Beinart on progressives and the threat of terrorism

U.S. News and World Report has a great interview with New Republic Editor at Large Peter Beinart on Democrats and national security issues. See link http://tinyurl.com/qe2j9 There are two great quotes from Beinart in the article that I think hit the nail on the head.

"The Bush administration has wielded the threat of another (terrorist) attack in such a promiscuous and politically opportunistic way that some liberals have responded by believing the threat is a Republican creation."

"The argument with the left is that it's dangerous to equate American greatness with American purity. If you demand that America be unequivocally virtuous, you create a situation in which America can't act. In the real world of international affairs, you can't maintain complete moral purity in fighting evil."

Sunday's Boston Globe had a very interesting article about divisions among Democrats concerning national security and foreign policy. See link to article athttp://tinyurl.com/my393 It is amazing that only 54 percent of Democrats now support the invasion of Afghanistan. I wonder what the percentages would be for party activists ? We can certainly oppose the war in Iraq and the Republicans cynical manipulation of 9/11 without buying into the absurd notion that Islamic terrorism poses no threat to Americans.

* "MUDCAT" - COMMON SENSE POLITICAL ADVISER TO DEMOCRATS

"Mudcat" sounds like a rather primitive nickname but Dave Saunders, a good ole boy from rural Virginia, offers some sound advice to prominent Democrats on how to build a Democratic majority. Saunders offers a refreshing perspective to the Democratic Party on how to reach out to the South and Middle America. Here are some excerpts from an article from the UK Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ about "Mudcat" and his political strategies for winning over Red America.

"A gun-loving, stock-car racing-mad country boy, Dave 'Mudcat' Saunders has to be America's most improbable Democratic consultant. In Washington, interns can be seen flicking through his new book Foxes in the Henhouse - How the Republicans stole the south and the heartland and what the Democrats must do to run 'em out."

"Three weeks ago the Democrats' leader in the senate, Harry Reid, summoned him to a secret meeting of the party's senators, in Philadelphia, to tell them what they needed to do."I chastened them a little," he said. "I spoke for an hour and a quarter and I told them in plain English what was wrong. They think in New England that we [rural Americans] in the South sit around and say how much we hate gays and discuss who we can go and lynch."

"Mudcat helped to secure a remarkable victory for a Democrat, Mark Warner, as the last governor of Virgina, a very conservative state, by touting him at bluegrass festivals and stock-car races. Now he wants to repeat that on a national level."

"He has a simple message to the Democrats to take on the Republicans on their own turf: "No one is going to outgun and outpray us."

Mudcat's political advice sounds like common sense to me, but that is something often in short supply in Washington among both parties.

* HOW TO HELP MEXICANS WITHOUT HURTING POOR AMERICANS

David Kohlhoff makes some excellent points on the Blue Dog Blog http://www.bluedogdemocrat.org/blog about how to help our neighbors in Mexico without harming poor Americans. The idea of a Marshall Plan for Mexico certainly has merit. There is no question that the Mexican people are in a desperate situation. A survey of Mexican adults conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center indicated that forty percent of Mexican adults would like to immigrate to the United States. The desire to leave Mexico is high even among the more educated and skilled citizenry. Half of Mexicans with a high school diploma want to cross the border and one third of college graduates would like to move north.

I think that David is right that something must be done to improve the situation in Mexico without opening the border and hurting our own poorest citizens. We certainly cannot absorb huge numbers of unskilled workers and while the U.S. would likely benefit from an influx of educated and skilled Mexicans - it would also harm Mexico by drawing away some of their brightest citizens. Of course, pressure needs to be placed on Mexico to adopt measures to reduce corruption, drug trafficking and bring more professionalism to their legal system.

I am not sure if the Chilean model for economic reform that David suggests is the answer. It is my understanding that Mexico like many of the other Latin American countries have cumbersome regulatory procedures that discourage the opening of new businesses. That should be changed but I would hate to see Mexico adopt the same sort of extreme free market economic policies that have brought greater job insecurity and income inequality to the United States. Chile has actually taken the free market policies a step farther than the U.S.in privatizing their equivalent of Social Security. The Chilean pension privatization has been a tremendous windfall for the pension plan companies but with certainly mixed results for their nation's retirees.

A better role model for Mexico might be Costa Rica which despite some recent political scandals has a long history of stable democracy. Costa Rica also has low unemployment and a strong safety net.

One of the best ways to help Mexico would be to change our trade policies and buy more stuff made by our neighbors south of the border and less from China. We have a much larger trade deficit with China than with Mexico. I was opposed to NAFTA and believe that our nation needs to maintain its manufacturing capacity, but if we are going to import cheap goods let's do business with our neighbors rather than our potential adversaries in totalitarian China. In the 90's,the Clinton Adminstration and the Republican Congress were so eager for global free trade that they signed GAAT opening the door wide open to Chinese goods and hurting Mexico after only a few years of NAFTA. Thanks to our government's foolish decision to rush into GAAT, factories were closed in Mexico and moved to China.

I despise "free trade" policies, but given the public and business demand for cheap goods - our trade practices would be make more sense if we emphasized regional rather than global trading partnerships. It is better that we give our dollars to Mexico than to China. Certainly our trade policies should be modified in a manner that will put pressure on our trading partners to gradually improve their labor and environmental standards. Expanding collective bargaining and requiring companies to pay a living wage in Mexico would help to broaden prosperity.

* BAYH CALLS FOR BALANCED APPROACH ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN) has called for a balanced approach on national security and civil liberties. the May 19 edition to the Des Moines Register reported:

"We've got to do two things here," the Indiana Democrat said during an interview in Des Moines. "We have to do what we need to do to protect our country. Lives are at stake. But we have to do that in a way that protects our civil liberties,and I've seen nothing that tells me we have to choose one or the other. I think we can do both."

"We have to prove that we can be good stewards of our national security, because if people don't first trust us with their lives, they're not going to trust us with anything else."

"Bayh said an independent federal judge should be allowed to monitor the government's wiretapping programs so terrorists can be identified."

"It's important to be able to do that," he said, referring to wiretapping. Without oversight, however, "too many Americans are going to think that J. Edgar Hoover has come back to life and is rummaging through their private communications, and that's not right." See full article at http://tinyurl.com/fgybr

Evan Bayh sounds like the kind of Democrat who can give our party a strong voice on national security issues. No thinking American wants to surrender our liberties and at the same time, we need to be vigilant about the threat of terrorism. Senator Bayh seems to have found the right balance on this critical matter.

* FLORIDA DEMOCRAT BACKS OFFICIAL ENGLISH

Congratulations to Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) along with nine other Senate Democrats for voting to make English our national language despite tremendous pressures to do otherwise. And shame on our Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid for labeling the official English movement as "racist." Reid's comments show just how out of touch our Democratic Party leaders can be with mainstream American views. 84% of the American public including 77% of Hispanics favor English as the official language according to a 2006 Zogby poll. In the same poll, 92 % of Republicans, 82% of Democrats and 77% of Independent voters favored official English. There is certainly nothing wrong with learning and speaking other languages, but strong nations are united by a common language.

* SIROTA ON WHAT DEFINES A DEMOCRAT

I am not a big fan of David Sirota, but agree with him that our party should return to being a voice for working families rather than being defined solely by social issues. The quotes below are from an article in Sunday's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

"The Democrats may win the November election. They might even take back the White House in 2008. But unless Democtic officeholders shuck their reliance on corporate cash and return to fighting for working families, says David Sirota, his party will be better off losing."
"There is always going to be a big-business party in this country. There always has been," says Sirota. "But we have had equilibrium in the past because there has always been a party of the little guy."

"Then, he says, "big business realized the way to really maximize its agenda was to water down and weaken the counterweight."

"Ultimately, what remains to distinguish Democrats from Republicans is not a commitment to the little guy, but positions on abortion, gun control, gay rights and other social issues."

"There is a very rational decision by many people to prioritize cultural issues when they go to the ballot box because they think both parties fail to represent them on economic issues," says Sirota. "And so they vote for the person who more culturally fits what they believe."

"Sirota doesn't think Democrats should abandon their historic commitment to social causes, but he wants them to raise economic issues back to an equal plane. Pro-lifers will get hissed and shunned at party meetings and conventions, he points out, while big-business Democrats shipping jobs overseas get welcomed."

"It is a matter of emphasis. What do you emphasize with your orthodoxy?" he says. "It doesn't make sense for it to be OK to sell out people economically - as long as you are pro-choice." Link to full article at http://tinyurl.com/mn7e4

What Sirotra says is true, in fact, many of the "rich,white and secular" social liberal activists in today's Democratic Party have rather anti-populist views on economics. If born twenty years earlier, many of today's social liberal Democrats would have been Rockefeller Republicans. The social issues have come to define both parties which is why so many working and lower middle class Americans vote against their own economic interests.

Washington Post:GOP is not law-and-order party on illegal immigration

Today's Washington Post cites a report by the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way concerning illegal immigration. A newly released Third Way clearly demonstrates that the Bush Administration has no intention of actively enforcing our immigration laws, but rather is more interested in assuring that big business interests continue to have a flow of cheap labor. See full Post article at: http://tinyurl.com/j6ero

"The report shows that the administration, despite their tough talk, is failing at border security and enforcing the employer sanctions provision," New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said. "It makes them vulnerable in what is their biggest and strongest argument -- that they are enforcing the law against illegal workers and are effective on border security."

"According to the report, federal data show that the number of agents more than doubled between 1995 and 2005, but that border apprehensions have fallen about 31 percent. From fiscal 1996 to fiscal 2000, apprehensions averaged 1.52 million a year. The number fell to an average of 1.05 million from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2004."

"Away from the border, a similar pattern has occurred, with apprehensions falling an estimated 36 percent. 'This decline trend and low overall total suggests that illegal immigrants who escape beyond the border are more or less here to stay if they choose,' according to the report.

A third count in the Third Way indictment charges that the administration has been lax in punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants. 'Either the administration has no interest in enforcing the law, or there's a wink' at employers who hire illegal immigrants, Richardson said.

* HOWARD DEAN SAYS DEMOCRATS FAVOR "ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN" MARRIAGE

The Kansas City Star today reported that Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has been responding to attacks from gay activists and left-leaning bloggers for statements last week on the Christian Broadcasting Network about gay marriage. http://tinyurl.com/z3h3h According to the Star, Dean told CBN that the Democratic Party platform affirms marriage as between "a man and a woman."

"Dean acknowledged he was wrong about the party’s platform about gay marriage. Trying to reach out to evangelicals, he said the Democratic platform specifically said that 'marriage is between a man and a woman' But the platform does not define marriage this way."

"Dean: 'I misstated the Democratic Party’s platform, which does not say that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, but says the party is committed to full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and leaves the issue to the states to decide."

Well, most of us in the Democratic Party and I think a majority of Americans favor equal protection for gays and lesbians in employment and housing. We condemn violence against gays and lesbians and might favor local domestic partnership registrations which already exist in a number of major cities and urban counties.

The reality is though that the vast majority of Americans and I suspect a majority of rank and file Democrats believe that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. Even Howard Dean just stated last week that "one man and one woman" marriage is the position of the Democratic Party.

Gay marriage is a divisive issue and perceptions that Democrats favor it threaten our ability to appeal to mainstream America. Our party should give a fair hearing to gay and lesbian concerns, but we also need to be inclusive of socially traditionalist and religious voters as well. If Howard Dean says that the Democratic Party affirms traditional marriage in our platform, why not make it so ?

Abolishing DOD: A radical idea that makes sense

Freedom Democrats http://freedomdemocrats.com/ called my attention to a creative post from the Daily Kos. I often disagree with the very left-leaning types at the Daily Kos, but one of their contributors has come up with a radical idea that makes sense. Why not abolish the Department of Defense ? It would be one way to get rid of Donald Rumsfeld and the Kos columnist gives some great suggestions as to how a more efficient structure might be organized. We simply don't need a vast civilian bureaucracy at the Pentagon. While the military must continue to be headed by a civilian commander, our men and women in uniform can best carry out the functions of our national defense. See link to the Kos column at http://tinyurl.com/kfm8p

"First, anyone who is wearing a uniform is transferred to the new Department of Uniformed Services. This means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, etc. This department fights battles. Period. It should be headed by a military group like the Joint Chiefs. If you don't wear a uniform, you don't work in this department. There would be a civilian top-level directorate as now."

"Second, there is all the indirect work done using DoD contracts. This includes procurement, weapons R&D and allied development work. Things like the Army Corp of Engineers and similar non-military functions should be transferred to another department such as Homeland Security or Interior. Perhaps if there is enough engineering and infrastructure work spread throughout the government we should have a dedicated civil engineering department. FEMA might also be put into this organization. This department could be called something like Military Support Services."

"Third, intelligence gathering and analysis not related to battlefield activity should be consolidated into a single department. This includes most of the present pentagon intelligence operations, the CIA and the NSA, and, perhaps, parts of the FBI. Clandestine operations of a non-intelligence operation should be removed from the CIA and into Uniformed Services. Spy agencies are not supposed to be overthrowing governments or trying to assassinate foreign nationals. This would be the Department of Intelligence Services."

"Dividing things this way would improve things in several respects. Weapons procurement and R&D would be evaluated by Support Services, an independent group. This would eliminate inter-branch rivalry. Pulling strings within DoD would not get your pet weapons system approved, for example. Similar efficiencies would arise from the ability of all intelligence services being organized by mission rather than which branch of the military they support. Having each department with its own cabinet member and dedicated congressional oversight committees would also prevent the type of funds shifting which goes on now."

"There is also no reason to keep the size (and many of the details) of the Intelligence Services' budget secret. Knowing how big it is does not impair security, but does give the civilian overseers and the voting public the ability to evaluate the cost/benefit of the department. Turf wars like those going on now between the CIA and DoD would be eliminated as well. Even conservative supporters of a big military should be in favor of streamlining "bloated" government bureaucracies."

As a "Scoop Jackson Democrat," I have long advocated a strong defense and a hard-line approach to matters of national security. Getting rid of the wasteful DoD and empowering our military to protect America is a common sense idea that deserves serious consideration.

* WHY DEMOCRATS MUST TAKE THE LEAD ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Writing in Real Clear Politics, Tom Bevan makes a strong case that Democratic center must reassert itself and our party must take a tough stand on national security matters to prevail at the polls. See link to full column at http://tinyurl.com/pvr43 Bevans quotes from Senator Evan Bayh who recently gave a great speech to the National Press Club on the need for Democrats to respond effectively to the challenge of militant Islam just as FDR, Truman and JFK stood against the threats of fascism and communism.

Here is an excerpt from Bevan's column:

"Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, both DLC centrists and possible 2008 presidential candidates, spoke at the event (a National Press Club forum to publicize a new book by Democratic defense and foreign policy experts) on Tuesday. While the two offered plenty of sharp criticism of the Bush administration's foreign policy, their message to the party could not have been clearer: Democrats must reclaim the aggressive foreign policy heritage of FDR, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy if they want to reclaim power." Bayh told the group:

"If you ask me why we lost the last presidential election, I'd say more than anything else, it was because of our perceived problems with national security, broadly defined, and the war on terror, more specifically. We still have a hurdle to cross with the American people in convincing them that we can be both tough and smart when it comes to securing America.
And we're not going to be able to have a dialogue with the American people on all the other issues that we do so well on -- health care, education, the environment, jobs. They're not going to trust us on those things if they don't first trust us with their lives."

"This is, of course, what the centrists have been saying for some time. In December 2004 Peter Beinart wrote an article in The New Republic entitled "The Fighting Faith" arguing that liberalism had failed to be fundamentally reshaped by the attacks of September 11. Beinart wrote that while Democrats were still energized by traditional domestic issues like healthcare, the environment and gay rights, he could find "little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda." Beinart eventually signed on to expand the centrist thesis of his essay into a book that will hit the shelves next month The Good Fight : Why Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again."

"With the next presidential election more than two years away, it's far too early to tell which side will prevail. It's going to be a long, important fight with some very serious potential consequences. For the moment, at least, the centrists have fought back and taken the offensive. Time will tell if they can hold on to it." http://realclearpolitics.com

Democrats need to follow the example of FDR, Truman and JFK and take the lead in the war on terrorism. The Republicans have shown that they lack a real concern for protecting our national security interests and it would be a disaster for the Democrats to follow the path of the Moveonner Left toward pacifism and isolationism.

* THE "FAIR TAX" AND "JUST GIVE THEM MONEY" !

Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) is not only attempting a political comeback 25 years after leaving public life but aiming for the White House. Gravel is the first major Democratic figure to come out in favor of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax promoted as the "fair tax." Gravel is the most prominent although certainly not the only Democrat to endorse such a plan which has been embraced by many conservative Republicans, the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian-oriented Freedom Democrats.

In my view, progressive income taxes are more fair than relying on sales and property taxes for all government revenue. If the "fair tax" were enacted, we would either end up slashing the federal budget to the point of eliminating basic functions of government or greatly raising the price of goods through very high sales taxes. Even if food, medicine and inexpensive items of clothing could be exempted from the "fair tax", I think the middle and working class would still end up paying a disappropriate share of taxes as a relatively frugal wealthy person might pay little more than many solidly middle class individuals.

The notion that the IRS could be abolished with the "fair tax" is probably wrong as our state tax agencies are not able to do an effective job of making sure that businesses are paying their state sales taxes. In my home state of Florida, our Republican Governor and Legislature have sharply reduced the number of state tax agents. This situation has basically giving a free pass to unethical businesses that might be tempted to pocket sales tax receipts and depend on the voluntarily compliance of major companies. Some kind of federal tax agency would still be needed to properly monitor the payment of sales taxes by businesses engaged in interstate commerce and to investigate as tax fraud involving multiple states.

Furthermore, progressive taxation encourages wealthy individuals to give generously to charities in order to get tax breaks. If we ever go to a purely sales tax based system or a flat tax with no deductions, the amount of money given to private charities will probably drop sharply. Social service agencies, relief organizations, arts and cultural activities will be eliminated or be scaled back considerably. And I suspect there is a hidden secularist, anti-religion agenda behind the "fair tax" as it will sharply reduce the amount of contributions going to churches, synagogues and other religious organizations.

I agree that something needs to done to increase the savings rate and reduce mindless consumption but the "fair tax" is not the solution.

Interestingly, another idea advanced back in the early 70's by then Senator Gravel - a guaranteed annual income for all Americans is coming to the forefront again. Mark Satin of the Radical Middle Newsletter is promoting the concept of replacing all entitlement programs with a single annual cash payment of ten thousand dollars to every American. See http://tinyurl.com/zdqej I'm not sure this idea would work, but it is an interesting concept. I have generally favored an approach to poverty that is a mix of the Daddy State and Nanny State mindset that balances a willingness to help the poor with a certain amount of tough love for those who abuse the system. The Rich Uncle State approach doesn't work and the Absent Parent State is just too anti-humanitarian in my view.

Another idea along similar lines is a proposal by Congressman Harold Ford to establish a savings account at birth for every child. See link http://tinyurl.com/gwcp5 Ford's idea could be an effective weapon to reduce poverty and also improve the savings rate among Americans.

* THOUGHTS ON DEMOCRATIC MISALLIANCES

Dissent, a left-leaning journal of opinion, recently posted a though provoking
article "Democratic Misalliances" by Benjamin Ross from Spring 2003 to their online archives http://tinyurl.com/z2rdu While the essay is now almost three years old, it is still quite timely. I think that Ross makes an excellent point that elitists within the Democratic Party from the 70's McGovernites to New Democrats and in my view - now the Moveonner Left have captured the party and moved it away from the traditions of representing working families.

Although I like some of the DLC's positions on things like national security and charter schools, but don't care for much of their economic agenda which is simply too free market and big business oriented for my taste. Many of the New Democrats in the 90's held strongly liberal positions issues like gun control and abortion - issues that were important for the McGovernites and the Moveonner Left today. There is common ground with the McGovernites in the 70's to the New Democrats of the 90's to the Moveonner Left types of the 21stCentury in terms of their focus on the concerns of upscale and highly educated segments of the population as opposed to the poor, the working class and the lower middle class.

All of these movements assumed that racial minorities would inevitably go along for the ride despite the neglect of working class concerns and values, however, that will not continue indefinitely. At some point, Democrats are going to have to return to a mainstream and working class-oriented populism. The DLC and Moveonner factions in my view are both examples of how our party has gone astray.

Illegal immigration and the cheap labor lobby

Democrats must stand on the side of American workers in dealing with the issue of border security and immigration control. The reality is that illegal immigration hurts workers near the bottom of the wage scale - many of whom happen to be Hispanic or African-American. If the Democratic Party and organized labor will not take a stand on behalf of wage earners, who will ? Too many Democratic leaders like Howard Dean have joined the cheap labor lobby along with big business Republicans like George W. Bush and John McCain. Of course, many misguided progressives, Cato Institute types and the big business sponsored media will attempt to portray critics of illegal immigration as xenophobic and racist. Unable to win on merits on the issue, the apologists for illegal immigration feel that they must resort to smear tactics. The lack of border security and immigration enforcement is a economic and national matter - not a racial or ethnic issue.

Reuben Navarrette pointed out in the San Diego Union-Tribune last year that the great Mexican-American labor leader Cesar Chavez (who founded the United Farm Workers) detested illegal immigration. Navarrette wrote :"Despite the fact that Chavez is these days revered among Mexican-American activists, the labor leader in his day was no more tolerant of illegal immigration than the Arizona Minutemen are now. Worried that the hiring of illegal immigrants drove down wages, Chavez – according to numerous historical accounts – instructed union members to call the Immigration and Naturalization Service to report the presence of illegal immigrants in the fields and demand that the agency deport them. UFW officials were even known to picket INS offices to demand a crackdown on illegal immigrants." http://tinyurl.com/qxku8

Many of us who are old enough to recall watching the 1976 Democratic Convention remember a inspiring and eloquent speech given by the late Barbara Jordan, the first African-American member of Congress from Texas. http://tinyurl.com/hkd2x Not long before her death in 1996, Representative Jordan chaired the Commission on Immigration Reform. Jordan was quoted in 1995 before the committee as stating "Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave." As we consider what to do about the problem of illegal immigration, let's not forget the wisdom of two great Americans who made a positive difference for working Americans - Cesar Chavez and Barbara Jordan.

"The right is right on immigration reform"

Brian and Laurel Hines are progressive bloggers. They look like nice people who would fit in well at Sierra Club picnic. I happened across their latest posting about illegal immigration which makes a strong case that "the right is right on immigration reform." While I object to illegal immigration on the basis of economic and national security reasons rather than environmental concerns, the posting makes a strong and well-reasoned progressive case against illegal immigration. Here is the post from Hines Sight http://hinessight.blogs.com

"Strange political days have dawned when I turn on my car radio, hear arch-conservative Michael Savage ranting about how awful it would be to give amnesty to twelve million illegal aliens, and say to myself, Right on, Michael!"

"Like I’ve said before, the right is right on immigration reform. And by “right,” I mean the rightest of the right. Not the Arlen Specter sort of Senate moderates, but the fire breathing House Republicans like Dana Rohrabacher who said people should be able to 'smell the foul odor that’s coming out of the U.S. Senate."

"It is indeed foul when Democrats abandon their historic concern for middle class working people and align themselves with business interests eager to continue paying sweatshop wages to illegal aliens rather than hire Americans at whatever salary an illegal-less workforce would demand."

"When George Bush and Howard Dean are on the same page, you know that someone powerful is running the political printing press. And that is: corporations.

Having already outsourced millions of middle class jobs overseas in a quest to fatten their bottom line, corporations are dead set on continuing to insource a limitless supply of foreign workers willing to work for less than American citizens would demand."

It’s disgusting that the Dems and moderate Republicans have sold out to political pollsters who lust after the steadily growing Hispanic voting bloc. It’s rare that I’ll say anything good about right-wing Republicans, but on this issue they’re standing firm on principles that deserve to be defended. Like…

--You don’t reward sneaking across the border illegally with amnesty and American citizenship.

--You don’t undercut minimum wage laws and normal workforce supply and demand by artificially inflating the supply of foreign workers willing to work for a pittance.

--You don’t encourage an influx of more illegal aliens by saying, in effect: “We didn’t really mean to enforce our old laws, so you can assume that we won’t bother to enforce this new law either.”

Plus, I’m an avid environmentalist. If you read the cover story of TIME this week, you’ll know that global warming is here. It’s real, it means business, and it’s no joke. The United States has the biggest ecological footprint of any country on the planet. Meaning, on average each American screws up the Earth environmentally much more than a person elsewhere does.
To save the Earth, we don’t need more wasteful Americans. We need fewer. Or at least, the fewer the better. Turning twelve million Mexicans into American citizens isn’t a good thing for the planet. If some of them are needed here temporarily, fine. A minimal guest worker program might make sense.

But not wholesale amnesty. Seal up the borders. Enforce our immigration laws. Make businesses pay big-time if they hire illegals.

Progressives, I just ask you to consider this bizarre possibility: sometimes the right is right.
Link to post at Hines Sight http://tinyurl.com/lwomh

Fritz Hollings makes the case for fair trade

For many years, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-SC) was one of my favorite U.S. Senators and would have made a great President. Hollings was a strong and consistent voice in the Senate for a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility and the need to protect the interests of working Americans. Despite his retirement from politics, Hollings is trying to wake up his fellow Americans about the dangers of free trade and the loss of our industrial capacity. Here are a couple of paragraphs from an essay by former Senator Hollings from American Prospect Online about what is needed to make the United States competitive again, protect our manufacturing base and remain a world power.

Hollings writes: "First, we need to stop financing the elimination of jobs. Tax benefits for offshore production must end. Royalty deductions allowed for offshore activities must be eliminated, and offshore tax havens must be closed down. Next, we need an assistant attorney general to enforce our trade laws and agreements. Currently, enforcement is left to the injured party. It takes corporate America years to jump the legal hurdles. At the end, the president, under his authority for the nation’s security, cancels the court order against the trade violation. Rather than waste time and money, corporate America moves offshore. Trade policy is set by a dozen departments and agencies. Policy should be reconstituted in a Department of Trade and Commerce with the secretary acting as a czar. Then trade treaties can be negotiated for the good of the U.S. economy, instead of for the good of the transnational. The department’s International Trade Administration, finding a dumping violation, should also determine the penalty. The International Trade Commission should be eliminated. Custom agents charged with drug enforcement and homeland security are hard-pressed to stop trade transshipments. We need 1,000 more Customs agents. We need more funding for research in physical and mathematical sciences and engineering; more funding for the Manufactures Extension Partnership Act and the Advanced Technology Program. The list of materials critical to our national defense should be enforced. H1-B Visas should be repealed, and the United States should give notice of withdrawal from the World Trade Organization."

"Finally, competition in world trade today is not for profit, but market share. The closed markets of Japan, South Korea, and China enable exports at cost with the necessary profit being made up in the closed domestic market. A Lexus selling for $33,000 in the United States sells for $47,000 in Japan. Corporate America’s rush to produce for profit in China is a losing game for the nation. Countries winning market share will come to control the market, which is happening now with automotive production in the United States. This production capacity furnished the tanks and planes for WWII. Akio Morita, founder of Sony Corporation, admonished Third World countries to develop a manufacturing capacity to become a nation-state. He then cautioned: 'That world power that loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power.' The United States must stop so-called free trade agreements merely to protect offshore production -- and start trading, opening up closed markets, and rebuilding the country."

To read the complete article by Fritz Hollings on American Prospect Online go to http://tinyurl.com/mkxwq Let's hope that the American people will make their voice heard and demand that our spineless leaders take action to protect U.S. jobs and industries.

Harold Meyerson had a thought provoking column in the March 22 edition of the Washington Post which points out some frightening trends http://tinyurl.com/mb3wx In his column, Meyerson cites a Princeton economist Alan Blinder who estimates that outsourcing may cost us 42 to 56 million jobs. Meyerson also points out, "The threat of globalization and the reality of de-unionization have combined to make the raise, for most Americans, a thing of the past. Between 2001 and 2004, median household income inched up by a meager 1.6 percent, even as productivity was expanding at a robust 11.7 percent. The broadly shared prosperity that characterized our economy in the three decades following World War II is now dead as a dodo." If job loss and stagnation continue thanks to the Bush-Clinton free trade policies, populism is going to have more electoral appeal than ever.

New Democrats who are basically Republican-lite on economics are going to be rejected and even a lot of middle class social progressives are going to be worrying less abortion and gay issues and more about matters of personal economic survival. Likewise, a lot of socially conservative middle and working class voters are going to return to their populist traditions and cast ballots more on the basis of economic issues especially if many Democrats are willing to stress economic populism and move center on the social issues. That's why a combination of economic populism and social moderation might be the wave of the future for Democrats.

The party of unlimited government

Michael Hayes, a professor of political science at Colgate University, has another insightful column on Democrats.US http://tinyurl.com/rdazk. Dr. Hayes makes an excellent point that Democrats can and should be the party of government activitism but all too often are seen instead as the party of "unlimited government." With a growing concentration of power in Washington which has taken place under Republican rule, a case can be made that the Republican Party has become "the party of unlimited government." The Bush Administration and the Republican Congressional leadership have certainly lost all credibility on financial matters and Democrats have the opportunity now to emerge as the party of fiscal responsibility. Still, there are lingering perceptions about Democrats and the role of government that need to be addressed if we are to again become the majority party.

Government plays a critical role, however, we need to keep in mind that its powers can be abused and that this important institution exists to serve the public. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi helped to perpetuate stereotypes about our party favoring "unlimited government" when she opposed efforts in Congress to discourage municipalities from using eminent domain to take private homes for economic development following last year's Supreme Court ruling which affirmed such practices. A more appropriate response to the court ruling came from fellow California Democrat Maxine Waters Representative Waters joined in sponsoring legislation to ban federal Community Development Block Grant funds from any city that fails to prohibit such seizures of private homes for private development purposes "It's like undermining motherhood and apple pie," Waters was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle. "I mean, people's homes and their land — it's very important, and it should be protected by government, not taken for somebody else's private use." http://tinyurl.com/et5y7 A knee jerk opposition by Democrats on matters such as experimenting with school vouchers, charter schools or faith based initiatives can leave the impression that we are more focused on catering to narrow constituencies rather than meeting educational challenges or social services needs in a creative manner.

Democrats also must take the lead in reinventing goverment to make it more efficient and customer oriented. For example, there is no reason that government agencies cannot be open more flexible hours to serve the public. One of the 12 points of the U.S. House Blue Dog Coalition is to instill greater accountability in federal agencies. The Blue Dog plan would require agencies to put their fiscal houses in order. According to the non-partisan Government Accounting Office, 16 of 23 major federal agencies cannot issue a simple audit of their books, and the federal government cannot account for $24.5 billion it spent in 2003. The Blue Dogs have proposed a budget freeze for any agency that cannot properly balance its books.I can think of two Democratic leaders from the past who point the way to how Democrats can support activist and efficient government. The late Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, a traditonal New Deal Democrat, often admonished his colleagues that "to be a liberal,” he advised, “one does not have to be a wastrel. We must, in fact, be thrifty if we are to be really humane.” Democrats need to be leading efforts to make government work effectively to provide services and enforce regualtions to protect workers and consumers. During his long Senate career, the late Senator William Proxmire was a strong believer in activist government and yet a zealous opponent of bureaucratic waste. Proxmire introduced the "Golden Fleece" awards which exposed wasteful practices in goverment. Proxmire noted that "highlighting specific, single wasteful expenditures is more effective than simply complaining in a general way about government waste." Given the lack of fiscal responsibility and abuse of power by the Republicans, Democrats have the opportunity to make the case that with proper leadership our government can be more responsive to public needs.


* Catholic Bishops reaffirm opposition to gay marriage

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has reaffirmed their opposition to same sex marriage and civil unions as well as endorsing a constitutional amendment to ban legal recognition of same sex unions. I happen to be a Protestant, but do have a great deal of respect for Catholic social teaching. The Bishop's statement can be viewed at http//tinyurl.com/ny8d confirms that opposition to gay marriage is not limited to evangelical Christians. What I liked especially about the Bishop's resolution was that it did stress the importance of opposing "unjust discrimination, harassment and abuse" against gays and lesbians. We certainly need to protect the basic civil rights of all citizens, however, there are some matters in which we must place the stability of the family unit which is so critical to a stable society first. I would point out that gay marriage is far from the only threat to the traditional family. It would be great to see the Conference of Catholic Bishops and other groups concerned about the family to put far more emphasis on repealing "no fault" divorce laws which have done so much damage to our social fabric in the last thirty years or so.

The reality is that gay unions would further confuse the primary purpose of state recognition of marriage which is to create a stable environment for the rearing of children. Countries like the Netherlands which have approved same sex marriage have increasingly prevalant cohabitation (morality aside - a very bad trend for children) and birth rates at lower levels than needed to replace the current population. One reasonable alternative to gay marriage and civil unions was recently proposed in the Colorado Legislature by Senator Shawn Mitchell. Now let me make it clear that Senator Mitchell is gasp..a Republican who also belongs to the Mormon Chuch (like our own U.S. Senate leader Harry Reid), but I am all in favor of borrowing good ideas regardless of which side of the aisle they come from. SB Bill 166 would establish “reciprocal beneficiary agreements” in Colorado for any adults in the same household not eligible for marriage, including mother-daughter households, grandfather-grandson households, same-sex households, or relatives of any relationship. The agreements could apply to property-sharing rights, decision-making powers over funerals and insurance. Of course, the reciprocal beneficiary agreements proposal is not acceptable to the hard-line social left that wants nothing less than gay marriage or social ultra-conservatives like the Concerned Women for America (see link http://tinyurl.com/hcpv3 ) and the Family Research Institute. All too often the extremists on both sides of the spectrum have a vested interest in perpetuating the culture wars. Democrats need to look for ways to heal the red-blue divisions which isn't be helped by the support of gay marriage by our party leaders in places like New York and California. The last thing that we need is another divisive social issue to further split core Democratic constituencies and alienate swing voters.

* Democrats and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Gun control has been a major stumbling block to Democrats in Middle America. Any Democratic candidate who advocates gun control is going to be shut out of large areas of the South, Great Plains the West and rural areas of even a number of "blue" states. Millions of votes could be placed back into the Democratic or undecided column if progressive activists would just shut up about demanding gun control laws. There is no relationship between gun ownership and violent crime. Even Michael Moore noted in his documentary, "Bowling for Columbine" that Canada has a much higher rate of gun ownership than the United States and yet has a far lower crime rate. The problem of crime and violence is socio-cultural in roots and is certainly not caused by widespread citizen ownership of firearms which often deters criminal activity.

Fortunately, a growing number of Democratic activists and candidates are recognizing that supporting gun rights is good politics and public policy. Amendment II Democrats have launched a national campaign to encourage pro-gun Democratic activists to pass resolutions at the state and local party organization level affirming support of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. See link http://tinyurl.com/zlzeh

Democratic candidates are increasingly seeking and winning the National Rifle Association endorsement. The laterst NRA endorsement went to Capri Cafaro, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Ohio's 13th District. The following is from the Morning Journal (03/18/06).

''I've been a long-time supporter of the Second Amendment and sportsmen's rights,'' said Cafaro. ''There's nothing more American than protecting individuals' freedom.'' Although the NRA has long been seen as a Republican-leaning organization, Cafaro noted that she joins Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Niles, and gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland, D-Lisbon, who also were supported by the NRA.Cafaro said she opposed measures like the federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, and supported carrying concealed weapons laws, such as the law that took effect in Ohio in 2004. She said that ensuring citizens have firearms to protect themselves and keeping guns away from convicted criminals is the key to protecting areas such as Lorain, which suffered a wave of gun-related violence last year.'' "If you're a law-abiding citizen, and you're in a neighborhood that has a history of violent crime, you want the opportunity to defend yourself,'' she said. See link to Morning Journal article at http://tinyurl.com/f2fpv It's time for the Democratic Party to affirm the Second Amendment.

Record trade deficit proves free trade policies have failed

Dchand writes in his post tonight on the Blue Dog Blog
http://www.bluedogdemocrat.org/blog , "free trade is good for everyone, period." Yeah, right. America had a trade deficit of 725.76 billion during 2005 in no small part due to free trade policies.

First of all, let me explain where I am coming from in terms of basic values. Unlike many politically correct Democrats and big business Republicans, I am a nationalist. I regard myself as an American first rather than a "citizen of the world." I can understand why "citizens of the world" especially of the wealthier variety might favor free trade. But I can't fathom how any working or middle class American could support our current trade policies which have led to a loss of jobs and income stagnation for the low and middle end of wage scale in America.

The proponents of free trade always paint a picture that is all or nothing - wide open trade with no protection for critical industries or no international trade whatsoever. This is a false choice. Trade that flows both ways and is reasonably balanced benefits everyone. The reality is that trade agreements which fail to incorporate labor and environmental standards place American workers at a tremdendous competitive disadvantage. Since the U.S. entered into NAFTA, GAAT and the WTO, jobs paying a living wage have been leaving America at a unprecented rate. Of course, we were all supposed to get good paying, high-tech jobs to replace the old manufacturing jobs, but since it has been learned that even the computer jobs can be moved overseas. A lot of the same folks who think free trade is the best thing since sliced bread also love outsourcing which threatens the livelihoods of America's office workers and even skilled professionals.

Our current trade deficit is simply not sustainable. Warren Buffett has called the trade deficit America's greatest economic problem even more critical than the national debt.Buffett has proposed a system of import-export certificates which would bring trade into balance.http://tinyurl.com/m23dg Yes, Buffett's proposal amounts to a tariff and there is absolutely nothing wrong with tariffs. At one time, tariffs were the primary source of revenue for the federal government.

Yes, international trade is desirable but not wide open free trade policies which have created a massive trade deficit. It is critical that America continues to have a steel industry, automobile industry and that we can make our defense components if nothing more than to protect our national security interests. Sure, it's great that Kia is building a plant in Georgia but the jobs created by this Korean company are a drop in the bucket compared to the jobs lost through free trade. And the profits go to back to Korea rather than staying in America.

Americans across the political spectrum are becoming disillusioned with free trade. The DLC favors free trade because their big money contributors want such policies. I like the DLC position on some issues but definitely have to part company with them on the issue of trade.

In my view, it has been a disaster for Democrats to embrace the "Republican lite" free trade agenda. Bill Clinton helped Democrats lose Congress in 1994 by his support of free trade treaties which basically told working class Americans to drop dead. A lot of these voters became aligned with the Republican Party on the basis of social values as they recognized neither party would uphold their economic interests. Democrats need to support fair trade and economic nationalism.