The Growing Revolt on Trade

The Portland Oregonian has an important story about how members of both political parties are starting to realize just how misguided America's corporate-backed free trade policies are. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) is co-sponsoring bipartisan legislation to remove the United States from the World Trade Organization – a secret cabal that usurps states and countries' sovereignty in pursuit of Big Business's agenda. Though the mainstream media barely focuses on this issue, DeFazio says, "People are just starting to think, 'We're borrowing $2 billion a day, and we're borrowing half that from the Chinese? How's that going to work for 20 years or 50 years? There aren't any jobs in America. We don't have basic industries.' The American people are so far ahead of the policymakers and the pundits on this."

Even in places like Montana, the issue is red hot. By a 95-5 vote, the state House yesterday passed a strongly worded resolution demanding U.S. trade negotiators stop selling out America's sovereignty, and to start paying attention to the interests of average Americans.

There are many courageous Democrats who have long fought this important battle on trade. And more Democrats are starting to join the cause. But make no mistake about it - there are still very powerful forces within the "party of the working class" that are clinging to this free trade lunacy. For instance, CNN reports "Robert Rubin, the U.S. Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, recently urged Congress to set aside environmental and labor concerns in supporting free-trade agreements." As head of Citigroup, Rubin, of course, has an interest in making sure capital can flow anywhere it wants. But still, his level of insensitivity is shocking. He actually argued that labor/environmental concerns "do not relate to the economic realities of the countries involved." Try telling that to the American worker who saw their job shipped off to China, where Corporate America is allowed to pay slave-like wages.

Meanwhile, two top Clinton officials wrote an op-ed in the archconservative Wall Street Journal claiming Democrats "need to embrace certain Republican policies...One early test will be the vote...the Central American Free Trade Agreement - an agreement that Democrats should support." This, despite overwhelming opposition to CAFTA from rural America, labor, and consumer groups. They then claim that doing so will help Democrats' electoral prospects: "If the Democratic Party wants to regain the White House and control of Congress, it has to take pro-growth, pro-jobs positions on key issues, including trade agreements."

This is the kind of rhetoric that can only come from people who haven't won a real political campaign in years, who didn't see how trade issues helped doom the Senate candidacy of fellow-Clintonite Erskine Bowles, and who arrogantly see the interests of the American worker and the American heartland as more of a nuisance than a priority. The fact is, polls consistently show the public has become increasingly skeptical of this free trade policy. From farmers in rural America, to workers in the industrial Midwest, to tech workers who are suffering from outsourcing, America wants a trade policy that starts working for average people, not just the fat cats. The sooner the Democrats' reject the free trade orthodoxy that has ravaged domestic jobs/wages, created a massive trade deficit, and weakened the dollar, the sooner they will be back in the majority.

Stop Debt Slavery This Week

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the horrendous bankruptcy bill that recently passed the Senate. Visit www.debtslavery.org to help protest this bill, and pressure your Member of Congress to vote against the bill.

For more on the bankruptcy bill, see Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren's special website on the issue - she and her team are the national experts on the bill, and show exactly why this bill is such a sellout to Corporate America. Also see this Washington Post story about how the bankruptcy bill is one big payoff to major business donors to the Republican Party.

Hiding Their Real Tax Cut Motives

The debate over tax relief in Montana is really emblematic of how Republicans try to use populist-sounding ideas to hide their real motives. House Republicans are pushing a plan to give $39 million in one-time proerty tax rebates. Sounds like a good idea - especially in a state where property taxes are a top concern. The problem is that "Revenue Department research that showed only 35 percent of Montana's taxpayers would be eligible for the rebate." Why? Because a large portion of the rebates would go to utilities, railroads and airlines and other businesses." In other words, its a dressed up corporate tax rebate, which is particularly offensive in a state where so many wealthy corporations pay little - if any - taxes.

This is the same way George W. Bush packaged his tax cuts for the wealthy. He told us they were for everyone, used deceptive estimates to make it sound appealing, and then gave away the store to the richest Americans.

State Sen. Jim Elliott (D), however, has a better idea. His bill would provide $60 million in property tax relief annually to 450,000 homeowners and renters. Each taxpayer would get a $135 rebate on their income taxes - and that rebate would be refundable (meaning even if you were poor enough to not have paid $135 in state taxes, you'd still get the rebate). Elliott's bill would mean that 100 percent of the money would go to taxpayers - not corporations - for residential property tax relief. That's the kind of honest plan that would really help citizens throughout the state.

Permanent Minority vs. Towards the Majority

Here's my latest Permanent Minority/Towards the Majority piece for the upcoming edition of The Nation magazine:

PERMANENT MINORITY: Six Senate Democrats joined Republicans in voting against a measure to preserve soldiers' minimum bankruptcy protections from debts incurred when they leave better-paying jobs for service in Iraq.

TOWARD THE MAJORITY: West Virginia Representative Alan Mollohan (D) is sponsoring a resolution to force the GOP to restore ethics rules it gutted earlier this year. The resolution, which is peeling off some GOP support, would allow the ethics committee to proceed with an investigation of corruption allegations against majority leader Tom DeLay.

Red-State Protests

White House political guru Karl Rove was in Helena yesterday night. He was met by about 40 protestors - not a bad showing for our small town:

A Brief History of Right-Wing Threats

In light of the GOP's recent behavior, let's not forget the history of the conservative movement's willingness to threaten people. The DeLay threats and the White House dissent suppression are only the latest in a long line of intimidating outbursts.

For instance, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) essentially threatened the President of the United States in 1994 when he said, "Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard."

And the Associated Press reported on 4/25/95 how that comment was commonplace on the right. "A senator says the president had better not visit his state without a bodyguard," the newsservice wrote. "An anti-abortion leader describes shooting abortion doctors as 'justifiable homicide.' A radio talk-show host advises listeners to shoot at the head if attacked by federal agents wearing bulletproof vests." It's all part of the conservative movement's belief that physically threatening and intimidating its political opposition is OK. I'd wager to guess most Americans disagree.

When Politicians Get Desperate...

...they start threatening people. Case in point - scandal-plagued House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R), who shows more and more of his thuggish colors everyday. In recent days, he really seems to have completely lost control of himself. Yesterday, he issued a menacing threat against his opponents in the tragic Terri Schiavo case, saying "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." This, as Thinkprogress notes, at a time when death and bomb threats have been reported against the judge and hospital involved in the case. As Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) notes, DeLay's comments might have violated the law, especially considering the recent killing of a federal judge's family in Chicago.

Now, today, he has deployed fellow conservative leaders to say defending DeLay is a litmus test for any Republican lawmaker seeking their support. Morton Blackwell, Republican National Committee member from Virginia and a member of American Conservative Union's board, told the Washington Times that Republicans are being told support for Mr. DeLay is mandatory if they want future support from conservatives. "Conservative leaders across the country are working now to make sure that any politician who hopes to have conservative support in the future had better be in the forefront as we attack those who attack Tom DeLay."

Remember, this is just days removed from the White House using its cronies to forcibly remove people from public events where the President speaks. And what these examples show is the frightening contradictions within today's GOP. The same Republican Party that wraps itself in the flag is also embracing public threats of vengence and suppression of dissent - both truly un-American and unpatriotic abuses.

Agreed

Matt Singer tells it like it is.

Messaging or Ideas?

This Atlantic Monthly piece by Joshua Green is a good read, and quite interesting. My take is that Democrats need both: new messaging AND new ideas/positions. The two aren't mutually exclusive, as some Democrats seem to believe. The party can't just tweak its language here and there, and expect that to build them a governing majority. Voters will see right through that. Then again, they can't go super populist and present new ideas if they don't learn how to speak more effectively.

The one problem I see with all this talk about "messaging" is that Washington insiders think that is the MOST important thing. It is important, sure, but it really is secondary to more strongly defining the ideas that the party stands for (see my "Democrats' Da Vinci Code" for some proposals along those lines). As Green correctly notes, "Buzzwords are not going to rescue a failing party. That so many Democrats have achieved the Olympian state of denial necessary to believe otherwise suggests that the tempting abstractions of language and messaging have diverted them..."

Again, unlike Green, I do think messaging is important, and efforts to improve the language are well worth it. But I do agree with Green that defining the core principles and ideas of the party are the most pressing and immediate challenge right now - that's where most of the energy should be focused.

Taking the Initiative on Energy

Big news today on the energy front: Montana secured its first major wind-power project, as regulators approved a 20-year contract to let the wind energy be sold to Montana customers.

PPL Montana, the current energy generator, objected to the deal. But that's no surprise: they have an unregulated monopoly on the Montana market, and they don't want any competition. This is the same company that is trying to avoid paying most of its property taxes. They did the same thing in 2003. The Allentown Morning Call at that time reported the move "kept $7.6 million out of local government and school district coffers."

Montana really is at the forefront of trying to create more affordable and renewable energy. The Schweitzer administration is pushing a major ethanol energy package, and cities are exploring co-op power to prevent the kind of price gouging by private corporations that has plagued the Northwest.

It's the kind of thing that other states can pioneer as well - especially with the lack of leadership in Washington, D.C. In contrast to Montana, the Bush administration continues to say its outdated energy bill is the way to deal with America's energy challenges. They are so desperate to give away the farm to their energy industry donors, all they can come up with a package of tax breaks for oil companies - hardly a comprehensive energy policy. Then again, what else can we expect from an administration headed by two oil men, and run by appointees who came out of the oil industry?

They're Already At the Table

CLAIM:
"If you've got a good idea [about Social Security], we expect you to be at the table, we expect you to bring it forward."
- President Bush echoing GOP ads that claim Democrats haven't offered any Social Security proposals, 3/30/05

FACT:
Democrats have already brought forward a number of proposals today and in the past. For instance, Rep. David Obey (D-WI) has a plan endorsed by former Social Security Commissioner Robert Ball that would use the estate tax to fix the shortfall. Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN) also has a proposal he introduced almost a month ago. Before that, Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) each had different proposals. The person who has not introduced a concrete proposal is President Bush.

18 Senators and a $2 Million Flip-Flop

They actually voted for it, before they voted against it. Why? Find out the details here.

More GOPers Saying No to CAFTA

Reuters today reports that Idaho Reps. Mike Simpson (R) and Butch Otter (R) and "declared on Tuesday they would not vote for a new free trade agreement with five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic (CAFTA)." They join fellow GOPers Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) in opposing the trade deal. This is very good news because, as Reuters notes, "opposition from labor groups, sugar producers, much of the textile industry, [and] most Democrats in the House of Representatives [means] the White House needs every Republican vote it can get."

Let's hope there are some pointed questions for new U.S. Trade Representative-nominee Rob Portman when he comes before the Senate for confirmation. He needs to explain why the White House is so determined to push these kind of free trade deals, even as they are ravaging America's economy, hurting our job base, and creating record trade deficits. And let's hope Democratic opposition to CAFTA remains strong, as it presents an excellent chance to play offense in "red" America.

Bradley Nails It

I was not a big Bill Bradley guy back in 2000, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have some good things to say. And his op-ed in today's New York Times about the Democratic Party hits the nail right on the head. Go read it.

Nothing is Beneath the Chamber of Commerce

The Washington Post's Steve Pearlstein has a column today showing how, even in the wake of the Enron/Worldcom scandals, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce "is still waging a rear-guard action against government regulators determined not to let it happen again."

Apparently, "chamber officials huddled yesterday to plan their assault on regulations requiring companies to implement and test" new auditing rules. But as Pearstein notes, their rationale is "based largely on the kind of anecdotal evidence picked up in country-club locker rooms" as they claim "the regulations have wasted corporate time and cash flow, discouraged risk taking, triggered mass resignations of corporate directors and dissuaded untold numbers of companies from going public."

It's really sad when a trade association like the Chamber of Commerce becomes so greedy for short-term profits, they can no longer see the long-term benefits of strong regulations that protect the marketplace. The fact is, without these regulations (and more like them), America would be hit with more scandals, hurting every business in the economy. As New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has said,
regulation and prosecuting corporate crime "is an essential part of maintaining the integrity of the market" - and thus one of the key ways to keep capitalism working.

Guest Blogging

I am guest blogging today over at Facing South, the blog of the Institute for Southern Studies. Check it out.

Corrupt Cadillac Conservatives

The Cleveland Plain Dealer features a major expose showing exactly how today's Cadillac Conservatives in the Republican Party are living the good life, while screwing over average Americans.

Rep. Mike Oxley (R-OH) is example A. As Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, he basically oversees most major legislation that is of interest to Corporate America - things like the bankruptcy bill, which he is sheperding through Congress and which hammers America's middle class. But forgive Oxley if he is totally out of touch with the people he's screwing over - he's busy spending $25,000 for "chauffeured luxury sedans around New York," taking more than 47 "excursions across the country on private jets," spending $63,544 on "ski trips to Vail" and hosting "golf outings in Scottsdale" - all funded not out of his own pocket, but from campaign contributions given to him by the industries he oversees in Congress.

Then there is Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), who is using the money he shakes down from corporate lobbyists to finance his extravagant spending binges. He put down $53,000 for greens fees, and ran up a $47,000 bill at Sam & Harry's, a top Washington, D.C. steakhouse - again, paid for by the cash he raised from the industries he's supposed to oversee in Congress.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) is also busy. This conservative whose party rails on California/Hollywood liberals is using the cash his corporate friends give him to spend $39,000 "on events and meals at Beverly Wilshire Hotel and Wolfgang Puck's Spago Beverly Hill."

We are living in an age where Cadillac Conservatives raise huge amounts of cash from the companies they are supposed to be regulating, and then are allowed to use that money to live like royalty. It is corruption, plain and simple. Read this story in full, and you will never again wonder why the GOP Congress is so grossly out of touch with the rest of America.

A Sleeping Giant on Our Hike

Here are some pictures from our hike right in our neighborhood at dusk. In this first shot, see if you can see Montana's famous Sleeping Giant...to see it, just click on the picture:



Here are some other shots:

18 U.S. Senators

18 U.S. Senators have a serious question to answer. Find out what that question is here.

Lou Dobbs is a Hero

Last week, I authored an op-ed on the need for Congress to reject Rep. Rob Portman's nomination as U.S. Trade Representative, and now I've gotten some welcome reinforcement from CNN's Lou Dobbs. In the new edition of U.S. News and World Report, Dobbs hammers the Bush administration for its nomination, saying the Portman nomination "represents the administration's allegiance to failed trade policies that have led to the loss of American jobs, record trade deficits, and mounting, unprecedented trade debt."

He accurately notes that, "Portman's votes for the North American Free Trade Agreement, permanent trade relations with China, and all the recent bilateral trade agreements make clear that he is part of the problem, rather than an independent thinker who bases his policy decisions on the overwhelming evidence of the need for a solution."

More broadly, Dobbs points out that "Albert Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Yet, "the United States continues to enter into similar free-trade agreements with countries and regions that allow corporate America to outsource plant, production, and jobs to other parts of the world."

I don't always agree with Dobbs on everything (take some of his rhetoric on immigration). But there's a reason why his ratings have gone through the roof. It's because he's speaking to average Americans' economic concerns in populist terms - something that most television blowhards are afraid to do. His work on trade has been heroic, and his column hits it right on the head. Congress must reject Portman.

Why We Fight

The Washington Post today sums up exactly why progressives must continue fighting, and continue putting pressure on BOTH Republicans AND Democrats who capitulate to Corporate America's every wish, no matter what the social cost. As the Post notes in its story about recent Big Business victories in Congress:

"In the end, the companies prevailed because the larger GOP majorities were joined by several pro-business Democrats...Many of these Democrats also received substantial campaign contributions from companies concerned about class-action cases, the Center for Responsive Politics found. The story is the same for the bankruptcy bill, which recently passed the Senate and appears headed to easy passage in the House and to Bush's desk this spring. United Republicans are counting on the support of enough Democrats to pass a bill that has been stalled since the mid-1990s."

Make no mistake about it - the Democratic Party is still the major party in American politics that best represents the interests of America's working class, and the Republicans are the real threat to average Americans' economic interests. The Democrats have some of the most tenacious and honest fighters for progressive causes that we could ever ask for - that's why I am proud to have worked for Democrats, and worked on Democratic campaigns. But the Post shows how a small faction, when left unpressured, can do serious damage to the progressive cause, America's middle-class, and the Democratic Party itself, providing the crucial support that's needed for the Republicans to pass their hard-right agenda.

That's why it is so important for progressives to not only go after the GOP when they ignore average Americans, but also hold those who undercut the Democratic Party accountable. Doing that is GOOD for the party, and the progressive cause in general. Because when these wavering lawmakers are held accountable, we can hope for a day that they don't undercut the party, the party starts winning these battles, and the progressive cause is advanced.