Economy

(Source: A Congress with Marie Antoinette Values: The Politics of the Minimum Wage, Ralph Nader, CounterPunch, July 6, 2006)

Some members of Congress have pointed out that it is illegal for the federal government to use taxpayers' money to create programs of propaganda. They called for an investigation. So, the question became whether the Bush Administration would buy some more members of the media to argue against such an investigation. Of course, with the secretive nature of the Bush White House, no one could ever know for sure.

A delicious irony is that Armstrong Williams is one of those people who keep insisting that the media has a liberal bias. Maybe he categorizes all journalists who have not been bought off by the Bush Administration as liberals. (Source: USA Today, January 6, 2005)

A full 40% of those public relations contracts were awarded non-competitively just handed out like candy. No bidding meant that the federal government didn't even try to get a good deal on this propaganda. It's a dishonest way for the President Bush to try to get the American people to like him, but in practical terms, it's a mighty expensive approach too. (Source: House Committee on Government Reform, January, 2005)

Unfortunately, the Republicans in the White House valued creating the false appearance of a job well done over the creation of employment for American workers who know how to do their jobs right. (Source: House Committee on Government Reform, January, 2005)

Before 2005, three media personalities were discovered to have been bribed by the Bush Administration to push Republican policies on TV and in newspapers across America. If you average out the amounts paid to Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, and Michael McManus, you get a purchase price of 114,000 dollars each.

So, if we divide the 8.8 billion dollars that Bush lost track of in Iraq by the 114,000 dollar average that the Bush Administration pays to newspaper columnists in order to buy favorable coverage before an election, the resulting number will tell us how many more journalists the Bush Administration could have bribed to push Republican policies - if that 8.8 billion dollars had not been lost.

It turns out that if George W. Bush had not lost track of that 8.8 billion dollars in Iraq, he could have used that money to buy off 77,192 American journalists. Why, I think that's every single journalist in the country! I mean, with all 50 states, that would be 1,543 journalists in every state. I don't think there are that many reporters, columnists and editors in America. So, basically, if Bush hadn't gone and lost that 8.8 billion dollars in Iraq, he could have bought out the entire American press corps and had lots of money left over!

Hey - wait a minute. Maybe that 8.8 billion dollars wasn't lost after all. Have you turned on your TV or read a newspaper recently? (Source: CNN, January 30, 2005)

That's the Republican moral priority for you: for the ultra-rich, inflation adjustment to maintain advantage. For the working poor, no inflation adjustment, strengthening disadvantage.

It's in almost no one's interest, other than financial elites, to fall for that divide-and-conquer approach. Social Security is important for all Americans, not just old people. First of all, everyone's going to be old some day, unless they die first. Secondly, Social Security is not just for old people.

Social Security also provides protection to people who get disabled, and to young families who have a working member become disabled or die. Take me, for example. I'm just setting up a young family, and as I have put in some good years of work (not coming from a third generation wealthy family like the Bushes), I can rest assured that if something happens to me, my wife and kids will get some financial support to compensate for the sudden lack of my income.

Social Security is for everybody. Don't let the right wingers tell you differently.

The fact is that the mantra the Republicans encourage young Americans to repeat - "By the time I retire, Social Security is going to be completely gone" - is completely bogus. Say you're 27 years old today. You'll retire in 38 years - that's the year 2044. Guess what? By the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, even if the economy remains completely stagnant, and no one in government does anything to improve the solvency of the Social Security fund, Social Security will still be there when you retire - unless we allow Republican attack dogs to destroy it. (Source: ThereIsNoCrisis.Com, 2005)

The problem isn't really illegal immigration. The problem is illegal subemployment. It's the availability of illegal subemployment by greedy American bosses that encourages people to risk their lives crossing the border through the scorching desert, in airtight shipping containers, or through document fraud. The lawbreaking bosses who engage in subemployment of immigrants undermine the American economy and keep wages artificially low.

Wouldn't you know it, the Republican right wing has done a terrible job of dealing with illegal subemployment of immigrants. In fact, after gaining control of the federal government, the Republicans seem to have worked to make illegal subemployment easier. The statistics show a flagrant Republican disregard for the law in this respect. For the eight years that Bill Clinton was President of the United States, the yearly average number of punishments for bosses breaking the law by subemploying undocumented immigrants was 698. Under George W. Bush and the Republican Congress, that average has fallen drastically, to just 80 punishments per year during Bush's first term in office, and only 3 fines for subemployment against criminal bosses in 2004.

Progressives will hold criminal bosses to account, punishing them when they break the law. The right wingers have proven that they are willing to just look the other way and allow illegal subemployment to continue.

(Source: Lou Dobbs, CNN, July 26, 2006)

Another problem with this line of argumentation begins with the note that although not everybody can win in a relative sense in a stock market, of course in an absolute sense everybody (or at least most people) can be better off investing in the stock market if overall the value of the stock market rises because of gains in productivity and profit. But everybody (or at least most people) can lose, too, if decreased productivity and less profit lead to overall drops in the value of the stock market. This second sort of macro-level variation overall in the value of traded companies isn't due to citizens making the right kind of investment decisions or the wrong kind of investment decisions. It's due to changes in productivity and profit that aren't the direct result of investment decisions. So individual decision-making acumen is irrelevant for social security policy in an absolute sense, too.

If we trust individuals to be good decision-makers, that should apply not just to markets like the stock market but to politics too. If we go down this road, it sure seems that a whole lot of individuals have decided that Bush's policy path regarding social security privatization isn't a good idea. If Bush and the Republicans really think that individuals are good decision makers, and if they really trust people to make the right decision as they say, then why don't they respect that and drop their misguided social security proposal?

Furthermore, if Bush and the Republicans trust people to make the right decisions, then why are they trying to keep people from making their own decisions about who they want to marry? Why are Republican politicians trying to keep people from making their own decisions about when and how they want to die? Why are Republican politicians trying to keep people (women people) from deciding whether a medically-appropriate prescription drug is also ethically appropriate for them? Why are Republican politicians trying to keep people (women people again, I sense a theme) from deciding what to do with their own bodies? Why are Republican politicians trying to keep people from deciding what kind of sex to have? Why are Republican politicians trying to keep young people from getting factual information about sex they seek in the course of making sexual decisions? Why are Republican politicians trying to keep people from deciding for themselves what kind of movies they want to watch, what kind of books they want to read or what kind of art they want to look at? Why are Republican politicians trying to keep people from living their lives they way they want to as long as they aren't hurting anybody else?

Frivolous asbestos claims? How many people do you know who have lost jobs or have had their wages lowered because of frivolous asbestos claims? How many times have you heard anyone complain about the economic burden they're suffering under because of frivolous asbestos claims? If you're like most people, you've never heard a peep or felt a moment's worry about a crisis of frivolous asbestos claims.

However, if you're someone who works for KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, the corporation run by Dick Cheney before he became George W. Bush's Vice President, you've probably heard quite a bit about supposed frivolous asbestos claims. You see, KBR entered into bankruptcy because of claims by people who had been harmed by asbestos because of KBR's negligence.

Were those asbestos claims frivolous? Not according to the people who were hurt, and not according to the courts that heard the cases. Halliburton, and their people in the Bush White House, think that the cases were frivolous, though... because they made the corporation lose money.

It's time that we have a President who does not believe that the profits of abusive corporations and the state of the American economy are one and the same. (Source: Boston Globe, February 4, 2007)

Under a right wing President, the harder that Americans work, and the more profits they make for their bosses, the less money they bring home themselves.

Investment bank UBS calls this situation a "golden era". If you agree with that assessment, by all means vote for another right wing President. If you don't, then it's time for you to support a progressive candidate for President in 2008.

What an odd Republican ethic, that above all else, the Government must not be allowed to do anything, or be helpful, if it interferes with someone else making money. Thus, for right wingers, the economy of a few overcomes the welfare of the many.

Douglas Barasch, Editor-In-Chief of the magazine OnEarth, reflects the progressive view of trade as he observes the impact of oceanic shipping on the quality of the air we breathe. "Ninety percent of international trade still travels by sea, in immense, hulking freighters that run on the lowest grade, most polluting form of diesel fuel," he writes. "In the ports of California's San Pedro Bay, which are the largest in the United States, thousands of container ships pull into harbor every year, belching dark smoke and choking the families that find themselves choicelessly living next door." Progressives like Barasch believe that it's important to solve these problems, and that it's not adequate to automatically accept the suffering they cause as the price of prosperity.

While progressives concern themselves with non-economic effects of economic development, right wingers tend to dismiss such concern as inappropriate. The right wing view of business is that it should only be evaluated according to its economic success. We need a President who has a more balanced model of economics in mind. That's why, in 2008, it will pay off in the long term to elect a progressive President. (Source: On Earth, Spring, 2007)

A recent study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research shows that this difference in attitude has a strong impact on the economy and on the environment. The study looked at the impact of American work habits and European work habits. Europeans, who have a more relaxed, progressive attitude about work than Americans, work 22 percent fewer hours per week. If the Europeans were to change to accomodate the demands of right wingers pushing for maximum labor resource utilization, the energy consumption of Europe would increase by about one third. Because of the increased energy consumption, energy costs would rise for everyone in Europe, for business and personal use alike. Pollution would increase as well.

If America could adopt a more progressive approach to work, then we would have cleaner air and lower energy costs. A good place to start would be to place a progressive in the top job in the country, as President of the United States.

Work less. Breathe more. (Source: Center for Economic and Policy Research, December 20, 2006)

In March, 2007, former Vice President Al Gore visited the Council of Institutional Investors in order to urge members of the group to look beyond short term gains in order to adapt a new kind of financial analysis that incorporates environmental sustainability. It's an idea that makes economic sense, regardless of its appeal to eco-conscious Americans. After all, economic development that cannot be sustained because of environmental damage is economic development sure to fail in the long term.

Unfortunately, a right wing political agenda adopted by many business executives promotes a defensive denial of the impact of environmental factors upon business success. That attitude is as bad for investors as it is for ecosystems. (Source: Associated Press, March 20, 2007)

America is in a deep hole when it comes to the federal budget deficit, but in the budget proposed by George W. Bush for 2008, the hole is made even deeper. The Congressional Budget Office has found that the budget makes changes that will increase the size of the deficit by 1.4 trillion dollars over the next ten years, when compared to what would happen if no budget policy changes were made.

In other words, if only President Bush would agree not to change anything at all in his proposed budget, the American people could have 1.4 trillion dollars less in debt. But, because of his dedication to right wing economic ideology, President Bush won't make that simple choice.

In 2008, we need to choose a new President who will not allow economic ideology to interfere with America's financial solvency. (Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, March 2, 2007)

Not since World War II did the United States spend so much on its military budget. During World War II, America fielded massive armies, navies, and created a massive system of air power. The budget expansion under George W. Bush has only brought us a weak military force unable to deal with relatively minor insurgent foes. (Source: ScrippsNews, March 20, 2007)

For example, if I didn't read right wing political material, I never would have come across presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's kooky idea for blending Republican economic theory with Buck Rogers gee-whiz adventures in outer space. Gingrich thinks that it's very important for the United States to keep on spending people into outer space, but not to have the government do it, and not in order to promote scientific research, or the welfare of the human race. No, Newt Gingrich wants to scrap NASA, and replace it with tax credits for space tourism: "There ought to be tax credits for manufacturing in space and tax credits for developing commercial flights into near space for space tourism."

Tax credits for manufacturing and tourism in outer space? Why tax credits? To encourage small businesses to send rocketships into orbit?

Oh, I get it! Newt Gingrich is promoting the Wallace and Gromit plan for economic recovery and space exploration. Why if that wacky Englishman and his dog could build a rocket ship to go to the moon to have a nice cheese and crackers holiday, so could you, if only the government would give you a tax credit to help you pay for the initial construction. Sure. That's the ticket... into orbit. (Source: Newt Gingrich on Future Endeavors in Space, DraftNewt.org)

Some business owners insist on doing things the way they've always done them, opposing progressive innovations out of hand. Other businesses, however, understand how the progressive approach to business can make them more money and earn them more customers.

For example, right now, I'm on a business trip to Southern California, staying at an independently owned hotel. When I entered the room, I was pleased to see that all the lamps use long-lasting flourescent light bulbs instead of incandescent bulbs. The flourescent bulbs reduce costs for the hotel because they last a long time but also because they use less energy to create the same amount of light as old-fashioned bulbs. Because they use energy more efficiently, the flourescent light bulbs are also good for the environment.

What's more, the hotel makes customers like me feel comfortable. The new light bulbs are a signal that give me the positive impression that the hotel is willing to try new things to be less wasteful, reduce the cost of a stay, and improve customers' experience. So, I'm more likely to consider staying in this hotel again when I'm back in this area.

Progressives have understood for a long time that being more respectful to the environment is a business opportunity. Being pro-environment is being pro-business. That's why we need to elect a progressive President in 2008.

In April, 2007, members of the House of Representatives cast a roll-call vote on H.R. 1257, a law to simply permit shareholders in a public corporation -- a.k.a. the owners -- to cast an advisory, non-binding vote approving or disapproving of executive pay packages. H.R. 1257 also allows shareholders to vote their non-binding approval or disapproval of Golden Parachutes. Who would not support the idea of the owners of a corporation being able to publicly express their position on executive pay and severance packages? Only those who have an interest in keeping executive pay and severance packages hushed up. Only those who want to hide the extent of executive corruption and the extent of shareholder discontent with that corruption.

Rick Renzi voted against this bill when it came up for that roll call vote. Rick Renzi wasn't alone, either: a number of conservatives in Congress prioritized self-awarded executive perks above voice for corporate shareholders. Why are so many conservative politicians interested in hushing up executive pay and severance packages? Everyone has their rea$on.

Thankfully, there were enough progressive votes to counter the pro-corruption Renzis in Congress and pass the bill. Hopefully, it will pass the Senate as well. But then it will have to pass across the desk of President George W. Bush, who has repeatedly sided with corporate executives and against shareholders, workers, and consumers. All the good work of a progressive Congress on corporate governance can be negated with the stroke of a regressive president's pen. And that's another reason we need to make sure we vote for a progressive president in 2008. (Source: Library of Congress)

This failed test was just another in a tradition of decades of failed tests. The truth that no one in Washington D.C. wants to talk about is that the technology for a missile defense system that works does not yet exist. The billions of dollars the United States is spending to build the system is money wasted on pure fantasy.

A subsequent announcement made the failure of the missile defense system became even more profound. Russia announced that it is developing a missile that will be able to evade the American missile defense system. So, even if the Americans ever develop the technology to get their missile defense system to work as designed, it won't really protect anyone from Russian nuclear missiles.

Building the missile defense system is an obvious waste of billions of dollars. So, why do so many politicians support the program? It all comes down to money. The billions of dollars that are being spent on a missile defense system that will never work doesn't actually disappear when the federal government spends it. All that money is flowing into the politically-connected corporations that are being hired to design and build the imaginary missile defense system.

A lot of people are making a lot of money for themselves from the missile defense fantasy. A portion of that money is being returned to politicians in the form of campaign contributions, to encourage the political will to keep the fantasy economy going.

Any genuine fiscal conservative would call for an immediate end to spending on the failed missile defense program. But, wouldn't you know it - not one of the Republicans running for President in 2008 have done so. In fact, I don't know of a single Republican politician who has the integrity to oppose the wasteful missile defense fantasy. (Source: Media With Conscience, May 29 2007)

For one thing, he voted in favor of the single largest, most wasteful, unnecessary and unpopular big government program in recent history: The invasion and occupation of Iraq. Hundreds of billions of dollars have already been thrown away into the misadventure, which is projected to add trillions of dollars to the federal budget deficit. Yet, Fred Thompson still supports the spending.

Fred Thompson's big government spending ways go back a lot farther than that, of course. Back in 1995, he outdid every previous attempt at big government spending. Fred Thompson tried to put pork barrel spending into the Constitution of the United States of America.

The ultimate chutzpah of Fred Thompson's attempt to create what another senator called "constitutional pork" is that he tried to insert that spending into a proposed Balanced Budget Amendment. The committee report on the proposed amendment shows that Senator Thompson wanted to create an exemption in the Constitution that protected the federal subsidy of his favorite homestate pet project from budget cuts, the Tennessee Valley Authority. The TVA was subsidized by about 70 million dollars in spending from the federal government every year.

When it came to the idea of balancing the federal budget, Fred Thompson expected budget cuts to apply to everything and anyone other than himself and his own projects. We can expect this same attitude from Fred Thompson if he becomes president: Sacrifices are for other people to make, not Fred Thompson. (Sources: Boston Globe, September 28, 2006; Washington Post, February 23, 1995; Congressional Record, February 23, 1995)

Right in the thick of the special interest binge was Fred Thompson, who arranged to have tax loopholes inserted into Senate legislation just hours the legislation was presented to the Senate Finance Committee. These changes were made after a request by lobbysts for the American Council of Life Insurance, and financially benefitted an insurance company from Tennessee, Fred Thompson's home state.

As this example illustrates, Fred Thompson's record in the Senate is one of working for the interests of corporate lobbyists, not the interests of his constituents. (Source: Washington Post, July 24, 1999)

Enron used fake energy shortages, and the resulting rolling blackouts, to pressure California to accept higher energy prices and less government regulation of the energy industry. The truth was that Enron was working with other energy companies to purposefully create the appearance of a crisis when one didn't really exist.

Ron Paul helped this crooked scheme along in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives in which he claimed,

"We have an energy crisis in California created by the bureaucrats and the politicians. As prices skyrocket and a crisis is declared, it is later said that prices are now down and there's less of a shortage or crisis. But it's the market process that worked because the prices skyrocketed rather than skyrocketing prices becoming the justification for abandoning the market process."

Ron Paul was just plain wrong. There was no energy crisis, except one artificially created by business. Bureaucrats and politicians in California were not to blame. Manipulation of market prices by big business was to blame.

Ron Paul couldn't see the truth because his political ideology assumes that government is bad and the market processes of business are good. If there's a problem, Ron Paul's knee jerk reaction is to blame a bureaucrat somewhere. So, when there were rolling blackouts in California, Ron Paul's knee jerked, and he blamed the people he always blames.

It also was awfully convenient for Ron Paul that Enron was centered in his home state of Texas. It's easier for a Texas Republican like Ron Paul to claim that the problem with energy lies not with California, not in dirty business dealings in his own back yard.

In 2008, we need to elect a President who can get beyond ideological hangups and regional bias to serve the economic interests of the American people as a whole. The record shows that Ron Paul would not be that President. (Source: Congressional Record, September 10, 2001)

Here's an example: In the summer of 2001, both Democrat Bill Richardson and Republican Ron Paul declared their adoration for the glorious nation of Kazakhstan. They called themselves "Crazy for Kazakhstan". Really. Those are the words that they used: "Crazy for Kazakhstan".

What were they talking about? Ron Paul entered into the Congressional Record an article that Bill Richardson wrote under the title "Crazy for Kazakhstan" for the right wing newspaper The Washington Times on July 30, 2001. Ron Paul declared that he agreed with Bill Richardson's ideas about the strategic importance of Kazakhstan, and urged his colleagues to read the article and support legislation to establish permanent trade relations with Kazakhstan.

Part of Bill Richardson's argument was that control over access to Kazakhstan's oil ought to be a dominant factor in American foreign policy in the region

"With the discovery of the massive Kashagan oil field in the Kazak portion of the Caspian Sea, Kazakhstan is poised to become a major supplier of petroleum to the Western World and a competitor to Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). It is critical that we continue to facilitate western companies' investment in Kazakhstan and the establishment of secure, east-west pipeline routes for Kazak oil. This is the only way for Kazakhstan to loosen its dependence on Russia for transit rights for its oil and gas and secure additional, much needed, oil for the world market.

American policy in the region must be based on the complex geopolitics of Central Asia and provide the support required to enable these countries to reach their economic potential. We must continue to give top priority to the development of Kazakhstan's oil and gas industries and to the establishment of east-west transportation corridors for Caspian oil and gas."

In a time when it has become clear that America needs to wean itself from oil in volatile foreign countries, Ron Paul and Bill Richardson don't appear to be credible candidates for leading such an effort. Just before the time when the consequences of America's meddling in the larger region for the sake of oil would become terribly clear, Ron Paul and Bill Richardson were advocating increasing American energy dependence upon the region's oil resources.

Bill Richardson and Ron Paul may talk a lot now about decreasing American dependence on foreign oil. However, they're both on the record as promoting American dependence on foreign oil, and getting the United States mixed up with the glorious nation of Kazakhstan. (Source: Congressional Record, August 1, 2001)

It's been hard enough for the ocelot to hang on to this tiny piece of territory, but it's about to get an awful lot smaller. The Department of Homeland Security is planning to build a big wall along the border of Mexico, right through the middle of a population of ocelots. The cats already find it difficult to cross the border to maintain breeding contacts throughout the population, due to severe degradation of their habitat. Now, they will find it impossible, and the population will be cut in two, with each side suffering even more from a lack of genetic diversity, and the diseases that result from inbreeding.

The impact of the border wall on the ocelot is made the more tragic when one considers that many Texas locals on the American side of the border don't think that the wall is necessary in the first place. When asked about whether he supported the border, one resident commented, "Welcome to the United States of Paranoia."

The local economy will take a significant hit if the anti-immigrant wall tips the ocelot population into extinction. On the American side of the border, 150 million dollars is brought into the area every year by visitors hoping to catch a glimpse of the ocelot and other wildlife.

In a time when environmental degradation and Homeland Insecurity go hand in hand, we need a more progressive vision for how to manage our nation's edges. (Sources: Dallas Morning News, July 25, 2007; Dallas Morning News, July 26, 2007)

Emergency room visits for people who need primary healthcare end up being unnecessarily expensive because emergency departments are deployed with equipment and staff to respond to high-acuity medical problems, equipment and staff that are wasted on the treatment of health conditions that are less acute. Studies involving the introduction of community health centers to provide primary care to the uninsured have shown that they can actually save hospitals money because they reduce emergency room care. At the individual level, people who do not receive preventive health care can end up needing expensive care in emergency rooms when they develop preventable conditions needing further treatment.

Even simply from an economic point of view, and ignoring the issue of compassion, George W. Bush's "just go to an emergency room" suggestion just doesn't make sense. But Bush's ideological blinkers won't let him see that. In the future, let's try to choose national leaders who aren't similarly blinkered. (Sources: Boston Globe July 19 2007; Betty Smith-Campbell, "Emergency Department and Community Health Center Visits and Costs in an Uninsured Population," Journal of Nursing Scholarship 37(1): 80-86 (March 2005); Million-Dollar Murray, New Yorker February 13, 2006)

Everyone has their priorities. Mitt Romney seems to consider getting money from a few powerful people to be a higher priority than reaching out to a large number of regular people. Maybe, for his base, his strategy, and his approach to politics, the higher priority on the rich and powerful makes sense. But is that where your priorities lie? (Source: New York Times July 28 2007)

Someone like Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton demonstrates this difference in her policy on taxation of Wall Street income. Hillary Clinton isn't a perfect progressive, but when it comes to her policy on carried interest income made by high powered investment fund managers, she's on a good progressive track. The classification of carried interest made by these managers as income that's not subject to ordinary levels of taxation allows the fund managers to get away with paying just 15 percent on their income, while the rest of us pay a full third of our income or more.

Commenting on this double standard, Senator Clinton states, "Our tax code should be valuing hard work and helping middle class and working families get ahead. It offends our values as a nation when an investment manager making $50 million can pay a lower tax rate on her earned income than a teacher making $50,000 pays on her income. As President I will reform our tax code to ensure that the carried interest earned by some multi-millionaire Wall Street managers is recognized for what it is: ordinary income that should be taxed at ordinary income tax rates."

Hillary Clinton is right, and other Democratic presidential candidates, like John Edwards and Barack Obama agree with her. You won't find a single Republican candidate for President supporting the effort to make investment fund managers pay their fair share, though. They're counting on campaign donations from these Wall Street investment fund managers, and can't manage to break themselves free of their compounding influence. (Sources: Boston Globe, July 14, 2007; HillaryClinton.com, July 13, 2007)

Oxfam, a humanitarian relief organization, has calculated the likely costs for dealing with the impact of global climate change in what it terms "the developing world" - a nice term for the Earth's more impoverished nations. The projected cost is at least 50 billion dolla

In the face of the 50 billion dollar annual need for adjustments to prevent humanitarian disasters as a result of climate change, how much have the wealthy nations of the Earth, the top greenhouse gas producers, given so far? 48 million dollars.

The United States has a moral obligation to help people who face harm as a result of its industrial pollution. In 2008, we need to elect a President who takes this obligation seriously. (Source: Oxfam, May 29, 2007)

It's not the company I'd pick. Last year, when I went to my doctor to try to take care my sleep apnea, caused by a physical problem that makes it difficult to breath through my nose, my health insurance company sent me a letter saying that it would not pay anything for the surgical procedure to correct the problem. Why? The health insurance company decided, in direct contradiction to the doctors who had examined me, that my sleep apnea was a form of mental illness.

Most people have similar stories about the companies that provide their health insurance. Sometimes, health insurance companies deny coverage for merely troublesome conditions, like mine. Other times, health insurance companies tell people that they won't be able to get treatments needed to save their lives. Whatever the problem, it's clear to most Americans that health insurance companies take control for themselves, often removing patients' access to health care.

Rudy Giuliani, apparently, is not like most Americans. He seems to think that health insurance companies give people oodles and oodles of control over medical decisions. That's why he thinks that the solution to the problems in America's health care system is to pretty much keep things the way they are.

Yesterday, Giuliani released his presidential campaign's health care plan for America. He promised that it would provide Americans with "full access to and control over their health care decisions."

CNN took a look at Rudolph Giuliani's plan, and concluded that it directs people to "private health insurance" - the same insurance companies that already exist, and currently give people so much trouble.

How could Rudy Giuliani possibly believe that private health insurance plans give their members "full access to and control over their health care decisions"? Giuliani is an extremely wealthy man. When the Federal Election Commission asked Giuliani to report his net worth, Giuliani admitted to "between $18.1 million and $70.4 million". For Giuliani, it's no big deal if his health insurance company refuses to pay for a medical procedure. He can just pay for it himself.

"The Republican presidential candidate said encouraging poor, unwed parents to marry with welfare incentives and publicly celebrating religious faiths would help fight poverty and crime."

I knew right away that something was profoundly weird about Sam Brownback's proposal for encouraging marriage, but the problem is so profoundly personal that it took me a while to realize what it was. The problem with Senator Brownback's idea is that it assumes that loving couples will refuse to get married just because they can't get a big welfare check from the government if they do.

Think about it. If a friend of yours came up to you and told you, "My boyfriend says he thinks we ought to get married so that we can get a big welfare check from the government," what would you say back to her? I know that I would tell her not to get married, and to dump her boyfriend right away. Anyone who will ask someone else to get married so that the couple can get a big government handout isn't worth getting married to.

A couple that marries for the sake of a welfare check will probably not be very happy in their marriage, and won't stay married for long. Maybe they'll have a child before they get divorced, though. Then the couple will have to bring in enough money to maintain two households, and that welfare check won't be there to help them out.

It's sad that Sam Brownback thinks that people get married for the sake of getting extra money from the government. Most people that I know don't think about marriage that way. The people I know think that a marriage needs to have love at its heart in order to be successful.

The really sad thing is that Sam Brownback thinks that allowing people who love each other to get married should not be allowed, if these couples are not heterosexual. He thinks that loving homosexual couples will ruin the institution of marriage, but that a government program to bribe young couples to get married will make the institution of marriage stronger.

If you agree with that cockamamie idea, then you'll probably vote for Sam Brownback in the 2008 Republican primary. If you don't, then you ought to vote for a progressive candidate for President instead. (Source: Des Moines Register, August 7, 2007)

Sam Brownback wants to use the power of the presidency to create public celebrations of religious faith. His idea is that if the government sponsors public celebrations of religion, then poverty will fall.

The facts contradict that idea. George W. Bush has used his power as President to promote public celebrations of religious faith more than any other President in living memory, and perhaps more than any other President in the history of the United States. Yet, according to the Census Bureau, the number of people living below the poverty level has increased almost every single year that George W. Bush has been office.

In 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency, there were 31.6 million Americans living below the poverty line. In 2001, that number increased to 32.9 million. In 2002, it went up to 34.6 million. In 2003, the number was at 35.9 million. In 2004, the number was 37 million. In 2005, the number was down slightly, but only from 37 million to 36.9 million Americans living in poverty.

During that time, it wasn't just the raw number of Americans living in poverty that increased. The poverty rate increased too. During the presidency of Bill Clinton, on the other hand, both the number of Americans living in poverty and the poverty rate went down.

The facts show that using the President's power to create public celebrations of religion does not reduce poverty. Sam Brownback should have checked the facts before making his claim, but he didn't. He was hoping that his audience would just accept it on faith. (Source: Des Moines Register, August 7, 2007; Census Bureau; Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic, Origin: 1959 to 2005)

On the other hand, maybe that problem isn't as fixed as we thought it was. This year, it was discovered that a small South Carolina parts supplier collected about $20.5 million over six years from the Pentagon for fraudulent shipping costs, including $998,798 for sending two 19-cent washers to a Texas base, U.S. officials said.

News reports of the fraud read, "The company also billed and was paid $455,009 to ship three machine screws costing $1.31 each to Marines in Habbaniyah, Iraq, and $293,451 to ship an 89-cent split washer to Patrick Air Force Base in Cape Canaveral, Florida."

This is what happens when politicians play a "patrioticker than thou" game with the Department of Defense budget and procedures. (Source: Bloomberg News August 16, 2007)

"To be briefed on what the goals of an administration are, if you are a representative of the administration, is useful. ... It's perfectly legitimate for the White House to say, here are our goals, here are our objectives, this is what your executive branch is doing.... I daresay that this is hardly unusual in this administration."

Despite Tony Snowe's reassurances, it turned out that therewas more to the story than that, as McClatchy reports:

Top Commerce and Treasury officials appeared with Republican candidates and doled out millions in battleground congressional districts and states after White House political briefings detailing GOP election strategy.... Cabinet members and other political appointees aren't permitted to spend tax money with the aim of benefiting candidates.

Commerce and Treasury political appointees later made numerous public appearances and grants that often correlated with GOP interests, according to a review by McClatchy Newspapers. The pattern raises the possibility that events were arranged with the White House's political guidance in mind."

It doesn't take much imagination to see the way that the economy of ideas has been operating within the Republican White House. (Sources: Cox Washington Bureau July 24 2007; McClatchy Newspapers August 17 2007)

Her death, one of 47 so far due to a heat wave in the South this week, shows how global warming becomes fatal when mixed with poverty. In spite of the fact that Memphis had a heat index above one hundred degrees every single day for a month and a half by the time she died from the heat, she was unable to get a working air conditioner that would have saved her life. The abnormally high temperatures of this summer combined with the all-too-normal economic poverty afflicting people in Memphis, left her unable to adjust to the change in climate.

Right wing politicians have been saying for years that global warming is no big deal, that it's not anything that we need to do anything about, and that the problem doesn't even really exist. Maybe if the right wing had listened to progressives twenty years ago and agreed to take action to prevent global warming, that woman in Memphis would still be alive. (Source: Associated Press, August 18, 2007)

Progressives have another view. I call it the the American Promise. The American Promise was made by the Constitution of the United States of America, and updated with each amendment to the Constitution.

The American Promise is not for the power of wealth. The American Promise is that the USA will make it possible for people to live in liberty and equality.

It's a promise that has often been denied. It's a promise that is now in danger of being forgotten. It's a promise that still can be kept.

Voting for a progressive presidential candidate in 2008 is one step in a long campaign to rebuild the American Promise.

Today, the Census Bureau reports that the number of Americans who have no health insurance at all increased from 44.8 million in 2005 to 47 million people in 2006. That's 2.2 million more Americans without any health insurance to deal even with catastrophic medical conditions, in just one year.

Right wingers favor staying the course, but progressives favor taking bold moves to address the heart of the health care problem. America must not go on like this, but America will go on like this unless a we elect progressive President in 2008. (Source: Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006; August 28, 2007)

Americans are working just as hard as ever, but they're making less money. That's the reward that the Republican economy has brought us. Let's turn it around, end the right wing economics that aims to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few, and vote progressive in 2008. (Sources: CNN, August 28 2007; Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006; August 28, 2007)

People are enduring real suffering as a result. Hard working Americans who have invested massive amounts of money and work in their homes are seeing that investment erode at an alarming pace, as prices plunge down below what they had paid for the houses not too long ago.

George W. Bush and the Republicans promised us what they called an "Ownership Society". That's not what they delivered. What they've brought us is an ownership bust, in which people cannot afford to live in their own homes any more.

Go back 16 years, to the last time that the number of houses on the market was this high, and the year was 1991 - when George W. Bush's father was President of the United States. It took a progressive President to lead America out of the last housing bust, and it's going to take another progressive President to get us out of this new one. (Source: CNN, August 28, 2007)

Before the NRCC representative hung up, I chatted with her a bit and asked her how it had been going for her in the last week or two. Were there a lot of people who weren't in a position to give money? She said, well, yes, a lot of people had said money was pretty tight right now, and so there hadn't been a lot of contributions, even from people who had given money to the Republicans before. "Some other things have made contributions a bit slow right now too," she said obliquely before we politely said good bye and hung up the phone.

Yes, budgets are getting tight all over, even for the NRCC and its political clientele of the well-to-do.

Tony Snow's salary as the Republican White House Press Secretary? $168,000 a year. Wouldn't you like to be that far out of money? (Sources: White House Press Briefing, August 31 2007; Chicago Tribune, August 31 2007)

The right wing government set up by the Republicans does not have control of all of the factors that lead to this growing economic injustice in America, but the right wing government does contribute to it, through policies that encourage concentration of wealth in the hands of top investors at the expense of working Americans.

It doesn't have to be this way. In the second half of the 1990s, America saw a distribution of wealth that, while still not truly just, was more equitable than what we see now.

In 2008, America has a choice, to embrace the cheating of the American worker, or to give working Americans a fair deal, and elect a President who will push for government policies that encourage employment relationships where workers are justly compensated for the wealth that they create. (Source: Economic Policy Institute, September 3, 2007)

In an article in the Financial Times of London, Barack Obama writes, "At a time when non-bank lenders were offering new kinds of mortgage, the federal government should have made sure it was all being done on the level. Instead, our government failed to provide the regulatory scrutiny that could have prevented this crisis."

Elsewhere, Obama explains, "For six years, the President and Congress have allowed lending industry lobbyists to block sensible regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place. Now, after many Americans have seen their homes, their credit histories, and their financial well-being jeopardized the President is finally offering a proposal that helps a small fraction of homeowners. These are welcome steps, but the President's proposal does not go far enough. I have called for a plan that will help far more struggling borrowers avoid foreclosure, crack down on unscrupulous lenders with new penalties and disclosure requirements, and reduce the influence of lobbyists so that we will not face a crisis like this ever again."

Barack Obama has the vision to see the fundamental corrupt forces that have driven the mortgage industry to exploit vulnerable Americans and endanger the economy. He says, "If we really want to make sure this never happens again, we need to end the lobbyist-driven politics that made it possible."

That's the sort of idea you will never hear from Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson. For one thing, Fred Thompson doesn't seem to even be aware of the predatory mortgage crisis. If Thompson does know about it, he doesn't care much. Fred Thompson's entire campaign web site only mentions the word mortgage once, and that's to warn that giving people the Social Security benefits they have worked for might make it difficult for young people to get a mortgage some time in the mythical future. That's right - Thompson blames Social Security for mortgage problems.

Thompson certainly never addresses the corruption of lobbyists buying influence in Washington D.C. on behalf of mortgage companies. There's a reason for that. Fred Thompson is a corporate lobbyist himself, and has been for decades. He's part of the problem. (Sources: Fred Thompson Speech to the Lincoln Club Annual Dinner, August 3, 2007; Financial Times, August 29, 2007; BarackObama.com Community Blog, August 31, 2007; Fact Sheet, Protecting Homeownership & Cracking Down on Mortgage Fraud, BarackObama.com)

On the one hand, Fred Thompson said that "We must do everything in our power" to keep American soldiers fighting in Iraq. On the other hand, Thompson suggested that he wanted to cut government spending.

What he forgot is that the fighting in Iraq one of the main reasons that government spending has gone up so fast. Basically, Fred Thompson said that he wants to continue fighting in Iraq without having to pay any money to do so.

Anyone think that's a good idea? Fred Thompson and his Republican allies still haven't done the math to figure out that his plan to keep on throwing money at Iraq while cutting government spending just doesn't add up.

Progressives know better. They want to bring Republican spending under control by ending the money drain of keeping the occupation of Iraq going year after year after year without results. (Source: Reuters, September 6, 2007)

Instead, the economy lost 4,000 jobs. That slip, when gains were expected, has led many economists to increase their estimates of the likelihood of an economic recession next year.

Fewer jobs for more people - we can expect more of this economic stagnation if we elect another supply side right wing President in 2008. (Source: US News and World Report, September 10, 2007)

One measure of the increasing workload on ordinary Americans is the time of the day at which Americans begin their work day. Since the year 2000, the number of Americans who leave their homes for work before 6:00 in the morning increased by millions.

Working Americans are up at the crack of dawn doing their part. It's the right wing economic elites that are leading this economy down the tubes.(Source: USA Today, September 12, 2007)

Ad revenues are not swelling. In spite of expected trends, ad revenues are shrinking. That's not just an abstract loss. It shows that publishers are making less money, and when publishers make less money, media outlets close down. When media outlets close down, there are fewer public voices using freedom of the press. The public sphere suffers when there is a diminished variety of voices. (Source: USA Today, September 12, 2007)

On September 12, 2007, Bernanke declared that the U.S. Current Account Gap, which measures trade between the United States and the rest of the world, including financial accounts, shows a collective deficit that is unsustainable. The likely eventual result? The American government will have to finance its tremendous debts at rates like those of predatory mortgage lenders. (Source: USA Today, September 12, 2007)

Bush and his Republicans promised back in the year 2000 that they would fix America's problems with health insurance, and they had plenty of opportunity, with a strong majority in Congress as well as the presidency. They failed. (Source: USA Today, September 12, 2007)

Too bad Alan Greenspan didn't speak out while he was still in office, and had some degree of influence. The Republican presidential candidates of 2008 went along with the economic irresponsibility of the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress, so if you want four more years of out of control spending, vote for one of them. If you want to bring balance back to the government's role in the economy, vote for a progresive. (Source: Forbes, September 15, 2007)

"Part of the problem with our present system, which I think has contributed to skyrocketing costs, is the fact that we have a third-party-payer system. You go home after you get the service, and you don't even know what it costs. If we bought cars that way, what do you think would happen to our car industry?"

Think about the kind of experience that's typical of car sales. Hidden costs. Bickering. High pressure tactics. Dishonest concealment of problems. Are those the kind of ethics we want in our health care system?

Alan Keyes and his Republican allies seem to think that making health care more like buying a car is a good idea. For those of us who want something better, let me suggest voting for a progressive alternative in 2008. (Source: AlanKeyes.com)

Americans are holding back or being held back. (Source: Reuters September 27 2007)

Blackwater's work in Iraq has actually helped the American occupation of Iraq turn sour. In one memorable event, four Blackwater mercenaries were dragged from their vehicle, beaten to death, burned to the consistency of charcoal, and then strung up on a bridge, with video cameras documenting the attack so that the American public could see it on TV.

Why did that attack take place? Why were the Blackwater mercenaries so vulnerable? Market forces.

A new report reveals that Blackwater corporate headquarters was told that its vehicles were vulnerable to attack, but chose to do nothing about it in an attempt to make a bigger profit from its Iraq operations than its competitors. Blackwater hoped to force its competitors to give armored vehicles to Blackwater employees by skimping and leaving Blackwater teams clearly vulnerable to attack. People at Blackwater headquarters hoped that this tactic would force its competition to give up their contracts to operate in Iraq, so that Blackwater could make even more money.

If all you care about is money, then unrestrained market forces are the way to go. We have seen, in countless images like those of the corpses of the Blackwater mercenaries, the human cost that has come with the Republican faith in market forces. Progressives believe in a more balanced economic approach, in which human costs have as much weight as financial ones. (Source: Washington Post, September 28, 2007)