I have just finished reading "America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty and Our Democracy" by Gar Alperovitz. Don't let the title scare you. Anyone looking for a Marxist diatribe about the inherent evils of market economies will be disappointed by this book recently released in paperback by Wiley Publishers. Instead you will find a thoughtful book that presents realistic ideas about how prosperity can be expanded in our nation. "America Beyond Capitalism" is a good starting point for developing a "21st Century Populism" to effectively address growing economic inequalities and gain control over the rapidly expanding power of big business.
Alperovitz is a man of the Left on economic and social matters but he pulls ideas from across the ideological spectrum about how the American standard of living can be improved. The author pulls no punches in pointing out how tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, the weakening of collective bargaining protections and globalization have brought about economic stagnation for many workers, but looks for solutions rather just dwelling on the injustices resulting from these laissez faire policies.
Taking a realistic approach, Alperovitz expresses doubt that organized labor can regain its former political strength as a balance to corporate power and notes the virtual poltical impossibility of raising taxes on upper middle class suburbanites. Any successful attempt at rolling back tax cuts is likely to be directed at the upper one to five percent of the population. The dramatic growth of corporate power is illustrated by the fact that corporate taxes accounted for 35.4 percent of all federal tax receipts in 1945 and had fallen to 7.4 percent of federal receipts by 2003.
In his book, Alperovitz suggests that means of generating public revenue other than through redstribution of income need to be explored. One suggestion is to create a Public Trust which would oversee the investment of stock in the same manner as state and local public pension authorities. The proceeds from the Public Trust could flow to the federal treasury, states and even individuals. Alperovitz proposes a "Pluralistic Commonwealth" to create "new public and semi-public wealth building institutions" expanding prosperity and which "structrually tethers large scale firms at the top by lodging stock ownership in the Public Trust accountable to and open to scrutiny by the public."
Another big idea presented in the book is a system of Individual Development Accounts (IDA's). The IDA's would enable government to "directly match the savings of the poor - thus doubling their efforts and allowing low income individuals to benefit from the ownership of capital." Alperovitz describes a proposal by Yale economist John Roemer to provide every adult with "voucher-like coupons" to be used for the purchase of stock through a "new form of mutual fund."
Alperovitz makes a very insightful observation on page 73 of his book, "Neither tradional socialism nor traditional capitalism deals well with the power problems presented by large-scale enterprise. Significant economic actors in the socialist state are commonly unaccountable either to market forces or to the public, they are power systems within a power system. The modern for-profit corporation is for the most part unaccountable to the public - and contrary to traditonal theory, in most cases unaccountable to shareholders as well. As the Enron and other scandals have shown managers and top executives run the system dominating boards and annual meetings alike. Rarely are successful challenges to their power successful, even by major shareholders."
Increased tax incentives to encourage the formation of more employee owned corporations is one way that American prosperity can be expanded. Alperovitz notes that pay in employee owned firms is 12 percent higher than in non-employee owned companies. Employees of such firms earn far more value in stocks than workers with 401(k) plans which some bitterly joke that given dismal performance have become 201(k) and 101(k) plans.
Alperovitz praises neighborhood community development organizations (CDC's) for their social service projects and business development functions within economically deprived areas. CDC's are under local community control and would play a critical role in service delivery and economic development in the "Pluralistic Commonwealth." The emphasis on such social entrepreneurship has already been embraced by some American conservatives as well as even some European social democrats. In fact, some European social democracies long used voluntary organizations for service delivery rather than expanding government. Anthony Giddens, writing in "The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy" (Polity 1998) indicated that in Germany, Holland, Belgium and Austria about half the social services are provided by private groups. Certain functions like operating day care centers are almost universally left in the hands of private non-profit organizations.
Reinventing government would also be a focus of the "Pluralistic Commonwealth." Alpervoitz observes the "threat of privatization" can sometimes to improve government performance. The author tells of the experience of former Republican Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith who won election on a platform of vigorous privatization of public services. After winning election, Alperovitz writes: "Goldstein became convinced that 'competition' - not privatization per se provided the key to improving city services and reducing costs. Public employees were allowed to bid on city contracts, and to redesign their offices and operations in the process. Public employees won the majority of the contracts put out to bid, with estimated savings of $135 million in the program's first three years." Alpervovitz notes that city owned power companies in several major cities provide electric service at a cost of 11 percent less than investor-owned power companies. A municipally owned utility in Glasgow,KY offers high speed internet access for less than private competitors and Cable TV service with 80 digital channels for $15.95 per month.
Alperovitz describes the coming insolvency of our Social Security system but notes that a collapse is not inevitable. The author presents several possible solutions to the crisis which include raising the earnings limit, a 1 percent net worth tax and allocating a portion of Social Security contributions to an equity-invested fund that would operate in a similar fashion to the Federal Thrift Savings Plan.
Health care reform is likely to become viable again. While insurance companies were successful in blocking the last serious attempt to expand access to health care for all Americans, public opinion supports such a change and many corporations now favor some form of national health insurance.
Displaying something of a libertarian streak, Alperovitz suggests the potential for greater automony at the state level and the possible transfer of many powers of the federal government to the states or some form of regional government structures. Some of this appears rather unrealistic at the present time but may come into existence in the future especially given the growing cultural and ethnic divisions in our nation. The author points out that large states like California, Texas and California are increasingly diverse and have much larger populations and economies than many nations.
At times, "America Beyond Capitalism" seems like a confused jumble of sometimes conflicting ideas about how properity and personal liberty can be expanded in America, but Alperovitz at least does present a number of creative solutions for the growing income inequality in our nation.
I disagree with Alperovitz's positions on some matters such as the likely impact of illegal immigration in the U.S. The right kind of immigration could help to solve the Social Security shortfall, however, massive numbers of unskilled newcomers are likley to make our economic and social problems worse. Like many progressives, Alperovitz is convinced that a large influx of poor and low skilled individuals from south of the border will create a political environment more inclined toward activist government and challenging corporate power. This seems unlikely as a larger class of impoverished Americans will make social programs more expensive and therefore less likely to be supported by the surburban upper middle class fearful of tax increases and certainly the influential wealthy. Furthermore, many of these new immigrants may not be inclined to vote or end up voting against their economic interests just as significant numbers of working class and native born Americans do.
"America Beyond Capitalism" is well worth reading. The book presents ideas that will be of interest to a wide range of Democrats. There are some excellent ideas presented that populist, progressive, centrist-New Democrat and and libertarian Democrats can agree on.
http://tinyurl.com/o3ab3
Monday, August 21, 2006
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Take This Job and Ship It
Here's a review of Senator Byron Dorgan's new book titled "Take This Job and Ship It: How Corporate Greed and Brain Dead Politics are Selling Out America" from St. Martin's Press. This is an important book that deserves to become a best seller.
As big companies move their jobs to China, sell their products in America, and run their profits through the Cayman Islands to avoid taxes, they undermine American workers and threaten our future.
For some commentators, the world may seem to be “flat,” but Senator Byron L. Dorgan knows better. With both barrels blazing, the senator from North Dakota contends in this forceful and provocative book that while exporting jobs may be good for the giant corporations, it is a disaster for America as a whole.
Trade can’t be “free” when our small businesses and working people are expected to compete with exploited workers and slave labor in third-world nations that care little about the conditions in their factories and not at all about the pollution they generate.
Our trade deficit now increases by $2 billion a day, but pharmaceutical companies have such influence in Washington that Medicare, by current law, is not allowed to negotiate lower drug prices. We import oil on an ever-increasing scale, putting ourselves into debt with the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other Middle Eastern nations; with their windfall profits, they continue to buy American assets. China’s booming economy and abundance of cheap labor is threatening our economic survival as America’s manufacturing base is dismantled.
We have mortgaged our fortunes, our principles, and our way of life.
With biting wit and an unerring moral compass, Dorgan weaves colorful stories about the dancing grapes from Fruit of the Loom underwear, Fig Newton’s escape to Mexico, the disappearance of the flag decal from Huffy bicycles, and how a trade agreement sent exotic dancers to Canada. He exposes the absurdity of our global-trade policies, and isn’t afraid to name names.
Dorgan pulls no punches and, most important, he offers a refreshing, bold strategy for putting our country back on track. America can once again be a booming exporter as well as a good trading partner with the whole world, but to mindlessly cheer on the loss of more than 3 million jobs (and that’s only the beginning) is just plain folly. In the long run, the United States cannot help the rest of the world by impoverishing its own people and bankrupting its own economy. With a little courage and some original thinking, the negative trade balance can be slowed, even stopped and reversed.
Senator Dorgan’s is a message that must be heard – before it is too late.
* THE REAL CLASS WARFARE
Apologists for corporate greed often accuse economic populists of engaging "class warfare." Well, the real class warfare is being waged by overpaid CEO's who give receive additional perks while insisting that employee benfits and pensions must be reduced or eliminated.
Froma Harrop, one of my favorite syndicated columnists, called attention to this hypocrisy in Wednesday's Seattle Times http://tinyurl.com/o5xhl
"It's not news that American executives have put ordinary workers' benefits on a diet while they go for a fourth helping. What makes this redistribution of corporate wealth special is its brazen and unblushing quality. We are not talking here about some stock option deal where the top guys are rewarded for increasing shareholder value. In this case, the money gushing into the executive suite is simply being siphoned through holes drilled in workers' paychecks." An example, courtesy of The Wall Street Journal:
"General Motors has long complained that its "legacy costs" have made the automaker dangerously uncompetitive. By "legacy costs" it means the health benefits and pensions that it promised its workers and retirees. In an effort to ease those "burdens," GM recently announced it would end pensions for 42,000 of its salaried employees."
"But guess what The Journal discovered? It found that the fund for those middle-class pensions was actually bulging with $9 billion more than was needed to honor them. The real problem, it turns out, was GM's executive pensions, which management had been supersizing even as it demanded cuts from the lower-downs. GM's executive-pension obligations, we learn, are $1.4 billion."
"General Motors is not the only company to have built up extravagant pension deals for the privileged few. Executive-pension liabilities have hit $3.5 billion at General Electric, $1.8 billion at AT&T, and $1.3 billion at ExxonMobil and at IBM. "Sometimes a company's obligation for a single executive's pension approaches $100 million," The Journal reports.
"Cleary, the workers whose pension plans have been frozen aren't the only ones losing out. These unfunded executive pensions suck off earnings that are supposed to be going to the stockholders."
Corporate executive officer benefits are clearly out of control. Companies should not be allowed to escape their pension obligations and even file for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 while continuing to provide outlandish compensation packages to CEO's.
* THOUGHTS ON THE CONNECTICUT SENATE RACE
Despite Ned Lamont's narrow victory in last Tuesday's primary, the voters of Connecticut still have a race between two Democrats for Senator as the Republican nominee is not expected to be a significant factor. Joe Lieberman, now running as Independent Democrat, is not my idea of a perfect Senator.
While I did initially support U.S. intervention in Iraq, I now recognize that was a mistake. I also agree that Lieberman is out of touch with reality on Iraq and made himself vulnerable for a primary defeat by failing to criticize the Bush Administration's handling of the war. In my view, Lieberman has voted wrong on a number of issues including trade matters and some of the controversial social issues like abortion rights and gun control.
I do respect Lieberman for his willingness to take unpopular stands and that he seems to be a gracious man with a strong personal faith. Lieberman has been willing to criticize the entertainment industry for degrading our culture.
Far more important than saving Joe Lieberman's political career is stopping the Moveonner Left who want to have total control over the Democratic Party. If these people win control over the party, moderates and conservatives are eventually going to crushed although a few might be tolerated now.
Ned Lamont may not be radical but he is being backed by a dangerous faction in the party that will dissenting views if they are allowed to gain control of the party. Lamont will be obligated to this faction if elected. Any Senator from Connecticut will be relatively liberal but this struggle within the party is not so much about philosphy as about power and the tolerance for differing views within the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, Ned Lamont is a millionaire elitist who would have been a Rockefeller Republican thirty years ago. While Lieberman does not really fit the bill for a populist Democrat, Lamont will definitely take the party further in the direction of being a group of ivory tower social liberals. If re-elected, Lieberman will be a vote for Democratic Senate control as he will remain in the Dem caucus.
As big companies move their jobs to China, sell their products in America, and run their profits through the Cayman Islands to avoid taxes, they undermine American workers and threaten our future.
For some commentators, the world may seem to be “flat,” but Senator Byron L. Dorgan knows better. With both barrels blazing, the senator from North Dakota contends in this forceful and provocative book that while exporting jobs may be good for the giant corporations, it is a disaster for America as a whole.
Trade can’t be “free” when our small businesses and working people are expected to compete with exploited workers and slave labor in third-world nations that care little about the conditions in their factories and not at all about the pollution they generate.
Our trade deficit now increases by $2 billion a day, but pharmaceutical companies have such influence in Washington that Medicare, by current law, is not allowed to negotiate lower drug prices. We import oil on an ever-increasing scale, putting ourselves into debt with the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other Middle Eastern nations; with their windfall profits, they continue to buy American assets. China’s booming economy and abundance of cheap labor is threatening our economic survival as America’s manufacturing base is dismantled.
We have mortgaged our fortunes, our principles, and our way of life.
With biting wit and an unerring moral compass, Dorgan weaves colorful stories about the dancing grapes from Fruit of the Loom underwear, Fig Newton’s escape to Mexico, the disappearance of the flag decal from Huffy bicycles, and how a trade agreement sent exotic dancers to Canada. He exposes the absurdity of our global-trade policies, and isn’t afraid to name names.
Dorgan pulls no punches and, most important, he offers a refreshing, bold strategy for putting our country back on track. America can once again be a booming exporter as well as a good trading partner with the whole world, but to mindlessly cheer on the loss of more than 3 million jobs (and that’s only the beginning) is just plain folly. In the long run, the United States cannot help the rest of the world by impoverishing its own people and bankrupting its own economy. With a little courage and some original thinking, the negative trade balance can be slowed, even stopped and reversed.
Senator Dorgan’s is a message that must be heard – before it is too late.
* THE REAL CLASS WARFARE
Apologists for corporate greed often accuse economic populists of engaging "class warfare." Well, the real class warfare is being waged by overpaid CEO's who give receive additional perks while insisting that employee benfits and pensions must be reduced or eliminated.
Froma Harrop, one of my favorite syndicated columnists, called attention to this hypocrisy in Wednesday's Seattle Times http://tinyurl.com/o5xhl
"It's not news that American executives have put ordinary workers' benefits on a diet while they go for a fourth helping. What makes this redistribution of corporate wealth special is its brazen and unblushing quality. We are not talking here about some stock option deal where the top guys are rewarded for increasing shareholder value. In this case, the money gushing into the executive suite is simply being siphoned through holes drilled in workers' paychecks." An example, courtesy of The Wall Street Journal:
"General Motors has long complained that its "legacy costs" have made the automaker dangerously uncompetitive. By "legacy costs" it means the health benefits and pensions that it promised its workers and retirees. In an effort to ease those "burdens," GM recently announced it would end pensions for 42,000 of its salaried employees."
"But guess what The Journal discovered? It found that the fund for those middle-class pensions was actually bulging with $9 billion more than was needed to honor them. The real problem, it turns out, was GM's executive pensions, which management had been supersizing even as it demanded cuts from the lower-downs. GM's executive-pension obligations, we learn, are $1.4 billion."
"General Motors is not the only company to have built up extravagant pension deals for the privileged few. Executive-pension liabilities have hit $3.5 billion at General Electric, $1.8 billion at AT&T, and $1.3 billion at ExxonMobil and at IBM. "Sometimes a company's obligation for a single executive's pension approaches $100 million," The Journal reports.
"Cleary, the workers whose pension plans have been frozen aren't the only ones losing out. These unfunded executive pensions suck off earnings that are supposed to be going to the stockholders."
Corporate executive officer benefits are clearly out of control. Companies should not be allowed to escape their pension obligations and even file for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 while continuing to provide outlandish compensation packages to CEO's.
* THOUGHTS ON THE CONNECTICUT SENATE RACE
Despite Ned Lamont's narrow victory in last Tuesday's primary, the voters of Connecticut still have a race between two Democrats for Senator as the Republican nominee is not expected to be a significant factor. Joe Lieberman, now running as Independent Democrat, is not my idea of a perfect Senator.
While I did initially support U.S. intervention in Iraq, I now recognize that was a mistake. I also agree that Lieberman is out of touch with reality on Iraq and made himself vulnerable for a primary defeat by failing to criticize the Bush Administration's handling of the war. In my view, Lieberman has voted wrong on a number of issues including trade matters and some of the controversial social issues like abortion rights and gun control.
I do respect Lieberman for his willingness to take unpopular stands and that he seems to be a gracious man with a strong personal faith. Lieberman has been willing to criticize the entertainment industry for degrading our culture.
Far more important than saving Joe Lieberman's political career is stopping the Moveonner Left who want to have total control over the Democratic Party. If these people win control over the party, moderates and conservatives are eventually going to crushed although a few might be tolerated now.
Ned Lamont may not be radical but he is being backed by a dangerous faction in the party that will dissenting views if they are allowed to gain control of the party. Lamont will be obligated to this faction if elected. Any Senator from Connecticut will be relatively liberal but this struggle within the party is not so much about philosphy as about power and the tolerance for differing views within the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, Ned Lamont is a millionaire elitist who would have been a Rockefeller Republican thirty years ago. While Lieberman does not really fit the bill for a populist Democrat, Lamont will definitely take the party further in the direction of being a group of ivory tower social liberals. If re-elected, Lieberman will be a vote for Democratic Senate control as he will remain in the Dem caucus.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Democrats and school choice
School vouchers has been a difficult issue for me. I am not a big fan of most ideas from Milton Friedman (who first proposed school choice back in the 50's) or most of the politicians who have promoted vouchers. Furthermore, I generally support public education and labor unions. I have always voted to fund public education at every opportunity. At the same time, I also recognize that education has traditionally been a public-private partnership with a significant number of our students educated in private or church-related schools.
Education does not seem to work well with one size fits all solutions. It seems unlikely that the public school system is going out of existence nor should that happen. In some districts, the public schools are doing a great job and there are some troubled public schools where it is difficult for a child to get a decent education. The notion that poor children ought to have the opportunity for private education where there are failing schools seems to be a very populist concept.
Democrats often strongly oppose experimenting with vouchers. Joe Lieberman dared to suggest that maybe school vouchers are not such an bad idea - one of a few issues that has haunted him in the Democratic primary. Like many issues, what cause problems with Democratic primary voters can be a strength in the general election. Teacher unions and secularists - both opponents of vouchers have a strong influence within the Democratic Party.
Educational choice is an important issue for values voters and Democrats might have more appeal to that constituency with a less hostile attitude toward vouchers. Our party should support public education but reconsider the knee jerk opposition to school vouchers. If approached the right way, a little competition between public and private educators can help improve all of our schools and the quality of education.
* SINATRA: AN INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN MUSIC AND POLITICS
Among my other interests outside of politics is music. I am especially into older musical styles - R & B, classic country, early (pre-Beatles) rock and roll, gospel, jazz and especially pop standards. One of my favorite singers is the "Chairman of the Board" Frank Sinatra. Eight years after his death, Sinatra continues to gain new fans around the world.
While his popularity was greatest with the WWII Generation, Sinatra had appeal to a wide range of age groups. In fact, Sinatra had top 40 hits ranging from "I'll Never Smile Again" in 1941 to "New York,New York" in 1980. Some of Sinatra's greatest recordings were never chart hits such as "Lady Day" - a moving song about the troubled and all too brief life of blues singer Billie Holiday - which appeared on the 1969 "Sinatra & Company' album.
There was also a political side and social activist side to Frank Sinatra. In the late 40's, Sinatra appeared in a 10 minute film short called "The House I Live In" (also a hit song) which appealed for racial and religious tolerance in America. Sinatra was always an outspoken critic of racial segregation.
As a John Kennedy supporter during the 1960 campaign, Sinatra recorded a version of "High Hopes" that promoted the JFK candidacy. The song was featured on Kennedy TV advertising and also blared from campaign soundtrucks in major cities. http://tinyurl.com/r6ddq
Like many Catholic ethnic Democrats, Sinatra became disillusioned with the Democratic Party following the McGovernite takeover. Sinatra later supported Ronald Reagan for President appearing with Reagan at St. Ann's Catholic Church in his hometown on Hoboken,New Jersey. In supporting Reagan, Sinatra symbolized millions of New Deal Democrats who felt alienated from the party.
Bill Clinton paid tribute to the "Chairman" recognizing the need to win back the "Sinatra Democrats." Some observers have even suggested that George W. Bush has looked to Sinatra for inspiration in his developing his misguided foreign policy "I Did It My Way."
I am a Baby Boomer and became familar with the wide range of Sinatra's recordings in part by listening to a weekly syndicated radio program called Sounds of Sinatra which is still on the air in a number of markets. Sounds of Sinatra has a website at www.soundsofsinatra.com with links to radio stations that stream the program on the internet.
There was certainly a dark side to the "Chairman" but in my opinion, Sinatra was among male vocalists the greatest interpreter of the American popular song. Mel Torme was also a great singer but was more the leader in the jazz realm. Given the present state of American popular music (and I think we are really more in a post-musical era in terms of pop music), the odds of another Sinatra coming along are quite slim.
Education does not seem to work well with one size fits all solutions. It seems unlikely that the public school system is going out of existence nor should that happen. In some districts, the public schools are doing a great job and there are some troubled public schools where it is difficult for a child to get a decent education. The notion that poor children ought to have the opportunity for private education where there are failing schools seems to be a very populist concept.
Democrats often strongly oppose experimenting with vouchers. Joe Lieberman dared to suggest that maybe school vouchers are not such an bad idea - one of a few issues that has haunted him in the Democratic primary. Like many issues, what cause problems with Democratic primary voters can be a strength in the general election. Teacher unions and secularists - both opponents of vouchers have a strong influence within the Democratic Party.
Educational choice is an important issue for values voters and Democrats might have more appeal to that constituency with a less hostile attitude toward vouchers. Our party should support public education but reconsider the knee jerk opposition to school vouchers. If approached the right way, a little competition between public and private educators can help improve all of our schools and the quality of education.
* SINATRA: AN INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN MUSIC AND POLITICS
Among my other interests outside of politics is music. I am especially into older musical styles - R & B, classic country, early (pre-Beatles) rock and roll, gospel, jazz and especially pop standards. One of my favorite singers is the "Chairman of the Board" Frank Sinatra. Eight years after his death, Sinatra continues to gain new fans around the world.
While his popularity was greatest with the WWII Generation, Sinatra had appeal to a wide range of age groups. In fact, Sinatra had top 40 hits ranging from "I'll Never Smile Again" in 1941 to "New York,New York" in 1980. Some of Sinatra's greatest recordings were never chart hits such as "Lady Day" - a moving song about the troubled and all too brief life of blues singer Billie Holiday - which appeared on the 1969 "Sinatra & Company' album.
There was also a political side and social activist side to Frank Sinatra. In the late 40's, Sinatra appeared in a 10 minute film short called "The House I Live In" (also a hit song) which appealed for racial and religious tolerance in America. Sinatra was always an outspoken critic of racial segregation.
As a John Kennedy supporter during the 1960 campaign, Sinatra recorded a version of "High Hopes" that promoted the JFK candidacy. The song was featured on Kennedy TV advertising and also blared from campaign soundtrucks in major cities. http://tinyurl.com/r6ddq
Like many Catholic ethnic Democrats, Sinatra became disillusioned with the Democratic Party following the McGovernite takeover. Sinatra later supported Ronald Reagan for President appearing with Reagan at St. Ann's Catholic Church in his hometown on Hoboken,New Jersey. In supporting Reagan, Sinatra symbolized millions of New Deal Democrats who felt alienated from the party.
Bill Clinton paid tribute to the "Chairman" recognizing the need to win back the "Sinatra Democrats." Some observers have even suggested that George W. Bush has looked to Sinatra for inspiration in his developing his misguided foreign policy "I Did It My Way."
I am a Baby Boomer and became familar with the wide range of Sinatra's recordings in part by listening to a weekly syndicated radio program called Sounds of Sinatra which is still on the air in a number of markets. Sounds of Sinatra has a website at www.soundsofsinatra.com with links to radio stations that stream the program on the internet.
There was certainly a dark side to the "Chairman" but in my opinion, Sinatra was among male vocalists the greatest interpreter of the American popular song. Mel Torme was also a great singer but was more the leader in the jazz realm. Given the present state of American popular music (and I think we are really more in a post-musical era in terms of pop music), the odds of another Sinatra coming along are quite slim.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
A victory for Second Amendment rights
The Second Amendment Foundation has issued a press release about a U.S. Senate vote on Thursday affirming gun rights during emergencies and major disasters. I agree with Alan Gottlieb, spokesman for the group, that this vote represents a strong shift in the pro-gun rights direction.
A change in political climate toward defending the right to keep and bear arms was evidenced by a majority of Senate Democrats voting for the Vitter Amendment (Senate amendment 4615) which was co-sponsored by Robert Byrd D-WV.
The Vitter amendment passed by a 84 to 16 vote. All sixteen Senators voting no were Democrats which suggests that those of us who support gun rights within the Democratic Party still have some work to do. Among the Senators voting against gun rights, all but three were from the Northeast or California.
Passage of Vitter Amendment Shows Public Shift on Gun Rights After Katrina
7/14/2006 4:42:00 PM
To: National Desk
Contact: Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, 425-454-7012
BELLEVUE, Wash., July 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Senate's overwhelming 84 to 16 vote this week to prohibit gun confiscations from private citizens in emergencies shows there has been a remarkable shift in the public's attitude about gun rights after the Hurricane Katrina debacle, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said today.
"For many in the Senate, like Republicans Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, and Democrats Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington," observed SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb, "it was the first time they've voted to support the individual rights of law-abiding gun owners. They saw the looting and lawlessness, and watched the outrage of post-Katrina gun confiscations, and so did their constituents.
"Incredibly," he continued, "sixteen extremist anti-gun Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, demonstrated by their vote that they think it's just swell for the government to seize private property from law-abiding citizens, often times at gunpoint and always without warrant or due process of law. This time, it's guns but what about next time? If it is okay with these senators for police to take legally-owned firearms without probable cause, what would they advocate next for confiscation?"
SAF successfully sued the City of New Orleans and St. Tammany Parish last September to force a halt to those illegal gun seizures. The National Rifle Association joined in that lawsuit.
"For people of such divergent political views as Joe Biden, Robert Byrd, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, Patrick Leahy, Chuck Hagel, Orrin Hatch, Wayne Allard, Max Baucus and 75 of their colleagues, this vote was a no-brainer," Gottlieb observed. "What a pity that Sen. Clinton's group remains so myopic about firearm civil rights that they vote to essentially support the warrantless seizure of private property.
"We hope the House concurs with this vote," Gottlieb concluded, "so that never again, on American soil, will we witness a police state mentality that would sooner disarm people and leave them defenseless when they should be offered assistance and medical aid if necessary. Being secure from warrantless search and seizure is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, even if some people in New Orleans, and a handful on Capitol Hill, seem willing to ignore that."
The Second Amendment Foundation ( http://www.saf.org ) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
Pro-gun Democrats must continue to push our party in the direction of supporting our Second Amendment rights. Groups like Amendment II Democrats http://www.a2dems.net are getting out the word that many of us in the Democratic Party do favor the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control doesn't work and it bad politics too.
* HELP 57 MILLION WORKERS GAIN A UNION
The following action alert was sent by the Working Families e-Activist Network
http://unionvoice.org
Today, 57 million workers in America want to join unions. But employers routinely block their efforts—and our laws are too weak to protect them. It's time for Congress to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow workers to make their own uncoerced decisions on whether or not to form a union. Please sign the following petition urging members of Congress to support this important legislation.
Subject:Co-Sponsor the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1696 and S. 842)
Dear Representative or Senator:
We, the undersigned, urge Congress to support the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1696 and S. 842) now. Workers need the Employee Free Choice Act because workers need unions. Union workers typically earn 28 percent more than nonunion workers to support their families and contribute to their communities.
Union members are much more likely than nonunion workers to have vital benefits such as health care coverage, disability insurance and retirement security. And no one can put a price tag on the pride of having a union voice at work.
Some 57 million workers would join a union if they could. But, as Human Rights Watch has documented, employers routinely harass, coerce, intimidate and stall to block workers' freedom to choose union representation. In fact, every 23 minutes a worker is fired or penalized for supporting a union.
We urge our elected representatives and senators to recognize the urgent need to restore workers' freedom to form unions and support the Employee Free Choice Act so workers once again can have the basic right to choose for themselves whether to belong to a union.
Sincerely,[Your name][Your address]
A change in political climate toward defending the right to keep and bear arms was evidenced by a majority of Senate Democrats voting for the Vitter Amendment (Senate amendment 4615) which was co-sponsored by Robert Byrd D-WV.
The Vitter amendment passed by a 84 to 16 vote. All sixteen Senators voting no were Democrats which suggests that those of us who support gun rights within the Democratic Party still have some work to do. Among the Senators voting against gun rights, all but three were from the Northeast or California.
Passage of Vitter Amendment Shows Public Shift on Gun Rights After Katrina
7/14/2006 4:42:00 PM
To: National Desk
Contact: Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, 425-454-7012
BELLEVUE, Wash., July 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Senate's overwhelming 84 to 16 vote this week to prohibit gun confiscations from private citizens in emergencies shows there has been a remarkable shift in the public's attitude about gun rights after the Hurricane Katrina debacle, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said today.
"For many in the Senate, like Republicans Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, and Democrats Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington," observed SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb, "it was the first time they've voted to support the individual rights of law-abiding gun owners. They saw the looting and lawlessness, and watched the outrage of post-Katrina gun confiscations, and so did their constituents.
"Incredibly," he continued, "sixteen extremist anti-gun Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, demonstrated by their vote that they think it's just swell for the government to seize private property from law-abiding citizens, often times at gunpoint and always without warrant or due process of law. This time, it's guns but what about next time? If it is okay with these senators for police to take legally-owned firearms without probable cause, what would they advocate next for confiscation?"
SAF successfully sued the City of New Orleans and St. Tammany Parish last September to force a halt to those illegal gun seizures. The National Rifle Association joined in that lawsuit.
"For people of such divergent political views as Joe Biden, Robert Byrd, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, Patrick Leahy, Chuck Hagel, Orrin Hatch, Wayne Allard, Max Baucus and 75 of their colleagues, this vote was a no-brainer," Gottlieb observed. "What a pity that Sen. Clinton's group remains so myopic about firearm civil rights that they vote to essentially support the warrantless seizure of private property.
"We hope the House concurs with this vote," Gottlieb concluded, "so that never again, on American soil, will we witness a police state mentality that would sooner disarm people and leave them defenseless when they should be offered assistance and medical aid if necessary. Being secure from warrantless search and seizure is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, even if some people in New Orleans, and a handful on Capitol Hill, seem willing to ignore that."
The Second Amendment Foundation ( http://www.saf.org ) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
Pro-gun Democrats must continue to push our party in the direction of supporting our Second Amendment rights. Groups like Amendment II Democrats http://www.a2dems.net are getting out the word that many of us in the Democratic Party do favor the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control doesn't work and it bad politics too.
* HELP 57 MILLION WORKERS GAIN A UNION
The following action alert was sent by the Working Families e-Activist Network
http://unionvoice.org
Today, 57 million workers in America want to join unions. But employers routinely block their efforts—and our laws are too weak to protect them. It's time for Congress to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow workers to make their own uncoerced decisions on whether or not to form a union. Please sign the following petition urging members of Congress to support this important legislation.
Subject:Co-Sponsor the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1696 and S. 842)
Dear Representative or Senator:
We, the undersigned, urge Congress to support the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1696 and S. 842) now. Workers need the Employee Free Choice Act because workers need unions. Union workers typically earn 28 percent more than nonunion workers to support their families and contribute to their communities.
Union members are much more likely than nonunion workers to have vital benefits such as health care coverage, disability insurance and retirement security. And no one can put a price tag on the pride of having a union voice at work.
Some 57 million workers would join a union if they could. But, as Human Rights Watch has documented, employers routinely harass, coerce, intimidate and stall to block workers' freedom to choose union representation. In fact, every 23 minutes a worker is fired or penalized for supporting a union.
We urge our elected representatives and senators to recognize the urgent need to restore workers' freedom to form unions and support the Employee Free Choice Act so workers once again can have the basic right to choose for themselves whether to belong to a union.
Sincerely,[Your name][Your address]
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Ben Nelson: a consistent voice for life
The Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) announced their endorsement of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s bid for re-election. The organization cited Nelson’s consistent support for pro-life issues in making the endorsement.
“Washington needs more leaders like Senator Nelson. Ben Nelson has been with the pro-life community every step of the way and we know we can always count on him to stand up for the unborn,” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of DFLA. “Senator Nelson has been a strong supporter of the issues important to our membership and we are proud to support his re-election campaign. Keeping Ben Nelson in the Senate will ensure that Nebraskans and all Americans have a strong voice advocating for the pro-life position.”
“I am very proud to accept this endorsement. I have always been committed to protecting unborn children and I’ve worked closely with DFLA to accomplish this goal,” said Nelson. “I look forward to continuing to work with them after November and into the future.”
In its endorsement of Nelson, the DFLA cited his strong support for the right to life. From his first day in public life, he has worked to reduce the number of abortions. As Governor and now as Senator, Nelson is a strong supporter of the partial birth abortion ban. He will continue to work to prevent taxpayer funding of abortions and supports stronger restrictions on abortion.
In 2003, Ben Nelson received the 2003 Legislative Award from Democrats for Life [Lincoln Southern NE Register, 7/11/2003] and he currently sits on the organization’s federal advisory board.
http://democratsforlife.org
* SAME SEX MARRIAGE ISSUE DIVIDES DEMOCRATS
Errol Lewis made a good point in yesterday's New York Daily News about the gay marriage controversy as a potential stumbling block for Democrats. Gay marriage is likely to be a major issue in the New York and California Governor's races as the Democratic nomineees Eliot Spitzer and Phil Angelides support same sex unions. It is certainly naive to believe this issue will not become a significant factor in other elections this fall and impact the 2008 Presidential contest. See link to full column http://tinyurl.com/o52k6
"Gay and lesbian political groups should think carefully before making their next move following yesterday's state Court of Appeals decision to outlaw same-sex marriages in New York."
"It's tempting - but politically counterproductive - to condemn the court's logic, condemn all opponents of gay marriage as bigots and Neanderthals and rally around the dissent by Chief Judge Judith Kaye and its ringing, history-will-absolve-me closing lines: 'I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep.'"
"There's a time to invoke future generations, and a time to focus on the politics of the moment. Right now, if gay activists continue to push for gay marriage as the all-important political litmus test for candidates in New York and elsewhere, they run the risk of helping to weaken and splinter the Democratic Party just as it stands within striking distance of winning a majority in Congress this year, and just as the party begins ramping up for the 2008 presidential elections."
"As pollsters, pundits and politicians have known for years, several key Democratic constituencies - gays, union households and black voters - have been clinging together in an increasingly unstable political coalition for the past two decades. Few issues disrupt this already-shaky alliance more thoroughly than gay marriage - and Republicans have built a string of political victories on exploiting these tensions."
"Black voters, for example, who vote in huge numbers for Democrats, get uneasy on the issue of gay marriage. Polls taken over the past decade consistently show that about 63% of black voters remain opposed to gay marriage - a position that stems from the theology of many black church denominations."
"That doesn't mean black voters are jumping party lines to vote Republican. But it does mean that introducing gay marriage into a campaign can create a trickle of black ministers and their congregations to the GOP."
"The same is true of working-class union households, many of them Catholic, who normally vote Democratic but draw the line at gay marriage."
"In a close election, shifting a few votes over the party line can make all the difference: The most recent presidential election was decided by only 118,601 votes in a single state, Ohio."
"Nineteen states have already passed constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage - 11 of them in 2004. Such amendments have never failed to pass when placed on the ballot."
"Six more states will hold votes on the issue this fall - a foolproof way to fire up the Republican base and drive a wedge between core Democratic voters."
I couldn't agree more. We are looking at a very emotional issue that may have as much impact on American politics as abortion or gun control.
* DICK CHENEY BETS AGAINST U.S. ECONOMY
Counterpunch http://counterpunch.com/ posted an excellent column on July 5 by Mike Whitney on how Dick Cheney is betting against the American economy. The Cheney investment strategy certainly helps to explain why how our leaders are so indifferent to the prospects of a U.S. financial collapse.
"Wouldn't you like to know where Dick Cheney puts his money? Then you'd know whether his "deficits don't matter" claim is just baloney or not."
"Well, as it turns out, Kiplinger Magazine ran an article based on Cheney's financial disclosure statement and, sure enough, found out that the VP is lying to the American people for the umpteenth time. Deficits do matter and Cheney has invested his money accordingly."
"The article is called "Cheney's betting on bad news" and provides an account of where Cheney has socked away more than $25 million. While the figures may be estimates, the investments are not. According to Tom Blackburn of the Palm Beach Post, Cheney has invested heavily in "a fund that specializes in short-term municipal bonds, a tax-exempt money market fund and an inflation protected securities fund. The first two hold up if interest rates rise with inflation. The third is protected against inflation."
"Cheney has dumped another (estimated) $10 to $25 million in a European bond fund which tells us that he is counting on a steadily weakening dollar. So, while working class Americans are loosing ground to inflation and rising energy costs, Darth Cheney will be enhancing his wealth in "Old Europe". As Blackburn sagely notes, 'Not all bad news' is bad for everybody."
"This should put to rest once and for all the foolish notion that the 'Bush Economic Plan' is anything more than a scam aimed at looting the public till. The whole deal is intended to shift the nation's wealth from one class to another. It's also clear that Bush-Cheney couldn't have carried this off without the tacit approval of the thieves at the Federal Reserve who engineered the low-interest rate boondoggle to put the American people to sleep while they picked their pockets."
"Reasonable people can dispute that Bush is 'intentionally' skewering the dollar with his lavish tax cuts, but how does that explain Cheney's portfolio?"
"It doesn't. And, one thing we can say with metaphysical certainty is that the miserly Cheney would never plunk his money into an investment that wasn't a sure thing. If Cheney is counting on the dollar tanking and interest rates going up, then, by Gawd, that's what'll happen."
"The Bush-Cheney team has racked up another $3 trillion in debt in just 6 years. The US national debt now stands at $8.4 trillion dollars while the trade deficit has ballooned to $800 billion nearly 7% of GDP."
"This is lunacy. No country, however powerful, can maintain these staggering numbers. The country is in hock up to its neck and has to borrow $2.5 billion per day just to stay above water. Presently, the Fed is expanding the money supply and buying back its own treasuries to hide the hemorrhaging from the public. Its utter madness."
"Last month the trade deficit climbed to $70 billion. More importantly, foreign central banks only purchased a meager $47 billion in treasuries to shore up our ravenous appetite for cheap junk from China."
"Do the math! They're not investing in America anymore. They are decreasing their stockpiles of dollars. We're sinking fast and Cheney and his pals are manning the lifeboats while the public is diverted with gay marriage amendments and 'American Celebrity'."
"The American manufacturing sector has been hollowed out by cutthroat corporations who've abandoned their country to make a fast-buck in China or Mexico. The $3 trillion housing (equity) bubble is quickly loosing air while the anemic dollar continues to sag. All the signs indicate that the economy is slowing at the same time that energy prices continue to rise."
"This is the onset of stagflation; the dreaded combo of a slowing economy and inflation."
"Did Americans really think they'd be spared the same type of economic colonization that has been applied throughout the developing world under the rubric of 'neoliberalism'?"
"Well, think again. The American economy is barrel-rolling towards earth and there are only enough parashutes for Cheney and his gang."
“Washington needs more leaders like Senator Nelson. Ben Nelson has been with the pro-life community every step of the way and we know we can always count on him to stand up for the unborn,” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of DFLA. “Senator Nelson has been a strong supporter of the issues important to our membership and we are proud to support his re-election campaign. Keeping Ben Nelson in the Senate will ensure that Nebraskans and all Americans have a strong voice advocating for the pro-life position.”
“I am very proud to accept this endorsement. I have always been committed to protecting unborn children and I’ve worked closely with DFLA to accomplish this goal,” said Nelson. “I look forward to continuing to work with them after November and into the future.”
In its endorsement of Nelson, the DFLA cited his strong support for the right to life. From his first day in public life, he has worked to reduce the number of abortions. As Governor and now as Senator, Nelson is a strong supporter of the partial birth abortion ban. He will continue to work to prevent taxpayer funding of abortions and supports stronger restrictions on abortion.
In 2003, Ben Nelson received the 2003 Legislative Award from Democrats for Life [Lincoln Southern NE Register, 7/11/2003] and he currently sits on the organization’s federal advisory board.
http://democratsforlife.org
* SAME SEX MARRIAGE ISSUE DIVIDES DEMOCRATS
Errol Lewis made a good point in yesterday's New York Daily News about the gay marriage controversy as a potential stumbling block for Democrats. Gay marriage is likely to be a major issue in the New York and California Governor's races as the Democratic nomineees Eliot Spitzer and Phil Angelides support same sex unions. It is certainly naive to believe this issue will not become a significant factor in other elections this fall and impact the 2008 Presidential contest. See link to full column http://tinyurl.com/o52k6
"Gay and lesbian political groups should think carefully before making their next move following yesterday's state Court of Appeals decision to outlaw same-sex marriages in New York."
"It's tempting - but politically counterproductive - to condemn the court's logic, condemn all opponents of gay marriage as bigots and Neanderthals and rally around the dissent by Chief Judge Judith Kaye and its ringing, history-will-absolve-me closing lines: 'I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep.'"
"There's a time to invoke future generations, and a time to focus on the politics of the moment. Right now, if gay activists continue to push for gay marriage as the all-important political litmus test for candidates in New York and elsewhere, they run the risk of helping to weaken and splinter the Democratic Party just as it stands within striking distance of winning a majority in Congress this year, and just as the party begins ramping up for the 2008 presidential elections."
"As pollsters, pundits and politicians have known for years, several key Democratic constituencies - gays, union households and black voters - have been clinging together in an increasingly unstable political coalition for the past two decades. Few issues disrupt this already-shaky alliance more thoroughly than gay marriage - and Republicans have built a string of political victories on exploiting these tensions."
"Black voters, for example, who vote in huge numbers for Democrats, get uneasy on the issue of gay marriage. Polls taken over the past decade consistently show that about 63% of black voters remain opposed to gay marriage - a position that stems from the theology of many black church denominations."
"That doesn't mean black voters are jumping party lines to vote Republican. But it does mean that introducing gay marriage into a campaign can create a trickle of black ministers and their congregations to the GOP."
"The same is true of working-class union households, many of them Catholic, who normally vote Democratic but draw the line at gay marriage."
"In a close election, shifting a few votes over the party line can make all the difference: The most recent presidential election was decided by only 118,601 votes in a single state, Ohio."
"Nineteen states have already passed constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage - 11 of them in 2004. Such amendments have never failed to pass when placed on the ballot."
"Six more states will hold votes on the issue this fall - a foolproof way to fire up the Republican base and drive a wedge between core Democratic voters."
I couldn't agree more. We are looking at a very emotional issue that may have as much impact on American politics as abortion or gun control.
* DICK CHENEY BETS AGAINST U.S. ECONOMY
Counterpunch http://counterpunch.com/ posted an excellent column on July 5 by Mike Whitney on how Dick Cheney is betting against the American economy. The Cheney investment strategy certainly helps to explain why how our leaders are so indifferent to the prospects of a U.S. financial collapse.
"Wouldn't you like to know where Dick Cheney puts his money? Then you'd know whether his "deficits don't matter" claim is just baloney or not."
"Well, as it turns out, Kiplinger Magazine ran an article based on Cheney's financial disclosure statement and, sure enough, found out that the VP is lying to the American people for the umpteenth time. Deficits do matter and Cheney has invested his money accordingly."
"The article is called "Cheney's betting on bad news" and provides an account of where Cheney has socked away more than $25 million. While the figures may be estimates, the investments are not. According to Tom Blackburn of the Palm Beach Post, Cheney has invested heavily in "a fund that specializes in short-term municipal bonds, a tax-exempt money market fund and an inflation protected securities fund. The first two hold up if interest rates rise with inflation. The third is protected against inflation."
"Cheney has dumped another (estimated) $10 to $25 million in a European bond fund which tells us that he is counting on a steadily weakening dollar. So, while working class Americans are loosing ground to inflation and rising energy costs, Darth Cheney will be enhancing his wealth in "Old Europe". As Blackburn sagely notes, 'Not all bad news' is bad for everybody."
"This should put to rest once and for all the foolish notion that the 'Bush Economic Plan' is anything more than a scam aimed at looting the public till. The whole deal is intended to shift the nation's wealth from one class to another. It's also clear that Bush-Cheney couldn't have carried this off without the tacit approval of the thieves at the Federal Reserve who engineered the low-interest rate boondoggle to put the American people to sleep while they picked their pockets."
"Reasonable people can dispute that Bush is 'intentionally' skewering the dollar with his lavish tax cuts, but how does that explain Cheney's portfolio?"
"It doesn't. And, one thing we can say with metaphysical certainty is that the miserly Cheney would never plunk his money into an investment that wasn't a sure thing. If Cheney is counting on the dollar tanking and interest rates going up, then, by Gawd, that's what'll happen."
"The Bush-Cheney team has racked up another $3 trillion in debt in just 6 years. The US national debt now stands at $8.4 trillion dollars while the trade deficit has ballooned to $800 billion nearly 7% of GDP."
"This is lunacy. No country, however powerful, can maintain these staggering numbers. The country is in hock up to its neck and has to borrow $2.5 billion per day just to stay above water. Presently, the Fed is expanding the money supply and buying back its own treasuries to hide the hemorrhaging from the public. Its utter madness."
"Last month the trade deficit climbed to $70 billion. More importantly, foreign central banks only purchased a meager $47 billion in treasuries to shore up our ravenous appetite for cheap junk from China."
"Do the math! They're not investing in America anymore. They are decreasing their stockpiles of dollars. We're sinking fast and Cheney and his pals are manning the lifeboats while the public is diverted with gay marriage amendments and 'American Celebrity'."
"The American manufacturing sector has been hollowed out by cutthroat corporations who've abandoned their country to make a fast-buck in China or Mexico. The $3 trillion housing (equity) bubble is quickly loosing air while the anemic dollar continues to sag. All the signs indicate that the economy is slowing at the same time that energy prices continue to rise."
"This is the onset of stagflation; the dreaded combo of a slowing economy and inflation."
"Did Americans really think they'd be spared the same type of economic colonization that has been applied throughout the developing world under the rubric of 'neoliberalism'?"
"Well, think again. The American economy is barrel-rolling towards earth and there are only enough parashutes for Cheney and his gang."
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Can government do anything right ?
I disagree with those who maintain that government is inherently wasteful and ineffective. The public sector certainly can be both just as the private sector often provides poor quality workmanship and customer service.
Democrats are often better at governing than Republicans as they have a more positive attitude toward government activism. Government agencies can become more innovative and customer friendly with the right leadership and values. There is no reason for example that government offices cannot be open more flexible hours (like evenings and weekends) to offer better service to the public. Like big corporations, public bureaucracies can encourage a drone-like attitude among employees or promote an organizational culture of innovation.
Government can be as efficient in delivering services as the private sector. I think our military has done a great job considering the demands and limited resources that they must work with. Our police and firefighters show courage every day to protect and save lives. I can't imagine rent a cops and private firefighters showing the same dedication. The postal service ? Well, that could use a lot of improvement but much of the decline in service quality can be traced to the replacement of career civil service workers with the temp-like "casuals" who don't always have the same dedication to their duties.
Jacksonville,FL has a city-owned electric authority (JEA) which does an excellent job of providing power to the Duval County area. The rates are actually lower than profit-making private power companies such as Florida Power & Light and Tampa Electric.
I am not suggesting at all that every enterprise should be run by the government but rather that government can do and actuallty does some things better or as well as the private sector. And there are areas like education that have traditionally been a public-private partnership like education. I'm all in favor of public education and some of our public schools excel at educating and training their students. Of course, some students fare better in a private or church-related school environment. Private and parochial schools have always educated a significant minority of our children. I see no conflict between experimenting with voucher programs to assist low to moderate income parents who wish to send their kids to a private school with supporting and further improving the public school system.
Likewise, I don't think it is always a bad idea for government to outsource certain functions to the private sector if a business can be made that they do the job more efficiently without compromising the quality of service. A lot of services in our society can be potentially be a private-public partnership. There is nothing wrong with workers in the public sector competing with those in the private sector as long as both are given the necessary tools to do their job. The answer isn't always creating or making a government agency bigger or mindlessly just declaring government bad and contracting all functions out to the private sector. In privatization mad Florida under the leadership of Jeb Bush, we've seen examples of how private companies often performed less efficiently than government agencies. Governing sometimes requires a little common sense and removing the ideological blinders - right or left.
* REPUBLICANS REWARD BIG BUSINESS - NOT VALUES VOTERS
I happen to oppose gay marriage (and support a constitutional amendment banning it) but agree with this UK Guardian columnist via the Tapei Times. The Republicans want to use social conservatives for votes while big business gets whatever they want. Progressives need to recognize that big business is the real enemy - not the socially conservative values voters.
Democrats must realize as JonathanFreedland that getting into a conflict with values voters is unwise. Our party needs to stress economic issues and allow for a difference of opinion on social matters such as gay marriage and abortion.
http://tinyurl.com/q4glr
Bush's play to the Christian right is a red herring
The US President is once again pandering to so-called `value voters'over gay rights, but Democrats and other progressives should not bedistracted from the real enemy
By Jonathan FreedlandTHE GUARDIAN , LONDONSaturday, Jun 10, 2006,Page 9
"Well, it gave US President George W. Bush the presidency once before, so why not use it again? Our old friend gay marriage is back, evoked anew by the man in the White House to scare "values voters," most of them Christian conservatives, into voting Republican one more time."
"It did the business in 2004, when Bush's efforts to turn the election into a referendum on same-sex unions may well have tipped the pivotal state of Ohio, chiefly by persuading social conservatives to get out and vote. So it's no surprise to see a tired Bush, facing second-term poll numbers in the Nixon depths, reaching for the same stick now."
"Bush wants to amend the Constitution so that that precious charter of rights and liberties will include a new sentence defining marriage exclusively as an arrangement between a man and a woman. Such an exclusion clause would demean the document, like graffitis crawled across a sacred text. The Constitution has been altered before -- but usually to expand rights, not to restrict them."
"The president and his allies wrap this up in the usual preachy language, of course -- stand by for the radio pastors intoning that 'It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve' -- but there is nothing holy about this mission. It's brazen politics, an obvious lob of red meat to the hungry of the Christian right. If they gobble it up they will show just how easily they are bought. Abroad it will confirm an impression many have had of the US for awhile: that the country is on its way to becoming a theocracy, with the evangelical right organizing methodically, and over decades, to take over the commanding heights of the country. Europeans and others shudder at the polls which show that 40 percent of people in the US would support a ban on the teaching of evolution in schools, while two-thirds believe creationism should be taught alongside Darwin in the schools."
"With a leader who shares those sentiments ruling over White House, it's been easy to see this as the faith-based presidency. In this view, the salient feature of the Bush era has been its religiously rooted, Manichean vision of the world, seeing the US as locked in a holy struggle of good against evil."
"Such a view is certainly appealing: it's simple and it would explain a lot. But it would be woefully incomplete. For there has been another force at work during the Bush years, one that can claim amuch larger, if less publicized, role in shaping the policy of the present era. Take this very week in Washington. While the talk shows and blogs are humming with gay marriage, the Senate will debate the permanent abolition of the inheritance tax. Republicans are already rebranding this the death tax, as if the wicked government insists on squeezing even the corpse on the undertaker's slab. But the truth is that only three estates in every thousand are eligible for tax under the current law: everyone else pays nothing. But those three matter, because they're the estates worth more than US $4 million -- and it's those families Bush wants to help. No change there."
"In his very first months as president, Bush passed a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest 1 percent ofAmericans, a redistribution of money from poor to rich that will leave the most affluent a staggering US $477 billion better off over a10-year period. That, rather than any religious crusade, has been the true hallmarkof the Bush era. In every sphere it has been the wealthy, andparticularly big business, who have been the true beneficiaries --and often architects -- of Bush policy."
"Energy is a case in point. Just 10 days after his arrival in theWhite House, Vice President Dick Cheney, fresh from running the oilservices and construction company Halliburton, convened a secret "energy task force," an unelected group that set about makingthe oil and gas companies' dreams come true. Whether they wanted more drilling, mining or deregulation, they got it."
"One telling documentwas a wish-list memo from Enron: a later congressional analysisshowed that 17 policies sought by Enron, or which directly benefitedthe company, were included in the task force's final report. Again,no big surprise: Enron had been a generous giver to the Bush-Cheneycampaign in 2000.Cheney managed to keep the task force away from democratic scrutiny,but occasionally the curtain was tugged back."
"A rare and choice example is the case of Philip Cooney, who served until last year aschief of staff for the White House council on environmental quality.It turned out that Cooney had been quietly editing reports bygovernment scientists on global warming, wielding his pencil to castdoubt on climate change. One sentence asserting that the world is 'getting hotter was rewritten to say that it 'may be."
"Yet Cooney had no scientific training. His sole qualification for the job was that he had previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute, the chief lobby group of the oil industry. He was forced out of the White House, but that was no problem. He got a new job --as a spokesman for ExxonMobil.""There are countless other examples, from the gutting of the Clean AirAct to Bush's attempt to dismantle the US pensions system known as social security -- a Roosevelt-era institution valued by Americans on middle and low incomes, but irrelevant to the rich and powerful."
"The symbol of this closeness between the White House and the boardroom remains Halliburton itself, which was awarded three massively lucrative reconstruction contracts in Iraq without even suffering the inconvenience of having to bid for them. We're told that Cheney played no part in allocating those contracts. But he wouldn't have to, would he?Those who want to take on the Bush administration should keep all this in the forefront of their mind."
"The Christian right may be the juicier, more telegenic target, but they are not the sole, or even central, driving force of US policy.Where does that leave Democrats? It suggests they must keep their sights on the real enemy. It does not pay to get into a fight with 'values voters.' More important is to make a moral case against poverty, environmental despoliation and a greed culture."
* GUN RIGHTS MOVEMENT SETBACK AND VICTORY
Congratulations to the Amendment II Democrats for making a valiant effort to persaude the Texas Democratic State Convention to adopt pro-gun rights language to the state party platform. Progress was made in raising awareness about firearms issues among party activists and many connections were made with other pro-Second Amendement Democrats at the conventionlast weekend in Ft. Worth. For information on Amendment II Democrats, check out their website at http://www.a2dems.net
A great victory for our Second Amendment rights was won Monday in a California Superior Court as a judge struck down a San Francisco voter initiative banning residents from owning handguns within the city. The San Francisco Chronicle reported:
"In today's ruling, Judge James Warren said California law, which authorizes police agencies to issue handgun permits, implicitly prohibits a city or county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults."
"That law 'demonstrates the Legislature's intent to occupy, on a statewide basis, the field of residential and commercial handgun possession to the exclusion of local government entities,' Warren wrote in a 30-page decision."
The article quoted Chuck Michel, attorney for the NRA which the voter approved ordinance as stating,"We're thrilled that the judge recognized that law-abiding citizens who possess firearms to defend themselves and their families are part of the solution and not part of the problem."
Few cities would ever consider enacting such extreme and un-Constitutional laws as a gun ban. The fact that 58 percent of the voters in San Francisco would approve a prohibition on the ownership of handguns shows just how far the city is away from mainstream American public opinion.
Democrats are often better at governing than Republicans as they have a more positive attitude toward government activism. Government agencies can become more innovative and customer friendly with the right leadership and values. There is no reason for example that government offices cannot be open more flexible hours (like evenings and weekends) to offer better service to the public. Like big corporations, public bureaucracies can encourage a drone-like attitude among employees or promote an organizational culture of innovation.
Government can be as efficient in delivering services as the private sector. I think our military has done a great job considering the demands and limited resources that they must work with. Our police and firefighters show courage every day to protect and save lives. I can't imagine rent a cops and private firefighters showing the same dedication. The postal service ? Well, that could use a lot of improvement but much of the decline in service quality can be traced to the replacement of career civil service workers with the temp-like "casuals" who don't always have the same dedication to their duties.
Jacksonville,FL has a city-owned electric authority (JEA) which does an excellent job of providing power to the Duval County area. The rates are actually lower than profit-making private power companies such as Florida Power & Light and Tampa Electric.
I am not suggesting at all that every enterprise should be run by the government but rather that government can do and actuallty does some things better or as well as the private sector. And there are areas like education that have traditionally been a public-private partnership like education. I'm all in favor of public education and some of our public schools excel at educating and training their students. Of course, some students fare better in a private or church-related school environment. Private and parochial schools have always educated a significant minority of our children. I see no conflict between experimenting with voucher programs to assist low to moderate income parents who wish to send their kids to a private school with supporting and further improving the public school system.
Likewise, I don't think it is always a bad idea for government to outsource certain functions to the private sector if a business can be made that they do the job more efficiently without compromising the quality of service. A lot of services in our society can be potentially be a private-public partnership. There is nothing wrong with workers in the public sector competing with those in the private sector as long as both are given the necessary tools to do their job. The answer isn't always creating or making a government agency bigger or mindlessly just declaring government bad and contracting all functions out to the private sector. In privatization mad Florida under the leadership of Jeb Bush, we've seen examples of how private companies often performed less efficiently than government agencies. Governing sometimes requires a little common sense and removing the ideological blinders - right or left.
* REPUBLICANS REWARD BIG BUSINESS - NOT VALUES VOTERS
I happen to oppose gay marriage (and support a constitutional amendment banning it) but agree with this UK Guardian columnist via the Tapei Times. The Republicans want to use social conservatives for votes while big business gets whatever they want. Progressives need to recognize that big business is the real enemy - not the socially conservative values voters.
Democrats must realize as JonathanFreedland that getting into a conflict with values voters is unwise. Our party needs to stress economic issues and allow for a difference of opinion on social matters such as gay marriage and abortion.
http://tinyurl.com/q4glr
Bush's play to the Christian right is a red herring
The US President is once again pandering to so-called `value voters'over gay rights, but Democrats and other progressives should not bedistracted from the real enemy
By Jonathan FreedlandTHE GUARDIAN , LONDONSaturday, Jun 10, 2006,Page 9
"Well, it gave US President George W. Bush the presidency once before, so why not use it again? Our old friend gay marriage is back, evoked anew by the man in the White House to scare "values voters," most of them Christian conservatives, into voting Republican one more time."
"It did the business in 2004, when Bush's efforts to turn the election into a referendum on same-sex unions may well have tipped the pivotal state of Ohio, chiefly by persuading social conservatives to get out and vote. So it's no surprise to see a tired Bush, facing second-term poll numbers in the Nixon depths, reaching for the same stick now."
"Bush wants to amend the Constitution so that that precious charter of rights and liberties will include a new sentence defining marriage exclusively as an arrangement between a man and a woman. Such an exclusion clause would demean the document, like graffitis crawled across a sacred text. The Constitution has been altered before -- but usually to expand rights, not to restrict them."
"The president and his allies wrap this up in the usual preachy language, of course -- stand by for the radio pastors intoning that 'It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve' -- but there is nothing holy about this mission. It's brazen politics, an obvious lob of red meat to the hungry of the Christian right. If they gobble it up they will show just how easily they are bought. Abroad it will confirm an impression many have had of the US for awhile: that the country is on its way to becoming a theocracy, with the evangelical right organizing methodically, and over decades, to take over the commanding heights of the country. Europeans and others shudder at the polls which show that 40 percent of people in the US would support a ban on the teaching of evolution in schools, while two-thirds believe creationism should be taught alongside Darwin in the schools."
"With a leader who shares those sentiments ruling over White House, it's been easy to see this as the faith-based presidency. In this view, the salient feature of the Bush era has been its religiously rooted, Manichean vision of the world, seeing the US as locked in a holy struggle of good against evil."
"Such a view is certainly appealing: it's simple and it would explain a lot. But it would be woefully incomplete. For there has been another force at work during the Bush years, one that can claim amuch larger, if less publicized, role in shaping the policy of the present era. Take this very week in Washington. While the talk shows and blogs are humming with gay marriage, the Senate will debate the permanent abolition of the inheritance tax. Republicans are already rebranding this the death tax, as if the wicked government insists on squeezing even the corpse on the undertaker's slab. But the truth is that only three estates in every thousand are eligible for tax under the current law: everyone else pays nothing. But those three matter, because they're the estates worth more than US $4 million -- and it's those families Bush wants to help. No change there."
"In his very first months as president, Bush passed a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest 1 percent ofAmericans, a redistribution of money from poor to rich that will leave the most affluent a staggering US $477 billion better off over a10-year period. That, rather than any religious crusade, has been the true hallmarkof the Bush era. In every sphere it has been the wealthy, andparticularly big business, who have been the true beneficiaries --and often architects -- of Bush policy."
"Energy is a case in point. Just 10 days after his arrival in theWhite House, Vice President Dick Cheney, fresh from running the oilservices and construction company Halliburton, convened a secret "energy task force," an unelected group that set about makingthe oil and gas companies' dreams come true. Whether they wanted more drilling, mining or deregulation, they got it."
"One telling documentwas a wish-list memo from Enron: a later congressional analysisshowed that 17 policies sought by Enron, or which directly benefitedthe company, were included in the task force's final report. Again,no big surprise: Enron had been a generous giver to the Bush-Cheneycampaign in 2000.Cheney managed to keep the task force away from democratic scrutiny,but occasionally the curtain was tugged back."
"A rare and choice example is the case of Philip Cooney, who served until last year aschief of staff for the White House council on environmental quality.It turned out that Cooney had been quietly editing reports bygovernment scientists on global warming, wielding his pencil to castdoubt on climate change. One sentence asserting that the world is 'getting hotter was rewritten to say that it 'may be."
"Yet Cooney had no scientific training. His sole qualification for the job was that he had previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute, the chief lobby group of the oil industry. He was forced out of the White House, but that was no problem. He got a new job --as a spokesman for ExxonMobil.""There are countless other examples, from the gutting of the Clean AirAct to Bush's attempt to dismantle the US pensions system known as social security -- a Roosevelt-era institution valued by Americans on middle and low incomes, but irrelevant to the rich and powerful."
"The symbol of this closeness between the White House and the boardroom remains Halliburton itself, which was awarded three massively lucrative reconstruction contracts in Iraq without even suffering the inconvenience of having to bid for them. We're told that Cheney played no part in allocating those contracts. But he wouldn't have to, would he?Those who want to take on the Bush administration should keep all this in the forefront of their mind."
"The Christian right may be the juicier, more telegenic target, but they are not the sole, or even central, driving force of US policy.Where does that leave Democrats? It suggests they must keep their sights on the real enemy. It does not pay to get into a fight with 'values voters.' More important is to make a moral case against poverty, environmental despoliation and a greed culture."
* GUN RIGHTS MOVEMENT SETBACK AND VICTORY
Congratulations to the Amendment II Democrats for making a valiant effort to persaude the Texas Democratic State Convention to adopt pro-gun rights language to the state party platform. Progress was made in raising awareness about firearms issues among party activists and many connections were made with other pro-Second Amendement Democrats at the conventionlast weekend in Ft. Worth. For information on Amendment II Democrats, check out their website at http://www.a2dems.net
A great victory for our Second Amendment rights was won Monday in a California Superior Court as a judge struck down a San Francisco voter initiative banning residents from owning handguns within the city. The San Francisco Chronicle reported:
"In today's ruling, Judge James Warren said California law, which authorizes police agencies to issue handgun permits, implicitly prohibits a city or county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults."
"That law 'demonstrates the Legislature's intent to occupy, on a statewide basis, the field of residential and commercial handgun possession to the exclusion of local government entities,' Warren wrote in a 30-page decision."
The article quoted Chuck Michel, attorney for the NRA which the voter approved ordinance as stating,"We're thrilled that the judge recognized that law-abiding citizens who possess firearms to defend themselves and their families are part of the solution and not part of the problem."
Few cities would ever consider enacting such extreme and un-Constitutional laws as a gun ban. The fact that 58 percent of the voters in San Francisco would approve a prohibition on the ownership of handguns shows just how far the city is away from mainstream American public opinion.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Populism is a major American political philosophy
A study released in April by the Pew Research Center shows that populism is still a major political philosophy among American voters.It is a fascinating poll. Go to the link and check it out as there is some really interesting survey data.
http://tinyurl.com/zv3uc
Here's an excerpt from the Pew Research Center report:
"In the political caricature of recent years, America is a nation divided: red vs. blue, conservative vs. liberal. "Liberals" tend to favor an active role for government in regulating the economy, but oppose government attempts to regulate morality or private life in the social sphere. "
Conservatives" take just the opposite approach, preferring a smaller role for government in the economy but a bigger role for it in promoting morality. Not surprisingly, liberals and conservatives are political opponents on most issues."
"But while there is little question that U.S. politics have become more polarized in recent years, the red-blue political shorthand is far from adequate to describe the full spectrum of Americans' political views. Judging by their opinions on a number of issues, many Americans simply do not fit well within either the conservative or the liberal ideological camps, instead falling into one of the two other important U.S. political traditions - libertarian and populist -or defying attempts to pigeon-hole them."
"Americans espousing a "libertarian" ideology oppose government regulation in both the economic and the social spheres."
"Populists,"by contrast, favor an active role for government in both the economic and the social spheres. Still more Americans are distinctively non-ideological in their political outlook, and so don't fit neatly into any of the four ideological camps."
Many of us don't fall into the standard left-right ideologies . There is no logical reason why one cannot - for example -opposing abortion and gun control while favoring national health insurance and public funding of political campaigns. Populists do have a consistent political philosophy - that government uphold the rights of workers and consumers as well as traditional moral values.
OUR FUEL CAN BE MADE IN THE U.S.A.
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) is right that our fuels need to have a "Made in America"sticker. We must move quickly to encourage the use of ethanol. It is a cleanand renewable fuel and increased use will be great for our nation's farmers as well as reducing the trade deficit.
One interesting thing that I learned recently is that ethanol can be produced not only from corn, but also from sugarcane. According to the New York Times (04/10/06), Brazil which has widespread use of ethanol gets eight times the yield from sugar cane based product that is made in their country than from corn based ethanol. We grow sugar cane already in Florida, Louisiana, Texas and Hawaii and sugar beets are grown inMinnesota and Montana. Our government needs to take the lead in promoting the development of sugar cane based ethanol in the United States.
All vehicles with engines built after 1970 can use the 10% ethanol, but we need to get more new vehicles on the road that have the capability of using the E-85 ethanol which consists of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline.
EVIDENCE OF GROWING INCOME INEQUALITY
I don't always agree with The Nation magazine http://www.thenation.com/on social and foreign policy issues, but find that they are right on target when it comes to economic matters. The article below by Leon Friedman about the rising income inequality in our society shows how the rich are getting richer as the poor get poorer while the middle class just slowly fades away.
"Every three years since 1989, the Federal Reserve Board has prepared a Survey ofConsumer Finances (SCF), which carefully measures the net worth of all households in the nation--that is, the total assets owned by all Americans. Thesurvey, the most complete and thorough analysis of individual wealth, summarizes the financial resources of different groups of the population, such as bank accounts, stocks, bonds, business assets and real estate. The most recent report, issued early in April 2006, details the massive inequality of wealth in the United States between a small number of households at the top of the income scale and those in the bottom half. This report and other similar studies emphasize that this wealth inequality is growing and is becoming a permanent part of our society."
"The latest report examined the distribution of wealth in 2004 and makes detailed comparisons showing the change in wealth among various population groups. It notes the following:"The total net worth of all Americans in 1989 was $25 trillion (in 2004 dollars).Of that amount, the top 1 percent owned 30 percent, or $7.775 trillion. The bottom half owned 3 percent of the total, or $763 billion."
"Fifteen years later, in 2004, the total wealth of all Americans had doubled to$50.25 trillion. The top 1 percent of the population now owns 33.4 percent ofthe total, or $16.774 trillion. Their percentage share of the total has increased by more than 3 percent in fifteen years. At the same time, the total wealth owned by the bottom 50 percent increased to $1.278 trillion, but its percentage of total wealth declined from 3 percent to 2.5 percent in the sametime period."
"Thus the wealth of the top 1 percent was ten times the wealth of the bottom 50 percent in 1989. Fifteen years later, the wealth of the top 1 percent was thirteen times the wealth of the bottom 50 percent.""Examining the type of wealth owned by each group, the SCF reports that the top 5 percent of the population owns 85 percent of closely held business assets in the country, 79 percent of the publicly traded stocks and 70 percent of mutual funds."
"At the bottom of the scale, the story is far different. While many reports have claimed that about 50 percent of households own some stocks or shares in mutual funds (either directly or through IRAs or company pension plans), the actualamount held is quite small. According to the SCF, the bottom 50 percent own less than 1 percent of business assets, stocks and mutual funds--so much forPresident Bush's claim that we need to reduce taxes on dividends and capital gains because we are an "ownership society" with so many Americans owning shares. The principal asset of the bottom 50 percent is the value of their homes, usually heavily mortgaged."
"The reason for this change is not difficult to discern. Beginning with the reduction of income tax rates in the Reagan Administration (from a high of 70 percent for the richest taxpayers in 1980 to 35 percent now), Congress has steadily reduced tax rates. It has reduced and is seeking to eliminate the estate tax altogether. In 2003 Congress lowered the tax on dividends to 15percent, rather than treat it as ordinary income subject to the highest tax rate of 35 percent. It also reduced taxes on capital gains from 20 percent to 15 percent. Necessarily, these changes greatly benefited the households at the top of the wealth ladder."
"Where can this largesse for the wealthy come from? If the government has a program of tax reductions for the wealthiest, necessarily this leads to budget shortfalls and then a decrease in welfare payments to the people at the bottom.Where else could this money come from? Certainly not from military expenditures.Congress passed a budget resolution last year that cut $10 billion in Medicaid programs, $3 billion from food stamps and $7 billion from student loan programs.The House has passed new resolutions this year calling for even greater reductions in these programs."
"The growing inequality between the very rich and the bottom half affects every aspect of American life--healthcare, education, occupational opportunities. But those in the bottom half find it harder and harder to move out of their sorry condition, as those on the top fight to protect their position and have the assistance of the politicians who pass law after law favoring their interests."
This article can be found on the web at: http://tinyurl.com/g43of
http://tinyurl.com/zv3uc
Here's an excerpt from the Pew Research Center report:
"In the political caricature of recent years, America is a nation divided: red vs. blue, conservative vs. liberal. "Liberals" tend to favor an active role for government in regulating the economy, but oppose government attempts to regulate morality or private life in the social sphere. "
Conservatives" take just the opposite approach, preferring a smaller role for government in the economy but a bigger role for it in promoting morality. Not surprisingly, liberals and conservatives are political opponents on most issues."
"But while there is little question that U.S. politics have become more polarized in recent years, the red-blue political shorthand is far from adequate to describe the full spectrum of Americans' political views. Judging by their opinions on a number of issues, many Americans simply do not fit well within either the conservative or the liberal ideological camps, instead falling into one of the two other important U.S. political traditions - libertarian and populist -or defying attempts to pigeon-hole them."
"Americans espousing a "libertarian" ideology oppose government regulation in both the economic and the social spheres."
"Populists,"by contrast, favor an active role for government in both the economic and the social spheres. Still more Americans are distinctively non-ideological in their political outlook, and so don't fit neatly into any of the four ideological camps."
Many of us don't fall into the standard left-right ideologies . There is no logical reason why one cannot - for example -opposing abortion and gun control while favoring national health insurance and public funding of political campaigns. Populists do have a consistent political philosophy - that government uphold the rights of workers and consumers as well as traditional moral values.
OUR FUEL CAN BE MADE IN THE U.S.A.
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) is right that our fuels need to have a "Made in America"sticker. We must move quickly to encourage the use of ethanol. It is a cleanand renewable fuel and increased use will be great for our nation's farmers as well as reducing the trade deficit.
One interesting thing that I learned recently is that ethanol can be produced not only from corn, but also from sugarcane. According to the New York Times (04/10/06), Brazil which has widespread use of ethanol gets eight times the yield from sugar cane based product that is made in their country than from corn based ethanol. We grow sugar cane already in Florida, Louisiana, Texas and Hawaii and sugar beets are grown inMinnesota and Montana. Our government needs to take the lead in promoting the development of sugar cane based ethanol in the United States.
All vehicles with engines built after 1970 can use the 10% ethanol, but we need to get more new vehicles on the road that have the capability of using the E-85 ethanol which consists of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline.
EVIDENCE OF GROWING INCOME INEQUALITY
I don't always agree with The Nation magazine http://www.thenation.com/on social and foreign policy issues, but find that they are right on target when it comes to economic matters. The article below by Leon Friedman about the rising income inequality in our society shows how the rich are getting richer as the poor get poorer while the middle class just slowly fades away.
"Every three years since 1989, the Federal Reserve Board has prepared a Survey ofConsumer Finances (SCF), which carefully measures the net worth of all households in the nation--that is, the total assets owned by all Americans. Thesurvey, the most complete and thorough analysis of individual wealth, summarizes the financial resources of different groups of the population, such as bank accounts, stocks, bonds, business assets and real estate. The most recent report, issued early in April 2006, details the massive inequality of wealth in the United States between a small number of households at the top of the income scale and those in the bottom half. This report and other similar studies emphasize that this wealth inequality is growing and is becoming a permanent part of our society."
"The latest report examined the distribution of wealth in 2004 and makes detailed comparisons showing the change in wealth among various population groups. It notes the following:"The total net worth of all Americans in 1989 was $25 trillion (in 2004 dollars).Of that amount, the top 1 percent owned 30 percent, or $7.775 trillion. The bottom half owned 3 percent of the total, or $763 billion."
"Fifteen years later, in 2004, the total wealth of all Americans had doubled to$50.25 trillion. The top 1 percent of the population now owns 33.4 percent ofthe total, or $16.774 trillion. Their percentage share of the total has increased by more than 3 percent in fifteen years. At the same time, the total wealth owned by the bottom 50 percent increased to $1.278 trillion, but its percentage of total wealth declined from 3 percent to 2.5 percent in the sametime period."
"Thus the wealth of the top 1 percent was ten times the wealth of the bottom 50 percent in 1989. Fifteen years later, the wealth of the top 1 percent was thirteen times the wealth of the bottom 50 percent.""Examining the type of wealth owned by each group, the SCF reports that the top 5 percent of the population owns 85 percent of closely held business assets in the country, 79 percent of the publicly traded stocks and 70 percent of mutual funds."
"At the bottom of the scale, the story is far different. While many reports have claimed that about 50 percent of households own some stocks or shares in mutual funds (either directly or through IRAs or company pension plans), the actualamount held is quite small. According to the SCF, the bottom 50 percent own less than 1 percent of business assets, stocks and mutual funds--so much forPresident Bush's claim that we need to reduce taxes on dividends and capital gains because we are an "ownership society" with so many Americans owning shares. The principal asset of the bottom 50 percent is the value of their homes, usually heavily mortgaged."
"The reason for this change is not difficult to discern. Beginning with the reduction of income tax rates in the Reagan Administration (from a high of 70 percent for the richest taxpayers in 1980 to 35 percent now), Congress has steadily reduced tax rates. It has reduced and is seeking to eliminate the estate tax altogether. In 2003 Congress lowered the tax on dividends to 15percent, rather than treat it as ordinary income subject to the highest tax rate of 35 percent. It also reduced taxes on capital gains from 20 percent to 15 percent. Necessarily, these changes greatly benefited the households at the top of the wealth ladder."
"Where can this largesse for the wealthy come from? If the government has a program of tax reductions for the wealthiest, necessarily this leads to budget shortfalls and then a decrease in welfare payments to the people at the bottom.Where else could this money come from? Certainly not from military expenditures.Congress passed a budget resolution last year that cut $10 billion in Medicaid programs, $3 billion from food stamps and $7 billion from student loan programs.The House has passed new resolutions this year calling for even greater reductions in these programs."
"The growing inequality between the very rich and the bottom half affects every aspect of American life--healthcare, education, occupational opportunities. But those in the bottom half find it harder and harder to move out of their sorry condition, as those on the top fight to protect their position and have the assistance of the politicians who pass law after law favoring their interests."
This article can be found on the web at: http://tinyurl.com/g43of
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
