Century of the Common Iowan Turns 3 Years Old

I glanced at the clock and saw there was just 5 minutes till midnight. I had forgotten that Monday marked the 3rd birthday for Century of the Common Iowan and I only had 5 minutes to put up a post to sum up those 3 years. Yeah right.

Well here's what I got written in an hour...

As I look back, it is interesting how the focus of the blog has evolved over those years. In the blogs first year I wrote a lot about issues such as the rising cost of college tuition and Iowa's Brain Drain, immigration, and the need for a trade policy that protects American jobs. Year two was all about the Iowa caucuses. The following year I was able to sit back and watch the primaries play out and lead up to the general election. With the 2008 elections behind us, I have been able to write more about policies and topics such as the emergence of Millennials, social media, education, and the need to invest in a creative economy.

3 years, 2,226 posts, and over 132,000 visitors later and here we are in the best of times, in the worst of times. Our current economic and political situation find us in a situation where remarkable change can take place (and if it doesn't, it's because we didn't make them do it) . It is time for big ideas. In the coming year I hope to focus on the big ideas that desmoinesdem laid out that I wrote about last month.

• Clean elections
• Promoting clean energy solutions
• Local control of hog confinements
• Passenger rail
  
• Rural broadband.

These are not new issues. Many I have written about since I started this blog, but now is the time to stop talking about these issues and start seeing real action. On the campaign trail, Barack Obama told the story that one voice can change a room, one room can change a city, one city can change a nation. It is my hope that over the past 3 years, I have been able to change 1 person's viewpoint on these key issues and encouraged 1 person to take action on these key issues.

I'd like to end by repeating what Rekha Basu wrote about activism that I posted about earlier today..

Still, it takes courage to be an activist. It requires putting yourself out there in public, daring to take the unpopular position and getting hostile feedback... But those who understand history know well the role activism has played in winning rights and making a more just, humane and accessible America.

Join in. Post comments. Attend your local Democratic central committee meeting. Call your State Legislators. Get active in a community group or city board. Start your own blog. Heck, run for local office.

It's time to make a ruckus. Let's go!

Sweatshops are good for the Economy

David Sirota wrote yesterday about an article that appeared in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristoff.

Kristoff defends sweatshops as he tries to lay out the case for Free Trade, even saying that the problem is sweatshops don't exploit enough poor people.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats who favor labor standards in trade agreements mean well, for they intend to fight back at oppressive sweatshops abroad. But while it shocks Americans to hear it, the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don't exploit enough...

I'm glad that many Americans are repulsed by the idea of importing products made by barely paid, barely legal workers in dangerous factories. Yet sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty...

When I defend sweatshops, people always ask me: But would you want to work in a sweatshop? No, of course not. But I would want even less to pull a rickshaw. In the hierarchy of jobs in poor countries, sweltering at a sewing machine isn't the bottom.

Free Trade: Protectionist Provisions for Corporate Profits

David Sirota has a good post at Open Left about the debate over Free Trade. Sirota's key point is that even though Free Traders call those opposed to Free Trade deals protectionists, in reality Free Trade agreements are protectionist provisions for corporate profits.

As Democrats sharpen their fair trade talk and promises, people like John McCain are making wild accusations claiming that such moves will alienate the rest of the world - when in fact the actual public opinion data shows precisely the opposite. Far from quelling anti-Americanism and building diplomatic bridges, our current trade policies exacerbate anti-Americanism and burn what few diplomatic bridges we have left.

This isn't to say that the rest of the world is "anti-trade." That's the tired, cartoonish phrase that the "free" trade extremists use to describe anyone who wants a new trade policy (and I put "free" in quotes because, as Solis notes in my column, "free" trade deals are protectionist - they are just protectionist for corporations). Progressives here and abroad are all for trade and commerce - they just want the rules of trade to protect people and the environment, before they protect corporate bottom lines.

The problem, of course, is that the debate over globalization has left the "reality-based" world. While reformers are arguing with actual facts, figures and history, the Establishment argues with empty rhetoric that actually thumbs its nose at facts. Remember, it was none other than Tom Friedman - America's leading cheerleader for status quo trade policies - who actually went on national television and bragged that "I wrote a column supporting CAFTA. I didn't even know what was in it. I just knew two words: free trade." That's right - in the face of growing global animosity to America's trade policy, our country's leading Republican displays no understanding of trade policy, and our country's leading "intellectual" thinker on trade trumpets the fact that he advocates for trade deals that he doesn't even bother to read.

Clinton Critcizes Plant Closure that Her Husband Approved

Here's another example of the Clinton's willingness to do anything to get elected.

From David Sirota...

Clinton is airing this advertisement in Indiana, bemoaning the closure of a defense contractor Magnequench's manufacturing plant in Valparaiso (she is also echoing this line in her stump speeches). Looking at the camera, she tells us she's upset that the 200 jobs that were sent to China, and that "now America's defense relies on Chinese spare parts." And then comes the kicker: She tells viewers that "George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn't."

Clinton is certainly right that it is a tragedy that 200 American jobs were killed in a corporate deal that also exported sensitive military technology to China. But she forgets to mention that it wasn't George Bush who was in the key position to stop it - it was Bill Clinton.

Back in 1995, a Chinese consortium, which included two Chinese state-owned companies, made a bid to take over Magnequench. Because the company makes key parts for smart bombs, the takeover had to be approved by the Clinton administration's Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Despite the national security and economic problems with selling off such critical manufacturing capacity to the Chinese - and despite the knowledge that such a deal would likely end in a domestic mass layoff - the Clinton administration approved the deal. This same deal - not surprisingly - paved the way for those 200 Indiana jobs and that sensitive military technology to be shipped to China.

The Clinton administration's move was not surprising. This was an administration whose NAFTA and China PNTR record more than proved it was intent on helping Big Money interests face as little resistance to international financial transactions as possible - consequences be damned. But the move was very controversial, raising the ire of key Hillary Clinton surrogate Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN). As the Los Angeles Times reported in 2005, "Bayh was particularly disturbed by the committee's decision in 1995 to approve a Chinese consortium's takeover of Magnequench Inc." In 2006, Bayh specifically slammed the Clinton administration's approval of the deal to the South Bend Tribune, saying "It's not smart to put ourselves in the position of relying on the Chinese for a critical component of a vital weapon system, and yet that is what the CFIUS process has allowed."

Unfortunately, as he has campaigned around Indiana with Hillary Clinton listening to her decry the Magenquench fiasco, Bayh has suddenly gone silent on the matter.

NAFTA and Immigration

A forgotten aspect of NAFTA is its affect on immigration. This story from the NY Times back in 2003 takes a look at this...

The more than $10 billion that American taxpayers give corn farmers every year in agricultural subsidies has helped destroy the livelihoods of millions of small Mexican farmers, according to a report to be released on Wednesday.

Prepared in advance of critical trade talks next month, the report by Oxfam International argues that the subsidies given American corn farmers allow them to sell their grain at prices far below what it costs to produce. That has led to cheap American corn flooding the Mexican market and pushing the poorest Mexican farmers out of business, the report said.

''There is a direct link between government agricultural policies in the U.S. and rural misery in Mexico,'' according to the report entitled, ''Dumping Without Borders: How U.S. agricultural policies are destroying the livelihoods of Mexican corn farmers.''

Mexico, the birthplace of corn, opened its borders to American corn exports after signing the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. Within a year, corn imports from the United States doubled and today nearly one-third of the corn used in Mexico is imported from the United States. The United States is the biggest exporter of corn in the world and the biggest exporter of corn to Mexico.

The report said the price of Mexican corn has fallen more than 70 percent since Nafta took effect, severely reducing the incomes of the 15 million Mexicans who depend on corn for their livelihood.

Many of the Mexican families in Marshalltown were farmers in one rural area in Mexico. Farming is no longer a viable option to make a living and they are left without many options except to move their families and they chose to come to the United States.

The United States can do as many raids and build as many border fences as we want, but we will not come up with a solution to the immigration issue unless the problem with dumping corn in Mexico is solved.

Still Undecided: What I'm Looking for

Here is a look at the the issues I am looking at when trying to decide which candidate to support for president.

I want a candidate for president that...

• is strongly against Free Trade and recognizes that NAFTA ships US jobs overseas and is a driving force behind our immigration problem.
• is in favor of universal health care
• sees the major flaws in NCLB and will drastically change the program or just get rid of it
• is committed to ending our addiction to foreign oil and sees renewable energy and green technologies as a way to create millions of jobs in the country
• sees Iraq as a distraction from fighting al Qaeda and dealing with terror threats around the world, will bring our troops home from Iraq ( the British withdrawal from Basra reduced violence in the city by 90%), and understands the only solution in Iraq is a diplomatic one
• has been a longtime supporter of these issues and has the votes and real world experience to back it up
  

Check out Still Undecided Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Trade is a Big Issue in Iowa

The Wall Street Journal has a story, which was run on the front page of the Des Moines Register over the weekend, about trade being an important issue in Iowa.

Iowa's anxiety stems from a mix of factors, many of which are also at play in other Midwestern swing states. By many measures, the global economy has been good for the state. Boosted by the ethanol and biofuels craze and surging demand for crops and farm equipment world-wide, Iowa's exports are up 77% over the past four years versus 50% nationally. The state's unemployment rate hovers around 3.7%, below the national 4.6% average.

But the past couple of decades have seen a steady decline in once-prized factory jobs, from a high of 252,700 in 1999 to 231,000 today. Just this year, Iowa lost about 1,800 jobs when appliance-maker Maytag, now owned by Whirlpool Corp., shuttered its plant in its home town of Newton. (The jobs moved to Ohio, but foreign competition was a key reason Maytag was acquired by Whirlpool.) Wages haven't kept pace with inflation, and employers here, as elsewhere, have been paring health and retirement benefits.

Many Iowans blame their difficulties on global trade. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll of Iowa Democrats conducted in September found that by 42% to 33% they favored a candidate who believes trade pacts hurt the U.S. economy over one who believes they benefit the economy; Republicans were evenly split at 39%. (The balance said they didn't know or hadn't a preference.)

Earlier this month, David Sirota wrote about John Edwards and Mike Huckabee that are campaigning on the issue of trade and are seeing results in Iowa from it.

What explains the unlikely rise of these two dark horses?

It's the populism, stupid.

Huckabee and Edwards are the only two major candidates staking their campaigns on an indictment of economic inequality, corporate power and corruption. As the latest Democracy Corps poll shows, these are the very societal ills angering a middle class whose real-life struggles with stagnant wages, layoffs, debt, foreclosures and health care costs chafe against a pop culture and political system that glorify fabulous affluence. The country, in short, seems ready to embrace Huey Long's "Share Our Wealth" ethos, and these two southerners are resurrecting the best of the famed Louisiana governor's legacy.

Just look at the stump speeches.

"The most important thing a president needs to do is to make it clear that we're not going to continue to see jobs shipped overseas, jobs that are lost by American workers, many in their 50s who, for 20 and 30 years, have worked to make a company rich and then watch as a CEO takes a $100 million bonus to jettison those American jobs somewhere else," Huckabee said at a recent Republican debate. "That's criminal — it's wrong."

Edwards presents arguably the boldest challenge to the political Establishment of any major presidential candidate in contemporary history. Proposing sweeping health care, tax, trade and labor law reform, he says the only way "people who are powerful in Washington" are "going to give away their power is if we take it away from them." The system, he says, is "controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water."

Huckabee and Edwards benefit from facing icons of the very problems they attack.

Clinton Laughs About NAFTA

This video is from David Sirota and highlights Clinton talking about NAFTA at Thursday debate in Las Vegas.

Does Hillary Think Iowans Are Stupid?

David Sirota thinks she does...

Hillary Clinton thinks Iowans are stupid - very stupid. Here's what I'm talking about.

TODAY:

"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton says she wants to take a close look at foreign trade deals. She says she'll call a 'time out' on trade agreement if she wins the White House to see if the deals are draining jobs from the U.S.Clinton, who spoke to a regional conference of the United Auto Workers in Dubuque today, says she'll do everything she can to 'move toward smart trade.'" - Associated Press, 11/12/07

FOUR DAYS AGO:

"Clinton Says Yes to Peru Deal...Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, after prodding from a rival campaign, has issued positions on several trade deals currently before Congress, including her support for an agreement with Peru that is dividing her party." - New York Times, 11/8/07

As I said, Hillary Clinton clearly thinks Iowans are stupid. In this special edition of Strategery, I would suggest that treating voters like they are stupid is not a good strategy.

Another example of double talk from Clinton that Edwards mentioned during the last debate.

Clinton's Slipperiness on Trade Issues

Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer wrote a column about Hillary Clinton's slippery stance on trade issues.

Bill Clinton's greatest domestic achievement, aside from abolishing welfare, was free trade. The crown jewel was the North American Free Trade Agreement. He got that through Congress over sustained union opposition in 1993. Monday, Sen. Hillary Clinton proposed that NAFTA and other existing trade agreements be reassessed every five years.

The Post correctly called Hillary's retreat from free trade " opportunism under pressure," the pressure being the rampant and popular protectionism of her presidential rivals, particularly in protectionist Iowa. But while "opportunism under pressure" suggests ( pace Hemingway) cowardice, the better description of Clintonism is slipperiness. Adaptability. Cynicism, if you like.

Note her clever use of terms. Reassessing NAFTA sounds great to protectionists, but it is perfectly ambiguous. It could mean abolition or radical curtailment. It could also mean establishing a study commission whose recommendations might not reach President Hillary Clinton's desk until too late in her second term.

Krauthammer then issues an endorsement of Clinton because of her slipperiness on the issues.

I could never vote for her, but I (and others of my ideological ilk) could live with her -- precisely because she is so liberated from principle. Her liberalism, like her husband's -- flexible, disciplined, calculated, triangulated -- always leaves open the possibility that she would do the right thing for the blessedly wrong (i.e., self-interested, ambition-serving, politically expedient) reason.

If there were ever a reason to not vote for Hillary Clinton, it is the reasons Krauthammer points out. Clinton is ambiguous, calculated, triangulated, and flexible on many of the mainstream issues like trade. We need a Democrat who believes in opportunism under principle, not opportunism under pressure.

Free Trade Good for Large Corporations, Bad for the US Economy

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wrote a piece at the Huffington Post about Costa Rica becoming the first nation where citizens will be allowed to vote on trade agreements. The vote took place yesterday and early results are showing the trade agreement passed with 52% of the vote.

Here is some of what Sen. Sanders had to say about the downsides of free trade...

Free trade is very good for the large multinational corporations who can throw American workers out on the street, move abroad to China and other low-wage countries, hire people there for pennies an hour, and bring their products back into this country. For those people, for the CEOs of large corporations, unfettered free trade has been a very good thing, but for the middle-class and working families of this country, for working families and poor people in Mexico and in other low-wage countries, unfettered free trade has been an unmitigated disaster.

Increasingly, trade policy is not a partisan issue. The vast majority of Republicans now have serious concerns about our current trade policies because they see those trade policies as being harmful to the middle class and working families of this country, according to a new poll. "By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president. The sign of broadening resistance to globalization came in a new Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll that showed a fraying of Republican Party orthodoxy on the economy," The Wall Street Journal reported in a page-one news story on Thursday.

Braley, Hare Oppose Free Trade Deal

I am a teacher, my wife is a nurse, so you might think education or health care would be the top issue. However, I think our nation's trade policies are the most important issue at national level currently.

It was good to see this story in the Quad Cities Times today...

The two congressmen who represent the Quad-City region said Wednesday they will oppose a proposed free trade deal with South Korea, a pact backers say is the most far-reaching since the NAFTA deal of 1993.

Reps. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, and Phil Hare, D-Ill., as well as two other congressmen said at a news conference in Washington, D.C., that the agreement would exacerbate the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea.

“I just want our work force to be able to compete,” said Hare, who has emerged as a visible critic of the Bush administration’s trade policies.

Bush and Democratic Leaders Agree on a Secret Trade Deal

Fair trade has been an issue I have written a lot about. However, I have unintentionly ignored the issue the past few weeks while important events have taken place. I am just starting to dive into the details, but plan to write more and more on the issue of free trade and this Secret Trade Deal.

Here's a quick run down of the happenings. Two weeks ago, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Bush Trade Representative Susan Schwab and members of the New Democrats held a special meeting where they agreed on a Secret Trade deal. Many Democrats were elected in 2006 running on Fair Trade agreements and against trade deals such as NAFTA. This deal leaves these Democrats and the American people out of the loop.

David Sirota wrote...

...House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is apparently taking a position on one of Election 2006’s key issues that potentially puts her at odds with the majority of her own caucus, six months after her caucus used the trade issue to win its majority. Meanwhile, the entire “deal” is a move to set the stage for the White House to try to force Congress to pass “fast track” trade authority - the authority that allows the president to strip all labor, human rights and environmental provisions out of trade deals. And, as if putting an exclamation point on the whole story, the New York Times notes that the press conference to celebrate the deal comes “as the government revealed a significant widening of the U.S. trade deficit.”

Bill Moyers tackled the issue on Friday's episode of Bill Moyer's Journal...

Part 1



Part 2



I will be writing more about trade in the coming weeks.

For more information on trade issues and the Secret Trade Deal visit David Sirota's site.

Edwards Make Strong Statements Against Free Trade and Gitmo

John Edwards made two strong statements while campaigning over the weekend that helped separate him from other Democrats.

Edwards called for the repeal of NAFTA at a campaign stop in Indianola, where he said...

"We need to change the labor laws in this country. It's become clear the labor laws have become stranded in the favor of employers, and all we want is fairness for employees, not an advantage for workers over their employers," Edwards said to roughly 200 people filling the back deck at the home of Ray and Joanne Walton.

Edwards, who asserted himself as a strong union supporter, said repealing the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, and strengthening negotiation rights for employees on strike will benefit American workers.

It is a about time a Democrat takes a strong stands against so-called free trade that outsources jobs overseas. Republicans Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo have recently come out strongly against free trade agreements. Meanwhile Democrats have seemed to tip-toe around the issue saying we need to stronger labor and environmental standards, but they have stopped at saying they would repeal the free trade agreements. Edwards is the first to do so.

Edwards also called for the closure of Gitanomo prison at a speech in Michigan. Edwards said...

When the crisis comes, the world has to rally around us. But for that to happen, the world must see as a good place, with trustful leadership. When I'm the president, one of the first things I'll do is to close Gitmo.

Edwards is the first Democratic candidate to take strong stands against these issues. This fits right in with his campaign theme. Edwards is taking principled stands and laying out what he will do as president, while other Democrats are persuing trianglation and keeping an eye on the latest polls.

Is Hillary a Fair Trader?

I saw this story on Political Wire saying that Hillary Clinton has split ways with her husband, Bill, on the issue of trade. Bill Clinton was a leading advocate of so-called Free Trade by approving NAFTA when he was in office and fighting to include China into the WTO.

From Bloomberg News...

Senator Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, wonders why the North American Free Trade Agreement is ``continuing to drive hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people from Mexico into our country,'' she said in an interview. ``We just can't keep doing what we did in the 20th century.''

Somewhere along the Clintons' ``bridge to the 21st century'' -- their 1996 campaign mantra -- they parted ways on trade. Bill was a champion of the global economy and prodded Congress to approve Nafta in 1993 and China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. Hillary, 59, says new deals may need to be put on hold pending a review -- an idea she calls ``a little timeout.''

Hillary isn't near the top of my list of candidates, but this is good news to hear. It will be interesting to see where Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden come out on this issue.

Loebsack, Braley Promote Fair Trade Policies

David Sirota wrote today about 39 freshman members of the US House speaking out about so-called Free Trade policies, including Iowa's Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack, and Phil Hare of the Illinois side of the Quad Cities.

The 39 Congressman sent a letter to Charlie Rangel, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee stating Democrats won the majority because a lot of candidates ran againt Free Trade. The letter says...

“As you may know, in each of our campaigns the issue of trade and the impact of the Administration’s trade policy on working families, the environment, independent farmers and businesses in our districts were critically important. Vital to our electoral successes was our ability to take a vocal stand against the Administration’s misguided trade agenda, and offer our voters real, meaningful alternatives to the job-killing agreements, such as CAFTA, that the majority of our opponents supported.”

Americans are tired of hearing about more and more American jobs being shipped overseas. They are tired of having their calls routed through India when they need help fixing their computer. They are tired of hearing about family members and friends getting laid off. Americans made their voices heard in the November election.

Braley and Loebsack made trade a big part of their campaigns. Braley's campaign site says...

Bruce believes that irresponsible economic policies in Washington have cost our state good-paying jobs. Unfair trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA are hurting our economy. In Congress, Bruce will fight for fair trade laws that are good for American workers.

While Loebsack has this statement on his campaign site...

...it is time for fair trade agreements that help open markets abroad and guarantee labor and environmental protections in other countries. The second district of Iowa has suffered dramatically over the years as a result of Republican policies. We know that globalization has led to companies abandoning many communities in this part of the state. Republicans, including the incumbent, have championed free trade pacts that have only made this problem worse. It is time to take stock of the effects of previous free trade agreements and place a moratorium on more such pacts that do not include the necessary labor and environmental provisions.

It is great to see 2 newly elected Iowans standing up on this important issue. I look forward to hearing more from them on this issue.

Grassley Hates Labor and Environmental Standards

I didn't say it, Grassley said it himself. Grassley had this quote in the National Journal on Wednesday...

“I don’t see [fast track authority] being extended without some accommodation for labor and the environment, as much as I hate to see that.” - Sen Charles Grassley (R-IA)

David Sirota wrote this about Grassley's comments...

This is about as honest a statement I’ve seen from someone from the Money Party. Grassley, like other K Street-backed “free” traders in both parties, really do hate the idea of trade deals preventing Corporate America from exploiting cheap labor, terrible environmental conditions and legalized oppression in the developing world in order to outsource American jobs and drive down American wages/benefits.

I guess, at least we know where Grassley stands on the issue. Luckily, Grassily isn't a committee chair anymore and is nearing retirement.

Democrats Support Fair Trade

From David Sirota...

Here’s the Financial Times today:

“The US Congress will reject two trade deals agreed with Colombia and Peru, leading Democrats said, in a significant blow to President George W. Bush’s agenda for his final two years in office. Democratic lawmakers drafted a letter to Mr Bush on Tuesday night signalling their opposition to the pacts because they lacked tougher labour standards.”

Why is this happening? Here’s Sen.-elect Sherrod Brown (D-OH) in the Washington Post:

“The message of this election says to me that all of these trade agreements need to be renegotiated. When a plant of 300 people closes in a town of 20,000, it hurts families and destroys communities.”

This is really incredible. Suddenly, the progressive agenda on trade is ascending. Suddenly, the Bob Rubins, the Gene Sperlings, the Tom Friedmans and the rest of the neoliberals are being steamrolled. Suddenly, Democrats have found a backbone on globalization, pushing for policies that lift the world up, rather than those that create a race to the bottom.

So They Say Jim Webb is Conservative?

The Mainstream Media would want you to believe that Virginia Senator elect Jim Webb is more conservative than the regular Democrat because that has to be the only way he could win, right?

Here is an op-ed that Webb wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week discussing one of the issues that was central in his campaign: class struggle.

Class Struggle
American workers have a chance to be heard.

BY JIM WEBB
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.

Back to School Homework

It has been a busy couple weeks, hence the fewer posts I have been making. Last week, my Grandma had emergency surgery and is still in the hospital. I have started my job as a 2nd grade teacher this week (well, I started 2 weeks ago, but finally started getting paid for it this week). The kids come on Tuesday for the 1st day of school, so I have been busy getting my room ready, attending workshops, and planning curriculum. It is fun though. To top it off, my sister-in-law, who is pregnant, went to the hospital today and will probably deliver tonight or tomorrow.

Here are some articles that I was going to blog about, if I wasn't so busy. Since it is back to school time, here is some homework for this weekend.

• Randi Rhodes of Air America Radio interviewed Sen. Byron Dorgan about his new book, Take This Job and Ship It, about the so-called Free Trade agreements. Very interesting interview. (Most interesting statement: Dorgan said the US has a $2 billion a DAY trade decifit.) I am adding this book to my reading list. Listen to the interview here.
  

• Politics 101: Don't Reinforce Your Opponents' Lies by David Sirota

Take, for instance, the term "moderate." This is a word the American Heritage Dictionary defines as "Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme." Yet, it is applied specifically to politicians pundits who, measured against public opinion, are the opposite, like Joe Lieberman (De Facto GOP Nominee-CT), John McCain (R-AZ) and New York Times columnist David Brooks. Think about their major positions: Lieberman likens his opponents terrorist sympathizers, calls them "extremists" on national television, and shills for a war that 60 percent of Americans oppose. McCain actually wants to send more troops to Iraq - again a position only a small minority of Americans supports. Brooks calls for an end to American democracy, saying "voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics." Yet, these folks are routinely referred to by the media and political Establishment as leading "moderates," that is, leading voices for positions that are supposedly "within reasonable limits" and are "not excessive or extreme" in relation to the rest of the country's positions.

• Politics 101: You Can't Take the Democratic Party Out of the Democratic Party by David Sirota
  

“If you pretend like you aren’t a Democrat or that your opponent is just a bad politician instead of a bad Republican politician, voters will think you are ashamed of who you are,” writes Stoller. “It’s not about being a proud Democrat, it’s about not being a tool, and voters don’t like tools.” Put another way, when you try to take the Democratic Party out of the Democratic Party, you insult voters’ intelligence, hurt the party’s long-term prospects, and generally look like an idiot.

• Off With Their Heads by Matt Taibi

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public. So instead of telling big, bold whoppers right out in the open, they're forever coming out with backhanded little asides like this one, apparently in the hope that only your subconscious will notice. I won't be surprised if they respond to the next electoral loss by a DLC candidate by having Bruce Reed argue in the Wall Street Journal that "bloggers, Queer Eye, and Arabs with syphilis are not the future of the Democratic Party."

• Politicians Middle-Class Delusions by Jonahton Schwarz

Then there are the campaign contributions courted by politicians: the Center for Responsive Politics found that 86 percent of itemized money raised in 2004 came from less than 0.2 percent of Americans. Politicians spend shocking amounts of their time on the phone hitting these people up for cash, and it's safe to assume few among them worry much about hikes in their health care premiums. And when they're not raising money, politicians are rushing off to the TV studio. Lieberman, for instance, is constantly buddying it up on TV with Tim Russert (annual salary: $5 million), Sean Hannity ($5 million plus), and Chris Matthews ($4.3 million second home on Nantucket).