The nation's richest families have a lot to celebrate tonight.
For the remaining 95% of us there is not a lot of good economic news to celebrate as we enter 2008.
The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) recently updated its authoritative data series on household incomes (1979-2005). Its latest report reveals a sharp and unprecedented increase in income inequality.
Total household income grew $1.1 trillion in the 2003-05 period. But despite strong productivity growth, these gains have not been shared broadly. Almost two-thirds (63%) of the gain in household income from 2003 to 2005 went to just 5% of the nation’s wealthiest households. those making more than $150,000 annually.
This increase in income inequality (both pre- and post-tax) as measured by the change in the shares of income going to different income classes, was greater from 2003 to 2005 than over any other two-year period covered by the CBO data.
An amazing $400 billion in pre-tax dollars was shifted from the bottom 95% of households to those in the top 5% (all income data in this report are inflation adjusted and in 2005 dollars).
By 2005 the top fifth held a larger share of income (both pre- and post-tax) than everyone else in the bottom 80%.
On a pre-tax basis in 2005, the top 1%, with 18.1% of total income, held a much larger share of income than the bottom 40% of households, which only received 12.5
Had income shares not shifted as they did, the income of each of the 109 million households in the bottom 95% would have been $3,660 higher in 2005.
For more than a decade elite opinion makers, including the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board, have argued that income inequality was growing because the global economy rewarded education. Stemming the alleged "brain drain" of four year college graduates and increasing their percentage of the workforce has become a centerpiece of Wisconsin's economic development strategy.
If education was the key to increasing incomes, inequality would have declined over the past 30 years as Americans have increased their level of educational achievement. From 1970 to 2004, the percent of college grads nearly doubled in the U.S. to almost 30% of the adult population, while the share of income going to the bottom 90 percent decreased by almost 15 percent!
We have become more unequal as we have become more educated!
Income inequality has grown because the distribution mechanisms that have historically worked to ensure more equitable outcomes, strong unions, progressive taxation, labor market policy, and regulation have largely been dismantled over the past thirty years, a victim of the nation's 30 year romance with"free market" economics. Under the alluring guise of economic liberty, laissez faire policies allow powerful corporations and wealthy individuals to manipulate market outcomes. As a result corporate profits, CEO compensation and income inequality have soared to record heights.
If we are serious about reducing economic inequality, we need to adopt policies that ensure that economic prosperity is shared broadly. These would include making it easier for workers to organize unions (including extending this right to the University of Wisconsin faculty); indexing the minimum wage to the CPI; legislating protection for homeowners facing foreclosures; enacting universal healthcare and progressive tax reform (including closing corporate tax loopholes); insisting that all developments receiving public subsidies pay the prevailing wage and hire locally; and regulating the mortgage and financial sectors whose recklessness has brought the economy to the verge of a recession.
If the Wisconsin's legislative bodies and the United States Congress fail to enact policies that address the nation's growing economic insecurity and income inequality, most of us won't have much more to celebrate in 2008 than we do tonight.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Sunday, December 30, 2007
The free market is a false idol
The New York Times' Peter S. Goodman, in a piece entitled "The Free Market: a False Idol Afterall," notes that America's 30 year romance with deregulation and privatization has led to a host of problems from housing foreclosures to global warming to growing income inequality that demand governmental action:
"For more than a quarter-century, the dominant idea guiding economic policy in the United States and much of the globe has been that the market is unfailingly wise. So wise that the proper role for government is to steer clear and not mess with the gusher of wealth that will flow, trickling down to the every level of society, if only the market is left to do its magic.
That notion has carried the day as industries have been unshackled from regulation, and as taxes have been rolled back, along with the oversight powers of government. Faith in markets has held sway as insurance companies have fended off calls for more government-financed health care, and as banks have engineered webs of finance that have turned houses from mere abodes into assets traded like dot-com stocks.
But lately, a striking unease with market forces has entered the conversation. The world confronts problems of staggering complexity and consequence, from a shortage of credit following the mortgage meltdown, to the threat of global warming. Regulation — nasty talk in some quarters, synonymous with pointy-headed bureaucrats choking the market — is suddenly being demanded from unexpected places. ..
Adam Smith used the metaphor of the invisible hand to describe how markets should function: With everyone at liberty to pursue self-interest, the market omnisciently distributes goods and capital to maximize the benefits for all. Since the Reagan administration, that idea has weighed in as a veritable holy commandment, with the economist Milton Friedman cast as Moses.
But now the invisible hand is being asked to account for what it has wrought. In this country, many economic complaints — from the widening gap between rich and poor to the expense of higher education — are being dusted for its fingerprints. ..
'Untethered market forces lead to bad things,' said Mr. Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute. 'You simply can’t run an economy as complicated as ours on ideology alone.'"
"For more than a quarter-century, the dominant idea guiding economic policy in the United States and much of the globe has been that the market is unfailingly wise. So wise that the proper role for government is to steer clear and not mess with the gusher of wealth that will flow, trickling down to the every level of society, if only the market is left to do its magic.
That notion has carried the day as industries have been unshackled from regulation, and as taxes have been rolled back, along with the oversight powers of government. Faith in markets has held sway as insurance companies have fended off calls for more government-financed health care, and as banks have engineered webs of finance that have turned houses from mere abodes into assets traded like dot-com stocks.
But lately, a striking unease with market forces has entered the conversation. The world confronts problems of staggering complexity and consequence, from a shortage of credit following the mortgage meltdown, to the threat of global warming. Regulation — nasty talk in some quarters, synonymous with pointy-headed bureaucrats choking the market — is suddenly being demanded from unexpected places. ..
Adam Smith used the metaphor of the invisible hand to describe how markets should function: With everyone at liberty to pursue self-interest, the market omnisciently distributes goods and capital to maximize the benefits for all. Since the Reagan administration, that idea has weighed in as a veritable holy commandment, with the economist Milton Friedman cast as Moses.
But now the invisible hand is being asked to account for what it has wrought. In this country, many economic complaints — from the widening gap between rich and poor to the expense of higher education — are being dusted for its fingerprints. ..
'Untethered market forces lead to bad things,' said Mr. Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute. 'You simply can’t run an economy as complicated as ours on ideology alone.'"
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
All I got for X-mas was a stocking full of debt!
One present none of us want to open this X-mas morning is the one left by President George Bush, Grover Norquist and their neocon friends-the growing national debt.
Federal borrowing from the public has mushroomed since 2001, by 53 percent, to $5.1 trillion. The single biggest cause of this spiraling debt has been the President's gifts to the very wealthiest Americans who double as his campaign financiers-high end tax cuts totaling $1.8 trillion.
From 2002 to 2011, forgone revenue from the cuts will account for 37 percent of the federal budget’s descent into the red, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The neocons war of choice in Iraq and defense spending come next, producing 30 percent of the deterioration, followed by domestic spending at 11 percent.
President Bush has been one of this nation's most fiscally irresponsible Presidents.
This holiday season the richest Americans, including hedge fund and private equity managers who pay a lower tax rate on their million and sometimes billion dollar incomes than most working American pay on theirs, have much to celebrate.
But most American taxpayers, their children and grandchildren will be left with little more than a stocking full of debt, $144,434 per family.
We will have to repay this borrowed money with interest, which means fewer federal dollars to spend on everything else for decades to come, including health care, infrastructure repair, emergency response, chemical plant security and alternative energy.
The New York Times recently ran an excellent editorial on President Bush' fiscally reckless tenure and his recent political posturing. It's worth the read.
Federal borrowing from the public has mushroomed since 2001, by 53 percent, to $5.1 trillion. The single biggest cause of this spiraling debt has been the President's gifts to the very wealthiest Americans who double as his campaign financiers-high end tax cuts totaling $1.8 trillion.
From 2002 to 2011, forgone revenue from the cuts will account for 37 percent of the federal budget’s descent into the red, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The neocons war of choice in Iraq and defense spending come next, producing 30 percent of the deterioration, followed by domestic spending at 11 percent.
President Bush has been one of this nation's most fiscally irresponsible Presidents.
This holiday season the richest Americans, including hedge fund and private equity managers who pay a lower tax rate on their million and sometimes billion dollar incomes than most working American pay on theirs, have much to celebrate.
But most American taxpayers, their children and grandchildren will be left with little more than a stocking full of debt, $144,434 per family.
We will have to repay this borrowed money with interest, which means fewer federal dollars to spend on everything else for decades to come, including health care, infrastructure repair, emergency response, chemical plant security and alternative energy.
The New York Times recently ran an excellent editorial on President Bush' fiscally reckless tenure and his recent political posturing. It's worth the read.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Ideology of deregulation at root of housing market collapse
Paul Krugman's newest column argues that the libertarian (free market) economic policies of Alan Greenspan and the Bush administration incubated predatory lending practices that have boomeranged into the collapse of the housing market, pushing the nation to the edge of a recession.
Krugman writes: "...during the bubble years, the mortgage industry lured millions of people into borrowing more than they could afford, and simultaneously duped investors into investing vast sums in risky assets wrongly labeled AAA. Reasonable estimates suggest that more than 10 million American families will end up owing more than their homes are worth, and investors will suffer $400 billion or more in losses.
So where were the regulators as one of the greatest financial disasters since the Great Depression unfolded? They were blinded by ideology.
'Fed shrugged as subprime crisis spread,' was the headline on a New York Times report on the failure of regulators to regulate. This may have been a discreet dig at Mr. Greenspan’s history as a disciple of Ayn Rand, the high priestess of unfettered capitalism known for her novel 'Atlas Shrugged.'
In a 1963 essay for Ms. Rand’s newsletter, Mr. Greenspan dismissed as a “collectivist” myth the idea that businessmen, left to their own devices, “would attempt to sell unsafe food and drugs, fraudulent securities, and shoddy buildings.” On the contrary, he declared, “it is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputation for honest dealings and a quality product.”
It’s no wonder, then, that he brushed off warnings about deceptive lending practices, including those of Edward M. Gramlich, a member of the Federal Reserve board. In Mr. Greenspan’s world, predatory lending — like attempts to sell consumers poison toys and tainted seafood — just doesn’t happen."
Krugman writes: "...during the bubble years, the mortgage industry lured millions of people into borrowing more than they could afford, and simultaneously duped investors into investing vast sums in risky assets wrongly labeled AAA. Reasonable estimates suggest that more than 10 million American families will end up owing more than their homes are worth, and investors will suffer $400 billion or more in losses.
So where were the regulators as one of the greatest financial disasters since the Great Depression unfolded? They were blinded by ideology.
'Fed shrugged as subprime crisis spread,' was the headline on a New York Times report on the failure of regulators to regulate. This may have been a discreet dig at Mr. Greenspan’s history as a disciple of Ayn Rand, the high priestess of unfettered capitalism known for her novel 'Atlas Shrugged.'
In a 1963 essay for Ms. Rand’s newsletter, Mr. Greenspan dismissed as a “collectivist” myth the idea that businessmen, left to their own devices, “would attempt to sell unsafe food and drugs, fraudulent securities, and shoddy buildings.” On the contrary, he declared, “it is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputation for honest dealings and a quality product.”
It’s no wonder, then, that he brushed off warnings about deceptive lending practices, including those of Edward M. Gramlich, a member of the Federal Reserve board. In Mr. Greenspan’s world, predatory lending — like attempts to sell consumers poison toys and tainted seafood — just doesn’t happen."
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Mabel Wong's anecdotel evidence
In the Journal Sentinel's Quick Hit (12/20/2008), Mabel Wong warns that: "Anecdotal observations from laymen..." regarding global warming "...don't prove anything."
She, of course, is right about this.
But then Ms Wong provides us with nothing less than anecdotal evidence!
The obvious purpose is to undermine the international scientific community's consensus that global warming is a real threat that demands immediate and decisive action.
Common Mabel. You can't have it both ways!
She, of course, is right about this.
But then Ms Wong provides us with nothing less than anecdotal evidence!
The obvious purpose is to undermine the international scientific community's consensus that global warming is a real threat that demands immediate and decisive action.
Common Mabel. You can't have it both ways!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Commissioner Selig and the steroid era
The Mitchell report, Major League Baseball's $20 million, "independent investigation" into steroid use, was released last Thursday with 20 recommendations from Mitchell — $1 million a recommendation, $1 million a month.
For more than a decade," former Senator George Mitchell reported, "there has been widespread illegal use of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing substances by players in major league baseball ..."
For a Polish with special stadium sauce and a mouse I could have come up with the same conclusions and as many names as Senator Mitchell.
This is last years story recycled as breaking news. As the Times' Murray Chase wrote: the "Mitchell Report revealed little original work."
"Everyone in baseball shares responsibility," Mitchell said at a news conference in New York City.
Everybody?
In other words, the players, the clubhouse guys, the trainers, the team physicians, the GMs, the owners and the union are equally responsible?
If so, why is it that it is only the players who are called out by name?
And why is their union, the strongest in professional sports, being blamed for obstructing the righteous owners and Congress from punishing chemically enhanced athletes when all it did was advise its members of their rights?
The sanctimonious owners and their hand picked Commissioner, Bud Selig, who sanctioned the steroid era with their silence, are given a get out of jail free card.
These billionaire owners spent the steroid era lining their pockets and blackmailing cities to build luxury boxed stadiums designed for bulked up home run hitters on the taxpayers dime. It is hard to take their current outrage seriously.
And you know something is very wrong when US Congressmen, three of whom are in jail while twelve are under criminal investigation for far more serious crimes than taking steroids, begin acting like morality police.
Forgive me if I can't buy this story line.
According to press reports, Bud Selig said, "I respect Sen. Mitchell and the work he has done but I'm going to do what I think is right. I meant what I said. I'm serious about player discipline..."
"I consider this a call to action and I will act," said Selig, who promised a swift response. "
Bud, who do you think you are kidding?
Juicing was rampant by the time you became Acting Commissioner in 1992. Your appointment of Senator Mitchell and his response are little more than a public relations response to Congress' demand for action.
Fay Vincent, your predecessor, had tried to crack down on steroids before you took over. In June 1991, he sent every major league club a memorandum saying all illegal drug use was “strictly prohibited” by law, “cannot be condoned or tolerated” and could result in discipline or expulsion. Vincent specifically highlighted steroids in the memo. This letter was sent 16 years ago!
The next year, you, a former owner who benefited financially from increased attendance generated by steroid enhanced performance, became Acting Commissioner. Through the 1990s, even as newspapers reported that as many as one in five baseball players used steroids, you, the father of then Brewer CEO, Wendy Selig Prieb (1998-2004), played down the issue. “If baseball has a problem, I must say candidly that we were not aware of it,” you said in 1995.
But as early as 1987 newspapers were reporting on the use of steroids by players. In 2000, the New York Times reported steroids were rampant in baseball, but a baseball spokesman said they “have never been much of an issue.”
After the 1994 baseball players strike, fans were leaving in droves. You and the owners turned a blind eye to the chemically induced home run seasons of the late 1990's including the home-run fest between Sammy Sosa and Mark Mcguire that brought the fans back and, more importantly, jacked up its revenues after the 1994 baseball strike.
The blog Saberonmics notes: "..MLB has been doing quite well for itself despite the steroid accusations that have been surrounding the game during this time period. Revenue growth had averaged 12.44% a year since 2002. Attendance has grown an average of 3.23%, with MLB breaking attendance records each of the past four seasons....you know economic times in baseball are good when Bud Selig is admitting it:
“When you look at the final numbers and you see what’s happened, it’s remarkable. There are times, honestly, when I have to pinch myself to make sure all of this is happening. … Growth and revenue, growth and profitability; it’s just been really, really good.”
The record is clear that you, Bud, and the owners who elevated you to Major League Baseball's top post, ignored and denied the problem all the way to the bank.
From er player and manager Billy Martin had it right when he said years before steroid's golden era: "Cheating in baseball is just like hotdogs, French fries and cold cokes." No one cares about it as long as everyone is making money!
For more than a decade," former Senator George Mitchell reported, "there has been widespread illegal use of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing substances by players in major league baseball ..."
For a Polish with special stadium sauce and a mouse I could have come up with the same conclusions and as many names as Senator Mitchell.
This is last years story recycled as breaking news. As the Times' Murray Chase wrote: the "Mitchell Report revealed little original work."
"Everyone in baseball shares responsibility," Mitchell said at a news conference in New York City.
Everybody?
In other words, the players, the clubhouse guys, the trainers, the team physicians, the GMs, the owners and the union are equally responsible?
If so, why is it that it is only the players who are called out by name?
And why is their union, the strongest in professional sports, being blamed for obstructing the righteous owners and Congress from punishing chemically enhanced athletes when all it did was advise its members of their rights?
The sanctimonious owners and their hand picked Commissioner, Bud Selig, who sanctioned the steroid era with their silence, are given a get out of jail free card.
These billionaire owners spent the steroid era lining their pockets and blackmailing cities to build luxury boxed stadiums designed for bulked up home run hitters on the taxpayers dime. It is hard to take their current outrage seriously.
And you know something is very wrong when US Congressmen, three of whom are in jail while twelve are under criminal investigation for far more serious crimes than taking steroids, begin acting like morality police.
Forgive me if I can't buy this story line.
According to press reports, Bud Selig said, "I respect Sen. Mitchell and the work he has done but I'm going to do what I think is right. I meant what I said. I'm serious about player discipline..."
"I consider this a call to action and I will act," said Selig, who promised a swift response. "
Bud, who do you think you are kidding?
Juicing was rampant by the time you became Acting Commissioner in 1992. Your appointment of Senator Mitchell and his response are little more than a public relations response to Congress' demand for action.
Fay Vincent, your predecessor, had tried to crack down on steroids before you took over. In June 1991, he sent every major league club a memorandum saying all illegal drug use was “strictly prohibited” by law, “cannot be condoned or tolerated” and could result in discipline or expulsion. Vincent specifically highlighted steroids in the memo. This letter was sent 16 years ago!
The next year, you, a former owner who benefited financially from increased attendance generated by steroid enhanced performance, became Acting Commissioner. Through the 1990s, even as newspapers reported that as many as one in five baseball players used steroids, you, the father of then Brewer CEO, Wendy Selig Prieb (1998-2004), played down the issue. “If baseball has a problem, I must say candidly that we were not aware of it,” you said in 1995.
But as early as 1987 newspapers were reporting on the use of steroids by players. In 2000, the New York Times reported steroids were rampant in baseball, but a baseball spokesman said they “have never been much of an issue.”
After the 1994 baseball players strike, fans were leaving in droves. You and the owners turned a blind eye to the chemically induced home run seasons of the late 1990's including the home-run fest between Sammy Sosa and Mark Mcguire that brought the fans back and, more importantly, jacked up its revenues after the 1994 baseball strike.
The blog Saberonmics notes: "..MLB has been doing quite well for itself despite the steroid accusations that have been surrounding the game during this time period. Revenue growth had averaged 12.44% a year since 2002. Attendance has grown an average of 3.23%, with MLB breaking attendance records each of the past four seasons....you know economic times in baseball are good when Bud Selig is admitting it:
“When you look at the final numbers and you see what’s happened, it’s remarkable. There are times, honestly, when I have to pinch myself to make sure all of this is happening. … Growth and revenue, growth and profitability; it’s just been really, really good.”
The record is clear that you, Bud, and the owners who elevated you to Major League Baseball's top post, ignored and denied the problem all the way to the bank.
From er player and manager Billy Martin had it right when he said years before steroid's golden era: "Cheating in baseball is just like hotdogs, French fries and cold cokes." No one cares about it as long as everyone is making money!
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Very rich getting richer, much, much faster-leaving the rest behind
The New York Times' David Cay Johnston reported yesterday that income inequality continued to soar to heights not seen since the days of the robber barons, noting that:
"... the total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans...."
Johnston also wrote:
The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows.
The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.
The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003.
The report is the latest to document the growing concentration of income at the top...."
"... the total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans...."
Johnston also wrote:
The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows.
The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.
The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003.
The report is the latest to document the growing concentration of income at the top...."
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Keith Olberman's special comment on Bush and Iran
Keith Olberman, in a special comment, says that President Bush repeatedly argued that Iran was a threat to the US because it had nuclear weapons when he knew it did not:
We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War Three about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole - or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked - at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so - whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed, were still even remotely plausible.
A pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief. It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: A critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a president manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency: an unapologetic war-monger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself.
We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War Three about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole - or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked - at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so - whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed, were still even remotely plausible.
A pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief. It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: A critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a president manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency: an unapologetic war-monger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Subprime rescue plan forgets American families
Paul Krugman writes that :"... there’s a growing consensus among financial observers that the Paulson (subprime mortagage rescue) plan isn’t mainly intended to achieve real results. The point is, instead, to create the appearance of action, thereby undercutting political support for actual attempts to help families in trouble.
In particular, the Paulson plan is probably an attempt to take the wind out of Barney Frank’s sails. Mr. Frank, the Democratic chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has sponsored legislation that would give judges in bankruptcy cases the ability to rewrite mortgage loan terms. But “Bankers Hope Bush Subprime Plan Will Scuttle House Bill,” as a headline in CongressDaily put it.
As Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard bankruptcy expert, puts it, “The administration’s subprime mortgage plan is the bank lobby’s dream.”
Read Krugman's entire column to see how this plan fails to protect the millions of American families, victims of predatory lending practices, who will lose their homes.
In particular, the Paulson plan is probably an attempt to take the wind out of Barney Frank’s sails. Mr. Frank, the Democratic chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has sponsored legislation that would give judges in bankruptcy cases the ability to rewrite mortgage loan terms. But “Bankers Hope Bush Subprime Plan Will Scuttle House Bill,” as a headline in CongressDaily put it.
As Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard bankruptcy expert, puts it, “The administration’s subprime mortgage plan is the bank lobby’s dream.”
Read Krugman's entire column to see how this plan fails to protect the millions of American families, victims of predatory lending practices, who will lose their homes.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
UWM breaks promises to east side neighborhoods
For several years east side community residents have been meeting with top UWM officials in an effort to address the escalating student behavior problems associated with the University's rapid and uncontrolled growth. While the University’s administration has repeatedly promised to work with the neighborhoods, its record increases in enrollment have undermined those commitments. As a result, neighborhood problems have intensified and the quality of life in the residential areas has deteriorated:
*The neighborhoods adjacent to the University are the only ones in the city that have experienced an increase in absentee landlords.
*Vandalism and violent student behavior have increased as the number of student party houses has soared.
*As families have been moved out in response to aberrant and unacceptable student behavior, stable residential neighborhoods have become transient and assaults and vandalism have increased.
*Property destruction by students who have no commitment to the neighborhood has increased and in some areas the housing stock has deteriorated.
In meetings with leaders of four neighborhood organizations and state elected officials two years ago, Chancellor Carlos Santiago and Provost Rita Cheng stated unequivocally that UWM recognized the problem of being a landlocked campus with increasing enrollment. Even before its recent record enrollment increases, UWM with 331 students per acre was far denser than any other University of Wisconsin campus. Its closest rival was UW Lacrosse at only 76 students per acre. Santiago and Cheng promised that enrollment increases would be modest and come only from increased retention.
Today’s MJ Sentinel article suggests that the University's top administrators have not kept their promise to the community.
UWM has experienced record enrollment increases in at least the last two years and led the entire UW system this year.
The University has not negotiated with its eastside neighbors in good faith and has ignored the neighborhood’s concerns.
It is apparent that the University's leadership thinks it can pacify east side residents and elected officials with promises and police patrols (which divert anti-crime resources from more problematic areas of Milwaukee), while exacerbating the problem by recruiting more and more students to its landlocked east side campus.
The University's failure to keep its promises to the residents of the east side residential neighborhoods cannot be tolerated.
If UWM wants, as it claims, to be a neighborhood partner, it needs to cap its east side enrollment, abandon plans to purchase Columbia Hospital and convert it to a dorm, and support the community's effort to expand Chapter 17, the University disciplinary code so that it covers off campus behavior.
A failure by the University’s leadership to respond responsibly to these legitimate neighborhood concerns will lead to increased tensions between UWM and the neighborhood residents whose taxes support it.
*The neighborhoods adjacent to the University are the only ones in the city that have experienced an increase in absentee landlords.
*Vandalism and violent student behavior have increased as the number of student party houses has soared.
*As families have been moved out in response to aberrant and unacceptable student behavior, stable residential neighborhoods have become transient and assaults and vandalism have increased.
*Property destruction by students who have no commitment to the neighborhood has increased and in some areas the housing stock has deteriorated.
In meetings with leaders of four neighborhood organizations and state elected officials two years ago, Chancellor Carlos Santiago and Provost Rita Cheng stated unequivocally that UWM recognized the problem of being a landlocked campus with increasing enrollment. Even before its recent record enrollment increases, UWM with 331 students per acre was far denser than any other University of Wisconsin campus. Its closest rival was UW Lacrosse at only 76 students per acre. Santiago and Cheng promised that enrollment increases would be modest and come only from increased retention.
Today’s MJ Sentinel article suggests that the University's top administrators have not kept their promise to the community.
UWM has experienced record enrollment increases in at least the last two years and led the entire UW system this year.
The University has not negotiated with its eastside neighbors in good faith and has ignored the neighborhood’s concerns.
It is apparent that the University's leadership thinks it can pacify east side residents and elected officials with promises and police patrols (which divert anti-crime resources from more problematic areas of Milwaukee), while exacerbating the problem by recruiting more and more students to its landlocked east side campus.
The University's failure to keep its promises to the residents of the east side residential neighborhoods cannot be tolerated.
If UWM wants, as it claims, to be a neighborhood partner, it needs to cap its east side enrollment, abandon plans to purchase Columbia Hospital and convert it to a dorm, and support the community's effort to expand Chapter 17, the University disciplinary code so that it covers off campus behavior.
A failure by the University’s leadership to respond responsibly to these legitimate neighborhood concerns will lead to increased tensions between UWM and the neighborhood residents whose taxes support it.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
It's too late to say your sorry for making poisonous toy beads
I thought I was reading the Onion when I saw the headline: "Chinese company says its sorry for making poisonous toy beads"
But this was a headline in a Business Section article in none other than the New York Times!
A statement, issued by the Hong Kong company that manufactured millions of poisonous toy beads in mainland China, JSSY Ltd., read: “Our apologies to all the children who ate the beads by accident and their parents, and overseas consumers. We apologize for all the negative effect caused by this incident to China manufacturers. We apologize for the negative effect on ‘Made in China.'"
Is this an apology or damage control for China Incorporated?
While expressing regret over producing poisonous beads. most of JSSY's apology focuses on the public relations disaster, "the negative effect," that the production of harmful toys could have on Chinese manufacturing companies.
Carter Keithley, the president of the Toy Industry Association in the United States, confirmed this when he said at a toy industry conference two weeks ago in Guangzhou that the bead recall had made it harder for American toy vendors to promise consumers that China was stepping up its vigilance.
“This latest incident has made it extremely awkward for us to continue that defense,” he said.
As is usually the case, the company's incentive for using beads made of poisonous chemicals was a higher rate of profit.
Mr. Liao, chairman and owner of JSSY, said that his company had chosen a glue ingredient for the beads that cost half as much as the glue ingredient that the beads’ main distributor, Moose Enterprise of Australia, thought JSSY was using.
Liang Shuhe, a deputy director general of China’s ministry of commerce, seemed to be excusing Chinese companies that have been found to use unsafe material in producing a range of toys from beads to Mattel products to the Thomas the Train Engine when he said: "Chinese toy makers faced narrowing profit margins — a result of rising wages and the appreciation of the yuan against the dollar — but should still meet safety standards."
Hand ringing and apologies don't alter the fact that toy manufacturing has relocated to China because it is cheaper-wages are lower and labor and environmental protections are virtually non-existent.
If manufacturers award contracts solely on price, they are creating perverse incentives that lead to abusive labor practices, the use of cheap, unsafe chemicals and materials, and environmental degradation.
The United States has only one full-time employee to test imported toys despite recalls in the last two months of more than 13 million Chinese made toys with lead levels that sometimes reached 200 times the safety limit. Remarkably, the Bush administration is actively opposing efforts to increase the number of inspectors and strengthen the Consumer Protection Agency's enforcement tools.
In ECON 101 we learned that the consumer is sovereign! But unsafe toys are not a rational consumer choice!
Poisonous beads and lead painted toys are the byproduct of an unregulated international economy designed by transnational corporations and their free trade accomplices that places a premium on low cost production and devalues quality. Unfortunately, dangerous toys are lining the shelves of your local big box retailer this holiday season.
The on-line title of the Times article has been sanitized to read:" Producer of Poisonous Toy Beads Issues Apology." Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
That begs the real question many consumers are asking this holiday season: can we be sure that the toys we buy for our kids and grand kids won't kill them?
Otherwise as the Kinks' song goes: "It's too late to say your sorry!"
But this was a headline in a Business Section article in none other than the New York Times!
A statement, issued by the Hong Kong company that manufactured millions of poisonous toy beads in mainland China, JSSY Ltd., read: “Our apologies to all the children who ate the beads by accident and their parents, and overseas consumers. We apologize for all the negative effect caused by this incident to China manufacturers. We apologize for the negative effect on ‘Made in China.'"
Is this an apology or damage control for China Incorporated?
While expressing regret over producing poisonous beads. most of JSSY's apology focuses on the public relations disaster, "the negative effect," that the production of harmful toys could have on Chinese manufacturing companies.
Carter Keithley, the president of the Toy Industry Association in the United States, confirmed this when he said at a toy industry conference two weeks ago in Guangzhou that the bead recall had made it harder for American toy vendors to promise consumers that China was stepping up its vigilance.
“This latest incident has made it extremely awkward for us to continue that defense,” he said.
As is usually the case, the company's incentive for using beads made of poisonous chemicals was a higher rate of profit.
Mr. Liao, chairman and owner of JSSY, said that his company had chosen a glue ingredient for the beads that cost half as much as the glue ingredient that the beads’ main distributor, Moose Enterprise of Australia, thought JSSY was using.
Liang Shuhe, a deputy director general of China’s ministry of commerce, seemed to be excusing Chinese companies that have been found to use unsafe material in producing a range of toys from beads to Mattel products to the Thomas the Train Engine when he said: "Chinese toy makers faced narrowing profit margins — a result of rising wages and the appreciation of the yuan against the dollar — but should still meet safety standards."
Hand ringing and apologies don't alter the fact that toy manufacturing has relocated to China because it is cheaper-wages are lower and labor and environmental protections are virtually non-existent.
If manufacturers award contracts solely on price, they are creating perverse incentives that lead to abusive labor practices, the use of cheap, unsafe chemicals and materials, and environmental degradation.
The United States has only one full-time employee to test imported toys despite recalls in the last two months of more than 13 million Chinese made toys with lead levels that sometimes reached 200 times the safety limit. Remarkably, the Bush administration is actively opposing efforts to increase the number of inspectors and strengthen the Consumer Protection Agency's enforcement tools.
In ECON 101 we learned that the consumer is sovereign! But unsafe toys are not a rational consumer choice!
Poisonous beads and lead painted toys are the byproduct of an unregulated international economy designed by transnational corporations and their free trade accomplices that places a premium on low cost production and devalues quality. Unfortunately, dangerous toys are lining the shelves of your local big box retailer this holiday season.
The on-line title of the Times article has been sanitized to read:" Producer of Poisonous Toy Beads Issues Apology." Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
That begs the real question many consumers are asking this holiday season: can we be sure that the toys we buy for our kids and grand kids won't kill them?
Otherwise as the Kinks' song goes: "It's too late to say your sorry!"
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Governor Doyle: Wisconsin's technical colleges are doors of opportunity
In late October, immediately after signing Wisconsin's budget, Governor Jim Doyle, addressed the state convention of the American Federation of Teachers.
The Governor spoke passionately about the importance of Wisconsin's technical colleges which he called the state's "doors of opportunity."
A portion of the speech can be viewed below.
The Governor spoke passionately about the importance of Wisconsin's technical colleges which he called the state's "doors of opportunity."
A portion of the speech can be viewed below.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Bush's sudden passion for fiscal discipline is hypocrtical
The New York Times wrote today that:
Mr. Bush’s sudden passion for fiscal discipline is hypocritical...
This White House is guilty of runaway spending — on the war and on tax cuts for the rich. Ending the war and rolling back excessive tax cuts are the way to control spending, not cutting needed government services."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
In fact, I did say it myself when on September 29, 2007 I wrote:
The two main causes of the Bush era deficits are its high end tax cuts and the War in Iraq.
Congressional Budget Office data show that Bush's tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits. Legislation enacted since 2001 has added almost $2.3 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2006, with half of the deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and only a sixth to increases in domestic spending).
56.5% of these tax cuts went to the richest 10% of wage earners, those averaging $256,000. Only 14.7% went to the bottom 60% who average $44,000.
Unlike in previous wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending."It's fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed," says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank in Washington. "But eventually everything has to be paid for."
And the bill is growing!
Just last week President Bush requested an additional $42.3 billion in “emergency” funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. If passed, the 2008 war bill will be almost $190 billion, the same as the 10 year Farm Bill increase the Journal singled out for criticism and the largest single-year total for these wars. It is an increase of 15 percent from 2007.
It will bring the year end total for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since Sept. 11, 2001 to $800 billion, still less than half the $2 trillion total projected cost.
As Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen once said about the Defense budget, "a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money"-money that could buy a lot of healthcare, infrastructure, early childhood education or deficit reduction!
Read the entire New York Times editorial here.
Mr. Bush’s sudden passion for fiscal discipline is hypocritical...
This White House is guilty of runaway spending — on the war and on tax cuts for the rich. Ending the war and rolling back excessive tax cuts are the way to control spending, not cutting needed government services."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
In fact, I did say it myself when on September 29, 2007 I wrote:
The two main causes of the Bush era deficits are its high end tax cuts and the War in Iraq.
Congressional Budget Office data show that Bush's tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits. Legislation enacted since 2001 has added almost $2.3 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2006, with half of the deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and only a sixth to increases in domestic spending).
56.5% of these tax cuts went to the richest 10% of wage earners, those averaging $256,000. Only 14.7% went to the bottom 60% who average $44,000.
Unlike in previous wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending."It's fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed," says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank in Washington. "But eventually everything has to be paid for."
And the bill is growing!
Just last week President Bush requested an additional $42.3 billion in “emergency” funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. If passed, the 2008 war bill will be almost $190 billion, the same as the 10 year Farm Bill increase the Journal singled out for criticism and the largest single-year total for these wars. It is an increase of 15 percent from 2007.
It will bring the year end total for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since Sept. 11, 2001 to $800 billion, still less than half the $2 trillion total projected cost.
As Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen once said about the Defense budget, "a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money"-money that could buy a lot of healthcare, infrastructure, early childhood education or deficit reduction!
Read the entire New York Times editorial here.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Illegal immigrant rescues boy
Man was boy's ‘angel’ after mom dies in Ariz. desert van crash, officials say
The Associated Press
PHOENIX - A 9-year-old boy looking for help after his mother crashed their van in the southern Arizona desert was rescued by a man entering the U.S. illegally, who stayed with him until help arrived the next day, an official said.
Jesus Manuel Cordova, the man illegally entering the states, likely saved the boy, according to Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada who said his actions should remind people not to quickly characterize illegal immigrants as criminals.
“They do get demonized for a lot of reasons, and they do a lot of good. Obviously this is one example of what an individual can do,” he said.
You can read the complete story about this remarkable story here
The Associated Press
PHOENIX - A 9-year-old boy looking for help after his mother crashed their van in the southern Arizona desert was rescued by a man entering the U.S. illegally, who stayed with him until help arrived the next day, an official said.
Jesus Manuel Cordova, the man illegally entering the states, likely saved the boy, according to Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada who said his actions should remind people not to quickly characterize illegal immigrants as criminals.
“They do get demonized for a lot of reasons, and they do a lot of good. Obviously this is one example of what an individual can do,” he said.
You can read the complete story about this remarkable story here
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Wisconsin Congressional delegation splits on Peru Free Trade Agreement
Defying appeals from labor leaders, environmentalists and foes of free-trade, nearly half the Democrats in the House joined with the Bush administration’ to support a trade liberalization agreement with Peru that the White House hopes will lead to the approval of future trade deals in Panama, Colombia and South Korea .
A New York Times article by Steven Weisman explained why so many Democrats, several of whom were elected because they opposed free trade deals that lacked labor and environmental protections, supported President Bush in passing the Peru Trade Bill:
"Democrats from the prosperous areas of the East and West Coast have become especially responsive, many Democrats say, to the desire of Wall Street and the high technology, health, pharmaceutical and entertainment industries to expand their sales overseas. These industries have also become major Democratic contributors."
So Speaker Nancy Pelosi's lieutenants "whipped" the party caucus energetically and did better than expected--109 Dems voting for the Peru trade bill, 116 Dems against- to please Wall Street and drug companies!
Wisconsin's Congressional representatives split their vote. Democrats Dave Obey, Steve Kagen and Tammy Baldwin voted against the bill. Democrat Ron Kind and Republicans Tom Petri, James Sensenbrenner and Paul Ryan voted yes. Milwaukee's Gwen Moore (D) missed the vote.
The economic consequences of the new trade agreement with Peru are relatively minor. It will cause some U.S. job loss because it contains incentives for U.S companies to relocate and it will hurt Peruvians by opening their agricultural market to exports.
Its impact will not compare to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has led to significant job loss in Wisconsin and the nation.
Proponents of NAFTA promised that it would generate large numbers of net new good jobs. Instead, over a million jobs that would otherwise have been created in the US have been lost, and wages for workers without a college education have been fallen.
In Milwaukee we have seen Master Lock, Tower (A.O. Smith), Briggs and Stratton, Delphi and Johnson Controls among others move thousands of family supporting jobs to Mexico and use the threat of relocation to reduce their remaining Milwaukee employees' wages.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, Wisconsin lost 25,403 jobs because of NAFTA.
Nor has NAFTA helped Mexico. Real wages of Mexican manufacturing workers have fallen despite a decade of strong GDP growth and the agricultural sector has been devastated. There have been substantial increases in Mexico's informal sector work such as street vending and unpaid family work in stores and restaurants. One major study has concluded that "NAFTA has not helped the Mexican economy keep pace with the growing demand for jobs…The agricultural sector, where almost a fifth of Mexicans still work, has lost 1.3 million jobs"
While the Peru Free Trade Agreement will not be as bad as NAFTA, it will hurt workers in both countries.
In political terms, however, the Peru Free Trade Agreement delivers an ominous message - that when faced with a choice between money and their own rank-and-file, the Democratic leaders in the House chose the money. They chose the money even though it required them to pass legislation with Republican votes. Even when a majority of their own caucus were opposed. Even when it meant handing the shrinking president, George W. Bush, a rare legislative victory.
If the Democrats voted for this bill to prove they aren't anti-trade, the question is who do they think they need to prove that to?
If they voted to generate contributions from Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies, they may increase their campaign contributions, but lose votes!
The US economy is staggering. The housing market continues to free fall-foreclosures are skyrocketing and housing starts are at a four year low. Bankruptcies and homelessness are on the rise. There is a severe credit crunch, consumer confidence is plummeting, the auto industry is in trouble and job growth is anemic.
The cost of food, gasoline, health care, higher education and utilities are soaring at a time when millions of Americans are surviving by the grace of their credit cards. The resultant economic insecurity helped Democrats win control of both Houses of Congress in the last elections.
Despite the President's unpopularity, a Democratic victory in November 2008 is not assured. Congress's approval ratings are no higher.
If Democrats turn a deaf ear to the economic insecurities of the nation's working men and women as so many did on this vote, they may find these men and women staying home in November. That would be unfortunate indeed.
A New York Times article by Steven Weisman explained why so many Democrats, several of whom were elected because they opposed free trade deals that lacked labor and environmental protections, supported President Bush in passing the Peru Trade Bill:
"Democrats from the prosperous areas of the East and West Coast have become especially responsive, many Democrats say, to the desire of Wall Street and the high technology, health, pharmaceutical and entertainment industries to expand their sales overseas. These industries have also become major Democratic contributors."
So Speaker Nancy Pelosi's lieutenants "whipped" the party caucus energetically and did better than expected--109 Dems voting for the Peru trade bill, 116 Dems against- to please Wall Street and drug companies!
Wisconsin's Congressional representatives split their vote. Democrats Dave Obey, Steve Kagen and Tammy Baldwin voted against the bill. Democrat Ron Kind and Republicans Tom Petri, James Sensenbrenner and Paul Ryan voted yes. Milwaukee's Gwen Moore (D) missed the vote.
The economic consequences of the new trade agreement with Peru are relatively minor. It will cause some U.S. job loss because it contains incentives for U.S companies to relocate and it will hurt Peruvians by opening their agricultural market to exports.
Its impact will not compare to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has led to significant job loss in Wisconsin and the nation.
Proponents of NAFTA promised that it would generate large numbers of net new good jobs. Instead, over a million jobs that would otherwise have been created in the US have been lost, and wages for workers without a college education have been fallen.
In Milwaukee we have seen Master Lock, Tower (A.O. Smith), Briggs and Stratton, Delphi and Johnson Controls among others move thousands of family supporting jobs to Mexico and use the threat of relocation to reduce their remaining Milwaukee employees' wages.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, Wisconsin lost 25,403 jobs because of NAFTA.
Nor has NAFTA helped Mexico. Real wages of Mexican manufacturing workers have fallen despite a decade of strong GDP growth and the agricultural sector has been devastated. There have been substantial increases in Mexico's informal sector work such as street vending and unpaid family work in stores and restaurants. One major study has concluded that "NAFTA has not helped the Mexican economy keep pace with the growing demand for jobs…The agricultural sector, where almost a fifth of Mexicans still work, has lost 1.3 million jobs"
While the Peru Free Trade Agreement will not be as bad as NAFTA, it will hurt workers in both countries.
In political terms, however, the Peru Free Trade Agreement delivers an ominous message - that when faced with a choice between money and their own rank-and-file, the Democratic leaders in the House chose the money. They chose the money even though it required them to pass legislation with Republican votes. Even when a majority of their own caucus were opposed. Even when it meant handing the shrinking president, George W. Bush, a rare legislative victory.
If the Democrats voted for this bill to prove they aren't anti-trade, the question is who do they think they need to prove that to?
If they voted to generate contributions from Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies, they may increase their campaign contributions, but lose votes!
The US economy is staggering. The housing market continues to free fall-foreclosures are skyrocketing and housing starts are at a four year low. Bankruptcies and homelessness are on the rise. There is a severe credit crunch, consumer confidence is plummeting, the auto industry is in trouble and job growth is anemic.
The cost of food, gasoline, health care, higher education and utilities are soaring at a time when millions of Americans are surviving by the grace of their credit cards. The resultant economic insecurity helped Democrats win control of both Houses of Congress in the last elections.
Despite the President's unpopularity, a Democratic victory in November 2008 is not assured. Congress's approval ratings are no higher.
If Democrats turn a deaf ear to the economic insecurities of the nation's working men and women as so many did on this vote, they may find these men and women staying home in November. That would be unfortunate indeed.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Badger tax exemption is fiscally irresponsible!
Guest Editorial
by Chuck Gobel
In a stunning display of bipartisanship, on October 30, ten Republican assembly persons were joined by four Democrat assembly persons to introduce AB 559.
In an equally stunning display of legislative efficiency, on November 14, seven Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee were joined by six Democrat members of the Ways and Means Committee and voted unanimously in favor of the bill and to move the bill to the entire Assembly.
The fiscal note on the bill, which arrived on November 6, indicates that passage of the bill would decrease revenue at both the state and local level. What does this bill do to inspire such swift action in a state that is so strapped for cash at both the state and local level?
Here’s the answer: “Alvarez wants tax exemption” (MJS, November 15, 2007, p7C) The exemption sought is for donations made for preferential treatment to obtain tickets for sporting events. Currently the major universities (UW, UW-M, Marquette, and UW-Green Bay) demand such a donation. According to the article, “The right to purchase is an amount paid to a school or institution in excess of the face value of a season ticket.” (Note: Unbelievably, apparently, the Green Bay Packers already have been granted this exemption.)
This is not a donation! If anyone is confused as to whether this demand is a donation or the ticket price, try to get the ticket without the donation.
This ‘donation’ is the price of the ticket, and as such should be taxed in the same manner as any other ticket is taxed. (Under the bill, the amount that would be a direct sales tax becomes an income and franchise tax credit equal to the sales tax. And just to sweeten the deal, if the credit exceeds the tax liability, the excess can be carried over to a future year.
Why should we, as citizens who pay sales taxes on hosts of things we purchase and need everyday, be concerned?
In addition to the equity issue, which is huge, there is the financial issue. As reported in the MJS article, Alvarez and Vince Sweeney, senior associate athletic director, said if the Department of Revenue were to start collecting the tax on this “donation”, the Athletic Department would owe $400,000 in the first year. Moreover they said if the tax were collected retroactively to 2001 the department would owe up to $2 million dollars. Whoa! Six years of avoiding tax payments! Scofflaws take heart!
Undoubtedly, with the bipartisan support in the Assembly and a Republican and a Democrat sponsor in the Senate, AB 559 is, as the saying goes, “good to go!”
The governor, when it reaches him, should just put AB 559 in his pocket and let it die a quiet and well deserved death.
by Chuck Gobel
In a stunning display of bipartisanship, on October 30, ten Republican assembly persons were joined by four Democrat assembly persons to introduce AB 559.
In an equally stunning display of legislative efficiency, on November 14, seven Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee were joined by six Democrat members of the Ways and Means Committee and voted unanimously in favor of the bill and to move the bill to the entire Assembly.
The fiscal note on the bill, which arrived on November 6, indicates that passage of the bill would decrease revenue at both the state and local level. What does this bill do to inspire such swift action in a state that is so strapped for cash at both the state and local level?
Here’s the answer: “Alvarez wants tax exemption” (MJS, November 15, 2007, p7C) The exemption sought is for donations made for preferential treatment to obtain tickets for sporting events. Currently the major universities (UW, UW-M, Marquette, and UW-Green Bay) demand such a donation. According to the article, “The right to purchase is an amount paid to a school or institution in excess of the face value of a season ticket.” (Note: Unbelievably, apparently, the Green Bay Packers already have been granted this exemption.)
This is not a donation! If anyone is confused as to whether this demand is a donation or the ticket price, try to get the ticket without the donation.
This ‘donation’ is the price of the ticket, and as such should be taxed in the same manner as any other ticket is taxed. (Under the bill, the amount that would be a direct sales tax becomes an income and franchise tax credit equal to the sales tax. And just to sweeten the deal, if the credit exceeds the tax liability, the excess can be carried over to a future year.
Why should we, as citizens who pay sales taxes on hosts of things we purchase and need everyday, be concerned?
In addition to the equity issue, which is huge, there is the financial issue. As reported in the MJS article, Alvarez and Vince Sweeney, senior associate athletic director, said if the Department of Revenue were to start collecting the tax on this “donation”, the Athletic Department would owe $400,000 in the first year. Moreover they said if the tax were collected retroactively to 2001 the department would owe up to $2 million dollars. Whoa! Six years of avoiding tax payments! Scofflaws take heart!
Undoubtedly, with the bipartisan support in the Assembly and a Republican and a Democrat sponsor in the Senate, AB 559 is, as the saying goes, “good to go!”
The governor, when it reaches him, should just put AB 559 in his pocket and let it die a quiet and well deserved death.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Center for American Progress videos
The Center for American Progress , a progressive think tank, has released two good television spots. Check them out.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Dave Obey stands up for Wisconsin's workers!
Early last week, President Bush vetoed a bill that financed education, health care and job training. On November 15th, Congress failed to get the two-thirds vote (277-141) needed to override the veto.
The $150.7 billion legislation would increase our nation's investment in education by$3.2 billion including an additional $25 million for the Carl Perkins Basic State Grant, one of the only sources of federal support for adult vocational education.
In 2004, fully 32.3% of MATC's grads received services provided by Perkins while over 20% of all MATC students received support services and instruction through these funds.
Perkins was last reauthorized in 1998, and President Bush has repeatedly tried to kill the program. Last year, states received about $1.3 billion from the program, with about 40 percent going to two-year colleges. The proposed increase was the first in six years for this program whose real value (adjusted for inflation) has fallen to $950 million.
Wisconsin's David R. Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, nailed it when he denounced Mr. Bush for rejecting the bill:
“The same president who is asking us to spend another $200 billion on the misguided war in Iraq and is insisting on providing $60 billion in tax cuts next year to folks who make over a million bucks a year” is “now refusing to provide a $6 billion increase to crucial domestic investments in education, health care, medical research and worker protections,” Mr. Obey said.
In an editorial today the Journal Sentinel mischaracterizes President Bush's action by suggesting that his veto may have been based on a principled opposition to earmarks. If that was the case, he would never have signed similar bills laden with almost twice as many earmarks when his Republican allies controlled Congress.
The President is hiding behind fiscal responsibility to promote his costly agenda of high end tax cuts (1.6 trillion) and military adventurism (projected cost of $2 trillion).
Congressman Obey is right. We need to make strategic investments in the nation and Wisconsin's labor force. The education and training bill should be passed and Carl D. Perkins increased.
The $150.7 billion legislation would increase our nation's investment in education by$3.2 billion including an additional $25 million for the Carl Perkins Basic State Grant, one of the only sources of federal support for adult vocational education.
The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act provides federal grants to community colleges, including Wisconsin's technical colleges, and high schools to train students from low-income families for jobs. Educating these students is the key to solving the Wisconsin's growing shortage of skilled workers, broadly recognized as the biggest obstacle to the state's economic growth, as well as one strategy for tackling Milwaukee's high poverty rate.
At the Milwaukee Area Technical College(MATC), the state's largest two-year college with over 50,000 students and 125 associate degree and diplomma programs, Carl D. Perkins funds the bilingual, multicultural and special needs offices. Computer labs, academic support centers, pre-college instruction necessary for entry into skills training and English as a Second Language classes are also financed through this program.In 2004, fully 32.3% of MATC's grads received services provided by Perkins while over 20% of all MATC students received support services and instruction through these funds.
Perkins was last reauthorized in 1998, and President Bush has repeatedly tried to kill the program. Last year, states received about $1.3 billion from the program, with about 40 percent going to two-year colleges. The proposed increase was the first in six years for this program whose real value (adjusted for inflation) has fallen to $950 million.
Wisconsin's David R. Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, nailed it when he denounced Mr. Bush for rejecting the bill:
“The same president who is asking us to spend another $200 billion on the misguided war in Iraq and is insisting on providing $60 billion in tax cuts next year to folks who make over a million bucks a year” is “now refusing to provide a $6 billion increase to crucial domestic investments in education, health care, medical research and worker protections,” Mr. Obey said.
In an editorial today the Journal Sentinel mischaracterizes President Bush's action by suggesting that his veto may have been based on a principled opposition to earmarks. If that was the case, he would never have signed similar bills laden with almost twice as many earmarks when his Republican allies controlled Congress.
The President is hiding behind fiscal responsibility to promote his costly agenda of high end tax cuts (1.6 trillion) and military adventurism (projected cost of $2 trillion).
Congressman Obey is right. We need to make strategic investments in the nation and Wisconsin's labor force. The education and training bill should be passed and Carl D. Perkins increased.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Sheriff Clarke's hypocrisy
Sheriff David Clarke routinely denies the existence of Milwaukee's social and economic problems.
The good Sheriff ignores more than a century of research dating back at least to the 1840's Irish immigration that links high rates of poverty and joblessness to a wide range of social problems and pathologies.
Clarke routinely lectures the community, often in letters to wingnut Charlie Sykes, about the community's alleged lack of high moral standards.
But when it comes to his own deputies violating department policy, breaking the law and lying about it, Milwaukee's morality cop has a different and lower standard:
"If you're going to fire every cop who violates the Constitution," Clarke explained, "we're not going to have many left."
WOW! Talk about not practicing what you preach!
Either the Sheriff is a policy schizophrenic or he's a total hypocrite!
Before he pens another one of his sanctimonious letters, Mr. Clarke ought to take hard look in the mirror or better yet read one of those letters about "high standards!"
The good Sheriff ignores more than a century of research dating back at least to the 1840's Irish immigration that links high rates of poverty and joblessness to a wide range of social problems and pathologies.
Clarke routinely lectures the community, often in letters to wingnut Charlie Sykes, about the community's alleged lack of high moral standards.
But when it comes to his own deputies violating department policy, breaking the law and lying about it, Milwaukee's morality cop has a different and lower standard:
"If you're going to fire every cop who violates the Constitution," Clarke explained, "we're not going to have many left."
WOW! Talk about not practicing what you preach!
Either the Sheriff is a policy schizophrenic or he's a total hypocrite!
Before he pens another one of his sanctimonious letters, Mr. Clarke ought to take hard look in the mirror or better yet read one of those letters about "high standards!"
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Red Wines Help Kill Foodborne Pathogens
Here's another reason to pour yourself a glass or two of Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Pinot Noir or Shiraz.
According to research conducted by the University of Missouri these wines make for potent bacteria killers.
Now before you pour another glass of your favorite vino under the pretense of killing harmful pathogens, two cautions. Not all red varieties were found to be helpful in killing harmful bacteria. Red Zinfandel, one of my favorites, for example, exhibited no inhibitory properties on the bacteria. Second, the research was conducted in test tubes which is not enough to determine if a similar observed action would occur in humans who normally don't live in test tubes. Nothing was said about glass houses!
Whatever! It's nice to know that the red wine you covet not only tastes good, but actually is good for you too.
L'Chaim!
According to research conducted by the University of Missouri these wines make for potent bacteria killers.
Now before you pour another glass of your favorite vino under the pretense of killing harmful pathogens, two cautions. Not all red varieties were found to be helpful in killing harmful bacteria. Red Zinfandel, one of my favorites, for example, exhibited no inhibitory properties on the bacteria. Second, the research was conducted in test tubes which is not enough to determine if a similar observed action would occur in humans who normally don't live in test tubes. Nothing was said about glass houses!
Whatever! It's nice to know that the red wine you covet not only tastes good, but actually is good for you too.
L'Chaim!
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Navy interrogation instructor-waterboarding is the drowning torture
Last week the U.S Senate confirmed President Bush's appointment of retired federal judge Michael Mukasey as the nation's 81st attorney general despite Mukasey's adamant refusal to declare waterboarding illegal.
Waterboarding is a centuries-old interrogation method in which a prisoner’s face is covered with cloth and then doused with water to create a feeling of suffocation. It was used in 2002 and 2003 by C.I.A. officers questioning at least three high-level terrorism suspects, government officials say.
Waterboarding is specifically banned by the Army Field Manual, and it is plainly illegal under the federal Anti-Torture Act, federal assault statutes, the Detainee Treatment Act, the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions.
As the New York Times editorialized today: " It is hard to see how any nominee worthy of the position of attorney general could fail to answer “yes.”
Mukasey who fills a vacancy left when Alberto Gonzales resigned amid questions about his credibility, was appointed with the support of Democratic Party Senators, Chuck Schumer (NY)and Diane Feinstein (CA).
Frank Rich argues that the failure of Democrats to block this appointment has broader implications.
" What makes the Democrats’ Mukasey cave-in so depressing is that it shows how far even exemplary sticklers for the law like Senators Feinstein and Schumer have lowered democracy’s bar. When they argued that Mr. Mukasey should be confirmed because he’s not as horrifying as Mr. Gonzales or as the acting attorney general who might get the job otherwise, they sounded whipped. After all these years of Bush-Cheney torture, they’ll say things they know are false just to move on.
In a Times OpEd article justifying his reluctant vote to confirm a man Dick Cheney promised would make “an outstanding attorney general,” Mr. Schumer observed that waterboarding is already “illegal under current laws and conventions.” But then he vowed to support a new bill “explicitly” making waterboarding illegal because Mr. Mukasey pledged to enforce it. Whatever. Even if Congress were to pass such legislation, Mr. Bush would veto it, and even if the veto were by some miracle overturned, Mr. Bush would void the law with a “signing statement.” That’s what he effectively did in 2005 when he signed a bill that its authors thought outlawed the torture of detainees.
That Mr. Schumer is willing to employ blatant Catch-22 illogic to pretend that Mr. Mukasey’s pledge on waterboarding has any force shows what pathetic crumbs the Democrats will settle for after all these years of being beaten down..."
Both of Wisconsin's Senators, Russ Finegold and Herb Kohl, voted against the Mukasey appointment.
Malcolm Nance, a former Navy interrogation instructor who trained American servicemen in how to cope with waterboarding, was not so evasive in his testimony to Congress, flatly stating saying that water boarding is not a simulation of torture, but actually the "drowning torture" itself.
Nance's interview with NSNBC is posted below.
Waterboarding is a centuries-old interrogation method in which a prisoner’s face is covered with cloth and then doused with water to create a feeling of suffocation. It was used in 2002 and 2003 by C.I.A. officers questioning at least three high-level terrorism suspects, government officials say.
Waterboarding is specifically banned by the Army Field Manual, and it is plainly illegal under the federal Anti-Torture Act, federal assault statutes, the Detainee Treatment Act, the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions.
As the New York Times editorialized today: " It is hard to see how any nominee worthy of the position of attorney general could fail to answer “yes.”
Mukasey who fills a vacancy left when Alberto Gonzales resigned amid questions about his credibility, was appointed with the support of Democratic Party Senators, Chuck Schumer (NY)and Diane Feinstein (CA).
Frank Rich argues that the failure of Democrats to block this appointment has broader implications.
" What makes the Democrats’ Mukasey cave-in so depressing is that it shows how far even exemplary sticklers for the law like Senators Feinstein and Schumer have lowered democracy’s bar. When they argued that Mr. Mukasey should be confirmed because he’s not as horrifying as Mr. Gonzales or as the acting attorney general who might get the job otherwise, they sounded whipped. After all these years of Bush-Cheney torture, they’ll say things they know are false just to move on.
In a Times OpEd article justifying his reluctant vote to confirm a man Dick Cheney promised would make “an outstanding attorney general,” Mr. Schumer observed that waterboarding is already “illegal under current laws and conventions.” But then he vowed to support a new bill “explicitly” making waterboarding illegal because Mr. Mukasey pledged to enforce it. Whatever. Even if Congress were to pass such legislation, Mr. Bush would veto it, and even if the veto were by some miracle overturned, Mr. Bush would void the law with a “signing statement.” That’s what he effectively did in 2005 when he signed a bill that its authors thought outlawed the torture of detainees.
That Mr. Schumer is willing to employ blatant Catch-22 illogic to pretend that Mr. Mukasey’s pledge on waterboarding has any force shows what pathetic crumbs the Democrats will settle for after all these years of being beaten down..."
Both of Wisconsin's Senators, Russ Finegold and Herb Kohl, voted against the Mukasey appointment.
Malcolm Nance, a former Navy interrogation instructor who trained American servicemen in how to cope with waterboarding, was not so evasive in his testimony to Congress, flatly stating saying that water boarding is not a simulation of torture, but actually the "drowning torture" itself.
Nance's interview with NSNBC is posted below.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Paul Krugman refutes healthcare excuses and lies
In his New York Times Column today, Paul Krugman writes:
The United States spends far more on health care per person than any other nation. Yet we have lower life expectancy than most other rich countries. Furthermore, every other advanced country provides all its citizens with health insurance; only in America is a large fraction of the population uninsured or underinsured.
You might think that these facts would make the case for major reform of America’s health care system — reform that would involve, among other things, learning from other countries’ experience — irrefutable. Instead, however, apologists for the status quo offer a barrage of excuses for our system’s miserable performance.
Krugman devotes the rest of today's column to refuting these excuses, exaggerations and outright lies which have left 47 million American without health care.
Lies? Yes....Lies.
In an earlier Column Krugman had asked why journalists aren't questioning Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani's character after Giuliana lied about prostate cancer survival rates in Britain in an effort to discredit universal health care.
Krugman shows that a man’s chance of dying from prostate cancer is about the same in Britain as it is in America and concludes: So Mr. Giuliani’s supposed killer statistic about the defects of “socialized medicine” is entirely false. In fact, there’s very little evidence that Americans get better health care than the British, which is amazing given the fact that Britain spends only 41 percent as much on health care per person as we do.
You can read that column here.
The United States spends far more on health care per person than any other nation. Yet we have lower life expectancy than most other rich countries. Furthermore, every other advanced country provides all its citizens with health insurance; only in America is a large fraction of the population uninsured or underinsured.
You might think that these facts would make the case for major reform of America’s health care system — reform that would involve, among other things, learning from other countries’ experience — irrefutable. Instead, however, apologists for the status quo offer a barrage of excuses for our system’s miserable performance.
Krugman devotes the rest of today's column to refuting these excuses, exaggerations and outright lies which have left 47 million American without health care.
Lies? Yes....Lies.
In an earlier Column Krugman had asked why journalists aren't questioning Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani's character after Giuliana lied about prostate cancer survival rates in Britain in an effort to discredit universal health care.
Krugman shows that a man’s chance of dying from prostate cancer is about the same in Britain as it is in America and concludes: So Mr. Giuliani’s supposed killer statistic about the defects of “socialized medicine” is entirely false. In fact, there’s very little evidence that Americans get better health care than the British, which is amazing given the fact that Britain spends only 41 percent as much on health care per person as we do.
You can read that column here.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Stiglitz: the economic consequences of Mr. Bush
Nobel laureate and former Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, Joseph E. Stiglitz, has written a scathing critique of the Bush administration's failed economic policies.
In a column entitled "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush," he writes:
When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page.
I can hear an irritated counterthrust already. The president has not driven the United States into a recession during his almost seven years in office. Unemployment stands at a respectable 4.6 percent. Well, fine. But the other side of the ledger groans with distress: a tax code that has become hideously biased in favor of the rich; a national debt that will probably have grown 70 percent by the time this president leaves Washington; a swelling cascade of mortgage defaults; a record near-$850 billion trade deficit; oil prices that are higher than they have ever been; and a dollar so weak that for an American to buy a cup of coffee in London or Paris—or even the Yukon—becomes a venture in high finance.
And it gets worse. After almost seven years of this president, the United States is less prepared than ever to face the future. We have not been educating enough engineers and scientists, people with the skills we will need to compete with China and India. We have not been investing in the kinds of basic research that made us the technological powerhouse of the late 20th century. And although the president now understands—or so he says—that we must begin to wean ourselves from oil and coal, we have on his watch become more deeply dependent on both.
Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that Herbert Hoover, whose policies aggravated the Great Depression, is the odds-on claimant for the mantle “worst president” when it comes to stewardship of the American economy. Once Franklin Roosevelt assumed office and reversed Hoover’s policies, the country began to recover. The economic effects of Bush’s presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America’s being displaced from its position as the world’s richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush.
It's a long, comprehensive critique that is well worth the read. Here's the link.
In a column entitled "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush," he writes:
When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page.
I can hear an irritated counterthrust already. The president has not driven the United States into a recession during his almost seven years in office. Unemployment stands at a respectable 4.6 percent. Well, fine. But the other side of the ledger groans with distress: a tax code that has become hideously biased in favor of the rich; a national debt that will probably have grown 70 percent by the time this president leaves Washington; a swelling cascade of mortgage defaults; a record near-$850 billion trade deficit; oil prices that are higher than they have ever been; and a dollar so weak that for an American to buy a cup of coffee in London or Paris—or even the Yukon—becomes a venture in high finance.
And it gets worse. After almost seven years of this president, the United States is less prepared than ever to face the future. We have not been educating enough engineers and scientists, people with the skills we will need to compete with China and India. We have not been investing in the kinds of basic research that made us the technological powerhouse of the late 20th century. And although the president now understands—or so he says—that we must begin to wean ourselves from oil and coal, we have on his watch become more deeply dependent on both.
Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that Herbert Hoover, whose policies aggravated the Great Depression, is the odds-on claimant for the mantle “worst president” when it comes to stewardship of the American economy. Once Franklin Roosevelt assumed office and reversed Hoover’s policies, the country began to recover. The economic effects of Bush’s presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America’s being displaced from its position as the world’s richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush.
It's a long, comprehensive critique that is well worth the read. Here's the link.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Bush administration seeks return to 19th century laissez faire
The Consumer Protection Agency (CPA) responsible for policing 15,000 consumer goods from toys to tools has seen its budget slashed.
Its staff currently numbers 420, about half its size in the 1980s. Only 15 inspectors are assigned to police imported consumer products ranging from flat screens to toys, a marketplace of 15,000 different products valued at $614 billion in 2006.
There is only one full-time employee to test toys despite recalls in the last two months of more than 13 million Chinese made toys with lead levels that sometimes reached 200 times the safety limit.
Lead is harmful to children because it can accumulate in their nervous system, damaging brain development and causing learning difficulties.
The damage is irreversible.
So what is the response of the Bush administration to the proliferation of unsafe products?
Remarkably, it is actively opposing efforts to increase the number of inspectors and strengthen the agency's enforcement tools.
Reaching back to Adam Smith's 1776 laissez faire playbook, it has urged Congress to reject legislation designed to strengthen the agency ability to regulate harmful or dangerous products.
That's right! Despite the fact that 13 million toys like Thomas toy trains and Mattels's Sesame Street and Nickelodeon characters — including the Elmo Tub Sub, the Dora the Explorer Backpack, and the Giggle Gabber - have been found to be dangerous to children, the Bush administration apparently feels that one inspector is enough!
Nancy A. Nord, the acting chairwoman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, has written two letters to lawmakers urging them to reject the bulk of legislation that would increase the agency’s authority, double its budget and sharply increase its dwindling staff.
Ms. Nord has also opposed provisions that would significantly increase the maximum fines from $1.85 million to $100 million, ban lead completely from all children’s products and make it easier for the government to make public reports of faulty products, protect industry whistle-blowers and prosecute executives of companies that willfully violate laws.
Light was shed on Ms. Nord’s opposition to increasing her agency's capacity when it was disclosed that she had traveled on the industry’s dime, accepting “gift travel” from those with business before the commission.
While it is hard to believe the agency’s lax approach was not affected by nearly 30 trips to places like China, Spain and a golf resort on Hilton Head Island, S.C., Ms. Nord’s opposition is entirely consistent with the the Bush administration's ideological opposition to the regulation of industry. From antitrust to trucking to worker safety, officials appointed by President Bush have sought to reduce regulation of the private marketplace promoting industry self-policing as an alternative.
Bush administrative officials argue in the face of more than a century of evidence that capitalism will self regulate- that corporations will not produce unsafe products because rational consumers will not buy them. From Upton Sinclair's expose of the unsanitary conditions in Chicago's packing houses through the century long production of dangerous products like lead paint and cigarettes to the Ford Pinto gas tank explosions to the Chinese toy lead paint scare, the history of industrial capitalism demonstrates just the opposition.
Consumers have no idea what harmful chemicals and other agents are used in the production of products, pharmaceuticals and even food.
Corporations are legally obligated to pursue the highest rate of returns for their stockholders. And corporate executives' compensation is generally based on short term, quarterly results. Consumer, worker or environmental safety are deemphasized or ignored entirely. As a result, in the world's industrial democracies citizens have turned to their elected governments to enact laws that require that products, pharmaceuticals and food meet safety standards and that guarantee consumers the right to know what the products they buy are made of.
The Bush administration knows that it cannot tell American consumers that it doesn't care about the safety of the products they buy, the air they breath and the water they drink. Taking a page from the Reagan administration it doesn't eliminate regulatory agencies. Rather it slashes their budgets and appoints directors opposed to the agency's mission.
Management lawyers hostile to unions are appointed to run the National Labor Relations Board. Representatives of mining and oil companies head the Environmental Protection Agency. Horse lawyers are appointed to lead FEMA. Foxes are appointed to run the chicken coop.
The results are as predictable as they are bad.
The global economy has intensified the need for regulation. Many of the developing nations lack product safety standards or the mechanisms to enforce standards if they have them.
In large part globalization is nothing more than an effort by US based corporations to escape the regulatory framework constructed by the citizens of this country to tame the ravages of 19th Century industrial capitalism. In their drive to lower their costs of production and increase their profits, corporations search the globe for countries without labor, consumer and environmental regulations.
The only thing standing between your child or grandchild and lead poisoning is the hated government bureaucrat and the consumer protection regulations they enforce. The Bush administration and its minions want to return us to the not so good old days of the 19th Century. It's up to Congress to stop them.
Its staff currently numbers 420, about half its size in the 1980s. Only 15 inspectors are assigned to police imported consumer products ranging from flat screens to toys, a marketplace of 15,000 different products valued at $614 billion in 2006.
There is only one full-time employee to test toys despite recalls in the last two months of more than 13 million Chinese made toys with lead levels that sometimes reached 200 times the safety limit.
Lead is harmful to children because it can accumulate in their nervous system, damaging brain development and causing learning difficulties.
The damage is irreversible.
So what is the response of the Bush administration to the proliferation of unsafe products?
Remarkably, it is actively opposing efforts to increase the number of inspectors and strengthen the agency's enforcement tools.
Reaching back to Adam Smith's 1776 laissez faire playbook, it has urged Congress to reject legislation designed to strengthen the agency ability to regulate harmful or dangerous products.
That's right! Despite the fact that 13 million toys like Thomas toy trains and Mattels's Sesame Street and Nickelodeon characters — including the Elmo Tub Sub, the Dora the Explorer Backpack, and the Giggle Gabber - have been found to be dangerous to children, the Bush administration apparently feels that one inspector is enough!
Nancy A. Nord, the acting chairwoman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, has written two letters to lawmakers urging them to reject the bulk of legislation that would increase the agency’s authority, double its budget and sharply increase its dwindling staff.
Ms. Nord has also opposed provisions that would significantly increase the maximum fines from $1.85 million to $100 million, ban lead completely from all children’s products and make it easier for the government to make public reports of faulty products, protect industry whistle-blowers and prosecute executives of companies that willfully violate laws.
Light was shed on Ms. Nord’s opposition to increasing her agency's capacity when it was disclosed that she had traveled on the industry’s dime, accepting “gift travel” from those with business before the commission.
While it is hard to believe the agency’s lax approach was not affected by nearly 30 trips to places like China, Spain and a golf resort on Hilton Head Island, S.C., Ms. Nord’s opposition is entirely consistent with the the Bush administration's ideological opposition to the regulation of industry. From antitrust to trucking to worker safety, officials appointed by President Bush have sought to reduce regulation of the private marketplace promoting industry self-policing as an alternative.
Bush administrative officials argue in the face of more than a century of evidence that capitalism will self regulate- that corporations will not produce unsafe products because rational consumers will not buy them. From Upton Sinclair's expose of the unsanitary conditions in Chicago's packing houses through the century long production of dangerous products like lead paint and cigarettes to the Ford Pinto gas tank explosions to the Chinese toy lead paint scare, the history of industrial capitalism demonstrates just the opposition.
Consumers have no idea what harmful chemicals and other agents are used in the production of products, pharmaceuticals and even food.
Corporations are legally obligated to pursue the highest rate of returns for their stockholders. And corporate executives' compensation is generally based on short term, quarterly results. Consumer, worker or environmental safety are deemphasized or ignored entirely. As a result, in the world's industrial democracies citizens have turned to their elected governments to enact laws that require that products, pharmaceuticals and food meet safety standards and that guarantee consumers the right to know what the products they buy are made of.
The Bush administration knows that it cannot tell American consumers that it doesn't care about the safety of the products they buy, the air they breath and the water they drink. Taking a page from the Reagan administration it doesn't eliminate regulatory agencies. Rather it slashes their budgets and appoints directors opposed to the agency's mission.
Management lawyers hostile to unions are appointed to run the National Labor Relations Board. Representatives of mining and oil companies head the Environmental Protection Agency. Horse lawyers are appointed to lead FEMA. Foxes are appointed to run the chicken coop.
The results are as predictable as they are bad.
The global economy has intensified the need for regulation. Many of the developing nations lack product safety standards or the mechanisms to enforce standards if they have them.
In large part globalization is nothing more than an effort by US based corporations to escape the regulatory framework constructed by the citizens of this country to tame the ravages of 19th Century industrial capitalism. In their drive to lower their costs of production and increase their profits, corporations search the globe for countries without labor, consumer and environmental regulations.
The only thing standing between your child or grandchild and lead poisoning is the hated government bureaucrat and the consumer protection regulations they enforce. The Bush administration and its minions want to return us to the not so good old days of the 19th Century. It's up to Congress to stop them.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Republicans embrace fear and terror
In the darkest days of the depression with fascism on the march in Europe, Franklin Roosevelt urged his countrymen to resist succumbing to “...nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.”
Paul Krugman contrasts Roosevelt's call to action to that of the Republican presidential candidates who have made fear and "unreasonable, unjustified terror" the "centerpiece of their campaigns."
From Giuliani to Huckabee they offer no vision of the future or solutions to the nation's problems. Their platform is one of fear of terrorists, fear of immigrants, fear of cities, fear of secularists, etc.
As a nation we love to celebrate the "greatest generation." We forget that their greatest contribution was to embrace Roosevelt's basic truth from his first Inaugural address that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself...."
Read the entire column.
Paul Krugman contrasts Roosevelt's call to action to that of the Republican presidential candidates who have made fear and "unreasonable, unjustified terror" the "centerpiece of their campaigns."
From Giuliani to Huckabee they offer no vision of the future or solutions to the nation's problems. Their platform is one of fear of terrorists, fear of immigrants, fear of cities, fear of secularists, etc.
As a nation we love to celebrate the "greatest generation." We forget that their greatest contribution was to embrace Roosevelt's basic truth from his first Inaugural address that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself...."
Read the entire column.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The invisible hand fails Africa's poor
Since the 1970's policy makers and economists have been enamoured with the 18th century musings of Adam Smith.
The Chicago School under Milton Friedman's tutelage led this revival. It has been enthusiastically embraced by Republican politicians and operatives from Ronald Reagan though Grover Norquist to George W. Bush.
Even new Democrats, motivated by ideological confusion or political opportunism, have gravitated toward market fundamentalism.
The neoclassical theory they promote is little more than a regurgitation of Smith's idea that "no one intends to promote the public good." Rather they are ''led by an invisible hand to promote an end," the public good, "which is no part his intention. "
Despite the fact that Smith's seminal work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, was primarily a critique of mercantilism, the 17th century state monopoly trading system, and a celebration of the dynamism of emerging capitalism and competitive markets, US urban and international development policy have been based on free market libertarian ideas for almost thirty years.
A new World Bank report demonstrates that "free market mechanisms" have largely failed to promote economic growth or prosperity in impoverished African nations.
The New York Times reported this weekend:
"In the 1980s, in the era of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the World Bank increasingly withdrew its support from agriculture and expected private markets to spur growth through competition. Bank officials even thought profit-seeking companies would build toll roads in remote parts of Africa.
But, as the recent internal evaluation found, private markets often failed to deliver a range of goods and services farmers needed, including improved seeds, fertilizer and credit. "
The World Bank report concludes that market mechanisms have failed to generate investment in "scientific research, rural roads, irrigation, credit, fertilizer and seeds — the basics of an agricultural economy — crucial to helping Africa’s poor farmers.
That this is newsworthy suggests how dominant libertarian policy has become.
If market mechanisms haven't generated sufficient investment to rebuild America's central cities, maintain our transportation infrastructure, build a dynamic, high speed information highway, stimulate biotechnology research, or provide affordable healthcare to our citizens why should we expect competitive markets to work any better in poverty stricken African countries?
Read the entire NYT article here.
The Chicago School under Milton Friedman's tutelage led this revival. It has been enthusiastically embraced by Republican politicians and operatives from Ronald Reagan though Grover Norquist to George W. Bush.
Even new Democrats, motivated by ideological confusion or political opportunism, have gravitated toward market fundamentalism.
The neoclassical theory they promote is little more than a regurgitation of Smith's idea that "no one intends to promote the public good." Rather they are ''led by an invisible hand to promote an end," the public good, "which is no part his intention. "
Despite the fact that Smith's seminal work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, was primarily a critique of mercantilism, the 17th century state monopoly trading system, and a celebration of the dynamism of emerging capitalism and competitive markets, US urban and international development policy have been based on free market libertarian ideas for almost thirty years.
A new World Bank report demonstrates that "free market mechanisms" have largely failed to promote economic growth or prosperity in impoverished African nations.
The New York Times reported this weekend:
"In the 1980s, in the era of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the World Bank increasingly withdrew its support from agriculture and expected private markets to spur growth through competition. Bank officials even thought profit-seeking companies would build toll roads in remote parts of Africa.
But, as the recent internal evaluation found, private markets often failed to deliver a range of goods and services farmers needed, including improved seeds, fertilizer and credit. "
The World Bank report concludes that market mechanisms have failed to generate investment in "scientific research, rural roads, irrigation, credit, fertilizer and seeds — the basics of an agricultural economy — crucial to helping Africa’s poor farmers.
That this is newsworthy suggests how dominant libertarian policy has become.
If market mechanisms haven't generated sufficient investment to rebuild America's central cities, maintain our transportation infrastructure, build a dynamic, high speed information highway, stimulate biotechnology research, or provide affordable healthcare to our citizens why should we expect competitive markets to work any better in poverty stricken African countries?
Read the entire NYT article here.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Fischer Island-the rich are different from you and me!
Fischer Island is an exclusive, private island residential community just off the Miami coast.
Less than 10 minutes from Miami Beach, Fischer Island is in a world of its own, the richest zip code in the U.S.
Its residence lead extravagant lives or as F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said: "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me."
The New York Times described this idyllic paradise:"... from the imported Bahamian sand coating the beaches to the marble and mahogany-encrusted Vanderbilt mansion and the 186-foot, $250,000-a-week chartered yacht bobbing in the marina just outside, everything bespeaks luxury. The gilded trappings are a potent reminder of the great income gap that prevailed when Mr. Vanderbilt used to alight his hydroplane in the inviting waters offshore, in the early decades of the 20th century, a gap that has re-emerged today."
A share in the Fischer Island golf club costs $250,000 and dues run to $20,000 a year.
Yes, Fischer Island is a beautiful place...as long as you don't have to work there.
The workers tending the grounds or washing linens make as little as $8.50 an hour.
Fischer Island's workers, 21st century servants, travel daily to this man made island from Miami which has the highest degree of housing inequality in the country and where one on five children live in poverty.
In February a local organization of religious leaders sent a letter to all residents, alerting them to “serious and tragic poverty within your midst.”
”A great invisible work force, unseen by many, maintains Fisher Island's condominiums, golf courses and tennis courts, prepares and serves food to its residents, cleans their rooms and common areas, and maintains the critical equipment that keeps the air-conditioning and other mechanics of the island running smoothly. Their stories are chilling."
It is time the residents of Fischer island start treating their employees with the same respect they treat their cars. It's time for the plantation mentality to stop!
To see how you can help visit http://www.onemiaminow.org/
And watch the video:
Less than 10 minutes from Miami Beach, Fischer Island is in a world of its own, the richest zip code in the U.S.
Its residence lead extravagant lives or as F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said: "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me."
The New York Times described this idyllic paradise:"... from the imported Bahamian sand coating the beaches to the marble and mahogany-encrusted Vanderbilt mansion and the 186-foot, $250,000-a-week chartered yacht bobbing in the marina just outside, everything bespeaks luxury. The gilded trappings are a potent reminder of the great income gap that prevailed when Mr. Vanderbilt used to alight his hydroplane in the inviting waters offshore, in the early decades of the 20th century, a gap that has re-emerged today."
A share in the Fischer Island golf club costs $250,000 and dues run to $20,000 a year.
Yes, Fischer Island is a beautiful place...as long as you don't have to work there.
The workers tending the grounds or washing linens make as little as $8.50 an hour.
Fischer Island's workers, 21st century servants, travel daily to this man made island from Miami which has the highest degree of housing inequality in the country and where one on five children live in poverty.
In February a local organization of religious leaders sent a letter to all residents, alerting them to “serious and tragic poverty within your midst.”
”A great invisible work force, unseen by many, maintains Fisher Island's condominiums, golf courses and tennis courts, prepares and serves food to its residents, cleans their rooms and common areas, and maintains the critical equipment that keeps the air-conditioning and other mechanics of the island running smoothly. Their stories are chilling."
It is time the residents of Fischer island start treating their employees with the same respect they treat their cars. It's time for the plantation mentality to stop!
To see how you can help visit http://www.onemiaminow.org/
And watch the video:
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Bush administration's fuzzy math
Last week the Bush administration reported that the U.S. budget deficit had fallen to $162.8 billion, the lowest amount in five years.
Don't believe it.
Fortune's Allan Sloan had predicted the Bush celebration in early September arguing the deficit is much, much bigger than you think.
See Jack Cafferty's refutation of the Bush administration's "fuzzy math."
Don't believe it.
Fortune's Allan Sloan had predicted the Bush celebration in early September arguing the deficit is much, much bigger than you think.
See Jack Cafferty's refutation of the Bush administration's "fuzzy math."
Journal Sentinel buries ex commanders criticism of Iraq war
Yesterday the former top commander of American forces in Iraq, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, blamed the Bush administration for a "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan” and denounced the current addition of American forces as a “desperate” move that would not be successful.
Why did the Journal Sentinel bury it on page 4?
Sanchez public criticism of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war is surely bigger news than the tragic deaths of four people at a horse show in Madison, the paper's lead story.
Here's the page 1 New York Times story.
Why did the Journal Sentinel bury it on page 4?
Sanchez public criticism of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war is surely bigger news than the tragic deaths of four people at a horse show in Madison, the paper's lead story.
Here's the page 1 New York Times story.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Republicans lack ideas-engage in character assassination
The New York Times' Paul Krugman has an excellent column on the Republican Party's vicious smear campaign against the twelve year old boy who gave the Democratic Party's response to President Bush's veto of Congress's bipartisan expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance program (SCHIP).
Frost relied on SCHIP after suffering severe head injuries in an automobile accident because his family did not have health insurance like 47 million other Americans.
Krugman writes:
...the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they’re “phony soldiers”; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he’s faking his Parkinson’s symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he’s a fraud.
Meanwhile, leading conservative politicians, far from trying to distance themselves from these smears, rush to embrace them. And some people in the news media are still willing to be used as patsies.
Politics aside, the Graeme Frost case demonstrates the true depth of the health care crisis: every other advanced country has universal health insurance, but in America, insurance is now out of reach for many hard-working families, even if they have incomes some might call middle-class.
And there’s one more point that should not be forgotten: ultimately, this isn’t about the Frost parents. It’s about Graeme Frost and his sister.
I don’t know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices — a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side — only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children.
Here is the entire column.
Frost relied on SCHIP after suffering severe head injuries in an automobile accident because his family did not have health insurance like 47 million other Americans.
Krugman writes:
...the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they’re “phony soldiers”; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he’s faking his Parkinson’s symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he’s a fraud.
Meanwhile, leading conservative politicians, far from trying to distance themselves from these smears, rush to embrace them. And some people in the news media are still willing to be used as patsies.
Politics aside, the Graeme Frost case demonstrates the true depth of the health care crisis: every other advanced country has universal health insurance, but in America, insurance is now out of reach for many hard-working families, even if they have incomes some might call middle-class.
And there’s one more point that should not be forgotten: ultimately, this isn’t about the Frost parents. It’s about Graeme Frost and his sister.
I don’t know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices — a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side — only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children.
Here is the entire column.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
M7 should oppose Waukesha tax on Milwaukee!
Where's the Milwaukee 7 when we need it?
Waukesha's County Board is proposing to raise bus fares by twenty-five cents on riders who travel from Milwaukee to Waukesha.
Waukesha's Board, an ardent foe of any and all tax increases, has tossed fiscal restraint aside when it comes to Milwaukee County residents, giving new meaning to Governor Thompson's pledge "to stick it to Milwaukee."
The Board's rationale, tough fiscal times, is hard to swallow since it recently found $1.75 million to help fund an interstate highway interchange to the upscale, Pabst Farms regional mall in Western Waukesha that planners had forgotten to finance.
This "zone fare" increase will hurt the ability of Milwaukee's workers to get to jobs in Waukesha and hurt Waukesha's employers who face a growing shortage of skilled and semi-skilled labor.
Economists call this a spatial mismatch-potential workers are concentrated in one place, Milwaukee, and the jobs are in another, Waukesha!
The Brookings Institute in a study of the problem could easily have been talking about Milwaukee, routinely rated one of the nation's most segregated cities, and Waukesha when it observed that sprawl exacerbates racial inequality: "In areas where blacks are more segregated from whites, blacks tend to live apart from job rich suburban areas (where a disproportionate share of whites live)."
The "zone fare" increase, a tax on Milwaukee labor, will only exacerbate these problems because as bus fares increase, ridership will decrease!
Waukesha had a surcharge only a few years back. When the Milwaukee labor tax was eliminated in 2003, ridership on the route increased by almost 10%.
It's a basic rule of economics that when prices increase, the quantity demanded decreases and conversely. Implementation of this Milwaukee labor tax will decrease ridership.
Waukesha's leaders need look no further than Milwaukee County to see how incremental increases in fares have reduced ridership!
The Milwaukee 7, Southeastern Wisconsin's effort to promote regional economic cooperation and growth, has argued convincingly that solving the region's shortage of skilled workers is key to growing SE Wisconsin's economy.
Waukesha's misguided "zone fare," a tax increase on our poorest citizens, will intensify the region's spatial mismatch and undermine economic growth.
It's easy to talk about regional economic cooperation. The leaders of the M7 need to walk the walk.
They can start by urging the Waukesha County Board to drop this bad idea.
Waukesha's County Board is proposing to raise bus fares by twenty-five cents on riders who travel from Milwaukee to Waukesha.
Waukesha's Board, an ardent foe of any and all tax increases, has tossed fiscal restraint aside when it comes to Milwaukee County residents, giving new meaning to Governor Thompson's pledge "to stick it to Milwaukee."
The Board's rationale, tough fiscal times, is hard to swallow since it recently found $1.75 million to help fund an interstate highway interchange to the upscale, Pabst Farms regional mall in Western Waukesha that planners had forgotten to finance.
This "zone fare" increase will hurt the ability of Milwaukee's workers to get to jobs in Waukesha and hurt Waukesha's employers who face a growing shortage of skilled and semi-skilled labor.
Economists call this a spatial mismatch-potential workers are concentrated in one place, Milwaukee, and the jobs are in another, Waukesha!
The Brookings Institute in a study of the problem could easily have been talking about Milwaukee, routinely rated one of the nation's most segregated cities, and Waukesha when it observed that sprawl exacerbates racial inequality: "In areas where blacks are more segregated from whites, blacks tend to live apart from job rich suburban areas (where a disproportionate share of whites live)."
The "zone fare" increase, a tax on Milwaukee labor, will only exacerbate these problems because as bus fares increase, ridership will decrease!
Waukesha had a surcharge only a few years back. When the Milwaukee labor tax was eliminated in 2003, ridership on the route increased by almost 10%.
It's a basic rule of economics that when prices increase, the quantity demanded decreases and conversely. Implementation of this Milwaukee labor tax will decrease ridership.
Waukesha's leaders need look no further than Milwaukee County to see how incremental increases in fares have reduced ridership!
The Milwaukee 7, Southeastern Wisconsin's effort to promote regional economic cooperation and growth, has argued convincingly that solving the region's shortage of skilled workers is key to growing SE Wisconsin's economy.
Waukesha's misguided "zone fare," a tax increase on our poorest citizens, will intensify the region's spatial mismatch and undermine economic growth.
It's easy to talk about regional economic cooperation. The leaders of the M7 need to walk the walk.
They can start by urging the Waukesha County Board to drop this bad idea.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
John Mellencamp releases powerful new song-Jena
John Mellencamp has released a powerful new music video-Jena- about the case of the Jena Six: six black high school students charged with attempted murder for a schoolyard fight after nooses were hung from the school's "white tree."
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Milwaukee Philanthropist wrong about MPS
Sheldon Lubar is a successful investor.
It's great that he's giving half a million dollars to Whitefish Bay High School to renovate its stadium. Generations of suburban athletes will benefit from Mr. Lubar's largess.
But isn't this what wealthy businessmen do-make large donations to their alma maters that name bricks and mortar after them? Nothing really unusual here.
But I don't understand how making a lot of money or even donating some of it makes Mr. Lubar an expert on urban education or public school governance. Yet Mr Lubar used the announcement of his gift to praise Whitefish Bay as a model in successfully educating black students and attack the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) as "structured to fail." All of this was dutifully reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
We have a long history in this country of folks who made a lot of money in business-Henry Ford comes to mind- who stumble badly when they venture beyond their area of expertise.
Ford mastered the art of mass production in designing and producing the Model T. He even doubled his workers wages, something that would help address the labor shortage today, to solve his turnover problem. But his manufacturing and managerial insights did not prevent him from supporting German fascism, being an overt anti-Semite or hiring criminals to spy on his employees.
It's great that he's giving half a million dollars to Whitefish Bay High School to renovate its stadium. Generations of suburban athletes will benefit from Mr. Lubar's largess.
But isn't this what wealthy businessmen do-make large donations to their alma maters that name bricks and mortar after them? Nothing really unusual here.
But I don't understand how making a lot of money or even donating some of it makes Mr. Lubar an expert on urban education or public school governance. Yet Mr Lubar used the announcement of his gift to praise Whitefish Bay as a model in successfully educating black students and attack the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) as "structured to fail." All of this was dutifully reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
We have a long history in this country of folks who made a lot of money in business-Henry Ford comes to mind- who stumble badly when they venture beyond their area of expertise.
Ford mastered the art of mass production in designing and producing the Model T. He even doubled his workers wages, something that would help address the labor shortage today, to solve his turnover problem. But his manufacturing and managerial insights did not prevent him from supporting German fascism, being an overt anti-Semite or hiring criminals to spy on his employees.
Mr Lubar has evidently been a savvy investor, but that doesn't make him an expert on how to educate Milwaukee's predominantly poor, inner city children. Nor does it make him an expert on urban school governance, a topic of considerable research and debate.
Whitefish Bay, contrary to Mr Lubar's assertion, is not a "model" for successfully educating black children. An examination of testing data suggests that despite having a much more affluent student population than the Milwaukee Public Schools, Whitefish Bay still has a significant racial achievement gap.
On the 10th grade reading test, 83% of Bay's white students recorded advanced scores and 14% were proficient. Yet only 33% of its black students were advanced and 29% proficient. On the 10th grade math test, 57% of white students were advanced and 36% proficient, while only 17% of black students were advanced and 33% proficient.
These results shouldn't surprise anyone with a serious interest in urban education since the racial achievement gap is a national dilemma. But it is a clear refutation of Mr. Lubar's contention that Whitefish Bay is worthy because it has solved the challenge of successfully educating poor black children and MPS is not and should be taken over and dismantled.
Mr Lubar certainly has a right to his opinions. This is America after all. But making lots of money doesn't make one on expert in other areas. And the Journal shouldn't allow its pages to be used as a megaphone by rich, but misinformed donors.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
Milwaukee Journal: perscribes wrong deficit reduction medicine
A Milwaukee Journal editorial recently opined that "A Republican Congress abandoned its principles and left the country ill-prepared to meet long-term obligations." "Fiscal discipline is needed" it concluded.
The piece criticised the $190 billion 2002 Farm Bill, 70% of which went to the richest 10% of farmers. It also targeted the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Both could charitably be described as socialism for the rich-U.S. agribusiness, insurance and pharmaceuticals companies!
While they are poorly designed public policy, neither is at the heart of the deficit problem.
By failing to identify how the Bush administration has squandered a projected $5.2 trillion surplus, the Journal is fueling the erroneous perception that out of control social spending and entitlements are to blame.
Nothing could be further from the truth
The two main causes of the Bush era deficits are its high end tax cuts and the War in Iraq.
Congressional Budget Office data show that Bush's tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits. Legislation enacted since 2001 has added almost $2.3 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2006, with half of the deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and only a sixth to increases in domestic spending).
56.5% of these tax cuts went to the richest 10% of wage earners, those averaging $256,000. Only 14.7% went to the bottom 60% who average $44,000.
Unlike in previous wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending."It's fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed," says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank in Washington. "But eventually everything has to be paid for."
And the bill is growing!
Just last week President Bush requested an additional $42.3 billion in “emergency” funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. If passed, the 2008 war bill will be almost $190 billion, the same as the 10 year Farm Bill increase the Journal singled out for criticism and the largest single-year total for these wars. It is an increase of 15 percent from 2007.
It will bring the year end total for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since Sept. 11, 2001 to $800 billion, still less than half the $2 trillion total projected cost.
As Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen once said about the Defense budget, "a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money"-money that could buy a lot of healthcare, infrastructure, early childhood education or deficit reduction!
What it hasn't bought is protective equipment for our soldiers and their vehicles, the capture of Osama Bin Laden or adequate medical care for our vets!
And remember this $42 billion military increase is off-the-books, "emergency" funding, an addition to the original 2008 spending request, made before the President announced his so-called “new strategy” of partial withdrawal.
Iraq alone has cost the United States more in inflation-adjusted dollars than the Gulf War and the Korean War and will soon pass the Vietnam War.
This for a war that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld promised would cost under $50 billion while his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, predicted Iraqi oil revenues would largely pay for Iraq’s reconstruction.
The $42 billion emergency funding increase is more than the bipartisan, fully funded $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that President Bush has promised to veto.
Since Iraq costs the country $333 million a day, we can't afford to expand SCHIP which costs $19 million a day!
The $42 billion is also almost twice as much as the $23 billion in improvements for waterways and water systems in every state that Bush is threatening to veto as too costly.
Mr Bush took office in 2001, the last time the Government produced a budget surplus. Every year after that the Government has been in the red. In 2004 the deficit swelled to a record $US413 billion ($494 billion).
The Journal is right when it suggests that Mr Bush is mortgaging the country's future. But it is wrong to suggest that entitlements and social spending are to blame.
High end tax cuts and Mr Bush's war of choice in Iraq are the real culprits!
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Marta is sick!
Anyone who thought Marta's amazing goals in Brazil's victory over the US women's national team in the second semifinal of the Women's World Cup was a fluke should check out this video of the FIFA 2006 women's player of the year!
Milwaukee Journal proscribes wrong deficit reduction medicine
A Milwaukee Journal editorial recently opined that "A Republican Congress abandoned its principles and left the country ill-prepared to meet long-term obligations." "Fiscal discipline is needed" it concluded.
The piece criticised the $190 billion 2002 Farm Bill, 70% of which went to the richest 10% of farmers. It also targeted the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Both could charitably be described as socialism for the rich-U.S. agribusiness, insurance and pharmaceuticals companies!
While they are poorly designed public policy, neither is at the heart of the deficit problem.
By failing to identify how the Bush administration has squandered a projected $5.2 trillion surplus, the Journal is fueling the erroneous perception that out of control social spending and entitlements are to blame.
Nothing could be further from the truth
The two main causes of the Bush era deficits are its high end tax cuts and the War in Iraq.
Congressional Budget Office data show that Bush's tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits. Legislation enacted since 2001 has added almost $2.3 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2006, with half of the deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and only a sixth to increases in domestic spending).
56.5% of these tax cuts went to the richest 10% of wage earners, those averaging $256,000. Only 14.7% went to the bottom 60% who average $44,000.
Unlike in previous wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending."It's fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed," says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank in Washington. "But eventually everything has to be paid for."
And the bill is growing!
Just last week President Bush requested an additional $42.3 billion in “emergency” funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. If passed, the 2008 war bill will be almost $190 billion, the same as the 10 year Farm Bill increase the Journal singled out for criticism and the largest single-year total for these wars. It is an increase of 15 percent from 2007.
It will bring the year end total for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since Sept. 11, 2001 to $800 billion, still less than half the $2 trillion total projected cost.
As Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen once said about the Defense budget, "a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money"-money that could buy a lot of healthcare, infrastructure, early childhood education or deficit reduction!
What it hasn't bought is protective equipment for our soldiers and their vehicles, the capture of Osama Bin Laden or adequate medical care for our vets!
And remember this $42 billion military increase is off-the-books, "emergency" funding, an addition to the original 2008 spending request, made before the President announced his so-called “new strategy” of partial withdrawal.
Iraq alone has cost the United States more in inflation-adjusted dollars than the Gulf War and the Korean War and will soon pass the Vietnam War.
This for a war that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld promised would cost under $50 billion while his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, predicted Iraqi oil revenues would largely pay for Iraq’s reconstruction.
The $42 billion emergency funding increase is more than the bipartisan, fully funded $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that President Bush has promised to veto.
Since Iraq costs the country $333 million a day, we can't afford to expand SCHIP which costs $19 million a day!
The $42 billion is also almost twice as much as the $23 billion in improvements for waterways and water systems in every state that Bush is threatening to veto as too costly.
Mr Bush took office in 2001, the last time the Government produced a budget surplus. Every year after that the Government has been in the red. In 2004 the deficit swelled to a record $US413 billion ($494 billion).
The Journal is right when it suggests that Mr Bush is mortgaging the country's future. But it is wrong to suggest that entitlements and social spending are to blame.
High end tax cuts and Mr Bush's war of choice in Iraq are the real culprits!
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Dairy state republicans implement southern strategy
Last week I wrote that Representative Frank Lasee's letter alleging rampant hallway sex among Brown Deer's black students "...is the ugly tip of a racist Republican iceberg that demonizes the city of Milwaukee and its minority residents."
Yesterday, New York Times Columnist, Bob Herbert, made the same argument in his column about the national Republican Party.
The Journal Sentinel ran an edited version of that column today, but, unfortunately, cut its most damning material.
Here's what the Journal Sentinel published with deletions in italics. (I have included non-deleted material so that readers can read the edits in their original context.):
Dr. Carolyn Goodman, a woman I was privileged to call a friend, died last month at the age of 91. She was the mother of Andrew Goodman, one of the three young civil rights activists shot to death by rabid racists near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964.
Dr. Goodman, one of the most decent people I have ever known, carried the ache of that loss with her every day of her life.
In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican Party, went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He was there to assure the bigots that he was with them.
“I believe in states’ rights,” said Mr. Reagan. The crowd roared.
In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
It is unfortunate the Journal editors cut this material from Herbert's piece because Wisconsin's Republican leadership has followed this script to a T.
Frank Lasee's letter is a clumsy and transparent application of this approach.
The Assembly Republicans budget that sticks "it to Milwaukee" and Racine by slashing their shared revenue continues this GOP tradition as does their insistence on voter IDs which would disenfranchise poor, black and minority voters.
The dairy state's Republican leadership, by hiding their refusal to negotiate with their Democratic counterparts in the Budget Conference Committee behind a fanatical no tax pledge, are implementing the very southern strategy that Atwater so vividly described.
:
Yesterday, New York Times Columnist, Bob Herbert, made the same argument in his column about the national Republican Party.
The Journal Sentinel ran an edited version of that column today, but, unfortunately, cut its most damning material.
Here's what the Journal Sentinel published with deletions in italics. (I have included non-deleted material so that readers can read the edits in their original context.):
Dr. Carolyn Goodman, a woman I was privileged to call a friend, died last month at the age of 91. She was the mother of Andrew Goodman, one of the three young civil rights activists shot to death by rabid racists near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964.
Dr. Goodman, one of the most decent people I have ever known, carried the ache of that loss with her every day of her life.
In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican Party, went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He was there to assure the bigots that he was with them.
“I believe in states’ rights,” said Mr. Reagan. The crowd roared.
In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
It is unfortunate the Journal editors cut this material from Herbert's piece because Wisconsin's Republican leadership has followed this script to a T.
Frank Lasee's letter is a clumsy and transparent application of this approach.
The Assembly Republicans budget that sticks "it to Milwaukee" and Racine by slashing their shared revenue continues this GOP tradition as does their insistence on voter IDs which would disenfranchise poor, black and minority voters.
The dairy state's Republican leadership, by hiding their refusal to negotiate with their Democratic counterparts in the Budget Conference Committee behind a fanatical no tax pledge, are implementing the very southern strategy that Atwater so vividly described.
:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)