\n

Hurricane Irene

Courtesy National Hurrican Center

Global warming, big hurricanes. Any questions?

Governor Rick Perry – please report to the North Carolina Coast to pray this huge storm away.

For those of you hanging over on the right coast, move to high ground. Find a dry place and stay safe.

Think about the long term impact of global warming and what you want to do about it.

How to stop the Tea Party: a response to Sam Harris

Here are two ways to stop the Tea Party and other libertarians.

First, progressive Democrats should fight to take over the Democratic Party — the way Tea Party activists recently took over much of the GOP, and the way religious conservatives took it over about a decade ago.  In short, as described in This Is How To Beat The Republicans and Tea Party. progressives should get involved in their local Democratic Party, by becoming a Precinct Committee Officer,  Precinct Captain, or other activist.  Angry conservatives take over the GOP. Angry progressives too often flee the Democratic Party and join an advocacy group or third party.

The second way to fight the Tea Party is to educate people about how wrong-headed libertarian ideology is, so that middle class voters wise up and stop voting against their own self-interest. Conservatives have done all in their power to corrupt, starve, weaken, and denounce government. To fight back, progressives need to market good government and fair taxation as forces for good.

Often libertarians compare taxation to theft, and in recent years they have become angrier, bolder, and more influential. I don’t know what explains their hatred of government.  This is a question, perhaps, for psychologists. But if progressives are going to win this war of ideas, they need to attack head on the right wing arguments against government.

What got me thinking anew about this topic was an email from author Sam Harris, who recently published an article (“How Rich is Too Rich?”). In the article Harris suggested, like Warren Buffet, that billionaires should pay more in taxes. The response from Harris’ readers surprised him. He got lots of hate mail from libertarians, including, for example, this gem: “You are scum sam. unsubscribed.”

As Harris says in his blog

You can declare the world’s religions to be cesspools of confusion and bigotry, you can argue that all drugs should be made legal and that free will is an illusion. You can even write in defense of torture. But I assure you that nothing will rile and winnow your audience like the suggestion that billionaires should contribute more of their wealth to the good of society.

One part of the problem is incorrect framing.   Harris himself is guilty of this. For example, in his blog Harris wrote, “They [libertarians] consider any effort the State could take to prevent the most extreme juxtaposition of wealth and poverty to be indistinguishable from Socialism.”

But the issue isn’t just redistribution of wealth from the rich to the lower classes — forcing the rich to help the poor.  That makes it sound like theft. (Indeed, Harris himself says in that blog, “I agree that everyone should be entitled to the fruits of his or her labors and that taxation, in the State of Nature, is a form of theft. But it appears to be a form of theft that we require, given how selfish and shortsighted most of us are.”) More fundamental than redistribution of wealth is the fact that we need government to provide various protections and services that the market system will not provide. Without those protections and services, billionaires couldn’t earn or enjoy their wealth.   So the rich simply aren’t paying their fair share of the bills.

We need to pay for courts, police, regulatory systems, disaster relief, roads, scientific research, public health, education, and parks — as well as the imperialist wars that Bush and Cheney started.   Plus, the national debt is something like $14 trillion, and that bill needs to be paid.   One can argue that often government is corrupt and wasteful — and it was especially corrupt and wasteful between 2000 and 2006, when Republicans controlled government.  But to say that government should be minimized overlooks all the good it does — when it’s not mismanaged.

Government serves the Common Good –known in the US Constitution as the General Welfare. Often it provides services more cheaply and equitably than the private market system. (Health care is an example.)

The best analogy is this: Government is like a computer’s operating system.  An operating system provides fundamental services and protections that allow user programs to run. Without an operating system, your computer would be a useless heap of metal and plastic.  Similarly, governments provide various services and protections. Without government, and the taxes that support it, business and society cannot thrive. For example, the sub-prime crash was largely due to reckless deregulation. And when the system crashed, who came to the rescue? Uncle Sam.

In fact, without government we’d be hunter-gatherers.

The libertarian mindset is sociopathic.  Even the US Constitution calls for a strong central government to promote the General Welfare.  Libertarians want to run their programs on a computer with no operating system.

Alas, in recent years we’ve gotten more bad government than good government — which is why things are heading downhill. But the solution isn’t to get rid of government; the solution is to fix government, by stopping the corruption and mismanagement.

For further reading, see

Government is like a computer’s operating system: a response to libertarians.
Bring on the Reagan Counterrevolution (a defense of Big Government against libertarian attacks),
Government: Unproductive? Wasteful? Corrupt?,

and these websites:  Government is Good, Government is Great, and  The General Welfare.

I agree, by the way that there’s too much redistribution of wealth: from the middle class to rich, and as David Vicks points out, this needs to be undone.

Boss rakes in millions; workers get food stamps

All told, the federal government provides $65 billion a year in food stamps to almost 46 million Americans. While that sounds like a lot of money — maybe it’s something Republicans in Congress would like to cut out — it comes down to $118 a month for each recipient. And it pales next to the $2.2 trillion we’ve lost over the past 10 years thanks to the Bush (and now Obama) tax cuts for the wealthy few.


While watching Congress and the president wrangle over the fake crisis of raising the debt ceiling, the Department of Agriculture reported that 45.8 million Americans now receive food stamps to help purchase food. That’s one out of every seven Americans.

In our state more than 1 million people now depend on food stamps — almost one out of six. The number of people receiving food stamps has grown by 90,000 in Washington over the past year alone. That’s like putting almost the entire population of Everett into poverty. In five years, the number has grown by half a million.

There’s a simple reason for the increase: people are poor, and getting poorer, as the recession grinds on. How poor? Well, to get food stamps for a family of three, your annual income must be less than $37,000. For a single person working full-time, you cannot make more than $10.50 an hour. Exceed those limits and you lose your food stamps.

Food stamps are not easy to get. First, you have to be in or close to poverty — you can’t really earn a living wage. You pretty much have to empty out your bank account. And for those who worry about such things, no, you can’t be an “illegal” alien or have a drug conviction. So we are talking about keeping hunger at bay for working citizens. To get food stamps you have to be personally interviewed and go through a document check. That’s the red tape that keeps one-third of eligible people from receiving food stamps.

If you need food stamps, they are literally life-saving — so they’re worth a lot! But if you don’t, you might wonder about their value. So here are the numbers:

If you are single and making $10 an hour working full-time, you will get about $16 a month. Hardly worth going to an interview! In Washington, the average food stamp benefit per person is $120 a month. For a household, the average benefit is $243.

Though they are a relatively measly benefit, food stamps have an outsized economic benefit for our economy. Every $5 in food stamps spent on groceries generates $9 worth of total economic activity. That’s because the food stamps are spent in local stores employing local people, who also spend their paychecks locally. Direct expenditures on food stamps accounted for $1.4 billion in economic activity in 2010, and the multiplier effect meant that $2.5 billion was injected into our economy that year through food stamps.

If you think food stamps are just hand-outs to the undeserving, you should know a couple of things: About half of food stamp recipients are children. Another 10 percent are people over age 60. And the average household income for food stamp recipients is just three-fifths of what is considered poverty.

Now think about your local Starbucks barista. She very likely makes less than $10.50 an hour. If she works full-time, she is still on the cusp of poverty. She can and should qualify for food stamps. Meanwhile, the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, enjoyed a total compensation package of $21.7 million last year. That’s a lot of lattes. If he enjoyed a measly income of just $1 million, that other $20.7 million could have paid for food stamp benefits for 15,000 people. But he is not paying for those food stamps. Instead, the federal government and us taxpayers are subsidizing poor wages at Starbucks with food stamps for its employees. $21.7 million for the boss, food stamps for the workers … Something is out of kilter.

All told, the federal government provides $65 billion a year in food stamps to almost 46 million Americans. While that sounds like a lot of money — maybe it’s something Republicans in Congress would like to cut out — it comes down to $118 a month for each recipient. And it pales next to the $2.2 trillion we’ve lost over the past 10 years thanks to the Bush (and now Obama) tax cuts for the wealthy few.

But thank goodness there are food stamps. With wages stagnating, unemployment hovering at 10 percent and people discouraged from even looking for work, we should be able to make sure people can eat. In fact, it’s the least we can do in America, the richest and most productive country in the world.

Originally published at the Everett Herald

Transpartisan dialog: is it possible?

I’ve been getting invitations to events organized by “Seattle Transpartisan Alliance” (also here). They wish to find common areas of agreement across the political spectrum, between libertarians and liberals, in particular. For example, they aim to “Reconcile regulation and cooperation with individual liberty, innovation, entrepreneurship and healthy competition.”

My first impulse is to reject the endeavor as quixotic or naive, since the disagreements between (libertarian) conservatives and liberals are too fundamental, and since conservatism as practiced by Republicans is uncompromising, corrupt, and cruel.  There may be a few areas where libertarians and progressives can agree (e.g., ending corruption and military imperialism), but their rejection of the common good and of the ideal of economic justice make them destructive, and by allying themselves with Republicans and with extremists like Tea Party activists, libertarians have undermined their credibility.

When I hear calls for bipartisanship, I am reminded of President Obama’s many compromises and sell-outs. We need fighters, not capitulators.

A year or two ago there was a “Coffee Party” movement that, as far as I know, sizzled out.

Anyone know about this group, described below?

9th Annual Regional Interfaith Leadership Summit
will happen on Wednesday, August 31, 2011

When: Wednesday, August 31, 2011, 8:30 AM
Where: Camp Brotherhood, 24880 Brotherhood Rd., Mt. Vernon, WA 98274

To Register:  www.cascadia-center.org/summit

Our Faith Compels Us To Create a Free and Fair Economy with Opportunity for Everyone

It’s up to us: conservatives, progressives, libertarians and independents!

Let us learn together how to:

o Model respectful post-partisan dialogue.
o Come together to restore fiscal responsibility and economic opportunity.
o Reconcile regulation and cooperation with individual liberty, innovation, entrepreneurship and healthy competition.
o Promote “Main Street” local living economies.
o Provide a compassionate response to those who need a hand-up: (e.g. disabled, underprivileged, widows and orphans).

Wednesday, August 31st, 2011
8:30 am to 4:30 pm

Join religious and community leaders committed to inspiring public awareness entrepreneurship and political action to create opportunity for everyone.

Cascadia Center at Camp Brotherhood, Mount Vernon, WA 98274

www.cascadia-center.org

To Register: www.cascadia-center.org/summit
Suggested contribution: $40.00 (includes continental breakfast and lunch)

For more information: John Hale – john@campbrotherhood.org; (425) 865-0659

Shared Sacrifice my Ass! — Photos

New BC  banner 600 px

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Sunday Washingtonians took to the air, land and sea to challenge Washington’s wealthiest corporations and individuals to share the economic sacrifices with working families.

Shared sacrifice my ass!

Joggers, picnicking families and boaters visiting Seward Park were greeted with an unusual sight Sunday afternoon. Huge banners, launched with helium balloons, visible from Paul Allen’s Mercer Island estate, challenged Washington’s wealthiest corporations and individuals to share the economic sacrifice with working families. Those walking down to the water to catch a better look were greeted with a song and dance routine, “Change Your Evil Ways,” targeting billionaire Paul Allen and other wealthy opponents of a state income tax.

The groups partnering for the event, Backbone Campaign and Washington Community Action Network, point to state budget cuts in healthcare and education as two consequences of the failed tax initiative 1098, and that working families are shouldering the economic burdens of the tough economy. They pointed out that high-wage earners, like Paul Allen whose massive Mercer Island offshore helipad was a target of Sunday’s action, provided funding for the defeat of last year’s I‑1098, despite there extreme wealth. I-1098 would have called on top earners to share in the economic sacrifice that has plagued Washington’s state and local governments. Allen was joined by other tech sector giants on the list of top contributors to I-1098’s defeat. Allen gave $100,000, Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon), Judith and Jon Runstad also matched Allen’s contribution, while Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer gave a whopping $425,000 to defeat the effort.

Yolanda Tinoco, a member of Washington CAN! from Bellevue said, “It doesn’t take an AP Calculus teacher to explain why we are frustrated. Our children and schools need funding. We are already making a sacrifice. It’s time we share that sacrifice with the Richest like Paul Allen who lobby everyday to keep their tax breaks in place. Paul Allen lobbies against Washington families.” Yolanda is a mother of three, PTA member and after school tutor in Bellevue where she lives.

Rachel De Cruz, also of Washington Community Action Network, pointed out that the wealthiest 1% of Washington residents pay less than 3% of their income in state taxes, while the poorest 20% pay 17% of their income in state taxes.

Top 1% up, rest of us down
Top 1% up, rest of us down

Washington Community Action Network, Washington CAN!, is the largest grassroots organization in the state with over 35,000 members. They work for social, racial and economic justice.

Backbone Campaign was formed in 2004 on Vashon Island to bring creative arts and spectacle to the movement for justice. Backbone has worked across the United States to enliven community organizing, teaching street theater and political artistic expression on a grand scale, and using cross-educational opportunities to bring front-line change-makers into conversations with leading minds on global and community issues.

Evil ways dance routine
Evil ways dance routine

 

On Doing Better Than 50%, Part Two, Or, Is “Made in USA” A Jobs Program?

When last we met, it was to discuss a Big Idea that the Obama Administration might apply to get some job creation going, despite a difficult Congress; the Big Idea was to look at the “Buy American” provisions that exist in our laws, regulations, and Executive Orders and see if we could practice a bit of “jobs arbitrage” by not just meeting the “Made in USA” requirements when governments across this country make purchases, but exceeding them.

(As it stands today, pretty much any “good or service” with more than 50% Made in USA content qualifies as a Made in USA purchase, even if 49% of the “good or service” comes from somewhere else).

At the time, I told you that if all went well we could look forward to comments from both Labor and the Administration as to the practicality of the Big Idea, and as it turns out I have comments for you that hit close to that mark – and a bit more besides:

On Saturday I just happened to bump into Congressman Adam Smith (WA-09); in the course of that conversation I told him what we’re doing here, and he wanted to offer a few thoughts of his own…and when you put all that together, I think we’re going to have a lot to talk about.

“Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them; Britain has trembled like an auge at the report of a French fleet of flat bottomed boats; and in the fourteenth century the whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back like men petrified with fear; and this brave exploit was preformed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc.

–From “The Crisis”, by Thomas Paine; essay of December 23, 1776

So the two-second recap of the Big Idea is that if government, at all levels, were Buying More American we could create More American Jobs, and as we mentioned above, the way the rules stand today, 51% Made in USA is good enough – and that seems to leave a lot of room to do better.

Of course, nothing is as simple as it seems, and despite what Tom Lehrer might say, it’s not all skittles and beer for this proposal either.

I have a source in the Administration who would not go on the record for this story; nonetheless I was sent a detailed email response “on background”, which I’ll paraphrase for our use today:

We are looking to expand US trade abroad, and we have made deals for access. We agree not to restrict, for the most part, where purchases can be made, and we expect reciprocity from the rest of the world when their governments do their purchasing – or at least from those governments with whom we have a WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) or a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). (Want even more details? Check out either the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 or this Congressional Research Service report).

The Administration would tell you that 95% of the world’s consumers live outside the USA, making trade reciprocity particularly valuable for the US.

They would also tell you that if we decide on our own to “change the deal”, then we should expect retaliation from other governments.

Beyond that, they would suggest that there are US companies that source many of their products or product components globally, and those companies would actually be hurt by stricter Made in USA requirements.

Finally, the Administration points out that there is a dollar cost for more Made in USA, as opposed to using what can often be cheaper foreign sourcing.

In the introduction I suggested that I had a comment from Labor, and that’s somewhat correct. I contacted the Washington Sate Labor Council (WSLC) for a comment, and they sent me material that came from the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM), at the same time telling me that the AAM’s position on Buy American is the same as their own.

It is inaccurate to refer to the AAM as a Labor organization, however, as they are a partnership of Unions, manufacturers, and other interested parties. Among those partners are the AFL-CIO and the United Steelworkers (USW); the USW was one of the founders of the group.

They take issue with a great deal of what the Administration has to say, and I’ll start with a quote from an email sent to me Friday by the AAM’s Steven Capozzola:

The threat of retaliation for buy America is ridiculous. The law [the Buy American Act, 41 USC 10a-d] is specifically written so as to be applied when permissible under our existing trade obligations.

Here’s a quote from AAM material that was referred to me by the WSLC:

…the U.S. is, by far, the world’s largest importer, soaking up a net $819 billion in goods in 2007…The U.S. imports far more than it exports, a balance of sales that our trading partners are anxious to preserve. This is not about restricting imports. It is about using taxpayer dollars, when allowed by our international obligations, to purchase U.S.-produced goods. As the global downturn has progressed, many industrialized countries such as France and China have already taken similar action to support their domestic manufacturing base.

…These trade agreements do however allow for domestic preference under a number of circumstances…These preferences were negotiated for a reason. It would be irresponsible not to utilize them to the fullest extent possible.

…By contrast, other countries have held themselves out of the reform movement and have instead opted to promote their own manufacturing base through closed self-procurement programs. A good example is China, which, in addition to a recent $586 billion stimulus program, continues to subsidize its own producers via deliberate (and illegal) currency undervaluation. Until countries like China make the same commitments, and sign-on to internationally accepted procurement agreements, the U.S. will accomplish nothing by making yet more unilateral concessions.

In addition, as noted above, these contentions rely on the baseless assumption that the U.S. currently has any significant access to foreign procurement markets that would be at risk if other countries “retaliated.” The majority of the foreign stimulus in PPI’s tally is made up of $614 billion being spent by countries that have no procurement obligations towards the United States and that already apply domestic procurement preferences (principally China, but also India and Brazil).

— Alliance for American Manufacturing, “The Facts on ‘Buy America’ and Domestic Sourcing”, February 2009

The AAM would also want you to know that in addition to China numerous other countries, specifically Canada, certain European nations, Japan, and Brazil all use other forms of “discrimination” to “preference” their goods over ours when it comes to government procurement: impossible-to-meet technical standards, “murky” purchase procedures, and bid rigging are all tools used around the world to make sure local suppliers are just a bit more, shall we say…reciprocal…than a US supplier might be.

Look, I hate to do this to everyone, but we’re once again running longer than we should, and we still have a lot more to talk about, so at this point I’m going to call “cliffhanger!” and set us up for a Part Three.

Here’s the “agenda”:

We’ll be talking about how the devil’s in the details: specifically, we’ll be looking at what “Buy American” is already excluded from these various trade agreements– and there’s a lot more than you might think, even as some of it is targeted in amazingly specific ways (to do that we’ll be paying particular attention to the annexes to the WTO agreement); we’ll also get Congressman Smith’s reaction to all of this…and once again, we’ll see if we can’t get it all done in 1500 words or less.

And on a lovely summer’s day, what could possibly be better beach reading…what with the redolence of the lazy sea breezes and the surf washing gently up on the shore and all…than 1500 more words on the annexes to the WTO agreement and how it all relates to sneaking a jobs program past recalcitrant Republicans?

I can’t think of anything else either, and I can’t wait to see you there.