how we don't learn....

This editorial by Krugman is a must read. As tough as he is, his comments still fail to describe the hideous and despicable way the mainstream media is covering this presidential race:

"The failure of TV news to inform the public about the policy proposals of this year's presidential candidates is, in its own way, as serious a journalistic betrayal as the failure to raise questions about the rush to invade Iraq."

If you watched CNN's coverage last night of Kerry's acceptance speech, you would have witnessed one of the most biased, poorly executed and trivial coverage of a nominating speech in history. They crossed audio feeds, broadcasting the Dem. event director ordering the balloons to drop...and when they didn't, CNN didn't turn off the guy's mike, cut to another scene, or anything..they just let it play, and then the anchors got on to talk about the balloons.

WHO GIVES A FLYING F*** ABOUT BALLOONS. THIS IS A PRESIDENTIAL RACE.

Please boycott CNN. In fact, don't do that. Write them a letter and tell them just how surprised you are to find out that they hang out with the editorial staff of the National Enquirer. That's about the level they are performing on.

Democracy broken.....

The New York Times has an article today discussing the many ways in which the 9/11 Commission report sets the record straight about the terrorist attacks, saying, in part:

"...in its most contentious effort to set the record straight about the origins of the plot, the bipartisan commission's final report found no evidence of close collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, appearing to undermine a justification for the Iraq war."

I don't think anyone would have been able to prevent some sort of attack; the attackers were well planned, and we are not willing to give up our open society to the degree necessary fully to prevent such an attack.

What this article does very well is expose the Bush Administration for what it is: a self-centered, self-righteous group of people who think they know everything. Even when they've been proven NOT to know everything, they continue to claim that they do (Dick Cheney, Condi Rice to name two in the article). This cannot be excused as situational ignorance, "resoluteness" or anything of the sort. These people are lying to the American public to protect their ability to tighten their grip on power. This behavior is nothing short of that which we have seen in any fledgling dictatorship.

In a democracy, freedom of information and truth should underlie our freedom to choose our leaders.

This is the choice we face in this election: do we want to restore a democracy here? or do we feel more safe in a dictatorship? The latter choice could be one we live with for a very long time.

Oddly, Safire said it best....

In his study of the Republican mind (his own) Safire today described exactly the fundamental value of Republicanism today that makes it vile and abhorrent:

"My values include self-reliance over community dependence, intervention over isolation, self-discipline over society's regulation, finding pleasure in work rather than working to find pleasure."

Me.

Me, Me, Me.

Not you, not us, except for exclusion.

Me, Me, Me.

That's it.

ME.

Fiscal Sanity at Bay

This is a NYTimes editorial in its entirety (but it's short). It is important to read. After you read it, write a letter or email to any one or all four of the mentioned sitting Senators. They represent a reasonable voice on a potentially disastrous event on the horizon. Let's try to get in front of it. The link to the editorial is here:

"For all the late-blooming talk of fiscal responsibility from Republican moderates, an election year cave-in is shaping up in the Senate as the White House pushes for a fast renewal of some of the 'temporary' tax breaks set to expire this year. Unlike the administration's giveaways to the wealthy, these cuts are among the more worthy and politically risky to oppose: extending tax relief for married couples, for families with children and for taxpayers in the lowest bracket, 10 percent.

But the issue is not the virtue of the cuts but whether Congress should be forced to make up the cost with spending reductions or - great idea - by increasing taxes on the wealthy and closing loopholes for corporate taxes. Until now, four Senate Republicans have been standing with the Democrats, demanding an end to the administration's binge of record budget deficits and detaxation. Two of the Republicans, John McCain of Arizona and Susan Collins of Maine, have indicated support for the tax-cut extensions without their usual stipulation that the money to pay for them be found elsewhere first. This is unfortunate.

The White House obviously feels it cannot lose by pushing the tax-cut extensions right before the political conventions. Either Mr. Bush will be able to brag about still more tax cuts, or he can demonize Democrats and others who dare to defeat the package on budgetary grounds. We urge the Republican moderates, including Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, not to abandon their fight for fiscal responsibility."

The Arabian Candidate: Trojan Horse

Ok, after you've read the post below (which I created this morning PRIOR to reading this editorial by Paul Krugman), then read this editorial by Paul Krugman, from which this quote comes:

"In the original version of 'The Manchurian Candidate,' Senator John Iselin, whom Chinese agents are plotting to put in the White House, is a right-wing demagogue modeled on Senator Joseph McCarthy. As Roger Ebert wrote, the plan is to 'use anticommunist hysteria as a cover for a communist takeover.'

The movie doesn't say what Iselin would have done if the plot had succeeded. Presumably, however, he wouldn't have openly turned traitor. Instead, he would have used his position to undermine national security, while posing as America's staunchest defender against communist evil."

Hello?

worker shortage and low wages????

Check out this article from the New York Times, which starts with the following quote:

"With tens of thousands of their citizen soldiers now deployed in Iraq, many of the nation's governors complained on Sunday to senior Pentagon officials that they were facing severe manpower shortages in guarding prisoners, fighting wildfires, preparing for hurricanes and floods and policing the streets."

There are two points to be made here:

1. in juxtaposition with our other posts below regarding wages, what we seem to have is high unemployment contributing to low wages in new job creation, yet we have a shortage of labor for crucial government services;

2. is the terrorist threat, the distraction we've been tempted into by Chalabi in attacking Iraq and the potential for problems in Iran a huge distraction to our security at home? are we about to get snuck?

I personally think that the answer to number 2 is NOT more war. It is constructive, inclusive, benevolent global citizenship. This is a long-run strategy. In the short run, I suppose there are reasons to be concerned.

But, what about the labor picture? (I'm not going to adderss the appropriateness of having lightly trained N.G. folks in Iraq....different question.)  Seems to me that we DO have plenty of idle hands around (since wages are falling and people are working in no-skills jobs at WalMart) and that the training of these folks in the skills we need while the N.G. folks are in Iraq would be skills that would serve them well in future employment. They could also probably demand higher wages for these skills in re-employment after the war is over. AND, if in the short run there is a labor shortage for these jobs, let's take advantage of that and pay a decent wage to folks that are struggling to get by.

The New Deal was a fantastically successful attempt to leverage the State in the development of both skills, jobs and the infrastructure which has underpinned this country's dominance over the last 50 years. Why would we ignore this empirical evidence, particularly when the circumstances so strongly promote this strategy???

Call your governor. They clearly need some suggestions.

Schwarzenegger Calls Budget Opponents 'Girlie Men'

This quote is beautiful....read the whole article:

"Mr. Schwarzenegger has compared lawmakers to kindergartners who need a timeout and threatened to seek a constitutional amendment making the Legislature a part-time body. He is also appearing in the districts of vulnerable Democrats and promising to 'terminate' those who stand in his way."

We had Jesse the Body here in Minnesota hoping to be reincarnated as a 38DD bra, or something close. He also reportedly gave out "Jackal" passes to the media at his annual fishing opener.

Obviously these statements and actions are amusing in a number of ways, but they just do too much damage to the quality of political discourse.

I DO think that Jesse did a good job at speaking directly and simply (but not a'la GWB; I do think he had an informed opinion) and demanding of the legislature to cease & desist with the most eggregious of game-playing and partisanship. I think Ahh-nold's frustration is similar. But it is the pot calling the kettle black for a name-caller to liken the legislators to kindergardners. And, to threaten "termination" is very much playing the political game that Jesse at least seemed to try and avoid.  Ahh-nold is undermining what little credibility he has. 

In any event, what we need to do is continue to push information, find ways to access folks that have not participated in politics in the past, and do everything we can to make us all feel validated in our practice of democracy. Eventually we should demand dialogue at the high level to which we are entitled. But we have to start talking that way ourselves first.

Vote with your checkbook

From the New York Times:

"On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that hourly earnings of production workers - nonmanagement workers ranging from nurses and teachers to hamburger flippers and assembly-line workers - fell 1.1 percent in June, after accounting for inflation. The June drop, the steepest decline since the depths of recession in mid-1991, came after a 0.8 percent fall in real hourly earnings in May"

This is particularly relevant to me with respect to work I'm doing on tax policy for a Minnesota think tank. Because our mission is to try and better marry the concepts of economic justice (read, people) and growth (read, business) (hence the name of the group Growth & Justice) we are very interested in WHERE tax policy might best be adjusted, i.e. at the business level or at the individual level.

Much of the history of business incentives has seen tax breaks aimed at capital (mostly machines, real estate, and other business inputs EXCEPT labor). It can probably be shown that reducing the cost of business helps business create jobs...this has been the rationale for business tax cuts. It is notable, however (confirmed by this article), that business won't necessarily create GOOD jobs, or ones that pay a living wage (one that is sufficient, at minimum, to pay basic healthcare costs in addition to housing and food). WalMart is in the news recently for creating lots of really BAD jobs. Not only do they not pay a living wage, but to avoid requirements to pay healthcare as part of the employment package, WalMart hires people on a part-time basis.

There seems ample evidence that business will continue to act like business...maximizing the bottom line. (I'm not sure if I mean this in a factual way, or with a harsh judgement about business' failure to take up their share of the social contract that everyone should have a basic lifestyle, including healthcare....Paul Krugman, in an editorial I noted previously, exonerated business from any responsibility beyond making profits because, in his words, "they are business". An editorial letter writer objected to the idea that business should be so-relieved of its responsibility to this social issue)...but, I digress.

Whether you believe that business should take up part of this social contract or not, clearly today they are not incented to, either through law or social mandate. Couple this with the statements recently by Alan Greenspan which recognize, as does this article, that retail spending is the ONLY thing that is keeping this economy afloat right now and you are faced with a very obvious policy platform: business will not create jobs unless someone is there to buy their stuff; therefore, rather than making business rich by "reducing" their cost of business, put public tax incentives into the hands of consumers, and business will be along for the ride BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DO....they make money.

On the ground, this smacks of liberal tax and spend mentality. BUT, even the conservatives will admit that consumer spending is driving the economy. I would argue strongly that conservative and liberal interests are actually aligned. Targeting tax relief and tax law changes to put more incremental dollars in the hands of average and low-income consumers will create the demand business needs to invest in new jobs and new capital.  This sort of tax policy (reflecting a more generous social policy) IS consistent with business goals and, implicitly, with the long-term goals of those that own business, overwhelmingly conservative. 

I would argue that the marginal propensity to spend, i.e. that portion of each additional dollar that gets spent rather than saved, is substantially higher among the middle and low-income population, because they MUST spend that money on necessities. Wealthy people put it in their savings account or stock portfolio and maybe, just maybe, a few years from now that better capitalized business MIGHT create a few more jobs which MIGHT pay a living wage.....it MIGHT.

If somebody is banging on their door, trying to purchase their "stuff", they WILL.....I guarantee it. That's what business does.

Undermining Democracy

Along the same lines as the post below, Joanathan Chait at TNR has an article detailing at length how the Bush Administration and the GOP in congress has gone about systematically undermining our democracy:

Bush and his allies have been described as partisan or bear-knuckled, but the problem is more fundamental than that. They have routinely violated norms of political conduct, smothered information necessary for informed public debate, and illegitimately exploited government power to perpetuate their rule. These habits are not just mean and nasty. They're undemocratic.

Read the entire article, it will scare you. Send it to anyone you know who may be on the fence. More evidence why this election could be the most important in out history. We stand at the precipice looking into the abyss of one-party rule, the first step on the slippery slope to fascism. This is one we cannot lose.

Demand Verifiable Election Results

From Verified Voting - Campaign To Demand Verifiable Election Results:

"'I clearly believe that there are certain people within the election process who don't want that scrutiny on how elections are run,' Heller said. 'Why elections directors so fight this process is just incredible to me.'" -- Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller

The "scrutiny" is that which is necessary to prove what people's votes really were.  Paper proof.  (The manfacturers make cash machines for god's sake.)  (Big T recognizes that proof doesn't seem to be required for this presidential administration to, say, go to war......nonetheless, we aim to promote a higher standard)

The counties fight new systems because of all of the friction, territorialism and bureaucratic red tape inevitably involved in change, particularly of public systems.  But read the rest of the article....
 
The real problem here is that this friction serves to enforce the status quo which in itself is costing us dearly in our practice of democracy. Add to that a deliberate program of confusion, contradiction, and rule ambiguity and you have the power of the Secretary of State to control the outcome of a close election.

Voter Registration, accurate records and access on the voting day are all necessary to have a fair election.

Registration forms must be integrated, information must be cross-checked for accuracy, voting machines must be installed, people must be trained, systems must be tested and their reliability absolutely confirmed before the system can be relied upon to measure the will of the people.
 
Our current registration and vote tally system (VEMS), though imperfect, has a known tolerance for error.  A new system won't. A new system could be tested against the current one, run side by side, both in full operation. Relying on a new system that is untested in THIS election is ludicrous.

We are up to this task, but the Secretary of State has made our job ever more challenging. In Minnesota we, like all other states, were given a few years to develop a totally reliable system. Our secretary of state along with about 8 others, waived most of that time, and intends to rely on a system that will be unproven in an actual election.

New metropolitan airport systems, for example, are tested and retested for years to work out the bugs. The Secretary's lieutenant described the process of developing a way to integrate the various data sources as their department's "summer project".  Do we really think we can rely on an untested system in the most important election of a generation?

Do not be deceived. The status quo favors the group in power.  Regardless of your feelings on that, democracy really demands full and encouraged access to the voting polls.

Voter participation is another matter altogether.

Corporate ownership of Politics, behind the scenes

I only have a minute this morning, but I have been making the case for the imminent power grab which the ideological right has an option make. In this editorial from Paul Krugman he makes the point well. This is a must read if you have any doubts that the political playing field is far from fair. The conclusion:

"Mr. DeLay and his fellow hard-liners, whose values are far from the American mainstream, have forged an immensely effective alliance with corporate interests. And they may be just one election away from achieving a long-term lock on power. "

how to be a global power.....

This quote from the New York Times is part of an article discussing the strategy of pre-emptive war as a core principle of our foreign policy:

"The Democratic Party platform is expected to include a sentence declaring that the 'doctrine of unilateral pre-emption has driven away our allies,' and Mr. Kerry argued in the interview that while he would reserve the right to act pre-emptively, he would never make it a core doctrine of American foreign policy."

So far, largely as a result of the intelligence failures now documented by the 911 Commission, the strategy of pre-emption has been a dismal failure. Not only have we waged a pre-emptive war, costing thousands of lives; not only have we alienated our allies with our egotism; not only have we dramatically increased the appeal of terror as an acceptable retaliatory answer among disaffected muslims;....we have also given our global competitors, namely China, (not to mention actual enemies) all the traction they need to oppose us on issues like North Korea and Iran (points also made in this article).

On a non-military note, China already has substantial power over the U.S. in the form of its foreign exchange reserves held in dollars. China represents an enormous challenge to us in global diplomacy and in international economic dynamics. We are concerned about offshoring jobs, yet we are squandering any leverage we have with China through our foreign policy failures.

Certainly the nature of terror in today's world is different than conventional war. The adequacy of our intelligence community needs to be addressed if we are to be successful against terror and rogue states, whether we adopt pre-emption as our primary policy or not. BUT, particularly where we can't rely solely on our own intelligence community, we have to be able to rely on our global partners as we address international security together.

It goes even further...beyond the technical and logistical issues of intelligence cooperation we have said to the world (in no uncertain terms shortly after 9/11) that we know better (and clearly we do not); and, furthermore we will act on that supposed knowledge even if the consequence is high casualty numbers.

A pre-emptive strategy will promote a quick end to our global influence. John Kerry appears to understand that we can't be alone in this regard and that our future as a global power depends it. It's one of many reasons we should support him.

informed electorate? i think not!

Another post related to the perception that our electorate is either informed or involved. I am not familiar with the credentials of Jack Germond, but found this quote in the Star Tribune (it was in the print edition):

"Today, after 50 years of exposure to thousands of politicians, I am convinced that we get about what we deserve at all levels of government, up to and including the White House. These days, because so many Americans -- almost half -- don't bother to vote even in presidential elections, they deserve choices like the one they were offered in 2000, between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Beause so few Americans understand the political process or bother to follow it with even a modicum of attention, we elect presidents as empty as George H.W. Bush or as self-absorbed as Bill Clinton -- only to be followed by a choice between a Republican obviously over his head and a Democrat too unsure of his own persona to be convincing."

Whom to blame for this? Individuals for not realizing the power they truly hold, politicians for allowing our media culture to define politics in overly simplistic terms and the mainstream media for being interested only in sound bytes, controversy and skin. Of course, the issue is far more complex than this. Institutional barriers to adequte information abound: poverty, multiple jobs and a mainstream media owned by the corporate (read conservative political) establishment, to name just a few.

I'd suggest that these three substantial institutional barriers are a direct result of neocon policies. The continued consolidation of power between the conservative political establishment and their media partners is having the insidious (and perhaps intended) effect of precluding the exercise and validity of citizen participation in our democracy; these barriers thoroughly disenfranchise an enormous portion of the American citizenry. Sure, the neocons are part of representative government...but do they represent America? Emphatically NO.

In whose interest?

Thanks to Chris Dykstra on his blog for reference to this article in The New Republic

The article discusses the explicit pressure by the U.S. Administration on the Pakistani government to locate Osama bin Laden and other high level terrorist targets. What it also clearly shows is that the interest in catching Osama bin Laden is NOT in the interests of protecting the American people, as Bush would have you believe; rather, the interest is in protecting this junta's political power. One more successful election for this group and their consolidation of power will be almost complete.

Fair comparisons can now be made to other "dictators" who would do most anything to hold onto power, even things contrary to the interests and safety of their people. We all hope these terrorists can be captured, and as quickly as possible. Given the apparent motives of the administration, consider a case where the election was farther off; would the Administration delay aggressive tactics to capture these terrorists in order better to leverage the issue for their own political gain?

While our election should be on issues that affect us as Americans and issues that define us as global citizens, the most important issue upon which we should vote this election is TRUST. How much more evidence do we need that this Administration has no interests in common with the rest of the American people?

I've seen it on bumper-stickers: regime change begins at home.

Young people are our future.....we need to engage them

This quote from the Panetta Institute for Public Policy illustrates a disturbing trend among the youth of our country:

"Both major-party presidential candidates have a lot of work to do on U.S. college campuses this year, according to a new Panetta Institute survey. The Hart Research Associates poll found a major decline in student's perceptions that voting really matters. The number of students who say they volunteer to help in their local communities is down also. "

If you scan the headlines of prior polls, a very fickle sense of our youth is revealed. I certainly remember being very unsure of my convictions as I went through college, and many things seemed more important than political activism or community service. I can not criticize young people for being unsure of their convictions to issues, but I am disheartened that their confidence in the system by which they express their views is deteriorating.

It is hard for me to avoid the conclusion that the waning interest of our youth, and the frequent sentiment among them that their vote does not matter, is a fuction of the irrelevancy of most mainstream political discourse. Politicians of both parties are to be criticized in this regard, but the blame is not theirs alone.

I received a comment recently on a post involving war profiteering (see prior posts, right column) in which the commenter expressed the view that the American electorate is reasonably well informed. What they are informed about is the agenda of the status quo, as repeated ad nauseum through the major media establishment. I'd hardly call this informed on the true issues facing our nation. Quite the contrary, our electorate is informed on intentionally divisive and distractionary issues with little or no true bearing on their daily lives.

Individuals have the responsibility to do their own investigation of a candidate's positions. It is reasonable to expect to be able to rely on our "independent" media. It is the responsibility of the media, therefore, not to be a pawn of narrow interests. Here we find one significant failure of our current system.

On the runway: politics not planes

Bob Herbert has it right in his editorial today in the New York Times:

"One of the more disturbing things about our presidential elections is the extent to which they can turn on criteria more suitable to high school campaigns. He's cute. Would you look at the way she dresses?"

I can't say this is new news; what I can say is that it is the arguement that makes it most difficult to conclude that we are not a nation of shallow, self-interested folks. This may seem like a non-sequitor, but I have recently been to China, the presumptive next global economic powerhouse. Admittedly I have a hard time imagining how they will be ready for "ling-ba", the 2008 olympics. What I can tell you is that they are hungry. We are fat and lazy and asleep. This needs to be changed and hording capital among a very few elite is not the right approach. As I saw it today on a bumper sticker: Regime change starts at home.

Health Versus Wealth...vintage Krugman

Big T strongly believes that you should read this here entire Paul Krugman editorial concerning John Kerry's healthcare plan. Here is one specific poing which I wholeheartedly agree with:

"the Kerry plan would provide 'reinsurance' for private health plans, picking up 75 percent of the medical bills exceeding $50,000 a year. Although catastrophic medical expenses strike only a tiny fraction of Americans each year, they account for a sizeable fraction of health care costs.

By relieving insurance companies and H.M.O.'s of this risk, the government would drive down premiums by 10 percent or more.

This is a truly good idea. Our society tries to protect its members from the consequences of random misfortune; that's why we aid the victims of hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist attacks. Catastrophic health expenses, which can easily drive a family into bankruptcy, fall into the same category. Yet private insurers try hard, and often successfully, to avoid covering such expenses. (That's not a moral condemnation; they are, after all, in business.)"

I spent a dozen years in finance. Providing credit enhancement is a fantastic way of massively leveraging the credit strength of the federal government. It is efficient and allows average people to pay health care premiums related to the average level of care that they demand. This is smart stuff.

The best comment, though, is that, basically, business is business and can't be relied upon to do anything good for anyone else. This we have to deal with.

Saving the good stuff for later.....after the election.

The quote below is from the New York Times, but courtesy of Talking Points Memo:

"A bipartisan Senate report to be issued Friday that is highly critical of prewar intelligence on Iraq will sidestep the question of how the Bush administration used that information to make the case for war, Congressional officials said Wednesday. But Democrats are maneuvering to raise the issue in separate statements. Under a deal reached this year between Republicans and Democrats, the Bush administration's role will not be addressed until the Senate Intelligence Committee completes a further stage of its inquiry, but probably not until after the November election. As a result, said the officials, both Democratic and Republican, the committee's initial, unanimous report will focus solely on misjudgments by intelligence agencies, not the White House, in the assessments about Iraq, illicit weapons and Al Qaeda that the administration used as a rationale for the war."

Marshall's response was "Convenient...."
Mine is: "are you freaking KIDDING ME???

Seriously, while the candidates compare service records, capabilities, hair-styles, tendencies toward profanity and, occasionally, an issue or two we are forgetting a crucial shortcoming of the current administration: TRUST. Congress wouldn't pass Patrick Leahey's anti-war profiteering bill, and now they've effectively delayed release of the proof that they are all morons until after the election. Talk to your friends. We HAVE to mobilize people on election day. Wouldn't you think that being lied to repeatedly would be enough?

Typical Right Wing......

This quote is from InJersey; it is quite evidently a mouthpiece of the NJ right wing. In this article about the state budget situation, even this rag has to acknowledge the standard strategy of the neocons:

"The Republicans summoned the press to announce a lawsuit over McGreevey's bonding to pay for operations, saying a budget balanced with borrowing is not a balanced budget. It went well until reporters asked Senate Minority leader Leonard Lance, R-Hunterdon, what Republicans would cut from the proposed budget. Unfortunately, Lance said that was the governor's job. No specific suggestions."

They called a press conference to bitch, and then offer NOTHING.......sound familiar?