Light blogging for coming week

Hi all-- I'm taking off for the West Coast for a week and will probably be doing very light blogging until next Wednesday.

See you back here then, same bat channel.

Posted by Nathan at 06:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

TNR Defends Single Payer

And here's an almost immediate payout of Gore coming out for single payer health care. The New Republic weblog has rushed to defend the idea from the attacks of rightwingers such as David Frum.

Suddenly, the moderate Dem establishment can't completely trash the idea of single-payer health care, since their potential standardbearer may be promoting the cause-- and they wouldn't want to be eating their words in two years. So just by coming out for the idea, Gore has assured that progressives can now get a respectful hearing for the idea from the punditocracy.

Posted by Nathan at 08:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bush the Liar, Clinton the Honest

Joe Conason in today's Salon pounds Bush for pretending not to be driven by polls while, as documented by Bob Woodward's new book, being obsessed with them. This makes Bush little different from the Clinton administration except in one respect:

The difference between Clinton and Bush isn't that one doesn't care about polls and the other did. The difference is that Clinton never pretended that polling data wasn't part of his political work, and didn't expect anyone on his staff to lie about such trivia.

This goes to a basic contention I've always had about Clinton, that he was a fundamentally honest politician, at least honest with the American people -- yeah, except for that statement.

Jump from the contrast on the polling issue and look at the more fundamental honesty involved in campaign promises. If you look at why people hate Clinton, it's usually for the promises he kept, not for those he broke. Liberals usually hate him for actually meaning that he would end welfare as we knew it and for supporting NAFTA and the death penalty. Conservatives hated him for actually taxing the rich and pushing to allow gays in the military. All of which he campaigned on. It's hard to think of any large campaign promises that Clinton made that he did not seek to make policy.

Bush? He started lying before he was ever elected. As Paul Krugman has documented, he lied about budget projections, the costs of his tax cut, and the likely deficit results. He lied about supporting a real prescription drug benefit. He lied about ending racial profiling of Arab-Americans (boy, did he lie). He lied about supporting the environment. And the list goes on.

Reagan at least ran on trashing the environment and giving big tax cuts to the wealthy-- it wasn't called "trickle down economics" for nothing. Bush has launched a far more rightwing set of policies but pretends it's all "compassionate conservatism."

I despise Bush far more than Reagan because Bush Jr. is such a complete and total liar. There is not a shred of honesty in the man. He doesn't try to sell the substance of his policy; he obscures it with rhetoric and misdirection. From day one he surrounded himself with corrupt contributors like Ken Lay and corrupt staff people like Army Secretary Thomas White of Enron, Harvey Pitt the stooge of the accounting industry, and the whole range of corporate castoffs posing as government officials.

Bush is a liar, but lies catch up with you over time. And his will pile up in the train wreck of public policy over the next two years.

Posted by Nathan at 07:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Who Needs to Keep Track of Nukes?

Having fired arab linguists because they are gay, the next step by the Bush administration in assuring security is, of course, to impose a hiring freeze at the federal agency that oversees security for the nation's nuclear stockpile and weapons laboratories.

It's not like those are likely top targets of terrorism, right?

Posted by Nathan at 06:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Labor Monday (11-18)

Union groups and NOW are mounting a campaign against Wal-Mart in 40 cities this Thursday to demand higher wages and health benefits for its workers.

The Bush administration is launching a campaign to privatize as many as 850,000 government jobs, sparking a backlash from unions and their Democratic allies in Congress who see this as more union-busting by the White House..

The Transport Workers Union which represents New York City's subway and bus workers is demanding increased security at subway stations and tunnels as part of its ongoing contract negotiations.

Ashcroft's Justice Department was ordered to fix illegal labor violations in its own house-- a federal judge has ruled that lawyers at the department who routinely work more than 40 hours a week are entitled to overtime pay under the 1945 Federal Employees Pay Act.

Ten Korean union leaders were arrested by Seoul police for organizing a nationwide government employees' strike.

Posted by Nathan at 08:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Contemplating Gore 2004

Gore came out for single payer health care.
He's against the Iraq war.
He's been campaigning for civil liberties.
He's been speaking out for labor rights.

Damn-- it's getting to the scary point that he may have the best platform of serious candidates in the 2004 election. And I have to admire someone who, even if he was cynical about it, was smart enough to jag left before this year's legislative debacle.

And for all the polls showing a supposed Bush blowout, 56% to 41% Bush advantage in a recent CNN Gallup poll, it's worth remembering that Bush had a 54% to 40% advantage over Gore in July 2000 just before the Democratic convention.

I've been pretty clear that I think Bush will be toast in 2004, but I've had an asterisk in my mind of -- as long as Gore isn't the nominee. I'm almost ready to remove the asterisk.

I saw the clip from Letterman and he was actually funny and loose-- a trait everyone claimed he had in private but was never shown on the campaign trail in 2000.

And Gore may end up getting the lion's share of labor support again. Kerry voted for fast track, which is going to lose a lot of labor support, while Edwards is suddenly jagging to the right in supporting an austerity budget. So Gore may get more grassroots support than most people (including myself) were originally betting on.

So pull out those "Reelect Gore" signs. They may actually get used.

Update: Right after finishing this post, I went over to Tapped and saw this post about Gore and a positive profile in the Washington Post Magazine, so positive it apparently is converting Nader voters over to Gore.

And why not, with a laugh line like this from Gore:

Speaking of the 2000 election, one of his favorite stand-up lines is to say, "You win some, you lose some, and then there's that little-known third category."

Posted by Nathan at 06:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

SS Privatization: GOP Deceptions

Go GOP social security privatizers!

Read this commentary today by former GOP Congressman Vin Weber from the Wall Street Journal. He's trying to argue that because some GOPers ran on private accounts in Social Security and won, that shows how much popular support there is for SS privatization. But the key phrase in his article is this one:

"They promised to preserve the benefits of all current retirees and those nearing retirement."

Which is a nice promise and when you bullshit the public, you often can get shortterm political gain. But read the sentence again. What is says first is that there is no promise that most working people paying into the social security system will get full benefits.

Second, if you take a big chunk of social security taxes and put them into private accounts, that means you have to use a chunk of income taxes or other general revenue to pay for current retirees.

So here is what social security privatization means for young workers:
(1) Your guaranteed benefits will be slashed and if your personal account goes south in an Enron-style mess, you will be eating cat food in retirement.
(2) While it sounds like free money, you will actually be paying for those private accounts through increased income or other taxes.
(3) Therefore, the scam is that young workers get to pay double taxation, for present retirees and again to cover the costs of their own accounts.

Cute bait and switch, huh? The GOP gets to sound all progressive and pro-young worker, when they really are screwing them as thoroughly as possible. Paul Krugman has long been skewering Bush over the deceptive math involved in these proposals.

The standard political story of social security privatization is that seniors will hate it politically, but that young people will be won over to the GOP on the issue. The actual politics is really the reverse. Most present retirees won't feel a thing, but younger workers are the ones who should be up in arms at the GOP playing these deceptive games with their future.

If you want the real story on Social Security privatization, you should look at the only real bill ever developed on the issue, the 1999 Archer-Shaw bill, one so embarassing in its results that the GOP has refused to actually present a bill in Congress since.

One gimmick of the Archer-Shaw bill was to officially keep standard benefits for retirees constant, while slashing them dollar for dollar for any stock market gains in the private accounts. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) notes:

[such an approach] is not likely to survive politically over time. This aspect of the plan effectively imposes a 100 percent tax rate on most accounts. After being told the individual accounts are their property, American workers would see their accounts entirely taxed away when they retired.

Seems kind of a strange game, to take money out of social security, put it into private accounts, then tax it away at retirement. Oh, but there's a point to the game, as CBPP argues:

The only group of retirees who could receive an increase in government-funded retirement benefits under the plan would be upper-income workers. Yet a broad array of Americans, including many of average or modest means, might have to absorb cuts in other benefits or services or tax increases to help finance the individual accounts after 2012.

Yep, that's the kicker. The deficit explodes paying for the private accounts and the only benefits get diverted to upper-income retirees who save so much that their stock market gains are larger than their lost benefits.

And the economic analysis by the non-partisan Employment Benefit Research Institute says it all about the likely budgetary results:

[I]f the equity market does not fair as well, and the costs of administering the accounts turn out to be larger than the proposal predicts, the chance that the proposal will achieve a positive actuarial balance is minimal.

That's a nice way of saying that the numbers don't even add up with the proposal.

There are other variations on social security privatization, but they are all based on lies and financial manipulations-- the end result being the same. The deficit increases, average folks lose out, and rich retirees are the only ones who benefit.

And let me repeat, the Dems have to get the politics of the issue straight. It's not old people who should be scared of the GOP plan. It's the young workers who will be double taxed directly and indirectly to pay for the damn thing, while risking having no retirement money.

The key here for progressives is to force the GOP to put up or shut up. Don't let them just talk about the wonders of "private accounts"-- make them present a real bill. These folks are getting cocky. We need to give them enough rope to go hang themselves. And when the average American voter sees who will foot the bill and who will benefit, folks like Vin Weber will be running for the hills from the backlash.

Posted by Nathan at 09:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

US Catholic Bishops Against War

Check out the full statement of the US Catholic Bishops against war in Iraq. I find this statement one of the best I've seen.

Here are some key excerpts.

Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature...

We are concerned, however, that war against Iraq could have unpredictable consequences not only for Iraq but for peace and stability elsewhere in the Middle East. The use of force might provoke the very kind of attacks that it is intended to prevent, could impose terrible new burdens on an already long-suffering civilian population, and could lead to wider conflict and instability in the region. War against Iraq could also detract from the responsibility to help build a just and stable order in Afghanistan and could undermine broader efforts to stop terrorism.

The justice of a cause does not lessen the moral responsibility to comply with the norms of civilian immunity and proportionality. While we recognize improved capability and serious efforts to avoid directly targeting civilians in war, the use of military force in Iraq could bring incalculable costs for a civilian population that has suffered so much from war, repression, and a debilitating embargo. In assessing whether "collateral damage" is proportionate, the lives of Iraqi men, women and children should be valued as we would the lives of members of our own family and citizens of our own country.

Posted by Nathan at 02:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Conventional Wisdom Admits Partisan Divide

The conventional wisdom is finally admitting what I've been harping on for a long time, namely that far from the parties converging on policies, they are far more polarized on partisan issues than ever in the recent past. See here:

But the fact remains that the Congressional wings of both parties have grown further apart, particularly as the South has realigned to the Republicans over the last three decades, thinning the ranks of conservative Southern Democrats on Capitol Hill. Party unity scores, a measure of how often members vote with the majority of their party, were substantially higher in recent years than they were 30 years ago, according to an analysis by Congressional Quarterly. The philosophical divisions between the two parties are acutely apparent when the debate turns to issues like the role of government and health care.

With Pelosi and Delay facing off in the House, the idea that political parties in the US have few differences is just exposed for the canard it has been for a long time. In fact, parties in Europe are far more similar in their policies to one another than the two big US parties are.

This is a basic civics lesson that people really need to repeat. It's the filibuster, stupid. As long as it takes 60 votes to pass any major legislation, it means that a false consenus on policy is imposed on passing legislation. Whether you think this is good or bad, don't mistake a structural constraint for an ideological one.

Posted by Nathan at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Report: Favoritism in Discipline in FBI

Well, Bush looks like he's going to get managerial "flexibility" in disciplining workers throughout the Homeland Security agency.

And for an example of how that works, just read about a new report that details how the FBI, unburdened by union rules and such, allowed rampant favoritism:

Senior FBI managers have frequently received more favorable treatment than lower-level employees in high-profile investigations of alleged bureau misconduct, leading to "the strong perception that a double standard of discipline" exists in the FBI, according to a report released yesterday.

The inspector general's report is the latest in a series of harsh condemnations of the FBI's personnel system, which lawmakers and internal reviews alike have repeatedly characterized as riddled with favoritism and unfair treatment of underlings. Rank-and-file FBI agents have long complained that senior officials cover for each other during controversy, while lower-level agents shoulder the blame.

Well, this is what the Bush administration wants. Top-level political appointees will be able to escape blame for screwups, while hanging out lower-level employees to dry. Any employees who objects or doesn't tow the Party line will lose out on promotions, since the civil service merit system will be dismantled in favor of patronage rewards.

It is and continues to be mindboggling that everyone agrees that the FBI was the center of screwups leading to 911. And the FBI has all the lack of union protections that Bush desires. Why do we want a giant agency of butt-watching coverups?

Posted by Nathan at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

House GOP to Unemployed- Drop Dead

Having passed a miniscule 5-week extension of unemployment benefits, the House GOP has said that if the Senate passed a more generous bill, they won't consider it.

a spokesman for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois said the House had no intention of considering the Senate unemployment plan. "We're done, we're closed up," said the spokesman, John Feehery. "Why don't they do ours?"

Three Republican senators — Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Peter G. Fitzgerald of Illinois — joined Democrats to push for added unemployment benefits. They argued that the House version was too stingy, given the economy's continuing struggles. They said their plan would cover two million people nationwide through March while the House approach would take in only 800,000 through January.

If the House and the Senate cannot agree, then extended benefits — those beyond the standard 26 weeks — will expire for thousands on Dec. 28. "It would be unconscionable," Mr. Specter said, "for the Congress to adjourn without taking care of so many people who are unemployed with the economic downturn that has resulted from Sept. 11."

If progressives want an issue to pound mercilessly, it is this one. Rather than negotiate a compromise with moderate Republicans in the Senate, the House GOP prefers to leave millions of people with no income on January 1st.

If progressives and Democrats don't pound the hell out of the GOP on this issue, it just shows they deserved to lose on November 5.

Posted by Nathan at 04:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Homophobia Endangers National Security

Kos has a post on the insanity of driving qualified professionals out of the military. Despite a critical shortage of Arab speakers in military service, nine Army linguists, including six Arabic speakers, have been dismissed because they are gay.

So if you die because a terrorist message wasn't deciphered, blame it on gay haters. But then, it will be gay haters killing you, so think of it as a collaboration between two rightwing fundamentalist movements.

Posted by Nathan at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Homeland Corporate Security Act

Well, that didn't take long.

Having campaigned on eliminating job protections to make workers in the Homeland Security department responsible for preserving American security, the GOP immediately made it clear that they won't hold corporate America to the same standard. See here

Here are the three big new corporate irresponsibility provisions of the revised Homeland Security Bill:

It revises a provision, passed 318 to 110 in July, that prohibited contracts with offshore tax-evading companies, allowing the department to waive the ban in the name of saving American jobs.

The bill would allow immunity from liability for companies that make faulty antiterrorism devices or technology, and would make it difficult to sue companies that make smallpox vaccinations if the vaccines cause illness.

In one last-minute addition, Representative Dick Armey, Republican of Texas, inserted a provision that was apparently intended to protect Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical giant, from lawsuits over thimerosal, a mercury-based vaccine preservative that some parents contend has caused autism in their children.

So union protections bad, poisoning children with mercury good.

It's going to be a long two years.

Posted by Nathan at 06:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Supremes Leave Pro-Union Case in Place

Okay, I am giving a big cheer this morning.

The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from a decision this past Spring by the 9th Circuit that upheld the right of unions to charge any workers covered by contracts for the costs of organizing new workers.

I wrote a Populist column about the importance of the 9th Circuit decision last May with more detail.

In the past, the Supreme Court has argued that even when workers benefit from a union contract, they could refuse to pay the union dues that created those benefits where the use of the money was not "germane" to collective bargaining, such as political activity by the union. In this past spring's decision, the 9th Circuit declared that since new organizing and union strength makes it easier to negotiate good contracts for all union members, such organizing costs were in fact "germane" and could be charged to protesting members without violating the First Amendment.

While this is obviously a help to unions in funding organizing campaigns, for a bunch of more subtle legal reasons, this is an incredibly important decision. Assuming the Court does not revisit the decision later, this is a happy and somewhat surprising victory for union organizing.

Surprisingly, the Bush administration took the union side in the appeal, with Solicitor General Theodore Olsen saying "Organizing activity having such a straightforward economic purpose is not ideological in any relevant sense." Maybe that Teamster influence is actually having some effect.

Posted by Nathan at 05:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Scandal: Pelosi Tied to Tony Blair

Okay, this red-baiting of Pelosi gets sort of funny, if you ignore the evil intent. The chain of guilt by association goes like this-- Pelosi is a member of the 47-member Progressive Caucus of Congress members. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) support policies of the Caucus (although not necessarily the other way around, notably.)

And, horrors, DSA is a member of the dreaded SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL And what is this nefarious organization. Well according to this article:

The Socialist International carries the torch for Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Josef Stalin. Pay no attention to the desperate attempts by socialists to distance themselves from Stalin. For our purposes, it suffices to observe that every single tenet of the Socialist International is the exact opposite of the principles upon which America was founded, and which define the U.S. Constitution.

And if you go to the website of the organization, you'll find this nefarious list of members of this dreaded organization:

Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain
Gerhard Schoeder, Chancellor of West Germany
Costas Simitis, Prime Minister of Greece
Ehud Barak, former Prime Minister of Israel
Göran Persson, Prime Minister of Sweden
Lionel Jospin, recent Prime Minister of France
Milos Zeman, Prime Minister Czeck Republic
Vaclav Havel, President Czeck Republic
Thabo Mbeki, President South Africa
Ricardo Lagos, President Chile
Antonio Guterres, former Prime Minister of Portugal
(Also current President of Socialist International)

The list goes on. Suffice to say that every allied center-left party in Europe and most around the world are members of the Socialist International.

What the propagandists of the Right ignore or are too stupid to know is that the Socialist International was formed as an anti-Communist alternative global network of center-left parties around the world. See this list linking to the 141 member parties and organizations around the world. And of course, Nancy Pelosi is not even a member of DSA or the Socialist International. But to paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld-- not that there'd be anything wrong if she was.

Posted by Nathan at 08:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Daschle No Sellout on Homeland Security

I just can't agree with Seeing the Forest that Daschle has sold out unions and progressives by refusing to filibuster the Homeland Security Bill.

I'll back down to no one in my opposition to this dangerous union-busting measure-- I was writing about it long before it became a major media or political issue. See my piece from early Summer "Homeland Security" as Union Busting.

I give the Democratic leadership great credit that they hung tough through the fall and refused to give in to GOP attacks on their patriotism in order to defend union rights and fight Bush's patronage goals. But elections have consequences and if there is one issue Bush campaigned on and knocked off Senators with, it was passing Homeland Security. Bush gets little mandate off this election, but that's an issue he got.

Any attempt to filibuster is a lost cause. Once the GOP is back in control in a few weeks, they'll be able to jam it through, whether attaching it to other "must pass" legislation or just brow-beating the Dems for a month if necessary with the media at their back.

I don't think Daschle could even hold the 41 Democrats needed for a filibuster over time, even if he and the Dem leadership thought the political price was worth paying. That's a sad fact, but I don't blame Daschle for making a reasonable political judgement given the reality of last Tuesday.

If progressive bloggers want to change the situation, they need to help educate more people about why union rights matter, not just for the workers involved, but for assuring that the independent judgement of regular employees is not subverted, whether by corporate bosses or political overseers.

Like a lot of union activists, I actually have a bit of a beef with fellow progressives. Unions carry heavy water for civil rights, social service spending and a range of other issues. But most progressive writers spend very little time talking about why unions are good for society, why union struggles matter for justice and equity.

So when an issue of Homeland Security comes up, given that weak ass defense of unions by most progressives, it becomes far easier for someone like Bush to paint resistance to his efforts as protecting union "special interests."

Want to help fight the Right on patronage in government? Talk about the local union struggle in your hometown. Highlight those who suffer and struggle to end arbitrary management favoritism. THEN translate it into why giving Bush arbitrary control over 170,000 Homeland Security employees is so dangerous.

But it's because progressives weren't already doing that enough that the GOP was able to paint a war hero like Max Cleland as some kind of traitor for standing up for workers rights in government.

It's not Daschle's fault-- he did his job. It's the fault of most progressive writers who haven't been doing their job on union issues for years.

Posted by Nathan at 09:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Fight the Right: The Commonweal Institute

Seeing The Forest has an extensive post on the goals of the Commonweal Institute, an organization aspiring to be the Heritage Foundation of the left, meaning a "think tank" that aggressively promotes a left alternative while rallying progressive supporters across the country.

The effort is based on a basic idea-- the problem for the left is not lack of money but that it's money has been spent too diffusely and without building a broad infrastructure that is oriented to fighting the Right on multiple fronts.

Ideas matter and communicating them to the public in a whole variety of ways is a key to succeeding.

Some other groups do this kind of work as well-- the Economic Policy Institute where the esteemed Max Sawicky does this kind of work largely tied into major labor unions. But EPI as a whole is a bit Washington DC-centric. An advantage of the Commonweal Institute in some ways is that they won't be located in DC but centered out on the West Coast, so they are likely to maintain a focus on mobilizing broad grassroots opinion rather than failing into the trap of worrying most about present-day politicians.

Posted by Nathan at 09:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Democrats- Too Liberal, Not Progressive Enough

Conservatives are circulating a poll that the majority of Democrats think the party is too "liberal." Funny thing is that a lot of lefties like me think the party is too liberal and not populist enough, but we mean that it's not economically leftwing enough.

And guess what, not only Dems but the population as a whole is still to the left of most Dem policy, especially the weakass version presented in this election.

Take prescription drugs, which the Dems refused to push hard--

60% of the population agree that Medicare should be expanded, only 36% want the GOP plan of private insurance subsides.

On other issues:

77% of voters favor raising the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $8 per hour.

Depending on the question, 50% to 65% of Americans are favorable towards unions. Only 28-32% share the GOP's hostility.

Only 37% of Americans support repeal of the estate tax, which can drop to 27% with fuller information on who benefits.

77 percent of voters want tougher environmental laws and stricter enforcement. 74% think global warming is a real problem and should support the Kyota treaty.

73% of Americans want trade agreements to include labor standards to life workers rights in other countries. (Old poll but couldn't find more recent ones.)

Lot of other similar issues out there, but the lesson is clear. The American people are looking for far more clear progressive stands by the Democrats on a range of these issues.

If the Democrats push marginal "liberal" changes, the GOP will energize their supporters on bullshit cultural issues like the confederate flag in Georgia.

But if the Dems get less liberal and more bold, there is plenty of room for a very progressives agenda to appeal to the American people

Posted by Nathan at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

How About Killing the Payroll Tax?

Avedon Carol wants to know what Max, Brad and I think of the idea proposed by Matthew Yglesias to make killing the payroll tax the next big "Democrat idea."

Bad idea.

As Max will argue more strongly than me, when you add together taxes paid and benefits paid out, social security is one of the most progressive parts of the budget. It not only creates a safety net for the poorest elderly, it covers the non-elderly disabled. In fact, such disability SSI payments grew tremendously in the 1990s-- more than 5.4 million people receive SSI payments and more money is spent that way than on food stamps and unemployment insurance.

And because the disability payments are tied up with old age pensions, they aren't subject to the same easy attacks as "welfare" and other line items paid for with the regular income tax. That's a political reality that can't be ignored. If anything, this indicates that the left should be encouraging more programs to be integrated into Social Security, just as we should encourage expanded national health care as part of Medicare.

BTW all the worries about a "crisis" in social security due to baby boomer retirement is bullhockey. See my "Saving" Social Security: Invest in Immigrant Children, not the Stock Market.

But there are some serious reforms of the payroll tax we should pursue. As Matt and Max point out, you only get taxed on the first $80,000 of wages. Bill Gates stock dividends don't get taxed at all and rich professionals actually pay a smaller percentage of their income in payroll taxes than middle class folks.

So the simplest reform would be to include every dime of wages plus all other income in calculating taxes owed to social security, then cut the rate for the middle class. Removing the tax cap on wages alone would raise $425.2 billion over five years. That alone could either end any fears about social security's solvency or be used to cut the payroll tax significantly. Estimates are that this could cut the payroll tax by 1.53% for everyone else.

Add in taxing non-wage income of the wealthy for social security and we could enact serious payroll tax reform.

But the last thing progressives should do is abandon the one untouchable tax-and-spending program in the budget.

Reform the payroll tax. Don't kill it.

Posted by Nathan at 08:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Economist on Microsoft Trial

I haven't written anything since the court upheld the weak-ass Justice Department settlement with Microsoft, partly because I have written so much over the years-- see my Tech page with my work from NetAction.

My basic reaction was in my article written after the Appeals Court overturned the original Microsoft sanctions.

But I think The Economist surprisingly pretty much captures my views this week in their article Was the big antitrust trial a waste of time? The answer was no:

But even if the settlement proves toothless, the trial has had several benefits. As with IBM's long-running antitrust case, which ended 20 years ago, its greatest impact may be felt in how the market reacted as it went on...By shining a spotlight on Microsoft's practices, the courtroom proceedings emboldened its competitors in its main market, alerted potential rivals in other markets, and forced the software company to restrain its normal behaviour towards customers and competitors alike.

Thus even without the settlement, restrictive contracts with PC makers have been dropped. Consumer mistrust has forced Microsoft to drop ambitious plans to set up a central repository of Internet users' personal information. Wariness of Microsoft's practices has boosted the fortunes of open-source software such as Linux. And Microsoft has, in effect, been frozen out of entire new industries, as its software for smart phones and television set-top boxes has been shunned.

And for those who doubted the whole argument about the harms from Microsoft's monopoly, the article makes this slam-dunk point:

What is striking is how little innovation there has been in the bits of the market that Microsoft dominates, and how much where it has little influence. Operating systems, web browsers and word-processing software all look much as they did five years ago. But not many people are using five-year-old mobile phones, handheld computers or music-sharing software.

Opponents of the case always argued that there was no evidence that Microsoft's monopoly was doing any harm. But the harm lay in the (necessarily invisible) innovation that did not occur. Conversely, much of the innovation going on in other parts of the technology industry owes a lot to Microsoft's absence.

What the whole Microsoft trial accomplished was a national debate, in the political world, in economics and in the tech world, on what we need socially from technology policy. While there was no specific agreement, the very fact that these issues became debateable was a gain from the cyberlibertarian screaming about any interference with the "free market".

Posted by Nathan at 06:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

No GOP Wave on Nov 5

Kos has posted a full column by uber-political punter Charlie Cook on why this election was no partisan wave (a la 1980 or 1994), but merely a case where the GOP eaked out wins in the tossup races, just like Dems won a slightly disproportionate number of close races in 2000. Read the column.

Posted by Nathan at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Revenge of the Ground Game

As this TNR article details, one key to GOP success this year was reemphasizing personal contact and get out the vote efforts, a lesson the Republicans learned from Democratic success in 2000. And apparently did better this year.

And here is where mobilizing the base matters for the Democrats, not just the base that will turn out to vote, but the smaller base of activists who will man the phones and walk the precincts to pull others out to the polls.

Poll-driven appeals to "swing voters" is all about the simplistic lines used in campaign ads, although as this article point out, most undecideds are really party partisans who can be mobilized with regular partisan appeals.

At first glance, independents seem to be a real political force. In a
Post-ABC News poll conducted in mid-July, 32 percent of those sampled
identify themselves as Democrats, 33 percent as Republicans and 31 percent
as independents.
But when asked which party they lean toward, the proportion of true
independents plummets from 31 percent to 6 percent. The rest of those
independents scurry to one party or the other, with about half saying they
lean toward the GOP and the other half tilting toward the Democrats.

As for the hard core of real undecideds, the advice by experts is to mobilize the partisans; if they are in motion, they will haul their more apolitical friends to the polls with them.

[The] advice to candidates looking to entice that tiny fraction of the
electorate that are true political independents: don't waste your time or
money. "I would encourage candidates not to play to them. Because they tend
to jump on bandwagons, to follow tides. . . . You're better off to work on
getting your weak partisans and your leaners," the true independents will
likely follow.

Looking around the country, in places where the Democrats had a strong ground operation, liberals like Tom Harkin and Frank Lautenberg breezed to victory. And where the GOP built up a partisan army on the ground, as with Ralph Reed's mobilization in Georgia, a moderate war hero like Max Cleland couldn't save himself.

The game of swing voters is really about contempt for the voters, as if they are simple sheep being led by buzzwords. In the abscence of real discussion and debate, that may be what happens. But if you really believe in progressive politics, it's easy to understand that if bumper sticker politics won't get swing voters to the polls, you need to mobilize your partisans to reach out personally, to explain in greater depth why it matters if people vote, to pull their friends and family to the polls based on the broader view of politics than a 30-second ad.

It's sometimes counter-intuitive that a more partisan message can lead to greater appeal to so-called "moderates", but that's only if you assume a media-only political culture. But a more honest discussion of politics mobilizes a stronger person-to-person culture of debate and mobilization. Moderates can then be convinced that a "partisan" position is actually what they believe, once you get away from the media buzzwords and distortions. But you need your partisans mobilized to get that message to moderates to even have a chance to convince them.

The Democrats failed to fire up the imagination of their own supporters this year. It's hardly surprising that those supporters couldn't fire up their less political friends.

Posted by Nathan at 08:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Labor Monday (11-11)

The AFL-CIO condemned both parties for failing to present clear plans to restore the economy. 72% of union members voted for Democrats last Tuesday.

This New York Sun article details the turnout operation for the major GOP endorsee of unions, NY's Pataki, and why the various unions were supporting him.

With unemployment rising, the AFL-CIO is demanding a series of labor measures to extend unemployment insurance, assist states with recession-related costs, and extend health care.

The New York City Council pushed through a modest living wage law to require that workers on contract to the city receive at least $8.10 per hour with benefits.

Yale President Richard Levin faced union protests at alumni receptions in three midwestern cities. Yale officials are being targetted for violating free speech rights of union members who distributed pro-union leaflets.

United Food and Commercial Workers are planning nationwide protests on Nov. 21 at Wal-Mart discount stores and Sam's Club warehouse stores in all 50 states.

The United Mine Workers are condemning a preliminary state report on what caused the Quecreek Mine accident in July as "woefully inadquate"

Part-time faculty at universities across the country are organizing as schools replace permanent tenure positions with adjunct teachers.

In the Bay Area, the new United Child Care Union (AFSCME), already representing 900 child care workers in the East, has begun organizing in the Bay Area.

A national strike by South Korean workers forced the government to back off labor law reform opposed by the major unions.

A German union head is predicting a "winter of discontent" over heath service cuts and public sector pay.

The Chinese government now admits that at least 14 million workers are unemployed, with possibly 100 million more migrant workers streaming into cities with little social support.

Posted by Nathan at 11:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saving Bilingual Education in Colorado

One victory last Tuesday was saving bilingual education from an initiative, Amendment 31, on the ballot in Colorado. This article link outlines the strategy where the No campaign controversially fought to win.

Instead of merely playing defense with appeals to the good faith of anglo voters, the No side stooped to hitting their fears.

Instead, the TV spots are dark, showing still pictures of sad-looking children while an announcer ominously lists the faults in Amendment 31. In one, the announcer states children who speak little English, largely Hispanic students, would disrupt the education of "your children" - presumably the majority white families of Colorado.

Media critics called the spots "ugly" and said they preyed on the fears of white voters.

"Yeah, it's ominous," Welchert says in response, "but it's cutting through."

...An "a-ha" moment came in September, Britz said. They were interviewing what they considered a typical suburban voter - female, Republican, a parent. The woman was adamant in her support of 31.

Then Britz said her own children would be affected. That her child's teacher might be distracted by having to work with students who know little English.

"She turned," he said. "She said, 'They're going to put them in my kid's class?' "

That moment led to what would become a key slogan for No on 31 - the controversial "Chaos in the Classroom" theme hammered home in their TV ads.

As for the merits of the campaign and the criticism it has drawn, the two say that's politics. Welchert recalls that early meeting with Hispanic leaders.

"Do you want to win?" he asked them, "or do you want to be right?"

This is a tough story for progressives to ponder, where even I as an arch-pragmatist don't like all the implications.

But the core strategic insight is more positively that many of the bad policies targetted at the poor and people of color also potentially disrupt the lives of the white majority in most states. And when you want to win and have limited resources in a campaign, targetting the fears of that white majority may be more effective than appealing to their better nature, at least when it comes to the simplicity of message allowed in advertising wars.

Given that the rightwing has proved a willingness to jam every issue from the confederate flag to homophobia to sell their candidates and issues, a bit of pragmatic hardball in crafting message may be imperative for progressives.

Posted by Nathan at 03:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

McCain at Telecom Helm

One small good thing that will likely come of the GOP takeover of the Senate is that with McCain taking over the Commerce Committee, there is a chance for new broadband legislation to encourage the Baby Bells to deploy broadband.

The one worry is that McCain may be so deregulatory that he ignores the universal access mandates of the House Tauzin-Dingell bill. That bill included the so-called Rush-Sawyer amendment that mandates that 100 percent of all telephone central switching offices-- where phones hook up to the network -- be outfitted for broadband within five years.

This will be an interesting test to see if McCain really has become the populist independent his liberal boosters hope or if it was all just a campaign cover for his older rightwing views.

Posted by Nathan at 08:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Red-Baiting of Pelosi Begins

The rightwing attack machine is moving into high-gear. First
red baiting, then I am sure the gay-baiting will begin against this "San Francisco Democrat."

Oh, but I forgot, it's Democrats who are partisan because of an energetic memorial.

Posted by Nathan at 05:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

China: World's Last Major Right-wing Dictatorship

Times gets it right:

After a 20-year transition, the world's last major left-wing dictatorship, the Communist Party of China, has transformed itself. It is now, arguably, the world's last major right-wing dictatorship.

...Dictatorship of the proletariat has failed. So the party is giving plutocracy a chance.

...Foreigners have invested more money in China so far this year than anywhere else, including the United States. All that money is flowing because the party has used its near-absolute power to create favourable conditions for the capitalists. Companies setting up factories in Guangdong or Shanghai can employ workers from the hinterlands, often paying them less than $100 a month for 12-hour days.

Migrant labourers can stay in cities only so long as their employers need them; without urban residence permits, they have no local rights. The government does not allow independent unions.

Progressives have to confront a basic fact. The largest danger to freedom and workers rights globally is China, which has rapidly evolved into a regime only Mussolini could love-- or maybe he wouldn't, since his version of fascism was probably more friendly to labor.

In the long run, almost every other foreign policy issue pales in comparison to how the rightwing dictatorship in China will either spread its poison or slowly implode.

Posted by Nathan at 09:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

All Praise Pelosi's Fundraising

Some liberals like Howard Keller at the NY Times don't like Pelosi because of her fundraising ability. Many conservatives don't like her for the same reason.

Good. Thank god someone is raising money to elect progressive candidates. Look at who she was raising money for? Tough progressives like Tammy Baldwin.

See here for one example. "Democratic Whip Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., gave Baldwin the maximum $10,000 from her ``PAC to the Future.'' Baldwin supported Pelosi in last fall's whip race. ``Tammy Baldwin seems to be challenged in almost every election,'' said Leo McCarthy, treasurer of Pelosi's PAC. ``Nancy thinks she's a very good lawmaker, and anticipates she may have another serious challenge this year, and waned to give it to her early.'' Sharpless hasn't decided whether to run again. That leaves Ron Greer _ a black minister who called Baldwin a ``left-wing lesbian'' during the 1998 Republican primary and who is likely to run _ and real estate business owner Phil Alfonsi, who is running. "

See the full list of candidates getting money from her PAC at Open Secrets.

Fundraising may not be the most attractive aspect of modern politics but it is silly to condemn a progressive for being good at it and using that ability to help other progressives fend off the far more pervasive rightwing money machines.

Back in the 1980s, we had a progressive Tip O'Neill leading the Democrats, but he wasn't a national fundraiser, so power gravitated at times to more conservative fundraisers like Tony Coehlo. Pelosi is more progressive than Tip was in her politics and has Coehlo's ability to fundraise, meaning that DLC types won't have the clear ability to block her based on stronger fundraising ability.

It's worth remembering that Newt Gingrich helped build his Congressional Majority with strategic fundraising through GoPAC. Progressives need and want more than that from its leaders, but it's self-indulgent for any progressive not to recognize that ability by Pelosi as an asset as long as its helping good folks get and stay elected.

Pelosi is not god but she is a member of the Progressive Caucus and a voting record of almost pure progressivism. And she has the political and fundraising savvy to back it up. which is something we should be happy about.

Posted by Nathan at 02:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Freepers Hail Georgia Party Turncoats

Remember how the rightwing thought that Jeffords leaving his party was a scandal, despite many predessors doing so over to the GOP side, because it handed power to the opposing party after an election?

Well, three Georgia Democrats just defected to the GOP, handing control of the state Senate to the GOP.

And rightwing freepers now are hailing the party switchers.

The right's hypocrisy just has no bounds.

I think most people have a balanced position on the issue of such party switching; it's a bit unseemly but no one will turn down a defector when real policy issues are at stake in control of government.

But the genius of the rightwing is to act so self-righteously when opponents engage in partisanship -- blocking judges, switching parties, a heartfelt goodbye to Wellstone -- but then shamelessly celebrate their own power dealings of the exact same character.

I know many honest conservatives who believe in the principles of their argument, but the truly psychotic part of GOP politics today is this total lack of self-consciousness and absolute hypocrisy.

Posted by Nathan at 08:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

GOP Will Regret Pelosi's Rise

Remember when a bomb-thrower from the back bench of the GOP rose to power within the Republican leadership in the late 80s? That guy, Newt Gingrich, showed that clear opposition and solid organizing could deliver for his party what cooperation had not-- control of the House for the first time in decades.

Lest folks see this lesson as only an ideological gain from moving rightward, it's worth remembering that when Reagan was elected in 1980, it was a stereotypical Boston liberal who took on Reagan:

Even moderates and conservatives see little to fear from having a liberal like Pelosi leading the party.

Mr. Coelho rejected the idea that Ms. Pelosi would be a burden on her party because of her ideologies. He noted that Mr. O'Neill was similarly disparaged as a Massachusetts liberal, and proceeded to lead his House into winning back 26 seats in 1982.

It's worth remembering that Tip O'Neill left office more popular nationally than the President he had faced from 1980 to 1986.

In both 1994 and 2002, the GOP won elections because they excited their base to turnout in large numbers, while those the Dems needed for victory stayed home.

The "swing voter" is a unicorn. The issue is not who convinces moderates to vote their way (although it's useful to work on that) but making sure you excite the particular moderates you need to bother to show up. The biggest swing issue for much of the moderate population is whether they care enough each election to even show up. If you can't convince them of that, winning them on issues won't help you.

That's the lesson the Dems need to learn from this election.

Posted by Nathan at 06:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Florence: Global Justice Thinkers Converge

Building on the model of Brazil's Social Forum, Europe held one of its own, even as Italian authorities sought to play up fears of violence.

We can talk about a national agenda for the Democrats, but it is just as important for progressives to be involved in the global democratic debate on shaping the global economy and society. Bush has a version of US-led corporate unilateralism. Beyond saying no to war, the Left needs an alternative that will address the needs for cross-border labor solidarity to keep wages up, idealistic hopes for global equity, and the address the fears from international terrorism with new hopes for global cooperation.

Posted by Nathan at 02:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Why Productivity Gains are a Bad Sign

Many economists are marvelling that productivity, how much is produced per worker per hour, is increasing in a recession. Usually during slack times, productivity falls.

But this is hardly the good news that folks like Brad Delong argue. In the past, businesses were reluctant to fire people during recessions, even as their sales slipped, so workers had to be somewhat idled until the lean times passed.

Now, as this NY Times article details, businesses have embraced the "just in time" economy to mean they should fire workers as soon as sales slip, leaving the remaining workers to work harder. In the summer, layoffs and productivity increases went up together-- productivity zoomed up 8.8 percent in non-farm businesses, and hours worked dropped 4 percent. By October, layoffs in industrial goods areas were accelerating even more.

And even the workers not laid off are gaining little from the increased work loaded onto them:

The bulk of savings and profits achieved by higher productivity appears to be flowing to owners and shareholders. In the last 12 months, the Labor Department reported, inflation-adjusted compensation for workers increased 1.7 percent, on an hourly basis, though their productivity shot up 5.3 percent.

In the short-term, such productivity gains are allowing companies to keep profit rates up while actually feeding recession as fewer and fewer workers have jobs and the money to buy goods.

In the long run, productivity increases can theoretically feed better lives by increasing the total pie created by the workforce, but only if the productivity comes from real efficiency, not just extra dog labor piled up on too few employees.

Some of the productivity growth now may actually be improvements in efficiency, but to the extent that it's just fear of layoffs making employees sweat faster and harder to increase corporate profits, there's little good news in these numbers.

Posted by Nathan at 08:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

WalMart- Corporate Criminal

As this story on Wal-Mart details, when we talk about coporate criminals, we should not just talk about those that defraud investors. Those companies illegally ripping off workers by denying them the right to organize and demand higher wages should be vilified as well.

And understand, if you want to help the economy, the best way is to put money in the hands of working families. Tax cuts that add up to a few hundred dollars per year for most families are small beer. But raise their salaries by 10% or 20% and you are talking about thousands of dollars per families and hundreds of billions strengthening main street America.

Unless you think the corporate leaders controlling all that money would spend it better than those working families.

Wal-Mart is the poster child for corporate crime against workers. As the article notes:

the National Labor Relations Board has filed more than 40 complaints against Wal-Mart, accusing managers in more than two dozen stores of illegal practices, including improperly firing union supporters, intimidating workers and threatening to deny bonuses if workers unionized. Of those, the board found illegal practices in 10 cases; 8 cases were settled and the rest are pending.

When workers have organized successfully, as with a butchers department in Texas, the whole department was disbanded two weeks later.

The reason Wal-Mart can engage in such corporate crime with little repercussions is that the only penalty under the law is compensating workers illegally fired with the money they lost-- minus whatever money they've earned from jobs they took since they were fired. Basically, it's as if a thief's only punishment was giving back the stolen goods. Not much deterrence since the criminals get to keep the benefits of all the times they don't get caught.

For the economy, raising wages is one the only ways to assure long-term strength. Higher wages means more consumer spending which means better lives not just for those whose wages have been raised.

If that's not enough to convince more liberals to take support for unions more seriously, how is this for the politicos out there wondering how to strengthen progressive politics in the longterm. Building unions, especially in traditionally non-union southern states, creates a political counterweight to corporate power. It creates organizations that can mobilize at election time on behalf of working families issues. The reality is that Democratic Party numbers have eroded since the 1970s practically hand-in-hand with the decline of union numbers. When 25-30% of the workforce was unionized, with even higher numbers having at least one union member in the family, that gave progressive politics a real base each year. Now as unionization has dropped to just a bit over 10% of the private workforce, it becomes harder to find a base of organized working class support for progressive politics. Unions are actually far savvier on tactically using their numbers than they have been in decades, but with greater numbers, all progressive causes would benefit.

So all you progressives, if you want a better election result in 2004 and 2006 and 2008, spend some time walking picket lines, not just following ballot lines.

Posted by Nathan at 08:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Jon Stewart is God- Part 100

"Republicans more than prevailed in yesterday's midterm elections across the country. Voters turned out strongly to express support for huge tax cuts for the rich, reduced corporate oversight, relaxed environmental standards, geostrategic unilateralism, and an ideologically hardline conservative judiciary.

Oh what did you think you were voting for?"

-- (Jon Stewart- last night)

Posted by Nathan at 10:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

NY: Working Families Party Wins

"The biggest winner on Tuesday night was the Working Families Party, a coalition of pro-labor activists and liberal Democrats which gave its line to Carl McCall this year."- NY Post

Okay, my small comfort amidst debacle is that on election day, I was doing poll work for what the Post has declared the "biggest winner" of the night, at least in the relative sense of having a chance to change the status quo in the state. Knowing that Lautenberg was a safe bet for election, I spent Tuesday morning handing out flyers urging voters to support McCall not on the Democratic line but on the Working Families Party row.

Backed by major progressive unions and other community groups, the Working Families Party (WFP) goal is to give progressives an electoral vehicle that can force Democrats to the left without playing a spoiler role in major elections.

For those foreign to New York's relatively unique party system, third parties have the option of running their own candidates or endorsing a major candidate. The option to do the latter gives smaller parties leverage over major parties, since multiple listings on the ballot can significantly boost vote totals.

For the WFP, cross-endorsements are a way to let progressive voters know which Democrats are true progressives and worth devoting their votes but more importantly their time during elections. A WFP endorsement is sought not just for the votes it may deliver, but as a union-supported group, it can deliver get-out-the-vote muscle before and on election day. Notably, while I saw Greens and some Independence Party folks hustling on Tuesday morning, I saw no Democratic Party regulars. The unions supporting Pataki were sitting on their hands and the rest were out hustling for the top Dems on the WFP's line.

Okay, this can sound like seriously inside baseball, but part of the WFP's success was killing off the so-called Liberal Party, which failed to gain the 50,000 votes needed to remain on the ballot. But that once proud supporter of liberal causes had degenerated into a patronage machine that, by endorsing Guiliani in New York, gave "small l" liberals the ability to vote for him without having to pull the Republican lever. Backed by progressives around the WFP, McCall refused the Liberal endorsement for governor and with only failed Dem candidate Andrew Cuomo (who dropped out) on their ballot line, they are out of the patronage game.

This leaves the Working Families Party as the key endorsement by Democrats and the occasional liberal Republican to identify themselves as progressives.

Most importantly, the Working Families Party is not just an electoral vehicle but an organization of activists working on issues ranging from the minimum wage to affordable housing. This makes sure that the electoral work is a servant to the issues that matter-- rather than the other way around with most parties.

For more info see the party site and these older Nation and Village Voice articles.

Update: I missed a couple of more recent pieces on the WFP. At the Nation see here and here and a New York Magazine piece by Michael Tomasky. (Thanks JW)

Posted by Nathan at 09:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Irony of Night: SD's Johnson

The sad irony for South Dakota is that it was probably the only state where the meta-issue of which party would control the Senate was the decisive issue. Even in liberal states like Minnesota, issues and personalities tended to trump that kind of strategic issue.

But in a state where Bush has one of his highest approval ratings, South Dakota voted for Tim Johnson in hopes of keeping their other Senator, Tom Daschle, as majority leader.

Yet that swing vote of pro-Bush but also pro-Daschle as Majority Leader voters ended up with neither. But how could they have expected that while their rural conservatives were supporting a Democratic majority, states like Minnesota and Missouri would go the other way?

It's all probably one reason strategic voting is so hard to sell to voters. Consequences are sometimes just so unpredictable that it's safer for them to go with their gut.

Finding that gut is the key for Democrats for the next two years.

Posted by Nathan at 07:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wisdom from the Right

This seems right from David Brooks, arguing that the American people:

...know that one party believes in its platform and the other party does not. The Democrats, led by Tom Daschle, sold their soul to win this election, and parties that sell their souls to win usually end up losing. They secretly wanted to roll back the Bush tax cut but didn't have the guts to say so. They wanted to oppose the president on Iraq but didn't have the guts to say so. They might have lost key seats if they had articulated these positions. But they lost these seats anyway, along with their self-respect.

Posted by Nathan at 05:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Little Chips, Big Pollution

Most people think of the microchip as embodying a post-industrial technology, the clean science of cappucino-drinking white collar workers. Yet a new academic study details that every single two-gram microchip requires 3.7 pounds of fossil fuel and chemical inputs. Ounce for ounce, microchips are some of the most energy-gobbling and pollution-generating products on earth to create.

While many scientists and industry leaders are only just admitting this reality, activists in communities effected have been fighting technology toxics for years.

To learn more, check out the web site of Silicon Valley Toxics, founded twenty years ago this month to highlight and reform the toxic effects of the technology sector on our community.

Posted by Nathan at 02:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

GOP Victories Power Defense Stocks

That's the headline from Reuters. Along with the body phrase that "The pharmaceuticals sector, which is also seen as a big winner in the GOP victory, was also higher."

To the winners go the spoils.

Posted by Nathan at 02:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Well, that sucked

I pretty much said my criticism of the Dem leadership and called for the ouster of Gephardt in my Monday post, the Muddled Election. The Dems had no real positive message and they paid for it, especially with Bush energetically pushing a coherent message hard on the last week. The only way a legislative party gets traction on the bully pulpit of a President is with a coherent message and repeated talking points. The Dems thought they could play it safe and gambled. They lost.

I'm pissed- at Gephardt, Nader, myself, anyone who did something or didn't do something that could have prevented this horrendous turn to rightwing control of all branches of government for the first time since the 1920s.

But the reality is that little changed in the broad world last night. Less than a hundred thousand votes in a nation of 300 million tipped power over a few Senate seats, barely enough to show up on a graphic page. It just happens that those were the seats that tip power decisively.

But while short-term policy matters, so do long term trends. There was no massive shift to the Right-- we are still in 50-50 land, just one vote to the Right rather than the Left from that point.

And nothing changes my conviction that Bush will lose in 2004. He could distract the public from his corporate sleaze and the economic pit he is sinking this country-- dumping Harvey Pitt on election night is emblematic of his political savvy on distraction -- but he can't run from the effects of his policy over the longer term.

We need to grieve today and organize, organize, organize tomorrow.

Posted by Nathan at 12:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Why McCain-Feingold Will Make Things Worse

Aside from voters, today is an important date for fundraisers as well. It's the last day the national party committees can raise unlimited soft money. So party officials are working with supporting groups to create legal alternatives.

And it's clear McCain-Feingold won't make a difference. In fact, by encouraging the money to go into less visible non-party committees, it will likely make accountability worse. Unions and most Democratic soft money groups have to register their donations, but Republicans are finding all sorts of ways to hide their support from wealthy donations. As the Washington Post details:

A Republican group called the Leadership Forum, run by two prominent GOP lobbyists, has already registered with the Internal Revenue Service, and officials at the National Republican Senatorial Committee say they are helping form soft-money committees that under tax law will not have to disclose who gives money or how the money is spent...Most Republican strategists are creating groups that are not required to disclose the sources of money or how it is spent. "That's a no-brainer. Most donors don't want their names in the paper," said one Republican.

A reminder, if it isn't public financing, it's not reform. Period.

Posted by Nathan at 02:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Instapundit Ignorant on Broadband Politics

I have to say, whenever I see Instapundit make a pronouncement on something I know well, he is usually about as uninformed as humanly possible. Take this post discussing Mondale's likely political position on technology and broadband policy.

Instapundit quotes Lileks to the effect that Mondale is likely to hook up with Fritz Hollings on such technology issues.

Yet the most basic fact about Mondale is that he is pro-labor through and through, and labor unions are opposing Hollings whole approach on broadband policy. Unions like the Communication Workers of America are opposing Hollings bill in favor of the rival Tauzin-Dingell Bill. In fact, unions have repeatedly clashed with Hollings on technology issues. Unions supported the merger of Voicestream with the generally pro-labor Deutshe Telekom, while Hollings was one of the fiercest opponents The labor-backed Economic Policy Institute has criticized the competition model favored by Hollings, instead favoring the more open Tauzin-Dingell approach favoring pro-union Baby Bell incumbents.

Given Mondale's history, the idea that he would side against the unions with Hollings on such issues is laughable.

And Instapundit is laughable for knowing so little that he would argue otherwise.

Posted by Nathan at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Webster- Ripping off Teamster Members

"Judge Webster" is about to suffer the worst fate of a "respected Washington insider"-- actually having what such insiders do looked at closely.

And it's not a pretty sight.

Along with the corporate board positions such as the one at U.S. Technologies that currently has him in trouble, he also managed to get appointment to the three-member government panel overseeing corruption in the Teamsters. Yet despite being paid $100,000 per year for the job, paid out of hardworking Teamsters' dues, many feel, according to today's New York Times, Webster has been doing very little to earn his money.

And he's been consorting with the worst of the old corrupt Teamster leaders. As Bob Novak noted recently

Webster was honored May 11 at a New York Marriott Marquis Hotel dinner hosted by one of the most unsavory of old Teamsters, George Barasch. Webster addressed the Union Mutual Benefit Association (UMBA), which is charged in a Garment Workers Union (UNITE) lawsuit as draining millions from Barasch's Allied Trade Council (ATC) for his personal use. The IRB in November 1999 charged that Barasch and his family were siphoning money from benefit plans of the ATC and the Barasch-controlled Teamsters Local 815. A lawyer in the UNITE lawsuit was recently told by Barasch's son, Stephen: "Judge Webster seems to think we're OK."

The Labor Party-- the prototype third party supported by major unions -- condemned the government for allowing Webster to serve on the Teamsters oversight board, since he also had corporate positions with antiunion firms, including a clear conflict of interest of serving on the boards of companies negotiating with the Teamsters itself. Here from the Labor Party resolution this summer:

WHEREAS the government's "Independent Review Board," established to oversee the Teamsters Union, has a conflict of interest in that William Webster, a former CIA and FBI director, who heads the board, also sits on the board of directors of Anheuser-Busch, which negotiates contracts with the Teamsters. In addition, Webster was on the board of the Pinkerton Security and Investigations Services, notorious in labor history for its strikebreaking.

And Webster's involvement with NextWave, a telecom upstart that defaulted on billions owed to the F.C.C., leaves many establishment leaders appalled that he's allowed near corporate oversight (again from the NY Times):

NextWave was a "bottom feeder," said Gerald Faulhaber, a Wharton School professor who served as the F.C.C.'s top economist in 2000 and 2001. "Do I feel comfortable with my watchdog being involved with these guys? No."

Everyone may be claiming that Webster is a fine civil servant, who just happens to consort with mobsters, corporate felons, and union-busters. But let's just say we should be on the safe side in a position entrusted with enforcing corporate responsibility.

Fire his ass.

Posted by Nathan at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Labor Monday (11-04)

Roundup of labor stories, November 4, 2002

West Coast longshoremen have apparently reached a tentative agreement on the use of technology, the major sticking point in their bitter contract talks, a federal mediator said. The ILWU is still calling on the Justice Department to conduct a full investigation into the apparent collusion between the Bush Administration, shipping companies and associations during the West Coast ports contract dispute.

U.S. Appeals Court agrees with NLRB: Workers cannot be used in union-busting videos without their consent.

Carpenters President Douglas J. McCarron and Bush's strongest ally in the labor movement, announced he would return profits of $276,000+ he made on stock transactions that are under investigation by three separate parts of the federal government.

A coalition of New Haven labor unions representing Yale-New Haven Hospital workers have filed unfair labor practices charges with the NLRB over the arrests of eight activists who were distributing leaflets.

New comedy play is making the rounds - 21 Dog Years -Doing Time @ Amazon.com detailing the sixty-hour work weeks and the cult of personality around Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.

Labor actions expanded across China in protest of layoffs and corruption leading up to the new Party Congress.

Korean Confederation of Trade Unions announced Monday it will push for an all-out strike in 21 cities nationwide on Tuesday to hold back the passage of the five-day workweek bill and the gutting of holidays. Civil servants of regional governments also struck throughout the country as they pressed their demand to form a labor union. The unions are also forming a new political party, the Democratic Socialist Party, in the runup to the December Presidential election.

Unions have marched in Venezuela calling for a vote on President Chavez's presidency.

Posted by Nathan at 11:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Muddled Election

It is odd to have an election where so much is at stake and the messages on all sides are so muddled. In some ways, one is feeding the other, as both sides fear making a big mistake more than being willing to take bold steps to get an advantage. So the GOP obscures their positions on social security privatization and most Dems refuse to call for repeal of the rest of Bush's tax cuts.

I think the Dems missed a chance to nationalize the elections by refusing to declare straight out that the Bush tax cuts were a mistake and the explosion of the deficit means that those resources would better be directed to jobs and domestic homeland security. Part of the problem is that key vulnerable Dems-- Johnson, Carnahan, Torricelli (early on) and Baucus -- supported the tax cuts, so it was hard to make a Democrat "Contract with America" type declaration without putting those candidates in a bind.

The sad thing is, as I noted a while ago, that even Erskine Bowles in North Carolina felt that calling for repeal of those tax giveaways to the wealthy was a winning issue. And he has steadily gained on Dole with that viewpoint.

So what are the likely results? I won't modify my prediction of a gain of two Senate seats for the Dems made months ago, but it's kind of a dartboard given the dead-heat set of races.

The Dems won't get the House and hopefully Gephardt will be pushed out of leadership, having failed for eight years to develop a successful strategy for retaking control. His selling out of Daschle and other Dems on the Iraq vote makes him no longer a reliable and dependable leader for the party in the House.

But whether happy or sad tomorrow, I hold to my basic prediction for 2004. Bush is history. The Pitt scandal is just the tip of an iceberg of corporate corruption and deficit swamp that is about to swallow his administration.

Posted by Nathan at 01:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Is Internet Encryption Doomed

In the how-cool-math-has-real-implications, an Indian mathematician in August solved one of the blockbuster problems of mathematics-- how to determine if any number, howere large, is a prime number.

The problem is that encryption is based on the intractability of dealing with large prime numbers, so many worry that the next step will be, as this article indicates, the ability to break Internet encryption.

Just something to worry about as you hand your credit card over the Internet :)

Posted by Nathan at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Max Upset by My War Alliance Doubts

While he doesn't identify me by name, Max has posted a denuncication of those who see "impropriety of a left alliance with so-called isolationists of the right" in the Stand Down/NoWarblog.

Well, as the only blogger who has posted those doubts at the StandDown site, I'll assume the shoe fits and reply.

While it is obviously true that many opponents of the war oppose it for fear of harm to both our society and to the lives of Iraqis, Max too easily argues that isolationism does not play a role in many peoples' opposition. Many of those honestly believe inaction by the US is often the most humane strategy for the world, but it's still a form of isolationism.

Max links attacks on isolationist foreign policy to attacks on opponents of trade agreements:

We saw the isolation slur employed by the Clinton Administration, directed at critics of NAFTA and free trade ideology. The lie was that critics of Clintontrade opposed all trade. Or we wanted to condemn developing countries to the economic misery of autarchy.

Yet it is true that protectionism was a big part of the anti-NAFTA coalition in the early 90s; it took a lot of advocacy to move unions and other progressive groups into a clear internationalist position favoring global justice, rather than just protectionism.

And frankly, part of that movement was breaking some of the alliances unions made with conservatives in favor of the alliances with student anarchists, human rights groups and immigrants rights organizations that came to fruition in Seattle in 1989.

Of course, as Max notes, there will be tactical alliances on individual votes in Congress. People can vote no on trade or war for a mix of reasons.

But that is a different kind of alliance from establishing a common ideological front, as with an ongoing organization or even, a blog.

Such alliances can suppress discussions of what is needed not just for the next tactical step, but for broader social change, whether to free Iraqis from tyrrany without war or establishing a global trade system not run for the benefit of the wealthy.

Back during the NAFTA fight, I had a similar criticism of the narrowness of the alliances opposing that bill. As I co-wrote in a piece back in 1993 called "If Not NAFTA, Then What?", I argued:

In challenging NAFTA, GATT and other global agreements, we must do more than just fight for their defeat. We must work for positive alternatives that can regain our sovereignty and take on the long-term process of creating a just global order. The real fight is not over NAFTA; the real fight is over what comes next.

The same applies to Iraq. I don't care just about stopping a war; I care about achieving justice for the Iraqi people in the peace we want to build. And the danger is that certain alliances can suppress strategic discussions on how to get to that point.

[Oh yeah, Max-- throwing around Godwin's Law has become a form of reverse red-baiting. It actually is part of the phenomenon of degrading discussion that it's supposed to critique.]

Posted by Nathan at 07:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Rise of "Muslim Democrats" in Turkey

Turkey goes to the polls today and leading polls is an Islamic-oriented party called Justice and Development:

Justice party members only half-jokingly call themselves ``Muslim Democrats'' after the Christian Democrats of Europe. They contend a party with an Islamic flavor that is not radical could be a bridge between Europe and the Middle East at a time when Islamic radicalism is on the rise.

From my visit to Turkey a couple of years ago, I think this is right. I am glad that the runner-up party looks to be the traditional left and secular Republican People's Party with the corrupt centrist parties and the rightwing nationalist likely not even making it into parliament.

But there is a part of me that thinks it would be good for Turkey to engage its moderate religious views in government, if only in defiance of the military who has repeatedly banned religious parties and jailed their leaders. If the new Kurdish party makes it into parliament, this might really herald the emergence of full democracy in Turkey from the shadow of the barracks.

Posted by Nathan at 05:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Okay- maybe the Civil War isn't over

Freepers are discussing this article about how there was no "civil war" down South since "the typical Southern community was not divided at all."

Written by a rightwing contributor to a fundamentalist religious site, what is most remarkable about the article is that it completely ignores the views or actions of southern blacks and slaves.

As if those members of the southern community might not have had differing views and, in fact, joined the northern side in massive numbers when they could.

The whole romantic argument of the South for secession is based on this stone racist ignoring of that reality. A right to "secession" assumes a unitary south, which never existed, and could only exist in the minds of whites through slavery and Jim Crow's suppression of alternative voices.

Or in the self-delusion of the die-hard racists of the remaining Confederate nostalgics.

At least one Freeper noted the irony of "war on terror"-supporting conservatives having a brief for the Confederates. "How can people today condemn people in this country waging war (jihad) against the government today while praising those who in the 1860s killed 400,000 U.S. troops?"

Posted by Nathan at 03:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

How Berkeley Hates the Environment

Not to diss my old home, but this article on a new initiative to ban building tall buildings in the city scratches an old beef I have against much of the supposedly pro-environment urban left.

They hate the environment.

Oh, they don't think they do, but for all they disdain suburban sprawl, there are too many restrictions on growth in places like Berkeley, so of course folks flee to sprawling suburbs in search of affordable housing. With the median price of a Bay Area home topping $417,000, families go farther and farther afield, feeding accelerating sprawl, environmentally costly commutes, and loss of undeveloped land.

The raw fact is that many urban activists in places like Berkeley end up prizing the quaintness of their neighborhoods over promoting socially responsible growth of high-density apartments. They are de facto blocking the expansion of mass transit urban commuters in favor of SUV-driving suburbanites.

One of my most libertarian positions is almost blanket opposition to zoning controls. In cities, they block needed high-density growth and in richer suburbs, they are tools of elitists and racists keeping out low-income folks.

Posted by Nathan at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

More on Increases in Partisanship

Armed Liberal appreciated my post on why partisanship is increasing, not decreasing, but differed with my explanation that the deregionalization of politics -- my phrase "the end of the Civil War -- is behind it. Instead he argues the roots of the change are "more mechanical than that":

First, in the ability of party tacticans to manage redistricting, using better demographic data and computer analysis has led to the control of election results through voter selection through redistricting and gerrymandering. This is done by the parties, whose technicians ultimately control the process. Next, in the increasing cost of campaigning which must be borne by an aggressive fundraising structure...which structures are typically controlled by the parties, or by a cluster of consultants who rely on a steady stream of work from the parties for survival.

I don't buy it for a couple of reasons. Yes, gerrrymandering has an effect, but mostly to cut down on the competitive races. This may increase the partisanship of some of the candidates with safe seats, but it doesn't explain the mass shift of Southern Democrats from conservatives to mostly progressives. It's not like the "solid South" politicians had problems with reelection in the past; their seniority was legendary in the 1950s when perennially reelected southerners controlled Congress far beyond their numbers because of their longevity in office.

The change has a number of roots, but the simplest is the 1965 Civil Rights Act, which created a massive new voting constituency for progressivism in the South and, as conservative whites fled to the GOP, created a more polarized, honest partisan political configuration. There was a similar polarization in the North as minority-dominated urban areas began to vote dramatically different from white, richer suburbs.

Gerrymandering may accentuate these structural trends but the computers would be useless unless the underlying changes were there.

Posted by Nathan at 09:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Bush: No Justice Even Better Than Military Justice

Last year, civil libertarians were appalled that Bush was calling for the substitution of military tribunals for real trials of those captured and accused of terrorism.

But the administration has announced that they won't be pushing the idea anytime soon. Good news? Well, not exactly. The administration has fallen in love with indefinite detention without charge down at Guantánamo Bay. The purest human right in the world, the right to have your crime defined has become the norm for this anti-democratic administration. For those fighting for human rights globally, the example can only mean the rise of silent gulags worldwide.

Posted by Nathan at 08:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Where's the Special Prosecutor?

First, Bush's Secretary of the Army is emeshed in the Enron scandal. Then, his SEC chairman is doing the bidding of the accounting industry in blocking nominees for the accounting oversight board. Then, it turns out that new nominee for that accounting board is wrapped up in an accounting scandal of his own.

And how, it turns out Treasury Security Paul O'Neill is part of an investigation of fraud at Lucent Technologies, where he was on the board of directors.

Can anyone honestly believe that these SEC investigations are going to be done honestly, with Bush stacking appointments to pro-corporate lapdog political appointees?

Pitt needs to be fired and a new appointee made at the SEC, with strict vetting by the Senate against corporate influence on the selection.

Posted by Nathan at 01:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Internet Gov Board Kills Elections

ICANN, the nonprofit board that assigns Internet domain names and directs email traffic across the global, formally voted to eliminate the directly elected seats on the board. Five members had previously been elected by various regions of the world. Many see the move as especially directed at silencing Karl Auerbach, a computer consultant who was directly by North America, and has been a fierce critic of the board:

“It is very much becoming a body that follows the interests of big business,” Auerbach added. He said the group had become an aggressive protector of corporate copyrights on the Internet and was becoming irrelevant to ordinary users.

But Stuart Lynn, chief executive of ICANN, had a statement worthy of Mussolini, on why democracy was dispensable:

“This will make ICANN a much more efficient and effective organization that will get things done better and faster and be more plugged-in to the community than we are now."

Yes, the trains will run on time for the corporate interests protected under ICANN's policies.

See ICANN Watch and ICANN.blog for more.

Posted by Nathan at 07:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Peggy Noonan: Obscenity

Here is the award for the most disgusting fake-praise-of-Wellstone-to-attack-Dems. She actually dares to speak in the dead voice of Wellstone.

How dare these people tell the family of Paul how they were supposed to grieve and celebrate his life? Frankly, if it cost the election (which I don't believe) they had the right to speak of his life in politics and the causes he fought for.

But this is more part of the obscenity of the Right; they put words in the mouth of a dead man that he would never have said.

Joe Conason makes the comparison to conservatives who applauded when Hillary Clinton was booed during the concert to honor the dead in the wake of 9-11. Where were the conservatives bemoaning that?

Check out FreeRepublic showing rightwingers' sensitivity and bipartisanship in the wake of tragedy. See here.

Update: Here is a thread of Freepers trying to explain the difference between the scattered boos GOPers received and the ones Hillary received.

Trent Lott would have been expected to show compassion and sensitivity by showing up to the funeral of a fellow Senator. On the other hand, no one expected Hillary to show up at what would most definately turn into a Patriotic ralley. She was out of place big time.

The hypocrisy of the rightwing has no limits.

Posted by Nathan at 12:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

NoWar Blog- Left-Right Against War

I've joined the mass group blog No War Blog put together by my friend Max Sawicky. The basic unity statement begins:

The members of Stand Down hold a wide variety of different and, indeed, conflicting political positions, but all are in agreement on a single proposition: that the use of military force to effect "regime change" in Iraq is ill advised and unjustified. We do not deny that the current Iraqi regime is monstrous, but we hold, following John Adams, that the United States need not go "abroad in search of monsters to destroy" unless they pose a clear and direct threat to American national security.

More here.

I am actually intensely uncomfortable with this right-left kind of alliance on war or trade, since the motives of rightwing opponents draws too much from the old "America First" attitude of not giving a damn about brown people, whether Iraqi oppressors or Kurdish victims. I oppose war because too many innocent Iraqis would die to get rid of Hussein, but I actually have great sympathy for folks like Hitchens who see a pro-war perspective from the eyes of dissidents within Iraq. If I thought that the Bush administration really believed its rhetoric about democracy and human rights in the Middle East, I might not be antiwar -- I supported intervention in Kosovo despite the horror of some of my lefty compatriots. But Bush's continued blind eye to Saudi, Egyptian and Kuwaiti authoritarianism shows how empty his democracy rhetoric is.

I am an interventionist in the world. I just think that this war would be the wrong kind of needed intervention with the wrong purposes. But short-term tactical agreement on staying out of this war is still only half the issue. The other is the more explosive debate on what the real role of the US should be in this time of its omnipresent global power. As I often say, by enforcing its patent laws through economic threats in the third world, the US kills far more people through the deinial of needed drugs than it ever would kill in this war.

So a question to the antiwar movement. With millions dying of AIDS when cheap drugs and minimal investment in a medical infrastructure could save many of them, why can't we get 100,000 people to rally on their behalf? Why are rallies so easy to mobilize for "no war" but not for "yes to saving life"?

Posted by Nathan at 08:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

More Corporate Criminals at Bush Admin

First, Harvey Pitt kills the nomination of a real audit watchdog to the new auditing oversight board, because the auditing industry objected. Now it turns out that the new nominee for the head of the auditing board, "Judge" Webster, was at a company where he served on the audit committee which is facing probes for covering up corporate fraud.

The real scandal is that Pitt didn't even bother to ask those at the firm in question, U.S. Technologies, about Webster's role in the corporate fraud scandal. From the NY Times:

Mr. Webster said he was assured by Mr. Pitt that the staff of the commission had looked into the issue and that it would not pose a problem. Mr. Pitt had urged Mr. Webster to take the job.

But U.S. Technologies' former outside accounting firm, other members of the audit committee, company executives, and investors and their lawyers who say they were defrauded say they were never called by anyone at the commission about Mr. Webster's candidacy for the new oversight board.

Pitt should resign. Period.

And if the media does not start crucifying Bush for this collaboration with corporate fraud soon, I'll have to start conceding the partisanship of the media in regard to scandal. This should be front page news across the country.

Posted by Nathan at 07:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)