Blue Dogs Applaud Chairman Skelton for Demanding Fiscal Accountability in Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* TONY HALL TO ADDRESS PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATIC DINNER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*PRO-ENFORCEMENT CAUCUS GAINS DEMOCRATS

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

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

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

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

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

Dissent Magazine: Can the Populist Moment Last ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eaves focused on faith, populism in Mississippi Gov. race

Two months into his race for Mississippi Governor, John Eaves is already making national news with a profile in Sunday's Washington Post. Eaves' mix of strong evangelical Christian faith, social conservatism and economic populism is drawing interest to his candidacy which is seen as a test of the Democratic Party's ability to break the Republican lock on the heart of the Deep South. http://tinyurl.com/27p5mf

"John Arthur Eaves baptized three of his four sons in the Jordan River, an event he highlights in a radio campaign ad. The candidate for governor of Mississippi thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, calls for reintroducing school prayer and wants limits on riverboat gambling -- all hot-button issues among evangelical pastors. A baby-faced trial lawyer with a flair for self-promotion, Eaves is employing the same tried-and-true campaign tactics as many Republicans running in the South, the Midwest and other culturally conservative parts of the country."

"But Eaves isn't just any old run-of-the-mill evangelical candidate -- he's a Democrat. And he's challenging not just any first-term governor, but Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a Goliath in the GOP, with possible designs on the White House."

"The political calculus behind Eaves's candidacy is simple. By neutralizing the traditional GOP advantage on social issues, Democrats hope to focus on economic issues, where, particularly in poverty-stricken Mississippi, they believe they have the upper hand. Eaves, a graduate of Ole Miss and now a wealthy lawyer whose dirty-blond mane is a fixture in legal ads across the state, is an unabashed populist. He supports universal health care, large increases in public school funding and a so-called living wage. He attacks Barbour for opposing a "tax swap" that would slash the grocery tax and raise the tobacco tax and for pushing 50,000 low-income residents off state Medicaid rolls."

"Eaves roots his populism in the same evangelical Christianity as his social positions. "A lot of people ask me, 'How are you a Democrat and a Christian?' " he says in his Jackson office, festooned with photos from his 1996 trip to Israel to baptize his sons. "And I say, 'Because I'm a Christian, I'm a Democrat.' Christ healed the sick, reached out to the poor and came to tell us the truth, which today would translate into support for health care and education. Christ came to help people, and I believe that's the role of the Democratic Party."

Running as a populist visionary and person of faith, Eaves made a powerful speech in declaring his Gubenatorial candidacy:

I dare you to imagine a Mississippi that rewards hard-working, honest people with a living wage that allows them to spend time with their families without having to work two jobs.

I dare you to imagine a Mississippi healthcare system that provides affordable care to EVERY Mississippian rather than adding huge profits to the big insurance companies.

I dare you to imagine a healthcare system that lifts the healthcare burden off the backs of our Mississippi businesses so they can compete around the world.

I dare you to imagine a criminal justice system that protects our children from sex offenders and treats the drug addicts instead of simply turning them back to the streets.

I dare you to imagine a day when all Mississippians, without regard to our differences in body, mind, spirit or handicap, will treat each other with respect and dignity as we are all God's children.

I dare you to imagine a Mississippi where every high school student uses a laptop computer to prepare for the jobs of the 21st Century and where there are just as many students dreaming of being teachers, scientists and business owners as those dreaming of being athletes.

I dare you to imagine schools that allow voluntary, student-led school prayer so children can begin to discover for themselves the fundamental questions of our existence. And by the discussion of these beliefs, we will have a foundation on which to build character, discipline and hope for our children.

I dare you to imagine a political system where conviction is more powerful than fear, allowing us to focus on combating the true enemies of mankind - disease, ignorance and poverty - rather than fighting each other.

And I believe if we can imagine it, we can do it! http://www.eaves2007.com

Eaves notes that Mississippi has the highest infant mortality rate in the nation and ranks 49th in health among the states. He expresses concern that a 2005 study showed only 18 percent of Mississippi's eighth graders were on their grade reading level and a mere 14 percent were up to speed in their math skills.

Another focus of the Eaves campaign is a living wage. Eaves stated, "It is time that Mississippi rewarded hard-working, honest people with a living wage that would allow working parents to spend time with their families instead of having to work two or three jobs just to put food on the table." He further added that such a move would "strengthen our economy by increasing the income of those most likely to spend it on our local businesses and communities."

The conservative Democrat wants tougher laws to protect our children from sex offenders."Sex offenders should be required to wear ID-tracking bracelets so police will know where they are at all times," Eaves said.

Hurricane Katrina continues to impact Mississippi and Eaves is critical of Governor Barbour's handling of the crisis. Eaves notes that thousands of Mississippians are still waiting to rebuild their lives two years after the hurricane due to a slow response from insurance companies and government. "We must stop the practice of rewarding state contracts to out-of-state companies with political connections and financial ties to the power brokers in Jackson," Eaves stated. "Companies in Mississippi that employ Mississippi workers should get first dibs on all state contracts, especially those to rebuild our Coast."

Applauding efforts by the Ocean Springs Board of Education to establish a Bible literacy class, Eaves said: “The Bible is the most influential book ever written, and an important component of a well-rounded education is Bible literacy." Eaves promised to work to encourage teaching the Bible as literature in public schools if elected Governor.

Despite expectations that he will be greatly outspent by the incumbent Republican Governor, Eaves remains optimistic about his chances. Eaves told the Greenwood Commonwealth, "No matter how much money Haley Barbour has, thank the Lord that this is still a democracy ... people still vote," he said.

John Eaves sounds like the kind of Democrat that we need in public office.

Biden strong in debate, unveils Iraq plan

In the recent televised debate of Democratic Presidential candidates for South Carolina, Joe Biden stood out as the most confident and well prepared. While I recognize that Biden remains very much a "long shot" in his bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination, his strong performance gives rank and file Democrats a reason to take a second look at this long-time Senator from Delaware.

One of Biden's advantages is historical perspective, he has served in the U.S. Senate during seven presidencies and can recall an era of less intense partianship and idelogical polarization. Biden worked with great leaders of both parties like Sam Ervin, Barry Goldwater, Hubert Humphrey, Jacob Javits, Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moniyhan.

Biden has firm grasp of defense and national security issues. "The American people are looking for us as Democrats,” said Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee “They’re looking for someone literally, not figuratively, to restore America’s place in the world.” During the South Carolina debate, Biden was the only candidate to clearly outline what a plan to resolve the Iraq War.

Joe Biden gave more details on his five point plan for Iraq in a speech to the Brookings Institute:

First, maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in regions – as the Iraqi constitution provides. The central government would be responsible for common concerns, like guarding Iraq’s borders and distributing its oil revenues.

Second, secure support from the Sunnis – who have no oil – by guaranteeing them a fair share of oil revenues. Allow former Baath party members to go back to work and reintegrate Sunnis with no blood on their hands.

Third, increase economic assistance to Iraq and its regions. Insist that the oil-rich Gulf states put up most of the money, tie it to the protection of minority rights, and create a major jobs program to deny the militia new recruits.

Fourth, initiate a major diplomatic offensive to enlist the support of Iraq’s neighbors. Create an oversight group of the U.N. and the major powers to enforce their commitments. These countries have a profound stake in preventing chaos in Iraq and the credibility we lack to press for compromise by all Iraqis. If a political settlement fails to take hold, these same countries are vital to any strategy to contain the fall out within Iraq.

Fifth, instruct the military to draw up plans for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq by 2008. Leave behind a small force to take on terrorists and train Iraqis. The best way to focus Iraq’s leaders on the political compromises they must make is to make it clear to them that we are leaving. http://tinyurl.com/2eeyjq

Another good thing about Joe Biden is that he is serious about global warming and has supported nuclear power. To reduce CO2 emissions which contribute to global warming, for our energy independence and national security, we need to have nuclear power. Here is what the African American Environmentalist Association had to say about Biden:

"We really like Senator Joe Biden. Joe Biden is probably the best foreign policy expert in the United States. As the new chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he will have significant input and a very visible platform for expressing his views. And as we all know, Senator Biden has no problem expressing his views. Senator Biden is also approachable and willing to chat on the elevator with the average citizen. Moreover, Joe Biden is serious about climate change and we believe he is willing to promote nuclear power as a primary solution to the problem. Joe Biden would be a very good president."

"Senator Biden seems to be okay with nuclear power because he voted for the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Biden was a cosponsor of the McCain/Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act and he voted for the very nuclear-friendly Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act." http://tinyurl.com/2lnpbq

Biden appears to be in touch with mainstream American values. He has favored school choice which would give low-income parents the option of receiving vouchers to remove their children from failing public schools. This is a bold stand for a Democratic candidate but it is a position of fairness and true populism. Poor children should have the same opportunity to a decent education as rich kids.

While clearly being pro-choice on abortion rights, Biden has voted to ban the barbaric "partial birth" abortion procedure. Again, Biden is taking a brave stand in a party where many activists make absolute abortion rights a top priority. By opposing partial birth abortion, Biden is well within the mainstream of public opinion. Polls show the vast majority of Americans favor a ban on partial birth abortion.

On the issue of gun control, Radio Iowa reports that Biden recognizes that gun control has been a political liability for Democrats. Biden opposes registration of firearms and affirms the Second Amendment. Biden does favor a ban on assualt weapons (which I oppose) but seems to be open to pro-gun rights arguments.

During the 90's, Biden did unfortunately support the "free trade" agenda of Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress. Biden voted for NAFTA and to ratify the 1994 GAAT agreement although he has since moved toward a fair trade stance. In recent years, Biden has voted against free trade agreements. And Biden has a most impressive rating of one hundred percent from the AFL-CIO.

Right Democrat has not endorsed any Presidential candidate. My first choice for President would be Senator and former Navy Secretary Jim Webb who is not running this time around although I suspect that he is gearing up for 2012. I really like John Edwards' economic populism but fear that he is moving too far to the left on some issues to win in 2008. Edwards had my support the last time around in 2004 after Dick Gephardt dropped out of the Presidential race.

Edwards is still probably the most electable of the top three contenders but I am very disappointed in his vigorous defense of partial birth abortion, opposition to nuclear power expansion and $400 haircuts from campaign funds. Biden is clearly sensibile on the issues and effective in debate although still facing probably 100 to 1 odds against winning the Presidency. It appears likely that Al Gore will enter the race which is not good news for a Democratic victory in 2008. Gore was once seen back in his Senate and House days as a socially moderate, Southern populist but is now stereotyped as a "gun grabber" and "tree hugger." Democrats need a candidate who can win some red states and connect with Middle American voters.

Pro-life Democrats applaud partial-birth abortion ruling

A federal law banning partial birth abortions has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) once described partial-birth abortion was "as close to infanticide as anything I have come upon in our judiciary."

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed by Congress in 2003 with the support of 63 House Democrats and 17 Senate Democrats including then Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) and current Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Public opinion surveys such as the Gallup Poll in 2003 found that a solidly majority of Americans favored a law prohibiting partial birth abortions.

Nebraska' Democratic Senator Ben Nelson voted for and was a co-sponsor of the legislation. The law had previously been challenged by federal courts in Nebraska, New York and California. The decision on Wednesday overturned those rulings.

Nelson issued the following statement on the court's decision:

"I agree with today's decision by the Supreme Court and I disagree with federal Judge Richard Kopf and others who have struck down the ban on partial birth abortion. I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court's final say overturns poor decisions made by lower federal courts.

"When Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito sat in my office before their confirmation hearings, they pledged they would interpret the law, not make the law. Today's decision is a victory over judicial activism."

Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania said he also supports the ban, but he added that America "must do more to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies."

As expected, Kristen Day issued a statement following the court ruling as Executive Director of Democrats for Life:

"Democrats For Life applauds the Supreme Court for the landmark ruling that upheld the ban on partial birth abortion. The decision closes the book on partial birth abortions in America and finally puts this deplorable procedure in the history books where it belongs. That said, we are of the opinion that just banning partial birth abortions does not do enough to prevent abortion in America. That's why we are proud to be leading the fight to reduce the abortion rate in America by 95 percent over the next 10 years by endorsing the 'Pregnant Woman Support Act'. This legislation will be introduced in the House and Senate just before Mother's Day and will do what the Supreme Court couldn't do this week: dramatically reduce the number of abortions and crisis pregnancies in America."

Jim Wallis of the progressive faith organization Sojourners called for pro-life and pro-choice Americans to unite and work together toward the common goal of reducing the abortion rate in an excellent Huffington Post column. http://tinyurl.com/26fnr3 Wallis notes that despite the euphoria among pro-life activists and the hysteria of pro-choice leaders that the partial birth abortion ban will have little impact on the number of abortions performed in the United States.

"The procedure involves very few abortions - about 2,200 out of 1.31 million in 2000, the last year for which numbers are available. And simply banning one procedure means that there are alternative procedures that will now be used. But the furious arguments on both sides again show how mostly symbolic the abortion debate remains when focused on primarily legal questions. After ten years of heated debate, the Court's decision does nothing to reduce the number of abortions."

"Most Americans are alarmed at the nation's high abortion rate, but don't support criminalizing it. They want to keep abortion legal, but make it genuinely rare. In 2005, 68 percent of Americans agreed that abortion should be legal, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. We have supported a "consistent life ethic" - which seeks a dramatic reduction in the actual abortion rate in America, without criminalizing what is always a tragic choice and often a desperate one. Others also question if total abortion bans are really pro-life because of the likely consequences of back-alley abortions, especially for poor women."

"It's time for concrete action that would actually and seriously reduce the number of abortions in America. A better approach than the symbolic legal battle would be to gather new energy for a commitment to advancing real solutions. A constructive dialogue should include how best to prevent unwanted pregnancies, support pregnant women who find themselves in an unexpected situation, and effectively reduce the abortion rate."

"Legislation that could make a real difference in changing the circumstances that make abortions more likely has been introduced again in the new Congress. The Reducing the Need for Abortions and Supporting Parents Act, introduced by Reps. Tim Ryan and Rosa DeLauro "aims to reduce the abortion rate by preventing unintended pregnancies, supporting pregnant women, and assisting new parents. One in five abortions are obtained by a teenager and 60 percent are obtained by women with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty line." We supported this legislation in the last Congress and will again. Other legislation may be introduced again by Rep. Lincoln Davis, and Democrats for Life continues to promote its 95/10 Initiative, which is still a good one."

"It's time that both pro-life and pro-choice supporters come together and support these measures, and actually do something serious and substantial in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and dramatically reducing the abortion rate. Who could be against that?Let's indeed save unborn lives. It's time to move from symbols to substance."

I agree. It is time to do something about the abortion rate. Democrats need to support the 95/10 initiative promoting alternatives to abortion. We need to expand the safety net for expectant mothers, require health insurers to cover pregnancy, expand adoption tax credits and strengthen child support enforcement efforts to assure that deadbeat dads help provide for their kids.

Edwards stresses working class, Southern roots during GA visit

John Edwards brought his Presidential campaign to middle Georgia yesterday and unveiled a plan to help rural America. The Macon Telegraph reports that Edwards stressed his Southern, working class roots:
http://tinyurl.com/23qme9

It's where I'm from and I take it very personally," said the former North Carolina senator. "I grew up with eating fried chicken for dinner, going to Friday night high school football games, going to church on Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night.

"I know very well what it means to grow up in the rural South. I think the president has a responsibility to help strengthen the rural areas of America."

The son of a textile mill worker, Edwards said he spent part of his childhood in Thompson before the family settled in North Carolina where he attended middle school.

Because of his upbringing, Edwards said he also understands the economic struggles brought on when manufacturers close the doors to their rural factories and relocate elsewhere. He likened Middle Georgia to the community where he grew up in Robbins, N.C., where manufacturers left town and many people were out of a job.

Edwards said he plans to introduce on Monday a specific agenda to create incentives for employers to locate in rural areas and to provide the infrastructure to support their success.

"That means tax incentives to come there and it also means having a technology infrastructure, broadband, having water and sewer infrastructure, having highway infrastructure and having all the pieces you need that will support the relocation of new employment opportunities," he said.
As president, Edwards said his hope would be to increase the number of opportunities available to not only Americans living in rural areas, but everywhere.

"I want everybody in the country, no matter where they live or the color of their skin to have the same chances I have had," he said. "I came from nothing to having everything.
"I think that's increasingly hard in America," Edwards said. "I think we have lots of work to do to make sure that opportunity is available to everybody." http://www.macon.com/

The Macon Telegraph also reported that Edwards received a strong endorsement from Blue Dog Democratic Congressman Jim Marshall during his Georgia visit. "I think Senator Edwards has an excellent chance of being the next president of the United States," Marshall stated.

A new poll by Angus Reid Global View supports the opinion of Congressman Marshall that John Edwards may be the strongest Democratic contender. The poll showed Edwards leading former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani by a 49 to 43 margin and a 14 point lead over former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson. http://tinyurl.com/2d9e9t

Among the serious Democratic contenders, only Edwards has taken a strong stand for fair trade policies to protect American workers.

I don't always agree with David Sirota but he makes an excellent case as to why Edwards is the best hope for working and middle Americans. Sirota points out in a recent Huffington Post column that the Wall Street interests favor the candidates in both parties who support the economic status quo that has given us the greatest income inequality since 1928. http://tinyurl.com/32jnvu

Back in 1992, the famous campaign mantra was "it's the economy, stupid." This was the seemingly populist motto that people like Wall Street CEO Bob Rubin piggybacked on to help vault Bill Clinton into the White House, and himself into the corner suite at the Treasury Department. Today, there is Today, there is a slightly amended motto operating in advance of the 2008 election: "It's the economic ideology, stupid."

The variation may appear semantic. But like the differences between the classic TV show What's Happening!! and its can't-conjure-the-old-magic update What's Happening Now!!, there is a vast chasm between the two economic campaign slogans. Whereas in the good ol' days of 1992, candidates were campaigning against the real-life consequences of a crushing recession on working folks and for concrete real-world goals to help working folks, today candidates are campaigning against even recognizing real life, and for an ideology that their own economic advisers acknowledge has no connection to actual information.

A new piece in Businessweek gives you a good idea of how this works. The article starts out exploring how a number of Wall Street CEOs are "refining" the presidential candidates' economic positions (ha! and you thought the candidates decided their own positions). We are asked to sympathize with the plight of these CEOs because the presidential campaign has gotten off to an earlier start, and they are a little behind on shaping the key positions of the candidates they finance. After the obligatory threats against candidates who dare challenge "free" trade fundamentalism, we get this nugget:

"Like most voters, Wall Streeters are also trying to size up candidates' personal qualities. At a meeting on Feb. 3 in Manhattan, bankers grilled Obama about how he makes decisions. Present were Eric Mindich of Eton Park Capital, Frank Brosens of Taconic Capital Advisors, Michael Froman of Citigroup Alternative Investments (C ), and James S. Rubin of JPMorgan Chase's (JPM ) private equity fund, among others.

Obama said a President must be able to make important decisions with little information...That message 'appealed to them because it was similar to the decisions that they make every day about risk, returns, and probability of various outcomes,' says Froman, a law school classmate of Obama. Similarly, Dalio, the Bridgewater chief who trades currencies, debt, and stocks around the world, likes the way McCain arrives at his positions. It's different from relying on academic knowledge or creative brilliance, says Dalio."

Scores of lobotomized politicians doing exactly what they are told, making information-free decisions, without looking at the hard data - this is K Street's dream. It is the domestic version of the Bush administration's reality-free march to war, with Wall Street financiers playing the role of preening neoconservative think-tankers. Remember this from Ron Suskind's now-famous New York Times article about the Bush White House:

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' ... 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

No wonder Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) had absolutely no idea how many new freshman Democrats were elected on platforms against lobbyist-written trade deals.

No wonder Democratic politicians trumpet Bob Rubin as a great guru of job creation at the same time his company is laying off tens of thousands of American workers. No wonder Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (news, bio, voting record) (D-MT) is huddling with corporate lobbyists for strategy sessions on Capitol Hill about how to pass President Bush's request to reauthorize fast-track trade authority at the very moment his own state has the lowest wages in the United States. No wonder Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) and John McCain (news, bio, voting record) and Mitt Romney are running for the highest office in the land, and yet are simultaneously refusing to offer anything other than "world is flat" propaganda about globalization - the most important economic issue facing the planet. Why should they behave any differently? To paraphrase the Bush White House, they don't live in the reality-based community anymore. http://huffingtonpost.com/

Trade was a major issue benefiting Democrats in key 2006 contests as noted by Chris Slevin and Todd Tucker in the Democratic Strategist:

2006 has shown us that fair trade is not only good policy, it's smart politics. A fair trade position showed that a candidate was willing to fundamentally challenge the outdated corporate consensus that government must be hands-off when it comes to supporting the middle- and working-class, while being hands-on when pushing policies like NAFTA and WTO that redistribute income upwards. Contenders and donors in 2008 hoping to sweep even more elected offices will have to recognize that voters are ready to move beyond "staying the course" on the failed trade policies of the past and to embrace an agenda which promotes economic security and mobility for all. http://tinyurl.com/268cd3

Tonelson: Democratic trade plan needs more work

Like other economic populists, I had high expectations that our new Congress would take a harder line on trade policy to protect American jobs. Alan Tonelson, a economist with the U.S. Business and Industry Council Educational Foundation, has analyzed the Democratic Congressional trade policy and found it lacking. Tonelson suggests that Democrats are still more likely than Republicans to reform our self-destructive trade policies but the new majority Congressional leadership is far from having the correct approach to dealing with the trade deficit. Half-hearted symbolism and feel-good policies that give the appearance of aiding residents of developing countries will do nothing to protect American jobs.

Democrats' Trade Plan Needs More Work
Alan Tonelson
American Economic Alert

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

After several re-readings of the new House Democratic trade plan, I’m still thoroughly confused by the policy proposals developed by Ways and Means Committee trade czars Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Sander Levin (D-MI), and endorsed by the House Democratic caucus. With a handful of exceptions, their prescriptions look either downright contrary to or utterly irrelevant to the goal of changing trade flows to benefit U.S. producers and their employees significantly.

In fairness, no one should rush to judgment of “A New Trade Policy for America.” In the first place, the plan is awfully general in nature. Only one page long, it’s little more than a wish list that leaves open nearly every major question concerning how actually to devise a trade policy that finally benefits domestic American manufacturing, service, and agricultural businesses.

Admittedly though, it’s hard to spell out how to reverse more than 30 years of destructive trade and economic policies in a single page. In addition, the exact intent behind the document is unclear, despite its modest substance. No one is calling the plan a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, and no one is calling it a simple opening gambit in a protracted negotiation between the House Democrats and the Bush Administration.

Even less clear is the outcome desired by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) – who will decisively influence the final result. In fact, these leaders may not yet know themselves – because trade policy is not one of their leading priorities. Yet given these unknowns, plus the confusion bound to result from posturing and grandstanding by individual Members on both sides of the trade/jobs/outsourcing issue, it is still important to understand how risky tactically and how conceptually deficient a starting point

“A New Trade Policy” seems to be – either for evaluating the string of recently completed or nearly completed trade agreements or for judging the president’s upcoming request for renewed Fast Track trade negotiating authority.It’s entirely possible that what really counts in this document is a handful of ideas that the White House, the outsourcing lobby, and its hired hands in Congress could view as outright deal-killers.

Some trade critics sound confident (confidentially, of course) that their opponents will dig in over these issues even if it dooms to defeat the upcoming trade agreements or Fast Track renewal.If this is the Democratic strategy, however, it could be too clever by half.

For example, “A New Trade Policy” clearly calls for making vital medicines more readily available to impoverished third world populations by granting low-cost third world drug companies more access to the formulas and other intellectual property of their U.S. and other rich-country competitors.

Totally unacceptable to the huge and powerful American pharmaceutical industry, right? Not exactly. Big Pharma not only has long feared suffering a public relations disaster on this issue, but also won’t or can’t explain effectively that, without strong intellectual property protection, drug discovery efforts, which will benefit all of humanity, will grind to a halt. As a result, the pharmaceutical industry has rolled over on this issue before and could well again.

Similarly, the multinationals may actually agree to Democratic environmental proposals that look like an effort to gain Congressional approval of the Kyoto global warming treaty through the back door. A growing number of these firms already are sporting more green than New York City cops on St. Patrick’s Day.

More worrisome, the outsourcers’ camp may finally wise up and acknowledge that even if the Democrats’ proposals on improving worker rights and conditions in the third world – which have loomed so large in the trade policy debate for so long – are strengthened considerably, not one is even remotely fully enforceable. Therefore, the outsourcers can safely support them after all, without worrying about the implications for their overseas factories.

Most Democrats and their constituencies have focused so tightly on workers’ rights issues that they’ll have few credible objections left if their adversaries “Just Say Yes” to such provisions.

Even more tightly boxed in are most of the hard-core Democratic trade critics in Congress and in the non-government organization (NGO) world. They could easily find themselves in the unenviable position of having to explain to the vastly more numerous centrist or more apathetic Congressional Democrats exactly why labor language supported by both their leadership and many Republicans doesn’t cut the mustard. Even dicier for them is the argument that, although the labor and environmental provisions are good enough for the Peru, Panama, and possibly Colombia Free Trade Agreements, they aren’t strong enough to merit renewal of Fast Track negotiating authority.

Aside from these tactical considerations, serious substantive flaws riddle “A New Trade Policy” as well. For example, the document strongly supports three of the worst examples of outsourcing-focused trade deals of the last decade – the agreements with four Andean narcotics-producing countries in South America, with sub-Saharan Africa, and with Haiti.

The stated pretext for these trade deals was that by aiding third world regions with trade breaks, we were in effect preventing the growth of extremist forces and thereby strengthening U.S. national security – which, of course, was one of the Bush administration’s main selling points for Fast Track renewal five years ago in the wake of 9/11. Yet these three trade agreements typify virtually everything wrong with U.S. trade policy from NAFTA forward.

The trade model embodied in all these deals involved targeting penny-wage countries and regions far too poor to provide consumer markets for U.S.-made goods and services, but entirely capable of flooding the U.S. market with labor-intensive goods. Yet because many other low-income nations have received expanded access to the American consumer – including more potent competitors, the intended beneficiaries of the three aforementioned trade deals have gained little or nothing from trade liberalization.

To add insult to injury, these deals tend to be so sloppily written that they allow Chinese and other companies from mercantilist Asian countries to use loopholes to capture most of the gains. If Democrats really want U.S. trade policy to benefit needy countries, they’ll call for clear geopolitical priorities to be set and for hard choices to be made in doling out trade breaks..

Just as misguided is “A New Trade Policy’s” call for more effective U.S. diplomacy in the currently stalled Doha Round of world trade talks. Instead, these negotiations, conducted under World Trade Organization’s auspices, need to be completely overhauled. The Doha Round’s mandate explicitly aims at channeling most of the benefits of trade liberalization to developing countries.

The interests of America’s domestic manufactures, farmers, and working families literally aren’t even on the screen. It falls to the Democrats, since the Bush administration won’t act, to put them there.Unless the U.S. government declares that accepting the Doha framework was completely mistaken, and that it must be replaced by one based on full reciprocity, developing countries simply won’t agree to meaningful market-opening. Yet how can this happen unless the Democrats, with their majorities in both house of Congress, take the lead and force the hand of the Bush administration?

By the same token, the Democrats need to make clear that the WTO’s one-country-one-vote governance and dispute-resolution procedures are utterly unacceptable, and must be replaced by rules reflecting the real balance of economic power in today’s world. Without the Democrats’s injecting some realism into the process – which “A New Trade Policy” fails to do, any Doha agreement will turn into yet another engine of deficit expansion, and job and production exporting.

Just as important, already dangerous global economic imbalances will be worsened, and the world brought that much closer to an economic crack-up – which will hurt most of all developing countries, about which the Democrats profess to be concerned.

Other provisions of the Democrats’ trade guidelines suffer from a bewildering confidence in policy tools that proved their ineffectiveness long ago. Why, for example, bother to “press for immediate [emphasis in original] Administration action” against Asian currency manipulation? The White House has made unmistakably clear its determination to engage in chit-chat diplomacy while American manufacturing continues to get clobbered. If the Democrats don’t understand by now that swift, concerted action by the House and Senate is the answer, when will the light go on?

The call to break down foreign trade barriers by filing lots of new WTO cases, meanwhile, springs from a view of the trade body just as unrealistic as the Bush Administration’s – i.e., that this Clinton-era creation is like an American court of law, where all parties to a dispute can be assured of getting a fair shake from impartial magistrates. The Democrats must recognize the WTO for what it is: a politically-motivated, anti-American body, whose membership desperately needs to wrack up trade surpluses with the United States to keep their own economies growing. Without such recognition, the multilateral portions of the Democrats’ trade agenda will remain recipes for futility.

Finally, as indicated in the above discussion of the plan’s politics, the rest of “A New Trade Policy” continues the bad habit of confusing symbolism with substance. In line with every pronouncement from left-of-center trade critics since the NAFTA debate fifteen years ago, the Democratic plan insists on trade agreements that “raise standards of living” and thereby “create new markets for U.S. goods” by conditioning third world access to America’s economy to more genuinely enforced rights for workers.

Presumably, major pay increases would follow with concomitant purchases of U.S.-made goods and services.Unfortunately, however, even the “right kind” of U.S.-third world trade won’t create vast new consuming populations that will Buy American and thereby re-balance dangerously one-sided world trade flows.

The global labor market will be glutted for decades due to the sheer size of the developing countries’ populations and workforces, to their youthfulness, to their sky-high levels of un- and underemployment, and to the NAFTA-like trade deals that have been steadily making these workers available to global businesses. Strong downward pressure on wages everywhere is the inevitable result. The inclusion of feel-good wording in trade expansion deals won’t change the inexorable realities of the labor markets.

Soaring global worker supply will produce the same effects for highly productive and educated workers, too, though the inevitable market glitches will create periodic supply-demand mismatches and temporary wage spikes. In fact, even if all third world workers enjoyed Nordic-level rights to organize and bargain collectively and strike, the price of their labor would remain orders of magnitude cheaper than their counterparts in the lightly populated developed countries for the foreseeable future.

As a result, without much more fundamental trade policy changes, wage and pricing pressure would continue to disadvantage domestic American companies and their workers, and global economic imbalances would keep growing.The labor-standards approach is impossible to implement as well.

How, for instance, could these provisions possibly be enforced? How many zillion American officials would need to be dispatched to China and India and Vietnam and Pakistan and Bangladesh and Indonesia and Brazil and Mexico and scores of other countries to inspect how many zillion factories? How many more bureaucrats would have to read their reports, and catalogue and process violations, and litigate or arbitrate disputes and appeals?

Moreover, achieving these goals in the United States – a large but reasonably orderly country – has been difficult enough for Washington. How can it be feasible in the generally chaotic environments of developing countries? These problems, moreover, would be insuperable no matter what particular set of labor standards is used for trade agreements – ostensibly a major bone of contention between House Democrats and the administration at this point.

A House Democratic caucus genuinely determined to improve U.S. trade policy would understand that candor and realism are the best guides to action. The candor entails declaring front and center that:– The well-being of the United States, its citizens, and its producers – not foreign workers – is the paramount priority of American trade policy. A failure to bring global trade flows into sustainable balance soon increasingly risks economic disaster for rich and poor countries alike in the form of a crisis triggered by China and others bailing out of their dollar holdings.

The United States simply cannot bear much longer its current and unmanageable burden of global importer of last resort.– And the pace of economic progress in the developing world will need to proceed more slowly as the United States revamps its trade policies – unless these countries can adopt growth models that involve increasing domestic demand, or Japan and Europe start absorbing many more third world imports. The realism entails acknowledging that:– The United States will almost surely need to act unilaterally to safeguard its interests and re-stabilize the world economy – if only to kick-start meaningful multilateral cooperation; – Limiting foreign access to America’s own market is an inescapable part of the solution.

Such limits will be much easier to develop and implement than embarking on social engineering projects in – and requiring the cooperation of – the vast developing world; and – Time and energy should not be squandered devising – and certainly not negotiating – elaborate, legalistic criteria for imposing limits on trade. The United States must act quickly and forthrightly to protect its own interests.The Bush administration has proven that it is incapable of providing the necessary vision and leadership to ensure that globalization brings benefits to all Americans through higher standards of living.

“A New Trade Policy for America” reveals that the House Democrats have a long way to go as well. But of the two, the Democrats stand a better chance of formulating the policies that will get the country to that point – if they put aside their hobbyhorses and shift their focus to American producers and workers. http://americaneconomicalert.org