Chamber of Commerce Leading Congress Astray

January 30, 2009
Economy in Crisis ww.economyincrisis.org
by Craig Harrington

The United States Chamber of Commerce is supposed to represent the best interests of American corporations and act as their legislative lobby. Unfortunately many of its efforts are counterproductive and effectively work to undermine the overall competitiveness and stability of U.S. companies. In the past week the Chamber of Commerce has petitioned Congress to drop “buy American” clauses from the newly approved Obama stimulus package – which is already wrought with wasteful spending. It has also increased its efforts to stimulate the development of new broader “free trade” agreements (FTAs) with nations around the world.

The reason the Chamber of Commerce is against so-called “buy American” clauses is due to its belief that such measures would increase the cost of projects while simultaneously creating a “trade war” with those nations who were left out of the bidding. The concept it fails to grasp is that there already is a trade war and the United States is being severely beaten.

The Chamber of Commerce's reasoning for even more FTAs is the misguided belief that the agreements actually result in surpluses for the United States. They highlight the fact that the U.S. is running surpluses with 9 of the 10 nations it entered into FTAs with since 2004. Unfortunately this statistic is misleading. The nations with whom we have established FTAs in the last four years are marginal developing economies; the nations which we run deficits with are massive and well developed economies. For example, the United States has a $10 billion surplus with Australia (one of the 9 successes) – and our largest surplus was $14.5 billion with the Netherlands in 2007. No export surplus exceeds $15 billion annually.

Meanwhile, the U.S. runs simultaneous import deficits with dozens of other countries and our 20th largest deficit (Thailand) roughly cancels out our largest surplus – our deficit to Thailand is $14.3 billion. We were in deficit $256 billion to China alone in 2007. If you add up our five largest surpluses you get roughly $58 billion gained. If you add up our five largest deficits you get roughly $522 billion lost. That is a net loss of $470 billion from just five countries. (Trade Stats Express)

The Chamber of Commerce also points out that nearly half of our trade is with countries that have FTAs with the United States. This statistic is meant to imply that we could make international exchange cheaper with the other half if we enter into FTAs with them. However, this overlooks the fact that our international trade is a net loss for the U.S. Why would we want to make a bad situation worse by giving nations even more reason to send their shoddy products here in exchange for our money?

The Chamber of Commerce has a strong voice in Washington and if history is any proof it will likely carry the day. “Free trade” will probably be the linchpin of American economic policy as long as the same old talking heads preside over the halls of Congress. The Chamber of Commerce is funded by business elites and these elites benefit from international economic liberalization. They have an agenda which serves them and they have the right to that self serving idealism. The United States government on the other hand should have only one agenda in mind – our best interests. It is being sold snake oil by the business interests of this country as well as those from overseas.

If we have no means of cutting off or drowning out this bad information we have to put people in office who know their way around the flashy sales pitches. They need to realize that the Chamber of Commerce represents just what its name implies – Commerce. Commerce has increased in the “free trade” era, but living standards have fallen and that is all that matters to the rest of us.

We Don't Ask - National Ad for the Employee Free Choice Act

Tim Shipe: A Child's Right to Thrive

Excellent column by Tim Shipe from Florida Today:

Pro-life advocates should back programs to aid children
Florida Today www.floridatoday.com
Tim Shipe, Guest Columnist
January 25, 2009

The issue of abortion was not the compelling concern for a majority of Americans in the last elections, but it is still a powerfully divisive legal and moral contest that pits pro-life versus pro-choice in a heated competition for hearts and minds.

It is tough to find common ground or fresh areas for public debate, but as a pro-life Democrat I am accustomed to thinking outside the pack.

Most pro-choice political leaders are quick to say that they are not pro-abortion, but are interested in abortion reduction without outlawing the procedures. Many pro-life leaders similarly claim they are also committed to reducing the numbers of abortion even as they seek a final legal solution of defining the right to life.

There are a couple of bills coming back for consideration in Congress that will test the truthfulness of these politicians’ claims.

The Pregnant Women Support Act is being promoted by Democrats for Life as a means of reducing abortions 95 percent over the next 10 years.

This bill would provide more adoption incentives, much needed funding for WIC programs that provide food for women, infants and children, and provide resources and support to help women continue their education if they keep their child or make an adoption plan for their child.

There is so much good in this bill I can only pray President Obama will seize upon it to demonstrate he isn’t going to be the most pro-abortion president in history, as is now claimed about him in pro-life circles.

The Feminists for Life organization has been spreading the word that “45 percent of women who have abortions are college age” and that “women with some college had the highest abortion rate of any educational group.”

They also tout statistics that 71 percent of 18-19 year olds and 58 percent of 20-24 year olds said they had abortions because having the child would interfere with their education or career. Feminists for Life have been promoting the “Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act” to address these sad realities.

I would like to introduce a fresh approach to the abortion wars. I like to say there is a right to thrive that encompasses the right to life and it addresses the fact that we have a societal obligation to all children.

When I hear fellow pro-lifers rage against social programs and government’s role in ensuring the common good, I cringe. When I hear fellow Democrats rage against traditionally religious folk who are trying to take responsibility to stop the killing of unborn human lives, I want to weep.

When I want to make the pro-life case to my students in the classroom, I don’t show shocking pictures of aborted fetuses. I show the National Geographic documentary “In the Womb.”

It is my belief the unborn will win their human rights when everyone opens their eyes to the fact that every human life passes through the same stages.

Pro-life must also be whole-life. For me economics, war, immigration, health care and education are all life issues, and children and pregnant mothers take priority over the rest of us.

Shipe is a teacher at Melbourne Central Catholic High School and serves on the board of advisors of Florida Democrats for Life.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20090125/COLUMNISTS0205/90123037/1138/OPINION

NY Gov Paterson Announces Kirsten Gillibrand to Fill Senate Seat

NEW YORK, Jan. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU, UFCW):

The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) welcomes the choice of Kirsten Gillibrand as the new United States Senator from New York.

The labor movement worked hard to elect Ms. Gillibrand in both her previous races for Congress. Representative Gillibrand has a near perfect voting record on pro-worker legislation and is a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act.

As Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand will be a strong and vocal advocate for issues that are important to working families and the RWDSU looks forward to continuing our work with her.

SOURCE Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union http://rwdsu.info/

Barack Obama speech at the Lincoln Memorial

Digital Journal: Clean Energy Could Mean More Nuclear

From Digital Journal.Com
January 17, 2009
by Joan Firstenberg

Nuclear Energy - we haven't talked about it for 30 years in this country. But now it's the talk of the town as far as clean energy is concerned and it could be the perfect solution to President-Elect Obama's goal of reducing carbon emissions.

Nuclear power is back in vogue. A number of big U.S. companies are banking on President-elect Barack Obama's goal to reduce carbon emissions in this country by 80-percent by 2050 to propel the nation into a nuclear-power building boom. In fact, Barrons reports that nuclear plants produce the most amount of energy without emitting any greenhouse gases. And there are plans to build 26 new nuclear plants. No new plants have been built in the U.S. for 30 years.

Some scientists are approving of the idea. Tom Neff, a physicist and research affiliate at MIT's Center for International Studies says,
"Nuclear power is in a renaissance."

Nuclear energy has re-emerged as a good energy source as fears about its safety have eased. Exelon, the biggest nuclear-power generator in the U.S. and other operators have addressed the problem of nuclear-waste disposal with "dry-cask storage" -- high-tech sealed containers that they keep on their sites. Because of innovations like that, many of the safety concerns that arose after accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and Chernobyl in Ukraine (then part of the Soviet Union) in 1986 have eased.

Nuclear plants now have the stamp of approval from a founding member of Greenpeace. Patrick Moore, a scientist who began supporting nuclear energy a few years ago, says,

"It's safer to work in a nuclear plant than it is in real estate."

Moore points to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and says that a Columbia University study published in 2004, which followed 54,000 nuclear-plant workers for 15 years, found that they had fewer cancers, less disease and lived longer than the average person.

The only fly in the ointment of getting these plants going could be obtaining the financing necessary because of the recent credit crisis. But Sheila Slocum Hollis, a partner at the Washington law firm of Duane Morris, which specializes in energy law says,

"If you honestly believe that greenhouse gas is the seminal issue of the day, as world population and economic growth continue to expand, so will the need for electric capacity. Whether to power electric vehicles or for general manufacturing needs, ultimately people are looking toward nuclear as the big power source. I have seen a sea change in public acceptance of nuclear power. People have seen it for 35 years now, and it's working and it has a lot of jobs associated with it in many communities."

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/265396#tab=article&sc=0&local=

Jeff Madrick: The Case for Big Government

Make America Happen - Again

Senator Sherrod Brown: A Fighter for American Workers

Economy in Crisis pays a well-deserved tribute to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. A leader in the fight for fair trade, Brown has worked tirelessly to protect American jobs.

Our Current Economic Environment is No Longer Sustainable
Published 01/15/09 Dustin Ensinger
www.economyincrisis.org

Editor's Note: American government officials are elected for one
purpose: To represent the best interest of their constituents. In
today's society more and more elected officials shun their duties
after taking office, and opt to pursue their own best interests to
the detriment of America as a whole. However, in the midst of a
politically corrupt sea of ill-willed politicians, a few individuals
remain fighting the good fight, these individuals are our "Free Trade
Foes."

If it were more than a mere symbolic accessory intended to signify
that "the struggle continues," the canary lapel pin worn by Sen.
Sherrod Brown might forewarn of the toxic air that is the modern day
American economy. Life is gradually sucked out by ill-conceived trade
policies like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World
Trade Organization, leaving a gigantic void in what was once the
backbone of America`s flourishing economy: its manufacturing base.

But, that emblematic gesture does indeed mean so much more.

You see, for centuries miners died by the thousands each and every
year because there were no safety laws or trade unions to demand
protections or lawmakers ordering more precautionary measures be
taken. It was just the hard-working men and a caged canary toiling
miles under the earth`s surface. The bird was no mascot, however, it
was the only tool the miners had to warn them of potentially
hazardous air conditions: if the bird croaked, it was time to get
out - and quickly. Today, the canary symbolizes the progress made by
working men and women over the intervening years - child labor laws,
mandatory safety regulations, 40 hour work weeks, collective
bargaining rights - and the ongoing struggle that continues today.

It is fitting then that the bird known for protecting the working men
of years past is now proudly worn by the one of the working men and
women's strongest advocates in Congress, the junior Senator from
Ohio, Sherrod Brown.

Throughout the course of his career Brown has been derided by critics
as "a demagogue on trade," a "protectionist" and as someone standing
in the way of progress in the perennially downtrodden economies of
Third World nations. Washington Post columnist David Broder once
described Brown as "a loud advocate of protectionist policies that
offers a false hope of solving all our trade and job problems."

The reality, however, is that Brown just gets It, writing in an April
Op-Ed piece "Eight times I have taken the oath of office to support
and defend the United States. My colleagues and I commit ourselves to
protecting our nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That
includes protecting our neighborhoods from unsafe products. And, yes,
that also means protecting our workers and businesses from unfair
competition."

Protecting American businesses and workers is how Brown made a name
for himself in the me-first world of American politics. An economic
populist with both a homespun, down-to-earth Midwestern style and an
Ivy League background, he rejects the conventional wisdom that "free
trade" is great for everyone involved and is not afraid to make
blunt, politically unpopular assessments of the consequences of
unfettered "free trade."

"This is what's at stake when we talk about trade policy: America`s
middle class and the American Dream" Brown wrote in a 2006 Washington
Post Op-Ed piece.

By rejecting the gospel of "free trade," Brown, in 2006, became the
first Democratic senator from the state of Ohio since John Glenn
retired in 1998. Brown's 2006 defeat of Republican incumbent Mike
DeWine was the pinnacle of a political career that began soon after
he graduated from Yale. State Democratic officials persuaded him to
run for a seat in the state legislature at the ripe old age of 21.
Showing the fight and determination that is readily evident in the
working men and women Brown has supported throughout his career, he
knocked on 20,000 doors in his district, helping him defeat a popular
incumbent Republican. By age 29, Brown was elected Secretary of
State. In 1992, he was elected to represent Ohio's 13th District in
the U.S. House of Representatives, where he would serve six terms.

It was here, during his time in Congress, that Brown built a
reputation as a fiery populist ready to fight tooth-and-nail for the
working-class families of his district. He fought on issues ranging
from minimum wage, to universal health care, to sick leave, but
especially on trade issues, which had become a political lightning-
rod in Rust Belt states like Ohio as good-paying jobs seemingly
disappeared faster than a field of snow in May. "Free trade" had
decimated the industrial base of Ohio and left its victims jobless
and demoralized, but Brown was there to fight the good fight.

His father a local physician and his mother a one-time civil rights
activist, Brown had been instilled with a sense of righteous justice,
and seeing none in America's trade policies he was determined to
deliver it.

In 1993, in a losing effort, Brown led the fight against NAFTA -
which since has cost Ohio manufacturing 200,000 jobs. Not to be
deterred, members of the Democratic leadership in the House would
appoint him liaison in trade policy fights because of his manifest
grasp and passion of the issue. In 2005, Brown was charged with
leading the opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement
Though CAFTA would pass, the fact that it was carried by just two
votes, 217-215, in contrast to the passage of NAFTA by 34 votes 12
years prior, heartened Brown. He decided to make a run for the U.S.
Senate, where he is now one of the upper chamber's leading advocates
of "fair trade," describing America's current trade policies as "a
global race to the bottom as corporations troll the world for the
cheapest labor, fewest health, safety and environmental regulations
and the governments most unfriendly to labor rights."

On nearly every major piece of trade legislation over the past 15
years, Brown has been there, fighting for the rights of American
workers against unfair trade policies. In addition to his opposition
to NAFTA and CAFTA, Brown has actively and vigorously opposed trade
bills with the Andean nations, Singapore, Chile and Oman among
others. He has twice voted for the immediate withdrawal of the U.S.
from the World Trade Organization. He opposed giving the president of
his own party fast-track authority, which would have effectively cut
Congress out of any negotiations on further trade deals. He has been
a proponent of country-of-origin labeling on imported food products.
He has railed against corporations' corrupting influence on
government. Until recently, after urging from his wife, Brown refused
to accept the Congressional health insurance. He paid for it out of
his own pocket because many hard working men and women are unable to
afford health insurance. And Brown is the author of Myths of Free
Trade: Why American Trade Policy Has Failed.

America needs more lawmakers like Sen. Sherrod Brown, fighting for
the working men and women of America. Without them, the canary-in-the-
cage may keel over and die, warning us that our current economic
environment is no longer sustainable.

To learn more, or to encourage Senator Brown to keep fighting the
Good Fight, click here.

To contribute to Senator Brown's campaign war-chest to ensure that he
remains one of the leading voices of the fair trade movement in
Congress, click here
http://sherrodbrown.com/pages/about

http://www.economyincrisis.org/articles/show/2333

Thom Hartmann - Conservative Economics Is Toxic

Obama Economic Plan: Create Made in America Jobs

From AFL-CIO Now Blog
by Tula Connell, Jan 10, 2009

President-elect Barack Obama today laid out some of the details of his economic recovery plan. While the current President focuses on giving the Medal of Freedom to the leader of a country that has the highest number of trade union murders in the world and on spending nearly $600,000 on new china for the White House days before leaving office, Obama is moving to clean up the Bush economic mess. Giving the Democratic radio address this morning, Obama said:

Our first job is to put people back to work and get our economy working again. This is an extraordinary challenge.

Obama said his plan was in part crafted by economist Jared Bernstein, an ally of the labor movement at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and now economic advisor to Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

We’ll create nearly half a million jobs by investing in clean energy–by committing to double the production of alternative energy in the next three years, and by modernizing more than 75 percent of federal buildings and improving the energy efficiency of two million American homes. These made-in-America jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, developing fuel-efficient cars and new energy technologies pay well, and they can’t be outsourced.

“Made-in-America jobs.” What sweet words after eight years of an administration bent on giving endless corporate incentives to move U.S. jobs overseas. Here’s more from Obama’s radio address:

Put nearly 400,000 people to work by repairing our infrastructure–our crumbling roads, bridges and schools.
Build the new infrastructure we need to succeed in this century, investing in science and technology, and laying down miles of new broadband lines so that businesses across our nation can compete with their counterparts around the world.
Work to achieve bipartisan extensions of unemployment insurance and health care coverage; a $1,000 tax cut for 95 percent of working families; and assistance to help states avoid harmful budget cuts in essential services like police, fire, education and health care.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/01/10/obama-economic-plan-create-made-in-america-jobs/

Free Market Baloney

Single payer is the solution to medical care crisis

Dr. Oliver Fein, President of Physicians for a National Health Program www.pnhp.org, makes a strong argument for single payer health care in the United States. Single payer isn't such a radical idea. In fact, President Harry Truman advocated national health insurance back in 1948. Truman stated “Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. The time has arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity and that protection.” Sixty years later, it is long past time for America to provide decent medical care to all citizens.

There is a cure available for our health care woes
By DR. OLIVER FEIN
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Sunday, December 14, 2008

The report last week that the U.S. economy lost nearly 2 million jobs this year, and 533,000 jobs in November alone, sent shudders through our nation’s households. That’s the biggest one-month plunge in jobs in 34 years. “Horrendous” was how one economist put it, while others said the number of unemployed, and underemployed, could easily double over the next year.

These job losses spell disaster for our health. Millions of people are losing their employer-sponsored health insurance, joining the 46 million who already lack coverage. Millions more are finding it harder to pay their co-pays and deductibles and are scrimping on their medications and doctor visits. Many go without care, risking their health and often their very lives.

In short, affordable health care has never been more urgently needed. Yet most of the health reform proposals coming out of Washington these days won’t get us there.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) recently unveiled his proposals for incremental health reform, which largely mirror the ideas of President-elect Barack Obama and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.).

However well-intentioned, the Obama/Baucus/Kennedy approaches share a fatal flaw: they preserve a central role for the private health insurance industry.

To varying degrees, they would mandate that everyone buy private health insurance — the private insurance that is failing us today. Some of these plans offer a Medicare-like, public option that people could buy into, but experience with Medicare shows that the private plans refuse to compete on a level playing field. They cherry-pick healthier patients and insist on more than their share of payment.

Experience with mandate-based plans in Washington state (1993), Oregon (1992) and Massachusetts (1988 and today) shows that they simply don’t work, achieving neither universal health care nor cost containment.

As long as we rely on private health insurers, universal coverage will be unaffordable. These companies generate immense overhead costs and force doctors and hospitals to spend heavily on billing and paperwork.

Administration consumes about one-third of every health care dollar in the U.S. By contrast, in countries with nonprofit national health insurance, administrative costs consume only half that amount.

There is a cure, however. Eliminating the private insurance industry would save $400 billion annually in administrative costs, enough to ensure that everyone is covered and to eliminate all co-pays and deductibles.

At this critical juncture, a single-payer plan is the only medically, morally and fiscally responsible path to take.

We already have an example of an American single-payer system that works — traditional Medicare. It’s not perfect, but people with Medicare are far happier than those with private insurance. Doctors face fewer hassles in getting paid, and Medicare has been a leader in keeping costs down, at least until Washington politicians decided to pay private insurance plans to enroll seniors at a cost 12- to 19-percent higher than traditional Medicare.

Single-payer systems give patients complete freedom to choose their doctor and hospital. They also enhance cost containment through global budgeting, the bargaining power of being the sole buyer, and an emphasis on primary care and prevention.

With a universal plan of this type, doctors and other health professionals could return to their main task: caring for their patients.

Single payer, or an improved Medicare for All, is embodied in the U.S. National Health Insurance Act, H.R. 676, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and 92 other members of Congress.

Opponents of single payer often admit it’s the best, most efficient and equitable way to provide quality care, but say it’s not politically feasible and is therefore off the table in this round of the debate. How so? A solid majority of physicians, 59 percent, and an even higher percentage of the public, 62 percent or more, support national health insurance, recent surveys show. Single payer should be front and center.

Medicare for All is within reach, but only if we are prepared to take on the private health insurance industry. The time is now. It requires only the political will.

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/12/14/equaled.html

Dr. Oliver Fein is associate dean and professor of clinical medicine and public health, Weill Cornell Medical College in New York and president of Physicians for a National Health Program.

http://www.pnhp.org

Mr. President (Have Pity on the Working Man) - Randy Newman

Great tune from 1974 by New Orleans-born singer/songwriter/pianist Randy Newman.

Lyrics

We've taken all you've given
But it's gettin' hard to make a livin'
Mr. President have pity on the working man

We're not asking you to love us
You may place yourself high above us
Mr. President have pity on the working man

I know it may sound funny
But people ev'ry where are runnin' out of money
We just can't make it by ourself

It is cold and the wind is blowing
We need something to keep us gong
Mr. President have pity on the working man

Maybe you've cheated
Maybe you've lied
Maybe you have finally lost your mind
Maybe you're only thinking 'bout yourself

Too late to run. Too late to cry now
The time has come for us to say good-bye now
Mr. President have pity on the working man
Mr. President have pity on the working man

Stimulus package must include fiscal accountability

All too often conservatives accuse those of us who favor a strong role by government of enabling waste and abuse by bureaucrats. Given the record of our private sector in recent years, it is clear that inefficiency is by no means limited to government but we do have a responsibility to make sure tax dollars are being used wisely. 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 traditional New Deal Democrat, often admonished his colleagues that "to be a liberal, 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 regulations 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 government. Proxmire noted that "highlighting specific, single wasteful expenditures is more effective than simply complaining in a general way about government waste."

Along the same lines, Dustin Ensinger at Economy in Crisis stresses the importance of accountability for the billions of dollars in economic stimulus spending.

Obama's Early Wish List: $500 billion
Published 12/12/08 Dustin Ensinger
Economy in Crisis www.economyincrisis.org

One of the things on President-elect Barack Obama's early wish list
in the first few days of his administration is a huge stimulus
package, reportedly in the area of $500 billion to $1 trillion
dollars. According to Robert Puentes, a fellow with the Brookings
Institution's Metropolitan Policy Project, the money could be a
blessing or a curse, depending on how much oversight is in place to
ensure that the money is being spent properly.

Obama's stimulus package would provide the perfect opportunity for
Obama to implement one of his campaign promises: Google for
government. He has proposed creating a digital database that details
how each and every dollar of taxpayer money is being spent and this
huge infrastructure project provides ample opportunity to do so.

Because a large chunk of that money will be funneled to state and
local governments to be spent on infrastructure projects, there are
enormous opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse.

"It's the closest thing we have to a blank check," Puentes
said. "it's a fact-free zone."

While Puentes acknowledges that the money needs to be spent quickly
to put people to work, he also said there must be strict oversight
and accountability, otherwise it could be a giant waste of taxpayer
money.

"We should only spend quickly on the existing system," said
Puentes. "We shouldn't use this as an opportunity to build more
projects on the fringe" of cities.

According to Puentes, Obama should focus on repairing roads, bridges
and water and sewer systems, focusing on more long-term projects only
after comprehensive oversight is in place.

To ensure that taxpayer money is not simply wasted, the government
needs to create an independent panel to oversee how and where the
money is spent. In addition, there should be an unprecedented amount
of transparency to instill confidence in taxpayers that their money
is not being frivolously spent on pork projects.

Please write to President-Elect Obama and encourage him to implement
a digital database that details every cent of government spending, so
we can ensure our tax dollars are not spent in vain.

Source CNNMoney:

In just over a month, hundreds of billions of dollars of your money
could be funneling through the hands of every politician, from the
president to the mayor of the smallest American town, in a plan to
jumpstart the economy.

For maximum effect, experts say the cash should be doled out quickly.
The plan could be approved just days after President-elect Obama
takes office. Done right, it could create millions of jobs and
lubricate the economy. Done wrong, it presents innumerable
opportunities for waste and fraud.

http://www.economyincrisis.org/articles/show/2194

Thom Hartmann - Why Do We Have An Economy?

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/