Here's some background to consider as you evaluate the president's state of the union address. On this clip from her show, Rachel Maddow is arguing with Joe Biden's economic adviser Jared Bernstein, a progressive economist who has been placed in the absurd position of defending corporatist federal budget priorities. Maddow finds it "completely, completely insane” to restrain spending at a time when the nation is still undergoing an economic recovery. “You haven’t convinced me at all,” Maddow concludes. Me, neither,
Be sure to listen to the president tomorrow evening and conclude for yourself.
Priorities: Obama campaigns against spending freezes
By all accounts, Pres. Barack Obama's state of the union address will call for a three-year freeze of discretionary federal spending -- the military exempted, of course. The White House says that keeping spending at the same level for fiscal years 2011 to 2013 will save $250 billion over ten years, even though the cost-cutting will "exempt security-related budgets for the Pentagon, foreign aid, the Veterans Administration and homeland security, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.” It should be noted, however, that the administration has signed on to a conservative-sponsored deficit-reduction effort targeted on those very health and retirement programs.
"Among the areas that may be potentially subject to cuts: The departments of Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Energy, Transportation, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services," according to the WH.
During the presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain proposed a similar spending freeze (although his would have been across the board and would not have exempted the bloated Pentagon) which Obama repeatedly lampooned as an “example of unfair burden sharing” and “using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.” Once again, President Obama seems to be at odds with candidate Obama:
As Sen. Bernie Sanders said in a letter to colleagues over the weekend, the "American people today are suffering through the worst economy since the Great Depression with 17.3 percent of the American workforce either unemployed or underemployed." If, as many economists argue, stimulus spending is already too little, how much sense does it make to put balancing the budget ahead of jobs creation? If you follow a stimulus package with a policy that will clearly have counter-stimulative effects don't you risk looking like you don't have a clue what you're doing? Paul Krugman thinks that the freeze is "appalling on every level…shifting attention away from the essential need to reform health care and focusing on small change instead;" Robert Reich believes the freeze "will make it impossible for [Obama] to do much of anything for the middle class that’s important;" and Brad DeLong argues "this is a perfect example of fundamental unseriousness: rather than make proposals that will actually tackle the long-term deficit…come up with a proposal that does short-term harm to the economy without tackling the deficit in any serious and significant way."
"Among the areas that may be potentially subject to cuts: The departments of Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Energy, Transportation, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services," according to the WH.
During the presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain proposed a similar spending freeze (although his would have been across the board and would not have exempted the bloated Pentagon) which Obama repeatedly lampooned as an “example of unfair burden sharing” and “using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.” Once again, President Obama seems to be at odds with candidate Obama:
As Sen. Bernie Sanders said in a letter to colleagues over the weekend, the "American people today are suffering through the worst economy since the Great Depression with 17.3 percent of the American workforce either unemployed or underemployed." If, as many economists argue, stimulus spending is already too little, how much sense does it make to put balancing the budget ahead of jobs creation? If you follow a stimulus package with a policy that will clearly have counter-stimulative effects don't you risk looking like you don't have a clue what you're doing? Paul Krugman thinks that the freeze is "appalling on every level…shifting attention away from the essential need to reform health care and focusing on small change instead;" Robert Reich believes the freeze "will make it impossible for [Obama] to do much of anything for the middle class that’s important;" and Brad DeLong argues "this is a perfect example of fundamental unseriousness: rather than make proposals that will actually tackle the long-term deficit…come up with a proposal that does short-term harm to the economy without tackling the deficit in any serious and significant way."
Reform: Four Reasons Why Democrats Should Oppose the Bernanke Reappointment
In a letter to Senate colleagues, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders offers four reasons why Democrats should oppose the reappointment of Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve:
"Nothing. Mr. Bernanke has offered no hint that he feels the need to adopt policies that might bring unemployment down faster. Instead, he has responded to suggestions for further Fed action with boilerplate about 'the anchoring of inflation expectations.' It’s harsh but true to say that he’s acting as if it’s Mission Accomplished now that the big banks have been rescued."
Krugman concludes with a half-hearted endorsement of Bernanke's reappointment, while most of his argument leads in the opposite direction. With the White House out twisting the arms of reluctant senators -- why is it that it's only when Wall Street wants something that this administration gets aggressive? -- Bernanke will probably be reappointed. Once again, as November 2010 grows ever closer, it appears that the Democrats are prepared to carry the water for the Wall Street kleptocrats.
See, The Bernanke Conundrum by Paul Krugman (New York Times 2010-01-24)
Follow up: Blocking Bernanke is Smart Economics, Smart Politics for Dems by John Nichols (The Nation 2010-01-26)
Dear Democratic Colleague:Sen Sanders might have added a fifth point, that Bernanke apparently doesn't get the extent of the unemployment problem; the Fed's chair appears to value low inflation over jobs creation. Here's Paul Krugman: "The economy may not have collapsed, but it’s in terrible shape, with job-seekers outnumbering job openings six to one. Nor does Mr. Bernanke expect any quick improvement: last month, while predicting that unemployment will fall, he conceded that the rate of decline will be 'slower than we would like.' So what does he propose doing to create jobs?
The American people today are suffering through the worst economy since the Great Depression with 17.3 percent of the American workforce either unemployed or underemployed. Millions more have lost their homes, their savings, their health care and their pensions. At a time like this let me provide four reasons why Ben Bernanke should not be confirmed as chairman of the Fed.
1) Not only was Mr. Bernanke first nominated to the Fed by President George W. Bush, but he served in the Bush administration as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. Let us never forget that the Bush years, even before the collapse of Wall Street, were an economic disaster for the average American. Mr. Bernanke, who was recently endorsed for reappointment by Alan Greenspan, played a major role in the deregulatory efforts that enabled major financial institutions to engage in reckless and illegal behavior. The American people gave us the responsibility to bring about change, not the maintenance of the status quo. Why, at this difficult moment in American history, should we reappoint Wall Street's candidate as chairman of the Fed?
2) One of the main functions of the Fed is to maintain the safety and soundness of our financial system. No one can deny that Mr. Bernanke, as chairman of the Fed, was asleep at the wheel while Wall Street became the largest gambling casino in the history of the world and hurtled into insolvency - at enormous cost to our country. Not since the Great Depression has our financial system been as unsafe, unsound and unstable than under Ben Bernanke's tenure as chairman of the Fed. Why should Mr. Bernanke be rewarded with reappointment after he failed so terribly to do his job?
3) As part of the bailout, the Fed lent out trillions of dollars in virtually zero-interest loans to large financial institutions. Mr. Bernanke has consistently refused to provide the transparency needed so that the American people can learn which banks received those loans and the terms that were provided to them. In addition, the Fed continues to keep secret a number of documents related to its role in the AIG bailout. Why should this type of secrecy be tolerated?
4) The Fed, today, has the tools to significantly improve our economy and a mandate to conduct monetary policy in support of full employment. It has the authority to protect consumers by lowering the outrageously high interest rates that millions are paying. It has the authority to provide low-interest loans to credit-worthy small and medium size business that are in desperate need of that capital which will enable them to create the new jobs our economy needs. It has the authority to require bailed out banks to modify home loans to allow homeowners to stay in their homes. It has the authority to begin breaking up those huge financial institutions that, in a number of cases, are even bigger today than they were when we bailed them out because they were "too big to fail."
Instead of confirming one of the key architects of George Bush's economic agenda, a new nominee could transform the Fed into a central bank committed to the needs of the middle class of this country rather than powerful Wall Street executives responsible for the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
"Nothing. Mr. Bernanke has offered no hint that he feels the need to adopt policies that might bring unemployment down faster. Instead, he has responded to suggestions for further Fed action with boilerplate about 'the anchoring of inflation expectations.' It’s harsh but true to say that he’s acting as if it’s Mission Accomplished now that the big banks have been rescued."
Krugman concludes with a half-hearted endorsement of Bernanke's reappointment, while most of his argument leads in the opposite direction. With the White House out twisting the arms of reluctant senators -- why is it that it's only when Wall Street wants something that this administration gets aggressive? -- Bernanke will probably be reappointed. Once again, as November 2010 grows ever closer, it appears that the Democrats are prepared to carry the water for the Wall Street kleptocrats.
See, The Bernanke Conundrum by Paul Krugman (New York Times 2010-01-24)
Follow up: Blocking Bernanke is Smart Economics, Smart Politics for Dems by John Nichols (The Nation 2010-01-26)
Politics: Representative Democracy and the Power of Corporations
In a video announcing the launch of FreeSpeechForPeople.org, a new group that plans to organize against the U.S. Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision on January 21, 2010 to remove limitations on corporations' election spending, Jamie Raskin, professor of constitutional law and the First Amendment at American University, Rep. Donna Edwards, and others discuss the meaning of the case for our democracy.
Here's Prof. Raskin on Democracy Now! and C-Span.
Among the many problems with the decision is the fact that the majority over-reached, deciding to throw out campaign financing laws merely because such restrictions offend the conservatives' ideological sensibilities. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent, "The only relevant thing that has changed since [previous decisions limiting corporate speech] is the composition of this Court. Today’s ruling thus strikes at the vitals of stare decisis, the means by which we ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion" that "permits society to presume that bedrock principles are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals." This is judicial activism at its most transparent and most virulent, and gives the lie to the fiction that it is the right wing justices who respect the Constitution and the rule of law.
Our democracy, already at risk because of the wealth and power of corporations, is further undermined by the court's action. Justice Stevens: "Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."
Action was needed before this decision to make our society more democratic. We have pushed for many of them, from changes in electoral procedures to campaign finance reform. David Swanson outlines many of the needed actions on AfterDowningStreet, "including public financing of elections, free media for elections, shareholder control of corporations, public control of corporations, a variety of constitutional amendments including one to undo corporate personhood entirely, and an array of legislative steps, including Congressman Alan Grayson's bills to tax corporate political spending, to require public reporting of corporate spending on influencing public opinion, and to apply antitrust laws and other regulations to political committees. But ultimately we're going to have to build a popular movement around an amendment to the Constitution that we can force through Congress and the states."
In the long run, the action of the five ideologically driven members of the Supreme Court may provide the spark that ignites genuine reform. If it catches fire, a movement to democratize this nation will be hard to extinguish. FreeSpeechForPeople.org is organizing to do this. Partners include Voter Action, Public Citizen, The Center for Corporate Policy and the American Independent Business Alliance.
Action: Join FreeSpeechForPeople.org and sign the resolution to amend the Constitution to guarantee the first amendment rights of people.
See, also: Citizen Goldman-Sachs, Psychopath by Matt Osborne (Huffington Post 2010-01-24)
Here's Prof. Raskin on Democracy Now! and C-Span.
Among the many problems with the decision is the fact that the majority over-reached, deciding to throw out campaign financing laws merely because such restrictions offend the conservatives' ideological sensibilities. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent, "The only relevant thing that has changed since [previous decisions limiting corporate speech] is the composition of this Court. Today’s ruling thus strikes at the vitals of stare decisis, the means by which we ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion" that "permits society to presume that bedrock principles are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals." This is judicial activism at its most transparent and most virulent, and gives the lie to the fiction that it is the right wing justices who respect the Constitution and the rule of law.
Our democracy, already at risk because of the wealth and power of corporations, is further undermined by the court's action. Justice Stevens: "Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."
Action was needed before this decision to make our society more democratic. We have pushed for many of them, from changes in electoral procedures to campaign finance reform. David Swanson outlines many of the needed actions on AfterDowningStreet, "including public financing of elections, free media for elections, shareholder control of corporations, public control of corporations, a variety of constitutional amendments including one to undo corporate personhood entirely, and an array of legislative steps, including Congressman Alan Grayson's bills to tax corporate political spending, to require public reporting of corporate spending on influencing public opinion, and to apply antitrust laws and other regulations to political committees. But ultimately we're going to have to build a popular movement around an amendment to the Constitution that we can force through Congress and the states."
In the long run, the action of the five ideologically driven members of the Supreme Court may provide the spark that ignites genuine reform. If it catches fire, a movement to democratize this nation will be hard to extinguish. FreeSpeechForPeople.org is organizing to do this. Partners include Voter Action, Public Citizen, The Center for Corporate Policy and the American Independent Business Alliance.
Action: Join FreeSpeechForPeople.org and sign the resolution to amend the Constitution to guarantee the first amendment rights of people.
See, also: Citizen Goldman-Sachs, Psychopath by Matt Osborne (Huffington Post 2010-01-24)
Transportation: The Dreams of the California High-Speed Rail Authority
A visual tour of the projected California High Speed Rail system:
"Updated business plan provides us with an opportunity to be even more competitive as we go after federal stimulus dollars." - Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani at January 11 legislative hearing.
"Updated business plan provides us with an opportunity to be even more competitive as we go after federal stimulus dollars." - Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani at January 11 legislative hearing.
Resources: Fund For The Public Interest
Fund For The Public Interest is a nonprofit organization that works to increase the visibility, membership and political power of more than 50 leading progressive political organizations working to protect the environment, public health, and human rights, 
including, among others, the Sierra Club, the Human Rights Campaign, U.S. PIRG, Environment California, Save the Children, Green Corps, Defenders of Wildlife, the National Parks Conservation Association and Greenpeace. Launched in 1982 to develop campaigns and technologies to engage Americans in public interest advocacy, in the last year alone the fund raised over $20 million for its partner organizations. Specializing in door-to-door and street and event canvassing efforts, the fund is one of the nation's most prolific signature-gathering operations.
Action: Learn more about what a partnership with Fund for the Public Interest can do for your organization.
including, among others, the Sierra Club, the Human Rights Campaign, U.S. PIRG, Environment California, Save the Children, Green Corps, Defenders of Wildlife, the National Parks Conservation Association and Greenpeace. Launched in 1982 to develop campaigns and technologies to engage Americans in public interest advocacy, in the last year alone the fund raised over $20 million for its partner organizations. Specializing in door-to-door and street and event canvassing efforts, the fund is one of the nation's most prolific signature-gathering operations.Action: Learn more about what a partnership with Fund for the Public Interest can do for your organization.
Action: "It is time to get moving."
"So, the question is whether Obama will feel the Roosevelt-tug, or whether he will continue to dive into the middle -- or worse -- in response to voter anger. I would suggest that the answer depends less on Obama and more on us. Will we be in the streets around war, or will we be sending emails reflecting our despair? Will the unemployed be organized through groups like ACORN, National People's Action, and labor unions, or will they simply be a statistic that is referenced in speeches? Will workers move to organize despite every obstacle that corporate America puts before them, or will they cringe awaiting the next pink slip? These are the sorts of questions that progressives need to be asking and, more importantly, acting upon.
"I am tired of the complaints; it is time to get moving." -- Bill Fletcher, Jr.
(BlackCommentator.com 2010-01-21)
"I am tired of the complaints; it is time to get moving." -- Bill Fletcher, Jr.
(BlackCommentator.com 2010-01-21)
Reform: Kucinich shreds Democrats for betraying the promise of change
Slams health bill 'madness'
"Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) on Wednesday said the Massachusetts election was a 'wake up call' for Democrats and that his party had better change course or it could suffer devastating losses come November.
"'People elected Democrats in 2008 to change the country's direction,' he told Raw Story in a nearly hour-long interview.
"'And the same entrenched interests that George Bush could not shake, this current White House is having great difficulty in shaking. One could suggest they might be more entrenched than ever.'
Kucinich staunchly defended liberalism but alleged that Democrats are not behaving like liberals.
"'There's nothing liberal about the bailouts. There's nothing liberal about standing by and watching banks use public money to get their executive bonuses. There's nothing liberal about giving insurance companies carte blanche to charge anything they want for health care...Since when did that become liberal?'"
The rest of the story: Kucinich shreds Democrats for betraying the promise of change by Sahil Kapur (The Raw Story 2010-01-21)
"Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) on Wednesday said the Massachusetts election was a 'wake up call' for Democrats and that his party had better change course or it could suffer devastating losses come November.
"'People elected Democrats in 2008 to change the country's direction,' he told Raw Story in a nearly hour-long interview.
"'And the same entrenched interests that George Bush could not shake, this current White House is having great difficulty in shaking. One could suggest they might be more entrenched than ever.'
Kucinich staunchly defended liberalism but alleged that Democrats are not behaving like liberals.
"'There's nothing liberal about the bailouts. There's nothing liberal about standing by and watching banks use public money to get their executive bonuses. There's nothing liberal about giving insurance companies carte blanche to charge anything they want for health care...Since when did that become liberal?'"
The rest of the story: Kucinich shreds Democrats for betraying the promise of change by Sahil Kapur (The Raw Story 2010-01-21)
From the Self-Parody Desk:
Congress is considering an amendment to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act that would exempt used car salesmen from consumer fraud protections.
Politics: It's about policy, not personality
Barack Obama and the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate came into office a year ago in the middle of an economic -- and political -- crisis at least as profound as anything we have faced as a nation since the 1930s. Our infrastructure is in tatters; our educational system is starved for resources; poverty is growing; joblessness is unconscionably high; we are in the grip of a military-industrial oligarchy that is squandering what is left of our wealth; the federal deficit is huge and growing and we are indebted to foreign powers, some of which do not necessarily wish us well; we are embroiled in two wars and several smaller actions; democracy is crippled by political compromises made more than two centuries ago and unaddressed since; we are the only industrialized nation without some form of affordable, universal health care; economic justice is further from our reach than it was 50 years ago...
Obama ran to the right of his party; though he promised "change," there was no reasonable expectation from the specific proposals he made during the campaign that he would address any of these problems. Still, a populace desperate for a new beginning placed their hopes in his hands. Franklin Roosevelt, too, ran as a conservative, but once in office he enthusiastically embraced any proposal that looked like it might improve the lives of average people. If the voters thought they were electing a Roosevelt last year, they were kidding themselves; but it wasn't unreasonable to hope an Obama administration might catch at least a little of the New Deal spirit.
Yesterday, in true blue Massachusetts, the voters rendered their verdict on the Democrats' first year. Yes, there were other factors, including Martha Coakley's limits as a campaigner -- the outcome was probably determined the evening the AG won the primary -- and Scott Brown's personal appeal, but it's clear that dissatisfaction with the performance of the national Democrats compelled Brown's win. As SEIU president Andy Stern put it, "Make no mistake, political paralysis resulted in electoral failure."
Despite evidence to the contrary, Lawrence Lessig sees an opportunity to end paralysis of our political system, namely by adopting citizen-funded elections to break control of monied interests. Here's what he had to say:
Action: Join Change Congress
Obama ran to the right of his party; though he promised "change," there was no reasonable expectation from the specific proposals he made during the campaign that he would address any of these problems. Still, a populace desperate for a new beginning placed their hopes in his hands. Franklin Roosevelt, too, ran as a conservative, but once in office he enthusiastically embraced any proposal that looked like it might improve the lives of average people. If the voters thought they were electing a Roosevelt last year, they were kidding themselves; but it wasn't unreasonable to hope an Obama administration might catch at least a little of the New Deal spirit.
Yesterday, in true blue Massachusetts, the voters rendered their verdict on the Democrats' first year. Yes, there were other factors, including Martha Coakley's limits as a campaigner -- the outcome was probably determined the evening the AG won the primary -- and Scott Brown's personal appeal, but it's clear that dissatisfaction with the performance of the national Democrats compelled Brown's win. As SEIU president Andy Stern put it, "Make no mistake, political paralysis resulted in electoral failure."
Despite evidence to the contrary, Lawrence Lessig sees an opportunity to end paralysis of our political system, namely by adopting citizen-funded elections to break control of monied interests. Here's what he had to say:
Today is the one-year anniversary of President Obama's inauguration, and it comes at a remarkable moment in his presidency.
Yesterday, the voters in my home state of Massachusetts elected a Republican to serve in the seat once held by Senator Ted Kennedy -- a stunning reminder that for millions of people, the last election wasn't just about one man, but about a deep-seated desire for change.
One year ago today was a moment when many things felt possible, whether or not you supported Obama and his agenda -- when it seemed as if a broken political system might finally have gasped its last breath.
One year later -- with the fate of its signature legislative priority in jeopardy and voters even in a deep blue state saying they still aren't satisfied with the ways of Washington -- it's clear that this administration is an opportunity missed. But it's not, I believe, because Obama is too liberal, nor because he's not liberal enough. Not because this administration has been too defensive, too aggressive, too slow or too quick to act. It's because we have a system in Washington that simply does not -- will not -- allow the kind of change we urgently need.
After one year, we've now seen conclusively that even a transformative figure in the Oval Office can't transform the way Washington works, or dispel the skepticism the voters feel toward their government.
I've filmed a new installment of the Change Congress Chronicles explaining why progressives and conservatives alike should be outraged by what we've seen this past year. Please watch it today:
http://action.change-congress.org/YearOne
As you know, today is also the day we might get a landmark decision from the Supreme Court that could poison the system even further, giving corporations unlimited license to use their money to affect elections in this country. It's a big day.
Action: Join Change Congress
Politics: Ted Kennedy's seat. Ironic, huh?
Of course, sending Scott Brown to the Senate will do nothing to create jobs or end the war in Afghanistan or secure universal, affordable health care. But then neither would have electing a middle-of-the-road party hack like Martha Coakley. The Democrats have an 18-vote majority in the Senate. If they can't pass a jobs program or genuine health care reform, it won't be the fault of Senator Brown. But don't set your expectations too high. As Jon Stewart says, if the Democrats set the bar on the ground, they'd still manage to trip over it.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mass Backwards | ||||
| ||||
Politics: More bipartisanship, this time on debt & taxes
White House, Democratic lawmakers cut deal on deficit commission (Washington Post)
"Faced with growing alarm over the nation's soaring debt, the White House and congressional Democrats tentatively agreed Tuesday to create an independent budget commission and to put its recommendations for fiscal solvency to a vote in Congress by the end of this year.
"Under the agreement, President Obama would issue an executive order to create an 18-member panel that would be granted broad authority to propose changes in the tax code and in the massive federal entitlement programs -- including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- that threaten to drive the nation's debt to levels not seen since World War II....
"Fourteen commission members would have to agree on any deficit-reduction plan, a prospect that skeptics called a recipe for gridlock because action would depend on the support of at least two Republicans for a plan that is sure to include tax increases. Meanwhile, many influential interest groups -- including some unions and AARP -- have lined up in opposition to giving an outside commission power to cut federal spending and are likely to pressure Democrats to resist sharp budget cuts."
The rest of the story: White House, Democratic lawmakers cut deal on deficit commission by Lori Montgomery (Washington Post 2010-01-20)
"Faced with growing alarm over the nation's soaring debt, the White House and congressional Democrats tentatively agreed Tuesday to create an independent budget commission and to put its recommendations for fiscal solvency to a vote in Congress by the end of this year.
"Under the agreement, President Obama would issue an executive order to create an 18-member panel that would be granted broad authority to propose changes in the tax code and in the massive federal entitlement programs -- including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- that threaten to drive the nation's debt to levels not seen since World War II....
"Fourteen commission members would have to agree on any deficit-reduction plan, a prospect that skeptics called a recipe for gridlock because action would depend on the support of at least two Republicans for a plan that is sure to include tax increases. Meanwhile, many influential interest groups -- including some unions and AARP -- have lined up in opposition to giving an outside commission power to cut federal spending and are likely to pressure Democrats to resist sharp budget cuts."
The rest of the story: White House, Democratic lawmakers cut deal on deficit commission by Lori Montgomery (Washington Post 2010-01-20)
Politics: A New Deal, a Fair Deal, a Great Society... or business as usual?
In this state-of-the-union address from January 4, 1965, Lyndon Johnson outlines his vision for a Great Society, following in the tradition of the New Deal and the Fair Deal. Perhaps President Obama will be moved to give it a listen as he prepares for his own speech to the nation next week.
You can also watch the speech and read the entire transcript at UVA's Miller Center of Public Affairs.
Johnson said:
See, also: President Franklin Roosevelt's call for economic justice during his 1944 state of the union address: Economic Bill of Rights proposed by Franklin Roosevelt
You can also watch the speech and read the entire transcript at UVA's Miller Center of Public Affairs.
Johnson said:
...We built this nation to serve its people.As president, Johnson envisioned and tried to accomplish a society that would provide equal opportunity to all Americans, that would seek to improve the quality of life for all. In the end, his Great Society was a remarkable achievement. Without such legislation as Head Start, higher-education loans and scholarships, Medicare, Medicaid, clear air and clean water programs, and civil rights, life would be even nastier, more brutish, and shorter for millions of Americans than it now is, even after 40 years of retrenchment.
We want to grow and build and create, but we want progress to be the servant and not the master of man.
We do not intend to live in the midst of abundance, isolated from neighbors and nature, confined by blighted cities and bleak suburbs, stunted by a poverty of learning and an emptiness of leisure.
The Great Society asks not how much, but how good; not only how to create wealth but how to use it; not only how fast we are going, but where we are headed.
It proposes as the first test for a nation: the quality of its people.
This kind of society will not flower spontaneously from swelling riches and surging power.
It will not be the gift of government or the creation of Presidents. It will require of every American, for many generations, both faith in the destination and the fortitude to make the journey.
And like freedom itself, it will always be challenge and not fulfillment. And tonight we accept that challenge.
I propose that we begin a program in education to ensure every American child the fullest development of his mind and skills.
I propose that we begin a massive attack on crippling and killing diseases.
I propose that we launch a national effort to make the American city a better and a more stimulating place to live.
I propose that we increase the beauty of America and end the poisoning of our rivers and the air that we breathe.
I propose that we carry out a new program to develop regions of our country that are now suffering from distress and depression.
I propose that we make new efforts to control and prevent crime and delinquency.
I propose that we eliminate every remaining obstacle to the right and the opportunity to vote.
I propose that we honor and support the achievements of thought and the creations of art...
See, also: President Franklin Roosevelt's call for economic justice during his 1944 state of the union address: Economic Bill of Rights proposed by Franklin Roosevelt
Capitalism: Stop Them Before They Shock Again
Naomi Klein Issues Haiti Disaster Capitalism Alert
Speaking to Amy Goodman in New York, journalist Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, addressed the crisis in Haiti: “We have to be absolutely clear that this tragedy — which is part natural, part unnatural — must, under no circumstances, be used to, one, further in debt Haiti and, two, to push through unpopular corporatist policies in the interest of our corporations."
The first headlines told the story: Aid came quickly -- food, water, medicine, rescue workers -- from Europe and the United States, Israel, China, neighboring Cuba, tiny Iceland, from American citizens in power boats and Cessnas....but what came first from the United States government was troops. As wearisome as it is to say in the face of the appalling conditions in Haiti today, the long-term needs of this abused people need to be addressed now, too. Like a vacant lot in the South Bronx, Haiti is now on the market. It will be a further tragedy if, like the gorgeous beaches of Southeast Asia after the tsunamis or the buildable land in New Orleans post-Katrina, the country is auctioned off to exploiters at firesale prices.
For more on the history of American militarism in Haiti, visit Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!
Further reading: Naomi Klein's website.
Disaster Profiteering: US 'Security' Companies Offer 'Services' in Haiti by Jeremy Scahill (Common Dreams 2010-01-18)
Another take: The Right Testicle of Hell: History of a Haitian Holocaust by Greg Palast (Greg Palast 2010-01-17)
Update: More Pain for Devastated Haiti: Under the Pretense of Disaster Relief, U.S. Running a Military Occupation by Arun Gupta (AlterNet 2010-02-12)
Speaking to Amy Goodman in New York, journalist Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, addressed the crisis in Haiti: “We have to be absolutely clear that this tragedy — which is part natural, part unnatural — must, under no circumstances, be used to, one, further in debt Haiti and, two, to push through unpopular corporatist policies in the interest of our corporations."
The first headlines told the story: Aid came quickly -- food, water, medicine, rescue workers -- from Europe and the United States, Israel, China, neighboring Cuba, tiny Iceland, from American citizens in power boats and Cessnas....but what came first from the United States government was troops. As wearisome as it is to say in the face of the appalling conditions in Haiti today, the long-term needs of this abused people need to be addressed now, too. Like a vacant lot in the South Bronx, Haiti is now on the market. It will be a further tragedy if, like the gorgeous beaches of Southeast Asia after the tsunamis or the buildable land in New Orleans post-Katrina, the country is auctioned off to exploiters at firesale prices.
For more on the history of American militarism in Haiti, visit Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!
Further reading: Naomi Klein's website.
Disaster Profiteering: US 'Security' Companies Offer 'Services' in Haiti by Jeremy Scahill (Common Dreams 2010-01-18)
Another take: The Right Testicle of Hell: History of a Haitian Holocaust by Greg Palast (Greg Palast 2010-01-17)
Update: More Pain for Devastated Haiti: Under the Pretense of Disaster Relief, U.S. Running a Military Occupation by Arun Gupta (AlterNet 2010-02-12)
Talks: The Unipolar Moment and the Culture of Imperialism
Noam Chomsky delivers the 5th Annual Edward Said Memorial Lecture Columbia University School for International Affairs for the Heyman Center for the Humanities. After paying homage to Edward Said's stress on imperialism as central to our culture, Chomsky builds his case with telling rationalizations and denials by American leaders from the extermination of Native Americans through United States terrorism in Latin and South America -- in Chile, Brazil, El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua -- and the Middle East.
Energy: Are US biofuels policies flawed?
"We need to set realistic targets for ethanol in the United States instead of just throwing taxpayer money out the window." -- Amy Myers Jaffe, associate director of the Rice Energy Program and a contributor to the report.
A few years ago, when biofuel and blogging were both just heating up, I registered biodieselbloggerdude.com (yeah, whatever) with the idea of vanning around the countryside on a tankful of curly fries waste chatting up the entrepreneurs and alchemists who were turning animal and vegetable fat into black gold. About three hours later, having poked about in publicly available sources, I realized the idea of finding the country's energy needs in the compost pile was at best a fantasy and at worst a scam.
Now Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy has released a study citing the economic, environmental
and logistical shortcomings of the U.S. government's efforts to promote of biofuels as alternatives to coal, gas and oil.Fundamentals of a Sustainable U.S. Biofuels Policy (pdf) asks whether the $ billions in federal subsidies and protectionist tariffs that go to domestic ethanol producers every year is money well spent. According to the report, in 2008 "the U.S. government spent $4 billion in biofuels subsidies to replace roughly 2 percent of the U.S. gasoline supply. The average cost to the taxpayer of those 'substituted' barrels of gasoline was roughly $82 a barrel, or $1.95 per gallon on top of the retail gasoline price (i.e., what consumers pay at the pump)." The researchers find little evidence that mandated volumes for biofuels can be met or that biofuels are improving the environment or energy security.
In fact, they say, "[i]ncreases in corn-based ethanol production in the Midwest could cause an increase in detrimental regional environmental impacts, including exacerbating damage to ecosystems and fisheries along the Mississippi River and in the Gulf of Mexico and creating water shortages in some areas experiencing significant increases in fuel crop irrigation." Moreover, they challenge the claim that ethanol use lowers greenhouse gas emissions: "There is no scientific consensus on the climate-friendly nature of U.S.-produced corn-based ethanol, and it should not be credited with reducing GHGs when compared to the burning of traditional gasoline."
In 2007, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) mandating production targets for "renewable fuels," mainly biodiesel and ethanol. The bill set out ambitious production targets beginning in 2008 at 9 billion gallons per year of biofuels and rising to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022. The law caps corn ethanol at 15 billion gallons per year, but according to the study even that level will be difficult to reach given logistical and commercial barriers.
EISA also called for 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels, produced from sources like switchgrass, corn stover and algae, to be included in the nation’s fuel supply by 2022. However, the report finds "existing mandated targets for advanced biofuels are not currently achievable -- scientifically or commercially -- and should be revisited."
Finally, the report questions the efficacy of the tariff imposed on ethanol imported from Latin America and the Caribbean. Because sustainable production of U.S. domestic corn-based ethanol can't or won't happen, the report finds "tariff policies that block cheaper imports are probably misguided....we believe on balance that the economic and geopolitical benefits to this trade with select regional suppliers would outweigh any 'energy security' costs to having some larger percentage of U.S. ethanol supplies arriving from foreign sources."
It should be noted that the study was supported by a research grant in environmental engineering from Chevron Technology Ventures.
Of course, the Rice study doesn't answer questions about what combination of energy sources -- solar, thermal, wind, nuclear, biological or otherwise -- will be needed to liberate us successfully from dependence on oil and coal. But a functioning society is a fact-based enterprise and the report provides additional data to use as we try to devise a workable national energy policy.
The rest of the story: Fundamentals of a Sustainable U.S. Biofuels Policy (Publications from the Rice Energy Program initiative on U.S. Biofuels Policy)
See, also: Is Algae Worse than Corn for Biofuels? (Scientific American 2010-01-22)
2010: In surprise move, progressives endorse a progressive candidate for office
So this is in today's email:
Jonathan Tasini for Senate
Jonathan Tasini's blog on Working Life (Labor Research Association)
Jonathan Tasini for Senate from New York State by David Swanson (Let's Try Democracy 2009-06-11)
Action: Donate to Jonathan Tasini for Senate (ActBlue)
Volunteer for Tasini for Senate
Click here to watch the videoI can't see how this can be construed as anything less than an endorsement of the progressive candidate in the primary, Jonathan Tasini. Can you?
Dear John,
New Yorkers are getting acquainted with their new neighbor, former Tennessee Congressman and bank executive Harold Ford, Jr. So far, we've learned that he rides around town in a chauffeured car, breakfasts at the Regency Hotel on Park Avenue, gets regular pedicures, and visited Staten Island once in his life, by helicopter.
What else do we know about the REAL Harold Ford? Well, for starters, he's a staunch opponent of abortion rights. He also disapproves of marriage equality for gay couples, opposes public safety laws to keep guns off the streets, and blames immigrants for America's problems.
Doesn't sound like much of a New Yorker, does he?
I grew up in New York. New York is a vibrant, tolerant, diverse community with forward-looking people with progressive social values. That's the New York I recall and love. That New York has nothing in common with Harold Ford, Jr. Now that he's living in Manhattan instead of south of the Mason-Dixon line, Ford is remaking himself as a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun control progressive.
That's why we compiled this video of the REAL Harold Ford, Jr., to show New Yorkers who their latest carpetbagger really is. Join us and our partners at Planned Parenthood Advocates of New York, NARAL New York and Make the Road New York in spreading the word.
Share this video with every New Yorker you know
Yours, Robert Greenwald and the Brave New Films team
Jonathan Tasini for Senate
Jonathan Tasini's blog on Working Life (Labor Research Association)
Jonathan Tasini for Senate from New York State by David Swanson (Let's Try Democracy 2009-06-11)
Action: Donate to Jonathan Tasini for Senate (ActBlue)
Volunteer for Tasini for Senate
Tweedlededum Tweedlededee
No progressive should waste a jot of energy on whether Harold Ford or Kirsten Gillibrand wins the New York senate primary. Only Jonathan Tasini will make a difference.
Overheard:
Mother to son (riding through San Diego Zoo's Safari Park):
"Aren't these animals lucky to be living in America?"
Government: Analysis of the Affordable Health Care for America Act
Using a microsimulation model, this RAND analysis estimates the effects of the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) on the number of uninsured, the costs to the federal government and the nation, revenues from penalty payments, and consumers' health care spending. Key finding: the House version of health care reform would cut the number of uninsured Americans to 24 million by 2019 (a 56% decrease) and increase personal spending on health care by about 3.3% cumulatively between 2013 and 2019.
Read Analysis of the Affordable Health Care for America Act (pdf) by Elizabeth A. McGlynn, Jeanne S. Ringel, Federico Girosi (RAND Publications)
See, also: Side-by-side comparison of the House & Senate health care reform bills (H.R. 3962 and H.R. 3590) as of January 7, 2010 (Rand Publications)
Read Analysis of the Affordable Health Care for America Act (pdf) by Elizabeth A. McGlynn, Jeanne S. Ringel, Federico Girosi (RAND Publications)
See, also: Side-by-side comparison of the House & Senate health care reform bills (H.R. 3962 and H.R. 3590) as of January 7, 2010 (Rand Publications)
Creativity: Funding
Kickstarter offers a way to get involved in funding of the work of artists, designers, filmmakers, musicians, journalists, inventors, explorers, and so on. What is Kickstarter? So this isn't about investing? Who can fund their project on Kickstarter? How does someone start a project? How does funding work?
The rest of the story: KickStarter
Read: KickStarter's blog
The rest of the story: KickStarter
Read: KickStarter's blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
