Puget Sound Liberals Weekly Newsletter #194
Enhancing Freedom, Opportunity and Cooperation in
Through informing and networking Liberals and Liberal Organizations.
Our vision is hundreds of thousands of well-informed
Our Website Our Editor To Unsubscribe Table of
Contents * Featured Articles Calendars of Events Communication with Our Members Opportunities Petitions Commentaries from Our Members Don Smith: Arguing Health Care with Conservatives* Rich Austin: ACORN’s Misdeeds Are Trivial* Liberals and Democrats Links to the Beef The Power of Corporate Lobbyists Government Watch - Obama’s Mess** What If We Helped People, Not Financial Companies? * State and Local Links
to the Beef David Spring: It’s Time to End BIAW Corruption** Sara Patton: Close Northwest Coal Plants Featured Advocacy Group: Corporate Accountability
International Nation and World Links to the Beef Priorities for Changing Our International Situation More Countries Participate in Global Governance** Afghan People Have Two Enemies* Our Liberal Spirit Our
Political Priorities ·
Fair Clean
Elections and Open Government ·
Fair Taxes and
Competent Spending ·
Investment for
Productivity ·
Quality
Health, Education, Jobs, Income ·
Environmental
Protection and Energy Independence ·
Security and
Equal Rights ·
Justice and
Peace Everywhere ·
International
Cooperation and Leadership Conservatives oppose all of these Let’s
End Our National Nightmare
Let’s
Restore Our American Dream More on Conservative opposition to our
American Dream Washington State’s 5 Major Needs · Federal Funding for Health and Education · Substituting
a Progressive Income Tax · Replacing
Conservative Legislators Quote of the Week
Calendar of Events
Saturday, October 3 at 10 AM
at Maritime Events Center, Pier 66, Seattle - Blue Festival Celebrating Wild
and Healthy Oceans, sponsored by Food
and Water Watch. $5. For
more information.
Saturday, October 3 at 5 PM
at Jim Simpson’s house (1120 24th Ave E, Seattle) - inSPIRe Salmon Barbeque and
Fundraiser for Dow Constantine, RSVP.
Tuesday, October 5 at 5:50 - 8:50 PM at CH2M Hill headquarters
(1100 112th Ave NE # 400, Bellevue) - Phone
Bank to Oppose I-1033
Tuesday, October 6 at 7 PM
at Bellevue City Hall (450 - 110th Avenue, NE, Bellevue) - Panel
concerning SR 520 Corridor Rebuild, sponsored by State Representative Deb
Eddy.
Thursday, October 15 at 5:30
- 9:30 PM at Seattle Center's Fisher Pavilion - Washington Toxic Coalition’s
Ninth Annual Auction for Action.
$100, $85 before September 15. To register.
Saturday, October 24 at 4:30 - 6 PM at Odd Fellows
Hall, Eastsound, Orcus Island - International Day of Climate Action
Sing-Along, coordinated by 350.org.
Thursday, October 29 at 5:30 PM at Town Hall Seattle
(1119 Eighth Avenue, Seattle) - 2nd
Annual Puget Sound Sage Vision for Justice Dinner. $70.
Communication
with Our Members
This several months may be crucial for
President Obama’s and our success in realizing our liberal agenda, depending
upon what happens to our economy, our health care reform and our Afghan
strategy.
Opportunities
Useful
Websites: contacts, maps, community organizing tools, and more.
A
new Sightline report defines green-collar jobs and describes their promise.
Petitions
Tell
congress to use Senate reconciliation procedures to pass health care reform
with public option.
Tell
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to protect Colorado’s forests by enforcing
roadless rule.
Commentaries
From Our Members
Don Smith: Arguing with Conservatives about Health Care
Excerpts from
a Longer
Commentary
Surprise!
I'm a Democrat and I agree with John Carlson (How NOT
to reform health care, Sept 9) that what he calls Obamacare (basically, HR3200)
has serious problems. I also agree that the Massachusetts model of health care
is the wrong way to go.
HR3200
does prohibit some of the worst practices of insurance companies, but, like the
Massachusetts plan, it mandates that citizens buy private insurance. Like
Medicare D (which rewards Big Pharma) and like the bailouts (which reward Wall
Street, AIG and the banking industries), HR3200 is likely to be a form of
corporate socialism. It funnels tax dollars to private industry and perpetuates
the broken medical insurance system. And, like the Massachusetts plan, it fails
to rein in costs.
Carlson
says a Massachusetts commission is recommending that the state move to a single
payer system "to ration medical care." This characterization is
lowball spin. The insurance industry rations care right now! They deny coverage
to people with pre-existing conditions, they preemptively cancel policies based
on technicalities ("rescission"), and they terminate payment for
treatment that exceeds norms. A Harvard study
finds that each year there are nearly 45,000 excess deaths in the US due to
lack of health care. Over 46 million Americans have no insurance at all --
which forces them to postpone needed care and to rely on expensive emergency
room care. Millions more are under-insured, and 60% of bankruptcies are at
least partly due to medical costs.
Fact
is, there is only a finite amount of money available, but since everyone
eventually gets sick and dies, there is nearly unlimited demand for health
care. When their life and health are at stake, people are willing to spend pretty
much whatever it costs to get better. Doctors want to help, but some treatments
simply aren't effective enough to be worth the cost and the side-effects. Some sort of intelligent allocation of
resources is needed in any system.
The
question is: Who do you trust to make the tough decisions and recommendations?
The insurance companies? Or you and your doctor, in consultation with
science-based guidelines developed by independent experts? The insurance
companies are just out to make a buck; legally, they're required to maximize
shareholder value. They do so by denying care and raising premiums.
Even
Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine agrees that there is a serious lack of
competition among insurance companies. They burden providers with onerous non-standardized
paperwork. Their profits, and, recently, share prices, have been soaring. They
do little to rein in costs. They have no incentive to promote preventive care,
since policy holders tend to switch to new insurance companies when they change
jobs. Corruption and overcharges are rampant, as in all medical industries.
Insurance
companies are wealthy middlemen who provide little added value. They have a
good scam going, and they're spending $1.4 million dollars a day to lobby
Congress to keep it going. Pharmaceutical companies are little better. They've
convinced Congress and Obama to disallow the government from negotiating drug
prices, which are astronomically high. Marketing costs greatly exceed research
costs, but many experts think medicines shouldn't be marketed at all. And many
of their drugs are based on publicly-funded research from NIH and universities
or are variations on pre-existing drugs. See The Horrifying Hidden Story Behind
Drug Company Profits and The
Truth about the Drug Companies, where the author, a former Editor in Chief
of the New England Journal of Medicine , writes of the drug industry,
"Instead of being an engine of innovation, it is a vast marketing machine.
Instead of being a free market success story, it lives off government-funded
research and monopoly rights. "
Most modern industrialized countries rely on some sort
of government-run health care -- with far lower costs and far higher
effectiveness than America's market-based system. Despite conservative claims
to the contrary, their citizens are generally quite satisfied with their care.
Conservatives love to say that government is
inefficient. But Medicare (a government program) has about 4% overhead; private
insurance companies have about 12% overhead. Medicare has been around for 44
years, and both patients and doctors give it higher scores than they give
private insurance. Why? Because patients aren't denied care, and doctors don't
have to fight to get every test , procedure, and prescription approved for
their patients.
Even the post office -- which conservatives love to
hate -- works pretty darn well! Letters arrive across the country in a couple
of days. When was the last time a letter you sent failed to arrive? Consider,
in contrast, the inefficiency of private companies such as AIG, GM, Bear
Stearns, WaMu, and the insurance industry, to name just a few. Wall Street and
the banks failed us miserably.
But I'm not opposed to private profit, and
single-payer health care is not socialized medicine. Only the payment systems
are government-run. Providers can still be private. But nor do socialized
services scare me at all. The police, the fire services, the armed forces, the
courts, public schools, and numerous government agencies are socialized. And
there are good reasons for keeping them that way.
Already 60% of health care spending in the US in
America comes from taxes. But we're not getting our money's worth. We don't
need any additional spending. We just need to control costs. In particular, it
makes no sense to funnel tax dollars through private insurance companies. The
government can manage payment systems more efficiently and equitably than
private companies can. The push for "privatization" ends up costing
taxpayers more for less.
In fact, it's possible to fix private insurance to
make it fairer and more efficient. This would require significant regulatory
restrictions on insurance companies that go beyond those specified in the
President's proposals. The Netherlands has highly regulated insurance companies
that resemble public utilities.
In short, either a strong public option (ideally,
single-payer) or heavy government regulation are needed to control health care
costs. Neither of these workable solutions is palatable to conservatives, who
are ideologically opposed to what they see as government
"interference" in the economy. This is despite the disastrous subprime
crash that resulted from reckless deregulation, and despite the manifest
success of government-run health care overseas and numerous government programs
here.
Alas, given the rampant corruption in Congress -- with
both major parties dependent on corporate campaign contributions, and with the
revolving door between Congress and industry -- it's unlikely we're going to
get any significant reform unless the people demand it, the way they demanded
civil rights in the 1960s. Don Smith
Unlike Don Smith, President
Obama and Nancy Pelosi are not emphasizing that government action is needed to
restrain corporate abuses.
Rich
Austin: ACORNS Misdeeds Are Trivial
An
ACORN “scandal”? What a load of
crapola. The real crooks are still
receiving no-bid contracts despite their illegal actions! Congress has
denounced ACORN yet it protects U.S. corporate terrorists and thieves! Corporate crooks are being sheltered by Congressional
crooks.
While
corporations such as Halliburton, Aegis, Bechtel, Blackwater, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, CACI, Titan and
others were savaging Iraqi civilians and ripping off the government to the tune
of billions and billions of dollars, Congress does what? It awards them new, no-bid contracts, that’s
what!
And
then Congress turns around and caves-in to right-wing extremists by voting to
deny ACORN any further funding.
What is
ACORN? ACORN (Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now) is the nation’s largest grassroots
community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000
member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in
about 75 cities across the country. Since 1970, ACORN has been building
community organizations that are committed to social and economic justice, and
won victories on thousands of issues of concern to our members, through direct
action, negotiation, legislative advocacy and voter participation. ACORN
helps those who have historically been locked out become powerful players in
our democratic system.
In the past 15
years, ACORN has received $53 million for its work. In the past
7 years, crooked contractors have received hundreds of billions of
dollars for their thievery.
It isn’t hard
to figure out what is going on. ACORN
does not donate to political campaigns.
ACORN does not purchase Members of Congress. ACORN doesn’t have fancy “K” Street lobbyists
at its disposal.
Defense
contractors, on the other hand, have a large cadre of lobbyists who wine and
dine a large cadre of lawmakers who thereafter do just as they are told. Many Members of Congress receive generous
“contributions” for selling you and me down the drain!
Is ACORN
perfect? Of course not! Perfection does not exist. Whatever grievances a few members or former
members of ACORN may have committed, they do not even register on the
seismograph when compared to corporate crime and Congressional malfeasance and
misfeasance. Of the worst 100 abuses, ACORN doesn't even make the list.
Unless you are
a recent visitor to Starship Earth, none of this should surprise you. America’s working class has been getting sold
out for several decades. The
military-industrial complex and the medical-profits industry – and their
Congressional stooges – have seen to that.
Isn’t it odd
that an outfit dedicated to helping low and moderate income people gets
trashed, while war criminals are allowed to become filthy rich? Not really.
Such is the nature of neoconservative, socially unredeemable,
mean-spirited capitalism.
And it won’t
change unless we have the guts to tell Congress we’re on to their rigged game,
and then do something about it! Rich Austin
By
not defending ACORN, Democrats risk similar attacks on all their supporters.
Liberals
and Democrats
Our Dysfunctional Congress
Watching
our congress on C-Span is disheartening.
It’s no wonder that people give both houses such low ratings. Instead of focusing on major issues, both
houses spend an inordinate amount of time with quorum calls, slow votes, and
trivial matters such as honoring various people.
Our
Senate has additional problems. Due to a
political compromise necessary to obtain ratification of our constitution, each
state has the same number of senators (2) as others, regardless of population
size. Thus states with small populations
(which are likely to be Conservative rural states) have as much power in the
Senate as states with many times as much population. This is compounded by the Senate rule that a
filibuster can only be stopped by a 60% vote, such that senators from 21 states
with the least population can stop any legislation. The senate would be much more democratic if
this rule was removed and if committee chairs were not selected according to
their seniority.
Thanks
to these rules, Democratic Senator and Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus has
single handedly delayed health care reform for two months so far. It remains to be seen whether he will be able
to render any health care reform that passes much less effective than what is
needed.
The Power of Corporate Lobbyists Supported by Campaign Contributions
Since
their values and priorities are quite different from mainstream American values
and priorities, Republican legislators must rely on corporate campaign
contributions to win elections. The
result is that they easily vote as a solid block.
Being
more in accord with mainstream American values and priorities, Democratic
legislators are not as dependent upon corporate contributions and susceptible
to influence by corporate lobbyists. But
many of them still find it useful to obtain such campaign contributions. The result is that a significant minority of
Democratic Legislators vote with Republican legislators in opposition to the
majority of Democratic legislators.
Corporations thus have more influence than people over which legislation
gets passed or stopped. Our supreme
court many soon make it even easier for corporations to influence legislators.
Government Watch -
President Obama’s Mess
Also go to Whitehouse.gov.
The proportion
of Americans who approve of President Obama’s actions is similar to the
proportion who voted for him. This is
likely because the Republicans are offering no helpful alternative. We could otherwise expect that his approval
ratings would decline.
Our economy has
not improved enough to reduce the number of people who are suffering
unemployment. Many people are still
experiencing foreclosure of their mortgages.
Health care reform has bogged down, such that people continue to pay
high health care costs, to be denied care and to become sicker and die than
would otherwise occur.
With attention
focused upon health care reform, actions concerning financial regulation,
energy and emissions reform and education are delayed. Actions concerning freedom and opportunity issues
such as unionization, GLBT rights and immigration are also delayed.
President Obama
still has not chosen an Afghan strategy.
He has set the stage for many constructive foreign policy actions, but
few of these have yet occurred.
Unless more
people experience an improving economy and health care reform occur soon, we
can expect that President Obama’s ratings will decline.
Health Care Reform
As I watch the
Senate Finance Committee discuss hundreds of amendments to their health care
reform proposal, during which the Republicans are doing everything possible to
slow the process, I keep thinking of the 123 people who are dying each day (45,000
per year) due to lack of health care insurance. For Representative Alan
Grayson’s attack on Republicans.
Vice President Joe
Biden refuted Republican lies that health care reform will reduce Medicare
benefits. Three
Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee joined with Republicans to reject
expanded coverage of medicines for Medicare recipients.
Our Senate Finance
Committee rejected inclusion of a public option in the health care reform
bill. If Senator Max Baucus and either
Senator Kent Conrad or Senator Blanche Lincoln had voted for including a public
option, it would have passed. Senator
Baucus expects to finish debate on his health care reform proposal this week,
with a final vote to occur next week, with the next step being to merge the
results with the senate HALT committee proposal for a vote next week.
When the two
senate proposals are merged, senate Democrats should include a public option
and stimulate
a filibuster to identify which Democrats would support a filibuster against
health reform. If some do, they should
then use reconciliation procedures. For
more.
2010 Appropriations Bills
Our house has
passed all 12 appropriations bills. Our
senate has passed 6 of them. A
continuing resolution will be necessary to continue government operations until
the senate passes the other six and they are merged. But this will occur much sooner than occurred
during the Bush Administration.
International Affairs
President
Obama summarizes positive results of U.N. and G-20 meetings. For more. For more.
What If We Helped People, Not
Financial Companies?
Our
government gave, loaned or guaranteed $17 trillion to large financial
companies. That is over $50,000 per
American, and over $130,000 per American family. Even though I am not an expert on the
necessity of large financial companies, I wonder what would have happened if we
had directly helped people instead of helping large financial companies. Giving, loaning or guaranteeing less than $17
trillion, we might have:
· Provided a larger stimulus-recovery package to create
jobs
· Provided low interest loans to small financial
companies (without toxic assets), so they could greatly increase their lending
to qualified borrowers.
· Funded health care reform to prevent health related
bankruptcies
· Bought many foreclosed houses at reduced prices and
resold many of them as affordable homes
· Given holders of 401k’s, rights to extra social
security payments equal to half or more of the amount that they lost
· Given charity foundations, pension and mutual funds,
money equal to half or more of the amount that they lost
These and
similar measures would have helped people directly. It would have restored money to them for
losses that they didn’t cause, while still letting them have some losses for
their unwise speculation. Large
financial companies would be allowed to fail, removing the too big to fail
problem immediately. Paul
Volcker also questions bailing out large financial firms, instead of reducing
them to a size where they aren’t too big to fail. Financial reforms would then prevent the
fraud, speculation and development of large financial companies, such as
created our current crisis. The fact
that this path was not chosen is an indication of the power of Wall Street
lobbyists compared to lobbyists for Main street Americans. Dave Thomas
Here’s the Beef
A
song extolling our 37th ranking on health care (great sarcastic
video).
Our
senate should extend unemployment benefits.
Utilities
are leaving Chamber of Commerce due to differences concerning global warming.
Progressive
States Network 2010 policy program.
Some
Conservatives recognize that Glenn Beck is harming their image.
Democratic
prospects in 2010 elections look good.
Ralph Nader calls for a
national convention to reclaim political power to people from corporations.
State
and Local
David Spring: It’s Time to End BIAW Corruption
Dave,
I am now ready to go public in exposing the BIAW Retro scam. I believe this is
one of the worst economic and political scandals in the history of our State. The following is an email I have sent many
members of the legislature.
Dear Legislator, on Friday, September 25th, I
attended a meeting of the Retro Proviso Study Group. At this meeting, the
Director of the Department of Labor and Industries (L & I) agreed with the
conclusions of the Wyman Study (released in August 2009) that L & I had
made three actuarial errors which caused Retro subsidy overpayments of at least
$500 million dollars. These three errors included:
1. The double entry error which L & I acknowledged
in February 2009 to have artificially inflated retro subsidies by about 10%
during the past 15 years. Since retro subsidies have average $100 million per
year, this error accounted for about $150 million dollars in over payments
since 1994.
2. The occupational disease error which
Wyman and L & I estimated led to overpayments of 20% - or about twice the
size of the double entry error - for another $300 million in undeserved
subsidies.
3. The 45 month limitation error which
Wyman and L & I estimated at about 5% - or half the size of the double
entry error. This was another $75 million..
All together, these admissions meant L & I has made at least $525 million in
Retro overpayments, or about 35% of the $1.5 billion dollars in retro
subsidies paid to retro agencies during the past 15 years. Despite this
admission, the Director of L & I passed out a written policy stating they
would “prospectively” reduce retro subsidies issued in the future, but
would not seek recovery of any of the above overpayments, other than three
years ($30 million) worth of “adjustments” for the double entry error. In other
words, L & I intends to forgive $495 million dollars in Retro over
payments they admit were made in error.
To add insult to injury, L & I also
announced they intend to pay out another $100 million dollars in Retro
subsidies in 2010. They intend to pay for these subsidies by raising Workers
Compensation rates on all workers and
employers in Washington State by 8 to 10% (which will generate about $120
million dollars).
I believe that both of these policies announced
by L & I last week are contrary to two Washington laws:
WAC
296-17-90402 requires that retro employers as a group and non-retro
employers as a group fund the same portion of their total claim costs relative
to their total premium charges. (If retro groups are not required to refund the
over payments, then they will have paid $500 million less than non-retro
groups).
RCW 51.48.260 states: Liability of persons unintentionally obtaining erroneous payments.
Any person, firm,
corporation, partnership, association, agency, institution, or other legal
entity, but not including an industrially injured recipient of health services,
that, without intent to violate this
chapter, obtains payments under Title 51 RCW to which such person or entity is not entitled, shall be liable for: (1) Any
excess payments received; and (2)
interest on the amount of excess payments at the rate of one
percent each month for the period from the date upon which payment was made to
the date upon which repayment is made to the state.
Clearly, injured workers are the only group
exempt from returning overpayments. I therefore believe Retro groups are
required by law to refund all over-payments made during the past 15 years. It
is also clear that if Retro groups are required to refund the $500 million in
over payments, there would be no need to give Retro groups another $100 million
in subsidies in 2010 and no need to raise Workers Compensation rates.
I believe this half billion dollar boondoggle
may be one of the biggest economic and political scandals in the history of our
State. I hope you will support a bill requiring L & I to accurately
determine the full amount of Retro over-payments during the past 15 years – and
then require retro groups to return these overpayments in full. Attached to
this email is an 85 page report detailing the need for retro reform. You may
also visit a website (retroreform.org) created to inform the public about this
Retro Scandal.
Feel free to email me back if you have any
questions. I would also be happy to meet with you at any time to discuss the
conclusions and recommendations in the report. Thank you for your assistance in
this matter.
Sincerely, David Spring M. Ed.
I
am also attaching a copy of an 85 page report which I have emailed these
legislators. Finally, I have posted all of my research on a website: retroreform.org to help get this
scandal out to the public. The website is now up and running. Take a look at it
and let me know what you think. You are
the first member of the media I have sent this information to.. But by later
today and tomorrow, I hope to issue a press release and send this information
to the general media. I appreciate you forwarding this information to your
readers. The time has come to put an end to this corruption. Regards, David Spring, Executive Director,
Fair School Funding Coalition, Springforschools@aol.com
Sara Patton: Close Northwest Coal Plants
Excerpt from Commentary
Published by Seattle Times on 9/28/2009
Although the council can't order the closure of coal
plants, it can and should explicitly accept the necessity of phasing out coal.
It can tell utilities to start planning for and working toward that goal. And
it can do what its governing federal statute says it must do: fully factor
environmental costs into its resource recommendations.
Council members should incorporate the supporting
analyses done by their own staff into the final plan. These analyses include a
finding that shedding coal power would have relatively minor rate impacts.
We have more than enough bill-cutting energy
efficiency and affordable new renewable energy resources in our region to meet
growing needs, save endangered salmon from looming extinction, phase out coal,
and start electrifying transportation — all the while creating good, local,
family-wage jobs and accelerating economic recovery.
The new draft Northwest and Conservation Plan is good,
as far as it goes. But we must go farther, faster, and commit to phasing out
dirty coal plants. Leanne Beres and Sara Patton
Featured Advocacy Group ---
Corporate Accountability International ----------
Corporate Accountability
International has been waging winning campaigns to challenge corporate
abuse for more than 30 years. It has been present at the beginning of this
movement to demand direct corporate accountability to public interests and at
its forefront ever since.
Today the air
we breathe, the water we drink and our very democracy are under increasing
threat from corporate abuses. Corporate Accountability International is working
toward a world where major decisions affecting people and the environment are
based on the public interest, not on maximizing corporate profits.
Because of their political
influence, corporations typically use their
influence to block or eliminate proposed public protections, and to promote and
enact policies and regulations that benefit their bottom line at the expense of
the public good. Transnational corporations in particular, operate worldwide, without
limits on their power and influence or strong, enforceable standards to protect
people and the environment. To build a better world,
regulators and policymakers must be free to protect people and the environment
without business interference.
As its vision and goals for
how corporations should function in the political arena-toward a safer,
healthier, more democratic world. Corporate Accountability International
created the following standards, which will:
·
Raise awareness of how corporate
political influence harms people and the environment
·
Facilitate effective corporate
campaigning to protect workers, consumers and people in communities where
corporations operate.
Unlike voluntary corporate codes of conduct (which are
often designed by the corporations to serve public relations purposes or to
avoid independent regulation), these standards set a high bar for corporate
conduct and are independent from corporate influence.
Politics for People, Not
Profits
Corporate Accountability
International is working toward a world where major decisions affecting people
and the environment are based on the public interest, not on maximizing corporate profits. Today,
corporations use industry trade associations, corporate lobbyists, political
connections and campaign contributions to promote their narrow interests. To
reach this vision, corporations must obey the law, limit their political
influence, and be more transparent about their activities.
·
Lobbying: Corporations must fully and publicly disclose all
lobbying activities around the world, including through trade associations and
public relations campaigns.
·
Political
Contributions: Corporations must end
financial contributions to political candidates, parties and referenda worldwide.
·
Political Access: Corporations must not trade favors with or buy access
to local, national or international public officials.
Politics for the Public
Interest
Public safeguards are
vitally important to protect people, the air we breathe and the water we drink,
and to ensure precious natural resources are not squandered. Society must apply the “precautionary principle,”
placing the burden of proof on corporations to demonstrate that their products
and practices are safe. Stronger safeguards are necessary, as corporations
often operate without limits to their power and work to dismantle existing
protections while using intimidation and surveillance to reach their policy
objectives.
·
Safeguards: Corporations must follow the precautionary principle
and must not interfere in the development or implementation of global, national
or local policies affecting human rights, health or the environment.
Corporations must also require their subsidiaries and suppliers to abide by
such policies.
·
Independent
Oversight: Corporations must respect the
independent authority of and refrain from "partnering" with institutions
that set standards affecting their business.
·
International
Institutions and Agreements: Corporations
must accept policies that protect people, human rights and the environment and
must not use trade agreements or governing institutions (such as the World
Trade Organization) to preempt such policies or use them for private gain.
·
Local Control: Corporations must honor local control over natural and financial resources.
To build a better world, regulators and policymakers must
be free to protect people and the environment without business interference.
Seattle Office, 603
Stewart Street, Suite 400. Seattle, WA 98101-1263, 206-957-6930
info@stopcorporateabuse.org,
www.stopcorporateabuse.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s the Beef
Michael
Moore’s movie Capitalism: A Love Story
opens in Seattle area today. For
more (video).
Tim
Eyman’s I-1033 would create a permanent recession in Washington.
Across
the west, companies compete to implement green projects.
Washington
State Labor Council’s suggested news links.
Governor Christine
Gregoire’s argument that Boeing should add 2nd 787 assembly line in Washington.
Some
refugees are using their farming skills to provide locally grown food.
Nation
and World
Priorities for Changing Our International Situation
My top priorities for
changing our international situation would be:
Eliminate Nuclear Weapons
Eliminate all nuclear weapons
immediately. Continually inspect all
production of nuclear material to ensure that none is being used to create
nuclear weapons.
Create an Empowered Democratic Global Government
Our United Nations should be
altered to include a legislative body, whose members are elected by our world’s
people. This body would have the power to
make decisions concerning nations, much as our U.S. government has power
concerning our states. See
next commentary concerning evolution to G-20 Summits.
Finance the Empowered Democratic Government
A Tobin tax (tax on currency
exchanges) would both limit speculative flows of money among countries and fund
an empowered democratic government.
Restore and Protect Israel-Palestine Border
Immediately withdraw all
Israelis from the West Bank to restore Israel-Palestine border. International peacekeepers will then protect
each country from any attacks from the other.
Establish International Oversight over Abusive
Governments
Force governments (such as
Sudan (Darfur), Myanmar and Zimbabwe) to quit abusing their people. This may involve various sanctions upon
dictatorial leaders, or if needed, invasion.
More Countries Participate in Global
Governance
Instead of the United Nations, the G-20 is
becoming a more democratic global institution and is subsuming the Bretton
Woods organizations. This trend toward
empowered democratic global government is in the right direction.
United Nations Security Council
The United Nations was
formed during 1942 to 1946 to provide collective security following World
War II. The General Assembly which
included national members had no authority to act. The Security Council members could act, but
each of its members could veto actions.
Members included the United
States, United Kingdom, Russia, China and then France. As a result, the United Nations has had
limited ability to intervene to stop conflicts between and within nations.
The Bretton Woods Monetary Management System
In July 1944, delegates met in
Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to rebuild the international economic
system. They set up a system of rules,
organizations, and procedures to regulate the international monetary system,
including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and
the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), which today is part of the World
Bank Group. Controlled by the
wealthier nations which contributed to them, these Bretton Woods organizations
assumed control over impoverished countries, forcing them to open themselves to
bank loans and then prioritizing the repayment of loans over providing services
to their people.
The Group
of 6 - United States, United Kingdom, France,
Germany, Italy and Japan
The concept of a forum for the world's major
industrialized democracies emerged following the 1973
oil crisis and subsequent global recession. In
1974 the United States created the Library Group, an informal gathering of
senior financial officials from the United
States, the United Kingdom, West
Germany, Japan
and France. In
1975, French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing invited the heads of government from West Germany, Italy, Japan, the
United Kingdom and the United States to a summit in Rambouillet.
The six leaders agreed to an annual meeting organized under a rotating
presidency, forming the Group of Six (G6).
Group of 7
(G-7) - United States, United Kingdom, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada
The following year, Canada joined the
group at the behest of Germany's Chancellor Helmut
Schmidt and U.S. President Gerald Ford
and the group became the 'Group of Seven' -or G7. The European
Union is represented by the President of the European
Commission and the leader of the country that holds the Presidency of the
Council of the European Union. The President of the European
Commission has attended all meetings since it was first invited by the
United Kingdom in 1975 and the Council President now also
regularly attends.
Group of 8 (G-8) - United States,
United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada, Russia
Following 1994's
G7 summit in Naples, Russian officials held separate meetings with leaders
of the G7 after the group's summits. At
the invitation of United Kingdom Prime
Minister Tony Blair and U.S.
President Bill Clinton, Russia formally joined the group in
1997, resulting in the Group of Eight, or G8.
Group of 20 (G-20)
The G-20 was created in 1999 as a response both to
the financial crises of the late 1990s and to a growing recognition that key
emerging-market countries were not adequately included in the core of global
economic discussion and governance. Prior to the G-20 creation, similar
groupings to promote dialogue and analysis had been established at the initiative
of the G-7. The G-22 met at Washington D.C. in April and October 1998. Its aim
was to involve non-G-7 countries in the resolution of global aspects of the
financial crisis then affecting emerging-market countries. Two subsequent
meetings comprising a larger group of participants (G-33) held in March and
April 1999 discussed reforms of the global economy and the international
financial system. The proposals made by the G-22 and the G-33 to reduce the
world economy's susceptibility to crises showed the potential benefits of a
regular international consultative forum embracing the emerging-market
countries. Such a regular dialogue with a constant set of partners was
institutionalized by the creation of the G-20 in 1999.
G-20 is made up of the finance ministers
and central bank governors of 19 countries:
Country Population Economy
United States of America 3 307,212,123 1 14,264
China 1 1,338,612,968 2 7,918
Japan 10
127,078,679 3 4,354
India 2 1,166,079,217 4
3,288
Germany 16 82,329,758 5 2,010
Russia 9 140,041,247 6 2,260
United Kingdom 22 61,113,205 7 2,230
France 21 64,420,073 8
2,130
Brazil 5 198,739,269 9
1,981
Italy 23 58,126,212 10 1,814
Mexico 11 111,211,789 11 1,548
South Korea 25
48,508,972 13
1,342
Canada 38 33,487,208 14 1,303
Turkey 17 76,805,524 15
915
Indonesia 4 240,271,522 16 908
Australia 54 21,262,641 18 795
Saudi Arabia 42 28,686,633 22 593
Argentina 31
41,048,532 23 572
South Africa 24 49,052,489 25 492
The 20th member of the G-20 is the European Union,
which is represented by the rotating Council presidency and the European
Central Bank. To ensure global economic fora and institutions work together,
the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the
President of the World Bank, plus the chairs of the International Monetary and
Financial Committee and Development Committee of the IMF and World Bank, also
participate in G-20 meetings on an ex-officio basis. The G-20 thus brings
together important industrial and emerging-market countries from all regions of
the world.
Together, member countries represent around 90 per cent of
global gross national product, 80 per cent of world trade
(including EU intra-trade) as well as two-thirds of the world's population. The G-20's economic weight and broad membership
gives it a high degree of legitimacy and influence over the management of the
global economy and financial system. The
G-20 is a forum for cooperation and consultation on matters pertaining to the
international financial system. It studies, reviews, and promotes discussion
among key industrial and emerging market countries of policy issues pertaining
to the promotion of international financial stability, and seeks to address
issues that go beyond the responsibilities of any one organization.
Membership does not reflect exactly the 19 largest
national economies of the world in any given year. The organization states: In a forum such as the G-20, it is particularly
important for the number of countries involved to be restricted and fixed to
ensure the effectiveness and continuity of its activity. There are no formal
criteria for G-20 membership and the composition of the group has remained
unchanged since it was established. In view of the objectives of the G-20, it
was considered important that countries and regions of systemic significance
for the international financial system be included. Aspects such as
geographical balance and population representation also played a major part.
All 19 member nations are among the top 32 economies as measured in GDP
at nominal prices in a list published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for
2008. Not represented by membership in the G-20 are Switzerland
(21), Norway
(24), Taiwan
(ROC) (26), Iran
(27) and Venezuela
(30), even though they rank higher than some members. Spain (9), Netherlands (16), Poland (18), Belgium (20), Sweden (22), Austria (25), Greece (26) and Denmark (28) are
included only as part of the EU, and not independently. When the countries' GDP
is measured at purchasing power parity (PPP) rates,
all 19 members are among the top 24 in the world in 2008, according to the IMF.
Iran (17) and Thailand (23)
are not G-20 members, while Spain (12), Netherlands (19) and Poland (20) are
only included in the EU slot. However, in a list of average GDP, calculated for
the years since the group's creation (1999–2008) at both nominal and PPP rates,
only Spain, Netherlands
and Poland
appear above any G-20 member in both lists simultaneously]
It is often argued that the G20, although it
provides broader representation than the G8, is not entitled to make
decisions that affect the whole world, because its member states are selected
arbitrarily. The G20 does not have a charter and its debates are not public,
making it an "undemocratic institution.
Critics propose an alternative such as an Economic Security Council within the United
Nations, where members should be elected by the General Assembly based on their
importance in the world economy and the contribution they are willing to
provide to world economic development.
The G-20
has progressed on a range of issues since 1999, including agreement about
policies for growth, reducing abuse of the financial system, dealing with
financial crises and combating terrorist financing. The G-20 also aims to
foster the adoption of internationally recognized standards through the example
set by its members in areas such as the transparency of fiscal policy and
combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism. In 2004, G-20
countries committed to new higher standards of transparency and exchange of
information on tax matters. This aims to combat abuses of the financial system
and illicit activities including tax evasion. The G-20 also plays a
significant role in matters concerned with the reform of the international
financial architecture.
The G-20 has also aimed to develop a common view
among members on issues related to further development of the global economic
and financial system and held an extraordinary meeting in the margins of the
2008 IMF and World Bank annual meetings in recognition of the current economic
situation. At this meeting, in accordance
with the G-20s core mission to promote open and constructive exchanges between
advanced and emerging-market countries on key issues related to global economic
stability and growth, the Ministers and Governors discussed the present
financial market crisis and its implications for the world economy. They
stressed their resolve to work together to overcome the financial turmoil and
to deepen cooperation to improve the regulation, supervision and the overall
functioning of the world’s financial markets.
Unlike international institutions such as the Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), IMF or World Bank, the G-20
(like the G-7) has no permanent staff of its own. The G-20 chair rotates
between members, and is selected from a different regional grouping of
countries each year. In 2009 the G-20 chair is the United Kingdom, and in
2010 it will be South Korea. The chair is part of a revolving
three-member management Troika of past, present and future chairs. The
incumbent chair establishes a temporary secretariat for the duration of its
term, which coordinates the group's work and organizes its meetings. The role
of the Troika is to ensure continuity in the G-20's work and management across
host years.
With the G-20 growing in stature since the 2008 Washington summit, its leaders
announced on September 25, 2009 that the group will replace the G8 as the main economic
council of wealthy nations. For more.
Afghan People Have Two Enemies
Our U.S. has one enemy in Afghanistan: Al Qaeda. The Afghan people have two enemies: the Taliban
and the corrupt Karzai government. To
gain the support of the Afghan people, we must successfully eliminate the
Afghan government corruption. The Afghan
people will then cooperate with the respected Afghan army to resist the
Taliban, thereby keeping the Taliban from dominating Afghanistan and opening it
to Al Qaeda.
Without eliminating Afghan government corruption, we cannot keep the
Afghan people from allowing the return of Taliban control, thus prolonging our
presence in Afghanistan. So the major
question is, “How we can reduce the Afghan government corruption?”
Here’s the Beef
Only
the very high income earners have done better since the 1970s than they did
before.
Paul
Volker says Federal Reserve should regulate large financial companies.
No financial company
executives have gone to prison for their fraudulent activities.
Government
spending has increased stock prices; but business executives complain about it.
A
new measure of economic success is needed that includes economic equality.
Dollar may soon lose
its status as the world’s reserve currency.
Since most of what is
sold at shopping malls isn’t needed, 1/5th of our largest ones have
closed.
Maryland lowers
hospital costs by setting rates.
States
vary markedly in the percentage of their people who lack health insurance.
The
AFL-CIO voted unanimously to support single payer health insurance.
As aquifers are
depleted, grain production to feed hundreds of millions of people will end.
Global
warming may help some American farmers, but it will harm many others.
Are
General David Petraeas and the military-industrial complex promoting a wider
Afghan war?
Our
Liberal Spirit
Think Globally.
Act Globally.
We have been urged to think
globally; but act locally. The
presumption is that it is difficult to act globally. And that if enough of us will act locally,
our actions will add up to global action.
But both of these assumptions are now wrong.
If many of us act locally to
reduce our energy and other resource usage, through conservation and recycling,
it still does not do as much as changing laws to motivate or force everyone to
reduce their energy usage. Using the
internet, it is now easy to form and sign petitions to influence leaders at
home and around the world to change laws.
So it is not enough to act locally.
We should all act globally.
Recommended Books – See our list of books for liberals
Eric Alterman, 2003, What Liberal Media? The Truth about BIAS and the News
Eric
Alterman’s book describes the mergers which have greatly concentrated control
of our commercial print and electronic media, under the control of a few
Conservative Owners. The result is that
all of these commercial media present many more Conservative commentators than
Liberal ones. We regularly see such
Conservative commentators such as Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity,
Oliver North, Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs and Ann Coulter.
We seldom see such Liberal commentators as Noam Chomsky, Jim Hightower, Ralph Nader and Michael Moore. Luckily the Conservative commentators only influence a limited minority of Americans. A majority of Americans retain their Liberal values. As Glenn Beck and other Conservative commentators have become leaders of the tea party demonstrators, many Conservatives have left the Republican Party to become Independents or quit politics.