The American Prospect is the premiere Liberal magazine. During the last 20 years, it has issued 205 quarterly editions which now reach 2700 readers. During the last 4 ½ years our Puget Sound Liberals has issued 237 weekly editions, which now reach 3300 readers. The American Prospect has the advantage of having many more contributors than our Puget Sound Liberals.

But I believe that The American Prospect is less consistently Liberal than our Puget Sound Liberals. For example, its September 2010 issue features several commentators (David Wiegel and Kevin Mattson) who are obviously conservative and wrong in their interpretation of history and their recommendations. The American Prospect has given little attention to many of the strategies described below for stimulating job creation.

Commentaries From Our Members

Paul Sutton, Thanks for Big Government

Published by Bellevue Reporter on 7/26/2010

Every week I open the Bellevue Reporter and every week I am confronted with the rally cry of big government and tax and spend liberal as evidence for why we’re headed in the wrong direction. Sometimes a misinformed reference is made to socialism. I’m left wondering if there’s something I’m not getting. What do people mean by the phrases “big government,” “tax and spend liberal,” or “socialism”? Lastly, why are all those things bad if we all benefit from them?

It has always seemed more than just a bit hypocritical when people rail against big government. If we didn’t have big government we’d have no public schools, no police, no firefighters, no road maintenance, no libraries, no parks, no mass transit, no water or sewer service, no post offices or anything else that makes life in Bellevue better than anywhere else in Washington state. We all benefit from them. In fact, most of the things on that list are not just symbols of big government; they fit the very definition of socialism operating well within free market democracies.

Now that I think about it, what about the big government programs like Medicare and Medicaid that keep our elderly and poor somewhat healthy after they’ve been forgotten by big business? Would the big government, anti-socialist, tax and spend liberal haters take those away? What about our public universities, federal student loans, FHA mortgages, or Social Security? Which one of those programs would people prefer to live without?

But, of course, I’m sure people will use the new health care bill and the government bailout as the best examples of big government takeover. Once again, they’d be right. I would strongly argue those programs are exactly what our big government needs to do. When 30 million people can’t get or keep health insurance, it’s the moral imperative of government to intercede. When laissez faire economics threatens us with another Great Depression, the federal government has to get involved to stop the bleeding.

Certainly, there is waste in our massive government. In any massive organization there’s waste. There will always be ferry workers who overcharge the taxpayer and mayors who swindle the people and government projects that don’t work as efficiently as they should. What we need is more accountability not fewer social services.

Like it or not, we are inextricably connected to each other. But that interconnectivity comes with a price. Occasionally, we’ll all need our big government, taxes, and yes, even socialism, to keep us healthy, prosperous, and educated. None of us are islands of rugged individualism. The self-made man is a myth. Furthermore, none of us should be. Our best moments as a community are when we help each other, either intentionally, through service or unintentionally, through tax-provided government programs. My advice? Celebrate your taxes, pour yourself a cold glass of city water, and read a good book on American history. I’m sure the public library has lots. Paul Sutton

Joyce Turner: Biased Seattle Times Reporting

Published by Seattle Times on 8/6/2010

I am stunned at The Seattle Times’ lack of knowledge about the Senate election [“Murray ad goes negative; Rossi touts self-made bio,” NWWednesday, August 4]. No negative ads about Sen. Patty Murray? Of course, not “brought to you by Rossi or any other candidate,” but brought to you by Karl Rove, the swift boat person, who is sending millions into our state. Sen. Murray had also had many positive ads, which of course are not mentioned in The Times.

On another candidate, that of the Supreme Court of the state of Washington, The Times has already endorsed Justice Jim Johnson, who we all know was Tim Eyman’s former attorney, the one who helped write all those wonderful Eyman initiatives. It is also of common knowledge that Judge Johnson is the very most conservative judge on the bench, voting against most everything to bring us forward. Joyce Turner

Sue Griswold: Support Hans Dunshee

Published by Seattle Times on 8/8/2010

Really, The Times wants the 44th Legislative District to vote for someone “not as strong as we would like?” [“44th House: Hadian,” Opinion, Aug. 4] While a successful campaign to ban “near naked baristas” may be commendable, it is not evidence of “a shrewder eye and a sharper pencil when it comes to the state budget.”

Yes, these are tough times. Mill Creek is full of empty storefronts. At least two of my neighbors have lost their homes. People I know are going on food stamps for the first time. However, hard times are not unique to the 44th or even Washington. Neither are they the result of decisions made in the Washington state House of Representatives. Yes, hard times require tough choices. But I like any sharp budgetary pencil to be tempered with some concern for those who are hurting.

The Times recognizes that Rep. Hans Dunshee is intelligent and hardworking. While Hans may not be a pastor like Hadian and Schmidt, he has consistently looked out for the little guy, for the least of these, for the common good. As a Christian and a Constitution-loving American, I believe only Dunshee has the strength and the integrity we need to make right-minded tough decisions. Sue Griswold

Liberals and Democrats

At the beginning of each congressional session, cloture rules can be changed by simple majority.

Job Creation

The White House Blog Posted by Ron Bloom and Ed Montgomery on July 29, 2010 at 02:00 PM EDT: The American Auto Industry: A Comeback Story

Over the next week, the President will travel to Detroit and Chicago where he will meet with auto workers and tour plants of each of the big three auto makers. His trips offer an opportunity to take stock of where the industry stands this summer.

A little more than one year ago, the entire industry was on the edge of failure. Plants were being closed, jobs were being lost, and America’s future role as a leading producer of vehicles in the global marketplace was in question. We’re now starting to see real signs of recovery. While there is still a long way to go, the progress to date is far beyond what most observers thought possible a year ago. The industry is creating jobs and American auto companies are addressing past failures, restoring financial discipline and returning to profitability. Today, the White House released a new report cataloguing some of these early signs of success. Read the report (pdf)

In addition to stabilizing the industry and addressing the hardship faced by communities that lost auto plants and the jobs they provided, the Administration has been focused on making long-term investments across the country that will make the U.S. a home base for the design and production of the next generation of innovative vehicle technologies. This new interactive map shows where these key investments have been made and the types of projects that will ensure the vehicles of the future are made in America. View the interactive version of the map below.

Ron Bloom is Senior Advisor to Treasury Secretary Geithner and Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy. Ed Montgomery is Executive Director of the White House Council on Auto Communities and Workers.

The monthly job report indicated that too few jobs are being created to reduce our unemployment.

Speaking on the latest jobs numbers this morning, the President had words for Republicans who have been relentlessly blocking any measure to give the economy another boost: “We need to do what’s right, not what’s political, and we need to do it right now.”

The audience was made up of workers at Gelberg Signs, a small business in DC that’s currently hiring new workers and making new investments in their technology thanks in part to two Small Business Administration loans. It’s the kind of business that helped private employment grow for the seventh straight month just a year after the economy seemed to be falling off a cliff.

But while the worst kind of disaster may have been averted, and the approximately 3 million jobs the Recovery Act was responsible for have brought us back from the brink of another Great Depression, the President has also been consistent that more needed to be done. And for those who have been stalling job-creating initiatives in Congress, the President gave them a fresh sense of urgency.

· On saving teacher, police and firefighters’ jobs: And that’s why I welcomed the news earlier this week that after a lot of partisan bickering and delay, the Senate passed a bill that will not only keep at least 160,000 teachers in the classroom this fall who would otherwise be out of a job, but will help states avoid making other painful layoffs of essential personnel, like police and firefighters. One of the areas where we’ve been losing jobs even as we’re gaining in manufacturing has actually been in state and local hiring, because their budgets have been plummeting. All the city council members are nodding here. And so this bill will help. Speaker Pelosi said she’s going to bring the House back in session to pass this bill and as soon as they do, I’m ready to sign it into law. (Applause.)

· On the clean energy economy: We’ve also got to look at industries of the future. And that’s why we’re investing in a clean energy economy with the potential to create hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country by spurring two private sector dollars for every tax dollar we invest, strengthening our economy at the same time cleaning up our planet and making all of us more secure in the process.

· And on help for small business: So the small business jobs bill that’s being debated in Congress right now would not only extend these successful policies, but the bill would also more than double the size of the loans that small businesses like Gelberg Signs can take out. It would create new small business lending funds to unlock credit for entrepreneurs. It would provide new tax cuts to small businessmen and women who want to accelerate investment in their companies and in our economy. This is the right thing to do. We want Gelberg Signs not just to hang on -- we want you guys to thrive and to grow and to hire more and more workers. (Applause.) And you know you create a great product. You know you provide great service. You stand behind what you do. But sometimes it’s hard to get financing; sometimes you need some help in terms of cutting your tax burden. That's what this bill does.

And yet, a minority in the Senate is standing in the way of giving our small businesspeople an up or down vote on this bill. And that’s a shame. These kinds of delays mean contracts are being put off, debts are adding up, workers are going without a job –- and we can’t afford it. We need to do what’s right, not what’s political, and we need to do it right now. (Applause.) President Obama

Joe Stiglitz says more economic stimulus is needed.

Health Care

In his weekly address, President Obama emphasizes benefits to seniors of the health care reform act, including making Medicare more sustainable and helping close the donut hole.

Learn about health care reform, including:

· Features of the new law

· Insurance coverage options

· Evidence-based disease prevention

· Health care quality

Regulating Wall Street

Remarks by the President

at Signing of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

We are gathered in the heart of our nation’s capital, surrounded by memorials to leaders and citizens who served our nation in its earliest days and in its days of greatest trial. Today is such a time for America. Over the past two years, we have faced the worst recession since the Great Depression. Eight million people lost their jobs. Tens of millions saw the value of their homes and retirement savings plummet. Countless businesses have been unable to get the loans they need and many have been forced to shut their doors. And although the economy is growing again, too many people are still feeling the pain of the downturn.

Now, while a number of factors led to such a severe recession, the primary cause was a breakdown in our financial system. It was a crisis born of a failure of responsibility from certain corners of Wall Street to the halls of power in Washington. For years, our financial sector was governed by antiquated and poorly enforced rules that allowed some to game the system and take risks that endangered the entire economy. Unscrupulous lenders locked consumers into complex loans with hidden costs. Firms like AIG placed massive, risky bets with borrowed money. And while the rules left abuse and excess unchecked, they also left taxpayers on the hook if a big bank or financial institution ever failed.

Now, even before the crisis hit, I went to Wall Street and I called for common-sense reforms to protect consumers and our economy as a whole. And soon after taking office, I proposed a set of reforms to empower consumers and investors, to bring the shadowy deals that caused this crisis into the light of day, and to put a stop to taxpayer bailouts once and for all. (Applause.) Today, thanks to a lot of people in this room, those reforms will become the law of the land. For the last year, Chairmen Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have worked day and night -- (applause) -- Barney and Chris have worked day and night to bring about this reform. And I am profoundly grateful to them. I would be remiss if I didn't also express my appreciation to Senator Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi for their leadership. It wouldn’t have happened without them. (Applause.)

Passing this bill was no easy task. To get there, we had to overcome the furious lobbying of an array of powerful interest groups and a partisan minority determined to block change. So the members who are here today, both on the stage and in the audience, they have done a great service in devoting so much time and expertise to this effort, to looking out for the public interests and not the special interests. (Applause.) And I also want to thank the three Republican senators who put partisanship aside -- (applause) -- judged this bill on the merits, and voted for reform. We’re grateful to them. (Applause.) And the Republican House members. (Applause.) Good to see you, Joe. (Applause.)

Now, let’s put this in perspective. The fact is, the financial industry is central to our nation’s ability to grow, to prosper, to compete and to innovate. There are a lot of banks that understand and fulfill this vital role, and there are a whole lot of bankers who want to do right -- and do right -- by their customers. This reform will help foster innovation, not hamper it. It is designed to make sure that everybody follows the same set of rules, so that firms compete on price and quality, not on tricks and not on traps. It demands accountability and responsibility from everyone. It provides certainty to everybody, from bankers to farmers to business owners to consumers. And unless your business model depends on cutting corners or bilking your customers, you’ve got nothing to fear from reform. (Applause.)

Now, for all those Americans who are wondering what Wall Street reform means for you, here’s what you can expect:

· If you’ve ever applied for a credit card, a student loan, or a mortgage, you know the feeling of signing your name to pages of barely understandable fine print. What often happens as a result is that many Americans are caught by hidden fees and penalties, or saddled with loans they can’t afford. That’s what happened to Robin Fox, hit with a massive rate increase on her credit card balance even though she paid her bills on time. That’s what happened to Andrew Giordano, who discovered hundreds of dollars in overdraft fees on his bank statement –- fees he had no idea he might face. Both are here today. Well, with this law, unfair rate hikes, like the one that hit Robin, will end for good. (Applause.) And we’ll ensure that people like Andrew aren’t unwittingly caught by overdraft fees when they sign up for a checking account. (Applause.)

· With this law, we’ll crack down on abusive practices in the mortgage industry. We’ll make sure that contracts are simpler -– putting an end to many hidden penalties and fees in complex mortgages -– so folks know what they’re signing.

· With this law, students who take out college loans will be provided clear and concise information about their obligations.

· And with this law, ordinary investors -– like seniors and folks saving for retirement –- will be able to receive more information about the costs and risks of mutual funds and other investment products, so that they can make better financial decisions as to what will work for them.

So, all told, these reforms represent the strongest consumer financial protections in history. (Applause.) In history. And these protections will be enforced by a new consumer watchdog with just one job: looking out for people -– not big banks, not lenders, not investment houses -– looking out for people as they interact with the financial system. And that’s not just good for consumers; that’s good for the economy. Because reform will put a stop to a lot of the bad loans that fueled a debt-based bubble. And it will mean all companies will have to seek customers by offering better products, instead of more deceptive ones.

Now, beyond the consumer protections I’ve outlined, reform will also rein in the abuse and excess that nearly brought down our financial system. It will finally bring transparency to the kinds of complex and risky transactions that helped trigger the financial crisis. Shareholders will also have a greater say on the pay of CEOs and other executives, so they can reward success instead of failure.

And finally, because of this law, the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street’s mistakes. (Applause.) There will be no more tax-funded bailouts -- period. (Applause.) If a large financial institution should ever fail, this reform gives us the ability to wind it down without endangering the broader economy. And there will be new rules to make clear that no firm is somehow protected because it is “too big to fail,” so we don’t have another AIG.

That's what this reform will mean. Now, it doesn’t mean our work is over. For these new rules to be effective, regulators will have to be vigilant. We may need to make adjustments along the way as our financial system adapts to these new changes and changes around the globe. No law can force anybody to be responsible; it’s still incumbent on those on Wall Street to heed the lessons of this crisis in terms of how they conduct their businesses.

The fact is every American -– from Main Street to Wall Street –- has a stake in our financial system. Wall Street banks and firms invest the capital that makes it possible for start-ups to sell new products. They provide loans to businesses to expand and to hire. They back mortgages for families purchasing a new home. That’s why we’ll all stand to gain from these reforms. We all win when investors around the world have confidence in our markets. We all win when shareholders have more power and more information. We all win when consumers are protected against abuse. And we all win when folks are rewarded based on how well they perform, not how well they evade accountability.

In the end, our financial system only works –- our market is only free –- when there are clear rules and basic safeguards that prevent abuse, that check excess, that ensure that it is more profitable to play by the rules than to game the system. And that’s what these reforms are designed to achieve -- no more, no less. Because that’s how we will ensure that our economy works for consumers, that it works for investors, that it works for financial institutions -– that it works for all of us. This is the central lesson not only of this crisis but of our history. Ultimately, there’s no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street. We rise or fall together as one nation. So these reforms will help lift our economy and lead all of us to a stronger, more prosperous future. And that’s why I’m so honored to sign these reforms into law, and I’m so grateful to everybody who worked so hard to make this day possible. Thank you very much, everybody. (Applause.) (The bill is signed.) (Applause.)

Fiscal Responsibility

U.S. Debt Commission may emphasize cuts in spending and tax expenditures (such as home mortgage deductions) instead of increases in taxes.

Top 5 Social Security Myths

Rumors of Social Security's demise are greatly exaggerated. But some powerful people keep spreading lies about the program to scare people into accepting benefit cuts. Can you check out this list of Social Security myths and share it with your friends, family and coworkers?

· Myth: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

· Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

· Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come. Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income. But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

· Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market--which would have been disastrous--but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

· Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong -- it's impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.

According to a July 30 letter from the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, if the Bush tax break is ended for those with incomes more than $200,000 per individual or $250,000 per couple:

· The 3.8 million filers who fall in the $200,000 to $500,000 income range would pay $2 billion more in 2011 taxes, or an average of $532.

· The 608,000 filers who fall in the $500,000 to $1 million range would pay $6.5 billion more, or an average of almost $10,000.

· The 315,000 filers who earn more than $1 million would pay $31 billion more, or an average of almost $100,000.

This leaves even the highest income people with more than 90% of their income, the next highest with more than 98% of their income and the third highest with over 99.5% of their income. As indicated below, all three groups should pay much higher income taxes. Doubling their taxes would produce revenues of $77 billion instead of 38.5 billion.

Some Good News for Liberals

No more BP oil is leaking into the Gulf. Half of the oil that has leaked has been skimmed or has evaporated. The other half may be degrading through micro-biological activity. So the BP oil leak will distract our Obama Administration less from other priorities.

A court decision has ruled that GLBT marriage is a human right which can not be affected by the vote against it.

Elena Kagan is now a Supreme Court Justice.

The Republican National Committee is entering the fall election season with dire financial problems and, to an unprecedented degree, will be forced to rely upon outside groups to fund activities traditionally paid for by the national party. While embattled RNC Chairman Michael Steele and a top aide sought to use the party’s summer meeting here to publicly put the best face on the cash shortage, behind the scenes senior Republicans expressed grave concern that their fundraising deficiencies may be the difference between a good election year and a great one. And the committee is only going to be able to spend money on those relatively inexpensive House races thanks to a $10 million line of credit that was approved at the meeting here. Until then, said one incredulous Republican, there was no money available for paid GOTV activities like mailers and automated phone calls. Even with the line of credit, though, the party can’t afford to assist their many gubernatorial and Senate candidates with any dollars for paid voter contact and will have to effectively outsource that operation.

The Senate has passed a bill which the House will also pass which provides funds to states to preserve education jobs and assist with Medicaid expenses. For more. But more aid to education is needed, especially to add teachers in schools with many culturally deprived children.

Although President Obama and many Democratic congress members still haven’t clearly sided against Wall Street speculations in favor of Main Street job seekers and still haven’t imposed taxes on unearned income of the wealthy to reduce our federal deficit, he can learn and change and inconsistently Liberal congress members can be replaced by consistent ones. Consistently Liberal groups are mobilizing to stimulate these changes. For more. For more. But many Liberals are just watching.

Our Obama Administration is considering administrative actions to allow some undocumented immigrants relief from attempts to deport them.

In the long run, the more Liberal values of our young people and our increasing ethnic diversity will provide Democratic victories of long duration.

President Obama’s Blind Spots

Lessons from President Roosevelt

Just as President Obama’s attempts to create Main Street jobs are opposed by Republicans, President Roosevelt’s attempts to create Main Street jobs were opposed by the Supreme Court. Unlike President Obama’s attempts to compromise with Republicans, President Roosevelt strongly criticized Wall Street speculators and the Supreme Court. Unlike President Obama, President Roosevelt included no Wall Street speculators in his cabinet or among his advisors. By firmly proceeding to enact measures to stimulate Main Street jobs, President Roosevelt was able to greatly reduce unemployment, until he later reduced stimulus spending in fear of budget deficits.

President Obama should learn from President Roosevelt’s actions that he must strongly criticize President Bush’s policies which favored Wall Street speculators and strongly criticize Republican attempts to reinstate President Bush’s policies. He should replace Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and other advisors with ties to Wall Street speculators.

He should find ways to further stimulate employment, including a program similar to President Roosevelt’s CCC and WPA programs. Perhaps our military could transfer funds spent wastefully to set up camps and employ people. They could be hired immediately with the understanding that they will work with volunteer groups until they are summoned to camps to work on infrastructure projects.

Lessons from the Golden Years following World War II

Due to President Roosevelt’s reforms, for 25 years following World War II, our American economy was one of Earn, Conserve and Invest:

· A high proportion of workers’ production accrued to them in wages. This was largely due to agreement between large corporations and their unions, at some expense to workers in smaller enterprises.

· As a hold over from the great depression, workers conserved instead of consumed, although commercial advertizing and corporate strategies of fashion and planned obsolescence caused increases in consumption by the mid-1960s.

· While our federal government invested in our interstate highway system, state and local governments invested large amounts in roads, bridges, dams, water treatment and other infrastructure which served the homes in which workers invested.

· Note also that our stock market served its purpose of rewarding successful entrepreneurs in spite of the fact that few people owned stocks.

With the decimation of unions, competition from overseas workers and deregulation, workers receive much less of the amount that they produce, with the remainder going to management and stockholders. With less income, workers borrow to become heavily indebted. Bombarded by commercial advertising, they consume to the extent that they can. Instead of investing, our governments and individuals are speculating on their houses and their stocks. Our economy has become one of Borrow, Consume and Speculate to the benefit of the wealthy at the expense of Main Street workers.

President Obama needs to learn that for Main Street workers to prosper, we must return to the Earn, Conserve and Invest economy of the Golden Era, with one major difference. Workers must receive a high proportion of what they produce due to government action including encouragement of unionization, regulation and reducing unfair competition with foreign workers, instead of due to collusion between large corporations and unions as occurred during the Golden Era. President Obama should recognize that Wall Street speculation offers great risks and no benefits and should pass bills to eliminate it.

Using Reconciliation Procedures

In spite of Republican objections, Democrats should use reconciliation procedures whenever possible, just as Republicans did when they had majorities, but not strong enough majorities to stop filibusters. Beyond pointing out the inconsistency of Republican opposition to Democrats using reconciliation procedures, Democrats should just use them without being deterred by fear of Republican criticism. The important thing is to win.

Fear of Conservatives

President Obama and his Democratic colleagues need to learn from President Roosevelt, John Kenneth Galbraith and many others that instead of allowing fear of Conservatives to motivate him to compromise with them, he must strongly resist their bullying. Compromising with bullies motivates them to increase their bullying.

Instead of being forced on the defensive even to the point of forsaking their allies when they are attacked by Conservatives, President Obama and his Democratic colleagues need to strongly attack the racist and other bullying tactics of Conservatives, forcing them to be on the defensive instead of being the ones forced on the defensive. It is true that voters don’t like bullies, but they like wimps who submit to bullies even less, a lesson that Republicans, but not Democrats, have learned.

Dealing with Recalcitrant Democrats

A significant number of Democrats have resisted President Obama’s attempts to stimulate job creation. President Obama needs to learn from Republicans’ successful efforts to enforce discipline upon their members. By refusing to support such recalcitrant Democrats, some may be defeated by Republicans, but since these recalcitrant Democrats were voting much like Republicans, little difference will result. However, other recalcitrant Democrats will realize that they will be better off by supporting President Obama’s attempts to stimulate job creation. The result will be a net gain in support.

Siding with Main Street

President Obama has been accused by Tea Bag Conservatives and others of siding with Wall Street speculators instead of Main Street workers. Based on the above lessons, President Obama needs to use reconciliation procedures to pass fees and taxes which greatly restrict or eliminate Wall Street speculation. Confronted with such proposals, Republicans will have to join him or their support of Wall Street speculation will become obvious.

Fiscal Responsibility

Republicans argue that our wealthy people invest to create jobs. But there is no evidence of this. Taxes on high income people were much higher during the Golden Era than they have been since. President Clinton’s tax increases on high income people were followed by creation of more jobs than ever before. President Bush’s tax decreases on high income people were followed by the least creation of jobs following any previous recession. There is a positive correlation between high taxes on the wealthy and job creation.

By increasing federal revenues due to taxes on the unearned income of our Wall Street speculators and other wealthy people, President Obama can reduce our federal deficit below the level that occurred under President Bush’s last year while still producing funds that can be used to stimulate job creation. For more detail. This will counter Republican accusations that President Obama is fiscally irresponsible and force Republicans who oppose such taxes to reveal that they are the ones that are fiscally irresponsible.

Failure of Imagination

In spite of President Obama’s assertion that every day his priority is stimulating more jobs, he has proposed few if any new ideas for doing so since his stimulus-recovery bill was passed. Here are some ways to stimulate jobs that he has failed to promote:

· Using reconciliation procedures, penalties for companies and their employees who use illegal tactics to oppose unionization should be greatly increased (perhaps made 10 times as costly) and should be strictly enforced. Even in the absence of a card check system, this would create more unionization and fairer (higher) wages, thus creating purchasing demand to stimulate more jobs.

· Our government could encourage companies to reduce their employees workweek and hire more employees to do the work, through paying the companies the cost of the hours not worked.

· Broadcast media should be forced to pay for their use of our public airwaves, including provision of free advertising for political candidates, with the proceeds used stimulate jobs.

· Instead of simply allowing President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy to lapse as proposed by President Bush, taxes upon Wall Street speculators and other wealthy should be increased, both to discourage speculation and to increase revenues that can be used for a combination of reducing deficits and stimulating job creation:

· Tax financial transactions ($100 billion)

· Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee ($117 billion)

· Repeal tax breaks for households with annual incomes over $250,000 ($43 billion)

· Eliminate tax preference for capital gains and dividends ($80 billion)

· Establish new higher tax rate on extremely high incomes ($60-70 billion)

· Levy a progressive estate tax on large fortunes ($40-60 billion)

· End overseas tax havens ($100 billion)

· Eliminate home mortgage deduction ($129 billion)

· Eliminate tax free employer provided health benefits ($185 billion)

· Eliminate subsidies for excessive executive compensation ($30 billion)

· Eliminate 401(k) plans ($69 billion)

· Eliminate charitable donations deduction ($55 billion)

· Eliminate state and local tax deduction ($54 billion)

· Eliminate capital gains exclusion on home sales (47 billion)

These actions would reduce the federal deficit from $1.34 trillion to about $217 billion. Increasing spending to stimulate jobs by $500 billion would still leave the deficit significantly less than the deficit during President Bush’s last year.

Tax rates for all except the wealthiest should remain at the lower rates established by President Bush.

· The limits upon the incomes against which FICA taxes are levied should be removed so that all incomes are subject to the FICA tax, thus providing revenue to maintain Social Security benefits and allow rates to be lowered generally which would benefit lower income people.

· Alternatively, FICA taxes which discourage job creation should be eliminated, to be replaced by a value added tax which discourages undesirable consumption. Although the VAT is no more progressive than FICA taxes, progressivity is maintained through progressive income taxes, as indicated above. The amount that workers earn would still be reported and used as a basis for calculating Social Security benefits.

· A major reason for eliminating employer paid health insurance taxes is to reduce the costs to employers of hiring new workers. Job creation would be stimulated through removing the employer costs of both FICA taxes and health insurance.

· President Obama should call upon all state and local governments to take responsibility for stimulating job creation through encouraging best practices of those areas in which jobs are being created. This would include publicizing practices of successful entrepreneurs, including their mentoring of would be entrepreneurs. Unlike federal stimulus actions, these actions of state and local governments would not add to federal deficits.

· Similarly, President Obama should ask everyone to break their ties with Corporations and Wall Street speculators that act counter to increasing jobs and the wages of job holders. People should instead be able to use their retirement savings to purchase additional Social Security benefits and be encouraged to place savings in local banks and credit unions which extend credit to entrepreneurs who seek to maintain and increase their work force. Unlike federal stimulus actions, this will stimulate job creation without increasing deficits.

· In Bellevue, the Jubilee Reach center, supported by a coalition of churches and other volunteer organizations, offers services to underprivileged students and maintains a thrift store as one way to raise funds. It hires people for both the center and thrift store. Volunteer health care clinics also hire some people to manage their operation. Such services should be encouraged.

· President Obama should require BP to stimulate job creation along the Caribbean Gulf Coast through funding unionized firms to perform environmental recovery and enhancement. Such a job creation program funded by BP would not increase the federal deficit.

· Our federal government’s budgeting procedures should be changed to create separate capital and operating budgets, as do the budgeting procedures of state and local governments, private companies and households. Instead of being treated as immediate operating expenditures, capital expenditures should be amortized. This would reduce fiscal deficits to their true value, reducing the temptation to cut expenditures for job creation.

· Companies have been merging such that many industries contain only a few oligopolies. Reduced competition allows these companies to charge too much for their products, with much of the revenue going to management and stockholders. Upon merger, the number of workers is reduced. Our federal government should refuse to allow many mergers and should conduct anti-trust actions.

If President Obama were really concentrating upon job creation, he would have considered some of these strategies. And these are only strategies of which I have become aware. Other similar strategies are likely to exist. Without being more imaginative, President Obama is realizing less job creation than is possible and is jeopardizing his congressional majorities. If we experience a prolonged recession or even a worsening one, President Obama will be partly responsible.

In Conclusion

There is little evidence that President Obama has learned these lessons. But he is intelligent. His current strategies are not working to stimulate enough jobs. Sooner or later, he is likely to recognize the appropriateness of these lessons.

In the meantime, American workers will suffer unemployment and Democrats will suffer politically. If President Obama hasn’t learned by 2012, we may need a Democrat who understands these lessons to run against him in the primary. Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton come to mind, but a more likely candidate may appear. The appearance of such a candidate may influence President Obama to overcome his blind spots.

Harry Reid Leads Sharon Angle

Harry Reid is seriously the luckiest son of a bitch in politics. Sharron Angle isn't just crazy on the issues and clueless on what's happening in the world, but completely incompetent in running a professional campaign. Just imagine what she'd do as Senator, and when the people of Nevada do, they suddenly decide that Reid isn't half as bad. For more.

Sharron Angle, who has fallen behind Harry Reid in several recent polls and can scarcely afford to squander any resources, has sunk $637,000 into a notorious D.C. direct mail firm. A Salon review of the Nevada Republican's FEC filings found that Angle has forked over about 20 percent of all the money she's raised to Base Connect, which is known for charging its conservative clients exorbitant fees -- as high as 80% -- and was recently dropped by a sitting Republican congressman because of its terrible reputation [...]

GOP consultant Bill Pascoe dubbed this "subprime fundraising." And Erick Erickson once said that candidates who use the firm are in danger of losing RedState's endorsement, presumably because conservative donors' money is going to a fundraising agency rather than actually helping the cause. Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) dropped all ties with Base Connect after Talking Points Memo reported in March he was paying the firm 75 percent in fundraising fees.

Another tea bagger in Colorado will also bite the dust.

Here’s the Beef

Total government spending for the year through July is $2.92 trillion, 3 percent less than the same period of last year.

Americans want effective government more than small government.

Not recognizing that Democrats may soon dominate the Senate for many years, Senator Chris Dodd supports existing cloture rules,

If Republicans win the house, no legislation for two years, then a Democratic comeback?

For all their professed respect for the constitution, Conservatives want many changes in it.

9 reasons to attempt immigration reform this year.

Having argued for more job stimulation, Christine Romer’s departure leaves mostly deficit hawks.

An unidentified Republican Senator refused a President Obama Federal Reserve nominee.

Obama can best reduce federal deficits by stimulating more job creation.

Dean Baker comments that economists justify Wall Street bailouts by ignoring the best alternative.

Dean Baker: National Public Radio still doesn’t recognize that the housing bubble hasn’t fully collapsed.

Government may sue Visa for prohibiting merchants from charging customers who use Visa cards.

Senate proposal helps natural gas and energy conservation, but not non-carbon based energy.

Serial adulterer Newt Gingrich defends traditional marriage.

President Obama may ease travel restrictions to Cuba.

State and Local

Caleb Mardini: Support Me for 8^th CD Representative

My name is Caleb Mardini. I am running for U.S. Congress in Washington’s 8th District. I love this country, I love people, and I want to help create a future that later generations will be proud of us for.

As a delegate I supported President Obama’s message of hope and change, and the President has done a tremendous amount of good work that I think has not been well publicized or understood by popular media. But, I am disappointed that some promises of aren’t being fully lived up to.

We need to take our country back from short term thinking and the partisan game playing that divides us. We need to take it back from the improper influence of special interests. We need a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

Fundamental to the idea of America are the civil liberties protected in our constitution. In the name of security, Congress has handed over too much power to the executive branch, weakening some of our most fundamental rights. When we sacrifice these rights for a false sense of security, and when we don’t hold our representatives to be accountable to the people, we sacrifice what we stand for as a nation.

Our greatest strength has always been the idea of a country founded on the democratic ideals of liberty, justice, and equality. That is the foundation we will stand on when we rise to overcome the challenges we face today.

Please support me this election, in working to restore our American Ideal. By limiting contributions to $25, my campaign offers a choice for something new. Take advantage of our top two primary to send the message that we really do want our country and our rights back. Caleb Mardini

I-1098 Leaves High Income People with Much After-Tax Income

For the better part of a decade, The Economic Opportunity Institute has been researching and documenting the effect of Washington's tax structure on our children, our families and our communities. What we've found is this: our tax structure requires too much from middle class families, low-income earners, and small businesses, while those who’ve benefitted the most don’t pay their fair share to preserve Washington’s high quality of life for the next generation.

Today, Washington voters have an historic opportunity to change that. Over the past year, EOI has been taking the lead in crafting the policy and building the coalition behind Initiative 1098, which will:

· Exempt every small business in Washington from the B&O tax with a $4,800 business tax credit;

· Reduce the state portion of the property tax by 20 percent, saving typical homeowners $100 to $200 per year;

· Create a 5% tax on income over $200,000 singles/$400,000 couples, and 9% on income over $500,000 singles/$1 million couples);

· Invest the net revenue — estimated at over $1 billion per year — in public education and health care;

· Impose strict accountability and transparency requirements.

One way to determine how I-1098's proposed income tax compares to other states is to calculate and compare the effective tax rate for an individual filer at a particular income level, as we've already done here.

But another way is to compare I-1098's effective tax rate for a particular percentage of income earners across all states that have an income tax. | Read More

Top 1% of earners

Next 4% of earners

People with the top 1% of income would be taxed a bit less than the average for similar people in other states. People in the next 4% of income would be taxed much less than the average for similar people in other states. This still leaves them with very high after tax incomes compared to most people.

Here’s the Beef

Washington Democratic Representative Rick Larsen attacks teabagger legacy of racism, stupidity, hate.

Nation and World

What Happened to Our Culture War?

I recently read the 2006 book, Is There a Culture War? A Dialogue on Values and American Public Life, which includes commentaries by James Hunter, Alan Wolfe, Gertrude Himmelfarb and Morris Florina. Alan Wolfe and Morris Florina generally reject the importance of a culture war, while James Hunter and Gertrude Himmelfarb support the presence of an important culture war.

Alan Wolfe argues persuasively that most Americans express adherence to Liberal values, although many will not call themselves Liberals, labeling themselves as Progressives, Moderates or Conservatives. Those who call themselves Progressives and Moderates usually hold the same positions on various issues as are held by Liberals. Although many Conservatives will express adherence to Liberal values, they typically do not honor these in practice. On many specific issues, such as abortion and free speech issues, those who support Liberal positions often support restrictions.

Alan Wolfe emphasizes that Liberals cannot be characterized as wanting change and Conservatives cannot be characterized as resisting change to maintain present conditions or return to the past. I strongly agree and thus disagree when those Liberals who call themselves Progressives characterize the difference between Liberals and Conservatives this way. Examination of their positions of various issues show that both Conservatives and Liberals want to maintain some present conditions or return to some past conditions. And both Conservatives and liberals want to change some conditions. The difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that what the former want to maintain and change differ from what the latter want to maintain and change. This can be illustrated by examining various issues:

· Conservatives typically advocate policies that will assist the most wealthy at the expense of the less wealthy. Liberals typically advocate policies that assist the less wealthy at the expense of the most wealthy. Yet we have experienced cycles in which income inequality has increased and then decreased and then increased again. So if we are in a period of increased income inequality, Conservatives want to maintain it while Liberals want to return to the decreased income inequality of earlier times. If we are in a period of decreased income inequality, then Liberals want maintain it while Conservatives want to return to the increased income inequality of earlier times.

· Liberals want to return to the cooperative foreign policy of previous years, while Conservatives want to maintain the Neo-Conservative go-it-alone foreign policy initiated by the Bush Administration. When Neo-Conservatives first obtained power, they want to change to an unprecedented policy of disregarding our past cooperation with other countries.

· On gun control, both Conservatives and Liberals want changes from the past. Conservatives want fewer restrictions than in the past, while Liberals want more restrictions than in the past.

· Stem cell research is a new issue, in which Conservatives want more restrictions than Liberals, so neither position can be characterized as resembling the past or wanting to change it.

· Conservatives want more restrictions on abortion than Liberals do. They would like to return to the conditions that existed prior to the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision. Liberals would like to return to the period just after 1973, before Conservatives were able to impose various restrictions in many states. But many people want abortions to be legal with various restrictions, so they might be said to be between Conservatives who want more and Liberals who want fewer restrictions.

· On gay marriage, Conservatives want only straight marriages to be recognized as the basis for many government benefits. Liberals, who respect the separation of church and state, want civil unions to be required for both straight and gay couples in order to qualify for government benefits. Religious marriages alone would not qualify their participants for government benefits. On this issue, Liberals are the ones who most want change, while Conservatives want to maintain past practices.

· On other issues concerning the separation of church and state, Liberals desire to keep them separate as has generally been the case in the past. Christian Conservatives desire changes to allow more Christian teaching in schools and public buildings.

· Concerning immigration, Liberals would make it easier for foreigners to come to this country and become full fledged citizens as was true for most of our history. Conservatives take the opposite position, even though this has become impossible to enforce.

· Also note that there are often differences between different types of Conservatives and between different types of Liberals. Libertarian Conservatives want more permissiveness of private behavior than Christian Conservatives. Some Liberals are more willing to argue for almost unlimited freedom of speech than others, who would be more critical of types of pornography, violent games and other practices which harm people.

These examples clearly demonstrate that the difference between Liberals and Conservatives is not that the former want to make changes and the latter want to resist changes or go back to the past. We also find that in accordance with Alan Wolfe’s commentary, most Americans want freedoms and opportunities with some restrictions, instead of unrestricted freedoms and opportunities or prohibited freedoms and opportunities. We also find that compared to older generations, younger generations favor fewer restrictions.

Most people do not participate in culture wars, but have some agreement with both sides. But Conservative politicians have been motivated to mobilize Conservative Christians, who would prohibit many personal behaviors and people who resist any gun controls (such as even requiring guns to be registered). While Conservative politicians have sometimes gained in the short run from their emphasis upon cultural issues, their success in implementing their proposals has been limited, religious conservatives have become less politically motivated and in the long run, they are losing public support from rapidly growing sets of minorities and young people. Republicans are now divided between Tea Party people who support Conservative positions on cultural issues and other Republicans who worry about alienating blocks of voters that are rapidly increasing.

Featured Advocacy Group

--------------------------------- economyincrisis.org ---------------------------------

EconomyInCrisis.org is an organization dedicated to educating legislators and the American public on the destruction of our country's industrial base, the impact this has on national and economic security, and how it effects our standard of living. It publishes critical but overlooked facts and figures, keeping our readers up-to-date with daily articles regarding the U.S. economy.

It compares what led to American industrial and economic world leadership with current policies and the present crippling of our industries. It then objectively extrapolates the near-term outlook and risks for our country, businesses and individuals. When possible it offers solutions to our weakening economic condition.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Reason for Endorsing President Obama’s Afghan Strategy

The recent cover of time magazine featuring a picture of an Afghan woman whose nose and ears were severed because she had fled abusive in-laws is a major reason why I endorse President Obama’s Afghan strategy to prevent the Taliban from controlling Afghanistan. Our military is attempting to minimize it’s causing of civilian casualties, such that far more civilian casualties are caused by the Taliban. If the Taliban return to control, far more casualties will occur, especially among women.

Here’s the Beef

Red States with so-called family values are most likely to fail to realize these values.

Should women desiring an abortion first be required to name the potential baby and paint a nursery room?

Among 36 developed nations, our U.S. has fallen to 12^th in percentage of young people with college degrees.

Germany is creating jobs by exporting to China.

Largest Iceberg in 50 years has broken off of Greenland glacier.

With global warming, heat waves such as are occurring in Russia will become more common.

Our Liberal Spirit

Dream the Impossible Dream

Our Liberal values are based upon the impossible dream that all Americans should have the same freedoms and opportunities. It is thus easy for us to dream impossible dreams. Based upon Barack Obama’s superb presidential election campaign, I and many others had great expectations for what he would accomplish. These expectations have only been partially fulfilled. To worsen our chagrin, we can with hindsight imagine how they could have been much better fulfilled. Still worse, we don’t see evidence that President Obama will improve his performance.

President Obama frequently refers to emails he has read that agree with his positions on job stimulation. He should instead take the Japanese approach which is to focus not on his successes, but upon getting new ideas to meet his challenges. In reading the emails he receives, he and his colleagues should give particular attention to ideas which differ from his, which offer new alternatives for stimulating job creation that he hasn’t tried. Ideas like those offered above.

The best that we can do is to try to inform him about ways to improve his performance. I have sent various messages to him. But I have no indication that he has noticed them amidst the multitudes of messages that he receives. I have also sent my ideas to the American Prospect and to other groups, in hopes of finding allies to help publicize them. But I have received no response. I will keep trying.

If President Obama can stimulate the creation of more jobs, it will certainly enable people to have more freedoms and opportunities, especially people whose freedoms and opportunities are much limited now.

Recommended Books – See our list of books for liberals

James Hunter and Alan Wolfe, 2006, Is There a Culture War? A Dialogue on Values and American Public Life.

For commentary.