The personal blog of David Sirota
Read this LA Times article...all of it...He's finished. It might not be today, might not be tomorrow or even next week or next month...but he is done. The hypocrisy on both the Schiavo issue and on tort reform is more stunning than anything I've ever seen. Add to that the corruption and ethics charges surrounding him, and I just don't see how he survives.
One of the favorite attacks by Republicans is to label any of their opponents as wealthy billionaire liberal elitists. Everything, it seems, comes back to vilifying George Soros, as Tom DeLay most recently showed. And now look at Michael Barone's new column at the Heritage Foundation's website. Barone, you may know, is one of Fox News's favorite bloviating blowhards - a guy so stale from so many years insulated in Washington that all he can do is regurgitate the most recent piece of spin he heard at the last GOP cocktail party. Yet, because he works at U.S. News and World Report, he gets a free pass to turn that drivel into mainstream opinion and news.
"The trustfunder left," he writes this week, "has reached a critical mass and become a major force in one of our two great political parties" - the Democrats, he says. Who are the trustfunders? "People with enough money not to have to work for a living, or not to have to work very hard," Barone says, and then adds, "These people tend to be very liberal politically." His proof? Nothing more than the fact that some of the most stereotyped areas in America like Martha's Vineyard and San Francisco voted for John Kerry.
Barone's charicature shows he is either deliberately dishonest, or historically challenged (probably the former). Are we really supposed to believe that because San Francisco and Martha's Vineyard went Democratic, that that means the Democratic Party is run by the super-wealthy and the super-wealthy are universally liberal? No, of course not - it's the classic case where a dishonest right-wing pundit will use a charicature to try to trick the public into jumping to a conclusion that can't be jumped to.
The fact is, Barone conveniently forgets to discuss the integral role that an influential group of right-wing billionaires continues to play in today's Republican Party. Barone and his Cadillac Conservatives don't want people to know that today's far-right movement was built by the most elite segments of America. Richard Mellon Scaife, for instance, is the heir to the Mellon fortune, and has used that money to fund almost every major right-wing cause over the last 30 years. As People for the American Way note, "Scaife has given away at least $340 million dollars to promote right-wing causes." And there are a host of others family trust funds fueling the right - the Bradleys, the Kochs, the Olins, the Coors and more.
This is not to say that there aren't very wealthy people who support the Democrats. But trying to claim, as Barone does, that the Democratic Party is run exclusively by the rich, and that the rich are universally liberal is just downright false. And yet the stereotype continues with ever more fervor from the GOP. It is the same way someone will viciously attack an opponent for the very thing he/she is most embarrassed about.
What's really troubling about Barone's column is that it shows how many supposedly "legitimate" pundits/reporters are willing to ignore facts in pursuit of their ideological agenda, and yet are promoted by mainstream media organizations like U.S. News and World Report. It is emblematic of exactly why overall media coverage skews so harshly to the right.
The debate over whether to privatize Social Security is really one about whether, when it comes to basic safety net issues, there should be shared risk, or survival of the fittest. The current system we have now is shared risk - we all put money into a big pool, and that means no one individual can really get too screwed over. Private accounts are in the spirit of Social Darwinism - everyone has to hope their individual accounts do well, or they are screwed, a casualty of a surival-of-the-fittest system. It's really a philosophical discussion.
I come down on the side of shoring up the current system, because Social Security is not a luxury item, or icing on the cake. It is the basic, bare minimum needed to retire, and when it comes to necessities like that, the less risk the better. I don't want just the fittest to survive, I'd rather everyone survive.
But that doesn't mean there aren't some creative hybrids that limit risk AND maximize returns. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), for instance, previously proposed to have an independent Social Security oversight board "invest a small portion of Social Security assets in broad index funds which track the market based on a fixed formula." In other words, a part of the big pool of money would be invested in the market. Because the money would be invested collectively - and not individually - the risk would be spread out, but the collective returns could potentially increase. And this is not a radical idea - as Nadler notes, "many state and local governments invest up to 60% of their assets in the stock market."
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) has also proposed a similar plan. It additionally tinkers with the payroll tax so as to provide some relief for middle-income families from this regressive levy.
Sure, these two proposals are a few years old and have some outdated budget assumptions (namely, that there was a surplus). And yes, maybe they aren't perfect. But their underlying principle is clear - there are ways to pragmatically increase returns for the system, without disproportionately increasing risk to individuals. And they highlight just how radical President Bush's privatization proposal really is. If he was interested in shoring up returns and fixing the system he would have started pushing something like this. Instead, he's pushing a polarizing, far-right proposal designed only to serve the interests of Wall Street.
Matt Miller, who is a colleague of mine at the Center for American Progress, has a very provocative piece in the upcoming edition of Fortune magazine. He says the filibuster that Democrats need to have is not necessarily about judges, but "about President Bush's request for $82 billion more for Iraq - or to put it more precisely, it's about the cumulative $300 billion tab we're slipping to our kids for a war we've chosen to fight but not pay for, even as we've cut taxes for the best-off."
Give the piece a read. Although I am not opposed to Democrats using the filibuster on judges as well, and although I don't always totally agree with Matt, he is (no pun intended) right on the money in saying the new war funding request is the exact place to have a debate about America's fiscal choices.
Princeton professor Kenneth S. Deffeyes has a provocative op-ed in today's New York Times in which he asks, point blank, "What happens when the oil runs out?" It's a good question - and one too many Washington, D.C. politicians are unwilling to address. In 2003, for instance, the Senate rejected bipartisan legislation to raise fuel efficiency standards in cars - the machines that account for the highest use of petroleum in America. Instead, they recently voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This was clearly an environmentally questionable move (and oil companies are trying to make the most of it - they are actually trying to now avoid even doing an environmental impact study of the consequences of drilling there). But equally as disturbing, drilling in ANWR won't address the America's real energy problems.
As Deffeyes notes, "The controversy over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a side issue" energy-wise. "The problem we need to face is the impending world oil shortage." (Deffeyes has a new book out on the subject called "Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak")
Up here in Montana, some forward-thinking Republican and Democratic lawmakers are pushing measures to increase ethanol and wind energy production. And the opposition from entrenched energy industry interests is intense. But Gov. Schweitzer is putting the full force of his office behind the efforts, as he knows it is both important for America's long-term energy challenges, and for his state's rural economy. More Democrats should take a look at the issue - it is a way to tie environmentalism (cleaner fuels), conservationism (using less scarce petroleum), patriotism (getting America off foreign oil), and rural interests (building the rural economy) all together in one issue.
In my American Prospect article "The Democrats Da Vinci Code," one of the things I focused on was how successful red-state Democrats have made themselves the defender of the small family farm, in the face of big corporate agribusiness. The more Democrats do this, the better they will do in rural America.
And now, coming down the pike, there is a perfect opportunity for Democrats to ramp up this effort. First, as I've said previously, they can oppose Rob Portman's nomination as U.S. Trade Representative, because he is a free-trade zealot who has shown no regard for a trade policy that benefits small family farms. But equally as important is for Democrats to come out strongly against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) that the Bush administration is pushing.
Farmers already know this deal will be a disaster for them. Just last month, a key committee of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture unanimously voted to oppose CAFTA. According to South Dakota's Aberdeen News:
"The vote sent shockwaves through the usually pro-trade NASDA whose members literally know the lay of the food and farm land in their home states. That's their job; looking farmers and ranchers in the eye everyday...Ag chiefs from coastal states worry about crop pests hitchhiking into the U.S. on food from Central America. Others say CAFTA's sugar imports will open the door to bigger sugar imports in future treaties. 'But my big problem with it,' said one state agriculture leader, 'is that CAFTA countries get access to U.S. food markets now and our access to theirs is phased in over 10, 15 and 20 years. For instance, their poultry tariffs won't be fully lifted for 17 to 20 years. That doesn't look like fair trade to poultry growers.' His point is even sharper if U.S. farmers view the trade pact as the White House views it: CAFTA is a small but necessary stepping stone to bigger trade bridges like the hemisphere-wide Free Trade Area of the Americas and Doha's worldwide ag deal.'"
And these state officials aren't alone. The National Farmers Union recently held a Capitol Hill news conference to "voice strong opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which farm leader[s] believes would negatively impact U.S. farmers." They were backed up by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy which noted that "CAFTA Benefits Agribusiness Over Farmers" and that the "agreement would erode fair trade and farmers' rights."
Democrats - wake up. This is your red-state opportunity. Take it, oppose CAFTA, and start playing offense.
In case anyone still had doubts about whether Fox News is a right-wing GOP spin machine, see this new book by Fox's chief political correspondent Major Garrett trumpeting Republicanism. It's called "The Enduring Revolution: How the Contract with America Continues to Shape the Nation."
Now, in fairness, I haven't read the book yet. But the reviews at Amazon give you a pretty good idea of what this is going to be. Booklist notes "Garrett, a reporter with Fox News Channel, credits the Republican Contract with America of the 1990s with an unacknowledged yet profound and enduring impact on American politics even a decade later." And it is praised heavily by archconservatives like George Will, Brit Hume, Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich.
Remember, the problem with this is not the book unto itself. Books can and should have slants, when appropriate. Heck, I'm writing a book with a certain tilt.
But I don't bill myself as an objective reporter. Garrett, though, does. And sure, his book may not be as hard-edged as it is being billed. But the mere fact that the higher-ups at Fox let one of their top political "reporters" publish a book called "Enduring Revolution" promoting the GOP agenda really raises a host of ethical questions about the entire network, especially when you consider all of the other proof of Fox's conservative slant. You'd think a network whose "fair and balanced" motto has been so tarred would be a little more careful. But apparently, they don't care. It's not about objectivity – its about a right-wing political ideology.
In the movie "A League of Their Own," coach Jimmy Dugan tells his players "There's no crying in baseball." Well, there's also no crying in politics. In the few weeks I have been out in Montana, however, that cardinal rule has been broken at least twice.
Most recently, a small group of congressional Democrats are crying about me and others publicizing where they get their money from when they disregard America's working class, and undercut the courageous work of other Democrats. I'm not going to get into a debate about this one, even though I've gotten a lot of e-mail today about this. Instead, I'm going to let Matt Singer at Left In the West do the talking. He sums it up pretty well. For other takes on the situation, see Atrios and Americablog as well.
This all came just weeks after Montana's Republican legislators started whining like infants that Gov. Brian Schweitzer was "intimidating" them. Their bellyaching was so hilarious, newspapers across the state called them "pathetic."
I'm not trying to pick any more fights right now - I'm swamped writing my book. But I do have a message for both Republican and Democratic politicians. We can disagree on just about anything - that's all fair game. But if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And let me just say it one more time: there's no crying in politics.
Terry Neal has a terrific piece in the Washington Post about how both parties essentially screwed themselves in their behavior on the Terri Schiavo case. I talked with him for a while about it, and he quoted me. Here's what I said:
Democratic strategist David Sirota said the Schiavo case creates three impressions. "Firstly, Republicans are zealots," he said. "Secondly, where the hell are the Democrats? And thirdly, well, at least the zealots believe in something strongly. And that's the problem for Democrats right now on this issue, and a whole host of others. The party seems unwilling to stand up for anything controversial."
"The calculus by Democrats is that they don't want to offend anyone," Sirota said. "But in trying not to offend anyone, they lose support from everyone. What many Democrats haven't yet learned from Republicans is that it is better to be loved by some, and hated by others, than try to be liked by everyone. Because when you do that, you are liked by no one."
I really believe what I said is true - Americans, above anything else, want authenticity from their political leaders. When Democrats refuse to take controversial stands, they set themselves back in the quest to be seen as a party with conviction. That has to change.
I wrote up a quick op-ed piece on Rob Portman's nomination for U.S. Trade Representative and how it offers Democrats a unique opportunity to speak to working class issues. You can see it here
Byron York, resident lunatic at the National Review, has a new book coming out called "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" in which my name is emblazoned on the cover (along with some other progressives) in a sort of neo-Nixonian/McCarthyist tribute. I don't want to give this book free publicity, and in no way am I encouraging people to buy it - this guy has been a GOP hatchet man for a number of years and I'm sure he shamelessly distorts my work and my career to no end, as well as that of many others. Just look at the wild-eyed, raving subtitle of the book to know this guy has little - if any - credibility.
But take a look at the cover and see if your name, or your favorite progressive organization is there. And remember, anyone named there should not be cowed. They should see this as a badge of honor. This has far less to do with a so-called "Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" (which, to my knowledge, is neither vast, nor a conspiracy, nor does it exist) and far more to do with the right-wing crazies getting nervous that progressives are starting to become more effective. Let's keep it up.
Well, it’s tax time, and apparently Corporate America doesn’t like the idea of having to pay up. Here in Montana, Big Business is howling mad about a bill by State Sen. Jim Elliott (D) and Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) that would crack down on Montana's growing problem with tax cheaters. As Elliott’s website shows, about half of the largest 500 companies doing business in Montana pay less than $500 in Montana corporate income tax.
Elliott's bill to crack down on corporate tax loopholes would raise $18.3 million in new revenue over the next two years from businesses and individuals not paying their fair share of taxes – and that’s a big amount for Montana.
Not surprisingly, the Billings Gazette reports that "lobbyists for a number of Montana businesses either sought to be exempted from Elliott’s bill or testified they hadn't had sufficient time to study the [bill]."
But as the Helena Independent Record editorial board notes, "major corporations doing business in Montana aren't what you might call babes in the woods when it comes to taxation imposed by the various states they operate in." The Daily Interlake, from the conservative Flathead Valley, agrees, saying, “it's hard to find anything wrong with Gov. Brian Schweitzer's multi-pronged plan to crack down on tax cheats.” And in case the GOP tries to distort the bill, the Interlake notes, “it is important to remember that the Schweitzer plan is not a tax hike of any kind. Instead, it simply would apply more scrutiny to certain taxpayers.”
As I noted earlier at Thinkprogress, this is a national problem. The General Accounting Office estimates that the federal government lost up to $85 billion over the past decade to improper tax shelters. And the Multistate Tax Commission estimates the states lost $12 billion in corporate taxes in 2001 alone.
Let's hope Montana has the courage to move forward and lead the nation in stopping the corporate tax ripoff. And let's hope Democrats throughout the country see this issue as a new way to talk about taxes in populist terms.
The NPR debate I had with DNC Vice-Chair Susan Turbull and Henry Nicholas of the President of the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees is now available online. We debated the future of the Democratic Party. Listen in, and let me know what you think.
The polls make it very clear that most Americans are disgusted by what Republicans are trying to do with the Terri Schiavo case. And blogger Ezra Klein says this is a chance for Democrats to really seize the moment. "Here, finally, Democrats agree that the government is in full overreach," he writes. "We agree that in cases like this one, small government is better. Let's take this moment to draw the line."
First of all, let me say that I am disgusted that any political party is trying to make this tragic case a political opportunity. But with the Republicans forcing the issue, Ezra is right, there is an opportunity for Democrats. The problem is that Democrats, incredibly (and sadly), do NOT agree that the government is in full overreach, if their actions in Congress are any sign. Almost half of the House's Democratic lawmakers who were in DC for the vote actually supported the GOP's overreach - undercutting the courageous efforts of the 53 Democrats who stood their ground. In the Senate, the Schiavo bill passed unanimously - meaning not one Democrat objected.
How are Democrats supposed to show their support for privacy and antithesis for government overreaching with votes like this? Sure, the polls seem to suggest Republicans are hurting themselves with their actions, but that doesn't mean Democrats will capitalize on those polls if they continue to behave like this.
And sadly, this is becoming a pattern. In the last few months, we've seen a faction of Democrats capitulate on Condi Rice's nomination, the class action bill, and the bankruptcy bill - essentially damaging their ability to talk about the war, workers rights, and the middle class squeeze, respectively. Now this vote on the Schiavo issue. These votes undercut the very good work by many Democrats. When will the party be unified around these core issues?
This story in Denver's Rocky Mountain News says it best - Democrats are learning how to use their solid environmental record to attract hunters/fishermen/outdoorsmen (aka. the "Hook & Bullet vote"). This is particularly important because its an area Democrats are playing offense - they are reaching into a constituency that, because of the NRA, has trended conservative/Republican in recent years. But folks are starting to realize that there's more to the outdoorsmen's agenda than just gun rights.
Read the article - it is one of the keys to the future for Democrats in "red" America.
Reuters this morning reports that according to America's top business economists, "the budget deficit has overtaken terrorism as the greatest short-term risk to the U.S. economy, and concern about the current gap is rising."
For President Bush, who has staked his legacy on fighting terrorism, that creates a big problem. As the Associated Press reports, "Bush’s legacy will be a swollen federal debt." What was once expected to be a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years is now projected to be at least a $4 trillion deficit by 2015 if Bush’s tax cuts are made permanent and his Social Security suggestions adopted. That's almost a $10 trillion decline in just 8 years.
Now, it's still possible Bush could realize just how much he's screwing up our economy for the long term. So the question for the White House is - when does the War on Deficits start?
U.S. News and World Report this week writes that Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) is seriously considering a run for the presidency in 2008. This is TERRIFIC news for Democrats, as Barbour has more serious political liabilities than almost anyone.
HALEY BARBOUR, TOBACCO LOBBYIST: According to Public Citizen, "After Philip Morris was the top RNC donor in 1996, Barbour became a tobacco lobbyist." Time Magazine reported that during Barbour's tenure as a tobacco lobbyist, "two Republican Party officials" said Barbour deviously tried to slip a $50 billion tax break for tobacco companies into a budget bill. Now, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Barbour has used the governor's office to try to gut funding for Mississippi's award-winning youth tobacco prevention program. This, from the governor of the state that originally forced the tobacco companies to admit their products caused cancer.
HALEY BARBOUR, DRUG INDUSTRY LOBBYIST: Barbour was also a top lobbyist for the drug industry, at the very time the industry helped kill proposals to lower drug prices. The Washington Post reported that Barbour actually used his position as chairman of the Republican Party to intervene on a bill raising the minimum wage, and demand lawmakers include a massive tax break for the pharmaceutical industry. Barbour immediately returned to his lobbying firm after his stint at the RNC.
HALEY BARBOUR, ENERGY INDUSTRY LOBBYIST: The Associated Press reported that, as a lobbyist for large energy companies, Barbour "virtually papered the White House, from Vice President Dick Cheney on down, with a memo suggesting the president must provide a sound energy policy by not taking action against carbon dioxide." Time Magazine reported that Barbour was a key player in Vice President Cheney's secret energy task force - the same task force that conspired with Enron.
HALEY BARBOUR, INSENSITIVE TO MINORITIES: The Boston Globe reported that "a photo of Barbour is on the home page of the Council of Conservative Citizens, the racist group that is an offshoot of the old segregationist white citizens councils that tried to hold back the civil rights movement...Barbour is pictured along with five other men, including CCC field director Bill Lord." When Barbour was asked to respond, he refused to ask the CCC to take the photo off their website.
Barbour is the dream opponent for Democrats to run against in 2008, especially if they sharpen their economic message. Let's hope Republicans are stupid enough to nominate him.
For the last several years, Democrats' complicity with Republicans and Corporate America on the issue of "free trade" has severely weakened the party's ability to attract working class voters. That's why I have said Democrats must oppose Bush's new nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, Rob Portman - it gives Democrats a platform to reform their support for free trade, and start once again speaking to the party's traditional blue collar base.
Consider just a few factoids about Democrats' need to re-connect with the working class, and how trade policy is a critical tool in that endeavor:
DEMS LOST MAJORITY IN DISTRICTS RAVAGED BY "FREE" TRADE: According to a study by the National Committee for an Effective Congress of the 88 congressional districts that shifted from Democrat to Republican from 1994 to 2000, 59 had average incomes below the national norm, and in 68, the percentage of residents with college degrees was below the national average. Many of these are the blue collar, working class districts ravaged by "free trade" deals that have shipped American jobs to cheap overseas labor markets.
DEMS "FREE" TRADE SUPPORT HURTS THEIR CREDIBILITY: With Democrats increasingly having no difference with Republicans on the issue of trade, 55 percent of white working-class voters trusted Bush to handle the economy, while only 39 percent trusted Kerry.
MOST AMERICANS WANT "FREE" TRADE POLICIES RE-EVALUATED: A January 2004 PIPA/University of Maryland poll found that "a majority [of the American public] is critical of US government trade policy." A 1999 poll done on the five-year anniversary of the North American trade deal was even more telling: Only 24 percent of Americans said they wanted to "continue the NAFTA agreement."
TRADE WAS A HUGE ISSUE IN KEY RED STATE: According to an Associated Press exit poll, seven in 10 voters in Ohio voters blamed foreign trade for taking away jobs. Ohio, as we all know, was the key red state that tipped the election.
AMERICANS OPPOSE THE NEWEST "FREE" TRADE DEAL: 51% of Americans oppose the upcoming Central American Free Trade Agreement and that sentiment crosses party lines, with Republicans (47 to 37 percent) joining Democrats (53 to 31 percent) and Independents (53 to 32 percent) in opposition to the agreement. Overall opposition to CAFTA is stronger in red states (53 to 31 percent) than in blue states (48 to 34 percent). An overwhelming 74% opposed CAFTA when asked if they would favor or oppose the agreement if it reduced consumer prices but caused job losses.
All of these facts mean Democrats have a unique opportunity with Portman's nomination to re-assert themselves as the defenders of America's middle-class. With employment numbers still weak, and outsourcing increasing, how many more polls do Democrats need to see in order to realize that working Americans are desperate for political leaders to start addressing "free" trade as a serious problem?
I am a fellow at the Center for American Progress, and a twice-a-week guest on the Al Franken Show. I am currently writing a book for Random House's Crown Publishers. I also write a bi-weekly section for the Nation Magazine called Permanent Minority vs. Towards the Majority about Democrats failures and successes. And I write a regular column for In These Times. For more on what I do, see this Washington Post story about my blog, this Molly Ivins column about my work, or this Newsweek profile about me. Feel free to email me at david@davidsirota.com with any thoughts/criticism. Note: this blog represents my personal views, and not the views of the Center for American Progress.
