On the heels of the Democratic convention Saturday, I was pleased to see that Gov. Granholm was practicing what she preaches. In this news item our fearless leader gives the U.S. Trade Rep. a piece of her mind! To this point the USTR has done little more than craft new disastrous trade agreements one after another without actually doing anything to enforce the current agreements in place.
Thankfully another one of our own is doing something about it! Sen. Debbie Stabenow is leading the charge to establish a “Trade Prosecutor” that would oversee abuses that are currently costing us American jobs. Here is a press release from the Sen.’s offices. Here is another page on the establishment of the “Trade Prosecutor”.
It makes me happy to see two of our own actually putting their election promises into actions. One of the reasons that the ME-publicans did so poorly in the ’06 elections is that the country really grows tired of lip service without any substance or actions to back it up. Facta Non Verba (Deeds not words).
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Hot Pants
Do I digress? Liar liar pants on fire.... Do you remember when you were a kid and your parents would bust you for lying. You would try to get out of a lie by lying more..maybe some creative fibbing and then, you realized you were outmatched by the guile and cunning of your parents who were much more experienced and plus..they could drive so, you just surrendered. If only these lessons transferred to Washington D.C.
This is probably one of the best things you will see on trade issues and Fast Track (down a steep mountain with a cliff) renewal you will see. The folks at Global Trade Watch deserve mad props for putting this together. If you can't open the link I've totally ripped Todd off below. read it and ask yourself, what will Democrats do to reprimand the children at United States Trade Representative? I know what happened when I got cold busted lying....
USTR's Valentine's Day Presentation a Stinker
By Todd Tucker
In the wake of the fair trade sweep of the 2006 midterm elections, you would think that the Bush administration would at least be more intellectually honest when facing a Democratic majority Congress. But as the U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab’s Valentine Day’s presentation to Congress made clear, it’s stay the course on falsehoods and omissions. Here are some of the errors and omissions in Ambassador Schwab’s presentation to the Ways and Means Committee on Feb. 14, 2007.
USTR CLAIM: “2 million jobs created over last 12 months”
FACT: That’s 35 percent below what it should be
Just to keep track with population growth, the U.S. economy must generate nearly 2.7 million jobs every year, as it did during the 1990s. Plus, jobs being created are not new, highly paid, manufacturing jobs; the U.S. economy lost one-in-six of these during the NAFTA-WTO decade, 3 million jobs, much of this from trade. Further, Amb. Schwab did not mention that one-in-six of jobs created in the past year are public, not private, sector.[i]In economic sectors most impacted by trade, the U.S. is losing jobs.
USTR CLAIM: The U.S. is seeing “rising wages”
FACT: Wages are trailing far behind productivity and economic growth
Real wages generally rise rather than lower every year, although several years of the Bush administration were notable exceptions. The issue policy-makers should be concerned with is how much are wages rising, and how closely are they tracking productivity and economic growth. Although productivity has gone up over 80 percent and GDP has gone up over 160 percent since 1973, wages have risen less than 10 percent. In fact, the average worker’s hourly wage has only gone up a nickel from 1973 to 2006. Similarly, since 2001, the U.S. economy has grown 15 percent and productivity 16 percent, while wages have only gone up one percent.[ii]Economists and academics generally agree that trade liberalization dilutes and weakens the relative bargaining power of workers and the unions that represent them, making it easier for employers to suppress wage increase demands.
USTR CLAIM: “Trade is spurring economic growth”
FACT: Trade deficits are a drag on growth
The standard macroeconomic model of the economy taught in introductory economics classes shows that, in the short run, increases in consumption, investment, net government spending, and net exports (exports minus imports) add to growth and employment, while decreases in these variables reduce growth and employment.[iii] The unsustainable and increasing near-$800 billion trade deficit (i.e. imports are above exports by that amount) is a drag on economic growth and employment.
USTR CLAIM: “Trade benefits all Americans.”
FACT: Trade model is driving unprecedented surges in income inequality
Economic projections cited by USTR typically ignore the distribution of the benefits from trade. This is unfortunate, since standard economic theory predicts that the distribution of income worsens with increased trade, as the majority of the labor force faces increased lower-wage competition but the upper income groups do not. If you use even the most conservative estimate of the contribution of increased trade to increased inequality, the losses from trade swamp the gains for the average U.S. worker.[iv] In fact, income inequality is at heights not seen since the Robber Baron era, with the top 10 percent of Americans taking half of the economic pie.[v]
USTR CLAIM: “Elimination of global trade barriers could lift 66 million of the world’s poor out of poverty”
FACT: The trade policy that is actually on the table will be a net loss for many developing countries according to very studies Schwab cited to make the opposite point
Studies by the World Bank, Tufts University and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace all project that developing country gains from the likely outcome of Doha Round of the WTO would be shrinking over time, highly unequal, and even a net negative for the majority of poor countries.[vi] These meager and even negative growth projections of the likely Doha Round outcome come on the heels of an increase in poor country poverty[vii] and a slowdown in poor country growth rates during the NAFTA-WTO era that is unprecedented in modern history.[viii] Furthermore, USTR uses a projection based on elimination of all trade barriers around the world. (Total liberalization is not on the table in WTO negotiations, which will eliminate some trade barriers while raising others, as they did during the Uruguay Round, which expanding protectionism for pharmaceutical companies, costing U.S. consumers over $6 billion.[ix]) As the World Bank studies show, under the likely Doha Round outcome, only 2.5 million people would be lifted out of the $1 a day poverty level category – meaning that under an estimate of the effects of the likely Doha scenario by the year 2015, the vast majority of the world’s population (996 of every 1,000 poor people) would remain below the extreme poverty line.[x]
USTR CLAIM: Doha “must deliver new export opportunities for U.S. agricultural producers;” “assure market access not negated by loopholes;” achieve “elimination of tariffs in key sectors”
FACT: These U.S. WTO demands, as they are currently formulated, would doom poor country development and fuel displacement and increased migration
USTR calls for more agricultural and industrial market access under the Doha Round, and a curtailing of the scope of “sensitive products” and “special safeguard mechanisms.” In such technical language, these phrases sound benign. But the history of implementation of these policies shows otherwise.
Under NAFTA, Mexico opened up its agricultural sector and removed safeguards – a move which led to over a million rural peasants being displaced from the countryside and catapulted towards overcrowded cities and the United States.[xi] Now, one in ten Mexicans lives in the United States, many illegally.[xii] In Mexico, poverty is up and wages are down.[xiii] The status quo trade model is so discredited that anti-NAFTA candidate Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador nearly became president in 2006. The Bush administration’s WTO demands would expand the NAFTA disaster to the entire globe. Already, hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers commit suicide every year due to trade-related economic pressures.[xiv] Unless the goal of the Bush administration is to create a global refugee and foreign policy crisis, it must back down from its extreme WTO negotiating positions. Similarly, developing country governments are now very reliant on tariff revenue,[xv] and utilize selective protective measures to nurture infant industries – strategies that characterized all now-developed countries during their early development stages. Development groups have said the Bush administration’s demands on non-agricultural market access “could deny developing countries a right to a future.”[xvi]
USTR CLAIM: The U.S. “won 88% of WTO cases brought”
FACT: The U.S. lost nearly nine in ten cases brought by other countries against U.S. policies
Out of 49 WTO cases brought against U.S. policies, the United States lost 85.7 percent of the time. Out of the 36 WTO cases brought against U.S. anti-dumping and safeguard laws, the United States lost 88.9 percent of the time. Out of the 9 WTO cases brought against U.S., non-trade, public interest policies, the United States lost 77.8 percent of the time.[xvii]
USTR CLAIM: Fast Track is needed “to implement Doha” and “to negotiate regional and bilateral agreements”
FACT: Hundreds of trade agreements, including several rounds of pre-WTO global trade negotiations and the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, were negotiated without Fast Track. Furthermore, from 1995 to 2000, Congress denied the Clinton administration Fast Track authority yet U.S. international trade (exports plus imports) expanded 50 percent.[xviii]
[i]Christian E. Weller, “How Do We Know When the Job Loss Recovery is Over?” Center for American Progress, April 2, 2004; Heather Boushey, Jobs Byte, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Nov. 3, 2006 and Jan. 5, 2007.
[ii]Bureau of Economic Analysis figures: Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained Dollars; Bureau of Labor Statistics Figures: Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail, seasonally adjusted; productivity in the nonfarm business sector (output per hour).
[iii]Rudiger Dornbusch, et. al, Macroeconomics, 7th Edition, (Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill: 1998), at 26.
[iv]Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot, “Will New Trade Gains Make Us Rich?” Center For Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) Paper, October 2001.
[v]Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, “The Evolution of Top Incomes: A Historical and International Perspective,” National Bureau of Economic Research Paper 11955, January 2006.
[vi]Kym Anderson and Will Martin et. al. “Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda,” World Bank Report, Nov. 1, 2005; Ackerman, 2005, at 8 and 9.; Sandra Polaski, “Winners and Losers: Impact of the Doha Round on Developing Countries,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2006; Frank Ackerman, “The Shrinking Gains from Trade: A Critical Assessment of Doha Round Projections,” Global Development and Environment Institute Working Paper No. 05-01, 2005.
[vii]Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravaillon, “How Have the World’s Poorest Fared since the Early 1980’s?” World Bank Research Observer, vol. 19, no. 2, 2004, at 152-3.
[viii]Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, “Scorecard on Development: 25 Years of Diminished Progress,” CEPR Paper, Sept. 2006.
[ix]Stephen W. Schondelmeyer, "The Extension of GATT Patent Extension on Currently Marketed Drugs," PRIME Institute, University of Minnesota, March 1995, at 6-7.
[x]The World Bank estimates that the baseline of people in extreme poverty in 2015 to be 622 million people. Under “scenario 7” described by Ackerman in the footnote above, there would be 2.5 million fewer poor people in 2015. Anderson and Martin et. al, Table 12.19 at 382.
[xi]John Audley, Sandra Polaski, Demetrios G. Papademetriou, and Scott Vaughan, “NAFTA’s Promise and Reality: Lessons from Mexico for the Hemisphere,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Report, Nov. 19, 2003.
[xii]Jeffrey S. Passel, “The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.: Estimates Based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey,” Pew Hispanic Center Research Report, Mar. 7, 2006, at 9; Jeffrey S. Passel and Roberto Suro, “Rise, Peak and Decline: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004,” Sept. 27, 2005, Pew Hispanic Center, at 39; George J. Borjas and Lawrence J. Katz, “The Evolution of the Mexican-Born Workforce in the United States,” Mar. 2006; World Bank data.
[xiii]Mary Jordan and Kevin Sullivan, “Trade Brings Riches, but Not to Mexico’s Poor,” Washington Post, March 22, 2003; Carlos Salas, “Between Unemployment and Insecurity in Mexico,” Economic Policy Institute, September 2006.
[xiv]Somini Sengupta, “On India’s Farms, a plague of suicide,” New York Times, Sept. 19, 2006.
[xv]Sam Laird, “Opportunities and Challenges in WTO Non-Agricultural Market Access Negotiations,” United Nations Conference on Trade and Development PowerPoint Presentation, September 2004, At 7.
[xvi]Ha-Joon Chang, “Why Developing Countries Need Tariffs? How WTO NAMA Negotiations Could Deny Developing Countries’ Right To A Future,” South Centre and Oxfam International, November 2005.
[xvii]World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement database, accessed Jan. 7, 2007; data on file with Public Citizen.
[xviii]Bureau of Economic Analysis, International Transactions, imports plus exports, accessed Feb. 14, 2007.
This is probably one of the best things you will see on trade issues and Fast Track (down a steep mountain with a cliff) renewal you will see. The folks at Global Trade Watch deserve mad props for putting this together. If you can't open the link I've totally ripped Todd off below. read it and ask yourself, what will Democrats do to reprimand the children at United States Trade Representative? I know what happened when I got cold busted lying....
USTR's Valentine's Day Presentation a Stinker
By Todd Tucker
In the wake of the fair trade sweep of the 2006 midterm elections, you would think that the Bush administration would at least be more intellectually honest when facing a Democratic majority Congress. But as the U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab’s Valentine Day’s presentation to Congress made clear, it’s stay the course on falsehoods and omissions. Here are some of the errors and omissions in Ambassador Schwab’s presentation to the Ways and Means Committee on Feb. 14, 2007.
USTR CLAIM: “2 million jobs created over last 12 months”
FACT: That’s 35 percent below what it should be
Just to keep track with population growth, the U.S. economy must generate nearly 2.7 million jobs every year, as it did during the 1990s. Plus, jobs being created are not new, highly paid, manufacturing jobs; the U.S. economy lost one-in-six of these during the NAFTA-WTO decade, 3 million jobs, much of this from trade. Further, Amb. Schwab did not mention that one-in-six of jobs created in the past year are public, not private, sector.[i]In economic sectors most impacted by trade, the U.S. is losing jobs.
USTR CLAIM: The U.S. is seeing “rising wages”
FACT: Wages are trailing far behind productivity and economic growth
Real wages generally rise rather than lower every year, although several years of the Bush administration were notable exceptions. The issue policy-makers should be concerned with is how much are wages rising, and how closely are they tracking productivity and economic growth. Although productivity has gone up over 80 percent and GDP has gone up over 160 percent since 1973, wages have risen less than 10 percent. In fact, the average worker’s hourly wage has only gone up a nickel from 1973 to 2006. Similarly, since 2001, the U.S. economy has grown 15 percent and productivity 16 percent, while wages have only gone up one percent.[ii]Economists and academics generally agree that trade liberalization dilutes and weakens the relative bargaining power of workers and the unions that represent them, making it easier for employers to suppress wage increase demands.
USTR CLAIM: “Trade is spurring economic growth”
FACT: Trade deficits are a drag on growth
The standard macroeconomic model of the economy taught in introductory economics classes shows that, in the short run, increases in consumption, investment, net government spending, and net exports (exports minus imports) add to growth and employment, while decreases in these variables reduce growth and employment.[iii] The unsustainable and increasing near-$800 billion trade deficit (i.e. imports are above exports by that amount) is a drag on economic growth and employment.
USTR CLAIM: “Trade benefits all Americans.”
FACT: Trade model is driving unprecedented surges in income inequality
Economic projections cited by USTR typically ignore the distribution of the benefits from trade. This is unfortunate, since standard economic theory predicts that the distribution of income worsens with increased trade, as the majority of the labor force faces increased lower-wage competition but the upper income groups do not. If you use even the most conservative estimate of the contribution of increased trade to increased inequality, the losses from trade swamp the gains for the average U.S. worker.[iv] In fact, income inequality is at heights not seen since the Robber Baron era, with the top 10 percent of Americans taking half of the economic pie.[v]
USTR CLAIM: “Elimination of global trade barriers could lift 66 million of the world’s poor out of poverty”
FACT: The trade policy that is actually on the table will be a net loss for many developing countries according to very studies Schwab cited to make the opposite point
Studies by the World Bank, Tufts University and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace all project that developing country gains from the likely outcome of Doha Round of the WTO would be shrinking over time, highly unequal, and even a net negative for the majority of poor countries.[vi] These meager and even negative growth projections of the likely Doha Round outcome come on the heels of an increase in poor country poverty[vii] and a slowdown in poor country growth rates during the NAFTA-WTO era that is unprecedented in modern history.[viii] Furthermore, USTR uses a projection based on elimination of all trade barriers around the world. (Total liberalization is not on the table in WTO negotiations, which will eliminate some trade barriers while raising others, as they did during the Uruguay Round, which expanding protectionism for pharmaceutical companies, costing U.S. consumers over $6 billion.[ix]) As the World Bank studies show, under the likely Doha Round outcome, only 2.5 million people would be lifted out of the $1 a day poverty level category – meaning that under an estimate of the effects of the likely Doha scenario by the year 2015, the vast majority of the world’s population (996 of every 1,000 poor people) would remain below the extreme poverty line.[x]
USTR CLAIM: Doha “must deliver new export opportunities for U.S. agricultural producers;” “assure market access not negated by loopholes;” achieve “elimination of tariffs in key sectors”
FACT: These U.S. WTO demands, as they are currently formulated, would doom poor country development and fuel displacement and increased migration
USTR calls for more agricultural and industrial market access under the Doha Round, and a curtailing of the scope of “sensitive products” and “special safeguard mechanisms.” In such technical language, these phrases sound benign. But the history of implementation of these policies shows otherwise.
Under NAFTA, Mexico opened up its agricultural sector and removed safeguards – a move which led to over a million rural peasants being displaced from the countryside and catapulted towards overcrowded cities and the United States.[xi] Now, one in ten Mexicans lives in the United States, many illegally.[xii] In Mexico, poverty is up and wages are down.[xiii] The status quo trade model is so discredited that anti-NAFTA candidate Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador nearly became president in 2006. The Bush administration’s WTO demands would expand the NAFTA disaster to the entire globe. Already, hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers commit suicide every year due to trade-related economic pressures.[xiv] Unless the goal of the Bush administration is to create a global refugee and foreign policy crisis, it must back down from its extreme WTO negotiating positions. Similarly, developing country governments are now very reliant on tariff revenue,[xv] and utilize selective protective measures to nurture infant industries – strategies that characterized all now-developed countries during their early development stages. Development groups have said the Bush administration’s demands on non-agricultural market access “could deny developing countries a right to a future.”[xvi]
USTR CLAIM: The U.S. “won 88% of WTO cases brought”
FACT: The U.S. lost nearly nine in ten cases brought by other countries against U.S. policies
Out of 49 WTO cases brought against U.S. policies, the United States lost 85.7 percent of the time. Out of the 36 WTO cases brought against U.S. anti-dumping and safeguard laws, the United States lost 88.9 percent of the time. Out of the 9 WTO cases brought against U.S., non-trade, public interest policies, the United States lost 77.8 percent of the time.[xvii]
USTR CLAIM: Fast Track is needed “to implement Doha” and “to negotiate regional and bilateral agreements”
FACT: Hundreds of trade agreements, including several rounds of pre-WTO global trade negotiations and the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, were negotiated without Fast Track. Furthermore, from 1995 to 2000, Congress denied the Clinton administration Fast Track authority yet U.S. international trade (exports plus imports) expanded 50 percent.[xviii]
[i]Christian E. Weller, “How Do We Know When the Job Loss Recovery is Over?” Center for American Progress, April 2, 2004; Heather Boushey, Jobs Byte, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Nov. 3, 2006 and Jan. 5, 2007.
[ii]Bureau of Economic Analysis figures: Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained Dollars; Bureau of Labor Statistics Figures: Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail, seasonally adjusted; productivity in the nonfarm business sector (output per hour).
[iii]Rudiger Dornbusch, et. al, Macroeconomics, 7th Edition, (Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill: 1998), at 26.
[iv]Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot, “Will New Trade Gains Make Us Rich?” Center For Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) Paper, October 2001.
[v]Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, “The Evolution of Top Incomes: A Historical and International Perspective,” National Bureau of Economic Research Paper 11955, January 2006.
[vi]Kym Anderson and Will Martin et. al. “Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda,” World Bank Report, Nov. 1, 2005; Ackerman, 2005, at 8 and 9.; Sandra Polaski, “Winners and Losers: Impact of the Doha Round on Developing Countries,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2006; Frank Ackerman, “The Shrinking Gains from Trade: A Critical Assessment of Doha Round Projections,” Global Development and Environment Institute Working Paper No. 05-01, 2005.
[vii]Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravaillon, “How Have the World’s Poorest Fared since the Early 1980’s?” World Bank Research Observer, vol. 19, no. 2, 2004, at 152-3.
[viii]Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, “Scorecard on Development: 25 Years of Diminished Progress,” CEPR Paper, Sept. 2006.
[ix]Stephen W. Schondelmeyer, "The Extension of GATT Patent Extension on Currently Marketed Drugs," PRIME Institute, University of Minnesota, March 1995, at 6-7.
[x]The World Bank estimates that the baseline of people in extreme poverty in 2015 to be 622 million people. Under “scenario 7” described by Ackerman in the footnote above, there would be 2.5 million fewer poor people in 2015. Anderson and Martin et. al, Table 12.19 at 382.
[xi]John Audley, Sandra Polaski, Demetrios G. Papademetriou, and Scott Vaughan, “NAFTA’s Promise and Reality: Lessons from Mexico for the Hemisphere,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Report, Nov. 19, 2003.
[xii]Jeffrey S. Passel, “The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.: Estimates Based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey,” Pew Hispanic Center Research Report, Mar. 7, 2006, at 9; Jeffrey S. Passel and Roberto Suro, “Rise, Peak and Decline: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004,” Sept. 27, 2005, Pew Hispanic Center, at 39; George J. Borjas and Lawrence J. Katz, “The Evolution of the Mexican-Born Workforce in the United States,” Mar. 2006; World Bank data.
[xiii]Mary Jordan and Kevin Sullivan, “Trade Brings Riches, but Not to Mexico’s Poor,” Washington Post, March 22, 2003; Carlos Salas, “Between Unemployment and Insecurity in Mexico,” Economic Policy Institute, September 2006.
[xiv]Somini Sengupta, “On India’s Farms, a plague of suicide,” New York Times, Sept. 19, 2006.
[xv]Sam Laird, “Opportunities and Challenges in WTO Non-Agricultural Market Access Negotiations,” United Nations Conference on Trade and Development PowerPoint Presentation, September 2004, At 7.
[xvi]Ha-Joon Chang, “Why Developing Countries Need Tariffs? How WTO NAMA Negotiations Could Deny Developing Countries’ Right To A Future,” South Centre and Oxfam International, November 2005.
[xvii]World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement database, accessed Jan. 7, 2007; data on file with Public Citizen.
[xviii]Bureau of Economic Analysis, International Transactions, imports plus exports, accessed Feb. 14, 2007.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
All's I want for Xmas is a missile silo
Evidently, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has a serious case of silo envy going on. Before he is pushed out into the political graveyard he wants his legacy as the U.K. Prime Minister to be something big. Reports are starting to leak out that Britain wants to play host for one of the U.S. interceptor missiles that is part of the "missile shield" that has utilized billions of dollars in taxpayer funds while we can't afford new buses to send our kids to school. Tony Blair has been personally speaking with the U.S. to seal this deal.
The outgoing Blair seems intent on joining with the Bush Administration in one last foreign policy blunder before he walks out into London and notices all the unemployed and poor people who will hopefully pelt him with crumpets. This is a serious policy blunder.
The words "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall..." still echo in my ears even as present day Russian President Putin says such a move will trigger an arms race. Russia, who controls a lot of the energy for Eastern Europe doesn't seem to bluff very often. I like my poker with cards; not missiles.
With all the warnings that have been given by so many nations regarding the missile shield, one has to wonder; is another arms race the goal here? It's not as far-fetched as it initially sounds. The defense industry is big business. With access to labor pools in Asia and Latin America who have virtually no rights and no laws regarding worker safety, this industry has become even more profitable (see Iraq reconstruction) . With that in mind, I'm reminded of a famous comment about the military industrial complex.
Conspiracy theorist? Maybe, but for good reason. I would really call it paying attention though. We've already learned that we can't trust these guys on anything, so it's up to us to be vigilant and proactive in stopping Tony Blair from getting his Christmas gift which he wants by next year. No missiles; pony. Sorry Tony.
Apologies for the incoherence of this post, I'm still dissecting Gores speech at the Oscars....who knows...
The outgoing Blair seems intent on joining with the Bush Administration in one last foreign policy blunder before he walks out into London and notices all the unemployed and poor people who will hopefully pelt him with crumpets. This is a serious policy blunder.
The words "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall..." still echo in my ears even as present day Russian President Putin says such a move will trigger an arms race. Russia, who controls a lot of the energy for Eastern Europe doesn't seem to bluff very often. I like my poker with cards; not missiles.
With all the warnings that have been given by so many nations regarding the missile shield, one has to wonder; is another arms race the goal here? It's not as far-fetched as it initially sounds. The defense industry is big business. With access to labor pools in Asia and Latin America who have virtually no rights and no laws regarding worker safety, this industry has become even more profitable (see Iraq reconstruction) . With that in mind, I'm reminded of a famous comment about the military industrial complex.
Conspiracy theorist? Maybe, but for good reason. I would really call it paying attention though. We've already learned that we can't trust these guys on anything, so it's up to us to be vigilant and proactive in stopping Tony Blair from getting his Christmas gift which he wants by next year. No missiles; pony. Sorry Tony.
Apologies for the incoherence of this post, I'm still dissecting Gores speech at the Oscars....who knows...
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Movie Review for Progressives of An Unreasonable Man
Farleft tells me that a lot of people don't get the opportunity to see a lot of the Inde movies that come out and in particular, the documentaries. Thought I would share my take on the newly released documentary "An Unreasonable Man" which chronicles the life work of Ralph Nader. Oh, that asshole who helped put Bush in the White House. I've always felt that this statement was made by those who really didn't look at the facts surrounding the 2000 Presidential elections and I even picked up on some new reasons to reinforce my thought. But I digress. Throw it on your Netflix Queue and see for yourself.
The documentary is very well done and leaves out the mellow drama that has become commonplace in such other documentaries like Bowling for Columbine. Yes, this is a shot at Michael Moore and after you see this documentary, you'll understand why. Also, this comment is made to help the very talented and well-meaning Michael Moore find his way back to his conscience.
This documentary combines a large dose of reality, a large dollop of facts and just enough humor to make this life-long Democrat say, huh? Nader is both brutally honest and as complimentary to those who have been allied with him in the past as one possibly could be after enduring an onslaught of negative and damaging comments from friends. He stands up for himself, his mission and his ideals. Many of which a majority of people share, but just don't really know it.
One scene really captures the essence of Nader's life work and accomplishments and many of these were new to Mother. Nader was instrumental in getting the following pieces of major legislation passed:
The Clean Air Act
The Clean Water Act
OSHA standards
Mine Safety Legislation
Chemical Safety Standards
Seat belts and Air Bags in Automobiles
Food labeling....
the list goes on
By far the most interesting segment of "An Unreasonable Man" was the information regarding the presidential debates and who decides on the participants. Are you a Democrat who is sick of coting for the lesser of two evils or a Republican who just doesn't feel that your party gives a flying F%#@ about some of your views? Read on.
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CDP)decides who we will see talk about the issues. Period. The co-chairmen of the CDP are Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Paul G Kirk, Jr. Aside from both of these guys being "Jr's" what else do they have in common? First, both are former chairs of the Republican and Democratic parties respectively. Is this conducive to having a variety of ideas conveyed to American voters? No, it's not. How much does the CDP really care about information? Obviously not much seeing as the deceased Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford still exist as an honorary Co-Chairmen.
With all due respect to the families of the deceased Chairmen, isn't this an opportunity to change this corporation (yes it is a corporation) in a way that more reflects present day America? Seeing as more people identify themselves as Independents (Lieberman is not an Independent) shouldn't we throw a LaRouche and/or Nader up there? Hell ,I'd take Pat Buchanan who really provided great insight for this documentary and continues to baffle this progressive activist.
So, what's up with Nader? Some may think he's a lonely man in search of a new niche, mission or purpose. This isn't the case. Nader continues to reinvent himself as any good person, nation or organizations should do and both parties could learn a lot from a man like Nader who's not afraid to say No (gasp) or why? (ugh). These two words are the foundation of our flailing Democracy and it takes brave people like Nader to step forward and say this ain't about me and I don't care how I'm remembered. Quite refreshing actually.
In closing, pure beauty:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."-George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)"Maxims for Revolutionists.
Don't ever stop asking why.
Ralph Nader also has a new book out entitled "The Seventeen Traditions"
The documentary is very well done and leaves out the mellow drama that has become commonplace in such other documentaries like Bowling for Columbine. Yes, this is a shot at Michael Moore and after you see this documentary, you'll understand why. Also, this comment is made to help the very talented and well-meaning Michael Moore find his way back to his conscience.
This documentary combines a large dose of reality, a large dollop of facts and just enough humor to make this life-long Democrat say, huh? Nader is both brutally honest and as complimentary to those who have been allied with him in the past as one possibly could be after enduring an onslaught of negative and damaging comments from friends. He stands up for himself, his mission and his ideals. Many of which a majority of people share, but just don't really know it.
One scene really captures the essence of Nader's life work and accomplishments and many of these were new to Mother. Nader was instrumental in getting the following pieces of major legislation passed:
The Clean Air Act
The Clean Water Act
OSHA standards
Mine Safety Legislation
Chemical Safety Standards
Seat belts and Air Bags in Automobiles
Food labeling....
the list goes on
By far the most interesting segment of "An Unreasonable Man" was the information regarding the presidential debates and who decides on the participants. Are you a Democrat who is sick of coting for the lesser of two evils or a Republican who just doesn't feel that your party gives a flying F%#@ about some of your views? Read on.
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CDP)decides who we will see talk about the issues. Period. The co-chairmen of the CDP are Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Paul G Kirk, Jr. Aside from both of these guys being "Jr's" what else do they have in common? First, both are former chairs of the Republican and Democratic parties respectively. Is this conducive to having a variety of ideas conveyed to American voters? No, it's not. How much does the CDP really care about information? Obviously not much seeing as the deceased Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford still exist as an honorary Co-Chairmen.
With all due respect to the families of the deceased Chairmen, isn't this an opportunity to change this corporation (yes it is a corporation) in a way that more reflects present day America? Seeing as more people identify themselves as Independents (Lieberman is not an Independent) shouldn't we throw a LaRouche and/or Nader up there? Hell ,I'd take Pat Buchanan who really provided great insight for this documentary and continues to baffle this progressive activist.
So, what's up with Nader? Some may think he's a lonely man in search of a new niche, mission or purpose. This isn't the case. Nader continues to reinvent himself as any good person, nation or organizations should do and both parties could learn a lot from a man like Nader who's not afraid to say No (gasp) or why? (ugh). These two words are the foundation of our flailing Democracy and it takes brave people like Nader to step forward and say this ain't about me and I don't care how I'm remembered. Quite refreshing actually.
In closing, pure beauty:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."-George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)"Maxims for Revolutionists.
Don't ever stop asking why.
Ralph Nader also has a new book out entitled "The Seventeen Traditions"
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The war for men's minds
Disturbing news came out recently about the conditions at Walter Reed hospital. I, like many people, was saddened to hear about these developments but it did NOT surprise me. The Bush administration has always screamed uber-patriotism while sending others to do their dirty work. It didn’t surprise me that the new Bush budget includes massive cuts to veterans’ benefits. It didn’t surprise me that this administration has repeatedly sent our troops into the line of fire without proper training and/or equipment. It didn’t surprise me that while members of the administration speak of honor and nobility they are making these decisions to cut funding and short change the troops on training and armor. The administration has been wrong on nearly every estimate during this war and the troops continue to get the shaft because of it. So let’s remember these things as we listen to Cheney tell us that debating when our troops will come home is helping al-Qaeda. We should also remember that this war is actually having the reverse effect of its intentions. Many of us know that the rhetoric that the administration is spewing is what Chomsky called “the war for men’s minds”; saying and repeating at every possible instance talking points that will get ordinarily logical people to believe what they are told no matter how absurd. Combating this sort of propaganda with the facts can help but these frames are very difficult to break. At some point people must begin to realize that paying a couple of bucks for a yellow magnet that is made in china is NOT how you support the troops! Hopefully the media will let the Anna Nicole Smith story go for awhile and we won’t get another runaway bride.
UPDATE: here is some more twisted news that just emphasizes the point that this administration could care less!
UPDATE: here is some more twisted news that just emphasizes the point that this administration could care less!
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Drug Testing at the White House
One must wonder if marijuana has been legalized at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Vice President Cheney continues to make some of the most bizarre and outlandish statements regarding his Iraq policy, er, I mean the presidents.
Cheney unleashed the following comment in response to Senator John McCains comments claiming Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as the worst Secretary of Defense ever (he then apologized to Cheney for saying this- can you say campaign cash?). "I know a little bit about the job. I've watched what he's done over there for six years. I think he did a superb job in terms of managing the Pentagon under extraordinarily difficult circumstances," Cheney said. "He and John McCain had a number of dustups over policy, didn't have anything to do with Iraq." See the whole Washington Post story here.
These comments follow the previous days comments while visiting Japan claiming things are going well in Iraq. "The American people will not support a policy of retreat," Cheney told about 4,000 troops in the hangar bay. "We want to complete the mission, we want to get it done right, and then we want to come home, with honor." Interesting how he talks the talk but never walked the walk.
You really have to wonder what the VP is watching. Britain announced a draw down of troop levels and Cheney didn't miss a beat. "What I see is an affirmation of Iraq, where things are going pretty well," Cheney told ABC News from Japan. The whole story is here. Sound familiar? It should. Can you really ever believe his analysis of anything having to do with the Iraq war?
The moral of the story is very similar to that of the post about Mitt Romney. These guys will say anything to try and appease their very disillusioned base and hope to hell that none of them check the facts. There are only two ways to rationalize his comments- DEA contraband is stored at the White House or he and his party faithful are so out of touch with the realities of today on every level that they just can't be taken seriously anymore.
Cheney unleashed the following comment in response to Senator John McCains comments claiming Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as the worst Secretary of Defense ever (he then apologized to Cheney for saying this- can you say campaign cash?). "I know a little bit about the job. I've watched what he's done over there for six years. I think he did a superb job in terms of managing the Pentagon under extraordinarily difficult circumstances," Cheney said. "He and John McCain had a number of dustups over policy, didn't have anything to do with Iraq." See the whole Washington Post story here.
These comments follow the previous days comments while visiting Japan claiming things are going well in Iraq. "The American people will not support a policy of retreat," Cheney told about 4,000 troops in the hangar bay. "We want to complete the mission, we want to get it done right, and then we want to come home, with honor." Interesting how he talks the talk but never walked the walk.
You really have to wonder what the VP is watching. Britain announced a draw down of troop levels and Cheney didn't miss a beat. "What I see is an affirmation of Iraq, where things are going pretty well," Cheney told ABC News from Japan. The whole story is here. Sound familiar? It should. Can you really ever believe his analysis of anything having to do with the Iraq war?
The moral of the story is very similar to that of the post about Mitt Romney. These guys will say anything to try and appease their very disillusioned base and hope to hell that none of them check the facts. There are only two ways to rationalize his comments- DEA contraband is stored at the White House or he and his party faithful are so out of touch with the realities of today on every level that they just can't be taken seriously anymore.
Is lying a sin according to the Mormon religeon?
If this doesn't let you know that the presidential campaign season is swinging into full swing, I don't know what would! A classic example of politicians being, well, politicians of the worst sort. This article appeared in the Washington Post on Wednesday, February 21st. I wonder how he would respond to the question "Did you inhale?"
A Mittism shall be defined as "someone who will say anything and renege on anything they've said in pursuit of the oval office. It's not his views on social issues that are important, it's the fact that his views shift more frequently than a feather boa on a Vegas showgirl.
A Mittism shall be defined as "someone who will say anything and renege on anything they've said in pursuit of the oval office. It's not his views on social issues that are important, it's the fact that his views shift more frequently than a feather boa on a Vegas showgirl.
Monday, February 19, 2007
More Pate' Democratic Leaders?
The first thing to keep in mind about this post is that this is not even in the same ballpark as what the infamous K Street project was under Republican control. However, it does smack in the face of a more open form of government and clearly demonstrates that Democratic pandering to corporate raiders should remain a concern for those punching a time clock.
Democratic leaders and their representatives are meeting regularly with K Street Lobbyists. K street is a street in Washington D.C. where the major lobbying and law firms call home and some say where the real power in D.C. resides. The meetings are being organized by Jonathan Jones, former Chief of Staff to Senator Carper (D-DE). Presently Jones is with the firm Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart, Jones. What makes these meetings particularly offensive is that Congressional leaders make themselves available for a group of about 80 K Street lobbyists and then come to them. Evidently the term lobbying doesn't apply to these folks as most lobbyists, especially for social causes and labor unions rarely, if ever, have access to this kind of congressional power.
So even as labor unions have a slightly more receptive audience on Capitol Hill these days, they must compete with K street power brokers who represent businesses and organizations that are diametrically opposed to what we have fought for over the decades. Firms like Johnson, Madigan, Peck et al. have clients ranging from Big Tobacco to the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber opposes the Employee Free Choice Act and promotes the present trading system which costs us jobs and entire communities (see Flint MI). The Chamber also contributes millions of dollars to anti union organizations like Unionfacts.org which is hardly factual at all.
When you look at the other clients of this firm you will see some of the most anti-union corporations in existence. Microsoft who claims they don't have enough techs available here in the states so they need more work visas for foreign employees to come here and work for less while they force the displaced workers to train their replacements if they want their last two weeks of compensation. Verizon corporation is a perennial top trampler of workers rights and spends millions to thwart organizing efforts. The list goes on.
So ,the question is this- What are Democratic leaders thinking? I suggest you call them and find out. Tell them that meetings like this with such an anti-worker group of people is offensive and ask them to stop it now. You can contact Congressional leaders at the following phone numbers:
Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland Phone - (202) 225-4131
Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina (202)225-3315
Democratic Senate Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois (202) 224-2152
Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid of Nevada 202-224-3542
Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California (202) 225-4965
Seeing as we don't have the ability to have these leaders come to us, we'll have to do it the grassroots way. Copy and paste this post and send it to friends and family and please make the calls as well.
You can view the story at this blog
Democratic leaders and their representatives are meeting regularly with K Street Lobbyists. K street is a street in Washington D.C. where the major lobbying and law firms call home and some say where the real power in D.C. resides. The meetings are being organized by Jonathan Jones, former Chief of Staff to Senator Carper (D-DE). Presently Jones is with the firm Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart, Jones. What makes these meetings particularly offensive is that Congressional leaders make themselves available for a group of about 80 K Street lobbyists and then come to them. Evidently the term lobbying doesn't apply to these folks as most lobbyists, especially for social causes and labor unions rarely, if ever, have access to this kind of congressional power.
So even as labor unions have a slightly more receptive audience on Capitol Hill these days, they must compete with K street power brokers who represent businesses and organizations that are diametrically opposed to what we have fought for over the decades. Firms like Johnson, Madigan, Peck et al. have clients ranging from Big Tobacco to the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber opposes the Employee Free Choice Act and promotes the present trading system which costs us jobs and entire communities (see Flint MI). The Chamber also contributes millions of dollars to anti union organizations like Unionfacts.org which is hardly factual at all.
When you look at the other clients of this firm you will see some of the most anti-union corporations in existence. Microsoft who claims they don't have enough techs available here in the states so they need more work visas for foreign employees to come here and work for less while they force the displaced workers to train their replacements if they want their last two weeks of compensation. Verizon corporation is a perennial top trampler of workers rights and spends millions to thwart organizing efforts. The list goes on.
So ,the question is this- What are Democratic leaders thinking? I suggest you call them and find out. Tell them that meetings like this with such an anti-worker group of people is offensive and ask them to stop it now. You can contact Congressional leaders at the following phone numbers:
Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland Phone - (202) 225-4131
Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina (202)225-3315
Democratic Senate Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois (202) 224-2152
Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid of Nevada 202-224-3542
Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California (202) 225-4965
Seeing as we don't have the ability to have these leaders come to us, we'll have to do it the grassroots way. Copy and paste this post and send it to friends and family and please make the calls as well.
You can view the story at this blog
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Funding the war
I came across this post on Michigan Liberal (a site I am very proud to have made their link list! Thank you very much Mich. Lib.!) one of the contributors is named Cordelia Lear here is a link to all of her postings at Mich. Lib.
In a follow up to this post she urged bloggers to steal her post so I am doing exactly that, enjoy!
Yesterday, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution (248-182) rejecting Bush's plan to escalate troop levels in Iraq. The Senate continues to debate the same resolution and will vote later today.
I thought it would be interesting to look at how many Michigan tax dollars have been spent already and will be spent in 2007 to fund this war. The National Priorities Project breaks down the cost of this war on their site. You can get info by state, congressional district, or by municipality. The site also has estimated budget trade-offs. In other words, what else could we do with the same dollars if we weren't funding this war.
Taxpayers in Michigan will pay $3.7 billion for the cost of the Iraq War in FY 2007.
Some of the possible trade-offs with FY2007 funds include:
1,256,621 People with Health Care or
50,995 Elementary School Teachers or
548,143 Head Start Places for Children or
29, 474 Affordable Housing Units or
329 New Elementary Schools or
396,867 Scholarships for University Students or
79,056 Public Safety Officers or
5,138,793 Homes with Renewable Electricity
Taxpayers in Michigan will pay $12.1 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007. For the same amount of money the following could have been provided:
4,164,384 People with Health Care or
8,281,897 Children with Health Care or
1,315,198 Scholarships for University Students or
17,029,721 Homes with Renewable Electricity
The war is essentially financed through deficit spending, so the cost is even higher because interest payments over time aren't included.
Think about these numbers. If our tax dollars weren't being wasted on the war, we could fund health care for 40% of the people who live in Michigan. Every student who has graduated high school since we invaded Iraq could have their college education paid. Every house --- and more --- could be converted to renewable electricity.
Eight members of Michigan's Congressional delegation demonstrated yesterday how out of touch they are with their constituents. A recent MSNBC and Wall Street Journal poll showed 25% of Americans want the U.S. to leave Iraq now. 40% want the US to leave Iraq within a year. 63% oppose the escalation of troops that BushCo proposed in the SOTU.
We need to do more. Tell the members of our state legislature to take a stand. Michiganders want our troops home. A resolution in support of ending the war would send a strong signal to Congress.
Write your Congresscritter and insist our tax dollars fund local efforts.
ProgressiveState.org has organized an effort to work with state legislators from across the country to discuss legislation and other efforts on a state wide basis to prevent BushCo's escalation in Iraq.
Get involved today.
In a follow up to this post she urged bloggers to steal her post so I am doing exactly that, enjoy!
Yesterday, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution (248-182) rejecting Bush's plan to escalate troop levels in Iraq. The Senate continues to debate the same resolution and will vote later today.
I thought it would be interesting to look at how many Michigan tax dollars have been spent already and will be spent in 2007 to fund this war. The National Priorities Project breaks down the cost of this war on their site. You can get info by state, congressional district, or by municipality. The site also has estimated budget trade-offs. In other words, what else could we do with the same dollars if we weren't funding this war.
Taxpayers in Michigan will pay $3.7 billion for the cost of the Iraq War in FY 2007.
Some of the possible trade-offs with FY2007 funds include:
1,256,621 People with Health Care or
50,995 Elementary School Teachers or
548,143 Head Start Places for Children or
29, 474 Affordable Housing Units or
329 New Elementary Schools or
396,867 Scholarships for University Students or
79,056 Public Safety Officers or
5,138,793 Homes with Renewable Electricity
Taxpayers in Michigan will pay $12.1 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007. For the same amount of money the following could have been provided:
4,164,384 People with Health Care or
8,281,897 Children with Health Care or
1,315,198 Scholarships for University Students or
17,029,721 Homes with Renewable Electricity
The war is essentially financed through deficit spending, so the cost is even higher because interest payments over time aren't included.
Think about these numbers. If our tax dollars weren't being wasted on the war, we could fund health care for 40% of the people who live in Michigan. Every student who has graduated high school since we invaded Iraq could have their college education paid. Every house --- and more --- could be converted to renewable electricity.
Eight members of Michigan's Congressional delegation demonstrated yesterday how out of touch they are with their constituents. A recent MSNBC and Wall Street Journal poll showed 25% of Americans want the U.S. to leave Iraq now. 40% want the US to leave Iraq within a year. 63% oppose the escalation of troops that BushCo proposed in the SOTU.
We need to do more. Tell the members of our state legislature to take a stand. Michiganders want our troops home. A resolution in support of ending the war would send a strong signal to Congress.
Write your Congresscritter and insist our tax dollars fund local efforts.
ProgressiveState.org has organized an effort to work with state legislators from across the country to discuss legislation and other efforts on a state wide basis to prevent BushCo's escalation in Iraq.
Get involved today.
Wrap up
Looking at the week’s goodies:
Banging the drum – here we go again, it looks like the Bush administration is determined to go to war with Iran. I wonder if Bush and his cronies will have a much harder sell this time. In this op-ed from the Nation they point out the some of the claims from “dubya” are already being spoken as gospel.
The hypocrisy continued on capitol hill- bringing obstructionism to an all time low the senate republicans voted to not debate a NON-BINDING resolution against the escalation proposed by the Bush administration. Any guess on which way our favorite Independent voted? The House debate brought out some venom from the extremist right side of the aisle. Here is Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Bigot) showing just how fanatical and irresponsible Republicans can be.
The presidents’ abhorrent environmental policies are looked over in this op-ed from the NY times.
The Bush administration is continuing its policy of replacing quality U.S. attorneys with political hacks. The attorney who investigated Randall “Duke” Cunningham has been asked to resign. She is not alone at least seven have been forced or asked to resign. Who are they being replaced with? Here is an article about the new appointments. Does anyone know Mike “Brownie” Browns number?
AFL-CIO pres. John Sweeney gives us some examples of what happens to union organizers, if you haven’t already please sign the letter at the bottom.
Over at Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood 8th congressional Rep. Mike Rogers is taking dance lessons and 06’ opponent Jim Marcinkowski asks him, “what’s your position?”
Banging the drum – here we go again, it looks like the Bush administration is determined to go to war with Iran. I wonder if Bush and his cronies will have a much harder sell this time. In this op-ed from the Nation they point out the some of the claims from “dubya” are already being spoken as gospel.
The hypocrisy continued on capitol hill- bringing obstructionism to an all time low the senate republicans voted to not debate a NON-BINDING resolution against the escalation proposed by the Bush administration. Any guess on which way our favorite Independent voted? The House debate brought out some venom from the extremist right side of the aisle. Here is Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Bigot) showing just how fanatical and irresponsible Republicans can be.
The presidents’ abhorrent environmental policies are looked over in this op-ed from the NY times.
The Bush administration is continuing its policy of replacing quality U.S. attorneys with political hacks. The attorney who investigated Randall “Duke” Cunningham has been asked to resign. She is not alone at least seven have been forced or asked to resign. Who are they being replaced with? Here is an article about the new appointments. Does anyone know Mike “Brownie” Browns number?
AFL-CIO pres. John Sweeney gives us some examples of what happens to union organizers, if you haven’t already please sign the letter at the bottom.
Over at Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood 8th congressional Rep. Mike Rogers is taking dance lessons and 06’ opponent Jim Marcinkowski asks him, “what’s your position?”
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Vote for Whitney
The classic song "The Children are our Future" by the , oh let's just say challenged, Whitney Houston has a lot of truth to it. You'll hear many of our elected leaders in this country say we have to do this for our kids. Many of them will say this about the debacle formerly known as Iraq. Whether or not you agree or disagree with what's going on in Iraq, ask yourself a question. What are we protecting? If you listen to these same leaders they say that they have the best interest of American children in mind when they propose tax cuts for multinational corporations who are reaping record profits while shedding pension and health care obligations. Or, when they say that we must "fund our troops" but let the market take care of itself as taxpayers are left virtually helpless as these same people give billions of dollars and the heck with oversight and how the money is spent. So, what are we protecting? Evidently, a bunch of unhealthy, undereducated kids who will move further down the food chain and quite frankly, that's the plan.
The Economist magazine ran a story on the the welfare of children in "rich" countries.The story is here. The news ain't pretty. The United States ranked 20th out of 21 countries with only Great Britain faring worse. This means that kids in countries with high Gross Domestic Product (GDP) do a lousy job at providing for the future of our children. Frankly, it's been going on for quite some time but it's always beneficial to see a new study.
So what are we protecting? It sure isn't the future of American kids. The U.S. and Great Britain are two of the "free trade" countries. No protectionism here, the market will sort it out right? Maybe, just maybe we should try to protect our future by protecting our kids. By protecting our kids we also protect the kids of other countries ensuring that these kids aren't subjected to child slavery, prostitution and forced labor that go along with the market mentality. Survival of the fittest these people will say and I'm sure that's an easy sell as they accept the big PAC contributions from drug, health care and oil companies. The real way to ensure that our children do have a future is to insist that our trade agreements don't give away the store to these industries and that they protect our kids. Judging by the talk from the powers that be in Washington, they should go buy a copy of Whitney's album.
The Economist magazine ran a story on the the welfare of children in "rich" countries.The story is here. The news ain't pretty. The United States ranked 20th out of 21 countries with only Great Britain faring worse. This means that kids in countries with high Gross Domestic Product (GDP) do a lousy job at providing for the future of our children. Frankly, it's been going on for quite some time but it's always beneficial to see a new study.
So what are we protecting? It sure isn't the future of American kids. The U.S. and Great Britain are two of the "free trade" countries. No protectionism here, the market will sort it out right? Maybe, just maybe we should try to protect our future by protecting our kids. By protecting our kids we also protect the kids of other countries ensuring that these kids aren't subjected to child slavery, prostitution and forced labor that go along with the market mentality. Survival of the fittest these people will say and I'm sure that's an easy sell as they accept the big PAC contributions from drug, health care and oil companies. The real way to ensure that our children do have a future is to insist that our trade agreements don't give away the store to these industries and that they protect our kids. Judging by the talk from the powers that be in Washington, they should go buy a copy of Whitney's album.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Roll Call
With so many elected members of congress sometimes its hard to know who is on your side and what they are up to.
Rep. George Miller (D-CA) is a member of congress whose name you may not be familiar with, but he has been a consistent voice for working people in this country for many years. Here is an opinion piece he recently wrote. I previously wrote about The Employee Free Choice Act which Rep. Miller co-wrote and sponsored. The Employee Free Choice Act should be coming to the floor of congress soon and it is very important to let our legislators know how we feel on the matter. when responsible legislators like Rep. Miller put forth the hard work to craft legislation like this it is of great importance that we hold up our end of the deal and take a few minutes to do our part. The UAW has a pre-written letter here for you to send out. Here is a letter written by the AFL-CIO, I believe this link may already be on the blog but here it is again anyway!
Rep. George Miller (D-CA) is a member of congress whose name you may not be familiar with, but he has been a consistent voice for working people in this country for many years. Here is an opinion piece he recently wrote. I previously wrote about The Employee Free Choice Act which Rep. Miller co-wrote and sponsored. The Employee Free Choice Act should be coming to the floor of congress soon and it is very important to let our legislators know how we feel on the matter. when responsible legislators like Rep. Miller put forth the hard work to craft legislation like this it is of great importance that we hold up our end of the deal and take a few minutes to do our part. The UAW has a pre-written letter here for you to send out. Here is a letter written by the AFL-CIO, I believe this link may already be on the blog but here it is again anyway!
Sunday, February 11, 2007
NAFTA Strikes Again
Twelve years later and we're still feeling the effects of the fatally flawed NAFTA agreement. Bit by bit by bit, corporate America chips away at the ability of American workers to make a decent living, provide for their kids and maintain the manufacturing base that built the middle class.
Connersville, Indiana is in Middle America. Conservative values reign supreme and corporate America preys on these little communities. The Right Wing zealots funded by corporate America distract the masses with abortion and gun rights (and now illegal immigration) while they simultaneously execute their plan to force wages down here at home by moving good paying manufacturing jobs out of America. NAFTA has struck again in Middle America.
Visteon announced they will be shuttering yet another plant. I realize that many who read this blog are in Michigan, but this effects the entire region. Economic statistics show that auto industry manufacturing jobs support many other upstream and downstream jobs. These jobs are the backbone of the middle class. Visteon isn't done yet either. They plan to shut down 30 facilities.
The comments of Bush ally and former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)Mitch Daniels, who is the the Governor of Indiana are frightening and indicative of the problem. These guys put profits above God (or insert deity here), family and country. It's like they jerk off to earnings reports or something. Sick, wrong, immoral, unjust and out of touch. "It's a sad day..." Daniels said in response to these plans by Visteon. These types of people just accept this as the cost of doing business. This isn't leading a nation-it's the exact opposite. this is the type of person that labels a person who values hard work, providing for his/her family and democracy as a "protectionist" I guess it depends on what each individual determines what is worth protecting. I personally choose American values and am proud to wear the protectionist moniker as a badge of honor. After all, someone has to care about the future of this country because people like Mitch Daniels and Visteon CEO Michael Johnston don't.
I encourage you to call and email them stating that you are sickened by their choice of profits over American values. It's simple, you can contact Mitch Daniels at 317-232-4567 or by email You should also email Visteon PR personnel at kgoode@visteon.com.
The message is simple. I am sick and tired of watching you let jobs be offshored. I pay taxes, I am a consumer and I vote. Please post any responses you receive on this website.
Connersville, Indiana is in Middle America. Conservative values reign supreme and corporate America preys on these little communities. The Right Wing zealots funded by corporate America distract the masses with abortion and gun rights (and now illegal immigration) while they simultaneously execute their plan to force wages down here at home by moving good paying manufacturing jobs out of America. NAFTA has struck again in Middle America.
Visteon announced they will be shuttering yet another plant. I realize that many who read this blog are in Michigan, but this effects the entire region. Economic statistics show that auto industry manufacturing jobs support many other upstream and downstream jobs. These jobs are the backbone of the middle class. Visteon isn't done yet either. They plan to shut down 30 facilities.
The comments of Bush ally and former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)Mitch Daniels, who is the the Governor of Indiana are frightening and indicative of the problem. These guys put profits above God (or insert deity here), family and country. It's like they jerk off to earnings reports or something. Sick, wrong, immoral, unjust and out of touch. "It's a sad day..." Daniels said in response to these plans by Visteon. These types of people just accept this as the cost of doing business. This isn't leading a nation-it's the exact opposite. this is the type of person that labels a person who values hard work, providing for his/her family and democracy as a "protectionist" I guess it depends on what each individual determines what is worth protecting. I personally choose American values and am proud to wear the protectionist moniker as a badge of honor. After all, someone has to care about the future of this country because people like Mitch Daniels and Visteon CEO Michael Johnston don't.
I encourage you to call and email them stating that you are sickened by their choice of profits over American values. It's simple, you can contact Mitch Daniels at 317-232-4567 or by email You should also email Visteon PR personnel at kgoode@visteon.com.
The message is simple. I am sick and tired of watching you let jobs be offshored. I pay taxes, I am a consumer and I vote. Please post any responses you receive on this website.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
My way or the highway!
PBS and NPR are under attack from the bush administration again. Many will remember the Ken Tomlinson era. Here is another article on Tomlinson. In the ill conceived new budget, President Bush proposes to cut funding for public broadcasting by 24%. Included in the cuts are those tree-hugging dirt worshipers on “Sesame Street” and the communist ideal spewing “reading rainbow” which are both part of the bigger “ready to learn” programming offered by PBS. It appears as if the administration can’t force PBS and NPR into being a mouthpiece for more of the president’s talking points than they will cut the funding for them. This is outrageous and CANNOT be tolerated! Here is a petition to congress telling them to reject this proposal, please sign it.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Taxes and state of Michigan
I recently had a conversation with an associate that didn’t sit will with me. The discussion was about taxes in the state of Michigan and the current situation with the budget shortfall. My associate declared that he could barely afford to pay his bills so there better not be any tax increases! He then went on with the usual right wing talking points about trimming the “governmental waste” to make up for the difference in the budget. I am very used to this type of nonsense coming from a republican or libertarian screaming “drown the government in the bathtub!”, but this was coming from a left-winger. Almost in shock I immediately said “the state has cut taxes for 18 straight years how is that working out for us?”(I know it’s only 15, I was off by 3 years). I went on to talk about the years of cuts the police dept. and the fire dept. had seen as well as our schools desperately in need of more teachers are being forced to yet again increase class sizes. Sadly I think my associate will dwell endlessly on the fact that I was off by 3 years and miss the point entirely.
The next day the AP came out with this article detailing the DECREASE in individual taxes in this state over that last 15 years. The article explains not only have income taxes dropped but so have property taxes, the article also explains that Michigan is BELOW the national average state and local tax burden on its citizens. Here is a link to a website with a mountain of information and articles on the situation with Michigan and taxes. kjbas58 a contributor over at Michigan Liberal gives us insight as to how we got here and how some would like to get us out.
I suppose if I had a better temperament and a better head on my shoulders I would have said something similar to this to my associate. After some research I also found that my associate’s income isn’t even subject to state tax, in the state of Michigan many pensions are exempt. While we are constantly bombarded with the “cut taxes” rhetoric it is in our own best interest to invest in our communities and state.
The next day the AP came out with this article detailing the DECREASE in individual taxes in this state over that last 15 years. The article explains not only have income taxes dropped but so have property taxes, the article also explains that Michigan is BELOW the national average state and local tax burden on its citizens. Here is a link to a website with a mountain of information and articles on the situation with Michigan and taxes. kjbas58 a contributor over at Michigan Liberal gives us insight as to how we got here and how some would like to get us out.
I suppose if I had a better temperament and a better head on my shoulders I would have said something similar to this to my associate. After some research I also found that my associate’s income isn’t even subject to state tax, in the state of Michigan many pensions are exempt. While we are constantly bombarded with the “cut taxes” rhetoric it is in our own best interest to invest in our communities and state.
Friday, February 02, 2007
What's the Deal with Cancer!
The title of this blog is in reference to the great episode of Seinfeld when he wanted to crash and burn during a comedy gig on his show. I've noticed that there is a lack of responses and posts by other members who have been invited to this blog that farleft was good enough to set up and contribute. The question is why aren't people contributing, commenting or providing any feedback? What would be more helpful for everyone?
Many of the people on this blog are in Michigan. Many of the people on this blog are great activists in their communities who busted their asses last election cycle to try and get fair trade candidates elected even when these candidates were left for dead by the Democratic party powers that be and these candidates still did way better than expected. All those who did something should take ownership of this blog and help report on what politicians are saying in their communities and then post it so all can see what's going on around Michigan and other Midwest states.
This isn't meant to be preachy it's meant to motivate and here's why. Michigan is being characterized by the Washington media and political pundits as the next state to possibly yield some big pickups. Believe it or not, you can help make sure that pro worker candidates do not get left hanging in the wind as they were in 06 by laying the groundwork now. This blog can help do that.
A post doesn't have to be a lengthy diatribe, use big words (nuke-u-ler) or provide any insight into the happenings of the day. It's what you make it and this blog could help make Michigan the next state to boot out the Members of Congress who don't care about Midwest working family values and elect some new progressive people to work with the ones who are already here trying to make sure people get paid fair wages, have good and affordable health care and make school affordable for today's kids and tomorrows activists.
Many of the people on this blog are in Michigan. Many of the people on this blog are great activists in their communities who busted their asses last election cycle to try and get fair trade candidates elected even when these candidates were left for dead by the Democratic party powers that be and these candidates still did way better than expected. All those who did something should take ownership of this blog and help report on what politicians are saying in their communities and then post it so all can see what's going on around Michigan and other Midwest states.
This isn't meant to be preachy it's meant to motivate and here's why. Michigan is being characterized by the Washington media and political pundits as the next state to possibly yield some big pickups. Believe it or not, you can help make sure that pro worker candidates do not get left hanging in the wind as they were in 06 by laying the groundwork now. This blog can help do that.
A post doesn't have to be a lengthy diatribe, use big words (nuke-u-ler) or provide any insight into the happenings of the day. It's what you make it and this blog could help make Michigan the next state to boot out the Members of Congress who don't care about Midwest working family values and elect some new progressive people to work with the ones who are already here trying to make sure people get paid fair wages, have good and affordable health care and make school affordable for today's kids and tomorrows activists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
