New book says globalization causes inequality, insecurity and wage loss

A new book by economist Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute www.epi.org provides a compelling reason for the Obama administration and Congress to think big about how to reduce economic inequality and insecurity in the years to come: Most working Americans have suffered steady and significant income losses that stem from global integration.

Everybody Wins Except for Most of Us: What Economics Teaches About Globalization finds that trade flows likely cost a full-time U.S. worker earning the median wage $1,400 in 2006. This loss rivals or exceeds what median wage-earners experienced during the recession of the early 2000s. For workers on its losing end, globalization has felt like a chronic (if largely unseen) recession – one that requires a policy response as ambitious as that offered against today's very visible economic downturn.

Bivens shows even as total national income rises due to trade, the majority of workers lose – not just those displaced by imports but also those competing with these laid-off workers for the jobs that remain. Meanwhile, the benefits of trade flow mainly to a small number of employees and managers whose capital, skills and credentials insulate them from global competition. This redistribution of income is best measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and has contributed to the widening gap between growth in typical workers' wages and national productivity.

In Everybody Wins…, Bivens explains the best-practice techniques that scholarly research has developed to quantify the impact of trade on U.S. wages and then uses them to reach unconventional-sounding but well-documented conclusions about how globalization affects working Americans. Lastly, he translates these research findings into understandable numbers to inform the public debate.

Besides finding that globalization now costs most American workers on the order of $1,400 in annual earnings, Bivens also notes that globalization may well reduce American wages in the future to a much greater degree than experts once thought possible as new technologies make industry that can transfer its output via data lines vulnerable to global competition.

“If the predictions of some very well-credentialed economists about the reach of service-sector offshoring hold true, this could potentially drag on the growth of living standards for a huge number of American workers for decades to come,” Bivens warns.

Bivens, a Ph.D. economist, writes that the basic patterns of these outcomes are predicted by basic economic theory but have been too often ignored in the rush to sign ever more trade agreements. He notes, "The irony is that those worried about what the integration of the rich U.S. economy and a much poorer global economy means for their living standards have a much better grasp of their underlying economics.”
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that researches the impact of economic trends and policies on working people in the United States and around the world. EPI's mission is to inform people and empower them to seek solutions that will ensure broadly shared prosperity and opportunity.

The book's findings indicate that much more needs to be done to cushion the blow of global competition. “To deal with harm as serious and widespread as that imposed by globalization, we need to think much more ambitiously about public policy that re-links aggregate and individual prosperity.” He urges policymakers to “think big,” and to use "all of the levers available to re-link the aggregate and individual prosperity that globalization has helped wedge apart: social insurance, public investment, fairer economic rules, and redistribution through the government budget and tax policy when other measures fail to provide egalitarian outcomes.”

Presented previously in research papers and interviews, Bivens’ analysis has helped shape public debate on the need for policy-makers to insure U.S. workers’ livelihoods in the face of expanded global trade. Among other outlets, his work has been cited by: New York Times columnist and Nobel winner, Paul Krugman; the Times editorial page; the Economist magazine; and three of the most widely read economics bloggers: Brad DeLong, Dani Rodrik, and Mark Thoma.

About the author Bivens joined EPI in 2002. His research concerns the effects of globalization on developed and developing nations, macroeconomics, and social insurance. His writing has appeared in The American Prospect, Challenge Magazine, the Guardian and Worth, as well as in academic journals including the International Review of Applied Economics and the Journal of Economic Issues. He was an editor and contributor to Good Jobs, Bad Jobs, No Jobs: Labor Markets and Informal Work in Egypt, El Salvador, India, Russia and South Africa.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/books_everybody_wins#exec_summary

Saxby Chambliss out of touch on the economy

IAVA - Welcome Back Veterans

EPI: A New Day for U.S. Economic Policy

A statement on the economic implications of Barack Obama's historic election victory, by Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank founded in 1986:

At long last, the center of economic thinking in the United States has shifted, and we can declare with confidence and relief that the conservative era is over. It is now possible to build an economy with widely shared prosperity.

The bundle of approaches favored by supply-siders from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, and embraced by candidate John McCain — featuring tax cuts for corporations and the rich; deregulation of business and financial activity; weak environmental, consumer and workplace protections; and unrestrained globalization — has been soundly rejected by voters, who overwhelmingly identified the economy as their single most important issue.

It is now clear that the failed supply-side, market fundamentalist experiment has wrecked the economy. Misguided monetary policies, deregulation and lax oversight created stock market and housing bubbles that suddenly popped, erasing trillions of dollars in household wealth. Meanwhile, middle class wages and incomes have stagnated, inequality has soared, manufacturing has been put on life support, and millions have been thrown out of work. Voters realized that the policies that led us into the current crisis won't get us out. They want pragmatic government intervention to solve our energy problems, fix the health care system, restore manufacturing competitiveness, obtain more progressive taxation, generate broad-based wage growth, and provide retirement security for working Americans.

Democrats were already aligning their policies to this new reality before the recent financial meltdown made change all the more urgent. This can be seen by comparing the proposals of the leading candidates in the recent Democratic primaries to those offered in 2000 and 2004. All the recent candidates emphasized major public investments in energy efficiency and alternative energy sources (green jobs), and endorsed universal health care proposals relying on a large, public plan (such as Medicare) alongside existing employer-provided plans. They recommended caution in moving ahead with further globalization and endorsed enforceable labor standards as a core element in trade policies. All were vocal in their support for a vibrant labor movement (and thus, the Employee Free Choice Act) and for substantially raising the minimum wage. There was less talk about balancing the budget and more talk about balancing the need for public investment with other fiscal goals.

The fact that the American people are now open to change does not mean that they are no longer skeptical of government intervention. Who would not be skeptical after the last eight years of misguided or incompetent policies, a time when the effect of government intervention was mostly to erode individuals' constitutional rights?

The task ahead is to fashion policies that will improve the economic circumstances of the vast majority, and thereby restore confidence. There is much to overcome. For roughly thirty years, with the exception of the late 1990s expansion, there has been little wage growth for the vast majority and increased economic insecurity, primarily related to health care and retirement security. The last business cycle from 2000 to 2007 failed to generate any growth for middle class working families — on average, they lost over $2,000 a year in inflation-adjusted income. This erosion of earning power happened even as the economy, through its workers, became increasingly productive. In fact, productivity growth — which measures the creation of goods and services per hour worked — has been historically high since 1995, but the fruits of that growth have gone to the already-wealthy. Our economy has been a huge skimming operation for the well-to-do.

On top of these long-term problems, a new recession brought us to 6.1% unemployment in September, even before the global financial meltdown. Now we are looking at several years of high unemployment (peaking at 8% or more) and widespread income losses that will take many more years to overcome.

To address this set of challenges we will need bold — even 'audacious' — policies. We at EPI have compiled an Agenda for Shared Prosperity to get us back on track and an economic recovery package to pull us out of the unfolding recession. The basic capacities of government will need to be rebuilt and policymakers will need to rigorously focus on cost-effective policies. The solutions will need to be ambitious, at the scale of the problems we face, rather than a timid tweaking at the margins.

We certainly can no longer grow based on asset bubbles in housing or in stocks or from increased personal debt: the demand for goods and services from our increased productivity will need to come from consumers who earn family-supporting paychecks. We will need new government spending on infrastructure, education, health care and the safety net, re-regulation of the financial and insurance markets, changes in and enforcement of our labor laws. Above all, we need a guiding philosophy that understands the purpose of government is not to get out of the way, but to help lead the way through difficult times.

Saxby Chambliss: No Friend of America's Veterans

We owe our veterans our freedom, and our respect. Jim Martin knows that. He served with distinction in Vietnam.

But Saxby Chambliss?

He voted against a new GI Bill to help them build a future. Voted twice against giving them more time with their families between tours. Chambliss has voted 23 times against increasing health care funding for veterans, with many of his votes coming after the Scandal at Walter Reed.

Why doesn’t Saxby Chambliss understand?

Maybe it’s because he got elected by attacking a veteran in a campaign John McCain called “disgraceful” and “reprehensible”.

Maybe it’s because he never served, taking five deferments from Vietnam.

Saxby Chambliss, what could be more important than our veterans?

BACKGROUND:

John McCain criticized Chambliss’ 2002 race against Max Cleland.

"I've never seen anything like that ad," says McCain. "Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible."" (Washington Post, 7/3/2003)

Chambliss Voted Against the New GI Bill for Veterans of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Chambliss Voted Against the New GI Bill for Veterans of the Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan. According to the IAVA, Saxby Chambliss voted against the new GI Bill for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. (The Post-9/11 GI Bill: Fair Education Benefits for Veterans second vote.) The emergency supplemental funding for the Iraq War, to which the GI Bill was attached, bounced from the House to the Senate twice while legislators ironed out differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation. In the second round of emergency supplemental voting on the Senate side, a new “transferability” provision had been added to the GI Bill at the behest of the Bush Administration. The new provision offers current service members who agree to remain in the military for ten years the opportunity to transfer their GI Bill benefit to their spouse or children. In a procedural vote to waive a Senate budgetary rule and bring the supplemental with the GI Bill to the floor, the GI Bill advanced by a margin of 77-21. For more information about this legislation, please see House votes 330 and 432 in the House Vote Descriptions, and Senate votes 137 and 162 in this section. [ http://www.iava.org; Senate Vote #161, 6/26/08; http://www.veteranreportcard.org/reportcard.pdf]

Chambliss Has Voted Against Veterans Programs at Least 23 Times Since Joining the Senate

Chambliss Has Opposed Vets’ Program Funding At Least 23 Times in the Senate Alone. Since joining the Senate in 2003, Chambliss has voted against increased funding for veterans’ health care programs at least 23 times. [Vote 161, 6/26/08; Vote 114, 3/23/07 ; Vote 172, 5/17/07; Vote 222, 8/2/06; Vote 67, 3/16/06; Vote 63, 3/16/06; Vote 41, 3/14/06; Vote 15, 2/13/06; Vote 7, 2/2/06; Vote 343, 11/17/05; Vote 251, 10/5/05; Vote 114, 4/28/05; Vote 89, 4/12/05; Vote 90, 4/12/05; Vote 55, 3/16/05; Vote 145, 6/23/04; Vote 48, 3/11/04; Vote 40, 3/10/04; Vote 34, 3/9/04; Vote 379, 10/14/03; Vote 83, 3/25/03; Vote 81, 3/25/03; Vote 74, 3/21/03]
Chambliss Voted Against Additional Funding to Research Traumatic Brain Injury—thee “Signature Wound” of the Iraq War.

Chambliss Opposed Additional Funding for Traumatic Brain Injury Research—A “Signature Wound” of the War in Iraq. According to the IAVA, Saxby Chambliss voted against additional funding for research of Traumatic Brain Injury. “Senators who voted FOR this motion were voting AGAINST increasing funding for Traumatic Brain Injury research by $2 million. IAVA Action Fund opposed this motion. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) has become the signature wound of the Iraq war. In a spending bill appropriating more than $400 billion, in a war that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and counting, it is unconscionable that Congress can’t find an extra $2 million to treat an injury affecting more than 100,000 American Troops. Despite a clear need for greater funding for TBI research, this motion passed. [http://www.iava.org; 109 th Congress; Senate vote #222; 8/2/06]
Chambliss Opposed the Webb Amendment Guaranteeing Troops Time At Home Between Deployments

Chambliss Twice Opposed Guaranteeing Troops Time At Home Between Deployments. In 2007, Chambliss twice voted against the Webb dwell time amendment. The amendment guaranteed active duty forces as much time at home as they served while deployed. Further, it guaranteed National Guard and reservists three years at home between deployments. [CQ Bill Summary; Vote 241, 7/11/07; Vote 341, 9/19/07]
Chambliss Said Troops Don’t Need Rest Because In WWII They Didn’t Come Home For Years – Call’s Webb’s Proposal Out Of Touch With History. Chambliss said, “During World War II and other wars of this country, service members participating in those wars deployed for 3 and 4 years with little or no break. With this in mind the current proposal by Senator Webb seems out of step with history and what it has taken to win the wars of this country. I can think of no way in which the Webb amendment will help our Nation succeed in Iraq.” [Congressional Record, Pages S8974-S8975, 7/11/07]
Chambliss: Military Shouldn’t Worry About How Long Units Are At Home When Deciding Who To Redeploy. One reason Chambliss gave for objecting to Webb’s dwell time amendment was, “Units would need to be selected for deployment based on dwell criteria that may in fact cause significant disruption to needed reset, planned transformation or unit training schedules.” [Congressional Record, Pages S8974-S8975, 7/11/07]
Chambliss: “This Is A Long And Enduring War.” [Congressional Record, Pages S11712- S11713, 9/19/07]
Chambliss: War’s Going Too Good To Let Troops Have Time With Their Families. “What I heard from those men who are the leaders from a diplomatic standpoint as well as from the military standpoint is we are seeing great progress made on the ground by our military that is unlike any progress we have seen during the last 4\1/2\ years. That is significant. If you are not impressed by that, then you simply did not hear what they had to say. So I think now to say to them: Well, we appreciate the great job you have done leading our troops, but we are going to take the decision-making process out of your hands, and we are now going to decide how the war is going to be prosecuted, that, I think would be a huge mistake.” [Congressional Record, Pages S11712- S11713, 9/19/07]
Chambliss Repeatedly Voted Against Additional Funding to Give the Men & Women in Uniform the Armor and Equipment They Need

Chambliss Twice Voted Against Funding for Armored Vehicles. In October 2005, Chambliss joined the majority of his Republican colleagues and voted against an amendment to the Defense Appropriations for $360.8 million to provide armored vehicles to American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. In April 2005, Chambliss voted against an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy which would provide an addition $213 million to ensure that Humvee production remained at its maximum level through the fiscal year. [Vote 248, 10/5/05; Vote 108, 4/21/05]
Chambliss Opposed Funding For Equipment And Armor For Troops. In 2003, Chambliss voted against providing an additional $322 million for safety equipment, including body armor, to troops in Iraq. Earlier that year, Chambliss voted against providing an additional $1.047 billion for procurement of National Guard and Reserve equipment. According to Mary Landrieu, the bill’s sponsor, much of the money would have been used for protective gear for Guard and Reserve troops. [Vote 376, 10/2/03; Vote 116, 4/2/03]
Chambliss Voted Against $50 Million to Repair Military Equipment. In 2006, Chambliss voted against instructing conferees on the tax reconciliation bill to including funding to strengthen the military instead of extending capital gains and dividends tax cuts for the wealthy. Sen. Reed, who sponsored the motion, asked that $50 million be spent to repair military equipment, arguing, “Because they depend upon this equipment for their lives, we can’t tolerate equipment that won’t operate properly.” [Vote 18, 2/14/06; Congressional Record, 2/13/06]
Chambliss Voted Against Funding for Military Equipment Repairs. In 2006, Chambliss voted to kill a proposal to provide $44 billion to improve and repair military equipment. According to sponsor Sen. Jack Reed, “$47 billion worth of equipment which they have used in Iraq and Afghanistan needs to be repaired and reconditioned.” The funding would have been offset by repealing capital gains and dividends tax cuts, while extending protections for middle-class taxpayers. [Vote 8, 2/2/06; Congressional Record, 2/2/06]

Chambliss Voted Twice Against Protecting Soldiers’ Salaries When Forced to Take Leave From Work For Iraq Deployment. In 2005, Chambliss tried to kill a proposal to require that federal employees who take a leave without pay to serve as a member of the military or National Guard be reimbursed for the difference between their salary and the pay and allowances they receive while on duty. In 2003, Chambliss helped kill a proposal that would have provided a 50 percent tax credit on the salaries employers pay workers who are in the National Guard or Reserves and have been put on active duty. [Vote 91, 4/13/05; Vote 163, 5/15/03]

Chambliss Voted Against Health Care Funding for Active Duty Military. In 2003, Chambliss rejected an amendment to increase TRICARE funding by $20.3 billion over 10 years to allow more members of the National Guard and Reserves to benefit from the program. [Vote 81, 3/25/03; National Journal’s Congress Daily, 3/27/03]
Chambliss Repeatedly Voted Against Increased Funding for the Men and Women in Uniform in the FY09 Defense Bill

Chambliss Votes Against 2008-09 Defense Authorization Bill. Saxby Chambliss voted against the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2009. [Vote 195, 7/31/08]
Chambliss Voted Against 3.9 Percent Pay Raise for Military Personnel. The bill Chambliss voted against authorizes a 3.9 percent across-the-board pay raise for military personnel. [Senate Armed Services Committee Press Release, 5/1/08]
Chambliss Voted Against Increasing Healthcare for Troops. The bill Chambliss voted against authorizes $26.1 billion for the Defense Health Program, which includes $1.2 billion to reverse the Bush administration’s proposal to raise fees on troops and their families. [Senate Armed Services Committee Press Release, 5/1/08]
Chambliss Voted Against Additional $3 Billion to Protect Troops from IEDs. The bill Chambliss voted against authorizes $3 billion in funding to protect troops in Iraq and Afghanistan from improvised explosive devices, which have killed 1,713 American service members in Iraq. [Senate Armed Services Committee Press Release, 5/1/08; iCasualties, accessed 8/1/08]
Chambliss Has Repeatedly Opposed Efforts to Increase Funding for Veterans Health Care

Chambliss Voted Against Making a Portion of VA Funding Mandatory or Automatic, Like Other Health Related Programs. The VA’s enrolled patient population has grown 134 percent since 1996, while appropriations have risen only one-third as quickly. The Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform, which represents 26 million veterans, supported this amendment because quality health care should be a right for all veterans. (S 2400, Vote #145, 6/23/2004 Failed 49-48; R 3-46; D 45-2; I 1-0)
Chambliss Voted Against Funding for Veterans’ Health Care. Daschle amendment to create a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans’ medical care by $2.7 billion and lower the national debt by reducing the President’s tax breaks for taxpayers with incomes in excess of $1 million a year. (SCR 95, Vote #34, 3/9/2004 Failed 44-53; R 1-50; D 42-3; I 1-0)
Chambliss Voted Against Increasing FY06 Veterans’ Health Care Funding by $2.8 Billion and Reducing the Deficit by $2.8 Billion. Akaka, D-Hawaii, amendment that would increase funding for veterans health care by $2.8 billion for fiscal 2006 and reduce the deficit by $2.8 billion. (SCR 18, Vote #55, 3/16/2005 Failed 47-53; R 2-53; D 44-0; I 1-0)
Chambliss Voted Against $3.5 in Additional Funding for Veterans in the FY08 Budget. Saxby Chambliss voted against both the initial and final versions of the Fiscal Year 2008 budget resolution, which provided for over $3.5 billion more in funding for Veterans than the Bush Administration’s proposal. Bush’s budget called for $39.6 billion in funding compared to the Democratic plan for $43.1 billion. The budget Chambliss opposed included $6.7 billion more for veterans than 2007. [Vote #114, 3/23/07; Vote #172, 5/17/07; Senate Budget Committee, 3/20/07, 5/17/07]
Chambliss Choose Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Over Additional Veterans Spending. In February 2006, Saxby Chambliss voted against an amendment that would have provided at least $19 billion for military and veterans hospitals, to be offset by rolling back tax cuts for millionaires. According to an official from the American Legion, the proposed funding “acknowledges the need for adequate funding to ensure our nation's veterans receive the healthcare and other benefits to which they are entitled.” [Vote #7, 2/2/06; Dodd Floor Speech, 2/2/06]
Chambliss Supported Budget Which American Legion Said “Short-Changed” Vets. In 2005 Chambliss supported the Senate Republicans’ initial FY06 budget resolution which slashed domestic discretionary programs by $204 billion over five years, including significant cuts to veterans’ benefits. Arguing against the budget, the leader of the American Legion said, “ No veteran should be shortchanged by those in Congress with higher national priorities than the ongoing cost of war.” The final version of the budget included $212 billion in cuts to domestic discretionary programs, including veterans’ health care. [Vote #81, 3/17/05; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/1/05; American Legion Press Release, 3/18/05; Vote #114, 4/28/05; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/6/05; Congressional Record, 4/28/05]
Chambliss Has Either Poor or Mediocre Grades from Veterans’ Organizations

Disabled American Veterans
2006
60%

Disabled American Veterans
2005
35%

Disabled American Veterans
2004
0%

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
2006
D-

Vietnam Veterans of America
2006
57%

Vietnam Veterans of America
2005
33%

Vietnam Veterans of America
2004
0%

Vietnam Veterans of America
2003
50%


Chambliss Asked for and Received Five Student Deferments from the Draft

Selective Service Records for Clarence Saxby Chambliss (1961-1967)

11/10/43: Chambliss born in Warrenton, NC

11/10/61: Chambliss turns 18

12/08/61: Classification questionnaire mailed

12/12/61: Questionnaire returned

12/21/61: Chambliss classified 1-A (Available for military service)

01/22/64: Chambliss classified 2-S ( First student deferment)

11/17/64: Chambliss classified 1-A (Available for military service)

01/04/65: Chambliss scheduled for physical that was cancelled

01/26/65: Chambliss classified 2-S ( Second student deferment)

11/17/65: Chambliss classified 2-S ( Third student deferment)

10/10/66: Chambliss classified 2-S ( Fourth student deferment)

10/24/67: Chambliss classified 2-S ( Fifth student deferment)

[Source: United States Selective Service System Records]

Chambliss Claimed a “Bum Knee” Kept Him Out of Draft…

In 2002 Chambliss Said a “Bum Knee” Kept Him Out of Vietnam. “Uh...I was...uh...determined not to be physically fit. I had a bum knee. I had an old football knee that unfortunately they wouldn’t take me.” [Georgia Public Television; GOP Senate Debate, 8/16/02]
…But He Went On to Become the 2 nd Best Golfer in the Senate, 33 rd Best in Washington and Played in the Congressional Baseball Game Year After Year

Chambliss Ranked #2 Golfer in Senate. [Roll Call, “Saxby’s Day Off,” 11/8/05; Golf Digest, October, 2005, http://www.golfdigest.com/rankings/2007/politicalrankings_gd2007]
Chambliss Ranked #33 Golfer in Washington, DC. with Just a 6.8 “Handicap” [Roll Call, “Saxby’s Day Off,” 11/8/05; Golf Digest, October, 2005, http://www.golfdigest.com/rankings/2007/politicalrankings_gd2007]

Chambliss Practiced as an Outfielder for the Republican House Members During the Congressional Baseball Game. “At the sparsely attended Republican practice Thursday…Rep. Jack Fields (Texas) was back at third, and the outfield included Reps. Peter Blute (Mass), Peter Torkildsen (Mass), Saxby Chambliss (Ga), and John McHugh (NY). [Roll Call, “Democrats Stay Upbeat, Republicans Flaunt Largent as Congressional Classic Approaches,” July 24, 1995]

Chambliss Made it to Most of the Practices and May Have Seen Time at the “Hot Corner.” “Saxby Chambliss (Ga); Home: Moultrie; Elected: 1994; Position: Outfield; Bats/Throws: R; Votes: R; Glory days may be here again for freshman Chambliss, who played second base at the University of Georgia for two seasons in the 1960s. Has been to most of the early morning practices and may see some time in the outfield or at the hot corner. Will be wearing an Atlanta Braves number 95 jersey.” [Roll Call, 1995 Congressional Baseball Game Program]

Chambliss Once Again Made the Baseball Roster in 1996. “REPUBLICAN ROSTER: Dan Schaefer – Manager; Joe Barton, Peter Blute, Ed Bryant, Steve Buyer, Saxby Chambliss , Jon Christensen, John Ensign, Jack Fields, Jon Fox, Wally Herger, Ernest Istook, Scott Klug, Steve Largent, John McHugh, Mike Oxley, Richard Pombo, Frank Riggs, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Rick Santorum, Chris Smith, Todd Tiahrt, Peter Torkildsen, Jim Walsh, and J.C. Watts.” [Press release, Office of U.S. Rep. Martin Sabo, “Annual Congressional Baseball Game,” 7/16/96]

Chambliss Considered Another Baseball Game in 2003. “Still, Santorum and Sununu said they are hoping to lure more Senators out to the game, with age not being a factor at all. Sununu said he's lobbying Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) - a former University of Georgia baseball player elected to the Senate last fall after four House terms - to play in this year's game. Informed of Sununu's revelation of the lobbying effort, Chambliss, who turns 60 this fall, said it's very doubtful he'll be playing this year. ‘He's going to have to lobby a lot harder,’ Chambliss said.” [Roll Call, 7/10/04]

Del McCoury Band - Moneyland

Now it’s a pity to see
When the land of the free
Turns out to be
Nothin’ but a free for all

If you got dough
You’re freer than most
Cause your freedom goes up
With the size of your bank roll

You can buy a judge or a bribe
Or a thug or a bomb or a shredding machine
You can buy your way through into
And onto any ticket or TV screen

Chorus
It’s a money disease
It’s a thing called greed
And it feeds on those
Who need the money most
In moneyland
Oh it ain’t so funny
It you ain’t got the money
In moneyland

Now a corporate crime
You just do a little time
Pay a little fine
And then you’re in the clear

Murder and robbery
Cause by snobbery
Doesn’t mean a thing
It just falls on deaf ears

Now money is the thing
We all sweat for
It’s what some dreams
Are made of
But then there’s those
Who want it all
And enough is never enough

Chorus

Oooh money money money
Oooh more more more
Oooh money money money
Oooh more more more

Now a piece of the action
Is the main attraction
Get a big house fast car
Honey you got class

What’ll it get me
How much what’s mine
Are the only questions anybody seems to ask

Now who got beat got fought
Got bled
And who got burned today
Who got fixed got fooled got framed
And who got in the way

Chorus

Jim Martin for U.S. Senate - Saxby economics at the root of crisis

Real Americans on the Need For Health Care Reform

Amendment 47 is Wrong for Colorado

Colorado's "right to work for less" Amendment 47 is a bad idea.

• Unions protect workers' rights and working conditions when unscrupulous business owners won't. For over 125 years in Colorado, through collective bargaining, unions have pushed business back from infringing on workers' rights. Millions of workers have experienced the benefits brought by collective bargaining through unions.

• Amendment 47 is corporate-crafted legislation attempting to destroy and eliminate the union collective bargaining system. It attempts to strip away workers' wages and rights in Colorado, depicting union membership as an infringement upon freedom of choice.

• The sponsors of Amendment 47 are attempting to drive down wages, benefits and working conditions of workers in Colorado. These results have already been seen in other states that have passed similar bills. This legislation fosters wage suppression to create larger profits for rich corporations.

• Amendment 47 is not about workers' rights. It falsely claims to grant a new freedom to workers before being hired. Once hired and without the union, the worker must play by a new set of rules in favor of the corporation and bent against the worker's freedoms.

• Unions are non-profit organizations designed to protect employees. The sponsors of Amendment 47 know that this legislation will drastically alter the funding of unions through membership. Without funding, the union will cease to exist, leaving employers free to cut wages, benefits, and training with no organization to defend the rights of the worker. No non-profit organization can operate without a budget.

Major Central Florida daily endorses Amendment 2

Florida's Marriage Protection Amendment has received the endorsement of a major Central Florida newspaper. In a Sunday editorial, The Winter Haven News-Chief called for passage of Amendment 2:

The "Florida Marriage Protection Amendment" is the only citizen-sponsored amendment on the ballot. The rest were placed by the Legislature and a state tax commission.

The purpose of the amendment is to define marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman. Supporters say that following state supreme court rulings allowing gay marriages in Massachusetts, California and Connecticut, the 1997 Florida Defense of Marriage Act isn't safe from being overturned by the Florida high court. They want the "one man-one woman" definition of marriage embedded in the Florida Constitution, just like 27 other states have done.

Opponents fear the amendment would invalidate domestic partnerships offered by some counties and private companies, but we don't see this provision having that kind of reach.

We support this amendment but also recognize that same-sex partners should have other civil means to enter into agreements covering property sharing and transfer, health and medical matters, insurance benefits and end-of-life decisions.

http://www.newschief.com/article/20081102/NEWS/811020306/1013/OPINION?Title=Vote__Yes__on_all_state_measures

Jerry Springer on C-SPAN - Believe It or Not, Worth Watching !

I am not a big fan of Jerry Springer - the TV talk host - but Springer gives an excellent speech on how to fix what is wrong with America on C-SPAN. Springer presents the best case of progressive ideals that I've heard in a long time. Toward the end of the speech, Springer takes liberals to task for elitism and cautions against making fun of religion and middle America. It's well worth watching.

FDR Tribute

Union Veterans Tell It Like It Is

Ronnie Musgrove Shares Our Values

The Case for Florida Marriage Protection Amendment 2

Saint Leo University's student newspaper The Lion's Pride makes the case for support of Florida's Marriage Protection Amendment 2.

Vote "yes" on Amendment 2

October 24, 2008

BY JOSHUA M. SMITH

Lions’ Pride Online Editor

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. That is what the word “marriage” means. It’s a shame, but, due to the Gay Rights lobby, Floridians now find it necessary to write that definition into law.

Amendment 2, which will appear on the November 4 ballots in Florida, states, “In as much as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

This amendment is not anti-gay. It does not make gays second-class citizens. It merely upholds Florida’s right to define marriage for itself.

Without Amendment 2, Florida finds itself in a position to have to arbitrarily decide whether gay marriage agreements from other states such as Massachusetts and California should be honored by Florida gays who travel to those states and get married under those states’ laws.

Whether one feels that gays should be allowed to marry or not, this issue should not be decided for Florida by the legislature or courts of another state. State sovereignty must be upheld, because allowing one state to set policy and law for another state sets a dangerous precedent for the entire nation.

That is why all Floridians—gay or straight—should vote “yes” on Amendment 2.

A vote of “no” does nothing to advance the cause of gay rights and gay marriage. Under current law, gays are allowed to enter into any legal agreement they wish. Gay couples live together, raise children together, visit each other in the hospital, and receive domestic partner health benefits already without being “married.”

If gay couples already enjoy the same perceived benefits as married couples, what then is the point of working to allow gays to be married?

After following the issue for several years, I have found no satisfactory and reasonable answer to that question. Gays’ desire for the right to marry is often nothing more than a coercive attempt to force society to accept their behavior.

If gays want to live the way they live, why must a heterosexual agree with that lifestyle? Why must a heterosexual society condone and endorse that lifestyle through its laws?

The answer too often is “so gays can feel better about themselves,” which is unfortunate, since gays ought to be deciding the value of their lifestyle on their own terms rather than looking to society to justify it for them.

If gays want to be gay, fine. But, gays shouldn’t expect others to agree with their lifestyle. I like owning a gun, but I do not feel the need to require other people to like the idea of me owning a gun. So long as no one tries to pass a law telling me I do not have the right to own a gun, I am satisfied.

Likewise, gays ought to find satisfaction in the equality they enjoy in America. Gays can do everything heterosexuals can in terms of what really matters: partnership, parenthood, and equal treatment under the law. Anything they choose to agitate for beyond that equality equates to special treatment, which actuality works against their interests by setting them further apart from others.

Florida’s Amendment 2 is a defense of state sovereignty. It is not an attempt to curtail anyone’s rights. As such, every Floridian has a duty to vote “yes” on Amendment 2 in order to stop other states from being able to tell Florida what to do.

If California is allowed to tell Florida what to do on the gay marriage issue, just imagine what other states such as Texas might then be able to tell Florida what to do on issues such as oil drilling. We as Floridians must act now to stop such intrusion into our laws by other states. A vote of “yes” on Amendment 2 is an important first step to that end.

http://pride-online.net/wp/2008/10/24/vote-%E2%80%9Cyes%E2%80%9D-on-amendment-2-pic-more/

Why Obama has pulled ahead on the economic issues

Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research explains why Obama has a solid lead over McCain on pocketbook issues. Voters will simply not tolerate another four years of trickle down economics.

Weisbrot writes:

Senator Barack Obama’s campaign for the White House pulled ahead of his opponent, Senator John McCain, as soon as the current financial crisis hit the headlines. As one of McCain’s top strategists recently blurted out, "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."

There’s a reason for this well-established trend that the Democrats tend to win among those who vote on economic issues. Although both parties are subject to undue influence from powerful corporate interests, the Republicans have been much more consistent in advocating government policies that redistribute income from working and middle-class Americans to the rich. They are also much less friendly to the most important government programs that insure people against economic catastrophe, such as Social Security and Medicare.

These partisan differences are evident in the current presidential campaign. On Social Security, McCain has in the past supported President Bush’s partial privatization plan, which was rightly rejected as an attempt to undermine the nation’s most important anti-poverty program and social safety net. McCain has also undermined Social Security by wildly misrepresenting its financial condition, alleging that the program is “going broke.” (For the record, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, Social Security will pay all promised benefits for the next 40 years without any changes whatsoever. It would need only minor changes, less than those adopted in each of the decades of the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s to remain solvent for 75 years).

Obama rejects privatization of Social Security – as well as Medicare, where the Republicans have increased the role of private insurance companies by giving them wasteful taxpayer subsidies. On health care, one of the most interesting features of Obama’s proposal is the establishment of a public insurance program similar to Medicare, which employers and uninsured individuals could buy into. This would be subsidized and could be an important step towards universal health insurance.

McCain wants people to buy their own private health insurance. He is willing to give them a subsidy from the government, but the $5000 he offers is far less than the $12,500 it costs to insure a typical family. Even worse, he proposes to tax the health insurance benefits provided by employers, which are currently tax-free. This would be a hefty tax increase for tens of millions of working Americans. It also puts at risk the health insurance of many of the 160 million people who depend on employment-based insurance policies.

McCain has also been reluctant to support a fiscal stimulus that will be necessary to limit the size and duration of the current downturn. This could be a costly mistake. As consumers cut back on spending – which is already happening this quarter -- the recession will deepen unless the government is willing to make up for it. Obama has proposed a stimulus package that is too small, but will almost certainly support larger plans that will come from the Democratic Congress.

McCain has proposed yet another cut in the capital gains tax – from 15 percent to 7.5 percent. This would go overwhelmingly to rich people, and would have little or no effect on economic growth. He also wants to make permanent President Bush’s tax cuts for rich households. By contrast, Obama has proposed to cut taxes for everyone earning under $250,000 – about ninety-five percent of taxpayers – and pay for it with an increase on the five percent who make more than that.

With millions of Americans facing foreclosure notices on their homes, insufficient and collapsed retirement savings, rising unemployment, falling real wages, and what is likely the worst recession for at least three decades – it’s getting tougher to distract voters from the most important economic issues that affect their lives. Hence, the Republicans’ bad luck in the polls.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/why-obama-has-pulled-ahead-on-the-economic-issues/

Bob Conley supports core issues of Democratic Party Platform

COLUMBIA, SC October 24, 2008 − Democratic challenger Bob Conley, running for South Carolina’s U.S. Senate seat against incumbent Senator Lindsey Graham (R), is refuting the idea that he is out of step with the Democratic Party.

“I support the Democratic National Committee platform on the key issues that matter most to South Carolinians,” Conley said. “Naturally, I have my own ideas on how best to achieve these goals, but I agree on the fundamentals and the need for change,” said Conley.

Conley pointed to the following areas of concern that he shares with South Carolinians and the Democratic Party:

*Restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington.

*Ensuring that Americans have good jobs with good pay.

*Establishing energy independence and security, and promoting alternative sources.

*Ending the occupation of Iraq.

*Ensuring strong Fair Trade policies.

*Protecting civil liberties.

*Rebuilding our national infrastructure.

*Reasserting regulatory oversight of the financial sector.

*Restoring fairness to our tax code.

*Revitalizing and supporting our military.

*Restoring the readiness of Guard and Reserve.

*Supporting our injured and returning veterans better.

*Working for open, accountable and ethical government.

“Democrats cannot afford to be comfortable with Republican incumbent Lindsey Graham,” said Conley. “Graham is one of the key players in Congress who is taking South Carolina and the nation down the path of economic ruin and global military adventurism, while voting to expand federal power and wrap it in a blanket of secrecy that robs American citizens of their Constitutional rights and liberties,” Conley said.

“I call on all Democrats, Independents, Republicans and others in South Carolina to wholeheartedly support my campaign against Lindsey Graham. We cannot afford another six years of losing jobs in South Carolina to bad trade deals and fiscal incompetence, while ineptly policing the globe and allowing the nation’s infrastructure to rot,” Conley said. “South Carolinians are hurting from the policies Lindsey Graham voted for in the last six years, and he continues to defend those policies. It’s time for South Carolinians to strike a ballot-box blow to end Graham’s political career,” said Conley.

About Bob Conley

Running for U.S. Senate from South Carolina, Bob Conley is a Commercial Pilot and a Flight Instructor as well as a licensed Professional Engineer with degrees in Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering. To learn more about Bob and his positions on the important issues facing South Carolinians, please visit www.BobConleyforSenate.com

John McCain: Economic Disaster

Employee Free Choice Act

Number of U.S. workers with employer-provided health coverage down for the 7th year

The health insurance most Americans receive, employer-sponsored insurance (ESI), has dwindled each year since 2000, according to a report released today by the Economic Policy Institute [www.epi.org]. The Erosion of Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance, by EPI economist Elise Gould, focuses on the decline of ESI coverage - the coverage most Americans receive, as well as the type of coverage that has seen the steepest decline.

About 62.9 % of Americans under the age of 65 were covered by ESI in 2007, over 3 million fewer than in 2000. Having a job does not guarantee ESI coverage. Since 2000, the number of uninsured workers has grown by 4.1 million workers. About 45 million people under 65 are without health insurance coverage.

As unemployment rises across the nation, larger declines in ESI are expected. “The health care problem has reached a critical level,” said Gould. “Bold new solutions need to be considered to address the growing crisis.”

ESI coverage varies between states. For instance, Hawaii, which requires employers to provide health insurance to employees who work 20 hours or more per week, has a high rate of employer-sponsored coverage. Currently, the states with the highest employer-provided coverage rates for those under 65 are New Hampshire (75.4%), Hawaii (72.5%), and Connecticut (72.3%). The lowest coverage rates were found in New Mexico (50.7%), Texas (53.5%), and Mississippi (53.7%). (See Snapshot.) http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20081009

The decline in ESI coverage of children has left over 3.4 million fewer children covered in 2007 than in 2000. Coverage by publicly provided health insurance like Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Coverage Program (SCHIP) has increased to cover the slack.

“It is only the strength of government programs, particularly those aimed at children, that has insulated many from losses in coverage,” said Gould. “The trends indicate a significant shift from private to public coverage, especially among children.”

The erosion of employer-sponsored health insurance: Declines continue for the seventh year running.

http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/223/bp223.pdf

Epoch Times: Potentially Contaminated Products from China flowing into U.S.

The Epoch Times http://en.epochtimes.com reports:

Countries around the world are working to ban the import of melamine-contaminated products from China. But in the U.S., melamine-products and ingredients continue to flow through ports of entry, almost unchecked.

There have been widespread worldwide reports in recent weeks of milk products from China contaminated with melamine. The industrial chemical was also at the core of a series of pet food recalls in 2007. At least four infants in China have died from ingesting melamine-tainted baby formula

"We're very leery of the Chinese food safety system," says Tony Corbo, Legislative Representative for Food and Water Watch. "At best it's weak, at worst it's corrupt. It just reeks with corruption." Food and Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works on food and water safety issues.

Last month, the FDA issued an advisory that there is "no known threat of contamination in infant formula manufactured by companies that have met the requirements to sell such products in the United States." The same advisory warned that infant formula manufactured in China could pose a risk.

Some are not convinced that imports from China are safe for public consumption, though.

"The recent scandal involving contaminated milk products from China clearly demonstrates that significant work remains for China to reform its food safety system," said Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (CT-3) in a statement on Oct. 3.

"While the FDA has said that no contaminated baby formula has been legally imported into the U.S. from China, it is certainly possible that other dairy products including powdered milk and milk protein products have entered the United States, as they have in Europe." DeLauro is Chairwoman of the Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Subcommittee.

Congresswoman DeLauro and Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) sent a letter to the FDA seeking information about the status of ongoing investigations into the safety of products from China. Their letter points to the catastrophic results of delays in reports of contaminated products inside China — 54,000 sickened, 13,000 hospitalized, and at least four dead infants.

"According to the World Health Organization, delays in reporting, including a deliberate failure to report, contributed to the magnitude of the incident," states the letter, which was addressed to Andrew C. von Eschenbach, Commissioner of the FDA.

Corbo says that the FDA has a limited capacity to check imports from over 200 countries, of which China is only one. The risk is that contaminated products are flowing in, undetected, which is the same reason that other countries are stopping the flow of milk products altogether.

"They're finding contaminated milk powder in a bunch of other countries," says Corbo. "It's endless as far as how many things could be contaminated."

U.S. Blue Cat Flavor Drinks, White Rabbit Creamy Candies and Mr. Brown instant coffee and milk tea products were found to contain melamine. Recalls of the products are underway, and according to the FDA no known cases of illness have occurred in the U.S.

Media reports have named at least 41 countries that have imposed restrictions on Chinese products containing dairy items.

At least 25 of these 41 countries have imposed blanket bans on Chinese milk products or its derivatives including: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, France, Gabon, India, Italy, Ivory Coast, Maldives, Mali, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Suriname, Tanzania, Togo, and the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam.

At least 16 countries have imposed specific bans on Chinese dairy products which have tested positive for melamine. They include: Australia, Argentina, Burma, Canada, Chile, Indonesia, Taiwan, Japan, Laos, Macau, Malaysia, Peru, Qatar, United Kingdom, United States, and Yemen.

The FDA is the U.S. government agency responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety of the nation’s food supply. It is responsible for monitoring and inspecting all fish and seafood, grain, produce, and food ingredient imports, amounting to about 80 percent of the nation's imported food. Meat, poultry and eggs are monitored and inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service.

http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/united-states/chinese-tainted-products-in-us1-5332.html

Florida Democratic leaders endorse Amendment 2

MIAMI- -Chairman of the Democratic League of Miami Dade County Dr. Eladio Jose Armesto and Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle were joined by Democrats from across the state to announce their support of Amendment 2 (The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment) at Miami Dade County Hall today.

“I’m proud to stand here today with my fellow Democratic colleagues to let the voters in our state know that there are Democrats from around the state who believe that marriage is, has always been and should remain the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife,” Dr. Armesto said.

On the eve of the Fort Lauderdale city commission taking up the marriage amendment issue for debate and decision, Jim Naugle, who has been the Mayor of Ft. Lauderdale since 1991, is one of many dozens of Florida’s elected officials who support Amendment 2. Ft. Lauderdale’s City Commission has not voted to oppose or support the Amendment to date but the issue will be taken up tonight.

“The greatest thing about being a Floridian is the diversity of our state and the personal beliefs that allow our Democratic process to evolve,” Mayor Naugle said. “While I firmly believe that marriage is solely defined as a matrimonial joining of one man and one woman, some of my colleagues may not share the beliefs of the vast majority of Floridians. However it is my hope that all of our commissioners properly research Amendment 2 before making any hasty decision on whether or not to support or not support the Amendment.”

Democrats around the state are stepping forward to support the common sense goal of Amendment 2, protect the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. An internal review of a sample from the more than a half million petitions collected statewide indicated that more than 33 percent of the petition requests came from registered Democrats. The value of family and the importance of marriage is a bipartisan principle that transcends time and politics.

“Hundreds of thousands of Black American Democrats support this issue. This is a moral issue and a human issue.” said African American Democratic supporter of Say Yes to 2 Brenda Lewis-Williams of Bay County in North Florida.

The most recent poll done by the St. Petersburg Times/Bay News 9 found that 44 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of black poll respondents said they would vote for Amendment 2. The poll which was taken on Sept. 19 was also underwritten by the Miami Herald.

“Our internal polling indicates that Democrats strongly support keeping marriage defined between a man and a woman,” said John Stemberger, State Chairman of the Yes2Marriage.org campaign. “This is an issue that many Democratic families understand and we believe they will support Amendment 2.”

Yes2Marriage.org is the official campaign of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, Amendment 2 which will appear on the general election ballot on Nov. 4.Yes2Marriage.org (formerly Florida4Marriage.org) is a coalition of thousands of families, churches, seniors, organizations, community leaders and elected officials who have come together from around the state to protect the definition of marriage in Florida between one man and one woman.

For more information on Voting Yes on Amendment 2 visit the Democrats for Marriage page at www.Yes2Marriage.org

NO BAILOUT! Without Protection

Populist Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur D-OH explains the rule for playing Wall Street bailout.

Contact your Senators and Representatives and urge them to say no to the bailout.

Dear Senator/Representative,

Please personalize your message

(sample letter)
Congress has no right to give the White House and its Secretary of the Treasury the power to transfer the people's money to the richest bankers in the country. Vote No to the Bailout legislation. The Bailout legislation is being rammed through Congress in a matter of days. This is an illegal power grab by the White House and their richest friends on Wall Street. The Legislation allows the Treasury Department to appoint the same bankers who created the crisis to administer and dictate the use of trillions of our tax dollars. It is also one of the biggest transfers of wealth from working families to the ultra-rich in the history of the United States.

Congress should help families stay in their homes. Wealthy executives should be forced to disgorge their obscene profits, fees and bonuses that made them ultra-rich while they ran the economy into the ground.

http://www.votenobailout.org/

How to Build a Populist Democratic Majority

Check out this 1996 paper from the Social Democrats, USA archives. Twelve years later, this is piece still offers timely advice about how to divide the Republican coalition and build a new populist Democratic majority.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010411072250/www.socialdemocrats.org/miller.html

Splitting the Republican Coalition

Irving Kristol is a leading spokesman among neoconservatives. He co-edits the Public Interest, a journal that is often an excellent source on political and economic matters. Kristol did a piece for the Wall Street Journal in June called "Times of Transformation." In it he delivers a seminal analysis of the current political scene. The article, although not so intended, suggests a winning strategy for Democrats.

Kristol points out that the conservative revolution in the Republican Party occurred in 1964 when Rockefeller lost the presidential nomination. He argues that the liberal revolution captured the Democratic Party in 1972 with the nomination of George McGovern.

Kristol described the current Republican coalition as consisting primarily of two main strains: economic and social conservatives. The economic conservatives are anti-state and the social conservatives are anti-liberal who view liberalism "as corroding and subverting the virtues that they believe must be the bedrock of decent society." He believes that the differences between the economic conservatives and the social conservatives produce "tensions" between the two groups. Kristol's long range view is that the social conservatives represent "an authentic mass movement that gathers strength with every passing year."

The Kristol analysis, however, while close to the facts, is not complete. He does not fully explain the nature of the tension between the economic and social conservatives. The economic conservatives are anti-state because of their belief in the free market as the be all and end all of economic policy. As a result, they remain loyal to the business community in advancing programs to de-regulate the economy, eliminate effective health and safety regulations, undermine public schools, weaken trade unions, create employer-dominated worker councils and propose tax cuts for their business benefactors.

The social conservatives are not driven by economic issues. They are hostile to the Democratic Party because they perceive it as the home of a liberalism that believes that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded while at the same time supporting individualist lifestyles based on the pleasure principle. All of this offends their traditional idea about the family, religion and responsibility. They believe in a "moral" and cohesive society that is illuminated by the application of traditional values expressed in terms of country, community and family.

The relationship between the two groups is potentially more than one of tension but rather basic instability. Much of this instability arises out of the fact that each has a different social base that is differentially effected by trends in the economy. For example: since 1973 real annual earnings of the bottom 20% of wage earners has dropped by 24%, a staggering loss, while real earnings in the top 20% have increased by 10%.

The economic conservatives tend to be well-off and unaffected by negative economic trends. The social conservatives, on the other hand, are for the most part middle class, largely blue collar and rural and churchgoers who predominate in the Baptist, evangelical, Pentecostal and Catholic communities.

But, the economic needs of the social conservatives do not automatically open them to the message of the Democrats. These Americans do not live by bread alone. They are appalled by the perceived breakdown of the social fabric that threatens their families and the future of their youth. Hence the dilemma and the opportunity for the Democrats: address their social concerns in a way that is meaningful and thereby get an audience for the bread and butter message that speaks to their self interest: expanded job training, improved public education, college scholarships, job protection through strong health and safety laws, increased minimum wage, fair trade that protects American jobs and a labor policy that protects the rights of workers to freely organize at the work place in organizations of their own choosing.

The Democratic Party does not have to look far for an example of how re-inventing itself can produce major political gains without any sacrifice of core values. Until recently, the British Labor Party had so marginalized itself that is was no longer a factor in British politics. It looked for a long time that this would be the Tory century. Now they lead the Tories by 30 points in the polls. A New York Times journalist correctly observed that this change in fortunes is because the Labor Party "abandoned [their] old class-warfare oratory and [their] more radical leftist policies, stole the initiative from the Tories on issues like family and crime [and] built respect in the business and financial communities for [their] economic policies." Through this process, the Party expanded the size of its tent and brought into its orbit a new constituency not limited by its trade union core.

A political party cannot hope to rule unless it speaks to the traditional culture of the people it seeks to lead. Once the Democrats learn that lesson they will become a party of values and economics, the combination of soul and bread, that will win back the social conservatives who deserted the Democratic Party in droves. It seems that President Clinton understands this but does not yet have a consensus for this view within the Democratic Congressional and organized party.

Bruce A. Miller
Social Democrats, USA

Boeing vs. Airbus: Outsourcing defense

Stop The NAFTA Trucks

Public Citizen www.citizen.org warns:

The administration is continuing its push to expand the NAFTA trucking program -- the controversial "pilot program" giving Mexico-based trucking companies full access to U.S. roads, without adequate measures to ensure public safety.

President Bush is continuing this program even though he signed a bill into law cutting off all funding for it.

The Bush administration insists on pushing forward, despite requirements to put the public's safety first. Act now and tell Congress to follow up on their work and demand Bush follow the law!

www.stopnaftatrucks.org

Sen. Tester on the clearness of the 2nd Amendment

Senator Jon Tester D-Montana defends our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

A quote from a great American and Democrat about the need to protect gun rights.

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
—Hubert Humphrey, 1960

The Case for Single Payer Health Insurance

Graham, a medical student and blogger (Over!My!Med!Body!), makes an excellent case for a single payer system of national health insurance:

Single-payer is basically a way some countries use to provide its citizens with health insurance. (Sounds very boring, I know. But keep reading!) Its name comes from the fact that doctors and hospitals are paid by one organization: a single payer. By having only one payer, you can simplify the health care system enormously.

Single-payer saves lives.

In a single-payer health system, everyone has health insurance. According to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 people in the United States die every year from a lack of health insurance--that's two people every hour.

The US also has higher infant mortality levels(more children under 1 year of age die) compared to most other democratic companies. Babies would be healthier if all pregnant women could get access to a doctor while they're pregnant.

Or think of how much less-crowded emergency rooms would be if people could see a primary care doctor when they were sick, instead of only going to an ER when they become sicker.

Single-payer saves time.

Imagine if all doctors and all hospitals in the US had just one type of form to fill out. And all patients had one insurance card. And all patients had health insurance by virtue of being US citizens. And now think of the savings in time, money, paper-pushing. Doctors would have more time to care for patients; everyone would have fewer headaches waiting to talk to their HMO to prove their coverage; nurses would be less frustrated with their work.

Single-payer saves money.

By having one organization handle all of the bureaucracy and all of the administration of the health care system (mostly consisting of paperwork and payments) paper-pushing greatly decreases in frequency and cost. More of each of our dollars that go toward health care would actually be used to care for people's health, instead of going toward managers and forms.

Single-payer eliminates the bulk of paperwork duplication, and in the process, could potentially save hundreds of BILLIONS (that's 100,000 million) of dollars. As it is right now, American businesses are at an economic disadvantage, because their health costs are so much higher than in other countries. The Canadian branches of Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler all publicly support Canada's health care system, because it saves them an enormous amount of money, compared to their counterparts in the US.

What's more, a single-payer system would mean fewer personal bankruptcies due to medical bills--and an end to patients actually receiving bills. In most countries with a single-payer system, patients never see a bill. The billing process doesn't even involve patients. (This saves money, too--think of how much work goes into itemizing each bill, sending it to each patient, following up on the bill if there's been an error... and on, and on.)

Most single-payer systems save a ton of money by buying prescription drugs for its patients in huge bulk quantities. You know the money you save for buying in bulk at Costco or Sam's Club? Think of applying that concept to buying prescription drugs for America's 290 million people. (Hint: this is what Canada does--it's what makes their drugs much cheaper.)

Single-payer saves choice.

Americans love choices. We love having options. With a single-payer system, patients could go to any doctor they wanted (try doing that with your HMO!). You could see the doctor that's closest to you, the one that your friends all recommend, or pick one that's your same religion, ethnicity, or race. It'd be a much different experience than getting a specific list from your HMO, telling you who you're allowed to see, if you don't want to pay an arm and a leg for it.

Even better, people wouldn't be tied to their current job for the health insurance it provides. People could find jobs they're happier with or even consider starting their own businesses. It would make employers work harder to make employees happy, and employers could be more confident their workers were a good fit for their jobs.

http://www.grahamazon.com/sp/what.php

Reining in the free market

An excellent column from today's Dallas Morning News addressing the growing realization that free markets must be balanced with state regulation.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-goodman_13edi.ART00.State.Edition1.377d72b.html

Peter Goodman: Reining in the free market
As financial unease grows, regulation is coming back into vogue
09:22 AM CST on Sunday, January 13, 2008

For more than a quarter-century, the dominant idea guiding economic policy in the United States and much of the globe has been that the market is unfailingly wise. So wise that the proper role for government is to steer clear and not mess with the gusher of wealth that will flow, trickling down to every level of society, if only the market is left to do its magic.
That notion has carried the day as industries have been unshackled from regulation and as taxes have been rolled back, along with the oversight powers of government. Faith in markets has held sway as insurance companies have fended off calls for more government-financed health care, and as banks have engineered webs of finance that have turned houses from mere abodes into assets traded like dot-com stocks.

But lately, a striking unease with market forces has entered the conversation. The world confronts problems of staggering complexity and consequence, from a shortage of credit following the mortgage meltdown to the threat of global warming. Regulation – nasty talk in some quarters, synonymous with pointy-headed bureaucrats choking the market – is suddenly being demanded from unexpected places.

The Bush administration and the Federal Reserve have recently put aside laissez-faire rhetoric to wade into real estate, wielding new rules and deals they say are necessary to protect Americans from predatory bankers – the same bankers who, only a year ago, were being lauded for creativity. Were the market left to its own devices, millions could lose their homes, the administration now says.

Central banks on both sides of the Atlantic are coordinating campaigns to flush cash through the global economy, lest frightened lenders hoard capital and suffocate growth. In Bali this month, world leaders gathered in the name of striking agreement to slow climate change.

Adam Smith used the metaphor of the invisible hand to describe how markets should function: With everyone at liberty to pursue self-interest, the market omnisciently distributes goods and capital to maximize the benefits for all. Since the Reagan administration, that idea has weighed in as a veritable holy commandment, with economist Milton Friedman cast as Moses.

As the Cold War ended and Communism retreated, the invisible hand seemed to monopolize economic thinking. Even China, controlled by a nominally communist party, has blessed private entrepreneurs and foreign investment. In Latin America, the International Monetary Fund financed governments that embraced market forces while shunning those that were resistant.
But now the invisible hand is being asked to account for what it has wrought. In the U.S., many economic complaints – the widening gap between rich and poor, the expense of higher education – are being dusted for its fingerprints.

After two decades of disappointing economic growth, several Latin American countries have spurned the IMF while embracing the finance and thinking of Venezuela's avowedly socialist leader, Hugo Chávez. China's leaders, though still devoted to "reform and opening," are keeping tight control on the value of the currency while steering capital to powerful state-owned companies, concerned that freer markets could throw millions of peasants out of work.

Throughout history, regulation has tended to gain favor on the heels of free enterprise run amok. The monopolistic excesses of the Robber Barons led to antitrust laws. Not by accident did strict new accounting rules follow the unmasking of fraud at Enron and WorldCom. Now, the subprime fiasco and a still unfolding wave of home foreclosures are prompting many to call for new rules.

"We're revisiting the question of market flows with a deservedly wary eye," said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington. "For decades, economists and political elites have argued that any time you regulate any aspect of the economy, you're slipping the handcuffs on the invisible hand. That's demonstrably wrong in lots of ways."

But if markets can inflict pain, the harm from trying to tame them is often worse, argue those who would let the invisible hand carry on. The new regulatory tilt threatens to tie up innovation in a straitjacket of bureaucratic nannying while slowing the global economy, they say.

"Every regulation reduces people's freedom," said David Henderson, a libertarian economist at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. "The more regulation we get, the worse we do."
Mr. Henderson is critical of the Bush administration's effort to freeze mortgage rates and the new rules proposed by the Fed intended to curb nefarious lending. They undermine the sanctity of contracts, he said, and make mortgages harder to gain for everyone.

"The way they justify it is that you've got to protect the stupid people who can't read a contract," Mr. Henderson said. "But they're treating everyone as stupid."

But in Washington, and under the roofs of many homes now worth less than a year ago, there appears to be a shift in the nation's often-ambivalent attitude about regulation.

Back in the boom, banks made loans to homeowners who did not have to prove their ability to pay, then quickly sold the loans to other companies. By the time it emerged that a lot of homeowners could not pay, these loans had been pooled with other loans and chopped into strange new paper assets that were sold to unsuspecting buyers around the globe. The subsequent reckoning has forced major banks to write off vast sums of money.

"Here you had all these people who were supposed to be sophisticated investors, and it turns out they were buying billions of dollars' worth of debt where they didn't even understand what they owned," said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research. "There is going to be a willingness to re-regulate financial markets."

Liberal critics have long asserted that dogmatic devotion to market forces has skewed American society toward those of greatest means. More wealth is being concentrated in fewer hands, with rich people capturing the best housing, private education and health care services, and, as the argument goes, only crumbs left for everyone else.

That critique informs proposals from Democrats vying for the presidency, as they debate how best to expand access to health care and ways to shift the tax burden to the rich. They are in essence calling for market intervention to redress imbalances. With the gap between the richest and poorest now greater than it has been since the 1920s, these pitches have emerged as central components of their campaigns.

More notable, though, is how fervent proponents of unfettered market forces have lately come to embrace regulation.

The Bush administration, in seeking to freeze mortgage rates for some homeowners, put Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. in charge of the campaign. Mr. Paulson not long ago ran the Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs. Now he is demanding that banks accept smaller payments than promised, while describing the market as a fallible thing in need of supervision.
"The government acted to prevent a market failure and to try to avoid unnecessary harm," he said.

More than a decade ago, when Bill Clinton occupied the White House, he pushed through the landmark North American Free Trade Agreement, which linked the fortunes of Mexico and the United States. But if his wife or one of her Democratic rivals captures the White House next year, they promise a more skeptical look at trade deals.

Some argue that the pushback against market forces is a momentary pause in a steady march toward unfettered capitalism. The libertarian Cato Institute recently issued a report finding that economic freedom – shorthand for smaller government and fewer regulations – has never been greater. "Global economic growth significantly increases with the growth of the world's economic freedom," said Ian Vásquez, director of Cato's center for global liberty and prosperity.

Few policymakers have a beef with that characterization as a generality. But when things go wrong, demands grow for the government to step in and make them right.

"Untethered market forces lead to bad things," said Mr. Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute. "You simply can't run an economy as complicated as ours on ideology alone."
Peter S. Goodman is a writer at The New York Times.

http://www.dallasnews.com/

John Edwards - Outsourcing

John Edwards is FDR with a Southern Accent

The Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards is potentially the person most likely to realign the two major political parties for the next generation or two. Edwards is a Democratic political leader who is not only closely mirroring FDR as a historical figure but is doing so by following in the same political and economic traditions as FDR. The main differences are personal backgrounds and accents.

During the 1930’s, President Roosevelt essentially ended the dominance of the “Bourbon Democrats” in national Democratic politics and moved the Democratic Party solidly behind a political program of economic populism. As a result, the nation saw a couple generations of solid economic growth and mass prosperity.

A vibrant middle class emerged from the policies promoted by FDR. The Democratic Party clearly replaced the Republicans as the stronger of the two major parties as a result. Beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan, many Democrats in power drifted away from the core values of the Democratic Party and started running as “Republican-lite” candidates. They started trying to compete for corporate campaign money by permitting awful trade agreements that undermined the health of the American economy and weakened the American middle class while helping the economic elite become even more powerful.

Some Democrats playing footsie with Republicans and large corporations failed working Americans and the poor by letting the obscenely wealthy start paying much lower percentages of their incomes in federal taxes than the middle class majority. Many Democrats started turning their backs on some common sense elements of the Roosevelt tradition of having those able to pay higher taxes pay them. We call this progressive taxation.

The rich pay should be paying higher tax rates since they have more influence on government policies and benefit more from them. They completely abandoned our federal government commitment to preventing monopoly control by large corporations of many important aspects of everyday life. Price-gouging has become routine. Insider trading and excessive executive pay has become routine in the corporate world.

Wealthy foreign corporations are often having more impact on government policies than the needs of average Americans. Media consolidation has blocked out almost all non-corporate voices in the discussion of public policy issues. Edwards wants less corporate control over everyday life and has specific programs in mind to move in that direction.

The wages of Americans have been suppressed. The ability to unionize in order to achieve higher standards of living has been attacked by federal legislation, right wing court rulings and harassment by oppressive federal government regulation by the Bush Administration.

Edwards is the most labor-friendly Presidential candidate of the top-tier candidates. With Edwards, we have a candidate who both walks the walk and talks the talk. Edwards is strongly opposed to outsourcing American jobs and is committed to ending unfair international trade deals or tax policies that encourage corporations to move jobs out of the nation.

Poverty in America has largely been ignored by our political leadership since the 1980’s. We waste trillions of dollars fighting unnecessary wars but seem unwilling to seriously commit to eliminating institutionalize poverty. Edwards is the only candidate really talking about poverty in America. Poverty is a serious issue in many rural American communities and inner cities. Most candidates ignore the poor because they do not write big campaign donation checks. Edwards can give the poor hope and get them voting.

We remain the only nation out of the 75 most economically advanced nations not to have government guaranteed universal health insurance. We cripple our corporations in international competition by forcing them to provide for healthcare. As a nation we spend 17% of our economy on healthcare while our competitors spend 8%. Our competitors cover all citizens while we have 47 million uninsured citizens and even more underinsured. If we had not abandoned our FDR political traditions, this situation would have been corrected long ago.

Edwards is committed to universal healthcare. John Edwards is uniquely focused on returning Democrats to their FDR roots of economic populism. The Bush Republicans are committed to short-term “Greed Capitalism” that is as self-destructive as the Republican policies of the 1920’s.

FDR saved American capitalism by reforming it with the New Deal. Edwards can do the same. Edwards can restore the FDR coalition by running as an economic populist.

He can win in places like North Carolina, Florida, Colorado, Virginia and Oklahoma. Edwards might even win in places like Texas. He can win without abandoning Democratic traditional values. Edwards can carry rural communities and small towns without going Republican-lite. Edwards will carry all the traditional Democratic areas and much more because he truly represents Main Street instead of Wall Street.

Although from a working class background instead of coming from great inherited wealth, Edwards is much like our greatest American President, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Edwards has similar views with a Southern accent.

Written By Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence (hosts of DemocraticTalkRadio.com and Editor of Mid-Atlantic Labor.com).Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919. Phone: 443-907-2367

Can't Find The Way

A great song with a strong populist message by country-folk singer Mary Gauthier.

CNN On Dems' NAFTA Expansion

Lori Wallach of Public Citizens Global Trade Watch makes the case against the Peru NAFTA expansion.

Wallach writes:

While many corporations are eager to obtain the new rights and privileges offered by this FTA, expanding the NAFTA-CAFTA model will harm the interests of most people in both countries. Recent polling has shown repeatedly that the American public has had it with our current trade model. The recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that, by a margin of 2-to-1, even GOP voters think our current trade policy is damaging to them. Democrats won congressional majorities in no small part because of the scores of freshmen elected across he country, including in GOP-leaning districts, who focused their campaigns on stopping more Bush job killing rade agreements. It is good politics – and good policy – for Democrats to create a new trade direction for our country.

Unfortunately, the Peru NAFTA expansion does not accomplish this important goal, nor will the public perceive it as anything but more of the same.
Worse, passage of the deal would give President Bush a high-profile victory, changing the message from the debacle in Iraq. It is hard to understand how a Democratic-controlled Congress would give Bush another NAFTA-style trade agreement under any circumstances, but more so the week after he announced he would veto the Democrats’ Trade Adjustment Assistance legislation, not to mention past vetoes of Democrats’ children’s health insurance and anti-war legislation.

There is a long list of trade policies on which the Democratic Congress could take initiative rather than helping President Bush expand NAFTA. We would be excited to work with you to address the imported food safety crisis, fix our disastrous China trade situation, halt the continuing importation of sweat shopmade goods, expand Buy America and anti-offshoring policy, and close the tax loopholes that promote offshoring. Such policies would be a foundation for a new direction on trade which could be built upon when a new president arrives in 2009. The first step towards this new direction is opposing more of the same. Please vote no on H.R. 3688, the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

Sincerely,
Lori Wallach
Director, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch
http://www.citizenstrade.org

Impact of Immigration Policy on African Americans

T. Willard Fair, President of the Greater Miami Urban League describes the economic impact of illegal immigration.

Free market fanatics have a firm grasp on the GOP

Writing in the New York Times, Jonathan Chait draws attention to the grip that rabid free market types have on the Republican Party. Many within the red state Republican base are economic populists drawn to the party by appeals to patriotism and social conservatism but the Wall Street crowd always get their way instead. The message is very clear from the Republican establishment to all candidates who wish to receive PAC money - don't even think about questioning "free trade" or more tax cuts for the rich.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/opinion/09chait.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Captives of the Supply Side
by Johnathan Chait
New York Times
10/19/07

REMEMBER the Republican presidential debate a few months ago, when three candidates raised their hands to indicate they didn’t believe in evolution? Something just as laughable is likely to happen today, at the first Republican debate on the economy. Every candidate will probably embrace the myth that cutting taxes increases government revenues. At the very least, no one will denounce it as a falsehood.

It’s been said for years that the Republican nominating process is controlled by social conservatives, and that any aspiring nominee must kowtow to their demands. But this year’s Republican primary is making it increasingly clear that a different tiny minority — the economic far right — truly calls the shots.

Last year, Senator John McCain earned widespread ridicule for publicly embracing Jerry Falwell, whom he had once described as “evil.” But an equally breathtaking turnabout occurred earlier in the year, when Mr. McCain embraced the Bush tax cuts he had once denounced as an unaffordable giveaway to the rich. In an interview with National Review, Mr. McCain justified his reversal by saying, “Tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues.” It was the political equivalent of Galileo conceding that the Sun does indeed revolve around the Earth.

Mr. McCain is not alone. Every major Republican contender — Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney — has said that the Bush tax cuts have caused government revenues to rise. No prominent Republican office-seeker dare challenge this dogma for fear of offending the economic far right.

Yet there is no more debate about this question among economists than there is debate about the existence of evolution among biologists. Most economists believe that it is theoretically possible for tax rates to be high enough that a reduction in rates could actually produce more revenues. But I do not know of any tenured economist in the United States who believes this is true of the Bush tax cuts.

Granted, economic growth sometimes causes revenues to rise faster than expected after a tax cut, as has happened since the 2003 tax cut. But sometimes revenues fall faster than expected after a tax cut, as they did after the 2001 tax cut. And sometimes revenues rise faster than expected after a tax increase, as they did after the 1993 Clinton tax increase.
Even very conservative economists who have worked for the Bush administration — including Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush who is now an adviser to Mr. Romney — have publicly stated that today’s tax revenues would be even higher were it not for the Bush tax cuts.

No Republican candidate can risk committing heresy by acknowledging this bipartisan consensus among economists. On social issues, however, Republicans actually tolerate diversity of thought. For example, Mr. McCain, Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Thompson all oppose, on federalist grounds, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The Republican Party is organized around a strategy of building political capital on social issues while spending political capital on economic issues. Republicans will advance the social conservative agenda, but they will rarely risk their popularity to do so.

As Trent Lott, the former Senate majority leader, recently observed: “Republicans tend to squabble, but when it’s fiscal issues, when it’s economic issues, we tend to come together. That’s what makes us Republicans.” Mr. Lott is right if he’s referring to the members of the Washington establishment who run the Republican Party. But when it comes to the party’s rank-and-file members, he has it exactly backward. Grassroots Republicans agree on social issues but disagree on economics.

The most recent Pew survey of the electorate, which came out two years ago, revealed that Republicans find common ground on social issues like discouraging homosexuality and teaching creationism alongside evolution in the public schools. They disagree on economic policy. In the survey, most members of the Republican coalition preferred deficit reduction to tax cuts.
Ardent anti-tax conservatives represent a clear minority among Republican voters. And yet the most extreme and counterfactual subgroup among them — supply-siders — remain firmly in control of the party.

The party’s economic priorities are reinforced at Grover Norquist’s weekly “Wednesday Group” meetings, where conservative activists, politicians, business lobbyists and pundits meet to hash out a common agenda. Mr. Norquist is known to cut off any mention of issues like abortion or homosexuality with a curt “No sex talk, please.”

A handful of fanatical ideologues, along with a somewhat larger number of money men who stand to gain a fortune from supply-side policies, relentlessly enforce the faith. They do so with far more success than the religious right, and they receive far less mockery for their efforts.
Just last month President Bush insisted, yet again, that “supply-side economics yields additional tax revenues.” Hardly an eyebrow was raised.

http://www.nytimes.com/