A friend of my niece’s joined the Marines a year ago leaving college to become a Marine journalist. She told me she didn’t fully understand his motivation for joining, as he was generally opposed to the current wars. Yet they are friends and when he was on leave recently, before his possible deployment in Afghanistan, she asked him about the attitude toward the war among his military colleagues. Her friend described the predominant attitude comes down to a question of pride. Especially prevalent among officers is that they do not want to be seen by history as losing the war. So, like the Soviets brief escalation before withdrawing in an effort to save face and like Nixon in Vietnam, U.S. soldiers are being sent to kill and to be killed so we can “withdraw with honor.” So some colonels and generals can hold on to their pride.
When will we learn not to go to war? When Americans learn a more truthful perspective on American foreign policy; and one that does not sidestep the modus operandi for the wars—imperialism—that assigns working class Americans the role of protecting “our” interests abroad. This education will take courageous social change activists to challenge and change deeply held beliefs and myths. The cynical manipulation of public opinion that got us into Afghanistan and Iraq must be stopped or more war is in our future.
I would argue that if peace-minded Americans want see the hope for a better, more peaceful world that Obama spoke about during his campaign it is necessary to take up this challenge. It also may be the best way to lend “support” for his presidency to give him the room to make different choices than expanding a war that should not have been started.
Read more!
11/30/2009
What President Obama should say to American people on Afghanistan
Please note: Posted on the eve of President Obama's address to the American people about his decision regarding troop levels in Afghanistan. The following is what I had hoped I might hear from my President, but what Obama appears unlikely to say:
...My administration has completed a thorough review and debate on what course we should take in Afghanistan. In the media you have likely heard about many of the options explored by members of my administration. You have also heard the criticism that we have taken too long and are acting indecisively. I am confident that most Americans would not want us to make this pivotal decision hurriedly. Hurried decisions about war have been painful lessons for our nation. I have made a decision that I would like to talk with you about and ask for your support. It is a choice that I believe a majority of Americans have already come to.
In the coming weeks we will initiate discussions with our coalition partners, the Afghan government and other nations in the region on setting a timetable for withdrawing American and coalition armed forces. We will not be sending more troops. The results of these discussions and negotiations will determine our timetable for withdrawal. However, our goal is end United States military presence in Afghanistan within two years, sooner if possible. This will be done with the utmost care to ensure the safety of our troops.
Why have we come to this conclusion? First, and I wish to be clear about this, we are not abandoning the Afghan people, we are simply acknowledging that our continued military presence is an obstacle to any hope for Afghan national reconciliation. We are perceived as occupiers, who do not intend to leave. Thus Afghanis’ energy is directed at expelling the invaders, instead of being directed toward resolving their own conflicts and working to improve the lives of all Afghans.
There have been many mistakes made in our nation’s response to the terrorist attacks of 9-11. These mistakes can be characterized by impatient and overreach. This was certainly the case in Iraq and it has become more clear during our review this was also the case in Afghanistan.
There are those who will criticize our decision as a failure to win the war and that by doing so are dishonoring the service men and women who have sacrificed so much. Yet, I think most of you would agree that to continue on a course that is mistaken for the sake of misplaced pride would be a disservice to the men and women of the armed forces. Such misguided pride would only harm our national interests, our safety and bleed our treasury.
And we have learned better ways to fight terrorism since 9-11 that do not require a full-scale assault by our armed forces. And these strategies continue to be very effect in securing the safety of Americans, at home and abroad.
As a first step in deescalating our engagement in Afghanistan we will cease offensive operations, including the use of unmanned drones. Although great care has been taken to minimize civilian casualties, we have deemed that the continued use of such drones would be counterproductive, as more civilian casualties will further undermine our credibility.
We hope these gestures, and others that will be forthcoming, will encourage some of the traditional tribal leaders to begin discussing the possibilities for national reconciliation and also rejects the use of their nation and tribal lands as a refuge for terrorists. Other sectors and leaders of the society, including the Taliban and religious leaders, will also need to choose between a path of internal war or a path toward peace, security and progress. In the best interests of the Afghan people we hope they can find a peaceful resolution of their differences. We will assist this process as needed, but we have learned we cannot orchestrate it. It must come for the society itself.
The result may not be what we would hope for, nor is it likely to bring equality for women in the near future. The recipe of individual freedom and equality cannot be installed by force. This too we have learned. Our own countries’ imperfect history shows that securing democratic and civil rights can be a long, painful process. Yet, the ideas of freedom and democracy are never suppressed for long. I am hopeful that our own example and that of other nations will propel the Afghan people to create their own struggle for a democratic future that will provide for the full participation of women in creating a prosperous society. We stand ready to be of any non-military assistance to democratic-minded Afghans in this struggle.
On the economic development front and aid to Afghanistan. Suspending offensive military operations and gradually reducing our military forces will allow us to divert part of what would have been spent on military operations to providing more effective economic assistance. Should the country reach reconciliation or at minimum find a means to hold a truce between factions these funds could quickly improve the lives of Afghan families.
Alleviating the desperate condition of people lives must become the goal of all leaders of Afghan society. Continuing to make war would be to fail. This is also a reason we are suspending our offensive military operations. Economic activity, whether it is farming or commerce, cannot take place in war zones.
I ask for your support for this new and hopefully more fruitful course. And I ask that you take time to honor the contribution of our men and women in the armed forces, especially as they return. They did not set the mission or the strategy. The mistakes that have been made are not a reflection on their service, honor or commitment.
My administration’s task to change course in Afghanistan will be very difficult and its success is dependent on many factors beyond our control. We hope the nations in the region will be helpful and we look forward to a dialogue with them as we move forward. I will keep you informed from time to time on these developments. And I assure you that the efforts of our intelligence agencies, FBI and military forces will continue their vigilant efforts to protect the nation from terrorist acts. I commend them for their effectiveness.
In closing, I appeal to you to help reconcile our own differences that have arisen over the two wars that our political leaders, Republican and Democrat, committed the nation. With these steps we are taking in Afghanistan and the process underway in Iraq, my administration will be working to end our military involvement. I believe this is what a majority of Americans desire and will support. For those who disagree with this sentiment and my Administrations choices, I ask that you give our strategy some time to work. To those tens of millions of Americans who have consistently opposed these wars, I ask that you play a helpful role in reconciling our divisions.
Our foremost thoughts should be with those men and women who when called to combat by their political and military leaders, responded with an unflinching commitment to our nation when they know it could lead to the ultimate sacrifice.
I thank you for your attentiveness and patience tonight. Read more!
...My administration has completed a thorough review and debate on what course we should take in Afghanistan. In the media you have likely heard about many of the options explored by members of my administration. You have also heard the criticism that we have taken too long and are acting indecisively. I am confident that most Americans would not want us to make this pivotal decision hurriedly. Hurried decisions about war have been painful lessons for our nation. I have made a decision that I would like to talk with you about and ask for your support. It is a choice that I believe a majority of Americans have already come to.
In the coming weeks we will initiate discussions with our coalition partners, the Afghan government and other nations in the region on setting a timetable for withdrawing American and coalition armed forces. We will not be sending more troops. The results of these discussions and negotiations will determine our timetable for withdrawal. However, our goal is end United States military presence in Afghanistan within two years, sooner if possible. This will be done with the utmost care to ensure the safety of our troops.
Why have we come to this conclusion? First, and I wish to be clear about this, we are not abandoning the Afghan people, we are simply acknowledging that our continued military presence is an obstacle to any hope for Afghan national reconciliation. We are perceived as occupiers, who do not intend to leave. Thus Afghanis’ energy is directed at expelling the invaders, instead of being directed toward resolving their own conflicts and working to improve the lives of all Afghans.
There have been many mistakes made in our nation’s response to the terrorist attacks of 9-11. These mistakes can be characterized by impatient and overreach. This was certainly the case in Iraq and it has become more clear during our review this was also the case in Afghanistan.
There are those who will criticize our decision as a failure to win the war and that by doing so are dishonoring the service men and women who have sacrificed so much. Yet, I think most of you would agree that to continue on a course that is mistaken for the sake of misplaced pride would be a disservice to the men and women of the armed forces. Such misguided pride would only harm our national interests, our safety and bleed our treasury.
And we have learned better ways to fight terrorism since 9-11 that do not require a full-scale assault by our armed forces. And these strategies continue to be very effect in securing the safety of Americans, at home and abroad.
As a first step in deescalating our engagement in Afghanistan we will cease offensive operations, including the use of unmanned drones. Although great care has been taken to minimize civilian casualties, we have deemed that the continued use of such drones would be counterproductive, as more civilian casualties will further undermine our credibility.
We hope these gestures, and others that will be forthcoming, will encourage some of the traditional tribal leaders to begin discussing the possibilities for national reconciliation and also rejects the use of their nation and tribal lands as a refuge for terrorists. Other sectors and leaders of the society, including the Taliban and religious leaders, will also need to choose between a path of internal war or a path toward peace, security and progress. In the best interests of the Afghan people we hope they can find a peaceful resolution of their differences. We will assist this process as needed, but we have learned we cannot orchestrate it. It must come for the society itself.
The result may not be what we would hope for, nor is it likely to bring equality for women in the near future. The recipe of individual freedom and equality cannot be installed by force. This too we have learned. Our own countries’ imperfect history shows that securing democratic and civil rights can be a long, painful process. Yet, the ideas of freedom and democracy are never suppressed for long. I am hopeful that our own example and that of other nations will propel the Afghan people to create their own struggle for a democratic future that will provide for the full participation of women in creating a prosperous society. We stand ready to be of any non-military assistance to democratic-minded Afghans in this struggle.
On the economic development front and aid to Afghanistan. Suspending offensive military operations and gradually reducing our military forces will allow us to divert part of what would have been spent on military operations to providing more effective economic assistance. Should the country reach reconciliation or at minimum find a means to hold a truce between factions these funds could quickly improve the lives of Afghan families.
Alleviating the desperate condition of people lives must become the goal of all leaders of Afghan society. Continuing to make war would be to fail. This is also a reason we are suspending our offensive military operations. Economic activity, whether it is farming or commerce, cannot take place in war zones.
I ask for your support for this new and hopefully more fruitful course. And I ask that you take time to honor the contribution of our men and women in the armed forces, especially as they return. They did not set the mission or the strategy. The mistakes that have been made are not a reflection on their service, honor or commitment.
My administration’s task to change course in Afghanistan will be very difficult and its success is dependent on many factors beyond our control. We hope the nations in the region will be helpful and we look forward to a dialogue with them as we move forward. I will keep you informed from time to time on these developments. And I assure you that the efforts of our intelligence agencies, FBI and military forces will continue their vigilant efforts to protect the nation from terrorist acts. I commend them for their effectiveness.
In closing, I appeal to you to help reconcile our own differences that have arisen over the two wars that our political leaders, Republican and Democrat, committed the nation. With these steps we are taking in Afghanistan and the process underway in Iraq, my administration will be working to end our military involvement. I believe this is what a majority of Americans desire and will support. For those who disagree with this sentiment and my Administrations choices, I ask that you give our strategy some time to work. To those tens of millions of Americans who have consistently opposed these wars, I ask that you play a helpful role in reconciling our divisions.
Our foremost thoughts should be with those men and women who when called to combat by their political and military leaders, responded with an unflinching commitment to our nation when they know it could lead to the ultimate sacrifice.
I thank you for your attentiveness and patience tonight. Read more!
11/19/2009
Steelworkers to explore worker-owned Mondragon model
In case you missed it, in October the United Steelworkers of America signed an agreement with Spain’s Mondragon worker-owned cooperative industries to help the USW develop cooperatives in the United States. This initiative represents the best of traditions in American labor leadership and offers workers (white and blue collar) a constructive, practical remedy to the 30-year decline in manufacturing jobs and a path to economic security.
The Mondragon co-ops of Spain, employing 100,000 people, are widely recognized as the most successful in the world and compete head-to-head with private industries. Mondragon does so on a world-class scale from the building of sophisticated machine tools to managing banking, distribution and retail operations. Their nearly 60 years of experience is an example that workers collectively owning their own means to make a living is a realistic alternative to suffering the consequences of capitalist financiers’ games and corporate abuse and mismanagement.
In a press release announcing the agreement, USW president Leo Gerard put it succinctly: “Too often we have seen Wall Street hollow out companies by draining their cash and assets and hollowing out communities by shedding jobs and shuttering plants. We need a new business model that invests in workers and invests in communities.”
The USW release calls the agreement historic. I cannot agree more. Ideas matter. This idea is one labor has long needed on the bargaining table and in its member educational materials. Although struggles to regulate and reform capitalism can be fruitful, in the long run to build a more just, democratic society we also need ideas and experiences that mark a path for “outgrowing” capitalism.
Worker-owned cooperatives provide one such route. And they demonstrate that workers do not have to be at the mercy of capital for jobs, but instead can retain control of the value they produce and invest it to secure the well being of their communities and families. Thanks to the Steelworkers for pointing a way forward.
For more information, check out the URL’s listed below and the attached article from Dollars & Sense, a publisher of real world economic news and educational materials. This is the website where I first noticed the news of the USW initiative.
Wayne Nealis
p.s. For some years the USW and other unions have been promoting the building a system of world class high-speed passenger trains in America. I understand that the Obama Administration is considering a few lines that could receive funding. It may be possible that some of the first worker-owned co-ops could develop for building railway equipment, as Mondragon has considerable experience in making products for rail transport.
For further info please see:
United Steelworkers @ http://www.usw.org/media_center/releases_advisories?id=0234.
Mondragon @ http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/ENG.aspx.
Dollars and Sense: http://www.dollarsandsense.org/blog/2009/10/steelworkers-form-collaboration-with.html
And here is the rest of it. Read more!
The Mondragon co-ops of Spain, employing 100,000 people, are widely recognized as the most successful in the world and compete head-to-head with private industries. Mondragon does so on a world-class scale from the building of sophisticated machine tools to managing banking, distribution and retail operations. Their nearly 60 years of experience is an example that workers collectively owning their own means to make a living is a realistic alternative to suffering the consequences of capitalist financiers’ games and corporate abuse and mismanagement.
In a press release announcing the agreement, USW president Leo Gerard put it succinctly: “Too often we have seen Wall Street hollow out companies by draining their cash and assets and hollowing out communities by shedding jobs and shuttering plants. We need a new business model that invests in workers and invests in communities.”
The USW release calls the agreement historic. I cannot agree more. Ideas matter. This idea is one labor has long needed on the bargaining table and in its member educational materials. Although struggles to regulate and reform capitalism can be fruitful, in the long run to build a more just, democratic society we also need ideas and experiences that mark a path for “outgrowing” capitalism.
Worker-owned cooperatives provide one such route. And they demonstrate that workers do not have to be at the mercy of capital for jobs, but instead can retain control of the value they produce and invest it to secure the well being of their communities and families. Thanks to the Steelworkers for pointing a way forward.
For more information, check out the URL’s listed below and the attached article from Dollars & Sense, a publisher of real world economic news and educational materials. This is the website where I first noticed the news of the USW initiative.
Wayne Nealis
p.s. For some years the USW and other unions have been promoting the building a system of world class high-speed passenger trains in America. I understand that the Obama Administration is considering a few lines that could receive funding. It may be possible that some of the first worker-owned co-ops could develop for building railway equipment, as Mondragon has considerable experience in making products for rail transport.
For further info please see:
United Steelworkers @ http://www.usw.org/media_center/releases_advisories?id=0234.
Mondragon @ http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/ENG.aspx.
Dollars and Sense: http://www.dollarsandsense.org/blog/2009/10/steelworkers-form-collaboration-with.html
And here is the rest of it. Read more!
10/08/2009
Listening to Rep. Barbara Lee on Afghanistan 8 years later
AFGHANISTAN: Take Rep. Lee's advice now
The invasion of Afghanistan had the support of nearly 90 percent of Americans following the terrorist attacks of 9-11. The only member of Congress who spoke against the rush to war was Representative Barbara Lee of California. Only Ms. Lee was brave enough to say no to war as a solution for terrorism. Her words on the House floor October 14, 2001 were disregarded then, but deserve our utmost attention today.
“Some of us must say, let us step back for a moment. Let us just pause for a minute and think through the implications of our actions today so that this does not spiral out of control.” The resolution to invade Afghanistan passed 420 to 1. Eight years later the hard lesson learned from Ms. Lee’ warning should guide our government’s strategy.
The first step in this case would be to cease offense military actions. And secondly, pursue all non-military means to end the war by negotiation, diplomacy and compromise. To do so, we must honestly enlist the help of other nations to work with us and even take the lead. Sadly, the United States in not a trusted negotiator in the region. President Obama seems to be reconsidering the military solution that Ms. Lee warned against in 2001. Let’s hope he takes her counsel now.
Read more!
The invasion of Afghanistan had the support of nearly 90 percent of Americans following the terrorist attacks of 9-11. The only member of Congress who spoke against the rush to war was Representative Barbara Lee of California. Only Ms. Lee was brave enough to say no to war as a solution for terrorism. Her words on the House floor October 14, 2001 were disregarded then, but deserve our utmost attention today.
“Some of us must say, let us step back for a moment. Let us just pause for a minute and think through the implications of our actions today so that this does not spiral out of control.” The resolution to invade Afghanistan passed 420 to 1. Eight years later the hard lesson learned from Ms. Lee’ warning should guide our government’s strategy.
The first step in this case would be to cease offense military actions. And secondly, pursue all non-military means to end the war by negotiation, diplomacy and compromise. To do so, we must honestly enlist the help of other nations to work with us and even take the lead. Sadly, the United States in not a trusted negotiator in the region. President Obama seems to be reconsidering the military solution that Ms. Lee warned against in 2001. Let’s hope he takes her counsel now.
Read more!
10/06/2009
Pedestrian Streets In Curitiba, Brazil (Time to Step Up, NYC)
Pedestrian Streets In Curitiba, Brazil (Time to Step Up, NYC)
A walkable downtown model for Minneapolis. Imagine Nicollet Avenue with no vehicles. Freedom from noise, pollution and stress. Draw more people and customer base for businesses. It would become a tourist attraction for several years. How can that be bad for business? As the Nike slogan says: Just do it! Read more!
A walkable downtown model for Minneapolis. Imagine Nicollet Avenue with no vehicles. Freedom from noise, pollution and stress. Draw more people and customer base for businesses. It would become a tourist attraction for several years. How can that be bad for business? As the Nike slogan says: Just do it! Read more!
3/11/2009
Advice from Bear Stearns Econ Chief!
You would think that the former chief economist at Bear Stearns, the firm collapsed in March 2008, would lay low for a while, but on Bloomberg TV last week John Ryding had the audacity to give advice to President Obama. Ryding said the Administration should focus only on the economy “that should not only be ‘job one,’ that should be the only job right now.” Obviously implying that education, health care and labor rights legislation should wait.
Perhaps if Mr. Ryding had practiced his own advice and focused on economic matters, Bear Stearns would still be in business. His job was to analyze and forecast economic trends and monetary policy! Why would anyone listen to someone whose judgment proved to be so poor. Is it just arrogance that we find “experts” like Ryding giving advice? Or is it, as it appears, that Ryding is one of a growing chorus of corporate and conservative “experts” pushing Obama and the nation to back off his change agenda?
People like Ryding are responsible for this mess and now they advise us to wait!
See: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a2sWlnEIj58U&refer=news Read more!
Perhaps if Mr. Ryding had practiced his own advice and focused on economic matters, Bear Stearns would still be in business. His job was to analyze and forecast economic trends and monetary policy! Why would anyone listen to someone whose judgment proved to be so poor. Is it just arrogance that we find “experts” like Ryding giving advice? Or is it, as it appears, that Ryding is one of a growing chorus of corporate and conservative “experts” pushing Obama and the nation to back off his change agenda?
People like Ryding are responsible for this mess and now they advise us to wait!
See: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a2sWlnEIj58U&refer=news Read more!
2/25/2009
Governor’s deficit cure is irresponsible
The $5 billion state budget shortfall for 2010-11 can be resolved responsibly and wisely if the legislature enacts a temporary, progressive surtax on income brackets that can afford to contribute more. Gov. Pawlenty’s “no tax” proposal is a non-starter and an example of the irresponsible tax and budgetary policies of the Republican Party that Minnesotans rejected in electing President Obama.
Responsible taxation and budgeting means funding the costs of operating state and local government functions in bad times and good times. Yet, GOP legislators, the Governor and anti-government ideologues claim that like the private sector, government must also cut jobs and services during a recession.
However, government functions and employment are not comparable to private sector service or manufacturing firms. The demands for private companies’ goods and services fall during a recession and fewer employees are required to manage the workload. On the other hand, the demand for government services, like courts, health care, snow plowing or fire fighting remain constant or may even rise during a downturn.
Raising revenue via an income surtax would be efficient and cost little to implement, save a little computer time. And, when the recession is over and revenues rebound the surtax would end. Some ballpark calculations modeled on 2004 tax and income data show that a modest surtax plan would cover about 50 percent of the deficit.
A formula to achieve this, one of many possible, would be to levy a five percent surtax on the handful of individuals (7,339 in 2004) making over $700,000 whose combined income was $13.8 billion, or 10 percent of all income. [NOTE: It takes the income of 288,000 people making $50,000 to total $13.8 billion.] The surtax would drop in each of the next four brackets so that individuals in the last group, those making roughly $80,000 to $95,000 (in 2008), would incur a surtax of only one-half percent. This formula is designed to illustrate feasibility and could be more progressive and based on finer increments of income.
In 2004 these five groups, about 16 percent of the 2.8 million people employed, all together earned one-half of reported income. The remaining 2.4 million working Minnesotans split the rest. Who has the ability to pay more could not be clearer.
Although some might advocate sticking wealthier taxpayers with the entire bill, I think even middle income individuals (but not the working poor) can also forgo some discretionary spending, even if it is just $50 a year, so that nearly all Minnesotans are called to make a contribution. Public employees would also be subject to the surtax relative to their income.
The Governor, GOP legislators and some Democrats argue that to raise taxes on wealthier individuals will reduce spending and investment and cause further job losses. This is a red herring and false. Common sense math tells us that that if a surtax is used to keep people employed around the state like our teachers, city and county employees or through direct government spending contracting local businesses, almost all these dollars will be spent in Minnesota. It is more likely, on the other hand, that wealthier individuals will invest or spend the same dollars outside the state or put them in savings.
These conclusions are verified in research conducted by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and former Brookings Institute Fellow, Peter Orszag, who is now on President Obama’s economic team. Their 2001 study, published by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, concludes that given the choices states have in a recession “the least damaging approach in the short run involves tax increases concentrated on higher-income families” in order to maintain public employment levels, transfer payments and direct spending. The worst choice for the Minnesota economy, according to this logic, would be Governor Pawlenty’s.
Some Democratic legislators have suggested expanding the sales tax to include clothing to raise revenue. Such a solution, like Pawlenty’s proposal to raise fees (a GOP word for taxes) would reduce the discretionary income, thus the purchasing power, of the two million middle and lower income Minnesotans who are the engine of our local economies. Let’s hope the Democratic leadership can rise above the political calculations surrounding their hopes to win the 2010 governor’s race and speak frankly with Minnesotans about the various remedies and the consequences of our choices.
No one likes paying higher taxes, but legislators might be surprised at Minnesotans’ common sense attitudes toward the fiscal choices ahead. An indication of what we might call a post-GOP attitude toward taxes and government is that many wealthier Minnesotans supported Barack Obama. And as a candidate, he said in no uncertain terms, that he was going to raise their taxes significantly—not just temporarily.
Read more!
Responsible taxation and budgeting means funding the costs of operating state and local government functions in bad times and good times. Yet, GOP legislators, the Governor and anti-government ideologues claim that like the private sector, government must also cut jobs and services during a recession.
However, government functions and employment are not comparable to private sector service or manufacturing firms. The demands for private companies’ goods and services fall during a recession and fewer employees are required to manage the workload. On the other hand, the demand for government services, like courts, health care, snow plowing or fire fighting remain constant or may even rise during a downturn.
Raising revenue via an income surtax would be efficient and cost little to implement, save a little computer time. And, when the recession is over and revenues rebound the surtax would end. Some ballpark calculations modeled on 2004 tax and income data show that a modest surtax plan would cover about 50 percent of the deficit.
A formula to achieve this, one of many possible, would be to levy a five percent surtax on the handful of individuals (7,339 in 2004) making over $700,000 whose combined income was $13.8 billion, or 10 percent of all income. [NOTE: It takes the income of 288,000 people making $50,000 to total $13.8 billion.] The surtax would drop in each of the next four brackets so that individuals in the last group, those making roughly $80,000 to $95,000 (in 2008), would incur a surtax of only one-half percent. This formula is designed to illustrate feasibility and could be more progressive and based on finer increments of income.
In 2004 these five groups, about 16 percent of the 2.8 million people employed, all together earned one-half of reported income. The remaining 2.4 million working Minnesotans split the rest. Who has the ability to pay more could not be clearer.
Although some might advocate sticking wealthier taxpayers with the entire bill, I think even middle income individuals (but not the working poor) can also forgo some discretionary spending, even if it is just $50 a year, so that nearly all Minnesotans are called to make a contribution. Public employees would also be subject to the surtax relative to their income.
The Governor, GOP legislators and some Democrats argue that to raise taxes on wealthier individuals will reduce spending and investment and cause further job losses. This is a red herring and false. Common sense math tells us that that if a surtax is used to keep people employed around the state like our teachers, city and county employees or through direct government spending contracting local businesses, almost all these dollars will be spent in Minnesota. It is more likely, on the other hand, that wealthier individuals will invest or spend the same dollars outside the state or put them in savings.
These conclusions are verified in research conducted by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and former Brookings Institute Fellow, Peter Orszag, who is now on President Obama’s economic team. Their 2001 study, published by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, concludes that given the choices states have in a recession “the least damaging approach in the short run involves tax increases concentrated on higher-income families” in order to maintain public employment levels, transfer payments and direct spending. The worst choice for the Minnesota economy, according to this logic, would be Governor Pawlenty’s.
Some Democratic legislators have suggested expanding the sales tax to include clothing to raise revenue. Such a solution, like Pawlenty’s proposal to raise fees (a GOP word for taxes) would reduce the discretionary income, thus the purchasing power, of the two million middle and lower income Minnesotans who are the engine of our local economies. Let’s hope the Democratic leadership can rise above the political calculations surrounding their hopes to win the 2010 governor’s race and speak frankly with Minnesotans about the various remedies and the consequences of our choices.
No one likes paying higher taxes, but legislators might be surprised at Minnesotans’ common sense attitudes toward the fiscal choices ahead. An indication of what we might call a post-GOP attitude toward taxes and government is that many wealthier Minnesotans supported Barack Obama. And as a candidate, he said in no uncertain terms, that he was going to raise their taxes significantly—not just temporarily.
Read more!
2/16/2009
An irreversible progressive majority
I believe American politics swings between right-wing dominance and the big business-leaning middle not because of intergenerational or cyclical political processes, but because the work necessary to forge an irreversible progressive, labor-friendly, peace-minded majority has never been completed. To achieve such a majority requires a change in peoples’ consciousness about a myriad of social, historical and economic worldviews and values. No small task, but we are moving in the right direction. The demographic and political changes that helped Barack Obama become President of the United States and the hopeful political engagement his campaign inspired, has created the conditions for progressive change agents and organizations to systemically diminish the influence of right wing thought, values and historical narrative such that a conservative agenda can never again amass a constituency large enough to gain power.
To accomplish this task will require developing a grassroots popular educational curriculum (or several). In particular this means creating a curriculum about how the economic system of capitalism works, so citizens can support reforms that will protect them from the most egregious behavior and failings of the system. Any system based on greed (maximizing profits) and competition, must be regulated. We have learned this the hard way.
Even well informed people find the workings of capitalism a mystery. It is difficult when so many lack insights into the system they live and work in to advance and win support for far-reaching reforms of capitalism. The remedy is education and dialogue. I do not advocate an anti-capitalist educational program; simply a program that teaches how the system works. Evaluating the system’s moral or economic behavior and consequences should left to participants.
I believe that the next goal for democratic change in America should be to reform the socio-economic system so that we move toward that of European social democracies. Achieving this would provide a broader economic security net that would be financed by a more equitable re-distribution and a better use of the wealth we create. To achieve this will require a new social contract between labor and business, either negotiated or imposed by a significant democratic majority via electoral, civic and institutional actions. [NOTE: In 2007, of a $14 trillion GDP, profits were $1.6 trillion or 13.8 percent. The only reason we do not have fully employment and a good economy right now is systemic, reckless mismanagement of huge profits like this.]
This move toward social-democratic solutions is in its infancy. The developing consensus for universal health care represents the first possibility and most importantly presents an opportunity to inject similar types of solutions for other social and economic problems. Individual solutions, the go-it-alone, work harder and longer approach needs to be replaced by the “we are in it together” outlook that trade unions have long advocated with one word: solidarity. (See the 2006 book by Jared Bernstein, “All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy.” This is a must read for union leaders and activists as Bernstein is Vice President Joe Biden’s chief economic policy advisor and Executive Director the Administration’s Middle Class Task Force. The phrase “we are in it together” is from Bernstein’s book).
Simply put: A consciousness of social solidarity is required in order to win a more equitable distribution of wealth and the economic reforms that are need to underpin economic security. Embracing such a value would be a first for an American culture that is built on striving for success, competition and individual enrichment and power. A persistent cultural undercurrent in America has for several decades challenged these assumptions by asking the proverbial quality of life question: Do we live to work or do we work to live?
I believe this is one of the central economic and cultural dilemmas of our time that crosses class, occupational, religious and political boundaries. It is a question of meaning. A progressive educational agenda should place this inquiry within the context of how the system works and in relationship with the socio-economic reforms that promise to yield a less stressful, more secure and a better quality of life.
The choices people make to either embrace go-it-alone or in-it-together policies are choices that need to be patiently and respectfully debated. To this end, a progressive educational agenda’s method should be built on dialogue, not persuasion. It should inform, not indoctrinate. It should seek to open debate, not close it.
This calls for accurately presenting opposing perspectives and solutions. The progressive educator’s goal is for people to make informed choices that they have thought through in comparison with other possibilities. Educators should encourage critical, skeptical thinking, regardless of the choices people may make.
Communication via the Internet has already changed the world for the better. It allows for democratic participation, organizing and debate that is rivaled in effectiveness only by face-to-face dialogue. The combination of an easily accessible creative educational curriculum online and grassroots activity are the yin and yang of a more just, democratic and peaceful America.
Read more!
To accomplish this task will require developing a grassroots popular educational curriculum (or several). In particular this means creating a curriculum about how the economic system of capitalism works, so citizens can support reforms that will protect them from the most egregious behavior and failings of the system. Any system based on greed (maximizing profits) and competition, must be regulated. We have learned this the hard way.
Even well informed people find the workings of capitalism a mystery. It is difficult when so many lack insights into the system they live and work in to advance and win support for far-reaching reforms of capitalism. The remedy is education and dialogue. I do not advocate an anti-capitalist educational program; simply a program that teaches how the system works. Evaluating the system’s moral or economic behavior and consequences should left to participants.
I believe that the next goal for democratic change in America should be to reform the socio-economic system so that we move toward that of European social democracies. Achieving this would provide a broader economic security net that would be financed by a more equitable re-distribution and a better use of the wealth we create. To achieve this will require a new social contract between labor and business, either negotiated or imposed by a significant democratic majority via electoral, civic and institutional actions. [NOTE: In 2007, of a $14 trillion GDP, profits were $1.6 trillion or 13.8 percent. The only reason we do not have fully employment and a good economy right now is systemic, reckless mismanagement of huge profits like this.]
This move toward social-democratic solutions is in its infancy. The developing consensus for universal health care represents the first possibility and most importantly presents an opportunity to inject similar types of solutions for other social and economic problems. Individual solutions, the go-it-alone, work harder and longer approach needs to be replaced by the “we are in it together” outlook that trade unions have long advocated with one word: solidarity. (See the 2006 book by Jared Bernstein, “All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy.” This is a must read for union leaders and activists as Bernstein is Vice President Joe Biden’s chief economic policy advisor and Executive Director the Administration’s Middle Class Task Force. The phrase “we are in it together” is from Bernstein’s book).
Simply put: A consciousness of social solidarity is required in order to win a more equitable distribution of wealth and the economic reforms that are need to underpin economic security. Embracing such a value would be a first for an American culture that is built on striving for success, competition and individual enrichment and power. A persistent cultural undercurrent in America has for several decades challenged these assumptions by asking the proverbial quality of life question: Do we live to work or do we work to live?
I believe this is one of the central economic and cultural dilemmas of our time that crosses class, occupational, religious and political boundaries. It is a question of meaning. A progressive educational agenda should place this inquiry within the context of how the system works and in relationship with the socio-economic reforms that promise to yield a less stressful, more secure and a better quality of life.
The choices people make to either embrace go-it-alone or in-it-together policies are choices that need to be patiently and respectfully debated. To this end, a progressive educational agenda’s method should be built on dialogue, not persuasion. It should inform, not indoctrinate. It should seek to open debate, not close it.
This calls for accurately presenting opposing perspectives and solutions. The progressive educator’s goal is for people to make informed choices that they have thought through in comparison with other possibilities. Educators should encourage critical, skeptical thinking, regardless of the choices people may make.
Communication via the Internet has already changed the world for the better. It allows for democratic participation, organizing and debate that is rivaled in effectiveness only by face-to-face dialogue. The combination of an easily accessible creative educational curriculum online and grassroots activity are the yin and yang of a more just, democratic and peaceful America.
Read more!
2/04/2009
"Ordinary" Americans could do better
The present financial crisis is a case study that lends support to John Maynard Keynes’ idea that a significant portion of capital should be publicly owned and/or directed. Witnessing the daily revelations of corruption, incompetence and irresponsible behavior of those who own and manage capital, it is reasonable to conclude that ordinary citizens would make better decisions. Congress should take Keynes advice and create public capital pools funded by a surtax on the wealthy to make loans to businesses for projects in the green economy sector, affordable housing and transportation. Oversight boards comprised of experts, ordinary citizens, labor unions and industry leaders should plan and direct this activity in an open, transparent, democratic manner inviting public comment and scrutiny. It is foolish to print money and give taxpayer-backed loans to those who caused the crisis and then trust them to make investment decisions for renewing the economy.
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)