With under two months remaining before the Iowa Caucuses, it's time to take a look at each candidate's positions. We'll begin with Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn).
In Iowa, Dodd is currently polling in single digits and has tried to find traction with a message generally ignored by the frontrunners. That message, restoring the integrity of the Constitution, is a potent one but it remains to be seen whether it will be significant enough to generate greater support among Iowans.
Dodd chose this issue politically because the Bush Administration's constitutional violations have sparked a good deal of outrage in the blogosphere (here and here) and, appropriately, with the Democratic base.
But apart from this, it's difficult to see how he's been able to distinguish himself from the other candidates. Like the others, he's offered his prescription for ending the Iraq War but, at least on his website, the details for doing so are sorely lacking. In addition to "redeploying" troops out of Iraq, he lists "three narrowly targeted exceptions – the protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, specific counterterrorism operations, and assistance with the training and equipping of Iraqi forces."
It's axiomatic that anyone running for office tries to appeal to as many people as possible. The danger in this is the equally axiomatic impossibility of being all things to all people. Dodd runs this risk (as do the others) by making ill-considered public statements. In the recent Las Vegas debate, Dodd responded to a question-cum-trap from CNN's Wolf Blitzer who presented him with the false choice of "human rights versus national security."
Rather than challenging the question's ridiculous premise, Dodd said, "obviously, national security, keeping the country safe. When you take the oath of office on January 20, you promise to do two things, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect our country against enemies both foreign and domestic."
Yet by protecting and defending the Constitution, one is necessarily protecting and defending human/civil rights, a distinction apparently lost in this debate environment. After all, isn't this the principal issue surrounding the detention and treatment of "enemy combatants," illegal wiretapping and torture?
This is disturbing if for no other reason than it shows a lack of clear thinking. If here, where else might Sen. Dodd's clarity be lacking?
Dodd's chances for victory are currently slim to none. But, if nothing else, he has the ability to keep front and center issues such as the integrity of Constitution and its repetitive violations by the Bush Administration.
If there were ever a need for a litmus test, it's now and it's this.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Slipping Through Our Fingers, Part 2
The monstrous economic scam that has ensnared Americans these past 25 years, the one stealing our dreams of a better future for ourselves and our children, continues unabated. If anything, it has accelerated in speed and grown in viciousness. This is a con of many parts, including lop-sided tax cuts, depressed wages, rapid, uncontrolled increases in health and college costs, and inflationary rises in energy and food prices.
So how and why is this a scam? In large part, we can hold responsible the political class, in incestuous tandem with the monied elite (it's worth remembering the number of former elected representatives who, upon leaving office, cross the street to begin lucrative lobbying careers), which glosses over it by redirecting the attention of the American people.
President Bush said in 2006, demanding Congress to make permanent his earlier tax cuts, "I urge the Senate to vote swiftly so that I can sign this bill into law and put a stop to a massive tax hike that would be disastrous for small businesses, our economy, and all working Americans." Apart from the dishonesty that a refusal to make such cuts permanent is synonymous with a "tax hike," the president cited capital gains and dividends "tax relief" as cornerstones of his policy.
Such "tax relief" has little relevance for working Americans struggling to make ends meet (roughly 68% of American households would receive no benefit from such cuts).
For whom, then, would this be "disastrous"? Only the president and those he truly represents, the wealthy.
Indeed, in addition to being irrelevant to the bottom 40% of earners, the tax cuts necessitate (so the fiscal conservative argument goes) the slashing of social services used by the working poor. Of course, this is by design--since these tax cuts are targeted at the wealthy, the loss in revenue, combined with the astronomical cost of the Iraq War, increased defense spending and debt servicing (since less revenue and exorbitant defense expenditures means more borrowing) translates into fewer public services for working Americans.
The Administration heaps insult upon insult when one considers that, not only do working Americans have fewer social services to access, they pay more interest for money borrowed due to increased deficits and a ballooning federal debt. It's clear who wins and who loses with this administration's tax and budget policies.
And let us not forget that an official "strong dollar" policy has also done its part in depressing wages. The beneficiaries of this policy include, among others, the financial sector. They desire neither high levels of employment nor wage increases since these are considered inflationary--the enemy of the monied elite since inflation reduces the value of their assets.
Why, then, does the American public tolerate this? They do so, in large part, because the political and financial elites have been so successful in directing their attention elsewhere while performing this sleight of hand.
Americans hear and read about issues such as gay marriage, abortion, potential terrorist threats, and supposed attacks on religion. And as the public meditates on these "threats," they are unaware that these tax cuts have made them poorer and the elite wealthier.
We've witnessed for several years how the political and financial elite manipulates the idealism of Americans for their own ends. President Bush has long spoken of his religious faith and his "values," yet this has never been properly scrutinized by most religious Americans. They've simply taken his word for this even though his policies stand in destructive contrast to the values--decency, honesty, equality, fairness--most Americans treasure.
Now, time runs out and the hourglass empties. Will enough people in this, an election year, begin to remind their elected officials that the job of the representative is to represent those who elected them? Or will the American people simply watch quietly, meekly, as their elite "leads" them into poverty as citizens of a terminal, failed nation?
So how and why is this a scam? In large part, we can hold responsible the political class, in incestuous tandem with the monied elite (it's worth remembering the number of former elected representatives who, upon leaving office, cross the street to begin lucrative lobbying careers), which glosses over it by redirecting the attention of the American people.
President Bush said in 2006, demanding Congress to make permanent his earlier tax cuts, "I urge the Senate to vote swiftly so that I can sign this bill into law and put a stop to a massive tax hike that would be disastrous for small businesses, our economy, and all working Americans." Apart from the dishonesty that a refusal to make such cuts permanent is synonymous with a "tax hike," the president cited capital gains and dividends "tax relief" as cornerstones of his policy.
Such "tax relief" has little relevance for working Americans struggling to make ends meet (roughly 68% of American households would receive no benefit from such cuts).
For whom, then, would this be "disastrous"? Only the president and those he truly represents, the wealthy.
Indeed, in addition to being irrelevant to the bottom 40% of earners, the tax cuts necessitate (so the fiscal conservative argument goes) the slashing of social services used by the working poor. Of course, this is by design--since these tax cuts are targeted at the wealthy, the loss in revenue, combined with the astronomical cost of the Iraq War, increased defense spending and debt servicing (since less revenue and exorbitant defense expenditures means more borrowing) translates into fewer public services for working Americans.
The Administration heaps insult upon insult when one considers that, not only do working Americans have fewer social services to access, they pay more interest for money borrowed due to increased deficits and a ballooning federal debt. It's clear who wins and who loses with this administration's tax and budget policies.
And let us not forget that an official "strong dollar" policy has also done its part in depressing wages. The beneficiaries of this policy include, among others, the financial sector. They desire neither high levels of employment nor wage increases since these are considered inflationary--the enemy of the monied elite since inflation reduces the value of their assets.
Why, then, does the American public tolerate this? They do so, in large part, because the political and financial elites have been so successful in directing their attention elsewhere while performing this sleight of hand.
Americans hear and read about issues such as gay marriage, abortion, potential terrorist threats, and supposed attacks on religion. And as the public meditates on these "threats," they are unaware that these tax cuts have made them poorer and the elite wealthier.
We've witnessed for several years how the political and financial elite manipulates the idealism of Americans for their own ends. President Bush has long spoken of his religious faith and his "values," yet this has never been properly scrutinized by most religious Americans. They've simply taken his word for this even though his policies stand in destructive contrast to the values--decency, honesty, equality, fairness--most Americans treasure.
Now, time runs out and the hourglass empties. Will enough people in this, an election year, begin to remind their elected officials that the job of the representative is to represent those who elected them? Or will the American people simply watch quietly, meekly, as their elite "leads" them into poverty as citizens of a terminal, failed nation?
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Slipping Through Our Fingers, Part 1
During this holiday time, it's fitting to begin a series of entries examining the deliberate erosion of safety nets that once characterized an America we were proud to live in, one in which justice, fairness and decency were goals we unashamedly pursued. Today, I'll look at hunger in America, this land of plenty.
Mark Winne, who founded a food bank in Connecticut, has written about the rapid expansion of food banks since the 1980s due to cuts in spending for social welfare programs. And those cuts (including the refusal to index for inflation) have continued unabated, regardless of which party holds power in Washington.
The statistics are daunting: According to the Department of Agriculture, 11% of the US population was "food insecure" in 2006. That's a significant number of people who are "insecure" in this, the wealthiest nation on the planet (with a GDP of more than $13 trillion). And this is but one type of insecurity. If 11% are hungry, what number of Americans are insecure in other ways? How many are uninsured, have stagnant incomes and, as a consequence, are deeply in debt to credit card companies?
The cuts in social spending, and the food stamp program in particular, have been relentless. And, as the program doesn't take inflation into account, the result is real dollar cuts year over year.
One of the reasons why we have 35 million working class Americans struggling to buy food is due to wage stagnation. In 2006, "real wages for low-income workers were still below 2001 levels," according to the NY Times. Politicians offer unreal suggestions that Americans who earn low wages ought to consider retraining and/or returning to school to enhance their skills. Good advice, certainly, but not real world advice. Realistically, what parent can take classes and not work when she needs to pay the rent and feed her children? The obstacles are clearly too great.
What the country desperately needs is a return to decency translated into legislation. Candidates, in this, the bizarre carnivale known as the election cycle, must be required to show how their philosophical positions are reflected in their policies. Of the several candidates running, only John Edwards has made the issues facing the working poor central to his campaign. He proposes a combination of lower taxes (or, better yet, tax credits), an increase in the minimum wage and universal health access, among other things. These, at the least, are critical to addressing this problem in a serious, compassionate, and just manner.
Other than Edwards, however, silence reigns on this and other truly social and (fundamentally) family issues. The working poor cannot afford candidates who talk of "family values" then embrace policies that are anything but.
Mark Winne, who founded a food bank in Connecticut, has written about the rapid expansion of food banks since the 1980s due to cuts in spending for social welfare programs. And those cuts (including the refusal to index for inflation) have continued unabated, regardless of which party holds power in Washington.
The statistics are daunting: According to the Department of Agriculture, 11% of the US population was "food insecure" in 2006. That's a significant number of people who are "insecure" in this, the wealthiest nation on the planet (with a GDP of more than $13 trillion). And this is but one type of insecurity. If 11% are hungry, what number of Americans are insecure in other ways? How many are uninsured, have stagnant incomes and, as a consequence, are deeply in debt to credit card companies?
The cuts in social spending, and the food stamp program in particular, have been relentless. And, as the program doesn't take inflation into account, the result is real dollar cuts year over year.
One of the reasons why we have 35 million working class Americans struggling to buy food is due to wage stagnation. In 2006, "real wages for low-income workers were still below 2001 levels," according to the NY Times. Politicians offer unreal suggestions that Americans who earn low wages ought to consider retraining and/or returning to school to enhance their skills. Good advice, certainly, but not real world advice. Realistically, what parent can take classes and not work when she needs to pay the rent and feed her children? The obstacles are clearly too great.
What the country desperately needs is a return to decency translated into legislation. Candidates, in this, the bizarre carnivale known as the election cycle, must be required to show how their philosophical positions are reflected in their policies. Of the several candidates running, only John Edwards has made the issues facing the working poor central to his campaign. He proposes a combination of lower taxes (or, better yet, tax credits), an increase in the minimum wage and universal health access, among other things. These, at the least, are critical to addressing this problem in a serious, compassionate, and just manner.
Other than Edwards, however, silence reigns on this and other truly social and (fundamentally) family issues. The working poor cannot afford candidates who talk of "family values" then embrace policies that are anything but.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)