Puget Sound Liberals Weekly Newsletter #205
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 Repeating Our Call to Create Jobs, Not Bubbles Opportunities Petitions Commentaries from Our Members Rosa Franklin: We Need Washington Tax Reform** William Anderson: Income Tax is Sensible, Tested and Fair Liberals and Democrats Links to the Beef If Bush Lost in 2000, Imagine President Lieberman State and Local Links
to the Beef Featured Advocacy Group: League of Women Voters Ross Hunter: East Light Rail Link Route Nation and World Links to the Beef You Can Personally Create jobs, Not Bubbles** Avoid Inappropriate Christmas Gifts Our U.S. Massive Systemic Corruption** Can the United States Serve as a World Peace Force?** Our Liberal Spirit Bringing More Possible Opportunities to Negotiation 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 From Win-Lose to Win-Win
Negotiation. Wikipedia
Calendar of Events
Saturday, January 9th at 9:30 AM - 2:30 PM
at Seattle Pacific University, Gwinn Room (3310 Sixth
Avenue West, Seattle) - 2010
Environmental Priorities Coalition Legislative Workshop. Sponsored by Washington Environmental
Council, Washington Toxics Council and other environmental organizations. $10 + $10 for lunch. To
Register.
Monday, January 18 at 8:30 AM at The Capitol Theater (206 5th Ave SE, Olympia) - Peoples Summit and March on our Capitol. To Register.
Communication
with Our Members
Repeating Our Call to Create Jobs, Not Bubbles
Given
its importance, the commentary below entitled ‘You Can
Personally Create jobs, Not Bubbles’ is essentially a repeat of one
included in last week’s newsletter.
Each of us individuals is continually tempted to enter into a variety of
financial arrangements which transfer money to Wall Street speculators, thus
creating bubbles and their collapse. By
resisting these temptations, we can instead direct our money toward
non-speculative financial companies which fund appropriate investment and consumption,
thus creating jobs. When individuals
create jobs in this way, the government and its financial funding are not
involved, so our federal deficits are not increased.
Although
I prefer to only feature one or two commentaries of major importance in each
newsletter, this one has three due to their current relevance:
·
Individually
Creating Jobs, Not Bubbles
·
Our U.S. Systemic
Corruption
·
Can Our U.S.
Serve as a Global Peace Force?
Opportunities
Useful
Websites: contacts, maps, community organizing tools, and more.
Petitions
Tell
President Obama to hold the G-8 accountable to their promise to combat world
hunger.
Tell
our Obama Administration to take anti-trust action to increase competition in
agriculture.
Tell
President Obama to promote giving billions of dollars for developing countries’
green programs.
Tell
Senator Boxer to place top priority on strengthening and passing the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
Sign
Maria Cantwell’s petition to regulate derivatives.
Tell
your congress member to support immigration reform.
Commentaries
From Our Members
Rosa Franklin: We Need Washington Tax Reform
Published by Seattle Times
on 12/14/2009
The Model T was a fine machine in its day. So were
scrub boards, rotary telephones and eight-track tapes. They all made sense for
their time. But that time is long past. So
why do we rely on a tax structure that is even more outdated? Our tax system, devised a century ago for an
economy based on agriculture, manufacturing and local commerce, is so
irrelevant to today's realities that we can no longer sustain the basic
services on which many Washingtonians rely. In fact, a recent study by the
Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy identified ours as the most
regressive tax system in the country.
Here's why our system is breaking down:
·
People who earn less than $20,000 annually pay 17.3 percent of their
family income toward sales and excise taxes and property taxes.
·
People who earn between $99,000 and $198,000 pay 7.6 percent toward
their tax bill.
·
People who earn more than $537,000 a year pay just 2.9 percent.
Under our system, in other words, minimum-wage and
middle-class families struggle to make ends meet while those who can afford to
pay the most actually pay the least. That's
a big reason there's such fierce public resistance to the modest tax increases
our state needs to maintain its essential public services. Middle-class
taxpayers complain they can't afford to pay even more than they already do, and
they're right — tax increases will eat at money they need to maintain their
homes and their kids' educations.
That forces a Sophie's Choice on the middle class —
pay higher taxes or suffer brutal cuts in schools, public safety and other
vital services. It doesn't have to be
this way. In 2003, and in every year since, I have proposed a tax-reform plan
that would ease the tax obligation on the middle class, on limited-income
homeowners and on small businesses, while also helping us better withstand
recessions. I don't even claim credit
for the idea — it came right from the 2003 Gates Commission. It made sense then
and it makes even more sense today. In fact, if we'd adopted the commission's
recommendation years ago, we'd be in much less of a recession in our state
today.
The plan would create a state income tax under which
low-income and middle-class residents would pay less and the wealthy more, with
much of it offset by reductions in state sales tax, state property tax,
business-and-occupation tax credits, and a cap on regular property tax. The
plan would also direct a portion of revenues into a student achievement fund
and install a key safeguard — it would require a two-thirds majority vote to
pass any future changes to tax rates.
The need for these long-needed changes worsens by the
day. Earlier this year, in the face of the worst recession since the Great
Depression, the Legislature had to cut $3.3 billion in programs and public
services to balance the budget. Since then, revenues are projected to fall
short another $2.8 billion. Under our current system, our only options will be
to shred vital public services or raise taxes on people who are already
struggling. Neither of these makes
sense. It's time to adopt a tax structure designed for 2010 instead of 1910. Rosa
Franklin, Democratic 29th Legislative District Senator
William Anderson: Income Tax is Sensible, Tested
and Fair
Published by Seattle Times on 12/16/2009
State Sen. Rosa Franklin’s support of a progressive
state income tax [“Washington state’s regressive tax system needs an overhaul,”
Opinion, guest commentary, Dec. 14] helpfully notes that it could save us from
having to choose between cutting vital services and increasing taxes on those
already struggling with tax burdens.
Despite its persuasiveness, Franklin’s proposal will
no doubt call forth the endless theoretical arguments opposing a state income
tax. One wonders how many would so
strenuously object to an income tax if the scheme would not raise their own
taxes now or in the future. Viewed from this perspective, much opposition to an
income tax owes less to theoretical arguments than it does to a simple effort
to preserve a personal advantage.
There is nothing wrong with preserving a personal
advantage. But this principle — like all principles — must have limits.
Franklin’s bill, based on the 2003 Gates Commission recommendations and
countless other reports, is sensible, tested and fair. It reflects
considerations broader than mere personal advantage. It is long past time to bring these
more-inclusive principles into our debates over tax policy. We are, after all,
passengers on the same train. William R. Andersen
State
Representative Brendan Williams says we need to treat voters as adults, discussing
revenue increases with them (video).
Read
my detailed tax reform proposal and its rationale. Dave Thomas
Liberals
and Democrats
Government Watch
Also go to Whitehouse.gov.
Obama Administration
introduces far-reaching transparency, participatory and collaborative measures.
Health Care Reform
Vice
President Joe Biden defends Medicare proposals and criticizes Conservatives
who pretend to support Medicare while trying to destroy it (video). A new
report from the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
confirms that the bill adds years to the life of Medicare, lowers costs for
seniors, and slows the rate of health care cost growth.
In
the absence of details, various experts attempt to evaluate the new health care
reform proposals. For
more. Will
the house concur with the senate bill, or will a conference committee be necessary
to merge two bills?
Various senators argue that even
without a public option or allowing people to join Medicare, the senate
health care reform bill does much good and can be strengthened later. Another
argument for passing the flawed senate health care reform bill, after better
regulation and subsidies for those who are forced to purchase insurance. Very important is that passing even a gravely
flawed health reform bill will allow our Obama administration to act on
creating jobs, unionization, regulatory reform, immigration reform, ‘Don’t ask.
Don’t tell.’ and other measures to obtain support for Democratic victories in
our 2010 elections.
In Accordance with John
Podesta, I support passing the flawed senate health care reform bill by both
the Senate and House, so it can proceed directly to President Obama without
having to merge different health care reform bills. For
more. For
more. For
more. For
more. I believe it is crucial to be
able to spend 2010 focusing on creating jobs and other measures that have been
put on hold until passage of health care reform. Dave Thomas
Jobs
President Obama
continues to explore ways to stimulate job preservation and creation. Democratic
house leaders propose to spend $150 billion to create job.
Regulating Wall Street
In his weekly
Saturday address, President
Obama praised regulatory proposal that was passed by the house. For
more. Paul
Volcker may be gaining influence for increased regulation of speculative
activities.
Just War
In his Nobel
Peace Prize acceptance speech, President Obama commented that war is sometimes
necessary to obtain a just peace.
Closing Guantanamo
President Obama is
following through on closing Guantanamo.
Afghanistan and Pakistan
The
U.S. and Pakistan are coordinating their efforts to reduce Taliban terrorism. Our
U.S. cooperation with effective local Afghan authorities is increasing,
thus avoiding corrupt Afghan authorities.
If Bush Lost in 2000, Imagine President Lieberman
Imagine that Al
Gore won in 2000, and then was incapacitated such that Joe Lieberman became
President. Yuk. There seems to be general agreement that
Senator Lieberman is an egomaniac who is eager to substitute his wisdom for
that of 59 other Democratic Senators. He
has been appropriately described as acting like Lucy in the peanuts cartoon, in
which she offers to hold the football, then snatches it away at the last
moment. It appears clear that he (and
all the Republican Senators) will oppose any health care reform which
constrains our private health insurers from raising costs.
We thus have a
choice of health reform which is financially unsustainable, or no health reform
at all. An alternative is
reconciliation, but that process doesn’t allow passage of many of the
important, but not financial reforms. Perhaps
we will have to pass a lousy reform bill, with expectations of going on to
focus upon jobs and other legislation in hopes of augmenting the number of
Democratic Congress members in 2010.
Then we could revisit health care reform to add the necessary cost
constraints.
Here’s the Beef
Michigan
has somehow found money to loan to growing small manufacturers.
Voters
want to spend to create jobs, obtaining money through increasing taxes on high
income people.
President
Obama’s financial appointees are responsible for moral hazards.
Four
Democratic house members decide to not run for re-election. Hopefully others will run who are more
consistently Liberal.
If
health care reform fails, will voters replace opponents in 2010?
Three
approaches to distributing wealth fairly: utilitarian, equalitarian and
libertarian.
As
in upstate NY, a tea bagger Marco Rubio is challenging the Republican senatorial
candidate Charlie Crist, perhaps leading to election of a Democrat. Perhaps we Liberals should contribute to tea
baggers who challenge Republicans.
State
and Local
What is BIAW Thinking Now?
The
Building Industry Association of Washington scheduled their winter quarterly
meeting for early November, during which they were going to elect their
officers for the next year. A newsletter
is usually published and made available on their website in which they report
on the quarterly meeting, their accomplishments for the past year, and their
expectations for the coming one. But I
can’t find any such newsletter.
It
would be nice to know whether they are worried about the lawsuit which is
facing them. Or about David Spring’s
revelation that the BIAW must repay the money that it has received
illegally. Or do they assume rightly or
wrongly that they can continue to receive rebates and spend them to weaken our
government’s ability to serve our people?
And to weaken political candidates who support appropriate government
actions?
Featured Advocacy Group
-------------------------------- League of Women
Voters ----------------------------
Like our Puget Sound
Liberals, our League of Women
Voters primary vision is educational.
It similarly educates people about Liberal policies. Policies to be recommended must meet two
criteria:
·
The issue must be one on which governmental action is
needed.
·
The issue must fall within the Principles of the
League.
The League of Women Voters Believes in the following principles:
·
in representative government and in the individual
liberties established in the Constitution of the United States.
·
that democratic government depends upon the informed
and active participation of its citizens and requires that governmental bodies
protect the citizen's right to know by giving adequate notice of proposed
actions, holding open meetings and making public records accessible.
·
that every citizen should be protected in the right to
vote; that every person should have access to free public education which
provides equal opportunity for all; and that no person or group should suffer
legal, economic or administrative discrimination.
·
that efficient and economical government requires
competent personnel, the clear assignment of responsibility, adequate financing
and coordination among the different agencies and levels of government.
·
that responsible government should be responsive to
the will of the people; that government should maintain an equitable and
flexible system of taxation, promote the conservation and development of
natural resources in the public interest, share in the solution of economic and
social problems which affect the general welfare, promote a sound economy and
adopt domestic policies which facilitate the solution of international
problems.
·
that cooperation with other nations is essential in
the search for solutions to world problems, and that the development of international
organization and international law is imperative in the promotion of world
peace.
Our League of Women Voters emphasizes that it is non-partisan. But like our Puget Sound Liberals, once these
Liberal principles are adopted, few if any Republicans could be supported.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s the Beef
Good bye and good
riddance, Brian Baird.
Senator
Craig Pridemore will attempt to replace Brian Baird.
Washington’s
employment may recover slowly over more than two years. For
more.
Ellensburg
initiates community solar panel experimental demonstration project.
Tell
Governor Christine Gregoire to continue to support updating our energy efficiency
codes.
Ross Hunter: Light East Rail Link Route
Ross Hunter has demonstrated that light rail cannot at
present connect Seattle and the Eastside via the SR-520 Evergreen Bridge. Unfortunately, the route which is likely to
be chosen from the East end of Lake Washington is incompatible with the long
term objective of connecting all of our Eastside population
concentrations. The result will be that
Eastside Light Rail will serve far fewer people than are necessary to reduce
freeway congestion. It will serve only
those people who want to go from the West Side to downtown Bellevue, Overlake
and Redmond, leaving people elsewhere without service.
Perhaps the route can go from Lake Washington to just skirt the
north end of the Mercer Slough to reach the BNSF route. Connection to downtown Bellevue could either
come the south or from the east.
Eventual connection from the Westside to Issaquah and Renton would be
several miles more distant, due to having to skirt around the Mercer
Slough.
Nation
and World
You Can Personally Create Jobs, Not Bubbles
To
deal with various issues including global warming and job creation,
Conservatives frequently tell us they favor individual action instead of government
action. They perceive Government as a
special interest group which will spend public money for programs that the
people don’t support.
But
Conservatives also imagine that individuals will act to maintain present
conditions, instead of act to reform them.
If individuals do act as reformers, Conservatives will resist since they
depend upon campaign contributions from entrenched interests to have a chance
of winning elections in spite of the differences between their values and those
of the general public. Regarding our
economy, Conservatives place a higher priority upon supporting Wall Street than
upon individual action. One more example
of Conservative hypocrisy.
Creating Jobs without Government Action
To reduce our unemployment from 10% to 5%, we need to create 5% more
jobs. Suppose that one fourth (25%) of
us follow the suggestions described below such that we each typically stimulate
the creation of 1/5th of a job.
We would then have created 5% more jobs without specific involvement of
our national, state or local governments.
Our governments would not have spent money obtained from reduced spending elsewhere or from
borrowing to increase our deficits.
It
is difficult to get people to pledge and follow through with actions to reduce
our carbon foot print. People are
encouraged to take individual actions to reduce their consumption of carbon
based energy. To install solar energy,
to better insulate their homes, to use more efficient lights and
appliances. And more. But old habits are difficult to change. And people may believe their efforts will
have little effect when others don’t make the same efforts. However, we are still encouraging people to
act individually with respect to global warming. Why not do the same with respect to job
creation?
Much of our advertising tempts us to give our money to the speculative
America, with virtually no advertising tempting us to support productive
America. Even though the evidence is
clear that the wealthy use their money to serve speculative America instead of
productive America, Conservatives still argue for tax cuts for the
wealthy. It would be good for books to
appear which advise us about 100 ways to use our money to create jobs, just as
such books have appeared to advise us how to reduce our carbon footprint.
American Productive and Speculative
Economic Subsystems
Our economy can be described as two highly interrelated economic
subsystems. The first is a productive subsystem which consists of
Main Street enterprises using capital to hire workers to create products which
are sold to yield revenue for paying the workers who then buy products for
consumption or for investment to create more production. The second is a speculative subsystem which consists of large financial and other
companies which drain money off from the first economic system to create
speculation and richly reward its top personal.
We can imagine that our productive subsystem covers America like a
lawn. Reaching out from Wall Street, our
speculative subsystem sends its Kudzu like tentacles throughout productive Main
Street America. The two subsystems
connect at all those points at which speculative America tempts productive
Americans to pass their money to speculative Americans. These points include our work, consumption,
borrowing and savings. They include:
· Firms which
allocate revenues to managers and stockholders instead of sufficiently
rewarding their workers
· Workers paying
extra for products produced in insufficiently competitive markets, ones with
high price/earnings (P/E) ratios
· Workers and
others speculating in stocks and other financial instruments, through 401(k),
mutual funds, pension funds, endowment funds, municipal funds, etc.
· Workers
borrowing through mortgages, lines of credit, credit cards and paycheck loans,
for which they pay high fees
The money which is drained into the
speculative subsystem goes to large financial companies, which use it to
stimulate speculation and to provide enormous incomes to their top
employees. When the speculative subsystem
crashes, much of this money disappears, leaving productive America without
sufficient capital.
Each
of us individuals is continually tempted to enter into a variety of financial
arrangements which transfer money to Wall Street speculators, thus creating
bubbles and their collapse. By resisting
these temptations, we can instead direct our money toward non-speculative
financial companies which fund appropriate investment and consumption, thus
creating jobs. When individuals create
jobs in this way, the government and its financial funding are not involved, so
our federal deficits are not increased.
Worker, Manager and Stockholder Oriented
Businesses
In
allocating the revenue which results from their production, some businesses
prioritize rewarding their workers. Others reward their managers. Others reward
their stockholders. To create Main Street
jobs, we need to assist businesses which reward their workers. To reduce the amount of Wall Street
speculation, we need to avoid assisting manager and stockholder oriented
businesses.
Our Work
It
is beyond the scope of this commentary to explain differences between
businesses and occupations of their workers which make them more or less worker
oriented. But as with the Wal-Mart
controversies, we know that some businesses seek to maximally reduce the pay
and benefits of their workers. This is
more difficult to do when the workers are unionized, so such manager and
stockholder oriented businesses strongly oppose unionization.
It
is in our personal interest as well as the public interest to attempt to work
for a worker oriented business. Although
we may have little power, we can attempt to make the business for which we work
more oriented toward its workers. We can
encourage unionization. We can blow the
whistle when the business demands that workers work without legally mandated
pay, or breaks laws which protect union organizers.
Our Consumption
We
should have learned about appropriate and inappropriate consumption by
now. Consumption of a product is inappropriate
when its production, use or retirement harms our environment. It is inappropriate when it is not
satisfying. We should avoid such
inappropriate consumption.
For
our appropriate consumption, we should attempt to purchase and use items provided
by worker oriented businesses, instead of ones provided by manager or
stockholder oriented businesses. We
should avoid purchasing goods and services from businesses which due to
inadequate competition are able to charge too much. Like our work, we should use our appropriate
consumption to stimulate the growth of businesses which will create fairly paid
jobs for their workers.
Our Borrowing
When
we borrow for investment or appropriate consumption, we obligate ourselves to
spend our earnings to pay back our loans.
As with our work and consumption, we should borrow from worker oriented
firms which will create fairly paid jobs for their workers. We should avoid borrowing from large
financial firms, credit cards and paycheck loan firms which through interest
and fees, obtain money from you to direct to their managers and
stockholders. Borrow instead from
smaller banks and credit unions which do not excessively reward managers and
stockholders.
Our Savings
We
should similarly direct our savings to worker oriented businesses (smaller
banks and credit unions). See
a list of our Washington credit unions. Our savings will then be loaned for
appropriate consumption and to investors who will create jobs. We should avoid directing our savings to
speculative use by large financial firms which primarily orient to their
managers and/or stockholders.
Individually Creating Jobs
If many of us would pledge to shift 1%, 2%, or 5% of our income from
the speculative subsystem to the productive subsystem, we could provide the
capital to hire many workers. We can
each do this individually, without involving our government which is so beset
by corrupt campaign contributions and lobbyists.
We might not make quite as much return on our savings. But it should now be evident that with a
higher return through speculation comes greater risk, both individually and
systemically. The net effect is that
speculation doesn’t yield much more than invested savings and in the long run,
it yields much less. Let’s not put all
the responsibility for creating jobs on the Obama Administration which most
likely creates larger federal deficits.
Let’s act individually, with no expense to our government.
Encouraging Government Action
Our individual actions are not a substitute for government actions; they are in addition to them. We still need to encourage our government officials to regulate speculative businesses which prioritize the allocation of revenues to managers and stockholders instead of workers.
Creating a New Economy
If we create jobs without a speculative bubble, what will our economy
look like? We will have changed from a Borrow, Consume and Speculate mindset
and practices to an Earn, Conserve and
Invest mindset and practices. Our
economy will be much like the economy which served us so well from the end of
World War II to the mid-1970s.
But there should be a major difference with the earlier Earn, Conserve and Invest Economy. Following World War II, the economy was
managed by a coalition of large businesses and large labor, as described by
John Kenneth Galbraith. In the future
our economy should be managed by our government. Beside protecting us from speculation, such
management would ensure that our economy contained sufficient investment and a
sufficient safety net. We can expect
that much more service workers who care for our children, elderly and infirm
people would be paid much better. More
public and private investment would replace inappropriate consumption such that
sufficient jobs would occur, and these jobs would be better paid than many are
now.
In Conclusion
In addition to government action, we recommend individual action to
create well paid jobs while avoiding fueling speculative activities and the
financial and other businesses that engage in them. We envision that the result will be full
employment with a greater proportion of people working to create investment
products and fewer working on consumption products. We envision that a higher proportion of
people would work to provide services and a lower proportion to provide
products. We envision that people would
be paid a high proportion of what they produce.
We also envision that like Europe, our jobs would become more worker
and family oriented, with ample sick and family responsibility leave, vacation
time and flexibility. We would find more
of our satisfaction in time away from work, and less of our satisfaction in
consumption of stuff, much of which has had adverse environmental impacts. Dave Thomas
Avoid Inappropriate Christmas Gifts
As we know from personal experience, we seldom like the gifts that
receive as much as we would like what we would buy with the same amount of
money. So much of the money that we and
others spend for gifts is wasted.
One way to avoid this that has become more popular is to give gift
cards. But this is still wasteful, as
often the particular store may not be convenient, we may not like what they
have to offer, and they may renege on their promise to redeem the card in a
timely manner or at all. We know that as
a result, many gift cards are never redeemed.
So the money spent purchasing them is still wasted.
My solution is to perhaps send something personal such as photographs
and just send money, so the people can buy what they want or even save it. If most people would do this, people would
not be shopping for others before Christmas.
They might be shopping for themselves after Christmas. Producers would have to offer products that
people want instead of products that people think others might want.
Our U.S. Massive Systemic Corruption
We are often informed of corruption of China. China’s corruption largely consists of local
officials stealing money which should be paid to farmers and others for land
that the government is expropriating, or simply stealing the land to sell to
the government. Chinese corruption does
not appear to affect the general economic policies of the Chinese government,
which have been some of the most effective policies found anywhere.
Chinese officials, like officials in most developing countries, often
demand bribes in order to grant various permits, such as for business, driving,
visas, etc. I have personally
experienced such corruption in India, Philippines, Indonesia, Kenya and
Peru. In Afghanistan, the police forces
require bribes to the detriment of our attempts to assist local villages.
Our U.S. corruption is different from these examples. It is oriented toward affecting our economic
and political policies. Economic
interests who resist various reforms contribute to the campaigns of legislators
(at national, state and local governments) that similarly resist such reforms,
often assisting them to successfully to get elected, even though the voters may
support reform. Spent on increasing name
recognition and false framing, value differences are hidden.
I have talked with various Washington State legislators about our need
for public campaign financing. They
invariably claim that their views are not affected by their campaign
contributions. I believe they are almost
always telling the truth. Their views
usually precede receiving campaign contributions from special interests which
support their views. But what people
fail to realize is that even though it does not involve bribery, these campaign contributions are corrupt.
A legislator who opposes reform receives campaign contributions which
enable him or her to beat another legislator whose support for reform is more
compatible with the views of the voters.
Thus the will of the people is blocked.
Legislators
should win due to the convictions of voters, unaffected by campaign
contributions. This is why public campaign
financing is a key strategy to eliminate corruption at all levels of U.S.
government. Dave Thomas
Can the United States Serve as a World Peace Force?
Am I sure? I’m never sure. Oh, I was sure once in 1973. But I was wrong.
Our Unnecessary
Cold War
During much of my life, I longed for the end of the Cold War. I believe that once the Soviet Union
controlled Eastern Europe which had served as a route for attacks from Western
Europe, it had no desire to extend her control further west. The Soviet Union’s role in the Cold War was
primarily defensive. The major threat of
the Soviet Union was the abuse of its people.
Iran and North
Korea
I believe that Iran and North Korea are also behaving defensively. Neither country can successfully conquer any
other country. Any aggressive action
would simply produce massive retaliation.
As with the Soviet Union, the major threats of Iran and North Korea are
the abuse of their peoples. As occurred
in the Soviet Union, I expect that the current leadership of Iran will change
within a few years, and perhaps also the current leadership of North
Korea. Such countries are never as
stable as our military-industrial complex is motivated to describe them.
Dictatorship
and War Have Decreased.
During the Cold War, many dictatorships and their abuse of their
peoples were supported by either the United States or the Soviet Union. To support our colonial allies, our United
States played very little role in securing freedom for European colonies. Many wars occurred, including the holocaust
of Cambodia resulting from U.S. aggression related to our Vietnam War; the war
in Angola and later; the Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War, many
countries have changed from military dictatorships to democratic rule. By democratic rule, I mean rule that is more
responsive the people, not necessarily involving elections similar to our
own. And the number and scope of wars
has greatly decreased.
Global Police
In the absence of democratic global governance with authority and
resources to oppose dictatorships and their military actions, our United States
has often attempted to be our world’s police force, particularly during
Republican rule. I have strongly opposed
this, believing that our U.S. was acting in accordance with our perceived self
interest, instead of in support of oppressed people.
I had mixed feelings about the first Gulf War. Our United States had supported Iraq and its
ruler Saddam Hussein in its war against Iran.
But we then opposed Iraq when it invaded Kuwait to control its
oilfields. I believe that we were more
concerned about the oilfields than about Iraq’s repression.
But I supported our actions in Bosnia and Kosovo, which were primarily
oriented toward stopping oppression of their people. I supported our invasion of Afghanistan to
eliminate al-Qaeda’s safe haven’s there.
I opposed President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq based upon his
claim that Iraq was a threat to our United States.
Our Iraq War
While running for office in 2000, George W. Bush claimed he was against
nation building. But when no weapons of
mass destruction were found in Iraq, he argued for spreading Democracy. But George W. Bush has never been a strong
supporter of Democracy at home or abroad.
Instead he sought to bring unregulated crony capitalism to Iraq.
Through massive incompetence, George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq
resulted in sectarian violence, resistance to our occupation, and the killing
of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Thanks to General David Petraeas, a co-optation strategy has resulted in
a decline in violence and increase in what appears to be non-sectarian
voting. The result may be an Iraq which
like Turkey and Lebanon is much more democratic than most Moslem states. But I believe the cost in killed and injured
Iraqis was much too much, such that I have strongly believed that we should not
have invaded Iraq.
A Global Police
Force Is Needed
Although fewer than before, there are still countries which abuse
people under their control, including Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Sudan, Israel, Iran,
North Korea and various others. I
believe we need a Global Police Force to deal with these countries. If the Group of 20 controlled our
United Nations, instead of the five members of the U.N. Security Assembly with
veto powers and resources were available (possibly resulting from imposition of
a Tobin Tax), a Global
Police Force would be possible. But is
another approach to providing a global police force possible until the United
Nations is reformed?
If the emphasis is upon development and co-optation instead of
aggressive military action (as General David Petraeas introduced to Iraq during
the misnamed surge and as President Obama is implementing in Afghanistan),
could the United States with global support serve a global police force? I favor trying this in Afghanistan, to learn
whether we can do it with decreasing military violence. If we are not succeeding within several
years, I would then call it a failed experiment and recommend quick withdrawal
of our troops.
If we succeed in Afghanistan, I don’t recommend that we should
necessary commit to intervening in the other abusive countries listed
above. But we could certain take a
stronger stand against their oppression, which might have some effect.
So my views have changed from opposing our U.S. serving as a world
police force to supporting our serving as a world police force, if we have
global support, our emphasis is primarily development and diplomacy instead of
military, and our efforts are successful.
I believe it is worth some risk for us to attempt to create villages in
which women and others are not abused by outsiders, whether Taliban or corrupt
government officials.
My commitment to this experiment goes beyond President Obama’s and is
in opposition to the thinking of most Liberals, who oppose our nation building
abroad. In Afghanistan, I am not
supporting nation building as much as village building. I would appreciate cooperation among villages
to create region building, but would consider this an extra benefit, not a
primary objective.
If we try this experiment and it fails, I will then revert to my
previous stance and join virtually all other Liberals in opposing any attempt
by the United States to serve as a world police force. Dave Thomas
Here’s the Beef
A
.25% financial tax would discourage speculation while raising federal revenue.
Congress
should take the decision to hire credit rating agencies away from agencies
being rated.
Penalties for wage law
violations should be increased and strongly enforced.
Unhealthy food
industry self regulation has failed.
Our
Liberal Spirit
Bringing More Possible Opportunities to Negotiation
The Senate has spent months
trying to negotiate a health care reform bill which would obtain support from
60 senators with little apparent progress.
But then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid selected a group of Senators,
half of who supported existing proposals and half who were at least skeptical
of them. Whereas previous negotiations
had focused upon a public option, this group suddenly considered new
possibilities, such as allowing 45-55 year olds to buy into Medicare. As in card games, we can say the pot is
sweetened with new possible rewards to keep more players in the game. Now the various members of the group could
find a mixture of possibilities which attracted each of them without alienating
the others.
It now appears that even if
Joe Lieberman won’t support any proposal, one or several Republicans may. Even more interesting is that if the Senate
bill can be accepted by the House, then there need be no conference to merge
the two identical bills. Upon House
acceptance, it would go immediately to President Obama for his adoption. Many congress members will want to improve on
one or another aspect or the reform.
They will get opportunities to modify it as it is being implemented.
The larger lesson here is
that when a negotiation is bogged down in a win-lose debate, it can often be
revived by adding more possible opportunities, such that more people can
win. To find these possible opportunities,
listening to the other participants in the negotiation is important. This is basic to the coalition building
approach taken by Saul Alinsky, Sound Alliance and President Obama.
Unfortunately as we post this
newsletter, neither Joe Lieberman or any Republicans are supporting proposals
which include alternative measures to a public option which are designed to
introduce some competition with private health insurers to decrease their
prices. So in this case, sweetening the
pot hasn’t worked. Liberals may have to
decide whether to accept a flawed health care reform bill or none at all.
Recommended Books – See our list of books for liberals
Bruce Bartlett, 2006. Impostor. How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan
Legacy
Bruce Bartlett comments that Conservatives favor small government
and low taxes, while Liberals favor large government and high taxes. Even though President George W. Bush cut
taxes twice, he increased the size of government. So Bartlett argues that President Bush is a
Liberal in contrast to President Reagan.
Bartlett mischaracterizes both Liberals and Conservatives. As Paul Starr comments in his 2007 book, Freedom’s Power, The True Force
of Liberalism, Conservatives distrust government and trust
private action. Socialists distrust
private action and trust government.
Liberals recognize that both government and private action may provide
benefits and both may be abusive. In each situation, Liberals seek an
appropriate mix of public and private action.
Bartlett accuses
Liberals of being Socialists which they are not. Bartlett also fails to recognize that while
Conservatives oppose government action to provide an infrastructure and safety
net to increase people’s freedoms and opportunities, Conservatives favor
government action for other purposes.
President Reagan and both presidents Bush greatly increased military
expenditures such that they created large federal debts. President George W. Bush and his New
Conservative (Neo-Con) congressional colleagues increased government
expenditures for services which were then subcontracted to private campaign
contributors.
As did earlier
Conservatives, President Bush opposed government action to increase people’s
freedoms and opportunities. The major
difference between earlier Conservatives and the New Conservatives (NeoCons)
led by President Bush is that the latter placed a high value on presidential
supremacy in violation of our constitution.
To win elections, President Bush and his Neo-Con colleagues obtained
campaign contributions through implementing programs which could be
subcontracted to the campaign contributors.
Two examples are the Medicare Part D prescription drug bill and much
spending in Iraq to pay private contractors.
These Neo-Con expansions of crony capitalism were not Liberal. Nor were they necessarily Conservative. Both Liberals and Traditional Conservatives opposed them. President Bush and his Neo-Con congressional colleagues did not act as Liberals. They acted as a Conservatives, with additional actions to increase their authority.