allbaugh, 295 F.3d 28, 32 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). An executive order, of course, cannot plainly contravene the statute on which it relies for authority. But this order is consistent with the most sensible reading of PPACA, since the text of § 10503(d) appears to direct payments to CHCs through existing HHS accounts and programs whose funds are subject to the Hyde Amendment. Moreover, if there is ambiguity in the statute, courts would have a powerful reason to defer to the executive branch’s construction, because the key issue here is the mechanism within HHS by which funding is implemented: that is, whether funds are distributed through accounts and programs that are Hyde-restricted. On questions that involve the mechanism within an agency for implementing a statute, courts have strong reason to defer to the construction of the President and the agency, since they are most familiar with, and are charged with, such implementation.

For this reason, the executive-branch commitment, secured by pro-life Democrats, to administer PPACA so as to bar CHCs from using funding for abortions is significant. The commitment does not contradict the statute; it coincides with the best reading of the text. But it clarifies the text, on a matter particularly within executive-branch competence.

2. Abortion and Health-Insurance Plans

The USCCB has also objected to provisions concerning abortion and qualified health-insurance plans participating in the exchange. The objections arise from the fact that the House version of the bill would have excluded abortion-covering plans from participation in the exchange, requiring individuals seeking abortion coverage to purchase a supplemental plan, while the enacted statute permits abortion-covering plans to participate but requires that premiums covering abortion be made in a separate payment to ensure that no federal funds subsidize abortion. See PPACA § 1303(b)(2)(B) (as amended in § 10104).

The USCCB’s first objection is that although PPACA “attempts to segregate funds within health plans in order” to ensure that no federal tax credits or other subsidies support funds “used for abortions,” nevertheless the subsidies “are still used to pay overall premiums for health plans covering abortions.” USCCB March 25 Memo at 4. At various times, opponents of the statute’s approach have dismissed it as an “accounting gimmick.” But the statute pursues the financial separation consistently, requiring not only separate payments but also segregated funds and the application of accounting standards to ensure that federally funded payments to a plan cannot be used to cross-subsidize abortion coverage in the plan. See PPACA § 1303(b)(2)(C). The Executive Order, in § 2, describes these restrictions as “strict” and directs HHS to promulgate rules to ensure “[s]trict [c]ompliance” with them.

As long as the strict payment and accounting requirements are fully enforced, they will accomplish the key goal of prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortion. Although the Hyde Amendment has taken the further step of barring plans covering abortion from receiving any Medicaid funding whatsoever, that approach is not followed in every situation concerning abortion. As Professor Jost’s memo notes (at 5), “[f]ederal Medicare and Medicaid funds currently help to pay for hospitals that pay for abortion, but they [the funds] do not pay for abortions.” The principle that government should refuse to fund not just a certain activity, but an entire entity if it engages in that activity in any of its operations, would mean barring religious organizations from government funding for the educational or social services they provide simply because they also teach religion (which the government cannot directly subsidize). It is reasonable for the government not to carry a funding refusal that far, and instead to focus on strictly ensuring that federal funds do not directly subsidize, or cross-subsidize, abortion.

The small, separate premium paid by individuals to account for abortion coverage in private plans requires somewhat more discussion. The USCCB warns that this provision would “impose a serious burden on the consciences of millions of Americans” because “[a]ny family having to buy such a subsidized plan—for example, because its coverage or provider network are necessary to meet the family’s health needs—will be forced by the Act to provide a separate payment, on a regular basis, solely to pay for other enrollees’ abortions. . . . Thus, even if this mechanism succeeds in preventing taxpayers from being forced to pay for abortions through their federal taxes, it does so at the cost of forcing them to pay for abortions directly from their own pockets.” USCCB March 25 Memo at 4 (emphasis in original).

There is a counterargument, however, that quite reasonably could persuade pro-life members of Congress voting for PPACA. Many individuals are already paying premiums for abortion-covering plans in the private market—often without even knowing it[10]—and the requirements imposed by PPACA will make such plans less attractive, encouraging plenty of abortion-excluding plans. The USCCB recognizes “the current injustice” that “when insurance companies and private employers choose the kind of health coverage they will offer, many of them choose to force people to purchase elective abortion coverage whether they want to or not.” USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, Issues of Life and Conscience in Health Care Reform: Analysis of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” of 2010, at 1-2 (May 24, 2010), http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/PPACA-Analysis-5-24-10.pdf (hereinafter “USCCB May 24 Memo”). PPACA’s requirements will likely change this situation. Once PPACA requires that the small premium share attributable to abortion become a separate payment, requiring a second check, many consumers will not wish to pay it and will demand abortion-excluding plans. This includes both consumers who object to abortion and those who simply do not wish to pay for something they will not need. Insurers will have strong incentives to offer abortion-excluding plans, both to meet consumer demand and to avoid the administrative costs of processing the separate abortion-allocated check.

When the segregation provision was added to the Senate bill, a prominent health-policy expert concluded that it “could be expected to chill issuers’ willingness to sell” plans covering abortions, because “[t]hey would have to comply with complex audit standards and more importantly, they would have to collect an additional fee from each member of their plan, a step that could be expected to encounter broad resistance.”[11] See also Jost Memo at 4-5 (“[Plans] that do [offer abortion coverage] will invariably offer an identical plan without coverage for the majority of their market, which does not want to choose abortion coverage. . . . Many plans currently offer abortion coverage, often without their enrollees knowing it, . . . because the insurers believe it will save them the costs of childbirths. But once abortion becomes a separate service that must be fully paid for by a separate premium, coverage for it will likely become rare.”). For precisely this reason, pro-abortion-funding groups excoriated PPACA’s restrictions as an “egregious . . . bureaucratic stigmatization” of abortion. See NARAL Pro-Choice America, Statement on Health Reform (Mar. 21, 2010), http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2010/pr03212010-finalhousehcr.html.

In short, this change in payment structures not only will likely make many abortion-excluding plans available, but also could significantly reduce the “current injustice” (USCCB May 24 Memo at 1) of individuals paying for abortions in health plans without wishing to do so.

C. Future Stand-Alone Bills Concerning Abortion Funding and Conscience Protection

New legislation has now been proposed aiming to make the abortion-funding prohibitions in PPACA even clearer and to strengthen protection for conscientious objections to abortion and other procedures. See, e.g., H.R. 5111. Such a stand-alone bill presents a very different situation than the one that pro-life members of Congress faced with PPACA. There are reasons, of course, to make conscience protections and abortion-funding restrictions as clear as they possibly can be. But when pro-life Democrats voted for PPACA in March, they did not face such a simple option. If they withheld their vote, demanding such provisions, it would have meant only two things. PPACA would have passed anyway without the additional safeguard against federal abortion funding provided by the Executive Order,[12] and the legislators simultaneously would have been voting against the many pro-life opportunities that PPACA offers: the explicit empowerment of states to restrict abortion-covering plans, the support for pregnant women and adoptions, and so forth, to say nothing of the other contributions the law will make to the common good. In that context, pro-life Democrats were justified in focusing on whether the protections against abortion funding were strong and adequate, not whether they were perfect.

What is worrisome is the prospect that pro-life Democrats will be discouraged from voting for a stand-alone bill not because they doubt its substantive provisions, but because they know that their political opponents will seize on such a vote to allege that it shows the abortion-funding restrictions of PPACA were inadequate all along. For opponents to use such a “gotcha” tactic would be terribly wrong. It is perfectly sensible and logical (a) to conclude that the abortion restrictions in PPACA were strong and fully adequate, warranting a vote for a law that would serve pro-life values in other ways, and also (b) to vote later for a stand-alone bill that makes the restrictions and conscience protections even clearer and does no harm to those other values. Critics who would use this pair of votes as a tactic against a sincere pro-life liberal would show that they cared more about partisan advantage than about strong pro-life policies.

Read the entire essay with footnotes at:

http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=717:abortion-and-key-provisions-of-the-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act-ppaca-by-thomas-c-berg-&catid=24

Economy in Crisis: The VAT is Nothing to Fear

2010-07-11T10:20:00.000-07:00

VALUE ADDED TAX CAN GENERATE SUFFICIENT REVENUE TO END INCOME TAXES FOR MOST AMERICANS

A value added tax will reduce the deficit, help fund health care and save Social Security. With a VAT, the income tax can be ended for workers earning less than 150K per year. Enacting a VAT will revitalize domestic industries and increase the savings rate. America can have a bright future once again with the right kind of tax and trade policies.

Dustin Ensinger writes at Economy in Crisis.Org:

Despite the fact that the report has yet to be issued and no one is certain of what it will include, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) last month launched a preemptive attack on President Obama’s tax reform panel’s recommendations, claiming that even broaching the subject of a value-added tax is “dangerous.”

The Economic Recovery Advisory Board’s subcommittee on tax reform was set to present a list of options to streamline America’s overly complicated tax system to the president last December but the report was delayed. Now the report is expected to be released in the coming weeks and there is speculation that a European-style VAT may be one of many options, which does not sit well with Hatch.

“I believe that the mere discussion of a VAT overlay on top of our current tax system is dangerous and could move some Washington policymakers further toward an inclination to increase spending by providing more revenue,” he said in a letter to the White House.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has been sounding the alarm as well, despite having no evidence to support its claim.

“White House officials even talk privately about the galvanizing political benefit of a bond market crisis,” the paper wrote, “which would force panicked Members of Congress to accept a big new value-added tax. The President's two looming tax reports … are intended to propose a VAT and other tax options.”

The panic is emanating from the fact the tax reform advisory board is being led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who has publicly expressed support for a VAT. The White House has said it is not considering the VAT as an option.

"My tax philosophy would be if we can't deal with our expenditure loan with the present tax system, we've got to think about changing the tax system," Volcker said. "When you think about changing the tax system, given the problem that we started out talking about, you've got to talk about some tax that hits consumption."

A value-added tax would do just that. Taxes are levied at each stage of production, and included in the final price of a product or service. Therefore, it would hit consumers at the checkout counter, in effect putting a tax on consumption.

By taxing consumption, the VAT would encourage much-needed saving among the American people. The tax would raise enough revenues to drastically cut into the annual budget deficit and thus lessen the national debt over the long-run, all while exempting millions of Americans from federal income taxes.

According to the Tax Policy Center, a five percent VAT that covered 80 percent of goods could generate roughly $260 billion in 2012. The Virginia Tax Review estimates that a VAT of 25 percent could pay for health care reform, exempt millions of American families from income taxes and still raise the revenues necessary to cut into the federal budget deficit.

Perhaps the most immediate impact a VAT would have on the American economy would be its immediate leveling of the international economic playing field.

Currently over 150 nations utilize a VAT. The U.S. is the only developed nation in the world without some form of a consumption tax. For those nations with a VAT, it works like an export subsidy and an import tariff at the same time. Without its own VAT, the U.S. is placed in a comparatively uncompetitive situation.

In 2007, American businesses faced a total economic disadvantage of $355 billion due to other nations' VATs - $230 billion in other government’s rebates to their exporting businesses and $125 billion in border adjustment taxes imposed on U.S. importers. That massive disadvantage encourages outsourcing as American companies move offshore in order to circumvent the VAT and reap the same benefits as the companies producing in those nations.

A VAT would provide domestic manufacturers with needed protection from mercantilist practices by foreign competitors, create needed manufacturing jobs, help balance the trade deficit and go a long way toward achieving the president’s goal of doubling American exports in the next five years. In fact, according to renowned economist Mark Zandi, a VAT may be the only way to reach that mark.

“If you wanted to achieve this, you would probably have to overhaul the U.S. tax system and have a value added tax as well as engineering a depreciation in the U.S. dollar,” he said, according to the Financial Times. “This would be a tall order.”

http://www.economyincrisis.org/content/vat-nothing-fear

Michael Lind: The American People Want More Government Spending

2010-07-07T20:03:00.000-07:00

Michael Lind, a research fellow at the New America Foundation, points out the gap between public opinion and elite attitudes about deficits and public spending in his latest essay.

Lind writes:

The new conventional wisdom in Washington is that more spending to promote job creation is out of the question, because the public has changed its priorities and its obsessed with the danger of federal deficits.

Really? What public? The Paraguayan public? The Moroccan public?

The actual views of the American people are at odds with the corporate media’s portrayal of a nation of deficit hawks. According to a June 11-13 USA Today/Gallup Poll, 60 percent of Americans favor "additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy." Only 38 percent of the respondents opposed the proposal, while 2 percent had no opinion.

Federal deficits are an obsession with American elites, including many establishment Democrats. But deficit reduction is not the leading priority of the American people. In another USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken March 26-28, the list of issues considered “extremely important” by voters was headed by the economy (57 percent), followed by healthcare (49 percent) and unemployment (46 percent). The federal budget deficit came in fourth, at 45 percent. Note to the Obama administration and Congress: Fewer than half of Americans think that the federal budget deficit is an “extremely important” issue.

Back in March, the only group in which a majority listed the federal budget deficit as extremely important comprised independents (52 percent). The deficit was less important for Democrats (37 percent) and Republicans (47 percent). Inasmuch as supply-side economics is a variant of Keynesianism, it is not surprising that conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats alike should be less concerned about deficits than independents, who seem to share the views on this subject of Ross Perot's followers of the 1990s.

On the basis of that poll and similar ones, many have concluded that in order to reduce the defection of independents to the Republicans in the fall, the Democrats must at least make a show of being deficit hawks. But other polls suggest a different strategy. In the June USA Today/Gallup Poll, majorities of Democrats (83 percent) and independents (52 percent) supported more stimulus spending. Only the Republicans opposed it, by 61 to 38 percent. How can it be argued that Democrats need to appeal to independent swing voters in the fall by denouncing deficits, when a majority of those independents side with Democrats against Republicans on the need for more spending to spur job creation?

Is it possible to be in favor of more federal spending now to save the economy and promote jobs, while being in favor of deficit reduction in the long term? It is not only possible, but necessary. The more rapidly the economy grows, and the greater the number of Americans who are employed, the higher tax revenues will be and the sooner federal deficits can be reduced without measures that would cripple the economy, like raising taxes and cutting spending in the middle of a near depression.

Read the full article at
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2010/the_american_people_want_more_government_spending_33998

Politico: Arizona suit imperils Western Democrats

2010-07-07T18:53:00.000-07:00

Will the Justice Department suit against the State of Arizona's immigration control law hurt Democrats running in swing districts this year ? Some observers suggest that the Obama Administration challenge to the Arizona law may undercut Democrats in the West and other areas of the country impacted by illegal immigration. With millions of Americans in the unemployment lines, the Obama Administration position can only help to advance the fake populist message of the Republicans this year.

From Politico:

The Obama administration's lawsuit over the stringent Arizona border law might have just made the incline a little steeper for many Western Democrats, providing instant fodder to Republicans who are already optimistic about regaining ground lost over the last two election cycles.

The dust from the Department of Justice lawsuit filed Tuesday is just starting to settle, but the reflexive sense among strategists on both sides is that it will be a net negative for Democrats this fall.

The suit could, of course, help boost turnout among Hispanic voters in key areas across the West. And stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric could turn off independent voters. Yet many foresee a midterm electorate featuring an energized Republican base — for whom the immigration issue has emerged as a priority — prompting moderate white Western voters who are concerned about jobs to decamp to the GOP at least in the short term, political observers said.

“This is a tough issue for Democrats,” said former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm, a Democrat who is co-director of the Institute for Public Policy Studies at the University of Denver. “Politically, I just can’t think of any place in the West where this is going to play well.”

"If you look like you're siding with illegal immigration, you're in trouble," said one national Republican strategist, adding that when it comes to the discussion of secured borders, "people think that's what should happen."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39431.html

The National Journal's Hotline On Call reports:

Arizona Democrats facing tough re-election fights this year are unhappy with a lawsuit the Justice Department filed today aimed at scrapping the state's harsh new anti-immigration law.

"This lawsuit is a sideshow, distracting us from the real task at hand. A court battle between the federal government and Arizona will not move us closer to securing the border or fixing America's broken immigration system. The legal fights and boycotts are drawing focus and attention away from what has to be a policy-driven, substantive debate," said Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ), a freshman. "Washington failed us on this issue again today, and Arizonans have had enough."

Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ), a second-term Dem from the Phoenix suburbs, said he was "extremely disappointed" the lawsuit has been filed.

"This is the wrong direction to go," Mitchell said. "The only thing this lawsuit will do is demonstrate to Arizonans that Washington still doesn't get it."

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/07/arizona_dems_op.php

The Arizona law found support from a leading Tennessee Democrat. Mike McWherter, the Democratic nominee for Governor, strongly criticized the Justice Department lawsuit:

“I think the administration is wrong on this one. Arizona’s trying to get a handle on the immigration policy because of Washington’s total failure to deal with the real problem. Immigration has become another political football in Washington and this lawsuit only continues the game, rather than solve the problem. We need to control the border, crack down on businesses that employ illegal workers, and give businesses the tools to quickly and reliably verify a job applicant’s status.”

http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2010/mike-mcwherter-stands-up-for-ariz-immigration-law/

Texas Democrats take big-tent approach on divisive social issues

2010-06-27T17:09:00.000-07:00

Texas Democrats proved to be the party of inclusion at this year's state convention. Pro-life and pro-gun rights Democrats were given a place at the table.

Christy Hoppe reports in the Dallas Morning News:

CORPUS CHRISTI – At the Democratic state convention, it's easy being green, but loving guns and opposing abortion are still a work in progress.

n meeting rooms throughout this Gulf Coast city's convention center, various interests cloistered themselves to discuss their issues: environmentalists, Tejanos, blacks, veterans, the techno-savvy, young Democrats and the groups working for union rights – both gay and labor.

But interspersed among the Democratic family were the new in-laws of issues. For a party that hasn't won statewide office in 15 years, anti-abortion and pro-gun advocates are the freshly minted relatives in a marriage of inclusion and necessity.

"I'm a liberal Democrat, and this is an issue that should affect all of us," said gun caucus leader Daniel Barnett of Dallas.

Barnett, wearing a black T-shirt with the Texas Independence battle logo "Come and Take It" printed in white letters, turned his back to the gathered enthusiasts and threw a stuffed toy donkey over his shoulder like a bridal bouquet.

But the donkey was a stand-in for the real prize: a 30-round magazine. Two nearby women scrambled until the gleeful claimant waved the captured toy over her head and gratefully accepted the (empty) magazine.

About 60 people attended, and a number of candidates popped in – Barbara Ann Radnofsky for attorney general, Jeff Weems for Railroad Commission, a "Sportsmen for Bill White" representative.

"Why have we allowed Republicans to own this issue?" asked Neil Durrance, a gun owner challenging U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess of Lewisville. "They have convinced people that only Republicans believe we should own guns. Wrong!"

At the other end of the convention hall, Lois Kerschen of Democrats for Life America, was leading a smaller and less rambunctious group of about two dozen believers.

"No other issue kills 3,600 children a day," said the Houston woman, who prays outside of abortion clinics.

But Democrats, she said, offer the best solutions on myriad social issues and other issues. She said there are many anti-abortion Democrats, and more need to speak up.

But it's not easy, especially if a single issue trumps all others.

"Voting is a very strong problem for pro-life Democrats," she said.

Kerschen said she loves the party's nominee for governor, Bill White, but he supports abortion rights. "It's tough if you think it's the most important issue," she said.

Tom McCasland, who attended the meeting on behalf of White, said the candidate wants to reduce the number of abortions.

"The 'rare' part is something we can work with. It's a big-tent party, and there is room for all of us," he said.

And tents provide plenty of breeze to air out differences.

Democratic Party spokeswoman Kirsten Gray said that all of the 34 groups that requested meeting space were granted it by the party chairman.

It is a little different for the Texas Republican Party, which has denied issue booths to gay Republicans. This year, the GOP also refused space to We Texans, a group begun by tea party favorite Debra Medina, who unsuccessfully challenged Gov. Rick Perry in the primary.

Democratic tolerance is high, but it is not complete. One dissenter was asked to leave the convention center.

Perry spokesman Mark Miner showed up Friday to retrieve a guest pass that had been issued in his name. He had some Tylenol, NoDoz and Perry talking points to distribute.

"I guess they should have done a better job of screening guests," he said.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/062610dntexcaucuses.1dd2a65.html

FDR's New Deal still relevant to challenges facing modern America

2010-06-18T21:16:00.000-07:00

Chautauqua is an annual event in rural Nebraska which brings historical figures to life. This year's program focused on the 1930's with a stirring defense of the New Deal by Professor Patrick McGinnis as Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Adrian Sanchez reports in the Columbus (NE) Telegram:

COLUMBUS — Franklin Delano Roosevelt presented a historical narrative of the 1930s that echoed the challenges of modern America and provided his presidential perspective on the steps taken to endure through the crises.

The presentation was part of the Chautauqua 2010 festivities in Pawnee Park Thursday as Roosevelt spoke about his administration’s efforts to overcome a depressed economy, staggering unemployment, extreme weather conditions and international strife.

More than 150 people attended the event to hear Roosevelt, interpreted by University of Central Oklahoma emeritus professor of history Patrick McGinnis, speak on issues that resemble the problems that exist today using humor and research to bring to life one of the country’s most important presidents.

The Chautauqua continues in Pawnee Park north of the tennis courts tonight through Sunday.

Elected president in 1932, as the Great Depression entered its most desperate phase, Roosevelt, using broad executive power with the support of strong Democratic majorities in Congress put into motion his New Deal to aid in the nation’s recovery, but not without staunch opposition.

At the time, unemployment neared one-third of the work force, bankruptcies and bank failures wiped out the savings of millions and talks of revolution began among various groups of people.

Roosevelt’s proposals for social reforms such as Social Security, labor legislation and conservation measures were met with cries of fascism, communism and socialism labeling them as un-American ideology, Roosevelt said, to which he responded, “Have you lost any of the rights or liberties guaranteed in the Constitution?”

“Inaction and apathy are the most potent foes,” he said, in response to those who denounced his administration’s efforts.

Set in 1936, McGinnis as Roosevelt said while “the fact remains a great number remain unemployed” efforts such as the Civilian Conservation Corps helped more people work and earn wages than in the spring of 1933.

“Work must be found for able bodied but destitute workers,” Roosevelt said, because if a large portion of the populace continues to become dependent upon relief it will become “fundamentally destructive to the fabric of the nation.”

Roosevelt recognized his proposals were imperfect, stating, “with your help we can keep those imperfections to a minimum.”

He also was an advocate for conservation, stating “What God has given us we exploit without thought of future generations” and to continue in such a manner is “theft from those who come after us.”

Following the presentation, the character of Roosevelt responded to questions from the audience, many of which were reflective of current political topics.

In response to a question about letting the free market right the ship, Roosevelt responded, stating those businessmen did not bat an eye at accepting billions in government bailouts, yet objected to the out of work laborer receiving government assistance.

The New Deal “saved many, many self-serving businessmen from total collapse and destruction,” Roosevelt said. “When the government provides relief to them they see nothing wrong, but complain when the same relief is going to people out of work,” adding “the government’s money is the people’s money.”

One gentleman asked about government removing itself from people’s business.

“Before the Federal Securities Act nothing required disclosure when purchasing stocks,” he said, the seller just had to attest the stock was worth something, when often times it was worth very little.

As a result, the large quantities of money affected large quantities of people so the Federal Securities Act was adopted prevent such catastrophic events would occur again in the future, he said, providing just one example.

Another person questioned the long-term viability of Roosevelt’s Social Security program.

“We are the only nation that doesn’t have a minimum floor of retirement security,” Roosevelt said, adding, “the Social Security measure was carefully thought out by talented and well informed people. We are confident the funding of Social Security will be sound for years and year to come.”

But he added, “nothing we do is set in stone,” and if deemed necessary, the people can amend it and change it through their elected representatives. Will Rogers, as interpreted by Doug Watson, noted Prohibition was enacted and later repealed.

“I have continuing faith in the American people ... to correct problems that will face them,” Roosevelt said, later citing one of his most famous lines, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

http://columbustelegram.com/news/local/article_6d0c97c0-7ae1-11df-be2c-001cc4c03286.html

The Post and Courier: Naval challenge from China

2010-06-14T20:04:00.000-07:00

The following editorial from Charleston's The Post and Courier sums up the growing military threat posed by a rising China.

Naval challenge from China
Monday, June 14, 2010

Frank exchanges between Chinese and American defense officials in recent weeks may signal a long-term, rising threat to freedom of navigation in waters off the Chinese coast and to the security of Taiwan. If so, the United States should rethink its plans for downsizing the Navy as well as its East Asia policy.

Reconsideration of the plans for an ever-shrinking Navy may have already started. Last week, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., urged the Navy to slow its retirement of older ships and speed shipbuilding.

At 276 active ships, the Navy is smaller than at any time since before World War I. China, in contrast, has continued to expand its military.

Also last week, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he was "genuinely concerned" about China's growing "expeditionary maritime and air capabilities."

And China's growing assertiveness drew a rebuke from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, speaking at a meeting in Singapore.

The "South China Sea is an area of growing concern," he said. "We ... oppose the use of force and actions that hinder freedom of navigation. We object to any effort to intimidate U.S. corporations or those of any nation engaged in legitimate economic activity."

The Chinese side has been equally blunt. The Washington Post reports that in a May 24 meeting with U.S. officials in Beijing, Chinese Rear Adm. Guan Youfei accused the United States of viewing his nation as an enemy. He singled out President Obama's recent decision to sell more arms to Taiwan for particular abuse.

In 1994 and 2001, China tested U.S. resolve to defend Taiwan. This time, so far, it has broken off U.S.-Chinese direct military talks and issued strong objections. But a more determined test may come. China sees the military balance tilting in its favor.

The Post reports that the president of a think tank run by the Chinese military, Cui Liru, recently warned, "For years, China has opposed arms sales to Taiwan among other things, but we were never strong enough to do anything about it. But our national strength has grown. And it is time that the United States pay attention."

China also has made claims to ocean resources and islands in the South China and East China seas.

If the United States wants to defend its interests and avoid an open fight with China, we had better start paying attention to the balance of military power.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/jun/14/naval-challenge-from-china/

Ohio Democrat Ted Strickland Wins NRA Endorsement

2010-06-14T16:51:00.000-07:00

Ohio's Democratic Governor Ted Strickland has won the NRA endorsement for his long-time defense of the right to keep and bear arms. In contrast, Strickland's Republican opponent John Kasich has a mixed record on gun rights.

CNN reports:

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, picked up the support of the National Rifle Association Monday, offering voters a reminder of his culturally conservative views as he battles Republican John Kasich in a difficult re-election bid.

It's the NRA's first general election endorsement of the 2010 cycle.

"Our members will interpret your 'A+' rating and endorsement as an indication that you are a pro-Second Amendment, pro-hunting candidate who supports sportsmen and gun-owners on every issue," said Chris Cox, the chairman of the NRA's Political Victory Fund, in a letter to Strickland provided to CNN by a source familiar with the decision.

In backing Strickland, the NRA cited his vote while in Congress against the 1994 assault weapons ban.

Kasich, also in Congress at the time, voted for the legislation and earned an "F" rating from the NRA that year, though his ratings from the group have since climbed out of the cellar.

Strickland has a narrow lead over Kasich according to recent polling.

The endorsement is not a major surprise given Strickland's lifetime "A" rating from the NRA. Earlier this year, the group described Kasich's record on firearms as "mixed."

The gun rights group did not take sides in the 2006 governor's race between Strickland and his GOP opponent Ken Blackwell - but they did back Strickland in his Democratic primary.

The endorsement is the second bit of good news in recent days for Strickland as he campaigns against the headwind of a volatile political climate and his state's unsettling jobless rate.

On Friday, Strickland's campaign announced having $7.7 million on hand for the campaign – a $2 million advantage over Kasich. Both campaigns collected roughly $1.3 million during the most recent fundraising period.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/14/strickland-picks-up-nra-endorsement/?iref=allsearch&fbid=PBX6njVMHRm

Fritz Hollings calls on President Obama to act on trade, tax policies

2010-06-04T18:39:00.000-07:00

Former Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) writing in The Huffington Post:

As a long-time admirer of Warren Buffett, I held up leaving for work earlier this week to hear him on Morning Joe. He concluded his optimism on the economy by exclaiming: "America works!" I'm sure he meant the people of America work, which makes the country work. But Buffett pinpoints our trouble -- America's money works in China which causes America's people unable to find work in America. Corporate America off-shores work or its production and jobs like gangbusters to China. And today's report of an anemic production of 41,000 jobs in the private sector last month proves the point.

The recession began in December 2007. Now, after trillions of dollars of stimulation in the past two and a half years, the private sector is only creating 41,000 jobs a month. Something else is wrong. And what's wrong with the economy is that Corporate America off-shores its jobs as fast as it can. Three years ago, Princeton economist Alan Blinder, estimated that over ten years we would be losing on an average of three to four million jobs a year to off-shoring. But Blinder is the only economist who mentions the problem of losing our economy. Paul Krugman and the rest of the economists keep calling for stimulation. And stimulation is spent. President George W. Bush and the Federal Reserve stimulated the economy $7.5 trillion in eight years. Household debt increased $7 trillion during the same eight years so that by the time President Obama stimulated the economy had been stimulated $14.5 trillion and we were losing 779,000 jobs a month. President Obama stimulated the economy last year $1 trillion, $885 billion, and, with four months left in this fiscal year, we have already borrowed and stimulated the economy $1 trillion, $148 billion (6/4/10).

We keep bailing the economy boat with stimulation and fail to plug the off-shore hole in the bottom. Plugging the off-shore hole is kept "top secret." Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and the financial houses, the big banks, and now Corporate America, oppose plugging this off-shore hole because that would stop the guaranteed and lucrative profits in China. If the President and Congress changed our tax laws and enforced our trade laws to make it profitable to produce in the United States, the incentive to off-shore would be destroyed.

For example, the President and Congress could eliminate the corporate tax and replace it with a 2% VAT by Labor Day and receive more revenues. Corporate America producing in China has a 17% VAT rebated at export and pays no tax on its imports to the United States, whereas, Corporate America producing in the United States pays an average of 27% corporate tax plus a 17% VAT when its export reaches Hong Kong, for a total of 44%. The 2% VAT would eliminate the 44% incentive to off-shore to China. Producing in China, Corporate America receives only 49% of the profit, but that 49% is guaranteed with no labor problems, health or legacy costs, no safety or environmental costs. The CEO back on Sixth Avenue in New York can have a quality control manager in China, and checking on production daily with the internet, the CEO has time for a round of golf. The President and Congress are kept quiet about the off-shoring with campaign contributions.

President Obama has no experience whatever in trade or globalization. Globalization is nothing more than a trade war with production looking for a country cheaper to produce. Since everything can be produced everywhere, the economist would have us believe that all the United States can do is hunker down and equalize our labor, pay, safety and environmental regulations, to meet the global competition. This is the race to the bottom, and, unfortunately, the labor leadership goes along by continually calling for more free trade agreements to protect labor and the environment. We ought to learn by now that the free trade agreements only protect Corporate America's investment. Labor hunkers down with pay cuts and downsizing as if nothing can be done. All we need to do is change our tax laws and enforce our trade laws to protect domestic production and the environment.

I have worked with corporate America to enforce our trade laws that protect domestic production, jobs, safety, and the environment. Our efforts in the Congress passed by both Houses were vetoed by both Republican and Democratic presidents at the behest of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, both run by the big banks making a majority of their money outside of the United States. But after NAFTA with Mexico and China being admitted to the World Trade Organization, corporate America gave up its efforts in the Courts and Congress to enforce our trade laws and joined China in the trade war. Ironically, corporate America is making communism work.

After World War II, Japan started a trade war for market share by closing its market, subsidizing its manufacture, selling its export at cost, and making up the profit in the closed market. This put General Motors in bankruptcy and Toyota #1. China enlarged Japan's assault by opening its market for foreign technology and expertise, cutting the cost of its export with minimum labor, safety and environmental concerns. China developed the trade war into a war not just for trade but the entire economy -- investment, research, technology, development, production, jobs -- the economy. Today all nations fight fiercely in globalization. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Germany, France, etc., all have invaded the United States economy using their VAT tax advantage. For example, Germany, with its 19% VAT, recently announced the production of windmills in Charleston, S. C. With parts produced in Germany and exported at a 3% cost to Charleston, German production in the United States enjoys a 16% advantage over domestic production. Highballing the cost of producing parts in Germany, little income tax is paid for production of its windmills in the United States. Germany has established a beachhead to take over the energy jobs that the President and Congress keep saying we ought to develop.

We have lost and are losing more jobs to off-shoring than the recession. By the time President Bush stimulated, South Carolina had lost its textile industry, North Carolina its furniture industry, Michigan its automobile industry, Intel had left Silicone Valley for China, and Bill Gates had moved Microsoft research to China. But the President only moves to save jobs from the recession. And President Obama is our only hope. Under the Constitution, tax and trade measures must originate in the House of Representatives. No House member will introduce a tax or trade measure unless it's sanctioned by the White House. Moreover, Republican and Democratic House members are more concerned with campaign contributions rather than the economy. The President can plug the off-shoring hole and save the economy by the following:

1. Like President Nixon in 1971, President Obama should institute a 10% surcharge on imports to stop the deficits in the balance of trade. This would put the world on notice that the United States had come in from the cold in the trade war and would now compete in globalization.
2. Call for the Congress to eliminate the corporate tax and replace it with a 2% VAT.
3. Section 201 of our trade laws calls on the President to move with tariffs or import quotas when America production is endangered. Instead of enforcing Section 201, we waited for General Motors to go bankrupt, needing a bailout. Move with tariffs or import quotas on any endangered production.
4. We've got the troops, but our defense is endangered because of our reliance on foreign production for materiel and equipment to fight. The War Production Act of 1950 should be enforced to provide for the materiel and equipment necessary to our national defense. This would create millions of jobs.

If the President moves to create jobs by changing our tax laws or enforcing our trade laws, coming down on his head in opposition will be Wall Street, Corporate America and its entities, the Business Roundtable and the United States Chamber of Commerce, crying: "Free trade," "protectionism," "don't start a trade war." Wall Street and Corporate America want to keep profits in China flowing; keep the stock market up.

But President Obama is our only hope.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-ernest-frederick-hollings/our-only-hope_b_601170.html

Daily Yonder: The Rural Advantage in Energy Independence

2010-06-03T21:38:00.000-07:00

From The Daily Yonder

Agriculture and Energy Secretaries Tom Vilsack and Steven Chu write about the benefits of energy independence for rural America:

Last month, President Obama outlined a broad energy security plan designed to end America’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil. As the President noted, this is about strengthening national security, but it’s also about strengthening America’s economic security.

Rural communities – which have been hardest hit by job losses for decades – will perhaps have the most to gain from the transition to a clean energy economy. For example, the economic stimulus bill signed by the President last year has already doubled the pace of investment in wind turbines, creating thousands of construction jobs in rural America as wind farms come online across the country.

There is also an enormous opportunity for rural America as we dramatically increase the use of biofuels, ranging from corn ethanol to promising new technologies like cellulosic ethanol and other even more advanced forms of biofuel.

Our goal is to more than triple America’s biofuel production in the next twelve years, cutting oil imports by $41 billion. Instead of sending that $41 billion overseas, we can invest it right here in America. Instead of depending on oil fields in other countries, we’ll depend on farm fields in America’s heartland.

This is an ambitious target – 36 billion gallons by 2022 – and it will mean a growing market for agricultural producers. We will build on the tremendous growth over the past few years in the production of corn based ethanol and soy based biodiesel, fuels that already play a valuable role in reducing oil imports.
Kate Gabrielle

Moving forward, these corn and soy based fuels will continue to provide a source of wealth creation for rural communities. In addition, we are developing new forms of biofuel that will create an even brighter future and a bigger role for rural America.

Read full article at:
http://www.dailyyonder.com/when-secretaries-speak-rurals-role-energy/2010/05/28/2769

NY Daily News: Schumer's bid to save American jobs by taxing outsourced calls

2010-05-31T08:59:00.000-07:00

A leading Senate Democrat is proposing legislation to discourage outsourcing of U.S. jobs. I applaud Senator Schumer for his efforts to protect U.S. jobs and help save the middle class.

The New York Daily News reports:

Senator Chuck Schumer wants to tax companies 25 cents for every customer service call that's outsourced overseas.

Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposed a bill yesterday that would slap the tax on companies that transfer calls from American area codes to foreign call centers.

"How many times do we hear of a company shutting down a facility in New York or elsewhere in the country and sending the jobs abroad? Almost daily," Schumer said.

The measure also would require telling U.S. customers that their call is being transferred - and to which country.

"1.6 billion calls are being transferred to call centers, often without the customer's knowledge," Schumer said.

Companies would be required to report their total customer service calls and the number relayed overseas.

India, Indonesia, Ireland, Canada, the Philippines and South Africa are countries popular with American companies looking to outsource call centers to cut costs.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/05/31/2010-05-31_reach_out_and_tax_outsource_calls_schumer.html#ixzz0pWVVn8Ly

U.S. PIRG report calls for fixing America's crumbling roads and bridges

2010-05-02T13:44:00.000-07:00

The following is an executive summary of a report released by U.S. PIRG on the urgent need to rebuild America's infrastructure:

Over the last 50 years, America has built roads and bridges at a pace and scale that dwarfs most of the rest of the world. We’ve built a national highway network like no other, with more than 45,000 miles of interstate highway and 575,000 highway bridges.

Now, much of that system is showing its age – and as maintenance needs continue to grow, we are falling farther behind.

Across the nation, drivers face more than 90,000 miles of crumbling highways and more than 70,000 structurally deficient bridges. Neglected maintenance of roads and bridges acts as a constant drain on our economy and a scourge on our quality of life. Rough and rutted roads cause accidents, damage vehicles, trigger traffic jams that lead to countless hours of delay, and waste money Americans need for other expenses. On some occasions – such as the 2007 collapse of the I-35 bridge connecting Minneapolis – it can lead to profound tragedy.

Why are America’s roads and bridges in such terrible shape? And who or what is to blame?

The deterioration of our roads and bridges is no accident. Rather, it is the direct result of countless policy decisions that put other considerations ahead of the pressing need to preserve our investment in the highway system.

Political forces often undermine a strong commitment to maintenance: Members of Congress, state legislators and local politicians thrive on ribbon-cuttings. Powerful special interests push for new and bigger highways. Meanwhile, federal and state policies – which should provide strong guidance in the wise use of taxpayer dollars – often fail to achieve the proper balance between building new infrastructure and taking care of what we already have built.

To fix our roads and bridges, America first must fix our transportation policies. To counteract the tendencies to neglect repair and maintenance, we must adopt strong “fix-it first” rules that give priority to maintenance of our existing roads and bridges, set national goals for the condition of our transportation system, and hold state governments accountable for achieving results.

Road Work Ahead describes how America’s roads and bridges are in disrepair, bringing together a wide variety of statistics and sources with state-by-state analysis. It shows how special interest pressure tilts the playing field toward the construction of new and ever-wider highways at the expense of repair and maintenance.

U.S. transportation policy fails to properly emphasize highway and bridge maintenance, with federal transportation policies allocating vast amounts of money to the states with little direction and no accountability, and with Congressional earmarks further tilting spending away from maintenance.

State transportation funding policies are often similarly short-sighted, focusing on the creation of politically popular new highways rather than maintaining existing roads and bridges.

Spending more money on transportation won’t fix America’s roads and bridges without a top-to-bottom shift in funding priorities and policies. The report’s recommendations include ways to:

• Make highway and bridge maintenance a national priority.
• Reorganize federal highway programs to focus exclusively on either maintenance or new construction.

• Require states receiving federal aid to plan for future maintenance before building new roads.

• Measure performance the right way.

• Reward states for good performance on national objectives.

• Create fix-it-first policies in the states as well

In 2008, 63% of major roadways in urban areas – where 80% of Americans live and work – were determined to be in less than good shape.

http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/transportation/transportation2/road-work-ahead-holding-government-accountable-for-fixing-americas-crumbling-roads-and-bridges

Senator Jim Webb Wins Andrew Jackson Presidential Award

2010-04-21T18:41:00.000-07:00

Webb Honored with “Andrew Jackson Presidential Award” for Commitment to Economic Fairness, Sound Principles of Governance

April 21, 2010

Washington, DC—Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has been awarded the “Andrew Jackson Presidential Award for Citizenship and Leadership.” Presented by the Ladies Hermitage Association, the award honors leaders who have “promoted the history and life of Andrew Jackson” and “who have demonstrated in their civic lives a dedication to the furtherance of our American democracy and to sound governance principles.”

Senator Webb ran for the U.S. Senate in 2006 on a platform of “Jacksonian Democracy”—that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base—committing to restore a basic level of economic fairness to the American people. For more than three years, his leadership in the Congress has upheld and embodied that commitment.

“I am struck by the multiple similarities when I think of President Jackson and Senator Webb,” said John Seigenthaler, award-winning reporter, editor, publisher and CEO for The Tennessean and founding editorial director of USA TODAY, when presenting the award. “They both were lawyers as well as warriors… Both of them served in Washington during times of intense partisanship. Neither of them will ever be remembered for giving sufferance to fools. Both were, and Jim Webb still is, committed to making sure that our government is true to those who come home from war in need of assistance.”

Senator Webb clearly articulated these priorities in a Wall Street Journal op-ed (“American workers have a chance to be heard,” November 15, 2006) and in his response to President George Bush’s 2007 State of the Union Address.

His first act in Congress was the introduction on his first day in office of a new GI Bill to provide service members and veterans of the post-9/11 era with comprehensive educational benefits similar to those provided to veterans of WWII. Since the bill became law in 2008, over 480,000 veterans have applied for their benefits to attend college or other post secondary programs. In order to further expand employment opportunities, Webb introduced the Adult Education and Economic Growth Act last year to improve adult education, job training, and other workforce programs. After American taxpayers bailed out the Wall Street firms who created the financial crisis, Senator Webb introduced the Taxpayer Fairness Act to place a one-time 50% tax on excessive bonuses paid by Wall Street banks and other firms that benefited from billions of taxpayer dollars in 2009.

In his acceptance speech, Senator Webb described how Jackson has inspired his approach to leadership today:

“When I think about Andrew Jackson, I am struck by the unique impact that he had on this country. His presidency was the first that did not come out of the landed English aristocracy in the South or the English American elite in New England. He was the first Scots-Irish president, the first “bottom up” president, and he had enormous challenges inside the existing political structure. Thomas Jefferson called him ‘dangerous’ and ‘unfit for office,’ and John Quincy Adams called him a ‘barbarian,’ and refused to attend his inauguration.

“This was an individual who sincerely and fiercely believed in protecting the working people—the people who carried the load of society. He faced down the forces that threatened the very fabric of our society. Scholars agree that the most important presidential veto in American history occurred when legislation creating the Second National Bank came before President Jackson. This legislation would have allowed a permanent aristocracy in America. Two-thirds of Congress agreed that this legislation should go through. Andrew Jackson knew that if he vetoed this legislation, they were going to try to veto him. But he did.

“In his 1832 veto message, Jackson said:
‘Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every person is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers--who have neither the time nor the means of securing favors to themselves--have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses.’

“This to me, is the most important articulation of the responsibilities of government leaders that I’ve ever read. The truth of that statement resounds today in numerous pieces of legislation we face in the United States Congress. The courage that it took to confront the forces of entrenched interests in order to challenge the conscience of all Americans also exists today. That is my duty. I continue in that tradition. That is the reason I so respect this great leader and also the reason I am so grateful to receive this award.”

Howard Kittell, President and CEO of the Hermitage, concluded, “The parallels between Andrew Jackson and Senator Jim Webb – their sound military judgment, no-nonsense, public-good approach to government, and commitment to democratic ideals—make Senator Webb the ideal choice for the 2010 Andrew Jackson Presidential Award.”
 The Hermitage, the home of President Andrew Jackson, is one of the largest and most visited presidential homes in the United States.

"Right to Rent" bill helps families facing foreclosure

2010-04-17T12:59:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON - "Right to Rent" is one of the most efficient and simple ways to help millions of families facing foreclosure remain in their homes, said national housing experts across the political spectrum in Congressional testimony earlier this week. The following day, a new "Right to Rent" bill was introduced in the House of Representatives. The Right to Rent concept was originated by Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. It would increase the bargaining power and security of homeowners by temporarily changing the rules on foreclosure and allowing homeowners to remain in their homes as renters for a substantial period or time. During this time, homeowners would pay the market rent for the home as determined by an independent assessment.

"Right to Rent immediately gives the homeowner security in their home. They will be allowed to stay there for a substantial period of time, allowing their children to stay in their schools and families to prepare for and plan their future moves," said Baker in his testimony on Wednesday. "Right to Rent also would make foreclosure much less attractive to investors. This gives investors more incentive to modify loans on their own, without the involvement of the government."

The following day, "The Right to Rent Act of 2010" was introduced by Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), which would allow homeowners whose homes have been foreclosed to stay in their homes at a fair market rent for up to five years. "The latest statistics on foreclosures and mortgage delinquency rates are an indication of the profound, historic crisis we face and the need for creative solutions like Right to Rent," said Rep. Grijalva.

In addition to progressive economists such as Baker and newspapers such as the New York Times, Right to Rent is endorsed by conservative economists such as Arnold Kling and Andrew Samwick. Kling, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, added his voice in support "Right to Rent" during the question period of Wednesday's Congressional hearing.

Florida Republican legislators sacrifice the unborn

2010-04-03T09:19:00.000-07:00

Republicans control the Florida House of Representatives making up roughly two-thirds of the lower chamber's membership. Nearly all Republican legislators in the state profess to be pro-life and many received endorsements from the Florida Right to Life Committee. Most of these same legislators voted on Thursday to eliminate prenatal care for expectant mothers and their unborn children. About 300 children will die each year because of this action. And the timing of these hypocrites - on the eve of Good Friday - couldn't have been better to showcase their moral depravity. Of course, silence from the Republican sock puppets at Florida Right to Life Committee and Life News.

WJHG-TV reports:

The Florida House of Representatives budget cuts $4 million for the Florida Association of Healthy Start Coalitions.

The organization oversees 31 statewide coalitions that help at-risk pregnant mothers receive proper medical care.

Supporters of the budget measure say county health departments will pick up the slack.

But, officials with the Bay-Gulf-Franklin chapter of Healthy Start say that's not the case. They say they use the state funds to raise about $32 million for their cause, and health departments can't solicit donations like that.

"We're talking about actually losing babies if this happens," said Trey Hutt, president of the Healthy Start Board of Directors. "I know that sounds dramatic, but about 300 infants, or fetuses, will die every year in the state of Florida if they cut this funding. "

Legislators will now meet in conference committee to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions. Hutt, and some legislators, hope they can eliminate the cut to Healthy Start during the reconciliation process.

http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/89733827.html

Senator Byron Dorgan praises Obama support for offshore oil and natural gas drilling

2010-04-03T09:13:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) appluded a decision by President Obama to expand offshore production of oil and natural gas, saying, “The increased energy production will boost the country’s economic and national security, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

Dorgan, who is Chairman of the energy and water appropriations panel and the second-ranking Democrat on the Energy Committee, has led the charge to expand offshore energy development in a responsible way. He successfully included a provision in the bipartisan legislation approved by the Senate Energy Committee to open the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area – an area that holds billions of barrels of untapped oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas – to leasing.

“Our country desperately needs to take steps to increase our energy independence to improve our national security and our economic well-being,” said Dorgan. “We need a comprehensive approach to our energy development that includes investing in renewable energy, as well as expanding our development of traditional energy sources such as oil and natural gas.”

“Today’s proposal by the President shows the administration’s commitment to responsibly developing all our energy resources in a common-sense, balanced way,” added Dorgan. “The proposal will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create new jobs in our domestic energy industry. I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues in Congress to move forward on new energy development. This announcement today, combined with the utilization of biofuels, implementation of new fuel economy standards, and moving towards the electrification of our transportation fleet, can significantly reduce our dependence on imported oil.”

Dorgan has long been a proponent of developing domestic sources of energy both offshore and onshore. Dorgan was instrumental in the re-assessment of the Bakken shale in North Dakota and Montana, which has attracted investment in the area’s oil resources. The Senator has also been a leader in support of maximizing the production of renewable energy such as wind, solar, and biomass.