Puget Sound Liberals Weekly Newsletter #233
Enhancing Freedom, Opportunity and Cooperation in
Through informing and networking Liberals and Liberal Organizations.
Our vision is hundreds of thousands of well-informed Puget Sound Liberals
working together.
Our Website Our Editor To Unsubscribe Table of
Contents * Featured Articles Opportunities Petitions Communication to Our Members Commentaries from Our Members Don Smith: 2010 WA State
Democratic Convention David Spring: I-1098 Is
the Right Thing to Do Patricia Robertson:
Reducing Big Money Influence Caleb Mardini: Vote
Against Big Money in Politics Amelia Kroeger: Thom Hartmann Exposes Wall Street Banksters
Liberals and Democrats Links to the Beef Wall Street Regulatory Reform** Increasing Estate Taxes and Charitable Donations State and Local Links
to the Beef I-1098 Volunteer Appreciation Party- Nation and World Links to the Beef Featured Advocacy Group: Sunlight Foundation Global Poverty Is Again Increasing Our Liberal Spirit - Recommended Books Our
Political Priorities ·
Fair Clean
Elections and Open Government ·
Fair Taxes and
Competent Spending ·
Investment for
Productivity ·
Quality
Health, Education, Jobs, Income ·
Environmental
Protection and Energy Independence ·
Security and
Equal Rights ·
Justice and
Peace Everywhere ·
International
Cooperation and Leadership Conservatives oppose all of these Let’s
End Our National Nightmare
Let’s
Restore Our American Dream More on Conservative opposition to our
American Dream Washington State’s 5 Major Needs · Federal Funding for Health and Education · Substituting
a Progressive Income Tax · Replacing
Conservative Legislators Quote of the Week
Calendar of Events
Opportunities
Commentaries
that have addressed major issues
Obtain
a free ‘Corporations Are Not People’ bumper sticker.
Petitions
Tell
candidates and elected officials to take specific steps to stop corporate
corruption.
Communication
To Our Members
Special Edition Next Week
As I informed you last week, from now on
our newsletter will only regularly be published every other week. However, I have decided that on the other
weeks I will occasionally publish a special edition.
Next week, I intend to send you such a
special edition which will express my views that I consider most
important. These will include:
·
Our Liberal Values
·
Conservative Opposition
to Our Liberal Values
·
More About Our Liberal
Values
·
Winning Election Strategies
·
Election Reform
·
Like Republicans,
Democrats Should Play Rough
·
Fiscal Responsibility
·
Regulating Wall Street
Speculation
·
What President
Obama Needs to Do
Commentaries
From Our Members
Don Smith: 2010 WA State Democratic
Convention
On
the weekend of June 25 I attended the Washington State Democratic Convention,
in Vancouver, WA. Here's a report of some of what I observed and learned.
McDermott on Obama
I spoke for several minutes with Representative Jim
McDermott, who looks like a Hollywood version of a distinguished US Senator. I
asked McDermott if he has any sense for why President Obama has been so
centrist. I mentioned health care, war, and the bailouts as areas where Obama
has been a disappointment. McDermott said, "Oh, one could list other areas
as well." McDermott said that Obama probably should have chosen a
progressive economist like Paul Krugman as an economic adviser. McDermott said
he asked Rahm Emanuel about Obama's centrism. McDermott thinks that Obama is by
nature extremely careful and methodical, and he is less ideological than most
politicians. I said that it surprises me that a black former community
organizer, who is smart and who obviously knows about injustice, could be so
conservative. McDermott said that often when you elect a politician you don't
know what you're getting. People saw in Obama what they were hoping to see.
McDermott said that he had supported Hillary over Obama in the primaries.
"Obama's policies are --," and here McDermott moved his hands in a
wavy fashion, to indicate, I think, that Obama's policies are inconsistent or
changeable.
McDermott said that he heard that Obama and his
advisers were badly scared by the loss of the Ted Kennedy's Senate seat to a
Tea Party candidate, Scott Brown. Others have claimed that the loss is due to
the weak campaign run by Brown's Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley, and that
one can't blame Obama for the loss. But this New
York Times article and common sense suggest otherwise: Obama is at least
partly to blame, since Obama's policies have allowed populist critics on the
right to portray Democrats as the servants of Wall Street, the military, and
the corporatocracy. McDermott predicts that the Dems will lose 10 or 12 seats
in November's election, though he doubts that the Republicans will win a
majority. He said that bad losses in November may be what it takes to turn
Obama around. I suggested that, to the contrary, it make push Obama further to
the right. McDermott nodded and said that that's possible.
I heard McDermott speak in person before a couple of
times, including his speech at a single-payer health care colloquium in
Seattle. I am impressed by his intelligence, humility, humor and humanity. At
the single-payer meeting he expressed considerable sympathy with single-payer
but said that it ain't gonna happen. McDermott came under considerable
criticism by the single-payer advocates, and it took guts for him to attend.
Progressives
versus centrists
Friday afternoon I attended the progressive caucus
meeting, chaired by Judith Shattuck. The room was pretty packed, which both
surprised and pleased me. The meeting lasted but an hour. Brian Gunn of the
31st Legislative District spoke on the Road Kill Caucus of centrist Democrats,
about whom I have written previously. (See Centrists
and Progressives Fight for Control of Washington State Democrats.) Gunn
said that many of the Road Killers actively work with Republicans to kill
progressive legislation. One of them, Christ Hurst, runs as an
"Independent Dem" -- the point being that "Independent" is
spelled out and "Dem" is abbreviated. Separately, Brad Larsen of the
45th LD said that Road Kill members such as Larry Springer, Deb Eddy, and Judy
Clibborn, accept BIAW money and vote to kill pro-labor bills in the
legislature.
By the way, the name "Road Kill" comes from
"middle of the road": they're attacked by both the left and the
right. Ross Hunter is a member of the Road Kill Caucus. Yet he got a 100%
rating from Washington Conservation Voters. And most Road Killers are
progressive on social issues and education. So, people aren't monolithic in their
progressivism. They're mixed.
Several candidates spoke at the meeting. One of them,
Bob Burr, is running for US Senate against incumbent Senator Patty Murray.
Burr's website http://www.bobburr4senate.com
says he's running "against corporate corruption of Congress." In
defense of his candidacy, Burr mentioned that Murray failed to sign on to
support the Fair Elections Now bill. According to his website, "Patty was
a good Senator before she became so entrenched in the system." Burr has
pledged to serve only one term. Not only will he not accept PAC money, he will
accept absolutely no money from any source. "I will waste no effort
raising funds and will owe no favors, concessions or tax breaks to
anyone." For
more. Don Smith
David Spring: I-1098 Is the Right Thing
to Do
Friends, This afternoon (Friday, June 23), I dropped
off more than 2 dozen 1098 petitions – including hundreds of signatures - at
the 1098 campaign headquarters in Seattle. They said we now have 295,000
signatures. Technically, we only need 240,000 valid signatures. But our
opponents will try to challenge the validity of every signature. If we can make
it to 320,000 signatures, we can avoid a manual recount and thus the Initiative
will automatically qualify for the Fall ballot. Therefore, the 1098 organizers have extended the deadline a few more days and are
going to continue to accept petitions through next Tuesday, June 29th in
an effort to get the last 25,000 signatures.
I have extra petitions for anyone who wants to get a
few more signatures this weekend. Just email me and I will bring it to you. And
I am willing to pick up your petitions on Monday or Tuesday and drive them over
to the 1098 headquarters. But next Tuesday, June 29th, is absolutely
the last day. Even if we do not get the final 25,000, it is very likely that
the Initiative will qualify. Still, any signatures you can get us this weekend
will be greatly appreciated and will put us that much closer to certainty!
They will pack up the petitions into boxes next
Wednesday June 30th and drive them down I-5 in a huge caravan, leaving Seattle
at 8 am next Thursday morning July 1st to present them to the
Secretary of State in Olympia at 10 am. You are welcome to join the caravan if
you wish. There have been more than 10,000 volunteers who have gathered 1098
signatures – making this one of the largest volunteer efforts in the history of
our State! So the caravan is going to be pretty emotional.
Some of you have expressed anger at the Seattle Times
(and others) who have publicly come out against 1098. I actually think forcing
the Seattle Times (and other 1098 opponents) to reveal their true agenda is a
blessing in disguise. The public overwhelmingly supports taxing the rich to
save our schools. So anyone who opposes 1098 is merely shooting themselves in
the foot and exposing themselves as greedy people who do not care about saving
the jobs of 10,000 teachers or protecting the future of one million children.
Mahatma Gandhi once said that “the first step in achieving justice is making injustice visible.”
1098 is exposing the injustice, not only of our inadequate school funding, but
of our unfair tax system. It is also exposing those among us who pretend to
care about children, but really only care about themselves.
The Seattle Times editorial said they wanted to “reset
the size of State government.” In fact,
we are spending far less on State government now than at any point since 1930.
For example, in 2000, we spent 12% of income on State government. In 2008
– even before the billions in cuts to schools and other State programs – State
spending had plunged to 10% of income. This was a decline in real terms of $6
billion dollars per year. School funding fell from 5% of income to 4% of income
(a decline of $3 billion per year). At the same time, tax exemptions for major
corporations (including the Seattle Times) skyrocketed from $20 billion a year
to $50 billion per year. We do not need
to reset the size of State government – we need to reset the size of tax
exemptions for major corporations like the Seattle Times!
This is exactly what Initiative 1098 does. It forces
the super rich – including the owners of the Seattle Times – to start paying
their fair share of State taxes. For more than 50 years, the super rich in our
State have failed to pay their fair share. They have strangled our schools by
controlling (bribing) our State legislature. They falsely claimed that no one
could get votes if they advocating for taxing millionaires. Thanks to your help
and support, we proved them wrong in 2008 by running on a campaign of taxing
millionaires to fund schools here in the 5th Legislative District.
We got a record number of votes – even in a heavily Republican district!
This year, we will once again have the opportunity to
prove the political experts wrong. I am confident we will finally achieve
a fair tax system in our State in 2010 and finally make progress towards
achieving fair school funding for our teachers and our children. This is truly
a historic moment in the history of our State - - and you have all been an
important part of it. I greatly appreciate your help and support. Regards,
David Spring
Patricia Robertson: Reducing Big Money
Influence
I attended MoveOn's organizing meeting on Thursday to help determine how
we could get out the word on their new campaign for "The Other
98%." After polling their members,
MoveOn has decided that the primary issue most of us care about is the
dominance of Big Money, especially corporate money, over our elections, and
subsequently over our elected officials.
To that end, they are asking folks to pledge to support three goals that
would help reduce this influence, and restore our democracy:
·
Overturn Citizens United: Amend the
Constitution to protect America from unlimited corporate spending on our
elections by overturning the Supreme Court's decision giving corporations the
same First Amendment rights as people.
·
Fair Elections Now: Pass the Fair Elections Now Act,
providing public financing to candidates who are supported by small donors so
they can compete with corporate-backed and self-funded candidates.
·
Lobbyist Reform Act: Pass legislation to
end the overwhelming influence of corporate lobbyists by: prohibiting individuals from switching from
corporate lobbing to government service, or vice-versa, within a 5-year period;
stopping corporate lobbyists from giving gifts and providing free travel to
government officials; and posting online
the attendees and content of all meetings between lobbyists and government
officials.
If you can put this in the Puget Sound Liberals Newsletter and encourage
folks to go to the MoveOn website and take
the pledge, and to get involved in local efforts to get others to sign on and
make it a reality, it would be appreciated!
Patricia Robertson
Caleb Mardini: Vote
against Big Money in Politics
We
have a choice to make. We can save banks or can save jobs and the
economy.
Like
oil, the financial industry helps keep our economic engine running. But
it is only a part of our economy, we’d be better off “changing the oil” than
saving the current bankrupt system. Banks
created hundreds of billions of dollars in bad loans, debts that won’t be
paid. Many homes are worth significantly less than what is owed and many
mortgages are at terms unpayable by debtors. The government can continue
to prop up the banks by funneling taxpayer bailouts allowing for record
breaking profits and bonuses
($145 billion in 2009 bonuses, up 18% from 2008) in the middle of a financial
crisis. But, this does little for an economy and Americans already saddled with
debt.
The
financial sector is by far the largest contributor to political campaigns and
holds a lot of influence in government. In response to this financial
crisis, the Bush and Obama administrations have taken a similar bailout
approach. This isn’t surprising when you consider that they are employing
the same people that have been advising presidents for decades. These are
some of the people who worked to remove the regulations that lead to our
financial crisis. CEO Hank Paulson left Goldman Sachs to accept a job
(and received given
a huge tax break) as treasury secretary in 2006. A few years later he
received $700 billion in TARP funds which he asked for to help bailout his
former company among others.
This
influence isn’t restricted to presidential administrations. Reuters
recently reported that Banking Committee Senator
Chris Dodd’s wife is a director of Chicago Mercantile Exchange, a group
which will benefit tremendously from the current banking legislation that he’s
responsible for.
As
citizens we cannot continue to allow legislation to be affected by the
financial industry and other special interests. The continued focus on
saving the banks prevents companies from having to make hard choices to begin
credit write-offs. It also prevents new and better financial institutions
from stepping up to replace entrenched bankrupt ones. Unless we focus
seriously on writing down bad debts, our economic recovery will be slow and
jobs growth will be hampered.
Vote
out the money this election. Vote with my $25 campaign. Caleb
Mardini, candidate for Washington’s 8th congressional district
seat.
Amelia Kroeger: Thom
Hartmann’s blog exposes Wall Street Banksters
There
are now Bankster Sharks in the Water... In
his New York Times column, economist Paul Krugman is ringing the warning bell
and saying we are in the early stages of a "third depression." "This third
depression," he writes, "will be primarily a failure of policy"
as the world's leading governments focus "about inflation when the real
threat is deflation, preaching the need for belt-tightening when the real
problem is inadequate spending."
It's
truly bizarre to watch country after country across Europe fail to learn the
lessons of the past and hang tight to the economic policies of Herbert Hoover
and Milton Friedman when both have been tried - and failed - repeatedly in
countries all over the world over the past 80 years. The only reasonable
rationale for why these national leaders are willing to destroy their social
safety nets, throw their working people into serfdom, and drain the resources
of their tattered middle classes to reduce their national debts is that -
unlike other times in the past - there are now sharks in the water.
Those
sharks are the banksters, liberated in 1998 and 2000 by Phil and Wendy Gramm
and Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, and Robert Rubin. Now that the banksters have
been deregulated and can run trillion dollar gambling casinos, one of their
easiest targets are the countries that have a lot of debt - just like the
corporate raiders and so-called "private equity" companies look for
companies with lots of debt to take down, disassemble, fire all the workers,
and ship the jobs to China. Because these bankster sharks are now fully empowered
in the waters of international finance, the traditional tool used to get
countries out of Depressions - stimulative spending funded by debt - places a
country at a huge risk of a shark attack (known in banking as a naked short
attack), which can quite literally destroy the economy of a nation.
Until
the banksters are brought to heel, the wealth of nations will continue to
collapse while the wealth of the banksters themselves will continue to explode. Thom Hartmann
Liberals
and Democrats
People-Powered Politics
The following strategic
principles for winning elections and governing have best been described by
Markos Zuniga and Jerome Armstrong in their 2006 book, Crashing the Gate. Netroots, Grassroots and the Rise of People-Powered
Politics. These strategic principles
are particularly relevant to winning in our upcoming fall elections.
1.
Contest races high and low everywhere all the time, thus forcing Conservatives to spend money and effort
defending their candidates everywhere instead of being able to divert money and
effort from uncontested races to contested ones. Howard Dean has promoted and
implemented this strategy In opposition to the Democratic establishment’s
losing strategy of narrowing the number of contested races.
This
strategy mobilizes Liberal voters to both vote and engage in additional
political activities. It produces
candidates for many lesser offices, forming a farm team of politically
experienced and recognized Liberal candidates for higher offices.
2.
Encourage
candidates to use the Netroots to raise money and volunteers to canvass and identify likely Democratic
voters, instead of relying on large donors which require candidates to use
consultants who benefit from spending campaign funds on purchasing
commercials. The result is mobilized
Democratic voters instead of wasted campaign funds. This strategy was successfully pioneered by
Paul Wellstone and Howard Dean. Paul
Wellstone expresses this well in his 2001 book, The Conscience of a Liberal.
Reclaiming the Compassionate Agrenda
3.
Continually maintain databases of likely Democratic
voters. Continually canvass to add more likely
Democratic voters to databases.
Continually provide information
to identified likely Democratic voters about extreme views of Conservative
candidates and potential candidates (See strategy #5).
This
strategy and strategy #5 was used successfully by a Liberal coalition in
Colorado before the 2006 elections.
The
first three strategies provide for continuous political activity, with
opportunities for likely Democratic voters to become politically active beyond
simply voting and provide for cumulatively improving databases and continuing
exposure of Conservative candidates and potential Conservative candidates.
4.
Candidates should
also use the Netroots to enable supporters to form their own groups and
actively create new strategies and tactics for improving their campaigns. This strategy was pioneered by Joe Trippi as
part of Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign, described in his 2004 book The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
Democracy, the Internet and the Overthrow of Everything. This strategy was improved by Barack Obama’s
presidential campaign.
5.
Just as
Conservatives have successfully put Liberal candidates on the defensive, research Conservative candidates and potential
candidates and expose their extreme views which counter voters views. Put Conservative candidates on the defensive
so that they defend themselves instead of attacking Liberal candidates.
6.
Just as Grover
Norquist has done for Conservatives, get
various special interest groups to quit opposing candidates who differ from
them. Labor, environmental, gender
and gay rights should support candidates based upon whether these candidates
will be generally more liberal than their Conservative opponents.
This strategy
produces a greater variety of candidates who are much more Liberal than their
Conservative opponents, even though some of these candidates do not agree with
some special interest groups. While such
candidates may be more Conservative on one or several issues, this may enable
them to win in Conservative places. This
strategy was used successfully by a Liberal coalition in Colorado before the
2006 elections.
7.
Just as
Conservatives have a simple slogan, “Less
government, less regulation, less tax”, Liberals should use a simple
slogan: “More fairness for Main Street
Americans, more access to good jobs, education and health care.” Liberals should state these values simply
without making specific proposals for achieving them, so that they don’t
provide targets for Conservatives as Al Gore did in 2000. Having stated these values simply, Liberals
should attack Conservatives for opposing these values in word and deed (see
#4). Only during the last few weeks of a campaign should Liberals offer some
indication of how they would realize their values.
This
strategy has been successfully used by Liberal candidates in Montana and other
places where voters formerly simply agreed with the Conservatives simple
slogan. Barack Obama also used it in his
2008 election campaign.
8.
Just as
Republicans have done, Democrats should
be disciplined to repeatedly in unison express their values and attack
Conservatives in short easy to understand terms.
9.
Just as
Republicans have done, Democrats who win
elections should assume that they have a mandate to implement measures to
achieve their values, instead of attempting to compromise with their
Republican opponents. Abundant
experience with presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama shows that such
compromises do not produce Republican support, but only emboldens them to
further oppose Democratic measures. It
is similarly inappropriate for Democratic candidates to suggest compromises
while they are running for office.
These
last two strategies are best expressed by Ted Rall in his 2004 book Wake Up, You’re Liberal. How We Can Take
America Back from the Right.
Strategy #8 is also expressed well by Bill Scher in his 2006 book, Wait! Don’t Move to Canada. A Stay-and-Fight
Strategy to Win Back America.
Other
books recommend some of these strategies, especially clarifying and repeating
our values and attacking Conservatives for opposing them. The books include:
Paul Begala, 2002, It’s
Still the Economy, Stupid
James Carville and Paul Begala, 2006, Take It Back. Our Party, Our Country, Our Future
Peter Beinart, 2006, The Good Fight. Why Liberals - and Only Liberals - Can Win the War on
Terror and Make America Great Again
Jared Bernstein, 2006, All Together Now. Common Sense for a Fair Economy
Earth Works Action, 2006, 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Fight the Right
Gary Hart, 2006, The
Courage of Our Convictions. A Manifesto
for Democrats
Two
books contain commentaries by many contributors, some of whom agree with some
of the strategies described above and some of whom disagree, wanting Democrats
to continue their attempts to appeal to Republican voters:
Dennis Johnson and Valerie Merians (eds), 2004, What We Do Now
Don Hazen and Lakshmi Chaudhry (eds), 2005, Start Making Sense. Turning the Lessons of Election 2004 into
Winning Progressive Politics
Every
Liberal should be well acquainted with these strategies for winning elections
and should implement them, especially during our 2010 and 2012 congressional
and presidential campaigns. Dave Thomas
Job Creation
In the absence of
federal funding, 300,000 teachers will lose their jobs. Conservatives
oppose teachers and federal funding to maintain their jobs.
There
are 90,000 state and local governments in the United States. If each of these would successfully assist
the creation of 100 jobs, the total of 9 million jobs would reduce our
unemployment to acceptable levels. However,
most of these state and local governments are losing jobs. For more.
To
force Republicans to choose whether to support or oppose assistance for long
time unemployed Main Street Americans, Democrats
are promoting a stand alone bill to provide such assistance. The
same bill is being promoted in the Senate.
Wall Street Regulatory Reform
The Financial Reform Bill as
amended in the conference committee appears to be better than the weak bill
which passed the Senate. I watched the
conference committee deliberations on C-Span and found them so technical that I
couldn’t understand how good they are.
The amended bill includes:
·
An audit of Federal Reserve’s bailout spending
to reveal how much was given to which companies.
·
A Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in
the Federal Reserve, which comprehensively regulates mortgages, student loans,
credit cards and payday loans.
·
Regulating mortgages and mortgage-based securities, including:
·
Banning
fraudulent loans
·
Banning bonuses
for those who make and approve loans based upon the types of loans they make
·
Requiring lenders
to inform borrowers the maximum they would pay on adjustable rate mortgages
·
Banning penalties
for borrowers who prepay their loans
·
Requiring lenders
to retain 5% of securities which they form, so that they share the risk of
securities containing mortgages which will not be paid
·
Reinstating a modified Glass-Steagall Act which prohibits financial agencies which accept short
term deposits from speculating.
Different types of financial agencies would be regulated separately by
different departments coordinated within one agency to assure coordinated
regulation and enforcement, such that companies couldn’t change their form to
reduce regulation. Paul Volcker
is dissatisfied with the result.
·
Regulating derivatives, including banning banks with federally guaranteed
depositors from forming naked derivatives, but it is unclear how much this will
eliminate naked derivatives. For
more.
·
A ten member Council of Regulators led by the Treasury Secretary to monitor the
financial system for major risks. It
could liquidate companies which it decides are so big or so interconnected that
their failure could imperil the broader economy, with the costs being paid by
other financial companies instead of our government. There
is no reason to assume that a Federal Services Oversight Council will detect
and prevent future bubbles any better than the Federal Reserve did to
detect and prevent the housing-credit bubble that we just experienced.
It
provides shareholders the right to comment on payments to managers and
salespersons, but the latter do not need to heed the comments.
The
following are commentaries on the amended conference bill. For
more. For
more. For
more. For
more.
Unfortunately,
the financial reform bill does not immediately break up ‘too big to fail’
megabanks to stop bubbles from forming, but only acts after the bubble has
reached a perilous stage.
It
also studies, but does not eliminate the conflicts of interest which motivated
rating agencies to give securities unwarranted high ratings, thus deceiving
purchasers of these securities.
It
also does not include a tax on financial transactions which would reduce Wall
Street speculation and produce revenue to reduce our federal deficit.
In his weekly address, President
Obama praised the financial reform bill and asked for its passage. But while Representative Barney Frank
attempted to toughen the regulations, President Obama and Senator Christopher
Dodd attempted to weaken them. Senator Russ Feingold
opposes the financial reform bill because it won’t stop new bubbles from
occurring. For
more. Wall
Street speculators made large contributions to members of House Financial
Services Committee. I believe this
is a worthwhile reform measure, which I wish had been passed a year ago and
which I hope will be strengthened in the future. Dave Thomas
Fiscal Irresponsibility
During the last 10 years, President
Bush’s tax cuts have reduced government revenue by $2.5 trillion, nearly half
of which is due to tax cuts for the highest earning 5% of our people. For more.
Americans
care more about jobs than about fiscal deficits. For
more. AFL-CIO
President Richard Trumka offers 8 principles for dealing with deficits. For
more. In spite of misleading
contexting by Conservative America
Speaks, several thousand participants at their conferences in 60 cities
primarily supported Liberal solutions to reducing our federal deficits. Their recommendations included:
·
58 percent favored a new higher
tax bracket for millionaires.
·
61 percent wanted a financial
transactions tax.
·
85 percent wanted to cut military
spending.
·
64 percent wanted a carbon tax.
·
85 percent wanted to raise the
cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes--far more than the percent
that wanted to reduce benefits or raise the retirement age.
By increasing taxes for Wall Street
speculators and other high income earners in the several % brackets, federal
deficits could be reduced to zero, or could be reduced to perhaps $500
billion, with $500 billion spent to stimulate creation of jobs. But President Obama has shown no interest in
doing this, even though it is fiscally responsible and sides with Main Street
America against Wall Street. Perhaps
more than any other choice, this one has destroyed President Obama’s claim to make
changes that we can believe in.
Military
costs are under review to eliminate waste.
Japan’s
debt to GDP ratio is close to 220 percent. Its interest payments take up a bit
more than 1.0 percent of GDP each year and it can borrow at long-term interest
rates of around 1.5 percent. This is possible because its central bank has
bought up much of the government's debt over the last 15 years. Since the
economy remains well below its capacity, the central bank's actions have not to
led to inflation. In fact, Japan continues to be troubled by deflation. The European Central Bank could similarly
adopt a policy of buying and holding large amounts of the debt of euro member
governments. The interest on debt held by the central bank does not impose a
burden on governments, since it is rebated to them. European governments could thus spend more on
stimulus programs without increasing their deficits to unsustainable
levels. For
more.
Increasing Estate Taxes and Charitable Donations
The new Responsible Estate Tax Act introduced by Senator
Bernie Sanders and co-sponsored by Senators Tom Harkin, Sheldon Whitehouse, and
Sherrod Brown increases estate taxes on less than one percent of those who
die. The 400 wealthiest people are worth
1.3 trillion dollars. During the next 10
years, the proposed estate tax would yield at least $264 billion. For more.
For more.
If the campaign by Bill and Melinda Gates and
Warren Buffett to get our nation’s billionaires to pledge to give at least half
of their net worth to charity during their lifetime or at their death, it would
raise at least $600 trillion from present billionaires. For
more.
Here’s the Beef
5
ways to tell if your actions help produce the new Earn, Conserve and Invest
economy we need.
Taking
the conversation about GLBT justice to rural areas and small towns.
Harry
Reid’s Tea Party opponent expresses extreme views.
Conservatives
seek to punish borrowers for legally forsaking their homes that have huge
mortgages.
Read
how Conservatives have sided with Wall Street speculators instead of Main
Street Americans.
G-20
serves Wall Street before Main Street.
During
Supreme Court nomination hearings, Liberals emphasize Conservative judicial
activism.
A
majority of Americans support giving letting health care reform time to succeed
or fail.
State and
Local
It Is Time to Stop
Selling Elections to the Highest Bidder
Is it possible for an average person with no money to
win a legislative race in Washington State? This year, we are going to find
out. I am Democrat running against a 4-term Republican incumbent in a heavily
Republican District. To make things even harder, I am also running against a
wealthy corporate executive who claims to be a Democrat. At first glance, one
might think I don’t stand a chance.
Of course, that is what the "political
experts" said in 2008. I had no money and I had never ran for office
before. I was simply a parent and a teacher who was upset about the fact that
our school district was one of the lowest funded, most overcrowded school
districts in the nation – even though homeowners in our school district pay
some of the highest State taxes in the nation.
The political experts pointed out that the average challenger
spends more than $200,000 to win a legislative race in our State. I had less
than $25,000. They noted I was running in a heavily Republican district where
Democratic challengers get only 40% of the vote – even when they spend
$200,000! Just to make things even harder, well known Democrat incumbents
actively campaigned against me in 2008. They were mad at me because I wanted
millionaires and major corporations to pay their fair share of State taxes -
and I had criticized Democratic party leaders for giving huge tax breaks to
major corporations - money that should have gone to our schools.
Despite all of these obstacles, I ran one of the most
competitive races in the State in 2008. In fact, I almost won! I got nearly
34,000 votes – the only competitive legislative race in our State in the past
20 years where a challenger has gotten more votes than dollars spent. In
addition, I got 6,000 more votes than any Democratic legislative candidate in
the history of the 5th District – making me the most popular Democratic legislative candidate ever in the 5th
District.
In 2010, the political experts are again claiming I
don’t stand a chance. It is likely I will be out-spent at least ten to
one. Once again, I am running against BOTH political parties. So what else is
new? But here is why I will do even better in 2010 than I did in 2008:
1.
I am a parent and a teacher. The voters trust
parents and teachers. Neither of my opponents is a parent or a teacher.
2.
My Republican opponent used to be a corporate
lobbyist who advocated for deregulation of banks and oils companies.
Deregulation turned out to be a very bad idea and the voters are pretty mad at
big banks, oil companies and corporate lobbyists right now.
3.
My Democratic opponent made his money as a
corporate executive for Accenture, formerly known as Arthur Anderson, the
accounting firm responsible for the Enron scandal.
4.
The voters blame corporate lobbyists and
corporate executives for our current economic mess. They also blame BOTH
political parties. The voters are angry and they are looking for someone they
can trust to go clean up the mess in Olympia. They know I will.
5.
The legislature cut another billion dollars
from public schools in the past two years. The parents of East King County are
as upset as I am about this. I am the only candidate who has offered a specific
solution to the school funding problem.
6.
I have far better name recognition now than I
did in 2008. The voters remember I am running to save our public schools, they
know I nearly won in 2008, thousands of them already voted for me in 2008 - and
they are planning on voting for me again.
7.
While I had one of the largest groups of
volunteers in the State in 2008, I have even more now. Most are parents who are
as committed as I am to fixing the school funding crisis.
I think I will win the Primary and the General
Election this year. If I do, it will be one of the biggest political upsets in
the history of our State. And it will send a strong message to other
legislators that elections in our State are no longer for sale to the highest
bidder. We parents are not going to put up with any more excuses. Either
legislators will fund our schools - or they will be out of office! David
Spring M. Ed. Candidate for State House, 5th LD, Position 2
I-1098 Volunteer Appreciation Party
Here’s the Beef
Nation
and World
Featured Advocacy Group
-------------------------------- Sunlight Foundation ---------------------------------
The Sunlight Foundation uses
cutting-edge technology and ideas to make government transparent and
accountable. It believes that increased
transparency will improve the public's confidence in government. The Sunlight Foundation is:
·
A think-tank that develops and encourages new
policies inside the government to make it more open and transparent.
·
A campaign to engage citizens in demanding the
policies that will open government and hold their elected officials accountable
for being transparent.
·
An investigative organization that uses the
data we uncover to demonstrate why we need new policies that free government
data.
·
A grant-giving institution that provides
resources to organizations using technology to further our mission and create
community
·
An open source technology community that
revolves around the Sunlight Foundation's core mission
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Poverty Is Again Increasing
The new century began on an inspiring note: the United
Nations set a goal of reducing the share of the world’s population living in
extreme poverty by half by 2015. By early 2007 the world looked to be on track
to meet this goal, but as the economic crisis unfolds and the outlook darkens,
the world will have to intensify its poverty reduction effort.
Among countries, China is the big success story in reducing
poverty. The number of Chinese living in extreme poverty dropped from 685
million in 1990 to 213 million in 2007. With little growth in its population,
the share of people living in poverty in China dropped from 60 percent to 16
percent, an amazing achievement by any standard. India’s
progress is mixed. Between 1990 and 2007, the number of Indians living in
poverty actually increased slightly from 466 million to 489 million while the
share living in poverty dropped from 51 percent to 42 percent. Despite its
economic growth, averaging 9 percent a year for the last four years, and strong
support by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of a grassroots effort to eradicate
poverty, India still has a long way to go.
Brazil, on the other hand, has succeeded in reducing
poverty with its Bolsa Familia program, an effort strongly supported by
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. This program is a conditional assistance
program that offers poor mothers up to $35 a month if they keep their children
in school, have them vaccinated, and make sure they get regular physical
checkups. Between 1990 and 2007, the share of the population living in extreme
poverty dropped from 15 to 5 percent. Serving 11 million families, nearly one
fourth of the country’s population, it has in the last five years raised
incomes among the poor by 22 percent. By comparison, incomes among the rich
rose by only 5 percent. Rosani Cunha, the program’s director in Brasilia,
observes,
“There are very few countries that reduce inequality
and poverty at the same time.”
Several countries in Southeast Asia have made
impressive gains as well, including Thailand, Viet Nam, and Indonesia. Barring
any major economic setbacks, these gains in Asia seemed to ensure that the U.N.
Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of halving poverty by 2015 would be reached.
Indeed, in a 2008 assessment of progress in reaching the MDGs, the World Bank
reported that all regions of the developing world with the
notable exception of sub-Saharan Africa were on track
to cut the proportion of people living in extreme poverty in half by 2015.
This upbeat assessment was soon modified, however. At
the beginning of 2009, the World Bank reported that between 2005 and 2008 the
incidence of poverty increased in East Asia, the Middle East, South Asia, and
sub-Saharan Africa largely because of higher food prices, which hit the poor
hard. This was compounded by the global economic crisis that dramatically
expanded the ranks of the unemployed at home and reduced the flow of
remittances from family members working abroad. The
number the Bank classifies as extremely poor—people living on less than $1.25 a
day—increased by at least 130 million. The Bank observed that “higher food
prices during 2008 may have increased the number of children suffering permanent
cognitive and physical injury caused by malnutrition by 44 million.” Sub-Saharan
Africa, with 820 million people, is sliding deeper into poverty. Hunger,
illiteracy, and disease are on the march, partly offsetting the gains in
countries like China and Brazil.
The failing states as a group are also backsliding; an
interregional tally of the Bank’s fragile states is not encouraging since extreme
poverty in these countries is over 50 percent higher than in 1990. For
more.
Here’s the Beef
More
than half of America’s working adults have been negatively affected by our
recession.
Our
house passed the Disclose Act to ensure transparency concerning groups who
produce election ads.
BP
oil leak harms many industries other than seafood gathering and tourism.
Oliver
Stone exposes New York Times support of American intervention in Latin America.
Jewish
boat will attempt to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza.
Avaaz
1.2 million petition helps keep commercial whale hunting illegal.
Our
Liberal Spirit
When Bad Stuff Happens
With all the issues which
President Obama has decided to address, he also faces issues which emerge
independently of his agenda, including the BP oil leak and General Stanley
McChrystal’s criticism. While President Obama
has not responded as well to the BP oil leak as he might have (by proposing BP
financed jobs plan for people whose previous jobs were destroyed by the oil
leak), Republicans have responded even worse, lessening the damage to President
Obama. President Obama did respond well
to McChrystal’s criticism.
When bad stuff happens,
responses which maintain or expand people’s freedoms and opportunities are
helpful, which responses which don’t are harmful.
Recommended Books – See our list of books for liberals
Benjamin Page and Lawrence Jacobs, 2009, Class War. What Americans Really Think about
Economic Inequality
This easy to read
109 page book makes abundantly clear that although Americans believe that
people should be rewarded for their efforts, the amount of the reward should be
limited. Most Americans recognize that too
much economic inequality exists, that so much inequality is bad and that our
government should adopt measures to reduce it.
This book refutes
the Conservative view that economic inequality is good and that our government
should not adopt measures to reduce it.
I strongly recommend this book.
Dave Thomas