Puget Sound Liberals Weekly Newsletter

I was wrong. I was more optimistic than Dean Baker, Paul Krugman and others about job creation this year. I expected that the Obama Administration, state and local governments and others would initiate more activities to stimulate job creation than they have done. I am appalled at their lack of responsibility and imagination.

If unemployment causes many Democratic Congress members to lose their seats this fall, they will have the Obama Administration and themselves to blame. There is much they could have done, but didn’t.

I would also like to share some of my fantasies with you:

· Confiscate illegal drug money. Use it to fund Consistently Liberal candidates everywhere.

· Eliminate all land mines, improvised explosive devices and vehicle bombs. New ones blow up as they are being assembled.

· Make it too uncomfortable for residents of illegal West Bank settlements to stay there.

· Chief Justice John Roberts becomes unable to continue as Justice.

· El-Qaeda leader Osama Ben Laden and Taliban leader Mohammed Omar are captured.

All of the above occur while the Obama Administration is increasing taxes on Wall Street speculators, diverting media attention away from Republican opposition.

Commentaries From Our Members

Marianne Wilkins: We Must Use Our Government to Work Together

Published by the Seattle Times on 8/25/2010

I was surprised to see how much I have in common with a tea-party activist. Jennifer Holmes, a tea-party activist states, “I want a smaller government, an environment that is cherished, and citizens who take personal responsibility for their actions. I want those in need to be cared for, a military capable of protecting us, and the Constitution to be followed. I want our national border to be secure and a national balanced budget. I want liberty for all, inasmuch as it doesn’t encroach on the liberties of others.”

Yes, we need individual responsibility and freedoms. And yet it is only by working together responsibly can we improve the existence and freedom of all. (Congress, take note). Individuals must work together to achieve our common goals — goals that ensure that we live in a world that is safe and provides opportunities for all. It is our government that supports clean energy, clean waters, clean air, uncontaminated food and drug supplies, non discrimination, religious freedom, educational standards, adequate health care, transportation safety, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, banking stability, financial responsibility as well as a strong military and justice system.

Which party is doing the most to make our world a better place? Vote. Marianne Wilkins

Brendan Williams: State Should Pay More Health Care Costs

Published by the Seattle Times on 8/25/2010

I was delighted to see the Times run an editorial titled, “On health care, state employees contributions must come closer to the private sector” [Editorials, seattletimes.com, Aug. 22]. Without reading the editorial further, I’m hoping its headline’s instruction is followed and the state eliminates worker responsibility for health-care premium costs.

After all, major private sector employers like Boeing, Microsoft, health-maintenance organizations, hospitals and even grocery-store chains like Fred Meyer and Safeway pay as much as 100 percent, and no less than 95.5 percent, of their employees’ health-care premium costs. State government pays 88 percent and requires significant deductibles and copays. It makes sense that state government establish a standard that is as high, and no lower, than Washington’s major private-sector employers — particularly since so many state workers are paid less than private-sector counterparts.

In turn, a greater commitment to health care by state government will somewhat mitigate the fact that state workers are likely to go another two years (making it four straight, or 8 out of 12 years) without cost-of-living wage increases, and are likely, as well, to suffer further deprivations like the layoffs and unpaid furloughs forced by $5 billion in cuts these past two years. Rep. Brendan W. Williams

Amanda Clark: Released Felons Should Be Able to Vote

Published by the Seattle Times on 8/25/2010

I don’t object to felons behind bars not being able to vote, but I think they should be able to as soon as they are released, “under supervision” or not. The idea should be to integrate prisoners who have done their time back into society as soon as possible, so don’t add to the hardship by more rules making them less than citizens. Amanda Clark

Sharon Abreu: Liberals Need to Do More Than Vote

Following the disappointing results of the primary election, I would like to thank the people that helped with Larry Kalb's campaign against Rick Larsen, and also say that it takes every progressive person pitching in some time and energy to unseat an incumbent and get a progressive into the U.S. House of Representatives. We had a hard time for several reasons, but one big one was that not nearly enough people were willing to dedicate any time and energy to getting the word out about our candidate. If we are going to get progressives elected, it is going to take a certain amount of commitment, beyond simply casting one's own vote. Sharon Abreu

Liberals and Democrats

What if John McCain & Sarah Palin Had Won?

If John McCain and Sarah Palin had become president and vice president in early 2009, their policies would have been very similar to President Bush’s. Without a stimulus-recovery package, many more people would have lost their jobs. Increasing financial inequality might have pushed our unemployment to the levels that occurred before President Roosevelt took office in 1933. Our federal deficits would be significantly larger than they are under President Obama. And no remedies could be expected until 2013.

In our next newsletter, I will comment on what might have happened differently if Hillary Clinton had been elected President instead of Barack Obama. One hint. I think that having much experience with Republican bullying, Hillary Clinton would have been much less likely to fear Republican bullying to the extent of attempting to compromise with them. The major question is whether unlike President Obama, she would have learned from the 25 years following World War II, to have a vision of replacing our Borrow, Consume and Speculate economy with an Earn, Conserve and Invest economy. And whether she would have learned from President Roosevelt of ways to stimulate jobs that President Obama has not attempted. And what she decided about strategies for reforming health care following her 1993 failure.

Obama Administration Attacks Its Main Allies

President Obama warns us against being afraid. Yet he has continually reacted out of fear. Fearing pharmaceutical Harold and Maud attacks on health care reform, he agreed to not challenge their profits. Fearing Conservative attacks, he did not immediately increase taxes on Wall Street speculators and other high income people. Fearing Conservative bullying, he attempted to compromise with them which only rewarded them for their bullying and increased their demands. Fearing Wall Street speculators, he has delayed naming Elizabeth Warren to head the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and may choose someone else instead. Fearing Conservative attacks, he acquiesced to the quick firing of Shirley Sherrod. Some fears may be justified, but most of these are not. Now he reveals his fear of his strongest supporters by reacting to their suggestions by attacking them as ‘Professional Leftists’. For more. For more. For more. For more.

President Obama has commented that he thinks about ways to stimulate job creation everyday. Unfortunately, due to fears of Republican bullying and even of suggestions by his supporters, he has suggested virtually no actions that weren’t included in his stimulus-recovery package. Instead of looking at the few emails he reads to find those that support his actions, he should follow the Japanese strategy of focusing upon those that suggest alternative ways to meet his challenges. Instead of dismissing the suggestions of his strongest supporters, he should welcome their attempts to help him find more ways to stimulate Main Street job creation in a fiscally responsible manner. He should learn the lessons of history.

Wanting President Obama to succeed, I suggest that he consider the following lessons and activities:

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.

Don’t Ignore Young Voters

Campaigns to elect Liberal Congressmembers should target young people. Even a slight increase in their voting rate can assist their election. Make sure young people are registered to vote. Provide them with relevant information. Run campaigns that connect with their values. For more.

Our justice Department will enforce the voter registration law, which requires that voters be registered at state motor vehicle offices and offices that administer food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, disability assistance and child health programs. This will provide the registration that was formerly done by ACORN. Once people are registered, they are likely to vote.

Job Creation

John Boehner wants a lot of people to lose their jobs. We were awfully surprised to hear Rep. Boehner come out for killing jobs en masse in his own state and district by stopping the Recovery Act on last Sunday’s news shows.

Though we’re sure he didn’t know it, the Congressman is advocating to kill the expansion of the Butler County Community Health Center and bring some of the twenty-five highway projects across the district to a grinding halt. Across the state of Ohio, he said that approximately 4 million working families should get an unexpected cut in their paycheck as the Making Work Pay tax credit disappears, unemployed workers should go without unemployment benefits, and major Ohio road projects like the US-33 Nelsonville Bypass project and the Cleveland Innerbelt Modernization project should be stalled or stopped. Oh, and some of the more than 100 clean energy Recovery projects employing workers across the state should be shut down.

That would be the direct consequence of his suggestion that we shut down the Recovery Act: “There's still about $400 billion or $500 billion of the stimulus plan that has not been spent. Why don't we stop it?” Now if you have been following this blog, you know that the notion there is “$400 billion or $500 billion” in Recovery Act funding unspent couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, we’re right on track to hit the goal set when the Recovery Act passed: that 70% of the $787 billion in funds would be “outlaid” or provided in tax benefits by September 30, 2010. But you don’t have to take our word for it – independent fact-checker Politifact.com recently rated Rep. Boehner’s claim flat-out false. As they noted: [R]ight off the bat, Boehner's $400 billion to $500 billion figure is much too high. But then they go on to say: [W]e think it's misleading to refer to even that lower number as "unspent" stimulus, because much of the $292 billion has been obligated, even though it has not been paid out.

But here is where things get interesting.

We discussed a couple of weeks ago that Recovery Act dollars are put to work creating jobs and jump-starting projects long before they cross this final step of being “outlaid.” First of all, two-thirds of the Recovery Act is tax cuts and relief payments which were largely designed to spend out gradually over time, generally over a two year period. So that “unspent” money is things like the tax cuts owed to working families in their paychecks and the upcoming unemployment checks owed to those hit by a job loss. The other one-third of the Recovery Act is projects where the money largely isn’t paid out until work is underway or nearing completion. If you were renovating your house, you wouldn’t pay for the whole thing up front – you would make progress payments as the key targets are being met and work is being completed. And you would expect the government to do the same thing with your taxpayer dollars, right? But an awful lot happens with the commitment of those dollars before anyone gets paid. If the bank pre-approved you for a loan for your renovation, you would certainly start drafting up plans, lining up contractors and securing permits. And then once the bank deposited that money in your account – just like when the government contracts with a Recovery Act awardee to give them a grant or loan – you would start hiring a contractor who would hire workers, buy materials and start the project. Well, the same is true of Recovery Act projects – that “unspent” Recovery Act project money has already started tens of thousands of projects nationwide.

Big picture that means that 94 percent of the Recovery Act is either in tax cuts, payments, or projects under contract. Of the remaining 6 percent, half has been awarded and contracts are being finalized - and half is in the final stages of the award process. So when critics like Rep. Boehner talk about stopping the spending, they’re essentially talking about taking away middle class tax cuts, leaving unemployed workers unexpectedly high and dry without an unemployment check, halting road and bridge projects and leaving them unfinished, leaving contractors unpaid for the work they’ve already done and more.

So when it comes right down to, is Rep. Boehner really ready to tell Ohioans they’d be better off if we stopped the Recovery Act? Jared Bernstein, Chief Economic Advisor to the Vice President

The Obama Administration is finally beginning to blame the Republicans for wanting to destroy Main Street job creation and return to President Bush’s job destroying measures.

Regulating Wall Street

Unlike the U.S., Canada has regulated Wall Street and prevented people from borrowing beyond their ability to repay their loans. The result has been much less of a speculative bubble and collapse and much less financial inequality and insecurity. For more.

Fiscal Responsibility

Our American people strongly support cutting the deficit by investing in stimulating jobs instead of cutting Social Security benefits. For more. Unfortunately President Obama has not considered many possibilities for stimulating job creation and has not clearly opposed cutting Social Security benefits. President Obama has not promoted reducing military waste.

Sarah Palin Is a Quitter. She Won’t Run for President.

Sarah Palin is much more interested in making money than in running for president. But to raise money, she needs to maintain the threat to run for president. So she will maintain the threat. But her previous behavior strongly suggests that she will ultimately not run for president. For more.

President Obama is fortunate that you can’t beat someone with no one. No Republican opponent appears to have significant support for running against him. Whichever Republican finally runs against him is likely to have very limited support from Democrats, Independents or even Republicans.

Our Dysfunctional Senate

Our present Senate filibuster rules and holds on Presidential appointments is clearly blocking any effective action to regulate Wall Street speculators, to stimulate the creation of jobs and to create fiscal responsibility through increasing taxes on the unearned income and wealth of Wall Street speculators and other high income people. At the beginning of the 2011 congressional session, these rules should be changed to enable the Senate to make decisions by a simple majority. In the meantime, Democrats should use reconciliation procedures whenever they can form their proposals to increase government revenues. For more.

Here’s the Beef

President Obama should tell us what type of economy he wants and how to realize it. For more.

Conservatives and commercial media promote ignorance of history concerning successful economy.

President Obama’s Deficit Commission will recommend gutting Social Security like Conservatives have long wanted.

President Obama isn’t acting to protect American manufacturing jobs.

President Obama has failed to aid most homeowners facing foreclosure.

President Obama is failing to stimulate job creation.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should retain ability to promote affordable housing.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be owned by our government.

President Obama should not have delayed passage of health care reform to attract Republican votes.

Republican National Committee won’t have sufficient money to get out their votes.

Thanks to our Supreme Court, Corporate funding to influence elections is increasing.

Promote new voter registrations to counter Teabag Conservative votes this fall.

AFL-CIO’s Working America is attempting to motivate unemployed workers to vote this fall. For more.

Auto union joins others who promote a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Alaska Might elect a second Democratic senator instead of electing a Teabag Conservative.

State and Local

Replacing Republican Legislators

I have supported Tom Cramer instead of Suzan DelBene because I doubt that she can beat Dave Reichert, due to her lack of political experience and ties to abusive Microsoft. Tom Cramer obtained an impressive 10% of the vote in spite of receiving no publicity from the Seattle Times and the endorsement by most Democratic leaders of Suzan DelBene. So Suzan DelBene will now compete with Dave Reichert who received 47% of the primary votes compared to her 29%. I see no reason to assume that she can do better than Darcy Burner did in her two attempts. For more.

I have also supported David Spring to beat Republican Glenn Anderson, whom he almost beat two years ago without any financial support from the Democratic Party. David Spring won the primary with 25% in opposition to a well funded opponent who received 16%. I believe David Spring can win this fall, hopefully with financial support. Having Democratic candidates in the 5^th LD stimulates Democrats to vote which also helps Democrats (such as Patty Murray and Suzan DelBene) in Congressional races. Dave Thomas

I-1098 Provides Chance to Fix Our Budget

A full two-thirds of state expenditures go to K-12 education, health care, public assistance, nursing homes, mental health, and maintaining correctional facilities. About half of the remaining dollars go to higher education. What remains from that goes to support our parks, fix and maintain roads, run our ferry system, and pay for the state’s judicial system. In other words, the money goes for things most of us look to our state to provide. Granted, there are inevitably programs that could be better run or dollars more carefully budgeted.

But it is simply not the case that the state government has gotten more bloated with time. In fact over the last two decades, the per-capita tax burden in Washington has fallen from over $120 to about $105 per $1,000 in income. During this time Washington went from being the 10th most taxed state to its place today at around the 30th. And this occurred while medical costs, the share of the over-65 population, and the demand for higher education have all been steadily rising. Moreover, these trends that place increased demand on state dollars will continue into the foreseeable future. As one indication, over the next 20 years the over-65 population as a share of Washington’s total population will nearly double.

So what does I-1098 do? In a nutshell, it reduces state property and B&O taxes in exchange for an income tax on wealthier residents. For example, married couples making $500,000 would pay about 1 percent of their income to the state; couples with $1 million in income would pay about 3 percent. Couples with less than $400,000 would pay no income tax. According to estimates from Washington’s Office of Financial Management, this tax change would provide the state with additional funds – raising our tax rate from $105 to about $112 per $1,000 in income. Such a tax increase would still leave Washington below the national average and below the state’s average tax burden over the last 30 years. And it would eliminate the state’s long-term budget gap.

It’s easy to advocate for higher taxes when they fall on others – under I-1098, these “others” are clearly Washingtonians with very high incomes. But this is precisely the group that escapes their fair share of taxes under our existing tax system. As a percent of income, our most economically-stressed households today pay five times or more in state and local taxes than do those households targeted by the proposed income tax. This is why the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has identified Washington as having the nation’s most unfair tax system. For more.

Many Endorsements for I-1098

This past week, the Yes on 1098 campaign received our newest endorsements from the Washington State Parent Teacher Association (PTA)¹ and the Greater Seattle Business Association. These organizations join Bill Gates Sr. and our growing coalition of business, civic, labor, and religious leaders who support I-1098's measured plan to reform Washington's unfair tax system. For a full list of endorsements click here: http://www.yeson1098.com/endorse.html

But just as critical is the support of you and citizens all around the state who want to be a part of the effort to cut taxes for small businesses and the middle class, while providing stable, dedicated funding for education and healthcare by taxing the wealthiest 1.2%. That is why today we are asking you to endorse the campaign. Click and share the link below to add your name to our list of citizen endorsers who support 1098! http://action.yeson1098.com/signup_page/citizenendorsement

Scott Allen, President of the Washington State PTA commented on the need to pass 1098. "We need to do what is right for our children and for Washington's future. Over the last two decades, Washington has fallen further and further behind other states when it comes to funding education and supporting reform efforts. We can't let Washington continue to fall behind in getting our kids what they need to be successful in school and in life. I-1098 will move us forward towards providing funding for the quality education our kids deserve"

With your help, the people of Washington State will ensure our kids get the quality education they deserve. Thank you for your support. Erik Magnuson, New I-1098 Media Director

Help Inform Small Businesses about I-1098’s Benefits

Many small businesses are struggling through these tough economic times. Initiative 1098 will give them much needed tax relief which will help avoid layoffs and keep Washingtonians on the job. The passage of 1098 will mean eliminating B&O taxes on 375,000 small businesses across Washington. Help us reach out to every corner of the state to ensure we win in November! Please volunteer in this critical effort to help small businesses and pass 1098.

Right now our campaign is reaching out to small businesses all across the state to hear from them about their concerns and to let them know how I-1098 will benefit them and we need your help. Next weekend the Main Street Alliance, a group of over 2,000 small businesses is joining forces with the Yes on 1098 campaign to talk to other small business owners about the benefits of 1098. Sign up to join our canvass on Saturday, August 28th when we will be walking neighborhoods and telling small businesses about how I-1098 will help their bottom line. Thank you for your support. Kelley Evans of Yes on 1098

Here’s the Beef

Nation and World

Featured Advocacy Group

--------------------------------- Radical Women ---------------------------------

Radical Women (RW) is a socialist feminist, grassroots activist organization that provides a radical voice within the feminist movement, a feminist voice within the Left, and trains women to be leaders in the movements for social and economic justice. It has branches in numerous United States cities; and Melbourne, Australia.

Radical Women emerged in Seattle, Washington from a “Free University” class on Women and Society conducted by Gloria Martin, a lifelong communist and civil rights champion. As a result of the class, Martin teamed up with Clara Fraser and Melba Windoffer (initiators of the Freedom Socialist Party) and Susan Stern (a prominent figure in the local Students for a Democratic Society) to launch Radical Women in 1967. In Socialist Feminism: The First Decade, 1966-76, Martin writes that the new group was formed to “demonstrate that women could act politically, learn and teach theory, administer an organization, develop indigenous leadership, and focus movement and community attention on the sorely neglected matter of women’s rights — and that women could do this on their own.”

From the outset, Radical Women participated heavily in the explosive anti-Vietnam War mobilization and has opposed subsequent imperialist wars, interventions and occupations. Members worked with African American women from the anti-poverty program to initiate the abortion rights movement in Washington State with a historic march on the capitol in 1969. In the early 1970s, RW helped organize a strike and a union of low-paid employees (mostly female and of color) at the University of Washington. Many Radical Women members were trailblazers in the nontraditional trades. At Seattle’s public power company, Seattle City Light, Clara Fraser crafted and implemented the country’s first plan to train women as utility electricians. For these efforts and her prominent role in a mass walkout at the utility, Clara was fired. She fought an intense, seven-year legal case that ultimately affirmed the right of free speech in the workplace and won her reinstatement at City Light.

After working closely with the Freedom Socialist Party (FSP), Radical Women and the party formally affiliated in 1973 on the basis of a shared socialist feminist program. The Radical Women Manifesto: Socialist Feminist Theory, Program and Organizational Structure defines Radical Women’s purpose and ideology as follows: Radical Women is dedicated to exposing, resisting, and eliminating the inequities of women’s existence. To accomplish this task of insuring survival for an entire sex, we must simultaneously address ourselves to the social and material source of sexism: the capitalist form of production and distribution of products, characterized by intrinsic class, race, sex, and caste oppression. When we work for the revolutionary transformation of capitalism into a socialist society, we work for a world in which all people may enjoy the right of full humanity and freedom from poverty, war, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and repression.

Radical Women calls for a multi-racial, multi-issue, working class and anti-capitalist approach to women’s liberation. The group looks to the leadership of the women of color and lesbians in movements for social change, and calls for solidarity and mutual aid of all the oppressed. Radical Women believes in mobilizing community protest against rightwing assaults on reproductive freedom. It calls for free abortion on demand, an end to forced sterilization of women of color, and for affordable, quality, 24-hour childcare.

RW persistently presses to form alliances and united fronts, including early efforts such as the Action Childcare Coalition, the Feminist Coordinating Council (an umbrella organization made up of the whole spectrum of women’s groups in Seattle), and the Coalition for Protective Legislation (a labor and feminist effort to extend female-designated workplace safeguards to men after passage of the Washington State Equal Rights Amendment).

RW has continuously supported the front-line role of women of color, combated racism among feminist activists, and spoken out against sexism in people of color movements. In its early years, Seattle Radical Women worked closely with the local Black Panther Party chapter to prevent the kind of lethal police attacks that decimated Black militants in other cities. In the 1970s, members participated in mass civil disobedience organized by the United Construction Workers Association to break the color line in the all-white building trades. They defended Chicana feminist Rosa Morales, victim of a sexist firing from her position as Chicano Studies staff-person at the University of Washington. RW worked closely with Native American women leaders Janet McCloud and Ramona Bennett, and participated in the Puyallup Tribe’s successful takeover of Cascadia Juvenile Center, a former Indian hospital. The group demands affirmative action, ethnic studies, justice for immigrants, and an end to police violence.

Radical Women has played a leading role in lesbian/gay/bisexual/ transgender liberation struggles. Members have helped build militant lesbian/gay rights organizations and have been involved in many coalitions devoted to preventing forced AIDS testing, opposing ballot-box attacks on gay rights, lobbying for state gay rights bills, and more. In the 1980s Radical Women leader Merle Woo, a college lecturer, writer and Asian American lesbian spokesperson, triumphed against the University of California at Berkeley in two epic employment cases charging discrimination on race, sex, sexuality and political ideology.

Radical Women encourages its members to become union militants, and some have been sparkplugs for many years on county labor councils in San Francisco and Seattle. RW views women’s mass entry into the workforce as an issue of deep significance, seeing women workers as strategically placed in the rapidly growing and powerful service sector. RW's position is that, together with people of color and lesbians and gays, women are the overwhelming majority of workers and have the potential to revolutionize society.

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

Here’s the Beef

By extending the FICA tax to all earned income, Social Security can continue and increase its benefits. For more.

Many who signed our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were born abroad or their parents were.

Our government should support private investment.

Homeowners may be able to legally stop foreclosure.

Food manufacturers resist restrictions on commercial advertisements for fattening foods.

In our country today, we are all confronted by jillions of scam artists.

Israeli defense forces prevent Gaza residents from making a living.

Palestine’s major negotiator says Israel must choose between settlements and peace.

Our Liberal Spirit

We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us

We blame President Obama’s failures to better stimulate economic recovery, regulate Wall Street speculation and reform health care upon Republican opposition and upon inadequate support by Democrats. But suppose that Republicans were unable or unwilling to effectively oppose him and suppose that Democrats would be more supportive. Would his activities lead to more success?

It is not clear that they would. He has never embraced a vision in which an Earn, Conserve and Invest economy (similar to what occurred during the 25 years following World War II) would replace our present Borrow, Consume and Speculate economy. He has often commented that Wall Street speculation offers some benefits and should not be eliminated. He has taken no initiative to increase unionization or initiate other measures to increase Main Street employee earnings to include a major share of their production. Nor has he promoted conservation instead of consumption. His financial regulation proposals were much weaker than alternatives that were promoted by others. He not only ruled out eliminating private insurance coverage. He did not support a public insurance option.

These choices were not simply a reaction to political opposition. President Obama made them initially instead of first attempting more and then compromising in the face of opposition. He has been his own worst enemy. Many Democratic congress members have taken the same stance as President Obama. They have also been worst enemies of economic recovery, financial reform and health care reform.

The lesson to be learned is that to benefit from our freedoms and opportunities, we must have a vision of the ends to which we want to use them.

Recommended Books – See our list of books for liberals

Stephen Kinzer, 2010, Reset. Iran, Turkey, and America’s Future

In the 1920s, both Turkey and Iran developed leaders who sought to modernize their countries based on democratic selection of their leaders, education and secular government. Turkey and Iran were different in two ways.

Unlike Turkey, Iran had significant oil resources, which attracted domination by Great Britain, thus inhibiting the implementation of democracy. Secondly, Iran had a strong Islamic clergy which inhibited the development of secular government, education and democracy. Turkey’s transformation succeeded in large part (although it never allowed the recognition of minority rights, resulting in the massacre of Armenians and suppression of the Kurds). Iran’s creation of a Democratic government was much delayed until the 1950s. The U.S. then stimulated the overthrow of the Democratic government and its replacement with 25 years of oppressive government. Since that was finally overthrown, democracy has been severely limited by conservative Muslim leaders.

Steven Kinzer argues that we must encourage democracy in both Turkey and Iran, which will render them allies against anti-American terrorism. We must also change our relations with both Israel and Saudi Arabia:

· Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we must actively promote a two state solution based on pre-1967 borders, with no Jewish settlements on the West Bank or on Palestinian lands in Jerusalem, with each state protected from violence from within the other state.

· Regarding Saudi Arabia, we must maintain a hands-off approach, so that it will have to deal with pressures to relax its conservative Muslim practices.

I agree with Stephen Kinzer’s analysis and recommendations. Dave Thomas