Blog

Robert L. Borosage

By Robert L. Borosage

Co-Director Campaign for America’s Future

Today, in the New York Times, an Institute for America’s Future op ad calls on us to “remember who we are,” comparing the present crisis with that our parents and grandparents faced at dawn of the New Deal. To see the ad, go here.

If, as seems likely, Obama is elected and Democrats win greater majorities in both houses of Congress, will we witness a new era of bold progressive change – a 21st century Green New Deal? Certainly many of the elements are present:

.. “their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.”

In his “closing” for the election, Obama is already issuing a similar moral indictment. He too is calling Americans to come together, to trust one another.

In one week, you can turn the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street….

I know these are difficult times for America. But I also know that we have faced difficult times before. The American story has never been about things coming easy – it’s been about rising to the moment when the moment was hard. It’s about seeing the highest mountaintop from the deepest of valleys. It’s about rejecting fear and division for unity of purpose. That’s how we’ve overcome war and depression. That’s how we’ve won great struggles for civil rights and women’s rights and worker’s rights. And that’s how we’ll emerge from this crisis stronger and more prosperous than we were before – as one nation; as one people.

Does all this add up to a new era of bold reform? Two more elements are vital.

Obama will face the same choice in the worst economic crisis since that Great Depression. Yet, today’s conditions are far less dire. Many voices will counsel caution. Many will tell him to limit his priorities. Many will warn of unsustainable debts and deficits. What he decides is needed will be telling.

The current progressive movement is neither as organized nor as grounded. Some good many are pure Obama fans. Some – including much of the best of the bloggers – grew up in opposition to the war in Iraq and the crimes and catastrophes of the Bush administration. They are scornful of compromised Democrats, suspicious of a leadership that didn’t end the war, cynical about the many corruptions of modern day politicians. Most of the organized progressive movement has spent the last years fighting to stop bad things from happening. Will a progressive movement come together that is independent enough to push Obama hard to go father than he might otherwise go, and responsible enough to help support reforms, and go after those in both parties that stand in the way? The Obama White House will clearly prefer the remarkable base that they have built during the campaign, ready to be mobilized in his support. Will they come to appreciate the benefits of an independent progressive movement demanding more than they think is possible?

Inheriting a country mired in two wars, headed into a deep and long recession, marked by Gilded Age inequality and growing insecurity, the next president will face stark challenges. If Obama is elected, he will have the moment, mandate, momentum, and moral armament to launch a new era of bold progressive reform. And in the coming months, if all goes well on Tuesday, we will learn if he has the audacity of hope to undertake it, and whether progressives can forge a force for change to propel it.

By Leo W. Gerard
International President

Protestors disrupted a convention of mortgage financers in San Francisco this week, storming the stage as former Bush advisor Karl Rove spoke, heckling bankers with bullhorns, and badgering a panel with demands for a foreclosure moratorium.

Fear and frustration compelled ordinary citizens to harangue the green-visor set at their normally-staid annual meeting. Middle class Americans are losing their jobs and their homes and their hope while watching Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson spend their tax dollars to bail out the infinitely-wealthy on Wall Street whose reprehensible risk-taking caused the country’s financial crisis. The middle class want their piece of the American pie.

Congress is trying to dish it out in the form of a second stimulus package that would extend unemployment insurance and food stamps and create jobs through programs such as highway construction projects.

Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin oppose it. They’re running around the country with caricatures of Joe the Plumber and Joe Sixpack, pretending the GOP ticket represents the best interests of the working class and small business owners. It’s all false rhetoric and no real action. McCain and Palin object to intervention for anyone other than the wealthy, for whom they plan to enshrine tax cuts; for overfed CEOs, for whom they believe the $700 billion bailout was justified, and for themselves, for whom they believe the Republican National Committee appropriately opened its purse to purchase haute couture wardrobes, hair stylists and makeup artists.

McCain wants to brand a socialist S on Barack Obama although both voted for the bailout plan under which the U.S. government is nationalizing banks.

Unlike McCain, however, Obama is a man of the people and believes not in socialism but in the religious concept of everyone serving as their brothers’ keepers.  This is how he explained it in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention:

“What — what is that American promise? It’s a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have obligations to treat each other with dignity and respect.
It’s a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.
Ours — ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology.
Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who’s willing to work.
That’s the promise of America, the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation, the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper.
That’s the promise we need to keep. That’s the change we need right now.”

That philosophy has great appeal with unemployment at a five-year high of 6.1 percent, with the poverty rate rising to 12.5 percent in what is supposed to be the richest country in the world; with 47 million without health insurance; with 1 million homes lost to foreclosure in the past two years and another 1.5 million in the process, and with the chronically ill across American skipping medications because they can’t afford them, as the NYT reported this week.

Because this philosophy is popular, Palin and McCain are trying to channel it, to steal it just as they did the “change” slogan, to try to make Americans believe that they would best serve the middle class. The problem is that everything they do belies their claims.

Sarah “Sixpack” Palin definitely has an elitist eye for clothing, hair styling and makeup. She spent $150,000 of Republican National Committee money on designer duds for herself and her family since accepting the nomination on Sept. 3. That’s three times the annual income for a typical American family. If she doesn’t shell out another dime, she’ll have spent $2,400 a day on clothing between the convention and the election. The vice presidential candidate’s taste includes a $2,500 Valentino Garavani jacket from Saks Fifth Avenue that she wore to the convention.

In addition, she and McCain decided their most important advisor, the one they would reward with the highest salary in the first two weeks of October as the stock market crashed, was Sarah Palin’s makeup artist. Her earnings for proper Palin powdering were $22,800 for two weeks, nearly twice the salary McCain and Palin gave their second highest paid staffer – their chief foreign policy advisor. They paid him $12,500, just $2,500 more than the $10,000 they ponied up for Palin’s hair stylist, whose compensation was fourth highest. The total for Palin’s hair and makeup in two weeks: $32,800.

While you’re scrimping and saving and shopping at Costco to prevent foreclosure of your home, just remember what Palin told CNN reporter Drew Griffin about providing a stimulus package to help the middle class: “But now that we’re hearing that the Democrats want an additional stimulus package or bailout package for what, hundreds of billions of dollars more, this is not a time to use the economic crisis as an excuse for reckless spending and for greater, bigger government and to move the private sector to the back burner and let government be assumed to be the be all, end all solution to the economic challenges that we have.”

So, for Palin, great big government is okay to bail out Wall Street fat cats, but not to help the middle class. Palin’s knee-jerk Republican “let-the-private-sector-solve-it” attitude shocks the consciousness after the indiscretion of the private sector just landed this country in financial crisis. We’re not inclined to trust them, frankly, Ms. Palin.

McCain said the same, backing the bailout for the reckless on Wall Street, and damning attempts by Democrats to help those on Main Street – of course, all the while dragging up the image of Joe the Plumber and contending he’s the guy’s advocate.

The ticket clearly lacks both introspection and economic expertise. McCain said it himself last year – that he was no authority on the economy.  By contrast, a person with some degree of economic proficiency, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, this week endorsed additional fiscal stimulus, saying it was appropriate now because the economy is likely to be weak for several quarters. In addition, economic expert and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman said this week that additional government spending now – for a stimulus package – is appropriate, particularly for infrastructure improvement, which would provide real value and create jobs.

Though McCain and Palin clearly don’t understand, it’s time for everyday Americans to share in the American pie. At a rally in Florida this week, Obama talked about how the policies of the Bush administration have shrunk the pie and permitted the wealthy to grab the few remaining crumbs. He told he crowd he has no desire to reapportion the pie, as McCain keeps accusing him wanting to do – as a socialist, you know. Also, Obama objects to the McCain-Palin policy of continuing to feed the rich all of the crumbs, which is particularly evident in the GOP tax plan.

Obama told the group his goal is to expand the pie to ensure that all Americans get a piece. The crowd responded with a spontaneous chant of, “We want pie!”

That’s what is going on in America. That’s why protestors accosted mortgage bankers at their California convention. The middle class won’t stand for the rich wolfing down all of the pie anymore.

International President

In a perverse way, the media painted Republicans perfectly when it selected red for their states.

Reporters would never have guessed when they did it that the red party’s candidate would engage in red-baiting. But there was John McCain repeatedly doing it in the debate Wednesday night, trying to convert Barack Obama into a terrifying “spread-the-wealth-around” commie. And earlier this month, the Republican’s brother, Joe “McCarthy” McCain, called two Democratic-leaning Virginia counties “Communist Country.”

When it comes to spreading assets around, however, the royal red Republicans, led by King “I-am-a-capitalist-really” George, take the Triple Crown. Their upside down communism works like this: the middle class pays for the tax breaks awarded the nation’s rich and for the financial recklessness of Wall Street’s ultra-wealthy.

Trickle down

In the Republican world, in the view of John McCain and George W. Bush, it never, ever works the other way. A curse, they would say, on anyone who would dare suggest that the rich should be taxed so that government could “trickle down” a portion of their extraordinary wealth to benefit the majority.

They believe in “free markets,” that is, allowing financial markets to run unrestrained and unregulated, or as some have put it recently – amok. They believe government interferes in markets and therefore should be shrunken and impotent. They believe that when an elite few accumulate wealth in that system, some of it naturally will eventually “trickle down” into the empty porridge bowls of the nation’s vast unworthy masses.

A dreadful thing happened on the way to the fiscal crash, though. That philosophy failed.

The “small government” Bush and Republican Congress increased spending, thus replacing the budget surplus bequeathed them with deficits. And not just any deficits – the largest known to man — $455 billion this year, edging out the $413 billion record debt Bush set in 2004.

The rich won’t be paying for that. No, Bush gave them a tax break, and McCain swears he’ll make that break for the wealthy permanent. The middle class, and their children and grandchildren will be making payments on that debt — which, by the way, was caused in part by the revenue loss from Bush’s tax break for the rich.

That’s spreading the wealth around – from the pockets of middle class to trust funds of the rich.

Over the past eight years, middle class Americans have watched with shock and awe as corrupt and incompetent CEOs left their failing corporations with golden parachutes – like McCain’s top financial advisor Carly Fiorina, who exited Hewlett-Packard with $45 million in 2005 when the board dismissed her as CEO following the company’s stock dropping 50 percent and her furloughing 20,000 workers.

Bail out speculators

Now those same middle class Americans are incredulous as Bush — who had McCain’s support 90 percent of the time over the past eight years — is taking $700 billion of their tax dollars to nationalize banks. Their tax dollars will be used to bail out the Wall Street financiers who wouldn’t cut the middle class a break when they were late on mortgage payments, the speculators whose uninhibited risk-taking caused financial institutions to fail, lending to freeze, stocks to swoon.

Deregulation of the financial industry allowed banks and other sorts of financial institutions to merge and become “too big to fail” and engage in risky purchases without sufficient supporting capital. McCain, who until recently bragged about being “Mr. Deregulation,” endorsed this suspension of rules. Its chief champion served as his campaign co-chairman – former Texas Senator Phil Gramm.

Gramm successfully pressed for repeal of the depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which was designed to prevent financial institutions from becoming too big to fail, and for passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that deregulated those now infamous credit default swaps that took down insurer AIG, costing taxpayers another $85 billion.

Gramm left the senate in 2002 for an executive position with the Swiss investment bank, UBS, the stock for which, by the way, has plummeted right along with that of American banks.

McCain’s mentor

Gramm still advises McCain, though he’s no longer campaign co-chair. He had to resign that position after he called the United States a nation of whiners during an interview in which he also denied the seriousness of the financial crisis. Here’s what McCain’s financial mentor said, “You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession.”

Sure, when the coins of the middle class are flowing up into your pockets, Mr. Gramm, it doesn’t feel like a recession at all. Spreading the wealth around – from the middle class to the wealthy Gramms and multi-millionaire McCains.

Really, Joe “McCarthy” McCain was right when he called the Virginia counties of Arlington and Alexandria Communist Country. John McCain owns a condo in Arlington, and that’s where he located his campaign’s national headquarters. They’re communist all right, McCain Republican-communist, under which middle class earnings are spread to the rich.

In the debate Wednesday night, McCain accused Barack Obama of conducting class warfare because the Democrat wants to end Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy and instead cut the taxes of the middle class – 95 percent of American families.

What Obama proposes isn’t warfare; it’s fairness.

Class warfare is what the Republicans have done to the middle class over the past eight years, and what McCain pledges to continue. It’s a war the rich now are winning.

That’s what Obama wants to change.

By Leo W. Gerard

International President

Sarah  ”Joe-Sixpack” Palin pulled her labor union roots out of the frozen Alaskan soil and started shaking them at normally union-allergic Republican crowds from the day John McCain announced her as his running mate.

Recently, she redoubled her efforts to cast herself not as a governor and member of an elite American family earning more than $165,000 a year, but as Joe Sixpack and someone whose membership in a union enabled her to secure health insurance for her family. Her confounding statements reveal John McCain as a hypocrite on the issue of unionization.

McCain, who has condemned unions as “serious excesses” and said government workers are “crippled by the fine print of the latest union contract,” introduced Palin by bragging about her union background — as if he approved. “The person I am about to introduce to you,” he said, “was a union member and is married to a union member.”

After that, Palin repeatedly put her husband, Todd, on display, telling crowds that he is “a proud member of the United Steelworkers Union.” Then, last week, Palin went on talk radio and said that her family was without health insurance or had to figure out how to buy it themselves, until, “Todd and I both landed a couple of good union jobs.”

That makes perfect sense since unionized workers are 28 percent more likely to be covered by employer-provided health insurance than nonunion workers, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute. And employers with unionized workforces pay a greater share of the cost, lowering deductibles and co-payments for union families, the EPI study found.

What doesn’t make sense is for the anti-union McCain campaign to be boasting about the benefits of union membership. Like many Republicans, McCain has made it clear that he feels about unions the way an Alaskan aerial hunter does about wolves – best when dead.

John McCain denigrates labor leaders as “big union bosses” as if such a thing exists in a country where union membership has steadily declined for decades, a weakening caused by Republican policies implemented against the interests of organized labor and the middle class. McCain helped block the Employee Free Choice Act, which would help even the playing field between workers trying to organize their own workplaces to improve conditions and corporations that hire union-busters to prevent it. He voted to block a bill that would have protected American strikers against companies hiring permanent replacements – a safeguard for workers that is commonplace in other industrialized nations.

But, suddenly, when he needs the middle class vote, John S. McCain is trying to convert himself into John L. Lewis. It’s like his position on regulation. He was Mr. Deregulation until Wall Street collapsed. Now, he’s all for it. And his position on tax breaks for the nation’s wealthiest citizens. He voted against it twice. But now he has promised as part of his campaign platform to make that Bush tax break for the rich permanent. He was either for it before he was against it, or he was against it before he was for it. But in the case of unions, his lip service doesn’t automatically translate into a flip flop.

It’s one thing for Palin to acknowledge that her family was without health insurance until she and Todd joined unions. The McCain health insurance plan is another thing entirely. It won’t be good for the middle class, union members or not. It’s a flop. And McCain’s not flipping on that.

The pain in the McCain health plan is the tax. He plans to create a brand new tax on health care benefits. The value of employer-provided health benefits – the kind Palin got when she joined a union – would be added to workers’ incomes, then taxed. For a worker with a median income and health plan, the extra cost would be about $1,300 a year. But for union members, who earn more and whose insurance plans are better, the added taxes may be more than $3,000 a year.

McCain says he would offset that additional cost with tax credits — $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families. It won’t work though. The money is not a rebate for taxpayers but a credit for insurance companies. They money goes directly from government coffers into the pockets of insurers. And there’s nothing to prevent them from hiking up their prices by that amount – something that wouldn’t be out of the question considering the startling rate at which insurers have increased their fees.

Similarly, there’s nothing to stop employers from simply reducing the amount they pay toward insurance coverage by the amount of the “credit.” Maybe unions could stop their employers from cutting payments because of protections in contracts, but the “credits” would become another bargaining issue.

Numerous professional organizations that have analyzed McCain’s plan have projected that it would result in millions of young and healthy people leaving their newly income-taxed employer-provided plans and buying untaxed insurance with their tax credits. That would leave the older, less healthy workers in the employer-provided plan, making it increasingly expensive, and very quickly consuming at any portion of that $5,000 credit that might be left.

It is also projected that many employers will terminate coverage as costs rise, forcing workers to try to buy insurance on their own. And that raises another problem with the McCain plan – he will not require companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions, like allergies, asthma and diabetes. That would greatly increase the pool of 47 million uninsured in this country, including many a Joe Sixpack and his family.

All of this makes it particularly disconcerting for McCain’s emissary to publically celebrate the fact that her union card provided her family with health insurance. Palin needs to announce whether she disagrees with McCain — as she does on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — or whether she espouses the McPain plan to tax health care. Joe Sixpack wants to know.

By Robert L. Borosage
Co-Director Campaign for America’s Future

So much for the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Clearly, once the bailout passed, investors took a good look at the real economy and went to the mattresses. We’re headed into a great reckoning. And at the heart of that, as illustrated in the new Institute for America’s Future op ad in the New York Times – “Even the Rope we’re Hanging Ourselves with is made in China”: — is this country’s unsustainable global strategy. To see the ad and supporting charts go here.
This is a result, as Barack Obama has stated, of a failed economic philosophy – the “market fundamentalism” that dominated Washington over the last thirty years, the notion that markets are efficient and self-correcting and, as Sarah Palin repeated in the last debate, governments should just get out of the way.
What that meant in practice was the worst forms of crony capitalism. Abroad, global corporations and banks essentially wrote the constitution of the new global economy, protecting property rights but not workers, consumers or the environment. Financial flows were deregulated opening the casino up for business. Banks were favored; the military industries protected; agribusiness subsidized.
At home, Reagan launched the war on unions, and rolled back government and regulation. The minimum wage was frozen for a decade. Undocumented workers exploited to undermine wages and standards. Banks got rid of the protections built during the Great Depression. Companies used globalization as a club against workers. Pensions and health care benefits were rolled back… Over the last eight years, productivity and profits rose, but wages lost ground. We lost one in five manufacturing jobs. Now some 15 million service jobs are at risk of off-shoring.

Global economy

Yet this global economy depends on American consumers as the buyers of last resort. Sustaining a low wage, high consumption economy is no mean trick. The gulf was bridged by mountains of debt and successive asset bubbles. Household debt soared to unprecedented levels, as Americans loaded up on credit cards and cashed out their homes. And the US is now the world’s largest debtor, having added over $4.4 trillion in foreign debt since 2001. We must borrow or sell off assets with $2 billion a day simply to cover our trade deficits. We now run a high tech trade deficit with China. Mexico exports 50% more cars to the US than the US exports to the rest of the world.
What can’t go on indefinitely, won’t. And with the bursting of the housing bubble, the reckoning is here.
Clearly we need to change course. We need a national economic strategy for a global economy, a strategy for the nation, not for the multinationals that have very different interests.
Yet our political debate is still frozen into a silly spit ball fight about “free trade” and “protectionism.” Barack Obama questions NAFTA-type accords and is charged with “protectionism” in editorials across the country. John McCain, a stalwart of the failed policies of the last two decades, still intones the old “free trade” mantras, denouncing critics as lacking “faith in the American worker.”
This mindless debate has been going on for three decades, as the country has sunk deeper and deeper in debt. Surely in the wake of the current crisis, it is time for an adult conversation about a strategy that would sustain a prosperous middle class in a global economy.
That means deciding if America will remain a center of innovative manufacture. A concerted drive for energy independence will not only reduce the half of our trade deficits that go to oil, but could capture the green technologies that will drive the markets of the future.

Broad middle class

It means deciding if we are going to sustain a broad middle class. That would require forcing business to compete within the framework of a high wage economy – not by tearing that framework down. Empower workers to organize, raise the minimum wage, and build a public social contract starting with health care and pensions to replace the promises the corporations are shredding.
Then we’ve got to change our federal priorities from policing the globe and top end tax cuts to making the vital investments here at home — in education and life long learning, in R and D, in the most efficient infrastructure.
Finally we’ll need to dispel the myth that the mercantilist nations like China are playing by the same set of rules. With China now our leading creditor, this won’t be easy. But we must find ways to bring our trade with that country into balance – either by currency adjustment, by managing our trade, or by a surcharge on imports that will force the change.
These aren’t the only answers; they may not be the best ones. But surely the question of our national strategy in the global economy can’t be put off. That’s why McCain’s decision to turn his campaign over to the Karl Rove’s protégés in character assassination is so dishonorable. We deserve a debate worthy of a great nation in trouble. Brickbats about Bill Ayers or Palin’s Alaskan separatist husband are simply insults. Americans deserve better. And McCain and Palin may find out that they just may demand it.

By David Sirota
Author of “The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street & Washington”

Last night on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow and I discussed John McCain’s new rhetoric claiming he supports better financial regulation.

But instead of focusing only on McCain’s words, we tried to follow in the spirit of the Institute for America’s Future’s call for a substantive debate by examining the Arizona senator’s career as a public official – one who’s formative regulatory experience was being a member of the Keating Five pressing federal financial regulators to stop doing their job in advance of the S&L crisis (ie. the most analogous crisis to today’s Wall Street meltdown).
You can watch the conversation here:

McCain, as the S&L scandal first suggested, is no run-of-the-mill free-market fundamentalist. Yes, he voted for the ill-advised repeal of the key Depression-era law that might have prevented the rampant consolidation and speculation that brought on today’s emergency.

But, then again, Bill Clinton and his DLC Democrats supported it too. Yes, McCain’s top economic adviser is Phil Gramm, the UBS investment banker who pushed through so much deregulatory legislation as a senator. But then again, Barack Obama’s top economic adviser is Robert Wolf, Gramm’s UBS boss.

Where McCain really leaps to the fringe and differentiates his extremism from others is in his use of the deregulatory label to publicly define himself. That’s how you can really tell what a politician believes in.

This is not a guy who just votes for the corrupt legislation his Wall Street friends tell him to vote for – this is a guy who has staked his name on being “fundamentally a deregulator,” as he recently described himself.

On 11/19/93, McCain took to the Senate floor to support an early financial deregulation bill and decry what he called “the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on financial institutions.” The guy who now claims to be the trustbusting Teddy Roosevelt back then lamented “the rapidly increasing regulatory burden imposed on banks is to cause them to devote substantial time, energy and money to compliance rather than meeting the credit needs of the community.”

Ten years later, McCain was bragging to the Associated Press that “I have a long voting record in support of deregulation,” and to CNN that “I am a deregulator. I believe in deregulation.”
And, during this year’s presidential campaign taking place in the shadow of financial meltdown, McCain was only months ago insisting on PBS that “we need less government [and] less regulation” and that “I’m always for less regulation.”
Of course, there’s plenty of good news for both Democratic partisans and ideological progressives about McCain’s about-face.

For partisans concerned only about Obama winning the election, McCain’s 180 on regulation opens up an obvious chance for Democrats to label him a against-it-before-I-was-for-it, say-anything-to-get-elected hypocrite – and Obama is (finally) moving to seize that opportunity.

For ideological progressives long fighting the good fight to resurrect the common-good regulatory agenda of the New Deal, McCain’s shift reflects a broader shift in the public debate. Suddenly, regulation isn’t a four-letter word anymore. Suddenly, even John “I’m always for less regulation” McCain is for regulation. That rhetorical shift could help create an election mandate forcing whoever wins the presidential contest to actually move away from Reagan-style extremism for the first time since, well, Reagan.

But as I told Maddow (and as I will examine further in my upcoming newspaper column on Friday), we have to all follow the money and the actions. Both Obama and McCain have taken huge sums of cash from the industries that caused this crisis. Both Obama and McCain continue to rely on Wall Streeters who engineered the meltdown as their top economic advisers (though only McCain employs lobbyists intimately involved in the crisis). That kind of influence doesn’t just slink away with a boom-bust crisis – it fights hard to make sure nothing concrete comes out of the situation (think the weak Sarbanes-Oxley after Enron).

Whether we get the kind of populist reforms will be decided by how much grassroots pressure is put on either of these potential presidents when they reach the Oval Office. The talk right now from both candidates may be good – and Obama is smart to point out McCain’s absurdly dishonest rhetoric. But talk is cheap when it comes time to write legislation.

By Leo W. Gerard
International President

John McCain should not be traveling in a bus called the Straight Talk Express.
No, that equivocating multimillionaire who kowtows constantly to the wealthy should be riding in one of those private, gilded railroad cars.
That would be symbolically appropriate as well since he is trying to railroad the middle class on taxes.
He is actually proposing a brand new tax on the middle class.
This has gotten so little attention it is astounding. And frightening, frankly, as television reporters and commentators focus instead on inane incidents like the lipstick-on-pigs remark.
McCain intends to tax workers for the value of health insurance that they receive from their employers.
Really.
Although it’s not included in the description of his plan on his web site. It is, however, on the site of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit organization that specializes in health policy.
I understand McCain neglecting to mention this new tax on the middle class. If I were proposing this shocking tax increase, one that will cost the average American worker an additional $110 a month in taxes out of the blue, I would conceal it as best I could too.

Taxing health insurance

So let me provide you with some clarity. This comes from the Kaiser Foundation evaluation of the McCain and Barack Obama health plans. It says McCain would “reform the tax code to eliminate the exclusion of the value of health insurance plans offered by employers from workers’ taxable income.”
The value of the typical plan provided by an employer to a family is $12,106, of which the employer pays $8,824, and the worker pays the remaining $3,282. The median household income is $44,389, which places most American families in the 15 percent income tax bracket.

McCain wants to add the employer’s cost — an additional $8,824 — to that middle class family’s income, then tax it. The hit to the average family is 15 percent of the McCain-added income — $1,323 more in income taxes.
This new tax would affect the 158 million Americans who are insured through their employer.
Right now you should be yelling, “What?” And demanding to know why you haven’t heard about this before. That is because the media keeps focusing on McCain’s proposed health care tax credits — $5,000 for families and $2,500 for individuals.

McCain certainly wants the attention to stay on those credits. It sounds so much better to be giving families tax credits than tax increases. But what you need to know about those tax credits is that they don’t go to you – they’re to be sent to the insurance companies. You never get actual money in your pocket. McCain says it right on his web site: “the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider.”
So if you choose to remain with your employer-based insurance, there’s no guarantee that you’ll ever see any benefit from that $5,000 payment. In addition, giving young healthy workers $2,500 to buy insurance on their own, where it won’t be taxed, will encourage them to leave employer-based plans, quickly raising the costs for everyone remaining and thus eliminating benefits of the tax credits. Finally, the tax credits rise only at the rate of inflation, not the vastly faster rate of medical costs, so, again, their value will quickly erode, according to several studies, including one released last week by health economists from Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan and published in the journal “Health Affairs.”
New tax

Still, somehow, no one mentions the new tax part of McCain’s plan!
Even the credits don’t sound so great after you hear the whole story.
John McCain wants to kill employer-provided health insurance. He wants every American to go out on his or her own and try to buy insurance. He says that on his site if you read between the doubletalk. He says, for example, “The key to health care reform is to restore control to the patients themselves.. . .Health care. . . should not be limited by where you work.”
Here’s the way the New York Times put it in an April 30 story, in which there was only straight talk: “Mr. McCain’s health care plan would shift the emphasis from insurance provided by employers to insurance bought by individuals.”
Since 2000, the percentage of employers offering health insurance has declined from 69 percent to 60 percent. Many more companies would dump their plans as soon as the federal government offered tax credits to individuals who bought their own. Corporations would disingenuously justify this abandonment the same way McCain does — by saying workers would get the advantage of carrying their individual plans from job to job as they move around the country.
They won’t mention the cost, however. To buy plans comparable to what workers now receive from employers, families are going to have to shell out a lot more money from their own pockets.
The math is simple. To buy the $12,106 plan with the $5,000 family tax credit, a worker is going to have to cough up an additional $3,824. (That is the $8,824 the employer previously paid toward the plan minus the $5,000 credit.)
That is, assuming, of course, that you can get coverage. Insurance companies are notorious for rejecting anyone with pre-existing conditions, including acne, being overweight and diabetes.

McCain wouldn’t qualify

John McCain himself would likely be unable to find an insurer on the private market since he’s had the most serious form of skin cancer, melanoma, more than once.
But he doesn’t have to worry because, as a U.S. senator, he’s covered by a government plan. And he’s certainly not proposing eliminating that!
McCain could resolve the exclusion problem by requiring insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions. But he doesn’t. Instead, he suggests setting up a system in which states would become responsible making sure those people get insurance. He says he won’t shift the costs to the states, but what’s the chance of that? He’s establishing a pool of all of those rejected by insurance companies – thus those with the highest risk. And he’s telling the states to deal with the problem that creates.
Meanwhile, insurance companies would be left to profit big time by providing insurance for the young, the healthy and everyone who doesn’t have anything at all wrong with them. What a deal!
He claims this plan will increase competition and drive down prices – as if an individual worker, on his own, without any real knowledge of the system, has the negotiating power of a major corporation with full-time experts on its staff whose only function is to buy insurance for a pool of hundreds or thousands of workers.
While McCain is planning to increase your taxes if you’ve got insurance at work or to force you into the insurance market at a huge financial loss, he intends, at the same time, to cut taxes on corporations — you know, like those giant oil companies that just raked in the largest quarterly profits of any firm ever in the history of mankind. And he plans to permanently retain those income tax cuts his friend George W. Bush gave to the rich, because, of course, the wealthiest Americans, like McCain and Bush, need a break today.

Lying to American workers

In the meantime, McCain is traveling to states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, hard hit by the economic devastation caused by eight years of Bush administration fiscal policy failures. At each stop, McCain is sucking up the middle class – as if his administration wouldn’t cost workers dearly.
He needs to stop lying to America’s workers.
In fact, maybe Mr. Straight-Talk-Express needs to slap on some lipstick. Because sometimes the truth is a bitch.

David Sirota

 

By David Sirota
Author of “The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt”

Last night, I appeared on Rachel Maddow’s new MSNBC show to discuss John McCain’s new ad attacking Barack Obama on education. You can watch the discussion here:

In airing this ad, McCain has done something I never thought I would see: He has sponsored a new television commercial that effectively declares his support for child molester rights.

I’m dead serious here: The ad explicitly criticizes Obama for supporting state legislation that the Kansas City Star notes was designed to give “schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators.”

So by basic logical deduction, then, McCain’s ad attacking Obama for supporting that bill means McCain would have opposed it – meaning he would have taken the side of the Pedophilia Lobby that wants young children to not understand when they are being molested. I’m wondering – is there a NAMBLA endorsement in the works for McCain? The Arizona senator sure seems to be courting that interest group with this latest declaration.

Of course, McCain’s ad is aimed at pushing the kind of cultural populism Republicans have been using for at least a generation. In this case, McCain is willing to put himself on record as supporting child molesters, as long as it helps him depict Obama as not just a child molester supporter, but a child molester himself – which is what the ad’s voiceover basically suggests when it hysterically implies State Senator Obama tried to fondle small schoolchildren while whispering sweet porn nothings into their ear.

Put into pop culture terms, this is McCain’s effort to turn the 2008 presidential campaign into the infamous, multi-part Different Strokes child molester episode – starring Barack Obama as the pedophile.

On Rachel’s show last night, we discussed how Obama can – and should – respond to this kind of cultural populism. I reiterated that, in general, he needs to do what I suggested in a newspaper column a few months back: namely, voice strong economic populist themes that keep the campaign debate focused on the issues of most import, and that Democrats win on.

In specifically responding to this ad, I told Rachel that Obama has to learn a lesson from perhaps the most famous of failed methods of responding to such issues – the one from the 1988 presidential debate, where Michael Dukakis answered Bernard Shaw’s question about raping and murdering Kitty Dukakis not with an emotional attack on Shaw’s inappropriate inquiry, but with dispassionate platitudes. Watch that moment here:

If Obama reacts forcefully and emotionally to McCain’s ad – not through a spokesman but on his own – he could make this ad and the right’s whole cultural populist meme backfire on McCain. But that’s a big if.

As one addendum: If you haven’t checked out Rachel’s new show, you should. It’s great – fast-paced, funny, informative – and anchored by a real movement progressive. It’s also doing really well in its first few days of ratings.
——————–
This blog was first published on Huffington Post

By Leo W. Gerard
International President

When presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain introduced Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his intended vice presidential running mate, those of us in the lower 48 learned that her husband, Todd Palin, not only was a champion snowmobiler and commercial fisherman but also a steelworker.
At the press conference, Palin trotted him out, stressing his steelworker credentials. Here’s a good union man, she emphasized.
But his United Steelworker card doesn’t include an automatic auxiliary membership for her. Or her running mate at the top of the Republican ticket, McCain, whose record on labor issues would require some serious penance before he could ever earn a union card.
John McCain opposes the Employee Free Choice Act, which would enable workers to collectively bargain and secure contracts with corporations more easily, like the employment contracts CEOs demand to have with corporations. McCain has jeopardized retirement by championing Bush’s privatization scheme for social security. McCain has voted for every American-job-killing free trade deal, without regard to human rights or environmental standards. And he has proposed, instead of providing health insurance for all Americans, a plan to tax the insurance of those lucky enough to still have employer-provided coveraage.

Soul mate
McCain has characterized Palin, 44, as his political soul mate. How he determined that is unclear since he met her only twice before selecting her, and her resume for VP is paltry, at best. She served two terms on Wasilla City Council and two terms as Wasilla Mayor. At that time, Wasilla had about 5,000 residents. She also served as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, a job she quit in less than a year. She ran for lieutenant governor and lost. While seeking the governor’s post, she said she supported the bridge-to-nowhere, a $398 million span that would have linked Ketchikan, Alaska to an island of approximately 50 residents across the Tongass Narrows.
Then, after Congress squelched the bridge, she said, as she put it, “No thanks,” to the “earmark.”  Despite all that, when Congress offered Alaska about half the money from that “earmark” that John McCain claims to have so opposed, Palin took it and spent it on other road projects.
While mayor, she lowered property taxes, before she raised sales taxes. She hired a Washington lobbyist to secure some of those McCain-dreaded “earmarks” for little Wasilla, a task it succeeded in doing. She left the town with millions in debt and a dispute that ultimately cost it $1.3 million to settle over ownership of land on which she wanted its $15 million sports complex built.

Plucking Palin
Even the New York Times in an editorial Wednesday questioned McCain’s judgment in plucking Palin from a state with a population (670,053) roughly the same as the twin cities’ where the Republicans are meeting: “If John McCain wants voters to conclude, as he argues, that he has more independence and experience and better judgment than Barack Obama, he made a bad start by choosing Gov Sarah Palin of Alaska.”
The workers of America cannot afford bad judgment after eight years of economy-crushing, debt-creating, Bush-Cheney. Unemployment, the national debt, inflation, home foreclosures and gas prices are all rising at demoralizing rates, while Bush and McCain continue to proclaim the economy is basically strong and any recession is all in workers’ heads, just some sort of psychological problem. Maybe that’s true — if you’re a multimillionaire like Bush and McCain. Or if you’ve got seven homes in which to hide from the reality of everyday American life like McCain.
Ms. Palin needs to stop trotting out her husband as an exhibit until she explains her positions on workers’ issues. Just exactly where does she stand on the Employee Free Choice Act?
Her family has benefitted from her husband’s ability to be part of a labor union. Workers in labor organizations earn higher wages and are more likely to have pensions and health insurance. Because he works for BP and is a member of the USW, which collectively bargained a good contract for workers at BP, Todd Palin earns a good wage and has good health insurance. The Employee Free Choice Act would make it easier for other Americans to join unions and earn better money and obtain health insurance. Polling shows that 70 percent of Americans support for the Employee Free Choice Act.
Inquiring minds want to know, Ms. Palin. Where do you stand on Employee Free Choice? Where do you stand on privatization of social security? Where do you stand on job-killing free trade?
Are you with McCain – and against workers – on these issues? If so, you need to stop using your husband’s membership in the USW as a prop, because then his union card cannot possibly cover up your or John McCain’s worker-savaging positions.

By Holly Hart
USW Legislative Director

Presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, on his 72^nd birthday, announced a selection that revealed the depths of his cynicism and the shallowness of his judgment – and his disregard for women’s intelligence.

After looking into a pool of vice president candidates deep with qualification, he plucked out the least experienced person.

This follows four months in which he and his surrogates continually blathered that Democratic nominee Barack Obama was unqualified. Former New York City mayor Rudy Guiliani just got done giving that GOP talking point to TV commentators during the Democratic Convention, contending repeatedly that Sen. Obama’s credentials made him unfit to be commander-in-chief – an accusation Sen. Obama effectively refuted in his nomination acceptance speech Thursday night.

That speech was so effective, the McCain campaign had to do something – anything – to steal the spotlight away from a defining moment in American history.

The very next day the McCain campaign played their trump card – McCain announced that he’d selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

Although a dedicated public servant, wife and mother, here’s the sum total of Palin’s experience: not quite two years as governor; two terms as mayor of the Alaskan town of Wasilla, population, 8,000; two terms on Wasilla city council; chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; TV sports reporter; small business owner for three years; mother of five; bachelor of arts degree in journalism from the University of Idaho, and Miss Alaska runner-up.

If McCain, who has suffered melanoma, were elected, Palin would be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Palin’s competition for the VP slot included Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Joe Lieberman, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Every one of them has at least one advanced degree; Romney has two, both from Harvard. Every one has substantially more years of experience in governing than Palin.

The least experienced might be Pawlenty. But even he has, in addition to that city council experience, a dozen years in the state legislature. And he’s serving his second term as governor, not his second year.

With Palin at his side, McCain now is open for the same ridicule he’s heaped on Obama. And the reason he opened himself up for that mock-fest is clear: He believes women are stupid.

Put a woman on the ticket, he cynically figured, and he’d garner disgruntled supporters of unsuccessful Democratic candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The strategy of selecting Palin shows he believes women, who supported Sen. Clinton, an abortion rights advocate, are so Stepfordesque that they’ll just follow the Republican ticket now that there’s a woman attached to it.

Palin, unlike Sen. Clinton, is anti-choice. She is a member of an anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life. In 2002, when she ran for lieutenant governor in Alaska, she sent an e-mail to the anti-abortion Alaska Right to Life Board saying she has “adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion.”

She’s a member of the National Rifle Association and backs drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (McCain picked her, though he does not support drilling there.)

But McCain doesn’t think Clinton’s supporters will notice any of that.  He figures they’ll blindly accept any female – whether she has a strong record on the issues that affect working families or not.  There is no doubt that Palin’s a successful woman.  But what we know of her record does not qualify her to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency.  McCain has so little respect for women’s intelligence that he thinks we will make a choice based solely on gender.

When Obama was in the process of vetting vice presidential candidates, he told reporters he couldn’t make a hasty decision. The reason, he said, was the selection of a running mate was “the most important decision that I will make before I am president.”

In choosing Palin, McCain has clearly shown he lacks the judgment to be president. In this most important decision, he made his choice based on cynicism and politics instead of choosing a leader qualified to govern this country should something dreadful befall the president.