William Greider, in this article, highlights true reform activities within our own party, and no, he's not talking about Howard Dean. Ever heard of California Treasurer Phil Angelides? Corporate ceos are quaking in their shoes in California, because Angelides is proposing a radical concept: Corporate responsibility for the
pensions promised to their workers.
I don't agree with him by the way, that democrats are dispirited, largely. I think some of us are dispirited, some of the time, including myself. I also see great energy on this around the blogosphere. There is much activity in my hometown on the activist front. That said, Greider is highlighting an important aspect of reforming the financial structure of our country.
In my view, you are not a true reform democrat unlenss you believe that our economic system, slanted to the rich in a most drastic fashion, is in need of reform.
Here's a portion of the article:
While dispirited Democrats stew over their party's uncertain future, they might check out an unusual cluster of progressive "activists" forming within their ranks. Some politicians with real muscle are pursuing far-ranging possibilities for reforming the economic system. Their potential for driving important change is not widely recognized, perhaps because the reformers are drawn from unglamorous backbenches of state government--treasurers, comptrollers, pension-fund trustees. Yet these state officials, unlike the minority Democrats in Congress, have decision-making power and control over enormous pools of investment capital. They are fiduciaries who manage the vast wealth stored by state governments in public-employee pension funds, invested in behalf of working people--civil servants, teachers and other types of public workers--who as future retirees are "beneficial owners" of the capital.
In the wake of Enron-style corporate scandals, in which public pension funds lost more than $300 billion, some of the leading funds have restyled themselves as more aggressive reformers. They are picking fights with Wall Street orthodoxy they long accepted, like the obsessive maximizing of short-term gains. More important, they are broadening their definition of fiduciary obligations to retirees by trying to enforce corporate responsibilities to serve society's long-term prospects. Instead of adhering passively to market dogma, the activist funds now regularly accuse corporate managements and major financial houses of negligently or willfully injuring the long-term interests of pension-fund investors, therefore injuring the economy and society, too. Pension-fund wealth is thus being mobilized as financial leverage to break up the narrow-minded thinking of finance capital and to confront the antisocial behavior of corporations.
The core players in this struggle are the largest and most progressive pension funds in the nation--anchored by blue-state constituencies in California and New York. The heavyweights are occasionally joined by a handful of smaller states like Connecticut, North Carolina, Iowa and a few others where pension officials are kindred spirits. Together and individually, their efforts are possibly the only reform impulse ascendant among Democrats. Party leaders trying to rethink strategies could learn a lot from these state-level officials (and come to their political defense, if they had the nerve). "We're thirty-year investors and we have to take the long view," California Treasurer Phil Angelides explains. "I believe one of the things that led to the corruption of recent years was this notion that infected America that wealth is somehow created in six to nine months and all that matters is whether this quarter's returns are better than last quarter's--not whether you are building companies and products and an economy that will have enduring value."
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:46 AM |
Friday, February 11, 2005
Bush Budget: Screw America
My most recent
diary on Dailykos:
Bush Budget: Screw America
Feb 11th, 2005 at 06:20:40 PST
While you expose the Gannons, be careful to keep your eye on the real Bush prize: the elimination of the middle class, and the devastation of the working poor.
A dumbed down, financially struggling class, versus the rich, is what their battle cry is, secretly.
It is my belief that this administration has written off huge portions of our population, in the name of enriching a few, private coffers.
If, and I say if, they stole the election in 2004, they need not count on support from anyone, necessarily. They can steal more elections, though obviously, the risk for exposure rises.
They can propose what they want to propose, throw it out there, and see what sticks. We have to be extremely vigilant and on top of their every move.
What they are practicing with the current budget proposals is a form of social darwinism practiced to the extreme, laced with religious fervor.
They are the chosen ones because they are rich. They are the chosen ones because God chose them.
They have annointed themselves. What kind of nation do we want? Are they stupidly pushing us to the brink of civil war with most of the budget earmarked for war, and the devastation of social programs?
Why haven't the democrats, in good conscience, signed up to repeal the tax cuts, and made this a cornerstone of good, economic policy?
Why isn't there a national movement to repeal the tax cuts?
What is the alternative to the huge outlays for war in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Bring the troops home.Here is
Ruth Coniff's blog in the Progressive on the budget:
All of this domestic cutting is supposed to calm the deficit hawks in the Republican Party and on Wall Street, who are alarmed at how this Administration has taken the federal government from surplus to record deficits in the space of four years.
But the budget leaves out all the big-ticket items, ignoring altogether the future cost of the war in Iraq and continued military operations in Afghanistan. (The White House is preparing to make another $80 billion request to fund these operations in the next few days.)
The President's budget doesn't even touch on Bush's biggest domestic-policy initiative for this term: the privatization of Social Security, and the massive borrowing necessary to get his plan for private accounts off the ground.
And Bush's budget is particularly galling given that he still plans on giving $1.8 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.
"We calculate that 257,000 American millionaires are scheduled to receive an average of $123,592 each in federal tax breaks this year," says Dr. Elizabeth A. Letzler of the group Responsible Wealth, an organization of affluent Americans who reject Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy (www.responsiblewealth.org). Letzler spoke to a group gathered at the National Press Club today. "That alone totals $32 billion," she said.
But why scale back tax cuts for millionaires when you can take the money out of Medicaid, the major health-care program for the poor?
What does Bush mean when he says our society can be measured by how we treat the weak and vulnerable?
That slapping the weak, the elderly, and the poor, while coddling the rich shows what big bullies we are?
The context for Bush's line about the weak and vulnerable was abortion and medical research. "We must strive to build a culture of life," he said in the same breath, and then thanked Congress for increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health.
It was a way of waving at his anti-abortion base, alluding to his opposition to stem-cell research, and suggesting that he supports treatments and cures for people with illnesses and disabilities--as long as the research doesn't involve human embryos.
# posted by scorpiorising : 7:05 AM |
Gannon is the ruse; the budget is the reward.
Gannon is
front page headlines on the Dailykos while the Bush Budget that slashes social programs gets short shrift. Now if you could say that without getting tongue twisted, I'll give you this gem: Gannon may have been a deliberately planted ruse that diverts from the real issues. That's my opinion, by the way, not fact. Either way, the issue of Gannon is doing more than mastermind Rove could have possibly dreamed, to divert attention away from the budget.
I ask also, why haven't the democrats in Congress, in good conscience, signed up to repeal the tax cut?
From
Ruth Coniff's blog in the Progressive:
Today is the day the President puts his money where his mouth is. In his State of the Union address last Wednesday, Bush said, "a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable."
In his $2.5 trillion budget proposal, unveiled to Congress today, he proposed slashing domestic programs that benefit the poor.
Bush's budget cuts $45 billion out of Medicaid. It cuts community development funds by 4.5 percent, and reduces the budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by 11.5 percent overall. It increases veterans' co-pays for prescription drugs to more than double what they pay now, and, according to The New York Times today, would ask some veterans "to pay a new fee of $250 for the privilege of using government health care."
Incredibly, in the wake of September 11, Bush also calls for a 30 percent cut in funding for the federal program that provides equipment, training, and staff to local fire departments, as well as cuts for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including a 64 percent cut to a program for training nurses and other health professionals, and a 12.6 percent to cut in bioterrorism preparedness funding.
All of this domestic cutting is supposed to calm the deficit hawks in the Republican Party and on Wall Street, who are alarmed at how this Administration has taken the federal government from surplus to record deficits in the space of four years.
But the budget leaves out all the big-ticket items, ignoring altogether the future cost of the war in Iraq and continued military operations in Afghanistan. (The White House is preparing to make another $80 billion request to fund these operations in the next few days.)
The President's budget doesn't even touch on Bush's biggest domestic-policy initiative for this term: the privatization of Social Security, and the massive borrowing necessary to get his plan for private accounts off the ground.
And Bush's budget is particularly galling given that he still plans on giving $1.8 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.
"We calculate that 257,000 American millionaires are scheduled to receive an average of $123,592 each in federal tax breaks this year," says Dr. Elizabeth A. Letzler of the group Responsible Wealth, an organization of affluent Americans who reject Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy (www.responsiblewealth.org). Letzler spoke to a group gathered at the National Press Club today. "That alone totals $32 billion," she said.
But why scale back tax cuts for millionaires when you can take the money out of Medicaid, the major health-care program for the poor?
What does Bush mean when he says our society can be measured by how we treat the weak and vulnerable?
That slapping the weak, the elderly, and the poor, while coddling the rich shows what big bullies we are?
The context for Bush's line about the weak and vulnerable was abortion and medical research. "We must strive to build a culture of life," he said in the same breath, and then thanked Congress for increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:29 AM |
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Billmon has outlined the anatomy of a scam.
Anatomy of a Scam
After Social Security numbers were assigned, the first Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes were collected, beginning in January 1937. Special Trust Funds were created for these dedicated revenues. Benefits were then paid from the money in the Social Security Trust Funds. Over the years, more than $4.5 trillion has been paid into the Trust Funds, and more than $4.1 trillion has been paid out in benefits. The remainder is currently on reserve in the Trust Funds and will be used to pay future benefits.
Social Security Administration
A Brief History of Social Security
March 2003
In the early years, the OASI program was funded on a modified-reserve basis. It was intended that a sizable fund would be built up, so that interest earnings could help to finance the outgo . . . Over the years, the original emphasis on building up and maintaining a large fund was reduced. Gradually, the funding basis shifted, in practice, to what might be called a current-cost or pay-as-you-go basis.
Report of the Greenspan Commission
Appendix J: Financial Status of the Social Security Program
January 20, 1983
The National Commission has agreed that there is a financing problem for [Social Security] both the short run, 1983-89 (as measured using pessimistic economic assumptions) and the long range, 1983-2056 (as measured by an intermediate cost estimate) and that action should be taken to strengthen the financial status of the program.
Report of the Greenspan Commission
Findings and Recommendations
January 20, 1983
We believe we express the views of all members of the commission when we say that it is our hope that the economy will perform better than we assumed when we made our estimates and that a larger reserve cushion will accumulate.
Greenspan Commission Report
Statement of Sen. Robert Dole and Rep. Barber Conable
January 20, 1983
Social Security tax rates for employers and employees will increase to 7.0 percent in 1984, 7.05 percent in 1985, 7.15 percent in 1986-87, 7.51 percent in 1988-89 and 7.65 percent in 1990 and thereafter . . . Raises the age of eligibility for unreduced retirement benefits in two stages to 67 by the year 2027. Benefits will still be available at age 62, but with greater reduction.
Social Security Administration
Summary of the 1983 Amendments
November 26, 1984
This bill demonstrates for all time our nation's ironclad commitment to Social Security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future. From this day forward, they have one pledge: That they will get their fair share of benefits when they retire.
Ronald Reagan
Remarks on Signing Social Security Amendments of 1983
April 20, 1983
Actual short-term experience has generally been more favorable than estimated at the time of the 1983 amendments, with income exceeding outgo by more than had been projected.
Report of the Advisory Council on Social Security
Appendix I: Developments since 1983
January, 1997
Total benefits paid in 2003 were $471 billion. Income was $632 billion, and assets held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities grew to $1.5 trillion.
Board of Trustees of the Social Security Trust Funds
2004 Report
March, 2004
Benefit payments and program administrative costs are the only purposes for which disbursements from the funds can be made. Program revenues not needed in the current year to pay benefits and administrative costs are invested in special non-negotiable securities of the U.S. Government on which a market rate of interest is credited. Thus, the trust funds represent the accumulated value, including interest, of all prior program annual surpluses, and provide automatic authority to pay benefits.
Board of Trustees of the Social Security Trust Funds
2004 Report
March, 2004
Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust. We're on the ultimate pay-as-you-go system -- what goes in comes out. And so, starting in 2018, what's going in -- what's coming out is greater than what's going in. It says we've got a problem.
George W. Bush
Remarks at the Department of Commerce
February 9, 2005
# posted by scorpiorising : 2:04 PM |
Scientists Told to Change Findings
This article speaks for itself, and underlines a belief that I have that we desperately need an environmental movement in this country:
U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Findings
More than 200 Fish and Wildlife researchers cite cases where conclusions were reversed to weaken protections and favor business, a survey finds
by Julie Cart
More than 200 scientists employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say they have been directed to alter official findings to lessen protections for plants and animals, a survey released Wednesday says.
The survey of the agency's scientific staff of 1,400 had a 30% response rate and was conducted jointly by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
A division of the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with determining which animals and plants should be placed on the endangered species list and designating areas where such species need to be protected.
More than half of the biologists and other researchers who responded to the survey said they knew of cases in which commercial interests, including timber, grazing, development and energy companies, had applied political pressure to reverse scientific conclusions deemed harmful to their business.
Bush administration officials, including Craig Manson, an assistant secretary of the Interior who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, have been critical of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, contending that its implementation has imposed hardships on developers and others while failing to restore healthy populations of wildlife.
Along with Republican leaders in Congress, the administration is pushing to revamp the act. The president's proposed budget calls for a $3-million reduction in funding of Fish and Wildlife's endangered species programs.
"The pressure to alter scientific reports for political reasons has become pervasive at Fish and Wildlife offices around the country," said Lexi Shultz of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
# posted by scorpiorising : 1:09 PM |
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
More on HR 418
More on HR 418, expected to pass the house tomorrow. It's going to have trouble in the senate, thanks to those senators who still give a rat's ass about the constitution. From
Raw Story:
The House Democratic staff of the Judiciary Committee is preparing an extensive rebuke to a Republican immigration bill which would allow the Homeland Security Secretary to waive all laws in the construction of immigration barriers, RAW STORY has learned.
Among other provisions, the bill put forth by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner would give the Homeland Security Secretary “the authority to waive… all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.”
The bill also seeks to strip courts from being able to challenge any of the Secretary’s decisions.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law… no court shall have jurisdiction,” the Republican bill asserts.
The immigration bill would allow Homeland Security to construct barriers along American borders and inside the United States. It would also give the Secretary the authority to ignore labor and environmental laws, as well as refuse compensation for property seized in the construction of such barriers.
The bill also denies immigrants habeas corpus rights and makes it harder for immigrants to achieve asylum. Senior aides in the House expect the bill to pass without significant amendments Thursday.
Democrats find these provisions troubling.
In their report, the Democratic Judiciary staff say the bill is a draconian overreaction to immigration concerns.
# posted by scorpiorising : 6:49 PM |
Outsourcing Torture
Outsourcing Torture
The Secret History of America’s “Extraordinary Rendition” Program
by Jane Mayer
During the flight, Arar said, he heard the pilots and crew identify themselves in radio communications as members of “the Special Removal Unit.” The Americans, he learned, planned to take him next to Syria. Having been told by his parents about the barbaric practices of the police in Syria, Arar begged crew members not to send him there, arguing that he would surely be tortured. His captors did not respond to his request; instead, they invited him to watch a spy thriller that was aired on board.
Ten hours after landing in Jordan, Arar said, he was driven to Syria, where interrogators, after a day of threats, “just began beating on me.” They whipped his hands repeatedly with two-inch-thick electrical cables, and kept him in a windowless underground cell that he likened to a grave. “Not even animals could withstand it,” he said. Although he initially tried to assert his innocence, he eventually confessed to anything his tormentors wanted him to say. “You just give up,” he said. “You become like an animal.”
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:38 PM |
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
The Navy supports the development of cold fusion.
You must read the Navy report,
links provided on this site.
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:26 PM |
So the United States knew...
about the illicit sale of oil by Iraq to Turkey and Jordon,
according to this Guardian.co.uk report, and did nothing to stop it, because we believed it to be in our best interests to do nothing to stop it.
This sounds familiar.
# posted by scorpiorising : 4:41 PM |
Who are we?
Who are we as a nation, a people?
Do we value the sanctity of life, all of life?
If so, why do we declare that some wars are just?
If so, why have we condoned torture?
Do we value the quality of life?
If so, why do we sacrifice the environment for our convenient way of life?
Do we value self-knowledge and awareness?
If so, why do we choose to delude ourselves, and live in denial on very important issues, such as the environment, torture and war?
I was telling a new aquaintance the other day, we have the resources, inner and outer resources, to solve our problems.
We choose not to solve our problems.
Why is this?
We have blinded ourselves to the full value of our imagination. Imagine clean energy for everyone, and it can happen. Imagine enough food for everyone and it can happen.
Imagine that we stop using up the world's resources, and learn to recycle everything, and it can happen.
John Lennon was right, that's why he was shot.
I didn't mean for his name to come up, but there it is, it did.
# posted by scorpiorising : 3:52 PM |