Newburyport Dems

Can't Help Myself

2012-01-27T10:22:00.001-05:00

From our friends at BMG

Affordable Care Act

2012-01-18T08:01:00.002-05:00

Great short video put together byJon Gruber, the health care economist who advised Romney on Romneycare and Obama on ACA.

MLK

2012-01-16T18:57:00.002-05:00

“Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.”

― Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham City Jail

From the Obama Campaign---Romney's Economic Record: Profit at Any Cost

2012-01-13T14:03:00.002-05:00

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: Stephanie Cutter

RE: Free Enterprise

Romney's Economic Record: Profit at Any Cost

Mitt Romney has staked his entire candidacy on one claim: that his “real world” experience in the private equity business uniquely qualifies him to lead our economy and the nation.

Much as he did when he ran for governor of Massachusetts, Romney argues that his business experience would translate to more jobs for Americans. (In Massachusetts, it didn’t. During his term there, the state fell to 47th in the nation in job creation.)

But in fairness, Romney’s objective in business was never job creation. As one of his colleagues recently told the Los Angeles Times:

“I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation,” said Mark B. Walpow, a former managing partner at Bain, who worked closely with Romney for nine years before forming his own firm. “The primary goal of private equity is to create wealth for your investors.”

To achieve that end, Romney closed over a thousand plants, stores and offices, and cut employee wages, benefits and pensions. He laid off American workers and outsourced their jobs to other countries. And he and his partners made hundreds of millions of dollars while taking companies to bankruptcy.

Although some of the businesses in which he took a stake undoubtedly added jobs, neither Romney’s campaign nor any independent fact checker has supported his claim of producing a net increase of 100,000 American jobs – or even anything close to it.

That is Romney’s record. His overwrought response to questions about it has been to insist that any criticism of his business record is an assault on “free enterprise” itself.

But this is just an attempt to evade legitimate scrutiny of the record on which he says he’s running. “Free enterprise” isn’t running for President, Mitt Romney is. And voters deserve straight answers about his record, so they can know how his perspective would influence his decisions and actions if he were President of the United States.

For instance, voters in South Carolina deserve to know about the millions Romney and his
partners made off closing down the 114,000-square-foot Holson Burnes factory in Gaffney,
where workers made photo albums and picture frames. Just four years after the factory opened,
Bain fired 150 workers and shipped some of the operation overseas. According to the Associated
Press, Bain more than doubled the return on the original investment while “workers were left
jobless just as the local economy began to slump.”

Armed with the facts, the American people will determine whether Mitt Romney’s track record
shows he believes our prosperity will come from an economy where the wealthy and powerful
can rig the game at the expense of working Americans, or every American who works hard and
acts responsibly will have a fair shot at success. Voters can judge for themselves whether his
vision for the future is based on outsourcing and bubble economies that enrich speculators and
corporate raiders, or an economy built to last in which the productivity of our workers is
rewarded.

When asked by TIME Magazine whether Mitt Romney is a job creator or destroyer, Warren
Buffett said that while businesses shouldn’t hang on to people they don’t need, “I don’t like what
private-equity firms do in terms of taking out every dime they can and leveraging [companies]
up so that they really aren't equipped, in some cases, for the future.” Voters need to understand
the kind of economy Mitt Romney’s experience entails – and it doesn’t sound like the kind of
economy that’s built to last.

President Obama’s Record
Mitt Romney boasts about understanding the “real economy,” but President Obama has worked
alongside hardworking Americans in that “real economy.” President Obama – who, like Mitt
Romney, earned a degree from Harvard and all the opportunities that affords – began his career
helping jobless workers in the shadow of a closed-down steel mill. Mitt Romney, on the other
hand, made millions closing down steel mills.

When he began his presidency at the height of the worst economic crisis since the Great
Depression, President Obama immediately addressed the economic crisis, put Americans back to
work and held Wall Street accountable.

We’re at a make-or-break moment for the middle class and those fighting to join it. For decades,
hardworking Americans lost their jobs as factories were shipped overseas where labor was
cheap. That’s why the President has taken formidable, decisive steps to protect free enterprise,
investors and consumers – and why he’s fighting for an economy that’s built to last, one that
creates jobs of the future and makes things the rest of the world buys. Here are some examples
of his successes:

• Wall Street Reform: More than anything else, a transparent system where everyone plays by the same rules is crucial to free enterprise and efficient markets. That’s why the President championed Wall Street reform that requires more rigorous disclosure and tightens oversight of the kind of speculation that caused the market meltdown.
• Supporting Small Businesses: The President has made a priority of letting our most crucial job creators – small businesses – thrive, grow and hire. He has cut small businesses’ taxes 18 times, recognizing that they create two out of every three new jobs in America. Because of the President’s support for businesses and entrepreneurs, the S&P 500 has increased nearly 90 percent since March 2009.
• Encouraging Innovation and Competitiveness: The President streamlined the patent process to help small-business innovators more quickly move ideas from the lab to market, and protect those innovations abroad. The Department of Energy has funded more than 180 projects, including 40 start-ups, to encourage the creation of breakthrough technologies. During President Obama’s first term, investments from the Recovery Act will enable the United States to increase twentyfold our share of the world’s capacity for advanced battery manufacturing – from 2 percent in 2009 to 40 percent by 2015. President Obama has also made critical investments in groundbreaking clean-energy projects and research that bring together scientists and entrepreneurs from the private and public sectors.
• Rescuing American Auto-making: When Mitt Romney and others suggested America should “let Detroit go bankrupt,” the President refused to turn his back on an iconic American industry and the jobs it supports. He extended emergency loans to America’s car companies, leadership that has saved more than 1.4 million jobs up and down the supply chain. G.M., Ford and Chrysler have all seen their share of the U.S. sales market grow in the past two years, a sharp reversal from more than two decades of decline – and all taxpayer loans extended by President Obama have been paid back.
• Reviving Manufacturing: Manufacturing, a proud and critical sector of our economy that produces good stamped “Made in America,” has seen a resurgence since President Obama reduced import costs and increased exports for U.S. manufacturers. Manufacturing employment hadn’t grown since 1997, so President Obama cut production costs and tariffs for American companies. Now manufacturing production is increasing faster than it has in more than a decade, and private-sector manufacturing businesses have added jobs for 29 straight months – including 334,000 jobs in the past two years.
• Promoting International Trade: To level the playing field for American businesses and workers and to expand the market for U.S. goods, President Obama signed trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama that will support more than 70,000 American jobs. He’s helping American businesses compete in the global marketplace and set a goal of doubling our nation’s exports by the end of 2014 – a goal the United States is ahead of schedule to meet.
• Freeing Business from Burdensome Regulations: The President ordered an across-the-board review of the federal government to eliminate “absurd and unnecessary” regulations that waste time and money and hinder free enterprise. As a result, his administration is stripping hundreds of rules, saving businesses $10 billion over the next
five years. Four out of five business economists now say the current regulatory environment is “good” for businesses and the economy as a whole.
• Bringing Jobs Back to America: Because he knows our country has the most productive workers, best universities, and most creative and innovative entrepreneurs in the world, the President is calling on American companies to “insource” jobs and bring their investments back home. He’s providing tax incentives that reward companies for returning jobs to our shores and eliminating tax breaks for companies that move American jobs overseas.

President Obama knows that business is the engine of our economy. Making sure our economy provides opportunity for ordinary people and a supportive environment for entrepreneurs, small businesses, and manufacturers is the President’s chief objective.

He also understands that the most important step to growing the economy right now is to spur demand, which is why he cut taxes for 95 percent of working families, fought relentlessly against Republican opposition to prevent a $1,000 tax increase on middle-class families, and continues to fight for a jobs plan that will put people back to work and let families keep – and, in turn, spend – more of what they earn.

Conclusion
The New York Times observed that the Republicans’ economic ideas “not only are inadequate for [reviving the economy] but were instrumental in creating the nation’s current economic problems.” Mitt Romney’s record and proposals exemplify this more than most. With the devastation he left in his wake, Romney’s business record doesn’t reflect the virtues of free enterprise so much as the worst exploitation of it.

Our economic crisis and endemic income inequality were caused in large part by a few who put profits over people. Taking advantage of an uneven playing field, where there was one rulebook for those at the top and another for everyone else, Mitt Romney and his friends made money hand over fist while working families lost their grip on the middle-class lifestyle they earned.

Between now and November the American people will decide whether to respond to this crisis by electing a corporate raider who profited from – and promises to restore – the conditions that caused it, or re-electing a President fighting to level the playing field for American businesses, restore fairness for consumers and help the middle class reclaim a sense of economic security that will benefit the entire economy. That’s what’s on trial, not “free enterprise.”

Animal House

2012-01-13T08:34:00.002-05:00

Romney reminds me of a frat brother from the 'good' fraternity in Animal House. You know, the one that schemed with the Dean to get John Belushi's frat de-certified.

Great Story

2012-01-12T18:34:00.002-05:00

Link: Youtube video of Lowell area Iraqi and Vietnam Vets rallying to support a vandalized Iraqi restaurant in Lowell.

Extremists in Pinstripes

2012-01-11T08:33:00.001-05:00

Good summary of Romney's far right positions

From Katrina vanden Heuval

Says it All

2012-01-10T14:19:00.001-05:00

The idea that what America needs now is an (business) executive type is just foolish.

2012-01-10T10:47:00.001-05:00

What the Nobel Laureate Says

Someone Forgot Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment

2012-01-09T16:59:00.002-05:00

http://www.kingofbain.com/

From a 501(C)(4) supporting Gingrich.

Mitt

2012-01-08T11:29:00.002-05:00

Mitt's "I'm going to suck the life out of your company and fire you" look

edited to reflect Mitt's own word usage

NEWBURYPORT DEMOCRATS TO ELECT DELEGATES TO STATE CONVENTION

2012-01-07T16:10:00.000-05:00

Democrats in Newburyport will be holding a caucus at the Newburyport Public Library on Saturday, February 11, 2012 at 10am to elect delegates and alternates to the 2012 Massachusetts Democratic Convention, where Democrats from across Massachusetts will select candidates to compete for the Democratic nomination for U. S. Senate. The convention will be held on Saturday, June 2, 2012 at the Mass Mutual Center in Springfield.

“This is going to be an exciting year as we build on our recent successes and prepare for the elections in 2012,” commented Massachusetts Democratic Party Chairman John Walsh. “Caucuses are the first step in building a community organizing strategy for victory. They give people an opportunity to become part of the local effort.”

The caucus is open to all registered Democrats in Newburyport, and the Democratic City Committee warmly welcomes participants. Delegates will be divided equally between men and women, and all ballots will be written and secret. In the spirit of inclusion, youth, minorities, and people with disabilities who are not elected as delegates or alternates may apply to be “add-on” delegates. Details on the rules can be found at www.massdems.org.

The committee normally meets every other month at the Library. For more information on the caucus or the committee please contact Ed Cameron, 978-518-0786, edcameronNBPT@gmail.com or check out their website at www.newburyportdems.blogspot.com.

WBUR: Senate Democratic Candidates Spar At Easton Forum

2011-12-07T20:48:00.001-05:00

BOSTON — Five Massachusetts Democrats remain in the race to take on incumbent U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in next year’s election.

While Elizabeth Warren is considered a clear front-runner in the democratic race, the other candidates are not backing down. In fact, several are speaking out on some of the same economic issues that comprise the heart of Warren’s campaign.

Click to read/listen....

http://www.wbur.org/2011/12/07/senate-candidates-forum

Some good stuff...

From Move On: Your conservative uncle

2011-11-23T13:21:00.001-05:00

Americans are talking about the economy—a lot. They're talking about Occupy Wall Street and the Super Committee, about an economy that only works for the 1% and about unemployment.

But thanks to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, lots of talk about the economy means lots of misinformation about the economy.

So if you're spending this Thanksgiving holiday with friends and family, and want to be ready with the facts to gently correct any myths you hear (they are family and friends, after all), we put together a short guide with five common myths you might hear and easy-to-remember facts to respond to them.

Remember that you're the most important source of information for your family and friends, so check it out and then share it on Facebook or Twitter, or just forward this email. Happy Thanksgiving, and of course, thanks for all you do.

–Daniel, Mark, Julia, Elena, and the rest of the team

Top 5 FOX myths to debunk this Thanksgiving

MYTH #1: The congressional Super Committee failed because both sides refuse to compromise.

REALITY: The Super Committee failed because Republicans' number one, non-negotiable priority is to protect millionaires and billionaires from paying even one more penny in taxes.¹ Democrats repeatedly offered to make deep spending cuts—far deeper than most progressives would like—in exchange for raising taxes on the wealthy and closing corporate loopholes, only to be refused again and again.² So even though the vast majority of Americans say they want to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits, and raise taxes on the rich and corporations,³ that won't happen until Republicans put aside their extremist stance.

MYTH #2: Nobody knows what Occupy Wall Street is about.

REALITY: Occupy Wall Street may not have a formal list of demands, but anyone who's been paying attention understands the core problems that occupiers are protesting—that corporations have far too much power in our political system, that Wall Street banks crashed our economy but were never held accountable, and that the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans—156 million people—combined.⁴

MYTH #3: Occupiers should stop protesting and just get a job.

REALITY: As anybody who's looked for a job in the last few years knows, there just aren't jobs out there. That's a big part of why occupiers are protesting. In September, there were four times as many unemployed people as job openings.⁵ And for those who are lucky enough to find a job, median wages today are lower than they were a decade ago.⁶

MYTH #4: Occupy Wall Street is intent on provoking violence, especially against banks and the police.

REALITY: Occupations across the country have committed themselves to nonviolent protest, in the greatest traditions of protest movements. Some of their protests have been met with acts of police violence—tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets⁷—but in many cases, protesters have reminded police that the police officers are part of the 99%, too.⁸ And in the few cases when people have shown up at Occupy demonstrations and committed acts of vandalism, other protesters have even repaired their acts of vandalism.⁹

MYTH #5: The biggest crisis facing our country is out of control government spending.

REALITY: The two biggest drivers of our deficit—by far—are the economic crash and the Bush tax cuts.¹⁰ We have millions of people out of work, corporations hoarding cash, and factories sitting idle. If we put all those people back to work—rebuilding infrastructure, educating our children, and researching new technologies—it'll shrink the deficit and make our economy stronger for the long haul. And we can easily afford it if we make sure the rich—who are taking home a larger percentage of income than any time since 1917¹¹—pay their fair share.

Sources:

1. "No, 'both sides' aren't equally to blame for supercommittee failure," The Washington Post, November 21, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268071&id=33178-11652260-ekEBbsx&t=4

2. "Wonkbook: In supercommittee, Dems moved right and Republicans moved righter," The Washington Post, November 22, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268072&id=33178-11652260-ekEBbsx&t=5

3. "CNN Poll: What The Super Committee Produced Is...Exactly What We Don't Want," Talking Points Memo, November 21, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268073&id=33178-11652260-ekEBbsx&t=6

"Medicare, Social Security & The Deficit," National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, September 2011

http://www.ncpssm.org/pdf/poll.pdf

4. "Michael Moore says 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined," Politifact Wisconsin, March 10, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268074&id=33178-11652260-ekEBbsx&t=7

5. "Fact: 4 job seekers per opening in U.S.," CNN, September 12, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268075&id=33178-11652260-ekEBbsx&t=8

6. "Median household income," Wikipedia, Accessed November 22, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268076&id=33178-11652260-ekEBbsx&t=9

7. "Occupy movement: police reaction in pictures," The Guardian, November 21, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268077&id=33178-11652260-ekEBbsx&t=10

8. "Occupy Demonstrators Mark Two Months of Protests," NPR, November 17, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268078&id=33178-11652260-ekEBbsx&t=11

9. "Occupy Oakland protesters assist in cleanup efforts," News 10 ABC, November 3, 2011

http://www.news10.net/news/article/161383/2/Occupy-Oakland-protesters-assist-in-cleanup-efforts-

10. "Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 10, 2011
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490

11. "Income Inequality Is At An All-Time High: STUDY," The Huffington Post, September 14, 2009

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=268079&id=33178-11652260-ekEBbsx&t=12

Contrast is Clear or A Tale of Two Committees

2011-11-07T18:15:00.003-05:00

Democratic City Committee Message to All Voters whether they be Democrats, Unenrolled, or Republican:

Get Out and Vote!

Newburyport Republican Committee Message to Republican Voters (actual letter delivered to Republican Voters in Newburyport over weekend of Nov 5 and 6):

Dear Fellow Republican Voter,

Please accept this reminder that the city of Newburyport will participate in local elections on Tuesday, Nov. 8. The Newburyport Republican Committee encourages every registered voter to exercise their right to vote. The polls are open from 7am to 8pm and polling locations are listed below.

Included in this packet is information about the Newburyport Republican Committee and the two registered Republican Candidates running for local office. Larry Giunta and Steve Hutcheson are candidates for the contested city councilor-at-large offices. Newburyport maintains five city councilors-at-large. In this upcoming election, there are 8 candidates running for these five positions.

Voters in the voting booth have the opportunity to vote for up to 5 city councilor-at-large candidates, but they do not have to vote for 5. Voters can even vote for just one or two. The 5 candidates with the most votes will become Newburyport City Councilors-at Large.

Please go to the Newburyport Republican Committee website for more information on the NRC and its role in this beautiful city. www.newburyportgop.com

We look forward to seeing all Republican voters at the polls on November 8 for this critical election.

Sincerely,

NRC Executive Board

Rabbit-Hole Economics

2011-10-15T12:46:00.000-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/opinion/rabbit-hole-economics.html

Rabbit-Hole Economics

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Reading the transcript of Tuesday’s Republican debate on the economy is, for anyone who has actually been following economic events these past few years, like falling down a rabbit hole. Suddenly, you find yourself in a fantasy world where nothing looks or behaves the way it does in real life.

And since economic policy has to deal with the world we live in, not the fantasy world of the G.O.P.’s imagination, the prospect that one of these people may well be our next president is, frankly, terrifying.

In the real world, recent events were a devastating refutation of the free-market orthodoxy that has ruled American politics these past three decades. Above all, the long crusade against financial regulation, the successful effort to unravel the prudential rules established after the Great Depression on the grounds that they were unnecessary, ended up demonstrating — at immense cost to the nation — that those rules were necessary, after all.

But down the rabbit hole, none of that happened. We didn’t find ourselves in a crisis because of runaway private lenders like Countrywide Financial. We didn’t find ourselves in a crisis because Wall Street pretended that slicing, dicing and rearranging bad loans could somehow create AAA assets — and private rating agencies played along. We didn’t find ourselves in a crisis because “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers exploited gaps in financial regulation to create bank-type threats to the financial system without being subject to bank-type limits on risk-taking.

No, in the universe of the Republican Party we found ourselves in a crisis because Representative Barney Frank forced helpless bankers to lend money to the undeserving poor.

O.K., I’m exaggerating a bit — but not much. Mr. Frank’s name did come up repeatedly as a villain in the crisis, and not just in the context of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, which Republicans want to repeal. You have to marvel at his alleged influence given the fact that he’s a Democrat and the vast bulk of the bad loans now afflicting our economy were made while George W. Bush was president and Republicans controlled the House with an iron grip. But he’s their preferred villain all the same.

The demonization of Mr. Frank aside, it’s now obviously orthodoxy on the Republican side that government caused the whole problem. So what you need to know is that this orthodoxy has hardened even as the supposed evidence for government as a major villain in the crisis has been discredited. The fact is that government rules didn’t force banks to make bad loans, and that government-sponsored lenders, while they behaved badly in many ways, accounted for few of the truly high-risk loans that fueled the housing bubble.

But that’s history. What do the Republicans want to do now? In particular, what do they want to do about unemployment?

Well, they want to fire Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve — not for doing too little, which is a case one can make, but for doing too much. So they’re obviously not proposing any job-creation action via monetary policy.

Incidentally, during Tuesday’s debate, Mitt Romney named Harvard’s N. Gregory Mankiw as one of his advisers. How many Republicans know that Mr. Mankiw at least used to advocate — correctly, in my view — deliberate inflation by the Fed to solve our economic woes?

So, no monetary relief. What else? Well, the Cheshire Cat-like Rick Perry — he seems to be fading out, bit by bit, until only the hair remains — claimed, implausibly, that he could create 1.2 million jobs in the energy sector. Mr. Romney, meanwhile, called for permanent tax cuts — basically, let’s replay the Bush years! And Herman Cain? Oh, never mind.

By the way, has anyone else noticed the disappearance of budget deficits as a major concern for Republicans once they start talking about tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy?

It’s all pretty funny. But it’s also, as I said, terrifying.

The Great Recession should have been a huge wake-up call. Nothing like this was supposed to be possible in the modern world. Everyone, and I mean everyone, should be engaged in serious soul-searching, asking how much of what he or she thought was true actually isn’t.

But the G.O.P. has responded to the crisis not by rethinking its dogma but by adopting an even cruder version of that dogma, becoming a caricature of itself. During the debate, the hosts played a clip of Ronald Reagan calling for increased revenue; today, no politician hoping to get anywhere in Reagan’s party would dare say such a thing.

It’s a terrible thing when an individual loses his or her grip on reality. But it’s much worse when the same thing happens to a whole political party, one that already has the power to block anything the president proposes — and which may soon control the whole government.

Newburyport Democrats Meet Wednesday, October 12

2011-10-07T12:33:00.000-04:00

The next meeting of the Newburyport Democratic City Committee is Wednesday, October 12th at 7pm at the Newburyport Public Library.

All Newburyport Democrats are welcome to attend. Democrats wishing to be become members from their respective wards are welcome. For further information, email Ed Cameron, Chair of the Newburyport City Committee, at edcameronNBPT@gmail.com or go to www.newburyportdems.blogspot.com.

Elizabeth Warren Officially Declares Senate Candidacy

2011-09-20T18:26:00.002-04:00

If you haven't seen the video from Elizabeth Warren's website yet...
Visit http://elizabethwarren.com/splash

Newburyport Democrats Meet Wednesday, September 14

2011-09-11T15:14:00.000-04:00

Newburyport Democrats Meet Wednesday, September 14

The next meeting of the Newburyport Democratic City Committee is Wednesday, September 14^th at 7pm in the Program Room of the Newburyport Public Library.
All Newburyport Democrats are welcome to attend. Democrats wishing to be become members from their respective wards are welcome. For further information, email Ed Cameron, Chair of the Newburyport City Committee, at edcameronNBPT@gmail.com.

What Happened to Obama?

2011-08-14T20:44:00.002-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html

Credibility, Chutzpah and Debt

2011-08-10T21:22:00.001-04:00

Opinion

Credibility, Chutzpah and Debt

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: August 7, 2011

America’s a mess, but Standard & Poor’s has no right to judge.

Key lines:

No, what makes America look unreliable isn’t budget math, it’s politics. And please, let’s not have the usual declarations that both sides are at fault. Our problems are almost entirely one-sided — specifically, they’re caused by the rise of an extremist right that is prepared to create repeated crises rather than give an inch on its demands.
The truth is that as far as the straight economics goes, America’s long-run fiscal problems shouldn’t be all that hard to fix. It’s true that an aging population and rising health care costs will, under current policies, push spending up faster than tax receipts. But the United States has far higher health costs than any other advanced country, and very low taxes by international standards. If we could move even part way toward international norms on both these fronts, our budget problems would be solved.
So why can’t we do that? Because we have a powerful political movement in this country that screamed “death panels” in the face of modest efforts to use Medicare funds more effectively, and preferred to risk financial catastrophe rather than agree to even a penny in additional revenues.
The real question facing America, even in purely fiscal terms, isn’t whether we’ll trim a trillion here or a trillion there from deficits. It is whether the extremists now blocking any kind of responsible policy can be defeated and marginalized.

The whole thing here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/opinion/credibility-chutzpah-and-debt.html

From the Onion: Obama Turns 50 Despite Republican Opposition

2011-08-05T11:59:00.001-04:00

Obama Turns 50 Despite Republican Opposition

August 4, 2011 | ISSUE 47•31

· Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined
07.20.11

· 'Time' Publishes Definitive Obama Puff Piece
07.18.08

WASHINGTON—After months of heated negotiations and failed attempts to achieve any kind of consensus, President Obama turned 50 years old Thursday, drawing strong criticism from Republicans in Congress. "With the host of problems this country is currently facing, the fact that our president is devoting time to the human process of aging is an affront to Americans everywhere," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who advocated a provision to keep Obama 49 at least through the fall of 2013. "To move forward unilaterally and simply begin the next year of his life without bipartisan support—is that any way to lead a country?" According to White House officials, Obama attempted to work with Republicans right up until the Aug. 4 deadline, but was ultimately left with no choice except to turn a year older.

Sorry, Elizabeth Warren, Wall Street Said No | The Nation

2011-07-21T15:04:00.001-04:00

Sorry, Elizabeth Warren, Wall Street Said No | The Nation

Click the link above for the entire piece....

So much for the meritocracy. Despite an elite education, effusive charm and brilliant wit, Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, has ended up betraying his humble origins by abjectly serving the most rapacious variant of Wall Street greed. They both talk a good progressive game, but when push comes to shove—meaning when the banking lobby weighs in—big money talks and the best and the brightest fold.

The defining moment of Clinton’s capitulation was his destruction of Brooksley Born, the one member of his administration with the courage and prescience to warn him about the unregulated derivatives trading that ultimately led to the housing collapse. For Obama, it is his decision not to nominate Elizabeth Warren to run the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which she fought so hard to create.
Obama’s refusal to take the fight to Senate Republicans by nominating Warren should be taken as the vital measure of the man. This gutless decision comes after the president populated his administration with the very people who created the financial meltdown.

Dirty Energy Money Campaign

2011-06-18T08:04:00.004-04:00

An interesting website pointed out by a member of the Newburyport Democratic City Committee....

The Dirty Energy Money Campaign aims to end all government handouts to oil, coal and gas companies and persuade our elected representatives to reject campaign contributions from these Dirty Energy industries.

http://dirtyenergymoney.org

You can find information on Newburyport's elected Federal officials here http://dirtyenergymoney.org/view.php?searchvalue=01950&search=1&type=search

Newburyport Democrats Meet Wed, May 18

2011-05-14T08:14:00.000-04:00

Newburyport Democrats Meet Wed, May 18

The next meeting of the Newburyport Democratic City Committee is Wednesday, May 18 at the Newburyport City Hall Auditorium at 7pm. All Newburyport Democrats are welcome to attend. Democrats wishing to be become members from their respective wards are welcome. For further information, email Ed Cameron, Chair of the Newburyport City Committee, at edcameronNBPT@gmail.com

Deficit Solution: Get Americans Back To Work

2011-05-10T20:50:00.001-04:00

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/09/136129747/deficit-solution-get-americans-back-to-work

RENEE MONTAGNE, host:

Next, we'll hear an alternative view of the debate over the federal budget.

STEVE INSKEEP, host:

House Republicans and President Obama have offered competing plans to bring down the deficit.

MONTAGNE: A bipartisan group of senators is trying to work out a deal.

INSKEEP: All of their approaches share the stated goal of reducing federal dependence on borrowing over time. And Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz contends that all these approaches miss the point.

Mr. JOSEPH STIGLITZ (Economist): The most important thing for addressing the deficit is putting America back to work.

INSKEEP: Stiglitz wants to create more jobs, even if the nation builds up more debt.

Mr. STIGLITZ: If you're spending money for investments that increase the productivity of the economy - infrastructure, technology, education - that has two effects. It grows the economy today, puts people back to work, but it also increases the future potential output of the economy. And when you increase output, both today and in the future, that means more tax revenues, and that means it's money well spent, even from the narrow fiscal perspective.

INSKEEP: Mr. Stiglitz, isn't that the flip side of the Republican argument - or the conservative argument, let us say - which essentially is if you want to make the economy grow, cut taxes and ultimately the people will invest the money and there'll be so much more economic growth, you'll get more tax revenue coming in. Isn't that the same argument?

Mr. STIGLITZ: It sounds a little bit similar, and it - you know, all economists talk about demand and supply, but then you have to look at more detail, at the underlying hypotheses. So what they say is that if we only lowered tax rates a little bit more, tax the billionaires a little bit less, they would work more.

But the tax rates were lowered by President Bush. Did savings increase? No. The national savings rate went down, plummeted close to zero - some quarters it was actually negative. The evidence is very clear that those supply side effects on savings just aren't there.

INSKEEP: Does the argument for government investments, the argument you're making here, have the same basic weakness as the argument for tax cuts to spur the economy? Because in both cases what you're saying is I want to do something very definite and concrete now that will very definitely increase the deficit right now, in the hopes that eventually some of that money will be coming back, but I can't really be sure about that part.

Mr. STIGLITZ: Well, nothing in economic policy is ever done with certainty, so we have to do the best we can based on past experience, analytic studies. Right now the United States you might say is in a lucky position because we've underinvested in infrastructure, technology, education.

One concrete example, in 2000 we knew what were some of the key things we needed to invest in infrastructure. One of the things at the very top of the list were the levies in New Orleans. If we had made that few-billion-dollar investment that the engineers said we needed, we would have saved a couple hundred billions of dollars and our economy would have saved even more.

INSKEEP: So would you argue for running up even higher deficits than the ones we have now?

Mr. STIGLITZ: Yes, I would. I mean I - let's be frank about it. We are going to be running up deficits no matter what we do. But if we go into mindless austerity cutbacks, our deficits are not going to go down as fast as those people who argue for it claim. Because what's going to happen is, the economy is going to get weaker, tax revenues will go down, more people will be unemployed, expenditure for unemployment insurance will go up, expenditure for welfare payments will go up, and the savings in the deficit will be much smaller than they anticipated. We're already seeing, you might say examples, case studies, of this. The U.K. began its austerity package and the economy has gone into a double dip.

INSKEEP: Well, let me ask about that, because as I'm sure you know very well Standard and Poor's, the rating agency, has in recent weeks issued a warning about the security, the safety, of U.S. government debt. I wonder if the United States really doesn't have much of a choice in this matter for very much longer.

Mr. STIGLITZ: Yeah, that's sheer nonsense. First of all, we should say the S&P and the other rating agencies really have lost their credibility. They gave the A ratings to the subprime securities that brought our economy down. And if anybody, after that, really pays much attention to them, I find it actually striking.

We can't ignore the deficit. I mean, that's correct. The real question is we have to address it in an intelligent way. And an intelligent way means invest in the future, and grow the economy today. And a mindless response will actually put us in the road to those who lend to us not being willing to lend to us, because our economy will be weak.

INSKEEP: I wonder what you think of the proposals that, if I may, try to couple a mindful response with the mindless response. The White House, among others, there are various plans out there, that include some kind of trigger. If Congress doesn't figure out how they're going to reduce the deficit, automatic cuts begin kicking in, in order to provide them an incentive to do things in a thoughtful way. Would you favor that?

Mr. STIGLITZ: I haven't made up my mind on that. The reason is, across-the-board cuts are not an intelligent way of doing things. It's easy for a lot of people because it says we're not going to have to make the decisions, we're not going to have to annoy agribusiness that likes the ethanol subsidies, the oil and coal companies that enjoy the tax benefits. But I think we have to, unfortunately, annoy some people, and we have to make some of these painful political decisions. I think this is a little bit of a cop-out.

INSKEEP: You seem to think, based on your writings, that the political process here is being driven by a bunch of short-sighted rich people.

Mr. STIGLITZ: I think that's right. But it's more than that. There's ideology playing a very important role. Part of what is going on, you see it very clearly in some of the proposals for deficit reduction, is that they're really almost designed to cut back on the core functions of government.

So they're not asking the question, what kind of society do we want to create and how do we get there? What is the appropriate role of government and what does that cost and how do we best finance that?

There's certain things that we really do need government for. If we want to have a more equal society, we have to have public education. Quality of life, important to have livable cities, important to have parks. Rich people can have a big back yard, they can live in an isolated, gated community. Most Americans can't afford that, so we have to have public parks. That costs money. And we can go down the line and we can get a vision of what it is that is necessary to make our economy the kind of society that we want. We need to have a - as I say, a vision of what it is that we need the government to do. But it's not a question of the size of the government, it's a question of what it does, and that's what we need to have a national conversation about.

INSKEEP: Well, Joe Stiglitz, thanks very much.

Mr. STIGLITZ: Well, thank you.

(Soundbite of music)

INSKEEP: Joseph Stiglitz, one of many voices we have heard and will hear on the deficit. He served as chairman of the council of economic advisors under President Clinton and received a Nobel Prize for his work in economics.

How Does New Hampshire Do It? An Analysis of Spending and Revenues in the Absence of a Broad-based Income or Sales Tax

2011-04-10T12:52:00.002-04:00

Interesting report from the Federal Reserve...

http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/neppc/researchreports/2011/neppcrr1101.pdf

New Hampshire is unique in New England
in that it levies neither a broad-based income
nor sales tax. Although high property tax bills,
education mandates handed down by the
courts, and fiscal crises past and present have
led some Granite Staters to question the continued
feasibility of this approach, the state
has thus far maintained its course.
New Hampshire’s ability to avoid a
broad-based tax stems partly from the fact
that governments there simply spend considerably
less, on average, than their neighbors.
In fiscal year (FY) 2007, New Hampshire
state and local governments combined spent
$6,442 per capita—20 percent less than the
New England average. The difference is even
starker if we consider state government alone.
Observing New Hampshire’s lack of
broad-based taxes and low public spending,
other states around the region have asked
whether they can emulate the state’s fiscal
model. This paper explores the Granite State’s
spending and revenues, to shed light on how
it has avoided a broad-based income or sales
tax. The analysis examines the factors that
drive New Hampshire’s lower-than-average
per capita spending, and the revenue sources
the state relies on to pay for that spending in
lieu of an income or sales tax.

6th Annual Democratic Three Towns & Two Cities Breakfast

2011-03-29T11:15:00.000-04:00

6th Annual Democratic Three Towns & Two Cities Breakfast

The 6th Annual Democratic Three Towns & Two Cities Breakfast will be held on Saturday, April 9, 2011, at Nicholson Hall, 9 Harris Street, Newburyport, MA. Tickets are $25. Seating is limited.

There will be Coffee and Socializing from 8:30-9:00AM followed by the Program and Breakfast at 9:00AM.

The Democratic committees of Amesbury, Newbury, Newburyport, Salisbury, and West Newbury join together to invite you to a hearty buffet breakfast with state and local political leaders discussing relevant issues.

Confirmed guests to date include Congressman John Tierney, State Treasurer Steve Grossman, State Auditor Suzanne Bump, State Senator Stephen Baddour, State Representatives Michael Costello, Governor’s Councillor Mary-Ellen Manning, Essex County District Attorney Jon Blodgett, Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll and John Walsh, Chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

US Senate candidates Bob Massie and Marisa DeFranco will also appear.

Bob Allison of Newburyport will provide musical accompaniment. HOBO Catering of Salisbury Beach will provide the buffet.

Proceeds from the breakfast will be used to support the sponsoring town and city committees. Sponsorships of $50, $100, and $200 are available. Those interested in sponsoring the event or in purchasing tickets should contact:

Amesbury, Jane Siebecker at jsiebecker@verizon.net,

Newbury, Jim Stanton at stanton.jim@gmail.com,

Newburyport, Ed Cameron at edcameronNBPT@gmail.com,

Salisbury, Lou Masiello at thesummerwind300@comcast.net,

West Newbury, Kathy Pasquina at kathypasq2@hotmail.com

Press: For more information about this event, please contact Ed Cameron at edcameronNBPT@gmail.com or call 978-518-0786.

Kabuki Democracy: Why a Progressive Presidency Is Impossible, for Now | The Nation

2011-03-28T13:36:00.000-04:00

Kabuki Democracy: Why a Progressive Presidency Is Impossible, for Now | The Nation

In Mass. Senate Race, Spotlight Shifts to Suburban Mayor

2011-03-23T12:21:00.000-04:00

In Mass. Senate Race, Spotlight Shifts to Suburban Mayor

The Forgotten Millions

2011-03-18T20:14:00.001-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/opinion/18krugman.html

March 17, 2011

The Forgotten Millions

By PAUL KRUGMAN

More than three years after we entered the worst economic slump since the 1930s, a strange and disturbing thing has happened to our political discourse: Washington has lost interest in the unemployed.

Jobs do get mentioned now and then — and a few political figures, notably Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, are still trying to get some kind of action. But no jobs bills have been introduced in Congress, no job-creation plans have been advanced by the White House and all the policy focus seems to be on spending cuts.

So one-sixth of America’s workers — all those who can’t find any job or are stuck with part-time work when they want a full-time job — have, in effect, been abandoned.

It might not be so bad if the jobless could expect to find new employment fairly soon. But unemployment has become a trap, one that’s very difficult to escape. There are almost five times as many unemployed workers as there are job openings; the average unemployed worker has been jobless for 37 weeks, a post-World War II record.

In short, we’re well on the way to creating a permanent underclass of the jobless. Why doesn’t Washington care?

Part of the answer may be that while those who are unemployed tend to stay unemployed, those who still have jobs are feeling more secure than they did a couple of years ago. Layoffs and discharges spiked during the crisis of 2008-2009 but have fallen sharply since then, perhaps reducing the sense of urgency. Put it this way: At this point, the U.S. economy is suffering from low hiring, not high firing, so things don’t look so bad — as long as you’re willing to write off the unemployed.

Yet polls indicate that voters still care much more about jobs than they do about the budget deficit. So it’s quite remarkable that inside the Beltway, it’s just the opposite.

What makes this even more remarkable is the fact that the economic arguments used to justify the D.C. deficit obsession have been repeatedly refuted by experience.

On one side, we’ve been warned, over and over again, that “bond vigilantes” will turn on the U.S. government unless we slash spending immediately. Yet interest rates remain low by historical standards; indeed, they’re lower now than they were in the spring of 2009, when those dire warnings began.

On the other side, we’ve been assured that spending cuts would do wonders for business confidence. But that hasn’t happened in any of the countries currently pursuing harsh austerity programs. Notably, when the Cameron government in Britain announced austerity measures last May, it received fawning praise from U.S. deficit hawks. But British business confidence plunged, and it has not recovered.

Yet the obsession with spending cuts flourishes all the same — unchallenged, it must be said, by the White House.

I still don’t know why the Obama administration was so quick to accept defeat in the war of ideas, but the fact is that it surrendered very early in the game. In early 2009, John Boehner, now the speaker of the House, was widely and rightly mocked for declaring that since families were suffering, the government should tighten its own belt. That’s Herbert Hoover economics, and it’s as wrong now as it was in the 1930s. But, in the 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama adopted exactly the same metaphor and began using it incessantly.

And earlier this week, the White House budget director declared: “There is an agreement that we should be reducing spending,” suggesting that his only quarrel with Republicans is over whether we should be cutting taxes, too. No wonder, then, that according to a new Pew Research Center poll, a majority of Americans see “not much difference” between Mr. Obama’s approach to the deficit and that of Republicans.

So who pays the price for this unfortunate bipartisanship? The increasingly hopeless unemployed, of course. And the worst hit will be young workers — a point made in 2009 by Peter Orszag, then the White House budget director. As he noted, young Americans who graduated during the severe recession of the early 1980s suffered permanent damage to their earnings. And if the average duration of unemployment is any indication, it’s even harder for new graduates to find decent jobs now than it was in 1982 or 1983.

So the next time you hear some Republican declaring that he’s concerned about deficits because he cares about his children — or, for that matter, the next time you hear Mr. Obama talk about winning the future — you should remember that the clear and present danger to the prospects of young Americans isn’t the deficit. It’s the absence of jobs.

But, as I said, these days Washington doesn’t seem to care about any of that. And you have to wonder what it will take to get politicians caring again about America’s forgotten millions.

Shock Doctrine, U.S.A.

2011-02-25T12:47:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/opinion/25krugman.html

Shock Doctrine, U.S.A.
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Here’s a thought: maybe Madison, Wis., isn’t Cairo after all. Maybe it’s Baghdad — specifically, Baghdad in 2003, when the Bush administration put Iraq under the rule of officials chosen for loyalty and political reliability rather than experience and competence.

As many readers may recall, the results were spectacular — in a bad way. Instead of focusing on the urgent problems of a shattered economy and society, which would soon descend into a murderous civil war, those Bush appointees were obsessed with imposing a conservative ideological vision. Indeed, with looters still prowling the streets of Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer, the American viceroy, told a Washington Post reporter that one of his top priorities was to “corporatize and privatize state-owned enterprises” — Mr. Bremer’s words, not the reporter’s — and to “wean people from the idea the state supports everything.”

The story of the privatization-obsessed Coalition Provisional Authority was the centerpiece of Naomi Klein’s best-selling book “The Shock Doctrine,” which argued that it was part of a broader pattern. From Chile in the 1970s onward, she suggested, right-wing ideologues have exploited crises to push through an agenda that has nothing to do with resolving those crises, and everything to do with imposing their vision of a harsher, more unequal, less democratic society.

Which brings us to Wisconsin 2011, where the shock doctrine is on full display.

In recent weeks, Madison has been the scene of large demonstrations against the governor’s budget bill, which would deny collective-bargaining rights to public-sector workers. Gov. Scott Walker claims that he needs to pass his bill to deal with the state’s fiscal problems. But his attack on unions has nothing to do with the budget. In fact, those unions have already indicated their willingness to make substantial financial concessions — an offer the governor has rejected.

What’s happening in Wisconsin is, instead, a power grab — an attempt to exploit the fiscal crisis to destroy the last major counterweight to the political power of corporations and the wealthy. And the power grab goes beyond union-busting. The bill in question is 144 pages long, and there are some extraordinary things hidden deep inside.

For example, the bill includes language that would allow officials appointed by the governor to make sweeping cuts in health coverage for low-income families without having to go through the normal legislative process.

And then there’s this: “Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).”

What’s that about? The state of Wisconsin owns a number of plants supplying heating, cooling, and electricity to state-run facilities (like the University of Wisconsin). The language in the budget bill would, in effect, let the governor privatize any or all of these facilities at whim. Not only that, he could sell them, without taking bids, to anyone he chooses. And note that any such sale would, by definition, be “considered to be in the public interest.”

If this sounds to you like a perfect setup for cronyism and profiteering — remember those missing billions in Iraq? — you’re not alone. Indeed, there are enough suspicious minds out there that Koch Industries, owned by the billionaire brothers who are playing such a large role in Mr. Walker’s anti-union push, felt compelled to issue a denial that it’s interested in purchasing any of those power plants. Are you reassured?

The good news from Wisconsin is that the upsurge of public outrage — aided by the maneuvering of Democrats in the State Senate, who absented themselves to deny Republicans a quorum — has slowed the bum’s rush. If Mr. Walker’s plan was to push his bill through before anyone had a chance to realize his true goals, that plan has been foiled. And events in Wisconsin may have given pause to other Republican governors, who seem to be backing off similar moves.

But don’t expect either Mr. Walker or the rest of his party to change those goals. Union-busting and privatization remain G.O.P. priorities, and the party will continue its efforts to smuggle those priorities through in the name of balanced budgets.

Plutocracy Now: What Wisconsin Is Really About How screwing unions screws the entire middle class.

2011-02-24T20:58:00.002-05:00

Source URL: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline

Go the the link above for more interactivity...

Mother Jones
Plutocracy Now: What Wisconsin Is Really About
How screwing unions screws the entire middle class.

By Kevin Drum | March/April 2011 Issue

IN 2008, A LIBERAL Democrat was elected president. Landslide votes gave Democrats huge congressional majorities. Eight years of war and scandal and George W. Bush had stigmatized the Republican Party almost beyond redemption. A global financial crisis had discredited the disciples of free-market fundamentalism, and Americans were ready for serious change.

Or so it seemed. But two years later, Wall Street is back to earning record profits [3], and conservatives are triumphant [4]. To understand why this happened, it's not enough to examine polls and tea parties and the makeup of Barack Obama's economic team [5]. You have to understand how we fell so short, and what we rightfully should have expected from Obama's election. And you have to understand two crucial things about American politics.

The first is this: Income inequality has grown dramatically [6] since the mid-'70s—far more in the US [7] than in most advanced countries—and the gap is only partly related to college grads outperforming high-school grads. Rather, the bulk of our growing inequality has been a product of skyrocketing incomes among the richest 1 percent and—even more dramatically—among the top 0.1 percent. It has, in other words, been CEOs and Wall Street traders at the very tippy-top who are hoovering up vast sums of money from everyone, even those who by ordinary standards are pretty well off.

Second, American politicians don't care much about voters with moderate incomes. Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels studied [8] the voting behavior of US senators in the early '90s and discovered that they respond far more to the desires of high-income groups than to anyone else. By itself, that's not a surprise. He also found that Republicans don't respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that's not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don't respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all.

It doesn't take a multivariate correlation to conclude that these two things are tightly related: If politicians care almost exclusively about the concerns of the rich, it makes sense that over the past decades they've enacted policies that have ended up benefiting the rich. And if you're not rich yourself, this is a problem. First and foremost, it's an economic problem because it's siphoned vast sums of money from the pockets of most Americans into those of the ultrawealthy. At the same time, relentless concentration of wealth and power among the rich is deeply corrosive in a democracy, and this makes it a profoundly political problem as well.

How did we get here? In the past, after all, liberal politicians did make it their business to advocate for the working and middle classes, and they worked that advocacy through the Democratic Party. But they largely stopped doing this in the '70s, leaving the interests of corporations and the wealthy nearly unopposed. The story of how this happened is the key to understanding why the Obama era lasted less than two years.
The strength of unions in postwar America benefited nonunion workers, too. Unions made the American economy work for the middle class.

ABOUT A YEAR ago, the Pew Research Center looked [10] looked at the sources reporters used for stories on the economy. The White House and members of Congress were often quoted, of course. Business leaders. Academics. Ordinary citizens. If you're under 40, you may not notice anything amiss. Who else is missing, then? Well: "Representatives of organized labor unions," Pew found, "were sources in a mere 2% of all the economy stories studied."

It wasn't always this way. Union leaders like John L. Lewis [11], George Meany [12], and Walter Reuther [13] were routine sources for reporters from the '30s through the '70s. And why not? They made news. The contracts they signed were templates for entire industries. They had the power to bring commerce to a halt. They raised living standards for millions, they made and broke presidents, and they formed the backbone of one of America's two great political parties.

They did far more than that, though. As historian Kim Phillips-Fein puts it, "The strength of unions in postwar America had a profound impact on all people who worked for a living, even those who did not belong to a union themselves." (Emphasis mine.) Wages went up, even at nonunion companies. Health benefits expanded, private pensions rose, and vacations became more common. It was unions that made the American economy work for the middle class, and it was their later decline that turned the economy upside-down and made it into a playground for the business and financial classes.

Technically, American labor began its ebb in the early '50s. But as late as 1970, private-sector union density was still more than 25 percent [14], and the absolute number of union members was at its highest point in history. American unions had plenty of problems, ranging from unremitting hostility in the South to unimaginative leadership almost everywhere else, but it wasn't until the rise of the New Left [15] in the '60s that these problems began to metastasize.

The problems were political, not economic. Organized labor requires government support to thrive—things like the right to organize workplaces, rules that prevent retaliation against union leaders, and requirements that management negotiate in good faith—and in America, that support traditionally came from the Democratic Party. The relationship was symbiotic: Unions provided money and ground game campaign organization, and in return Democrats supported economic policies like minimum-wage laws and expanded health care that helped not just union members per se—since they'd already won good wages and benefits at the bargaining table—but the interests of the working and middle classes writ large.

But despite its roots in organized labor, the New Left wasn't much interested in all this. As the Port Huron Statement [16], the founding document of Students for a Democratic Society, famously noted, the students who formed the nucleus of the movement had been "bred in at least modest comfort." They were animated not by workplace safety or the cost of living, but first by civil rights and antiwar sentiment, and later by feminism, the sexual revolution, and environmentalism. They wore their hair long, they used drugs, and they were loathed by the mandarins of organized labor.

By the end of the '60s, the feeling was entirely mutual. New Left activists derided union bosses as just another tired bunch of white, establishment Cold War fossils, and as a result, the rupture of the Democratic Party that started in Chicago in 1968 became irrevocable in Miami Beach four years later. Labor leaders assumed that the hippies, who had been no match for either Richard Daley's cops or establishment control of the nominating rules, posed no real threat to their continued dominance of the party machinery. But precisely because it seemed impossible that this motley collection of shaggy kids, newly assertive women, and goo-goo academics could ever figure out how to wield real political power, the bosses simply weren't ready when it turned out they had miscalculated badly. Thus George Meany's surprise when he got his first look at the New York delegation at the 1972 Democratic convention. "What kind of delegation is this?" he sneered. "They've got six open fags and only three AFL-CIO people on that delegation!"
"What kind of delegation is this? They've got six open fags and only three AFL-CIO people!"

But that was just the start. New rules put in place in 1968 led by almost geometric progression to the nomination of George McGovern in 1972, and despite McGovern's sterling pro-labor credentials, the AFL-CIO refused to endorse him. Not only were labor bosses enraged that the hippies had thwarted the nomination of labor favorite Hubert Humphrey, but amnesty, acid, and abortion were simply too much for them. Besides, Richard Nixon had been sweet-talking them for four years, and though relations had recently become strained, he seemed not entirely unsympathetic to the labor cause. How bad could it be if he won reelection?

Plenty bad, it turned out—though not because of anything Nixon himself did. The real harm was the eventual disaffection of the Democratic Party from the labor cause. Two years after the debacle in Miami, Nixon was gone and Democrats won a landslide victory in the 1974 midterm election. But the newly minted members of Congress, among them former McGovern campaign manager Gary Hart, weren't especially loyal to big labor. They'd seen how labor had treated McGovern, despite his lifetime of support for their issues.

The results were catastrophic. Business groups, simultaneously alarmed at the expansion of federal regulations during the '60s and newly emboldened by the obvious fault lines on the left, started hiring lobbyists and launching political action committees at a torrid pace. At the same time, corporations began to realize that lobbying individually for their own parochial interests (steel, sugar, finance, etc.) wasn't enough: They needed to band together to push aggressively for a broadly pro-business legislative environment. In 1971, future Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell wrote his now-famous memo [17] urging the business community to fight back: "Strength lies in organization," he wrote, and would rise and fall "through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations." Over the next few years, the Chamber of Commerce [18] morphed into an aggressive and highly politicized advocate of business interests, conservative think tanks began to flourish, and more than 100 corporate CEOs banded together to found a pro-market supergroup, the Business Roundtable [19].

They didn't have to wait long for their first big success. By 1978, a chastened union movement had already given up on big-ticket legislation to make it easier to organize workplaces. But they still had every reason to think they could at least win passage of a modest package to bolster existing labor law and increase penalties for flouting rulings of the National Labor Relations Board. After all, a Democrat was president, and Democrats held 61 seats in the Senate. So they threw their support behind a compromise bill they thought the business community would accept with only a pro forma fight.

Instead, the Business Roundtable, the US Chamber of Commerce [18], and other business groups declared war. Organized labor fought back with all it had—but that was no longer enough: The bill failed in the Senate by two votes. It was, said right-wing Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), "a starting point for a new era of assertiveness by big business in Washington." Business historian Kim McQuaid put it more bluntly: 1978, he said, was "Waterloo" for unions.

Organized labor, already in trouble thanks to stagflation, globalization, and the decay of manufacturing, now went into a death spiral. That decline led to a decline in the power of the Democratic Party, which in turn led to fewer protections for unions. Rinse and repeat. By the time both sides realized what had happened, it was too late—union density had slumped below the point of no return.

Why does this matter? Big unions have plenty of pathologies of their own, after all, so maybe it's just as well that we're rid of them. Maybe. But in the real world, political parties need an institutional base. Parties need money. And parties need organizational muscle. The Republican Party gets the former from corporate sponsors and the latter from highly organized church-based groups. The Democratic Party, conversely, relied heavily on organized labor for both in the postwar era. So as unions increasingly withered beginning in the '70s, the Democratic Party turned to the only other source of money and influence available in large-enough quantities to replace big labor: the business community. The rise of neoliberalism [20] in the '80s, given concrete form by the Democratic Leadership Council, was fundamentally an effort to make the party more friendly to business. After all, what choice did Democrats have? Without substantial support from labor or business, no modern party can thrive.

IT'S IMPORTANT to understand what happened here. Entire forests have been felled explaining why the working class abandoned the Democratic Party, but that's not the real story. It's true that Southern whites of all classes have increasingly voted Republican over the past 30 years. But working-class African Americans have been (and remain) among the most reliable Democratic voters, and as Larry Bartels has shown convincingly, outside the South the white working class has not dramatically changed its voting behavior over the past half-century. About 50 percent of these moderate-income whites vote for Democratic presidential candidates, and a bit more than half self-identify as Democrats. These numbers bounce up and down a bit (thus the "Reagan Democrat [21]" phenomenon of the early '80s), but the overall trend has been virtually flat since 1948.

In other words, it's not that the working class has abandoned Democrats. It's just the opposite: The Democratic Party has largely abandoned the working class.

Here's why this is a big deal. Progressive change in the United States has always come in short, intense spurts: The Progressive Era lasted barely a decade at the national level, the New Deal saw virtually all of its legislative activity enacted within the space of six years between 1933 and 1938, and the frenzy of federal action associated with the '60s nearly all unfolded between 1964 and 1970. There have been exceptions, of course: The FDA was created in 1906, the GI Bill was passed in 1944, and the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990. And the courts have followed a schedule all their own. Still, one striking fact remains: Liberal reform is not a continuous movement powered by mere enthusiasm. Reform eras last only a short time and require extraordinarily intense levels of cultural and political energy to get started. And they require two other things to get started: a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress.

In 2008, fully four decades after our last burst of liberal change, we got that again. But instead of five or six tumultuous years, the surge of liberalism that started in 2008 lasted scarcely 18 months and produced only two legislative changes really worthy of note: health care reform [22] and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell [23]. By the summer of 2010 liberals were dispirited, political energy had been co-opted almost entirely by the tea party movement, and in November, Republicans won a crushing victory.

Why? The answer, I think, is that there simply wasn't an institutional base big enough to insist on the kinds of political choices that would have kept the momentum of 2008 alive. In the past, blue-collar workers largely took their cues on economic policy from meetings in union halls, and in turn, labor leaders gave them a voice in Washington.

This matters, as Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson argue in one of last year's most important books [24], Winner-Take-All Politics [25], because politicians don't respond to the concerns of voters, they respond to the organized muscle of institutions that represent them. With labor in decline, both parties now respond strongly to the interests of the rich—whose institutional representation is deep and energetic—and barely at all to the interests of the working and middle classes.

This has produced three decades of commercial and financial deregulation that started during the administration of a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, gained steam throughout the Reagan era, and continued under Bill Clinton. There were a lot of ways America could have responded to the twin challenges of '70s-era stagflation and the globalization of finance, but the policies we chose almost invariably ignored the stagnating wages of the middle class and instead catered to the desires of the superrich: hefty tax cuts [26] on both high incomes and capital gains. Deregulation of S&Ls [27] (PDF) that led to extensive looting and billions in taxpayer losses. Monetary policy focused excessively on inflation [28] instead of employment levels. Tacit acceptance of asset bubbles as a way of maintaining high economic growth. An unwillingness to regulate financial derivatives that led to enormous Wall Street profits and contributed to the financial crisis [29] of 2008. At nearly every turn, corporations and the financial industry used their institutional muscle to get what they wanted, while the working class sat by and watched, mostly unaware that any of this was even happening.
Labor in the postwar era "did not confine itself to bread-and-butter issues for its own members. It was at the forefront of battles for aid to education, civil rights, housing programs, and other social causes."

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE to wind back the clock and see what would have happened if things had been different, but we can take a pretty good guess. Organized labor, for all its faults, acted as an effective countervailing power for decades, representing not just its own interests, but the interests of virtually the entire wage-earning class against the investor class. As veteran Washington Post reporter David Broder wrote [30] a few years ago, labor in the postwar era "did not confine itself to bread-and-butter issues for its own members. It was at the forefront of battles for aid to education, civil rights, housing programs and a host of other social causes important to the whole community. And because it was muscular, it was heard and heeded." If unions had been as strong in the '80s and '90s as they were in the '50s and '60s, it's almost inconceivable that they would have sat by and accepted tax cuts and financial deregulation on the scale that we got. They would have demanded economic policies friendlier to middle-class interests, they would have pressed for the appointment of regulators less captured by the financial industry, and they would have had the muscle to get both.

And that means things would have been different during the first two years of the Obama era, too. Aside from the question of whether the crisis would have been so acute in the first place, a labor-oriented Democratic Party almost certainly would have demanded a bigger stimulus in 2009. It would have fought hard for "cramdown" legislation [31] to help distressed homeowners, instead of caving in to the banks that wanted it killed. It would have resisted the reappointment of Ben Bernanke as Fed chairman. These and other choices would have helped the economic recovery and produced a surge of electoral energy far beyond Obama's first few months. And since elections are won and lost on economic performance, voter turnout, and legislative accomplishments, Democrats probably would have lost something like 10 or 20 seats last November, not 63. Instead of petering out after 18 months, the Obama era might still have several years to run.

This is, of course, pie in the sky. Organized labor has become a shell of its former self, and the working class doesn't have any institutional muscle in Washington. As a result, the Democratic Party no longer has much real connection to moderate-income voters. And that's hurt nearly everyone.
Workers now lose a collective $743 billion each year [7]. The top
1 percent gains $673 billion. That's a pretty close match.

If unions had remained strong and Democrats had continued to vigorously press for more equitable economic policies, middle-class wages over the past three decades likely would have grown at about the same rate as the overall economy—just as they had in the postwar era. But they didn't, and that meant that every year, the money that would have gone to middle-class wage increases instead went somewhere else. This created a vast and steadily growing pool of money, and the chart below gives you an idea of its size. It shows how much money would have flowed to different groups if their incomes had grown at the same rate as the overall economy. The entire bottom 80 percent now loses a collective $743 billion each year [7], thanks to the cumulative effect of slow wage growth. Conversely, the top 1 percent gains $673 billion. That's a pretty close match. Basically, the money gained by the top 1 percent seems to have come almost entirely from the bottom 80 percent.

And what about those in the 80th to 99th percentile? They didn't score the huge payoffs of the superrich, but they did okay, basically keeping up with economic growth. Yet the skyrocketing costs of things like housing [32] and higher education [33] (PDF) make this less of a success story than it seems. And there's been a bigger cost as well: It turns out that today's upper-middle-class families lead a much more precarious existence than raw income figures suggest.
YOUR LOSS,THEIR GAIN
How much income have you given up for the top 1 percent?

Jacob Hacker demonstrated this persuasively in The Great Risk Shift [34], which examined the ways in which financial risk has increasingly been moved from corporations and the government onto individuals. Income volatility, for example, has risen dramatically over the past 30 years. The odds of experiencing a 50 percent drop in family income have more than doubled since 1970, and this volatility has increased for both high school and college grads. At the same time, traditional pensions have almost completely disappeared, replaced by chronically underfunded 401(k) plans in which workers bear all the risk of stock market gains and losses. Home foreclosures are up [35] (PDF), Americans are drowning in debt, jobs are less secure, and personal bankruptcies have soared [36] (PDF). These developments have been disastrous for workers at all income levels.

This didn't all happen thanks to a sinister 30-year plan hatched in a smoke-filled room, and it can't be reined in merely by exposing it to the light. It's a story about power. It's about the loss of a countervailing power robust enough to stand up to the influence of business interests and the rich on equal terms. With that gone, the response to every new crisis and every new change in the economic landscape has inevitably pointed in the same direction. And after three decades, the cumulative effect of all those individual responses is an economy focused almost exclusively on the demands of business and finance. In theory, that's supposed to produce rapid economic growth that serves us all, and 30 years of free-market evangelism have convinced nearly everyone—even middle-class voters who keep getting the short end of the economic stick—that the policy preferences of the business community are good for everyone. But in practice, the benefits have gone almost entirely to the very wealthy.
The heart and soul of liberalism is economic egalitarianism. Without it, Wall Street will continue to extract ever vaster sums from the American economy.

It's not clear how this will get turned around. Unions, for better or worse, are history. Even union leaders don't believe they'll ever regain the power of their glory days. If private-sector union density increased from 7 percent to 10 percent, that would be considered a huge victory. But it wouldn't be anywhere near enough to restore the power of the working and middle classes.

And yet: The heart and soul of liberalism is economic egalitarianism. Without it, Wall Street will continue to extract ever vaster sums from the American economy, the middle class will continue to stagnate, and the left will continue to lack the powerful political and cultural energy necessary for a sustained period of liberal reform. For this to change, America needs a countervailing power as big, crude, and uncompromising as organized labor used to be.

But what?

Over the past 40 years, the American left has built an enormous institutional infrastructure dedicated to mobilizing money, votes, and public opinion on social issues, and this has paid off with huge strides in civil rights, feminism, gay rights, environmental policy, and more. But the past two years have demonstrated that that isn't enough. If the left ever wants to regain the vigor that powered earlier eras of liberal reform, it needs to rebuild the infrastructure of economic populism that we've ignored for too long. Figuring out how to do that is the central task of the new decade.

Links:
[1] http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/whats-happening-wisconsin-explained
[2] http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
[3] http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/07/how-you-finance-goldman-sachs%E2%80%99-profits
[4] http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/04/whos-afraid-finance-industry-profits
[5] http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/henhouse-meet-fox-wall-street-washington-obama
[6] http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/simple-look-income-inequality
[7] http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/great-income-shift
[8] http://www.scribd.com/doc/36931202/Larry-Bartels-Economic-Inequality-and-Political-Representation
[9] http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/its-inequality-stupid
[10] http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/who_drove_economic_news_and_who_didn%E2%80%99t#fn1
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Lewis
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Meany
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reuther
[14] http://workinglife.org/wiki/Union+Membership:+Private+Sector+%281948-2004%29
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left
[16] http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/huron.html
[17] http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=9606
[18] http://motherjones.com/category/primary-tags/us-chamber-commerce
[19] http://businessroundtable.org/
[20] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,969741,00.html
[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat
[22] http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/07/chart-day-healthcare-reform
[23] http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/05/end-dadt-near
[24] http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/paul-pierson-jacob-s-hacker
[25] http://www.amazon.com/Winner-Take-All-Politics-Washington-Richer-Turned/dp/1416588698
[26] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
[27] http://fdic.gov/bank/historical/history/167_188.pdf
[28] http://www.truth-out.org/article/dean-baker-alan-greenspan-the-boy-bubble
[29] http://motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/foreclosure-phil
[30] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6959-2004Sep8.html
[31] http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/08/cramdown-resurrected
[32] http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.large.gif
[33] http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/press/cost06/trends_college_pricing_06.pdf
[34] http://www.amazon.com/Great-Risk-Shift-American-Retirement/dp/0195179501
[35] http://fdic.gov/bank/analytical/working/98-2.pdf
[36] http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional/05/10/bankruptcy.pdf

Past Versus Future

2011-02-19T17:01:00.000-05:00

Paul Krugman: Eat The Future

2011-02-14T10:48:00.001-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/opinion/14krugman.html

February 13, 2011

Eat The Future

By PAUL KRUGMAN

On Friday, House Republicans unveiled their proposal for immediate cuts in federal spending. Uncharacteristically, they failed to accompany the release with a catchy slogan. So I’d like to propose one: Eat the Future.

I’ll explain in a minute. First, let’s talk about the dilemma the G.O.P. faces.

Republican leaders like to claim that the midterms gave them a mandate for sharp cuts in government spending. Some of us believe that the elections were less about spending than they were about persistent high unemployment, but whatever. The key point to understand is that while many voters say that they want lower spending, press the issue a bit further and it turns out that they only want to cut spending on other people.

That’s the lesson from a new survey by the Pew Research Center, in which Americans were asked whether they favored higher or lower spending in a variety of areas. It turns out that they want more, not less, spending on most things, including education and Medicare. They’re evenly divided about spending on aid to the unemployed and — surprise — defense.

The only thing they clearly want to cut is foreign aid, which most Americans believe, wrongly, accounts for a large share of the federal budget.

Pew also asked people how they would like to see states close their budget deficits. Do they favor cuts in either education or health care, the main expenses states face? No. Do they favor tax increases? No. The only deficit-reduction measure with significant support was cuts in public-employee pensions — and even there the public was evenly divided.

The moral is clear. Republicans don’t have a mandate to cut spending; they have a mandate to repeal the laws of arithmetic.

How can voters be so ill informed? In their defense, bear in mind that they have jobs, children to raise, parents to take care of. They don’t have the time or the incentive to study the federal budget, let alone state budgets (which are by and large incomprehensible). So they rely on what they hear from seemingly authoritative figures.

And what they’ve been hearing ever since Ronald Reagan is that their hard-earned dollars are going to waste, paying for vast armies of useless bureaucrats (payroll is only 5 percent of federal spending) and welfare queens driving Cadillacs. How can we expect voters to appreciate fiscal reality when politicians consistently misrepresent that reality?

Which brings me back to the Republican dilemma. The new House majority promised to deliver $100 billion in spending cuts — and its members face the prospect of Tea Party primary challenges if they fail to deliver big cuts. Yet the public opposes cuts in programs it likes — and it likes almost everything. What’s a politician to do?

The answer, once you think about it, is obvious: sacrifice the future. Focus the cuts on programs whose benefits aren’t immediate; basically, eat America’s seed corn. There will be a huge price to pay, eventually — but for now, you can keep the base happy.

If you didn’t understand that logic, you might be puzzled by many items in the House G.O.P. proposal. Why cut a billion dollars from a highly successful program that provides supplemental nutrition to pregnant mothers, infants, and young children? Why cut $648 million from nuclear nonproliferation activities? (One terrorist nuke, assembled from stray ex-Soviet fissile material, can ruin your whole day.) Why cut $578 million from the I.R.S. enforcement budget? (Letting tax cheats run wild doesn’t exactly serve the cause of deficit reduction.)

Once you understand the imperatives Republicans face, however, it all makes sense. By slashing future-oriented programs, they can deliver the instant spending cuts Tea Partiers demand, without imposing too much immediate pain on voters. And as for the future costs — a population damaged by childhood malnutrition, an increased chance of terrorist attacks, a revenue system undermined by widespread tax evasion — well, tomorrow is another day.

In a better world, politicians would talk to voters as if they were adults. They would explain that discretionary spending has little to do with the long-run imbalance between spending and revenues. They would then explain that solving that long-run problem requires two main things: reining in health-care costs and, realistically, increasing taxes to pay for the programs that Americans really want.

But Republican leaders can’t do that, of course: they refuse to admit that taxes ever need to rise, and they spent much of the last two years screaming “death panels!” in response to even the most modest, sensible efforts to ensure that Medicare dollars are well spent.

And so they had to produce something like Friday’s proposal, a plan that would save remarkably little money but would do a remarkably large amount of harm.

When Democracy Weakens

2011-02-12T21:25:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/opinion/12herbert.html

When Democracy Weakens

By BOB HERBERT

As the throngs celebrated in Cairo, I couldn’t help wondering about what is happening to democracy here in the United States. I think it’s on the ropes. We’re in serious danger of becoming a democracy in name only.

While millions of ordinary Americans are struggling with unemployment and declining standards of living, the levers of real power have been all but completely commandeered by the financial and corporate elite. It doesn’t really matter what ordinary people want. The wealthy call the tune, and the politicians dance.

So what we get in this democracy of ours are astounding and increasingly obscene tax breaks and other windfall benefits for the wealthiest, while the bought-and-paid-for politicians hack away at essential public services and the social safety net, saying we can’t afford them. One state after another is reporting that it cannot pay its bills. Public employees across the country are walking the plank by the tens of thousands. Camden, N.J., a stricken city with a serious crime problem, laid off nearly half of its police force. Medicaid, the program that provides health benefits to the poor, is under savage assault from nearly all quarters.

The poor, who are suffering from an all-out depression, are never heard from. In terms of their clout, they might as well not exist. The Obama forces reportedly want to raise a billion dollars or more for the president’s re-election bid. Politicians in search of that kind of cash won’t be talking much about the wants and needs of the poor. They’ll be genuflecting before the very rich.

In an Op-Ed article in The Times at the end of January, Senator John Kerry said that the Egyptian people “have made clear they will settle for nothing less than greater democracy and more economic opportunities.” Americans are being asked to swallow exactly the opposite. In the mad rush to privatization over the past few decades, democracy itself was put up for sale, and the rich were the only ones who could afford it.

The corporate and financial elites threw astounding sums of money into campaign contributions and high-priced lobbyists and think tanks and media buys and anything else they could think of. They wined and dined powerful leaders of both parties. They flew them on private jets and wooed them with golf outings and lavish vacations and gave them high-paying jobs as lobbyists the moment they left the government. All that money was well spent. The investments paid off big time.

As Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson wrote in their book, “Winner-Take-All Politics”: “Step by step and debate by debate, America’s public officials have rewritten the rules of American politics and the American economy in ways that have benefited the few at the expense of the many.”

As if the corporate stranglehold on American democracy were not tight enough, the Supreme Court strengthened it immeasurably with its Citizens United decision, which greatly enhanced the already overwhelming power of corporate money in politics. Ordinary Americans have no real access to the corridors of power, but you can bet your last Lotto ticket that your elected officials are listening when the corporate money speaks.

When the game is rigged in your favor, you win. So despite the worst economic downturn since the Depression, the big corporations are sitting on mountains of cash, the stock markets are up and all is well among the plutocrats. The endlessly egregious Koch brothers, David and Charles, are worth an estimated $35 billion. Yet they seem to feel as though society has treated them unfairly.

As Jane Mayer pointed out in her celebrated New Yorker article, “The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry — especially environmental regulation.” (A good hard look at their air-pollution record would make you sick.)

It’s a perversion of democracy, indeed, when individuals like the Kochs have so much clout while the many millions of ordinary Americans have so little. What the Kochs want is coming to pass. Extend the tax cuts for the rich? No problem. Cut services to the poor, the sick, the young and the disabled? Check. Can we get you anything else, gentlemen?

The Egyptians want to establish a viable democracy, and that’s a long, hard road. Americans are in the mind-bogglingly self-destructive process of letting a real democracy slip away.

I had lunch with the historian Howard Zinn just a few weeks before he died in January 2010. He was chagrined about the state of affairs in the U.S. but not at all daunted. “If there is going to be change,” he said, “real change, it will have to work its way from the bottom up, from the people themselves.”

I thought of that as I watched the coverage of the ecstatic celebrations in the streets of Cairo.

Senator Kerry on Gridlock and Globalization

2011-01-12T12:13:00.002-05:00

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/if_you_read_only_one_john_kerr.html

Senator Kerry gave this speech to the Center for American Progress on Friday Jan 11, 2011:

Someone might ask why, with our country in mourning, we are here this morning continuing to talk about the business of the country. But the truth is that is what Gabrielle Giffords was doing – talking about the business of the country. And the truth is, talking about the business of our country is more urgent than ever.

John [Podesta] and I considered postponing this speech, which had been planned for some time. But serious times call for serious discussions. And after some reflection, both of us felt that not only should this speech not be postponed, but that, in fact, it was imperative to give it.

So obviously, as we gather here this morning, last weekend’s unspeakable tragedy is at the forefront of all of our minds. Our thoughts are with Congresswoman Giffords and the families of all the victims. We pray for her full recovery, even as a nation mourns the loss of innocent life in such a senseless act.

All of us struggle to understand this horrific event. There is much we still don’t know about what happened and why. But here’s what we do know without any question: on Saturday, a public servant went to meet with her constituents in the best tradition of our democracy, and while out, just doing her job, Congresswoman Giffords was shot down. Today she's fighting for her life, and six people lost their lives in this senseless assault not just on them, but, in its calculated planning for assassination, an assault on our democracy itself.

Eerily, I heard this weekend’s news while in Sudan, representing our country in our collective effort to help a people who have endured unspeakable violence and who are trying to make a fresh start through their democracy. Yet as I stood beside those Africans who have lost loved ones in pursuit of the democratic values we Americans so proudly export to the world, there was an unavoidable clash with the events unfolding in Tucson – a dramatic underscoring of the work that must be done to revitalize our own democracy here at home.

Many observers have already reduced this tragedy to simple questions of whether overheated rhetoric is to blame, or one partisan group or another. And surely today many pundits and politicians are measuring their words a little more carefully and thinking a little more about what they’re saying. But in the weeks and months ahead, the real issue we need to confront isn’t just what role divisive political rhetoric may have played on Saturday – but it’s the violence divisive, overly simplistic dialogue does to our democracy every day.

In the wake of this weekend’s tragedy, Speaker Boehner was right to suspend the House’s usual business; the question now is whether we’re all going to suspend and then end business as usual in the United States Capitol. Because even before this event shook us out of our partisan routine, it should have been clear that on bedrock questions of civility and consensus– discourse and democracy – the whole endeavor of building a politics of national purpose – the big question wasn’t whose rhetoric was right or wrong, but whether our political conversation was worthy of the confidence and trust of the American people.

Millions of Americans know we can do better than we’ve done these last bitter years – because our history has proven it time and again.

When the Soviets sent the first satellite in history into orbit half a century ago, leaders from both parties rose with a sense of common purpose and resolved that never again would the United States fall behind anyone, anywhere. President Kennedy summoned our nation to reach the great and audacious goal "before (the) decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth."

There were no partisan divisions that blocked the way. With daring and unflagging determination we moved immediately to unprecedented levels of investment in science and technology, engineering and R&D – and only twelve years after Sputnik, two Americans humbly took mankind's first steps on the moon.

Back then – just as today - our leaders, Democrat and Republican, had deep disagreements on many issues, but back then, they shared an even deeper commitment to stand together for the strength and success of our country. For them, at that turning point, politics stopped not just at the ocean’s edge, but at the edge of the atmosphere. For them, American Exceptionalism wasn’t just a slogan; they knew that America is exceptional not because we say we are, but because we do exceptional things.

As I first said last month, we as a people face another Sputnik moment today. And the great question is whether we will meet this moment as Americans did so boldly five decades ago. The decisions we make – or fail to make – in this decade on new energy sources, on education, infrastructure, technology, and research , all of which are going to produce the jobs of the future, and our decisions on deficits and entitlements will without doubt determine whether the United States will continue to lead the world – or be left to follow in the wake of others, on the way to decline, less prosperous in our own land and less secure in the world.

Some will question how in the world this could be possible – America less prosperous? America on the decline? They forget that exceptionalism for America has never been an automatic fact – a birthright on autopilot – but an inheritance of opportunity to be renewed and revitalized by each generation.

So, let me share some facts with you. Right now, other developed and developing countries are making far-reaching choices to reshape their economies and move forward in a new and very different global era. But instead of us responding as Americans have in the past, the frustrating reality is that our American political system is increasingly paralyzed and Balkanized into a patchwork of narrow interests that have driven the larger “national good” far from the national dialogue altogether. Increasingly, overheated ideology and partisan infighting leave us less able to address or even comprehend the decisive nature and scale of the challenges that will decide our whole future.

The fact is – our strength at home determines our strength in the world. And other countries are constantly taking our measure, sizing us up, watching our politics, measuring our gridlock.

On issue after issue, enduring consensus has been frayed or shredded by lust for power cloaked in partisan games. Health care’s individual mandate? Guess what -- it started as a Republican idea-- a pro-business idea-- because rising insurance costs leave big holes in profits. Cap and trade? Guess again -- another Republican idea based on market principles and, with bipartisanship, successfully implemented by President George Herbert Walker Bush, now denounced as ideological heresy. And energy independence? For forty years, every President since Richard Nixon has recognized that foreign oil imports are America’s Achilles heel. But whenever we’ve had a chance to act, we’ve been blocked by entrenched influence and the siren call of short-term interest instead of achieving long-term success.

Even as we were clawing our way to the ratification of START Treaty last month, I noted that far more ambitious treaties had previously been ratified by votes of 90 or 95 to zero. I joked that in this Senate, in this hyper-partisan Washington, 67 might be the new 95. I’m proud that in the end we sent a signal to the world that in American foreign policy, however uphill the slog and improbable the victory, partisan politics can still stop at the water’s edge. But the fact remains that it was closer than it ever should have been.

All of this underscores the current danger to our country in ways that go far beyond that single debate and highlight a host of other issues that demand and deserve common resolve, not constant suspicion and division. If treaties ratified almost unanimously yesterday get just 71 votes today, what’s the forecast for other decisive endeavors that once would have commanded 79 votes in the Senate? We can’t afford for the old 79 to become the new 49, dooming our national will to unbreakable gridlock. Because in the 21st century where choices and consequences come at us so much faster than ever before, the price of Senate inaction isn’t just that we will stand still; it isn't just that America will fall behind; it's that we will stay behind as we cede the best possibilities of this young century to others who are more disciplined.

Just think about an issue as simple and fundamental as building and investing in America – an issue that was once so clearly bi-partisan. The Republican Mayor of New York City Fiorello LaGuardia famously said: “There’s no Republican or Democratic way to clean the streets.” Well, for decades there was no Democratic or Republican way to build roads and bridges and airports. The building of America was every American’s job. This wasn’t narrow pork; it was a national priority. But today, we’re still living off and wearing out the infrastructure put in place by Republicans and Democrats together, starting with President Eisenhower’s interstate highway system. We didn’t build it; our parents and grandparents did. Now partisan paralysis has kept us from renewing that inheritance even as it decays from neglect. And the question is – what are we building for our children and our future generations?

Reliable, modern infrastructure isn’t a luxury. It’s the lifeblood of our economy-- the key to connecting our markets, moving products and people, generating and sustaining millions of jobs for American workers, to not wasting hundreds of thousands of hours and millions of gallons of gas on clogged highways.

In the face of global competition, our growth and exports are directly tied to the modernity of our infrastructure. As we invest too little and our competitors invest more and more, the harder and harder it will be to catch up – and the more and more attractive those countries will be for future investments.

In 2009 China spent an estimated $350 billion on infrastructure-- 9 percent of its GDP. Europe’s infrastructure bank financed $350 billion in projects across the continent from 2005 to 2009, modernizing seaports, expanding airports and high-speed rail lines, and reconfiguring city centers. Brazil invested over $240 billion in infrastructure in the past three years alone, with an additional $340 billion planned over the next three years.

And what about us? Well, we know that Americans have always been builders. We built a transcontinental railroad. We built an interstate highway system. We built the rockets that let us explore the farthest edge of the solar system and beyond. But as a result of our political gridlock and attention to the short-term, that’s not what we’re doing today.

For too long we’ve underbuilt and underinvested, and too much of what we have done has been uninformed by any long-term strategic plan. In 2008, it was estimated that we had to make an annual investment of $250 billion for the next 50 years to legitimately meet our transportation needs. Right now, we aren’t even close to that. Right now, we are as many miles away from it as we ought to be building to get there.

Other countries are doing what we ought to do. They’re racing ahead because they created infrastructure banks to build a new future ; but we’ve yet to build a new consensus for our own national infrastructure bank to make Americans the world’s builders again-- and to keep our country the leader in the new world economy.

Imagine the possibilities that would come from this endeavor - financing projects from high-speed rail to air and sea ports, all with the expectation of being repaid, lending directly to economically viable initiatives of both national and regional significance, without political influence, run in an open and transparent manner by experienced professionals with meaningful Congressional oversight. That is an indispensable strategy for prosperity and a legitimate vision that Americans could embrace. And if we offer America the leadership it deserves, it ought to be an undoubted opportunity and necessity for bi-partisanship.

It’s not just infrastructure where we must rebuild our sense of great national purpose: virtually every measure shows that we’re falling behind. Today the United States is ranked 10th in global competitiveness among the G20 countries. America is now 12th worldwide in the percentage of 25-to-34-year-olds with a college degree, trailing, among others, Russia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Israel. This year investors have pulled $74 billion out of domestic stock funds and put $42 billion into foreign stock funds. High-profile multinational companies including Applied Materials and IBM are already opening major R&D centers in China. And as we look to the Googles of the future, it is increasingly possible that they will be founded by students from Tianjin University, rather than MIT or Stanford.

We need to face up these new challenges-- not just as individuals or separate interests, but as a nation with a national purpose. The world of the next generation will change too rapidly for political parties to focus too narrowly on the next election. And the 21st Century can be another American century-- but only if we restore a larger sense of responsibility and replace the clattering cacophony of the perpetual campaign with a wider discussion of what is best for our country.

For the last months we’ve watched the news and read the campaign literature and heard a lot the soundbites. We've heard politicians say they won't become a part of Washington. That say they're for small government, lower taxes, and more freedom. But what do they really mean?

Do they want a government too limited to have invented the Internet, now a vital part of our commerce and communications? A government too small to give America’s auto industry and all its workers a second chance to fight for their survival? Taxes too low to invest in the research that creates jobs and industries and fills the Treasury with the revenue that educates our children, cures disease, and defends our country? We have to get past slogans and soundbites, reason together, and talk in real terms about how America can do its best.

If we are going to balance the budget and create jobs, we can’t pretend that we can do it by just eliminating earmarks and government waste. We have to look at the plain facts of how we did it before, and by the way, you don't have to look far. In the early 1990's, our economy was faltering because deficits and debt were freezing capital. We had to send a signal to the market that we were capable of being fiscally responsible. We did just that and as result we saw the longest economic expansion in history, created over 22 million jobs, and generated unprecedented wealth in America, with every income bracket rising. But we did it by making tough choices. The Clinton economic plan committed the country to a path of discipline that helped unleash the productive potential of the American people. We invested in the workforce, in research, in development. We helped new industries. Then, working with Republicans, we came up with a budget framework that put our nation on track to be debt free by 2012 for the first time since Andrew Jackson's administration.

How we got off track is a story that doesn’t require retelling. But the truth of how we generated the 1990’s economic boom does need to be told. We didn’t just cut our way to a balanced budget; we grew our way there.

And nothing played a more important role than the fact that we developed a one trillion dollar technology market with one billion users. Today we’re staring another economic opportunity of extraordinary proportions right in the face – and so far we’re doing precious little about it. The current energy economy is a $6 trillion market with 4 billion users (and the possibility of growing to 9 billion in the next 30 years) – and the fastest growing segment of that is green energy – projected at $2.3 trillion in 2020. Yet, as of today, without different policy decisions by us, most of this investment will be in Asia, and not the United States. Two years ago, China accounted for just 5 percent of the world’s solar panel production. Now it boasts the world’s largest solar panel manufacturing industry, exporting about 95 percent of its production to countries including the United States. We invented the technology but China is reaping the rewards.

China's government is poised to outspend the U.S. 3 to 1 on public clean-energy projects over the next several years. They have installed 36 percent of the global market share in wind energy in 2009 and surpassed the United States as the fastest growing market. Deutsche Bank's Kevin Parker, who manages $7 billion in climate change-related investments, calls the US “asleep at the wheel on climate change...[and] on the industrial revolution taking place in the energy industry." Because of political uncertainty and inaction in this country, he’s now focusing Deutsche Bank’s “green” investment dollars more and more on opportunities in China and Western Europe, where governments provide a more positive environment. Today only $45 million of the $7 billion green investments fund that Deutsche Bank manages is from the United States. Simply put, because we are asleep, the investments are going elsewhere.

Now is the moment for America to reach for the brass energy ring – to go for the moon here on earth by building our new energy future-- and, in doing so, create millions of steady, higher paying jobs at every level of the economy. Make no mistake - jobs that produce energy in America are jobs that stay in America. The amount of work to be done here is just stunning. It is the work of many lifetimes. And it must begin now. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue; but instead of coming together to meet the defining test of a new energy economy and our future, we’re now leaving a political season in which too many candidates promised not to work with the other party. And this in the wake of a Senate session that started for Republicans with a power point presentation pronouncing - and I quote - "the purpose of the majority is to pass their agenda, the purpose of the minority is to become the majority."

It’s no secret that I’m a convinced Democrat. And I know it’s better to be in the majority than in the minority. And I don't want anyone to come to the Senate, check their beliefs at the door, and "go Washington." Neither did the Founding Fathers. And certainly no one's elected to the Senate promising to join an exclusive club-- or to forget where they came from. But the truth is some of the most fiercely independent, plain-talking, direct, and determined partisans I've ever known in the Senate have also been the ones who tackled the toughest issues, finding common ground with people they disagreed with on damn near everything else.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a New York liberal. Alan Simpson was a Wyoming conservative. But they could sit down and talk and debate and disagree about deficits, debts, and entitlements and somehow someway they could shape a way forward. And they did it in a way that enlisted liberals like Bill Bradley, moderates like Jack Heinz, and conservatives like John Danforth because they knew that certain issues were just too important to be lost in partisan squabbling.

And you couldn't find three more proudly partisan and ideologically distinct politicians than Ronald Reagan, Tip O’Neill, and Bob Dole. But they found a way to put politics aside and save Social Security for a generation rather than saving it for misuse as a cudgel in the next campaign. They didn't capitulate - they compromised. And, speaking of backroom deals, they agreed NOT to let either party demagogue the issue against the incumbents who cast the tough votes to pass the bill. Now, if you’ve got to have a backroom deal, that’s the kind to have.

Folks, you won't find a Republican today who would dare criticize Ronald Reagan. Last week, when the candidates for chairman of the Republican National Committee had their debate, Grover Norquist asked each of them to name their favorite Republican other than Ronald Reagan. He said he had to add that caveat so everyone didn't give the same answer. But we'd all be better off if some of these Republicans remembered that Ronald Reagan worked across the aisle to solve big problems. And we'd all be better off if Grover Norquist thought of THAT Ronald Reagan before he announced that "bipartisanship is just another word for date rape."

That's the difference today. Ideology isn't new to the American political arena and ideology isn't unhealthy. The biggest breakthroughs in American politics have been brokered not by a mushy middle or by splitting the difference but by people who had a pretty healthy sense of ideology. Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch were a powerful team precisely because they didn't agree on that much and they spent a lot of time fighting each other --and so the Senate leaned in and listened on those occasions when somehow this ultimate odd couple found things they were willing to fight for together.

Sometimes, as John Kennedy once said, “party asks too much.” Sometimes, party leaders also ask too much, especially if they exploit the rules of the United States Senate for the sole purpose of denying a President a second term. But that is what we have witnessed the last two years; Republicans nearly unanimous in opposition to almost every proposal by the President and almost every proposal by Democratic colleagues. The extraordinary measure of a filibuster has become an ordinary expedient. Today it’s possible for 41 Senators representing only about one tenth of the American population to bring the Senate to a standstill.

Certainly, I believe the filibuster has its rightful place. I used it to stop drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge because I believed that was in our national interest --and 60 or more Senators should be required to speak up on such an irrevocable decision. But we have reached the point where the filibuster is being invoked by the minority not necessarily because of a difference over policy, but as a political tool to undermine the Presidency.

Consider this: in the entire 19th century, including the struggle against slavery, fewer than two dozen filibusters were mounted. Between 1933 and the coming of World War II, it was attempted only twice. During the Eisenhower administration, twice. During John Kennedy’s presidency, four times-- and then eight during Lyndon Johnson’s push for civil rights and voting rights bills. By the time Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan occupied the White House, there were about 20 filibusters a year.

But in the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, there were a record 112 cloture votes. And in the 111th Congress, there were 136, one of which even delayed a vote to authorize funding for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps during a time of war. That’s not how the Founders intended the Senate to work-- and that's not how our country can afford the Senate not to work.

Chris Dodd said it best in his farewell address just a few weeks ago – a speech the Republican Leader called one of the most important in the history of the chamber. Chris sounded a warning: “What will determine whether this institution works or not, what has always determined whether we will fulfill the Framers’ highest hopes or justify the cynics’ worst fears, is not the Senate rules, the calendar, or the media. It is whether each of the one hundred Senators can work together.”

That was a speech that needed to be heard. But the question now isn’t whether it was heard; it’s whether we really listened to it. Because when it comes to the economy, our country really does need 100 Senators who face the facts and find a way to work not just on their side, but side by side.

No one runs for the Senate arguing that the United States should have one fifth of its foreign debt held by China. No winning candidate has ever suggested that the United States should trail Poland in education. Or that Germany should invent the next Google or develop the cutting edge new clean energy industries. No one has ever gone into a debate pledging that Indian workers should hold the jobs of the future not American workers.

There’s a bi-partisan consensus just waiting to lift our country and our future if Senators are willing to sit down and forge it and make it real. If we're willing to stop talking past each other, to stop substituting soundbites for substance. If we're willing finally to pull ourselves out of an ideological cement of our own mixing.

We will no doubt continue to be frustrated and angry from time to time, but I believe that more often than not, we can rise to the common ground of great national purpose. Surely we can agree and act to realize the goal set by the President who called his fellow citizens to meet that earlier Sputnik moment -- an America " that is not first if, not first but, but first period."

So, in this time of crisis and mourning, in this time of challenge and opportunity, we need to commit to reaching across the aisle, as colleagues did before us, to unite to do the exceptional things that will keep America exceptional for generations to come.

Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information

2010-12-17T19:55:00.001-05:00

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=

Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information

December 9, 2010

Poll Also Finds Voters Were Misinformed on Key Issues

Full report(PDF)
Questionnaire with Findings, Methodology (PDF)

Following the first election since the Supreme Court has struck down limits on election-related advertising, a new poll finds that 9 in 10 voters said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently. Fifty-four percent said that it had been more frequent than usual, while just three percent said it was less frequent than usual, according to the poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, based at the University of Maryland, and Knowledge Networks.

(Image Credit)

Equally significant, the poll found strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign. Such misinformation was correlated with how people voted and their exposure to various news sources.

Voters' misinformation included beliefs at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.

• Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the stimulus legislation has saved or created 2.0-5.2 million jobs, only 8% of voters thought most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs. Most (68%) believed that economists estimate that it only created or saved a few jobs and 20% even believed that it resulted in job losses.
• Though the CBO concluded that the health reform law would reduce the budget deficit, 53% of voters thought most economists have concluded that health reform will increase the deficit.
• Though the Department of Commerce says that the US economy began to recover from recession in the third quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then, only 44% of voters thought the economy is starting to recover, while 55% thought the economy is still getting worse.
• Though the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that climate change is occurring, 45% of voters thought most scientists think climate change is not occurring (12%) or that scientists are evenly divided (33%).

Other key points of misinformation among voters were:

• 40% of voters believed incorrectly that the TARP legislation was initiated under Barack Obama, rather than George Bush
• 31% believed it was proven true that the US Chamber of Commerce spent large amounts of money it had raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates
• 54% believed that there were no tax cuts in the stimulus legislation
• 86% assumed their taxes had gone up (38%) or stayed the same (48%), while only 10% were aware that their taxes had gone down since 2009
• 53% thought that the bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred only under Obama, though it was initiated under Bush

Clay Ramsay, of WorldPublicOpinion.org commented, "While we do not have data to make a clear comparison to the past, this high level of misinformation and the fact that voters perceived a higher than usual level of false and misleading information, suggests that the increased flow of money into political advertising may have contributed to a higher level of misinformation."

The poll also found significant differences depending how people voted. Those who voted Republican were more likely than those who voted Democratic to believe that: most economists have concluded that the health care law will increase the deficit (voted Republican 73%, voted Democratic 31%); the American economy is still getting worse (72% to 36%); the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (67% to 42%); most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (62% to 26%); and it is not clear that Obama was born within the United States (64% to 18%)

On the other hand those who voted Democratic were more likely to incorrectly believe that: it was proven to be true that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending large amounts of foreign money to support Republican candidates (voted Democratic 57%, voted Republican 9%); Obama has not increased the level of troops in Afghanistan (51% to 39%); and Democratic legislators did not mostly vote in favor of TARP (56% to 14%).

In most cases those who had greater levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation. There were, however, a number of cases where greater exposure to a particular news source increased misinformation on some issues.

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

There were cases with some other news sources as well. Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates. Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP.

The poll of 848 Americans was fielded from November 6 to 15, 2010. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percent. It was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel^®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel^®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html.

WorldPublicOpinion.org is a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland and funded by the Calvert Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

FDR on Senator Scott Brown

2010-12-02T18:50:00.001-05:00

Here and now I want to make myself clear about those who disparage their fellow citizens on the relief rolls. They say that those on relief are not merely jobless—that they are worthless. Their solution for the relief problem is to end relief—to purge the rolls by starvation. To use the language of the stock broker, our needy unemployed would be cared for when, as, and if some fairy godmother should happen on the scene.

You and I will continue to refuse to accept that estimate of our unemployed fellow Americans. Your Government is still on the same side of the street with the Good Samaritan and not with those who pass by on the other side.

FDR, "We Have Only Just Begun to Fight." October 31, 1936

Senator Scott Brown Channels Scrooge

2010-12-02T18:44:00.003-05:00

From The New York Daily News:

GOP Senator Scott Brown channels Scrooge: blocks unemployment benefits, then throws swanky party

"Maybe Brown imagined that everybody had forgotten that in early summer he was a decisive vote three times in blocking a benefits extension. He was also a decisive vote around the same time in blocking a $19 billion tax on the financial industry.

Bigshot bankers before hard-luck kids!

As he yet again voted to block a $54 billion extension on Tuesday, he remained passionate in his support for extending $700 billion tax breaks for the wealthy."

Don't Count on it, Warren

2010-11-22T10:10:00.002-05:00

Excerpted from Christiane Amanpour's interview with Warren Buffet, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, 'Just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.' But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on," Buffett explained.

Government Intervention in the Economy Works!

2010-11-19T19:15:00.003-05:00

A significant portion of the right-wing attack on Democrats is that we support an activist role for government. Remember how our erstwhile critics slammed us for supporting the GM bailout?

Follow the link and listen to Austan Goolsbee, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, as he discusses GM's rising fortunes. Hmmm...hear this on Fox?

The Rebirth of the American Auto Industry

All You Need to Know About Everything

2010-11-12T14:00:00.003-05:00

The above chart from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office tells us a couple of things:

1. Social security ain't a problem.

2. Obama's co-chairs's (Bowles and Simpson) recommendations for deficit reduction are silly.

3. As a country, we have to address health care costs.

No...It's Not Too Early to Start Shaping the Debate

2010-11-10T12:55:00.003-05:00

From Politico:

Midterm elections offer grim omens for Scott Brown’s future

Give Pelosi Some Love

2010-11-05T11:02:00.002-04:00

Follow the link below to sign a Daily Kos petition in support of Nancy Pelosi keeping her leadership position among House Democrats.

Pelosi Petition

GOP: Goal is Denying Obama Re-Election

2010-11-04T17:48:00.002-04:00

Onward

2010-11-03T11:38:00.012-04:00

Hey, you win a few, you lose a few....and we won this one!

Thanks to all the volunteers who made it happen in Newburyport and our sister communities of Amesbury, Newbury, Salisbury, and West Newbury!

We had over 150 volunteers in total, great participation from Newburyport High School students, and incredible cooperation between the Democratic candidates. On Election Day, all polls were covered by volunteer poll checkers and precinct captains, signs were held, doors were knocked, and over 4,000 calls were made to Get Out The Vote.

Here are some photos from our journey together over the last months....

Deval Patrick

Three Corners

Friends of Mo

Governor Deval Patrick

Congressman John Tierney

State Senator Steve Baddour

State Representative Mike Costello

Photos by Ed Cameron and Ken Dear

Why I am Voting for Governor Patrick

2010-10-28T10:52:00.001-04:00

Posted at http://bluemassgroup.com/diary/21325/why-i-am-voting-for-governor-patrick

Why I am Voting for Governor Patrick
by: lkirwan
Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 16:02:51 PM EDT
(The voice of reason speaks. Leslie Kirwan was Governor Patrick's Secretary of Administration of Finance until last year. - Bob

It's also worth noting that Leslie Kirwan worked very closely with Charlie Baker in the Weld and Cellucci administrations. She knows both candidates well. - promoted by David)

Dear Friends,

For three years I had the privilege of working with Governor Deval Patrick as his cabinet Secretary for Administration and Finance. On November 2, I will be proud to vote for Governor Patrick to help assure that he has the chance to continue the important work he has started. I am writing to tell you why I admire and respect the Governor so much, and to ask that you give him your vote on Election Day, November 2.

Governor Patrick has been challenged by the worst recession in generations, and it has required him to find budget solutions of approximately $13 billion during his four years in office. For a governor deeply committed to making state government work for individuals, families, businesses and communities, balancing the budget was not a responsibility Governor Patrick relished. Nonetheless, he took it very seriously, and personally made sure that even as he was forced to find budget solutions, he did it in ways that reflected his values and priorities. Education is Governor Patrick's top priority -- one stemming from his own personal story -- and under his leadership Chapter 70 education aid has reached its highest level ever. He preserved health and human services spending as much as possible to make sure the Commonwealth's most vulnerable citizens were protected when they needed help the most. He has made targeted investments in green jobs and other environmental initiatives, and in the life sciences and other industries where Massachusetts is most competitive. These investments have helped Massachusetts lead the nation in recovering from the recession.

Some governors let their staff do the heavy lifting on budget development. Not Governor Patrick. Time and again, I watched as he personally put his own stamp on the choices he made, taking each budget document home with him and working long into the night, making adjustments in his own handwriting to ensure the final product reflected his values. He took it personally every time he had to make a cut that hurt a program or a person.

Governor Patrick's opponents would like to paint him as a big spender. It's not true. Governor Patrick's four budgets have averaged spending increases of 1.7% year over year. In contrast, Mitt Romney's budgets increased by 6.6% on average, and when Charlie Baker was in charge of the budget, annual increases averaged over 5%. And in spite of the recession, Governor Patrick's management of the state has earned reaffirmations of the outstanding double-A rating from the three bond rating agencies again and again at a time when many states have been downgraded. Contributing to their favorable ratings have been the many reforms led by Governor Patrick: ethics and lobbying reform, curbing pension abuses, abolishing the Turnpike Authority and reorganizing the transportation agencies, education reform, auto insurance reform, allowing civilian flaggers to work on some road and bridge construction projects, and successfully implementing Massachusetts Health Care Reform. Other governors only talked about these reforms; Governor Patrick got them done, and is continuing to work on every single one.

This is going to be a very close election, and every vote matters. That is why it is very important for every voter who supports the Governor to take the time to go to the polls on Election Day, November 2. I hope that you will be sure to vote, and that you will join me in supporting Governor Deval Patrick and Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray.

Sincerely,

Leslie Kirwan
Arlington

Those Tea Partiers Sure Are Regular Folk

2010-10-27T11:07:00.004-04:00

That's Politics and POLO!

Bill Hudak, Republican candidate for U.S. Congress 6th District, speaks with Jen Quinn and Michael DePaulo during the Hamilton Republican Town Committee Politics and Polo event.

Here's the full article

From the Real Socialist: Bernie

2010-10-26T21:20:00.001-04:00

Taxes at Lowest Level Since 1950

October 26, 2010

During the past two years, Congress passed a total of $509 billion in tax cuts for American families and small businesses. The tax burden on Americans is now at its lowest level in 60 years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The most significant single change was a decrease in income taxes by up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for married couples. Who knew? In a recent New York Times/CBS News Poll, fewer than one in 10 respondents knew that taxes were lowered for most Americans. A third even thought that their taxes had gone up. "We did a magnificent job of selling this tax break," Sanders deadpanned at an event last weekend in Hardwick, Vt., where he mentioned the poll.

The following list identifies the major tax cuts enacted during the past two years.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5; JCX-19-09)

Tax relief for individuals and families (e.g., Making Work Pay Credit, American Opportunity Tax Credit, first-time homebuyer credit, and AMT relief)	$232,426 million
Clean energy incentives	$19,963 million
Tax cuts for businesses	$6,150 million
Manufacturing recovery provisions	$1,850 million
Economic recovery tools (e.g., recovery zone bonds, new markets tax credit)	$6,501 million
Infrastructure financing tools (e.g., school construction bonds, Build America Bonds)	$19,638 million
Low-income housing and energy property provisions	$74 million
$250 refundable tax credit for federal and state pensioners not eligible for Social Security	$218 million
Health Coverage Tax Credit provisions	$457 million
Low-income housing tax credit provisions	$143 million
Assistance for COBRA health coverage premiums	$24,677 million
TOTAL (over 2009-2019)	$312,097 million

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148; JCX-17-10 and CBO, Table 2)

Tax credit to help small businesses afford health coverage	$37,000 million
Tax credit to help individuals afford health coverage (Exchange Premium Credits)	$106,000 million
Therapeutic Discovery Tax Credit (for small businesses to produce innovative medical therapies)	$900 million
Adoption tax credit	$1,200 million
Health professional state loan repayment tax relief	$100 million
TOTAL (over 2010-2019)	$145,200 million

Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-92; JCX-45-09)

First-time homebuyer tax credit provisions	$10,823 million
Business tax cut (increase carryback period for net operating losses)	$10,407 million
Military BRAC fringe provisions	$243 million
TOTAL (over 2010-2019)	$21,473 million

Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (P.L. 111-147; JCX-6-10)

Payroll tax forgiveness for hiring unemployed workers	$7,616 million
Business tax credit for retaining newly hired workers	$5,422 million
Business tax cut (increase in expensing of certain depreciable assets)	$35 million
Qualified Tax Credit Bonds provisions	$4,561 million
TOTAL (over 2010-2020)	$17,634 million

Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-240; JCX-48-10)

Small business tax cut (modification to exclusion for gain from certain small business stock)	$518 million
Small business tax cut (5 year carryback of general business credit of eligible small business)	$107 million
Small business tax cut (general business credits of eligible small business not subject to AMT)	$977 million
Small business tax cut (reduction in recognition period for built-in gains tax)	$70 million
Small business tax cut (enhancements to section 179 property provisions)	$2,177 million
One-year extension of bonus depreciation	$5,454 million
Increase deduction for start-up business expenditures	$230 million
Limitation on penalty for failure to disclose reportable transactions based on resulting tax benefits	$176 million
Deduction for health insurance costs in computing self-employment taxes	$1,919 million
Cell phones and telecommunications equipment provisions	$410 million
TOTAL (over 2011-2020)	$12,038 million

Homebuyer Assistance and Improvement Act (P.L. 111-198; JCX-34-10)

Extend eligibility for the first-time homebuyer credit	$140 million
TOTAL (over 2010-2020)	$140 million

Charitable Donations for Haiti Earthquake Relief (P.L. 111-126; CBO)

Tax benefit for charitable cash contributions toward Haiti earthquake relief	$2 million
TOTAL (over 2010-2020)	$2 million

Whose Fault is the Deficit?

2010-10-22T11:12:00.002-04:00

The following link provides a very nice summary of the country's current budget deficit troubles. Send it to your tea party friends.

youtubelink

In Your Guts, You Know He's Nuts

2010-10-15T16:57:00.003-04:00

In 1964 Barry Goldwater ran for President with strong support from John Birch Society members and similar right-wing wackos. His campaign slogan was: "in your heart, you know he's right." Democrats responded with "In your guts, you know he's nuts." You know how that election worked out.

In 2010 it seems like Republicans have once again become the party of far right extremists. To read an excellent article entitled "Confounding Fathers" in the current issue of the New Yorker click here. It traces tea party roots to the John Birch Society.

For some reason I kept thinking about this during last night's Tierney-Hudak debate.

Sounds Right to Me

2010-10-12T19:20:00.000-04:00

"EA Sports released a new version of the video game 'NBA Jam' that features Obama, Biden, Bush, and Cheney. Bush and Cheney play the first half, then Obama and Biden try to come back from a 6 billion point deficit."

-Jimmy Fallon

Tea Party Hates Wall Street

2010-10-06T09:47:00.002-04:00

Crony Capitalism: Wall Street's Favorite Politicians

Link

By Zach Carter

September 28, 2010 - 5:02pm ET

A full 90 members of Congress who voted to bailout Wall Street in 2008 failed to support financial reform reining in the banks that drove our economy off a cliff. But when you examine campaign contribution data, it's really no surprise that these particular lawmakers voted to mortgage our economic future to Big Finance: This election cycle, they've raked in over $48.8 million from the financial establishment. Over the course of their Congressional careers, the figure swells to a massive $176.9 million.

The complete list of these Crony Capitalists is below, along with the money they pulled in from Big Finance, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org). The career data goes back to 1989. Of the 69 House members who voted with Wall Street on both the bailout and financial reform, 60 are Republicans, while nine are Democrats. All 21 Senators who voted with Wall Street on both issues are Republicans, and Republicans raked in over 90 percent of the total campaign contributions.

And here are all of the Cronies, along with their Wall Street hauls:

Senator	2010 Wall Street Cash	Career Wall Street Cash
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)	$1,600,000	$4,900,000
Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT)	$1,500,000	$2,600,000
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)	$333,600	$3,300,000
Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)	$1,500,000	$3,300,000
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)	$2,500,000	$3,500,000
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)	$451,700	$1,200,000
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)	$3,100,000	$3,300,000
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)	$3,200,000	$4,700,000
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)	$1,300,000	$2,600,000
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)	$1,100,000	$2,000,000
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)	$233,200	$1,100,000
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)	$1,400,000	$2,600,000
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)	$1,400,000	$4,700,000
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)	$1,500,000	$4,200,000
Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ)	$2,800,000	$3,800,000
Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN)	$412,200	$2,500,000
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)	$947,600	$34,000,000
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)	$4,300,000	$5,300,000
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)	$268,200	$909,700
Sen. John Thune (R-SD)	$1,600,000	$3,900,000
Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH)	$435,200	$2,800,000
21 Republicans
0 Democrats
Senate Total	$31,881,700	97,209,700

House Member	2010 Wall Street Cash	Career Wall Street Cash
Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La.	$106,500	$422,300
Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala.	$611,600	$4,400,000
Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C.	$20,400	$806,700
Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark.	$24,900	$663,700
Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill.	$395,000	$1,900,000
Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.	$1,200,000	$3,800,000
Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio	$1,300,000	$3,700,000
Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Ala.	$90,400	$702,200
Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif.	$190,000	$733,400
Rep. John Boozman, R-Ark.	$257,700	$491,000
Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla.	$123,100	$722,200
Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va.	$92,700	$1,400,000
Rep. Charles Boustany Jr, R-La.	$226,300	$934,600
Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas	$157,000	$840,500
Rep. Henry Brown, R-S.C.	$35,700	$494,000
Rep. Vernon Buchanan, R-Fla.	$336,800	$1,400,000
Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif.	$180,300	$940,300
Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich.	$588,000	$1,700,000
Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif.	$413,400	$1,200,000
Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va.	$2,100,000	$4,400,000
Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del.	$749,100	$3,200,000
Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C.	$23,400	$502,500
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.	$110,000	$686,000
Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas	$161,500	$711,800
Rep. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla.	$86,100	$717,000
Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas	$90,600	$606,900
Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa.	$177,900	$881,000
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas	$324,200	$1,900,000
Rep.Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich.	$8,500	$292,200
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo.	$143,900	$904,400
Rep. Mary Fallin, R-Okla	($1,000)	$340,700
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J.	$86,200	$840,300
Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa.	$251,600	$1,800,000
Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas	$140,000	$1,100,000
Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.	$171,500	$1,100,000
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.	($1,000)	$300,600
Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C.	0	$572,800
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.	$173,900	$1,600,000
Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.	$1,900,000	$4,200,000
Rep. John Kline, R-Minn	$170,900	$989,100
Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.	$31,800	$748,000
Rep. Daniel E. Lungren, R-Calif.	$147,700	$622,500
Rep. Howard McKeon, R-Calif.	$132,100	$1,100,000
Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif.	$144,500	$902,000
Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz.	$130,900	$558,000
Rep. Sue Myrick, R-S.C.	$93,600	$1,200,000
Rep. Soloman Ortiz, D-Texas	$40,200	$381,700
Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif.	$24,900	$462,000
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala.	$128,200	$1,000,000
Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky.	$50,200	$468,000
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.	$127,000	$986,000
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.	$531,500	$1,900,000
Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio	$121,900	$519,700
Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz.	$39,700	$1,200,000
Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa.	$30,700	$403,600
Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Ind.	$20,500	$266,900
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo.	$112,500	$524,200
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas	$258,900	$1,300,000
Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind.	$40,500	$405,800
Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio	$169,300	$476,300
Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla.	$79,200	$494,800
Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb.	$202,600	$1,400,000
Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas	$42,500	$603,400
Rep. Patrick Tiberi, R-Ohio	$555,500	$2,800,000
Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich.	$81,700	$929,400
Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore.	$180,700	$732,400
Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.	0	$715,700
Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.	$155,500	$580,200
Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va.	$90,400	$1,100,000
60 Republicans	$15,873,400	$72,443,800
9 Democrats	$1,108,400	$7,233,000
House Total	$16,981,800	$79,676,800

No, It Is Not

2010-09-29T10:59:00.003-04:00

Paul Krugman posted this on his blog site yesterday. It is a spectacularly clear statement on Keynesian policies.

Economics Is not a Morality Play

Brad DeLong catches someone wondering if I am actually advocating war as a solution to our problems. Against stupidity, the gods themselves …

To be fair, though, I understand from the Times that whenever I mention in my column that WWII ended the Great Depression, the paper gets a lot of mail accusing me of being a warmonger. Amazing.

But maybe this is an opportunity to reiterate a point I try to make now and then: economics is not a morality play. It’s not a happy story in which virtue is rewarded and vice punished. The market economy is a system for organizing activity — a pretty good system most of the time, though not always — with no special moral significance. The rich don’t necessarily deserve their wealth, and the poor certainly don’t deserve their poverty; nonetheless, we accept a system with considerable inequality because systems without any inequality don’t work. And before the trolls jump in to say aha, Krugman concedes the truth of supply-side economics, that’s not an argument against progressive taxation and the welfare state; it’s just an argument that says that there are limits. Cuba doesn’t work; Sweden works pretty well.

And when we’re experiencing depression economics, by which I mean a situation in which it’s hard to create sufficient demand to achieve full employment — mainly because short-term interest rates are up against the zero lower bound — the essentially amoral nature of economics becomes even more acute. As I’ve said repeatedly, this is a situation in which virtue becomes vice and prudence is folly; what we need above all is for someone to spend more, even if the spending isn’t particularly wise.

The trouble in practice is that conventional modes of thought tend to prevail even when they shouldn’t; in particular, public spending on the scale needed never seems to happen. That’s why Keynes facetiously proposed burying bottles full of cash in coal mines, so people could dig them up again: since any proposal to spend money on things we need got shot down on grounds of prudence and efficiency, he proposed completely pointless spending instead.

And what actually ended up doing the trick was spending that was beyond pointless, it was actually destructive – a sort of cruel joke on the part of the gods of economics.

The point is that it would have been much better if the Depression had been ended with massive spending on useful things, on roads and railroads and schools and parks. But the political consensus for spending on a sufficient scale never materialized; we needed Hitler and Hirohito instead.

The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer

2010-09-28T19:07:00.002-04:00

Data from the latest Census:

WASHINGTON — The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its widest amount on record as young adults and children in particular struggled to stay afloat in the recession.

The top-earning 20 percent of Americans — those making more than $100,000 each year — received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent earned by those below the poverty line, according to newly released census figures. That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968.

full AP article here

Republicans Will Cut Social Security

2010-09-26T17:19:00.003-04:00

Republican Representative Eric Ryan (the likely chair of the House Budget Committee if Republicans take the House) on his proposal for Social Security:

"The Ryan plan would cut traditional guaranteed Social Security retirement benefits substantially compared to the benefits now scheduled to be paid. Much of the reduction would stem from the adoption of what is called "progressive price indexing," which would reduce the benefits of future retirees except for the bottom 30 percent of wage earners. For the average new retiree, defined benefits would be reduced by about 16 percent in 2050 and about 28 percent in 2080. Reductions would be greater for retirees with higher earnings."

Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R) and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R)

from the Orange Devil

Americans Have the Right Values - They're Just Not Very Well Informed

2010-09-26T09:03:00.007-04:00

"Recent analyses have shown that income inequality in the US has grown steadily for the past three decades and reached its highest level on record, exceeding even the large disparities seen in the 1920s, before the Great Depression. Norton and Ariely estimate that the one percent wealthiest Americans hold nearly 50 percent of the country's wealth, while the richest 20 percent hold 84 percent of the wealth.

But in their study, the authors found Americans generally underestimate the income disparity. When asked to estimate, respondents on average estimated that the top 20 percent have 59 percent of the wealth (as opposed to the real number, 84 percent). And when asked to choose how much the top 20 percent should have, on average respondents said 32 percent -- a number similar to the wealth distribution seen in Sweden".

The author is conflating wealth and income inequality here. The data I presented was on income inequality (top 1% receive 17.1% of all income) while Norton and Ariely present wealth data (top 1% have 50% of total wealth).

Nevertheless, the point stands. Americans have their values right; they are just ignorant. I would say that is the fault of the media.

link

Obama on the GOP "Pledge"

2010-09-25T12:16:00.001-04:00

"It is grounded in same worn out philosophy: cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires; cut the rules for Wall Street and the special interests; and cut the middle class loose to fend for itself. That's not a prescription for a better future. It's an echo of a disastrous decade we can't afford to relive."

link for video

Wonder Why?

2010-09-24T13:59:00.001-04:00

In an Associated Press-GfK Poll this month, 60 percent disapprove of the job congressional Democrats are doing — yet 68 percent frown on how Republicans are performing. While 59 percent are unhappy with how Democrats are handling the economy, 64 percent are upset by the GOP's work on the country's top issue. Just over half have unfavorable views of each party.

Most say President Barack Obama isn't cooperating enough on the economy, yet even more accuse Republicans of the same thing. Former President George W. Bush and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — the only two Republicans the AP-GfK Poll tested — are both viewed negatively by more than half in the survey, worse than Obama's marks. And people overwhelmingly fault Bush more than Obama for the recession.

link

That's About Right

2010-09-24T12:29:00.001-04:00

From Bill Maher:

"But I've done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy asshole."

full link

Palin Beck 2012

2010-09-22T21:23:00.000-04:00

Poor Just Keep Getting Poorer

2010-09-21T20:13:00.008-04:00

Here is data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office:

	QUINTILES					TOP
Year	1	2	3	4	5	10%	5%	1%
1979	6.8	12.3	16.5	22.3	42.4	27.6	18.1	7.5
2007	4.9	9.4	14.1	20	52.5	38.7	29.3	17.1

It shows the Household (which differs from family) income shares of after-tax income for each quintile of the population. After tax income takes into account not only taxes but also transfer payments such as food stamps, Medicare, Social Security and the like.

Notice that 80% of the population experienced a drop in relative shares at the expense of the top 20%. Notice that the top 1% received 17.1% of total income in 2007 compared to 7.5% in 1979.

In 2007, everyone with a Household after-tax income of $74,700 (the minimum to get into the top 20%) or less was in the bottom 80% of Household income recipients.

One could summarize the Reagan Revolution as one that transferred income from the bottom 80% of Households to the top 20% of households.

Shorter Eric Cantor: "Don't forget the high earners."

2010-09-20T16:53:00.004-04:00

Harry Reid says:

"We're having this fight before November," the aide told TPM, speaking on a condition of anonymity to be able to lay out the political agenda. "The caucus is in agreement that this fight is a fight worth taking before the election. You may not win but you put yourself in the camp of fighting with the middle class."

The idea is to vote on the middle class cuts, then box Republicans into calling for cuts for the rich. "Those Republicans will have to stand up and say, 'Don't forget the high earners.' They will have to call for an amendment."

Eric Cantor says:

Tax Fight: GOP Won't Back Down

By Eric Cantor

As we enter the final stretch before the November midterm elections, all eyes have gravitated to the fight over the looming federal tax increases. President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi want to keep the current rates on income, capital gains and dividends in place only for those who happen to fit their description of "middle class." In this moment of economic distress, will they get their way even though a bipartisan majority of the House disagrees with them? Or will present tax rates be extended for all American taxpayers—and most importantly for small businesses and investors, the nation's job creators?

Republicans unequivocally oppose any impending tax increase. House Republicans have called on Speaker Pelosi to allow the House to vote on legislation that would freeze all tax rates for the next two years. It's a vote the taxpayers of this country deserve before November.

HOW MUCH INCOME DO YOU NEED TO BE RICH?

2010-09-19T19:48:00.003-04:00

The following data is from the most excellent work of Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty. It is based on all income excluding transfer payments (welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, housing subsidies) and includes realized capital gains.

In 2008:

The average family in the United States earned $54,315.

The average family in the bottom 90% earned $31,244.

To make it into the top 10% of income earners a family would have to make $109,062 per year or more.

To make it into the top 5% of income earners a family would have to make $152,726 per year or more.

To make it into the top 1% of income earners a family would have to make $368,238 per year or more.

To make it into the top .5% of income earners a family would have to make $558,726 per year or more.

To make it into the top .1% of income earners a family would have to make $1,695,136 per year or more.

To make it into the top .01% of income earners a family would have to make $9,141,190 per year or more.

15,246 of the 152,462,000 U.S. families made it into this last group. They had average incomes of $27,342,212.

Why Dems in Congress Should Not Compromise on the Tax Cut for the Very Rich

2010-09-18T20:15:00.006-04:00

In my opinion, the graph above tells us just about everything we need to know about why most people are feeling a bit stressed. It shows the percentage of income received by the top 10% of income earners (I use that term advisedly) between 1917 and 2007.

First, look at the period up until WWII. The proportion of income peaked in 1929 at just under 50%. The Roaring Twenties were just great if you happened to be in this lucky cohort.

Now look at what happened in the Depression. The top 10%'s share fell, but only into the mid-forties.

The post-WWII era, known as the 'Great Compression' in the literature lasted from 1941 to 1979. The top 10%'s share fell to below 35% of total income. Later we can discuss why this occurred. I am open to your opinions in the comments section. Recall, however, that the top marginal tax rate in the fifties under Eisenhower was 90%. Hmmm...might there be a correlation between high top marginal tax rates and the creation of a middle class?

Then we had the Reagan Revolution with the Bush II effort to complete it by giving massive tax breaks to this group and, lo and behold, by 2007 we managed to top the 1929 figure. Goodbye Middle Class.

The stressed Middle Class has two options. Republicans and their propagandists on talk radio and Fox would have the Middle Class believe the shrinking share of income they receive is because Democrats tax them and give their money to poor people. Democrats claim their shrinking share is a result of the Reagan Revolution that altered a tax structure that had created the Middle Class in the first place. In other words, the Middle Class has shrunk because Republicans have taken our money and given it to the top 10%.

OK, I admit this is a bit of an oversimplification. Nevertheless, I think it is an oversimplification that drives to the heart of our current political crisis.

I am told that the current political debate over whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts to the top 2% will not resonate in this political climate. Why? Because most people don't believe that the above graph has anything to do with their declining economic condition. I am told that this issue is too rational or too cerebral to have resonance. I am told it does not grab people emotionally. I just hope Democrats in Congress follow President Obama's lead and give us the opportunity to test this. My bet is, if they do, the Republicans will back down. This is a worthwhile goal on its own terms. The added bonus of having the tea party portion of the Republican Party become further disenchanted with their apparently 'reasonable' elected leaders is just a bonus.

The Tax-Cut Racket By PAUL KRUGMAN

2010-09-18T09:03:00.002-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/opinion/17krugman.html

Excerpts...

Mr. McConnell, who was self-righteously denouncing the budget deficit just the other day, now wants to blow that deficit up with big tax cuts for the rich. But he doesn’t have the votes. So he’s trying to get what he wants by pointing a gun at the heads of middle-class families, threatening to force a jump in their taxes unless he gets paid off with hugely expensive tax breaks for the wealthy.
Most discussion of the tax fight focuses either on the economics or on the politics — both of which suggest that Democrats should hang tough, for their own sakes as well as that of the country. But there’s an even bigger issue here — namely, the question of what constitutes acceptable behavior in American political life. Politics ain’t beanbag, but there’s a difference between playing hardball and engaging in outright extortion, which is what Mr. McConnell is now doing. And if he succeeds, it will set a disastrous precedent.

----------

In response, President Obama is proposing legislation that would keep tax rates essentially unchanged for 98 percent of Americans but allow rates on the richest 2 percent to rise. But Republicans are threatening to block that legislation, effectively raising taxes on the middle class, unless they get tax breaks for their wealthy friends.
That’s an extraordinary step. Almost everyone agrees that raising taxes on the middle class in the middle of an economic slump is a bad idea, unless the effects are offset by other job-creation programs — and Republicans are blocking those, too. So the G.O.P. is, in effect, threatening to plunge the U.S. economy back into recession unless Democrats pay up.
What kind of political party would engage in that kind of brinksmanship? The answer is the same kind of party that shut down the federal government in 1995 in an attempt to force President Bill Clinton to accept steep cuts in Medicare, and is actively discussing doing the same to Mr. Obama. So, as I said, the deeper explanation of the tax-cut fight is that it’s ultimately about a radicalized Republican Party, which accepts no limits on partisanship.

Newburyport Charter Commission 9/22/10 from 7-9 p.m. at City Hall

2010-09-16T14:44:00.002-04:00

From Charter Commission Clerk Sheila Mullins to Ed Cameron (Chair Newburyport Democratic City Committee) and Larry Giunta (Chair Newburyport Republican City Committee):

Since the ChCom is nonpartisan, I am requesting that the 2 political chairs post on their blogs the following:

The Newburyport Charter Commission wishes to extend an invitation to all Newburyporters for a public hearing on 9/22/10 from 7-9 p.m. at City Hall Auditorium. The Commission will be discussing the survey, the preamble that has been created, presentation of remaining timetable, what has been discovered thus far, what has been done, executive & legislative options, citizens’ safeguards, & number of wards. There will be a question & answer period as well.

This may be a rare occurrence of the local R's and D's being on the same page;-)

OH MY

2010-09-15T21:42:00.002-04:00

South Carolina Senate President Dresses Up Like Confederate Soldier With Black Slaves At GOP Event

This past weekend, the National Federation of Republican Women (NFRW) “held its annual fall Board of Directors meeting in Charleston, S.C.” In attendance at the event were major Republican leaders throughout the state, including Gov. Mark Sanford, who spoke to the audience gathered there.

One shocking moment at the NFRW meeting involved a special event called “The Southern Experience.” In this event, attendees dressed in clothing reminiscent of the Civil War and the antebellum South. As FITS News reports, South Carolina Senate President Glenn McConnell (R) participated in the event by dressing up as a Confederate General, and at many points posed with African Americans dressed as slaves:

The National Federation of Republican Women (NFRW) held its annual fall Board of Directors meeting in Charleston, S.C. last weekend – a decision the organization is likely regretting after several controversial pictures from one of the meeting’s sponsored events began surfacing on the internet. One of the pictures shows S.C. Senate President Glenn McConnell – who FITS readers will recall enjoys dressing up as a Confederate General – posing in his Rebel garb with a pair of African-Americans dressed in, um, “antebellum” attire.

The event in question – dubbed “The Southern Experience” – was held last Friday evening at the Country Club of Charleston. Hosted by the South Carolina Federation of Republican Women, it was included on the national conference’s official itinerary. In addition to McConnell, S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford attended (and spoke at) the event – although it was not listed on his weekly public schedule. S.C. Republican Attorney General nominee Alan Wilson also attended.

FITS News shares the picture in question, which it uncovered:

Uh Oh

2010-09-15T18:05:00.002-04:00

NYT: Time for This Big Dog to Bite Back

2010-09-13T18:12:00.001-04:00

September 11, 2010
Time for This Big Dog to Bite Back
By FRANK RICH

NO, he can’t. President Obama can’t reverse the unemployment numbers by Election Day. He can’t get even a modest new stimulus bill past the Party of No, and even if he could, there would be few jobs to show for it until (maybe) 2011. Nor can he rewrite the history of his administration. Its signal accomplishments to date are an initial stimulus package that was overrun by the calamity at hand and a marathon health care battle as yet better known for its unseemly orgy of backroom wrangling than its concrete results. While that brawl raged, the White House seemed indifferent to the mounting number of Americans being tossed onto the Great Recession scrapheap.

And so the odds that Obama’s party will survive the midterms seem less than Indiana Jones’s in the Temple of Doom — as we are reminded hourly by the Beltway herd flogging the latest polls. The Democrats are facing a “historic” rout, an earthquake, a tidal wave — well, you know the drill. End of story.

Unless it’s not. On Labor Day, the fighting Obama abruptly re-emerged, a far cry from the man whose Oval Office address on Iraq days earlier was about as persuasive as a hostage video. Speaking to workers in Milwaukee, the president finally started giving voice to the anger of America’s battered middle class. And he even let loose with a little anger of his own. The unspecified “powerful interests” aligned against him, he said, “talk about me like a dog.”

The entire piece is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/opinion/12rich.html

Stay Focused---Deval Patrick

2010-09-06T19:44:00.000-04:00

English and Meat

2010-08-18T20:17:00.004-04:00

One of the 'benefits' of living near the northern border of Massachusetts is you get to see some NH ads. Truly a frightening ad from NH Republican Bill Binnie....which is almost like a Saturday Night Live parody.

Of course, English and meat are two great traditions which have kept this country unique...

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Better Know a Lobby - American Meat Institute

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

2010 Election

Fox News

And with that, let’s eat.

2010-08-13T21:54:00.002-04:00

President George W. Bush held this Ramadan dinner 8 times in 8 years at the White House. Below are President Obama's remarks this year with bold added:

Good evening. Welcome to the White House. To you, to Muslim Americans across our country, and to more than one billion Muslims around the world, I extend my best wishes on this holy month. Ramadan Kareem. I want to welcome members of the diplomatic corps; members of my administration; and Members of Congress, including Rush Holt, John Conyers, and Andre Carson, who is one of two Muslim American Members of Congress, along with Keith Ellison.

Here at the White House, we have a tradition of hosting iftars that goes back several years, just as we host Christmas parties, seders, and Diwali celebrations. These events celebrate the role of faith in the lives of the American people. They remind us of the basic truth that we are all children of God, and we all draw strength and a sense of purpose from our beliefs.

These events are also an affirmation of who we are as Americans. Our Founders understood that the best way to honor the place of faith in the lives of our people was to protect their freedom to practice religion. In the Virginia Act for Establishing Religion Freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion." The First Amendment of our Constitution established the freedom of religion as the law of the land. And that right has been upheld ever since.

Indeed, over the course of our history, religion has flourished within our borders precisely because Americans have had the right to worship as they choose – including the right to believe in no religion at all. And it is a testament to the wisdom of our Founders that America remains deeply religious – a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in contrast to the religious conflict that persists around the globe.

That is not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities – particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who have led our response to that attack – from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us always remember who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for. Our enemies respect no freedom of religion. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam – it is a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders – these are terrorists who murder innocent men, women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion – and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

That is who we are fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms – it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race or religion; wealth or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us – a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.

In my inaugural address, I said that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth. That diversity can bring difficult debates. Indeed, past eras have seen controversies about the construction of synagogues or Catholic churches. But time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, stay true to our core values, and emerge stronger for it. So it must be – and will be – today.

Tonight, we are reminded that Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity. And Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan—making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.

Like so many other immigrants, generations of Muslims came here to forge their future. They became farmers and merchants, worked in mills and factories, and helped lay the railroads. They helped build America. They founded the first Islamic center in New York City in the 1890s. They built America’s first mosque on the prairie of North Dakota. And perhaps the oldest surviving mosque in America—still in use today—is in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Today, our nation is strengthened by millions of Muslim Americans. They excel in every walk of life. Muslim American communities—including mosques in all fifty states—also serve their neighbors. Muslim Americans protect our communities as police, firefighters and first responders. Muslim American clerics have spoken out against terror and extremism, reaffirming that Islam teaches that one must save human life, not take it. And Muslim Americans serve with honor in our military. At next week’s iftar at the Pentagon, tribute will be paid to three soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq and now rest among the heroes of Arlington National Cemetery.

These Muslim Americans died for the security that we depend upon, and the freedoms that we cherish. They are part of an unbroken line of Americans that stretches back to our Founding; Americans of all faiths who have served and sacrificed to extend the promise of America to new generations, and to ensure that what is exceptional about America is protected – our commitment to stay true to our core values, and our ability to perfect our union.

For in the end, we remain "one nation, under God, indivisible." And we can only achieve "liberty and justice for all" if we live by that one rule at the heart of every religion, including Islam—that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Thank you all for being here, and I wish you a blessed Ramadan. And with that, let’s eat.

###

America Goes Dark

2010-08-09T12:35:00.001-04:00

Full piece here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09krugman.html

Excerpt below:

America Goes Dark
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The lights are going out all over America — literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno.

Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel.

And a nation that once prized education — that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children — is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead.

We’re told that we have no choice, that basic government functions — essential services that have been provided for generations — are no longer affordable. And it’s true that state and local governments, hit hard by the recession, are cash-strapped. But they wouldn’t be quite as cash-strapped if their politicians were willing to consider at least some tax increases.

And the federal government, which can sell inflation-protected long-term bonds at an interest rate of only 1.04 percent, isn’t cash-strapped at all. It could and should be offering aid to local governments, to protect the future of our infrastructure and our children.

But Washington is providing only a trickle of help, and even that grudgingly. We must place priority on reducing the deficit, say Republicans and “centrist” Democrats. And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade.

In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation’s foundations to crumble — literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education — they’re choosing the latter.

It’s a disastrous choice in both the short run and the long run.

In the short run, those state and local cutbacks are a major drag on the economy, perpetuating devastatingly high unemployment.

The Hole We're In

2010-07-21T20:28:00.001-04:00

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-urgent-need-for-job-creation

The Urgent Need for Job Creation

July 2010, John Schmitt and Tessa Conroy

Many lawmakers, policymakers, and economic commentators do not appear to recognize the depth of the current labor-market recession. Between December 2007 – the official first month of the recession – and December 2009, the U.S. economy lost more than eight million jobs. Even if the economy creates jobs from now on at a pace equal to the fastest four years of the early 2000s expansion, we will not return to the December 2007 level of employment until March 2014. And, by the time we return to the number of jobs we had in December 2007, population growth will have increased the potential labor force by about 6.5 million jobs. If job growth matched the fastest four years in the most recent economic expansion, the economy would not catch up to the expanded labor force until April 2021. Absent policy changes such as a major jobs bill, the Congressional Budget Office’s most recent projections suggest that the economy will not return to December 2007 employment levels until June 2013, and will not cover the intervening growth in the potential labor force until August 2015.

This report examines the depth of the current labor-market recession and sketches the possible recovery path under several historically based job creation scenarios.

Photos from Deval Patrick's Visit to Newburyport

2010-07-19T20:37:00.002-04:00

http://nancysnewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2010/07/governor-patrick-at-newburyport-farmers.html

Check out the photos by our extremely talented friend Nancy Weinberg...

A Good Week for Massachusetts

2010-07-18T16:23:00.000-04:00

July 15, 2010

Friends,

Recent economic news continues to confirm that Massachusetts is on the mend and on the move, and is coming out of this recession faster and stronger than other states. You don’t have to take my word for it. On Tuesday, CNBC ranked Massachusetts as the 5th best state for business, the highest we have ever appeared on those rankings, and yesterday it was reported that the state added 3,400 private-sector jobs in June, for a total of 45,000 jobs added since December.

This comes on the heels of other good economic news, including:

A report issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia that concluded that the Massachusetts economy outperformed 48 other states during the last 3 months of 2009.
The Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM)'s Business Confidence Index has increased 14 of the last 16 months, and consumer confidence is the highest it's been since before the recession.
Studies from The New England Economic Partnership (NEEP), Northeastern University, and the University of Massachusetts, show that the Massachusetts economy's recovery is "firmly on track."
All three independent rating agencies -- Fitch Ratings, Moody's Investors Services, and Standard & Poor's -- continue to affirm the state's AA bond rating, and credit our leadership during the global economic crisis.
According to pre-census reports, for the first time in twenty years, more people are moving into Massachusetts than moving out.

We are leading the nation out of this recession because we have focused on job creation as our top priority. We have invested in our core industries: the life sciences, biotech, information technology, health care, and education. We are improving public schools. We are also leading the nation out of the recession because of the work of business leaders across the state.

That is why today I was proud to announce the chairs of our new council, "Business Leaders for Deval Patrick and Tim Murray." This group will be integral to our outreach and organizing efforts within the business community. The chairs represent a wide variety of business interests, from small business owners to the CEOs of some of the Commonwealth's largest employers. You can find out more about them here.

But even as positive as this news is, there is still much work to be done. The global economic collapse has cost too many jobs, and the Lt. Governor and I will not stop working until everyone who seeks a job can find one. We need your help to do that and to finish what we started. Please forward this email to ten of your friends, and ask them to join our cause.

Thanks,

MA Health Care Costs and the Economy

2010-07-14T21:02:00.000-04:00

Massachusetts Health Care Costs and the Economy

Senator Steven A. Baddour (D-Methuen) and Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy Commissioner David Morales will participate in a roundtable discussion on Wednesday, July 28th to discuss strategies for mitigating health care cost growth in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts is struggling with escalating health care costs, which cut into wage growth, stymie job creation, create barriers to accessing care, and preempt spending in other sectors of the economy. The cost of health insurance has grown by approximately 7.5 percent each year (on average) over the last decade while gross domestic product has only increased 3.8 percent per year during that same time period. These are alarming trends for small businesses, which represent over 75% of the state's jobs base.

The regional roundtables are intended to educate business leaders about health care delivery system market trends and cost drivers, discuss opportunities for employers to achieve lower costs, and solicit feedback from employers and health care industry stakeholders.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.

Northern Essex Community College

Technology Center

100 Elliott Street

Haverhill, MA 01830

To RSVP or learn more about this event, please contact Jeevan Ramapriya, Senator Baddour's Office at 617-722-1604.

________________________________
Jeevan Ramapriya
Office of Senator Steven A. Baddour
State House
Boston, MA 02133
w: 617-722-1604 / f: 617-626-0915
e: jeevan.ramapriya@state.ma.us

Baker and Republican Governor's Association

2010-07-12T12:29:00.000-04:00

July 12, 2010

Friends,

The Baker campaign and the Republican Governor's Association have resorted to spending an unprecedented $2 million in negative TV ads nearly four months before a single vote is cast, in large part to cover up the fact that the Charlie Baker campaign has failed to connect with voters across Massachusetts. We want you to have the facts behind these ads so you can help us respond our way - one-on-one with your friends, neighbors and co-workers!

Fact: The Massachusetts Taxpayer's Foundation, a respected independent budget organization, conducted a study for the Boston Globe that proved that state spending grew twice as fast under Charlie Baker than during the Patrick administration. When Baker was the state's budget chief, state spending grew 4.9% annually, while Governor Patrick has held state spending under 2.4%.

Fact: Baker has failed to be straight with voters about the billions in state revenue lost due to the global economic crisis. Governor Patrick has met this challenge, and preserved funding for education, public safety, health care and job creation through a responsible mix of reforms, budget cuts and state employee layoffs and furloughs, concessions from state employee unions, and new revenue. This responsible approach has led to all three national, independent credit rating agencies re-affirming the state's AA bond rating and crediting Governor Patrick's leadership through this global crisis.

Fact: According to multiple independent economic studies, Massachusetts is recovering faster and stronger than the rest of the country. We have added nearly 45,000 new jobs over the past four months, saw the largest monthly job increase in 17 years in May, and rank 5th in the nation in private sector job growth over the past 6 months.

Please tell your friends, neighbors and co-workers you've had enough of Charlie Baker, who wrote the Big Dig finance plan that Massachusetts taxpayers are still paying for, once again spreading false information about Governor Patrick's responsible handling of the state budget under difficult circumstances.

Please help us get this news out by forwarding this email to five friends right now.

Sincerely,
Doug Rubin
Senior Strategist