Right Democrat: A Mainstream Populist Voice

I am a conservative Democrat at least in terms of social and national security issues, but am definitely not a Republican. I don't believe in trickle down economics, tax cuts for the rich or bashing labor unions. We need to repeal right to work laws which keep unions from effectively organizing in many states. I support expanding access to health care. I favor increased spending on education and job training. I am in favor of public funding of campaigns because it would reduce the influence of big business interests. I feel that Bush's decision to intervene in Iraq has been a distraction to the real war on terror and and needlessly cost American lives. I am opposed to privatizing Social Security and Medicare. We should all support fair trade and oppose trade agreements that cost jobs to American workers. I am in favor of temporary public assistance programs, food stamps, unemployment benefits, school lunch programs and programs for the disabled which provide a social safety net. In my view, public funding for the arts and public broadcasting is a good thing. I am in favor of expanding and encouraging public transportation in our cities. I am in favor of more regulation of the financial and securities industries. A more activist role by government is needed to protect worker safety and consumers as opposed to allowing big business to run the country. We need more funding for AIDS prevention and treatment. I support legislation that would prohibit discrimination in employment and housing on the basis on sexual orientation. On many issues, my goals are very much in line with progressive Democrats.

Where I part company with progressives is largely on the social issues. I am a generally pro-life on abortion although not really in full agreement with the full "pro-life" party line. I think that abortion should be permitted in some situations. I am definitely against late term abortions. I am in favor of capital punishment and favor mandatory sentences for violent crimes. I have no problem with legal immigration but favor strong measures to deal with illegal immigration. I am against gun control. I am opposed to gay marriage. I believe that Democrats need to welcome evangelical Christians but am definitely against churches making political endorsements. I think that conservative Christians raise some valid concerns about the breakdown of the family unit (which is the building block our of our society in my view) and how the entertainment industry is reducing us to the lowest common denominator with its incessant flow of violence and sex in TV and movies. Some of the goals of the conservative Christians are misguided and I oppose them such as teaching scientific creationism in the schools. While I love the Bible, I think that the scientifically correct theories should be taught in our schools. I don't see how formal prayer in public schools would be workable either.

I am a fiscal conservative in the sense that I don't believe in spending more than you take in. I am in favor of a balanced budget amendment. I believe in pay as you. Unlike our Repulican leaders, I didn't think it was a good idea to increase spending and cut taxes on the rich to create a record deficit. My difference with the progressives who dominate the Democratic Party in many areas is is largely over a few social issues. Some of my left of center friends are willing to sacrifice everything that I stand for in the first paragraph of my posting (and hopefully what we Democrats still stand in favor of) for their precious gun control, late term abortion and gay marriage rights. Some Democrats would no doubt invite me to leave the party over these issues, because in their minds these few social issues are all that matter even if we lose election and election over them. That is why I am presenting an alternative view because their narrow focus is hurting the Democratic Party and our country.

Democrats have been on a losing streak with U.S. Senate races in the South. In the past three elections, only one new Democratic Senator from a Southern state has been elected. The lone winner was Bill Nelson who won a narrow 2000 victory in Florida - a state that many regard as Southern solely in terms of geography. In 2004, five Southern Democrats left the Senate and every seat was lost to a Republican - some of the lost seats were not even seriously contested. The possible departure of Trent Lott of Mississippi from the U.S. Senate offers Democrats hope that this trend in the South can be reversed. Several prominent Mississippi Democrats are viewed as possible candidates for the Senate if Lott steps aside. Former Governor Ronnie Musgrove, ex-Governor Ray Mabus and former Attorney General Mike Moore are all reportedly considering the race. http://tinyurl.com/a2ew3
Ronnie Musgrove is a solidly conservative Democrat (pro-life, pro gun rights and pro-traditional family) who could help to rebuild the mainstream wing of the Democratic Party in Washington. My first choice for the Senate seat would be Congressman Gene Taylor, however, the presence of several Democrats with statewide name recognition makes a Taylor candidacy unlikely. If Republican Governor Haley Barbour's popularity should drop though, I think that Gene Taylor would make a great candidate for Mississippi Governor in 2007. And as Governor, Taylor could probably do even more as a leadership role model for conservative Democrats in America. http://tinyurl.com/94eu4
One interesting statistic pointed out by the Jackson Free-Press just after the 2004 election, is that 63% of voters in Mississippi between the ages of 18 and 29 favored Kerry over Bush. A major reason for this Democratic trend among young voters is the growth of the African American population in Mississippi. If Democrats can make some modest gains among working class white voters in Mississippi, it may be possible to put the state back in the Democratic column. Of course, it make a few years as voters over 50 tend to be most likely to cast ballots. Other Southern states that might trend more Democratic in the future are Arkansas (where 51% of young voters favored Kerry), South Carolina (48%) and Georgia (47%). http://tinyurl.com/af77m

Writing in today's LA Times, Washington columnist Ronald Brownstein asks "Will Hillary Run" for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination ? In recent months, Senator Hillary Clinton appears to be taking a centrist course on many issues. In process of moving toward the mainstream though, Clinton has enraged the Democratic Left which is looking with increasing favor on the Presidential candidacy of Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin. Feingold appears to be the favorite of many left-leaning activists who zealously supported the 2004 candidacy of Howard Dean. At the same time, centrists continue to look at Hillary with suspicion and wonder if she can appeal to Middle American swing voters. Brownstein suggests that former Virginia Governor Mark Warner is now the favorite of the Democratic center with his reputation for fiscal responsibility and moderation on social questions. I agree that Feingold is likely to emerge as the favorite of the Moveonner Left and Warner certainly appears to be the most mainstream of the possible 2008 Democratic nominees. Link to LA times column http://tinyurl.com/ey9t8

Democrats for Life of America will be hosting a March for Life breakfast on Monday, January 23, 2006 from 9:30 am to 11:30 amin the Sky Room of Hotel Washington, 15th and Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. in Washington, DC. The guest speaker will be Dr. Alveda King who is a prominent civil rights activist. She is a minister of the Gospel, former college professor and an author. She has served on the boards of numerous community organizations, the Georgia State House of Representatives for four years, and is an accomplished actress and songwriter. Alveda is the mother of six children and she is a grandmother.During the years of the Civil Rights Movement, led by her Uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Alveda's family home was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama. During the heat of the struggle. "Daddy's house was bombed, then in Louisville, Kentucky his church office was bombed. I was also jailed during the open housing movement," she recalls. Alveda's Doctorate of Laws was conferred by Saint Anslem College. She has served as a Senior Fellow of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute. She has also served on the boards and committees of numerous organizations, including the Sillent No More.
For information about the March for Life breakfast, contact Democrats for Life at http://www.democratsforlife.org. To read about Dr. King's perspective on the abortion issue, go to her site at http://tinyurl.com/9ga2o

As suburban sprawl expands into rural America and fewer of us earn our living from agriculture, it is easy to forget about our nation's farmers. There is far too little recognition of the importance of American agriculture. The ability of the American farmer to stay in business is critical to the cost and quality of our food as well to national security. The National Farmers Union has been a voice for agriculture and all Americans who care about our food supply. Here are a couple of recent news releases from NFU that raise some valid concerns about the cuts to agriculture programs and trade policies.

NFU: Statement by Dave Frederickson on WTO Agreements
WASHINGTON (Dec. 19, 2005) — National Farmers Union President Dave Frederickson made the following statement about the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) failure to reach a meaningful agreement about agriculture trade:
“The failure of the WTO to agree to anything more than the elimination of export subsidies by 2013 is an indication that any agreement on agriculture will be difficult to achieve until they are willing to negotiate all factors of trade, not just export subsidies, domestic subsidies and market access.
“To have a truly level playing field in the global marketplace, trade distorting issues such as labor standards, environmental standards and currency manipulation must be addressed. Otherwise, the agreement will benefit the lowest cost producers who pay the lowest wages, abuse the environment, and/or manipulate currency in order to increase world market share.
“The current trade agenda pits farmer against farmer, and country against country, in a never ending 'race to the bottom' of commodity prices. What farmers and ranchers in this country and around the world need more than anything is a profitable price from the marketplace, not lower commodity prices.

Senate Cuts Ag Spending
WASHINGTON (December 21, 2005) – National Farmers Union President Dave Frederickson made the following statement after the U.S. Senate passed a budget reconciliation package containing $2.7 billion in cuts to agriculture programs over five years.
“I am extremely disappointed that the Senate has dealt yet another blow to our nation's producers of food and fiber. This vote was very close and controversial. It was such a contentious piece of legislation in part because it contains slashes to vital programs that help our nation’s farmers and ranchers produce a safe, abundant supply of agricultural goods.
“Producers across the countryside are facing increased input costs due to sky-rocketing energy prices, and the price they receive at the marketplace is declining. These cuts are the wrong move, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.
“The reconciliation package calls for $934 million in cuts from farm bill conservation programs, $400 million in cuts from rural development programs and a $620 million slash from research programs. The spending package avoids cuts to commodity programs, except for a reduction in direct payments.” For more information on the National Farmers Union, check out their website at http://www.nfu.org

Republican budget cuts at Christmas
Where is the moral outrage at the Republican budget cuts - soon to be followed by more tax cuts for the rich ? The GOP does not really care about deficit reducation as the planned tax cuts for the upper end of the income scale will soon cancel out the cuts in programs such as Medicaid and student loans. How can the leaders of the Republican Party reconcile all the talk of moral values while reducing the availability of medical care for the poor ? As Americans lag behind other major countries in math and science and our young people are in dire need of advanced studies to compete in the world, Republicans are making it more difficult to finance a college education. Something is terribly wrong with the values of many Republicans and more than a few members of the Democratic left who seem to care only about about a few social issues and Iraq. Our Democratic Senators took a stand against these cruel budget cuts - now it is time for party activists to make the case that we Democrats are the right choice for working families.

Right Democrat wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Joyous Chanukah and a Happy New Year.

The following is a news release from the Blue Dog Democratic Coalition, a group of conservative and moderate Congressional Democrats, concerning the U.S. Justice Department's involvement in reviewing a Republican redistricting plan in Texas backed by former Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. At the urging of party bosses like DeLay, Republicans state legislatures have crafted gerrymandering plans which have led to virtual one party rule in major states like Texas and Florida.

WASHINGTON D.C.- The Government Accountability Office should investigate whether the Department of Justice followed proper procedures in approving a Texas redistricting plan that the department’s own attorneys said violated the Voting Rights Act, according to the Blue Dog Coalition.
“We suggest that the GAO investigate whether the ultimate decision to pre-clear the Texas congressional map was based on criteria stipulated in Section Five of the VRA or partisan interest,” the 30 Blue Dogs wrote in a Dec. 14 letter to Comptroller David Walker.
Top Justice Department officials approved in 2003 a Texas redistricting plan authored largely by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. A recently uncovered memo indicates eight career staffers in the department’s voting rights division unanimously recommended the map be struck down to protect the rights of minority voters.
The memo “suggests a blatant disregard for the regular procedures employed by the Department and puts into question the legitimacy of the 2003 map under this portion of the VRA,” the Blue Dogs wrote in their letter.
Developments in the case also demonstrate the need for a non-political method of drawing Congressional maps, said Rep. John Tanner (D-TN), a founding member of the Blue Dogs, who earlier this year introduced the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act. The bill, co-sponsored by 27 Blue Dogs, would establish non-partisan redistricting commissions in each state and bar mid-decade partisan redistricting processes like the one undertaken in Texas.
“We have to take the redistricting process out of the hands of professional politicians and give it back to the American people,” Tanner said. “That is the only way we can ensure the process truly upholds the idea of ‘one person, one rule,’ which is the very basis of our democracy.”
For more information on the Blue Dog Coalition go to this link http://tinyurl.com/ckjd9

Today's Boston Globe has an article which suggests that Democratic Party is moving toward a more mainstream view on the issue of gun control. For too long, Democrats have been losing elections in the South, Great Plains and the West over issues like gun control. Many gun owners believe that Democrats want to take away their guns or force them to lock all guns in a safe where they will do no good. Urban Democrats often advocate gun control as a means of dealing with violent street crime. Gun control will not solve the problem of violent crime. The solution is more mandatory sentences for criminals who use guns and preventing the root causes of crime - poverty, moral decay and drug abuse. The right to keep and bear arms simply gives law-abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves.
Paul Hackett, a candidate for U.S. Senate from Ohio (and National Rifle Association member) quoted in the Boston Globe stated that pro-gun rights individuals ''are depicted by some in our party as a bunch of yahoos, and we're not." Hackett, a former Marine who is the proud owner of 20 firearms pointed that as a party "our lack of understanding of gun sports is harming us." Hackett is not the only prominent Democrat taking a pro-Second Amendment stance. Democratic governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana who describes his stance on gun regulation as "you control your gun, and I'll control mine." Governor Schweitzer has compiled a solidly pro-gun record in office and is rated "A" by the NRA.
There are also indications that the NRA is responding favorably to the increasingly pro-gun stance of some Democrats. The Globe article quotes NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam who acknowledged that while his organization primarily endorses Republican candidates, "we've seen in the last few years an increasing number of Democrats actively seeking the NRA endorsement and actually winning it." Democratic politicians are recognizing that gun owners make up a powerful voting block and it is better to have these folks on their side than working against them. And furthermore defending the Second Amendment is the right thing to do. Let's hope that the Democratic Party continues to move in a pro-gun rights direction.
Link to Boston Globe article http://tinyurl.com/aw5sz

I am not thrilled at all with most of what passes for modern day liberalism or conservativism, however, libertarianism is probably the most potentially destructive political philosophy out there in my view. Libertarians have influenced the thinking of both social liberals and free market oriented economic conservatives. I have known some really nice people who are libertarians and even have a link to the Democratic libertarian-oriented caucus - Freedom Democrats on my site, but it would be a disaster if most of their views actually became public policy.
Libertarians basically want to abolish government or leave a hollow shell of a state barely strong enough to lift a spoon much less capable of providing a safety net for the less fortunate or protecting us from external threats or terrorist cells. These disciples of Ayn Rand want the greed of the marketplace to run wild basically like the Republicans if unrestrained by political considerations. As far as social policies are concerned, Libertarians want to leave our borders wide open, legalize all drugs, abolish the state regulation of marriage and create a generally libertine and chaoatic social environment. I can think of a few issues where the Libertarians are right like gun control, eminent domain law abuse by local governments and possibly decriminalizing marijuana (I would like for the pot-smoking old hippie to feel comfortable turning in the much more dangerous crackheads and meth-heads next door), but overall their philosophy would do a lot of harm if applied. If anything, we need a renewed emphasis on regulating the marketplace to protect workers, investors and consumers and a return to traditional social values which would be the opposite of libertarian dogma. I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative in that I believe that government should normally operate on a "pay as you go" basis, but otherwise favor sort of populist or left-leaning approach to economics. Americans enjoyed their greatest and broadest based prosperity not with laissez faire economics, but with the mix of capitalism and state intervention that prevailed from FDR in 1932 until the dark days of the Reagan Administration in the 1980's.
The arrogance of the Libertarians is just amazing. Libertarians have developed their own little ideological classification scheme- The World's Smallest Mind Political Quiz - which labels anyone who is a social conservative and a economic moderate to liberal as authoritarian. I do give the Libertarians credit for being consistent and willing to act on their beliefs. There is a movement among Libertarians to target one small state and move to it. A group of Libertarians, several thousand of them so far, have made a commitment to move to New Hampshire in hopes of eventually taking over the state. Some Florida Libertarians who don't want to freeze to death in New Hampshire are planning to relocate to rural Liberty County in Florida's western panhandle to turn the small county in a model of libertarianism. Anyone for a Blue Dog Democrat takeover in some small county in the South or Great Plains ? Since the World's Smallest Mind Political Quiz labeled me authoritarian, I'll gladly volunteer to be Boss Hogg.
http://www.freestateproject.org/

The free trade and globalization loving Cato Institute is probably celebrating. Americans are working longer for less money and we have "free trade" and globalization to thank - even Business Week says so.
Link to Business Week Online http://tinyurl.com/76qoe

As usual, The Daily Kos just doesn't get it. American Independent PartyCongressional nominee Jim Gilchrist's 25 percent of the vote (on the heels of the Democratic nominee) in Tuesday's "OC" special Congressional election in California shows that a lot of voters are very concerned about illegal immigration. Gilchrist who founded the Minutemen border patrol ran on a single issue platform of taking action to stop the flood of illegals into America. Anyone who believes that only Republicans are concerned about the issue of illegal immigration is naive. The illegal immigration issue has the potential to further split Democratic voters along the typical elitist vs. workers lines. I favor legal immigration but we need to do something to get our border under control.
Link to Daily Kos post http://tinyurl.com/dm5qb
Link to LA Times article http://tinyurl.com/d3xtw

Duke Cunningham, the California Republican Congressman awaiting sentencing for taking $2.4 million in bribes, will get to keep his federal pension. Of course, millions of American workers will never receive their corporate pension thanks to the atmosphere of greed and corruption that "trickle down" Republicans have created in the past 25 years.

A great idea from the Democratic Leadership Council's New Dem Dispatch. Opening up the primaries would weaken the grip that ideological wackos have on both parties. http://tinyurl.com/87tbm

The recent Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain has left every homeowner at risk for abuse of power by local goverments. Here is a horrible example of what a municipality in South Florida is doing. I think the Florida state legislator hit the nail on the head. This is a "reverse Robin Hood."
Link to The State http://tinyurl.com/7eeoz

Circuit Judge Al Johnson has announced his candidacy for the Alabama Supreme Court as a proudly pro-life and pro-gun rights Democrat. Judge Johnson sounds like our kind of Democrat and the type of candidate that the Democratic Party party needs in a strongly red state like Alabama.
See link to Columbus Ledger-Enquirer http://tinyurl.com/d8k6u

Labor, civic and religious activists in Arkansas are gathering support for a ballot initiative to raise the state's minimum wage. Look for the big business interests and the Arkansas Republican Party to use scare tactics to frighten voters away from supporting the increase. Voters in Florida backed a similar measure in 2004 and the dire consequences that big business lobbyists predicted have failed to materialize. The economy actually does better when workers earn a living wage. Arkansas residents have little to lose by voting for a minium wage increase as the state ranks 49th in median household income. The presence of the minimum wage question on the 2006 general election ballot should help Arkansas Democrats as it will probably boost voter turnout among the poor and working families.
Link to KAIT in Jonesboro,AR (home of some of my favorite people) http://tinyurl.com/7ppwk

Residents of 22 states and the poor people of Guam live under so-called "right to work" laws. The vast majority of the "right to work" states are in the South, Great Plains and rural West where labor unions have been traditionally weak. U.S. Department of Labor statistics show that no state with a "right to work" law has income levels above the national average. While the stated purpose of "right to work" laws is to protect workers from being forced to join a union, the real reason is to discourage collective bargaining activity and keep wages low to appease short-sighted business interests. Fair bargaining states (lacking "right to work" provisions in state law) have higher income levels, fewer workplace injuries, greater levels of educational achievement and a lower percentage of workers without health insurance. In contrast, many working families in "right to work" states must turn to goverment for food stamps and Medicaid as they lack a living wage and health insurance coverage.
Business interests often claim that the "right to work" laws attract industry and are good for the economy, however, the laws actually seem to have a neutral or negative effect on economic growth. During a term as Oklahoma Governor in the 90's, David Walters talked with hundreds of corporate executives during about possible relocation to his state. Former Governor Walters noted that "not a single company brought up right to work as a factor in deciding whether to come to Oklahoma." The economic and quality of life comparisons that can be easily made between fair bargaining and "right to work" states support the notion that states and communities benefit from the higher wages and improved working conditions offered by higher rates of unionization. Businesses that offer better workplace environments will have lower turnover and improve productivity. States, cities and neighborhoods benefit when workers are paid a living wage, can afford to support their families and are able to give back to the community.
Labor activists in Idaho are making a major effort to repeal their state's "right to work" law which was passed by a Republican Legislature in 1986 after a well-funded propaganda campaign by big business interests. The promises of economic prosperity for Idaho families have failed to materialize. Like all work for less states, Idaho lags behind in median income and has a growing number of working families without insurance. The advocates of "right to work" laws promised that more businesses would relocate to Idaho if the union busting legislation passed, however, many residents of northern Idaho must cross the state line into free bargaining Washington to find suitable work. Let's hope that the campaign to end "right to work" in Idaho will prevail. If it can happen in Idaho, then maybe there will be hope for the rest of us who have to work for a living in the 22 work for less states and Guam.

http://www.fairwage.org

You will find some people saying that they are for the so-called 'right-to-work' law, but they also believe in unions. This is absurd --it's like saying you are for motherhood but against children." --President Harry S. Truman. 1947

Democrats for Life is promoting a creative plan that could greatly reduce the number of abortions by 95 percent within 10 years without banning the procedure. As dedicated pro-lifers, most members of Democrats for Life support greater restrictions on abortion but recognize that it may be years before Roe v. Wade is overturned. Even if Roe v. Wade is struck down, a number of states are likely to continue abortion on demand. Can anyone cognizant of political realities imagine the West Coast states or most of the Northeastern states banning abortion ? There is an obvious need for something like the 95/10 plan being pushed by Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio and other pro-life Democrats in Congress that will encourage women facing an unexpected preganancy to choose life.
Far too many Republican pro-lifers "believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth" as liberal Congressman Barney Frank once quipped. The 95/10 plan would include such things to discourage abortion as banning insurance companies from treating pregnanancy as a pre-existing condition, requiring insurers to cover contraceptives and programs geared to raising public awareness about adoption with permanent tax credits to provide incentives to adopt a child. Other great ideas in the 95/10 plan include funding for domestic violence programs, expansion of WIC programs and require Medicaid coverage for pregnant women.
The only obvious gap in the 95/10 plan is something to enhance child support enforcement (a critical anti-poverty tool which our Republican Congress wants to cut) by encouraging hospital based paternity establishment programs. Legal paternity is never established for a large percentage of children born out of wedlock and hosptial based paternity programs can help to establish child support orders which will help to pay the costs of raising these kids. If an expectant mother knows that she will have medical coverage while pregnant and a good chance of collecting child support from the father, then she will probably be less inclined to choose abortion.
If pro-choice liberals really want abortion to be "safe, legal and rare" and Republican conservatives are actually pro-life enough to do something to help the poor women who often choose abortion, Congress will enact the 95/10 plan by an overwhelming majority. We have listened to activists screaming from both sides of the abortion debate for the past thirty years. Political strategists in both parties have used the abortion issue to manipulate voters. Why isn't the entire pro-life movement and Planned Parenthood actively backing the 95/10 plan ? Now is the time for action and not just cheap talk to help the women and children that both sides of the abortion debate claim to be so concerned about. For more information about the 95/10 plan, go to the website for Democrats for Life at http://www.democratsforlife.org

One of the realities of Southern life is that your co-workers will probably be either apolitical or ditto head Rush Limbaugh devotees. Last year, I made the rare discovery of another Democrat in my workplace. While some rather major differences of opinion quickly surfaced, I welcomed having a co-worker to my left in a environment so dominated by followers of the Republican Party. My colleague "Hank" is a fairly typical Michael Moore kind of Democrat who watched "Fahrenheit 9/11" three times at the movie theatre and then purchased the video. He's not a bad person - just a little misguided. The day after the 2004 general election was a sad time for Democrats especially where I live. At my polling place, a vote for a Democrat ticket meant supporting a losing candidate in every race from President to local offices. After enduring much ridicule from gleeful Bush supporters on the job, I was glad to see Hank in the break room who was also disappointed in the election results. After a brief discussion of the election outcome, Hank smiled and said "at least Tom Daschle was defeated." It seems that Hank being the typical Michael Moore Democrat held a grudge against former Senate Democratic leader Daschle for having supported the Iraq war resolution. The fact it might be a long time before South Dakota elected another Democratic Senator was unimportant, it was critical in Hank's mind that the evil Daschle be driven from public life.
The Moveonner Left is now targeting Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) for a primary challenge because of his continued support of the war in Iraq. Like my co-worker Hank, these Democrats are more focused on the ideological purification of the Democratic Party than defeating Republicans. I do not always agree with Joe Lieberman but he is respected by individuals in both parties. While I differ with Lieberman's position on Iraq (I am in favor of a gradual withdrawal over the next two years) and support of free trade, I will also defend his right to challenge party orthodoxy. Resources wasted on challenging Lieberman could be devoted to defeating Republicans. It would be a real shame to risk losing a Democratic Senate seat in Connecticut due to the impact of a bitter primary.
If you accept the Daily Kos as the source of all truth, one could get the impression that Joe Lieberman is some kind of right-wing Republican masquerading as a Democrat. In reality, Lieberman's voting record suggests a somewhat left-leaning, centrist voting record. Lieberman received a 75 percent rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Union. As a pro-business centrist, Lieberman got a 79 percent rating from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Despite a generally favorable appraisal from business interests, Lieberman received a 84 percent pro- labor rating from the AFL-CIO. The non-partisan deficit hawks at the Concord Coalition gave Lieberman a 77 percent approval rating.
Democrats need to have a big tent policy in order to build the broad national coalition needed to become the majority party. If every hawkish Democrat like Lieberman is driven from the party, what message will be sent to voters who are focused on national security issues ? The purge of Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party would be a destructive waste of resources that would suggest that moderates are not welcome in the party. My advice to the Democratic activists is to use reason rather than the raw emotion over the Iraq issue and leave Joe Lieberman alone.

Starbucks is a favorite meetup location for progressive activists. The internet based Presidential campaign of Howard Dean virtually came to life in the Starbucks franchises of America. I have to admit to even liking Starbucks myself. It ain't Dunkin Donuts, but the Starbucks shops have a good tasting coffee with pleasant atmosphere and decor - sometimes even jazz music. The Starbucks company has touted itself as a customer and employee friendly environment. Like many other deceptive big business P.R. images, reality tells us a different story.
The New York Times (11/26/05) reports that a National Labor Relations Board complaint has been filed against Starbucks indicating that a regional director of operations threatening employees with "loss of wages and benefits if they voted for a union." There have been numerous other incidents of union busting which have been addressed by workers against the company in NLRB complaints. According to UPI, union organizers picketing Starbucks outlets in the New York City area are demanding a 30 hour work week for employees so that workers can qualify for health insurance. Newsday quotes a customer waiting outside of a Starbucks shop with a picket line in Long Island as saying, "If you charge what they do for a cup of coffee, they can afford to give somebody insurance."
Will progressive groups like local chapters of Democracy for America look for another location to hold their meetups until Starbucks management stops denying workers the right to bargain collectively ? I hope so, but so many of the new progressive types are totally indifferent to the labor movement. Unions play a critical role in protecting worker rights and bargaining for a living wage. That's a lot more important than babbling politically correct cliches while sipping on a four dollar latte at Starbucks.

http://www.starbucksunion.org

Richard Lamm, the former Governor of Colorado, has strong progressive credentials. He was an outspoken critic of the Reagan Administration, fought for racial equality, a strong environmentalist and a early supporter of liberalizing abortion laws. In recent years, Governor Lamm has been sounding the alarm about the impact of illegal immigration. As a result, he has drawn the ire of politically correct leftists who have called him a racist, a xenophobe and every other pejorative label imaginable. Governor Lamm has written a letter to Democrats explaining the importance of the illegal immigration and I am reprinting most of this rather long statement because it is so important.
Dear Fellow Democrat:
A group of Democrats is challenging illegal immigration and we would like you to understand why we think this should be a Democratic issue.
We welcome your comments.
Richard D. Lamm
LIBERALS BEWARE: THERE IS A HIGH COST TO "CHEAP" LABOR
Richard D. Lamm, former Governor of Colorado
There is a liberal case for controlling illegal immigration that is seldom articulated. As the issue heats up and sides are drawn, both objectivity and civility seem to be in short supply. Armed citizengroups travel to the Border as self-appointed border guards, setting the stage for worrisome and perhaps violent conflict. Defenders of illegal immigrants call any and all concern about this issue "racist,"and attempt to take the issue completely off the table. The wise words directed at another subject by the late John Gardner seem to apply; the issue is "caught between unloving critics and uncritical lovers."
Dialogue is particularly difficult when addressing issues that deal with, or are claimed to be motivated by, race. In a strange way, this is a compliment to America. The struggle for civil rights, even now not completely resolved, was so overdue, so right for its time, so glorious in its accomplishment, that it required the vast majority ofAmericans to inoculate themselves against all forms of racism.Unconscious insensitivities that had developed over the 100 years since the Civil War, had to be changed or at least made into a faux pas. We all step gingerly around the subject of race, and have even taken innocent words like "niggardly" out of our vocabulary because they might accidentally offend. All revolutions have casualties, and by a large margin the small costs are eclipsed by the large gains injustice. But you can't solve an issue you don't talk about, and a problem ignored just grows worse. It is time for an honest discussion about illegal immigration. Not out of a narrowness of heart to newcomers, but because illegal immigration is hurting U.S. taxpayersand the poorest Americans for the benefit of a few. A coalition of "cheap labor conservatives" and "open border liberals" reinforced by political correctness has kept this debate off the table too long. It almost seems naïve to start out the argument that we are a nation oflaws, and that people should come here legally. This is not a mere formality as some imply, or a tiresome technicality: remember that there are millions of people patiently waiting to come to America, and illegal immigrants skip the line. To continue to tolerate this practice is not only a legal issue; it is morally unfair to those waiting to come legally. The argument should stop there, but it doesn't, so let's look at some of the public policy reasons against the institution of illegal immigration
Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration: Illegal immigration is having a heavy economic, social and demographic impact and it is past time to make a liberal case for controlling illegal immigration. Economic and social justice is the glue that holds liberals together. I first got interested in illegal immigration when a Colorado packing plant fired a group of Hispanic Americans andreplaced them with illegal immigrants. A small group of the fired workers came to me, as Governor, to complain. There was little I could do. I called the President of the packing plant who nicely told me to mind my own business and claimed that all his new workers had Greencards, which indeed they had, bought in the underground market along with fake Social Security cards for $25 apiece. Some time later, INS raided the plant but the workforce evaporated during the raid, to return (or to be replaced by other illegal immigrants) shortly thereafter. The plant continued to employ a largely monolingual Spanish-speaking workforce until it was bought out and closed 10 years later.
It is easy to see why this underground workforce is attractive to employers. The owner of this particular packing plant essentially told me he was not going to pay his (legal) workers $16 a hour, plus benefits, when he could hire illegals at $10 a hour without benefits.This type of reasoning will forever lock the bottom quartile of ourAmerican earners into poverty: for how are they ever to obtain a decent wage? Illegal immigrants are generally good hard working people who will quietly accept minimum wage (or below), don't get health care orother benefits, and if they complain they can be easily fired. Even minimum wage is attractive to workers from countries whose standard of living is a fraction of ours.
But that is not to say it is "cheap labor". It may be "cheap" to thosewho pay the wages, but for the rest of us it is clearly "subsidized"labor, as we taxpayers pick up the costs of education, health, and other municipal costs imposed by this workforce. These have become a substantial and growing cost as the nature of illegal immigration patterns has changed.
For decades illegal immigrants were single men who would come up from Mexico or Central America, alone, pick crops or perform other low paid physical labor and then go home. They were indeed "cheap labor". But starting slowly in the 1960s, and steadily increasing to this day, these workers either bring their families or smuggle them into the country later. They become a permanent or semi-permanent population living in the shadows but imposing immense municipal costs. Illegal immigration today isn't "cheap" labor except to the employer. To the rest of us it is "subsidized" labor; where a few get the benefit andthe rest of us pay. These costs ought to be obvious to all, but the myth of "cheap labor" and "jobs Americans won't do" persists. But let us examine it in more detail.
It is hard to get an exact profile of the people who live in the underground economy, but studies do show the average illegal immigrant family is larger than the average American family. It costs Colorado taxpayers over $7,271 a child just to educate a child in our public schools (closer to $10,000 per child per-year for non-English-speakers). Realistically no minimum wage workers, or even low wage workers pay anywhere near enough taxes to pay for even one child in school. Even if they were paying all Federal and State taxes,Colorado's estimated 32.3 thousand illegal alien children in Colorado school systems (out of an estimated Colorado population of 230,000illegal immigrants) impose gargantuan costs on our taxpayers. This figure is actually a significant under-statement because there are an estimated 30,000-40,000 additional children born to illegal immigrants while they are in the U.S. (and these children are considered U.S.citizens), clearly adding to the total impact of illegal immigration.
We have here in Colorado, and increasingly nationwide, single family houses with three or more families of illegal immigrants earning, at the most, between $15,000 and $25,000 per family, but with multiple kids in the school system costing our taxpayers more in education costs alone that all three families gross in wages. Studies show that approximately two-thirds of illegal immigrants lack a high school diploma. The National Academy of Sciences has found that there is a significant fiscal drain on U.S. taxpayers for each adult immigrant(legal or illegal) without a high school education. But don't get caught up in the battle of studies: just use your common sense and thoughtfully consider whether a low income family with three or four kids in the school system are paying anything close to what it costs to educate their kids. These are expensive families to provide with governmental services. Some employers are getting cheap labor and externalizing the costs of that labor to the rest of us.
Americans pay in more ways than taxes. Cheap labor drives down wages as low income Americans are forced to compete against these admittedly hard working people. Even employers, who don't want to wink at false documents, are forced to lower wages just to be competitive. It is, in many ways, a "race to the bottom" fueled by poor people often recruited from evermore-distant countries by middlemen who profit handsomely. It isn't only wages, the employers of this abused form of labor often violate minimum wage requirements, Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards, and overtime laws. Further, if injured, illegal workers often have no access to Workmen's Compensation.
The Americans who pay the price are those at the bottom of the economic ladder who directly compete with this illegal workforce. The very people that liberals profess to speak for and care about pay the price in lost and suppressed wages while employers get the benefits of reduced wages. Professor George Borjas of Harvard, an immigrant himself, estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market from newcomers.
The dilemma is compounded by the fact that approximately 40 percent of illegal workers are paid in cash, off books. Go to any construction site, almost anywhere in America, and you will find illegal workers whoare paid cash wages with no taxes withheld. Equally important, those illegal workers whose employers do pay withholding taxes have learned to claim 12 or more dependents, so their withholding taxes are either non-existent or minimal. Virtually every city in America has an area where illegal immigrant workers gather and people come by to get"cheap" cash wage labor. High costs, low taxes, downward pressure on wages, this is not cheap labor; this is the most expensive labor acommunity could ever imagine.
Supply Side Poverty: Consequently, we have a group of workers who pay no, or reduced withholding taxes, with above average birthrate (thus above average impact on schools), impacting our school system, with more, and more arriving every year. It is Orwellian to call this "cheap labor." Itis "supply side" poverty added to our society so a few employers can get "cheap labor." It is happening nationwide. Mortimer B. Zuckerman,Editor in Chief of U.S. News and World Report, speaking of U.S. poverty asks:
"So why haven't overall poverty rates declined further? In a word --immigration. Many of those who come to the United States are not only poor but also unskilled. Hispanics account for much of the increase inpoverty -- no surprise, since 25 percent of poor people are Hispanic. Since 1989, Hispanics represent nearly three quarters of all increase in overall poverty population. Immigration has also helped keep the median income for the country basically flat for five straight years, the longest stretch of income stagnation on record." (10/3/05)
Nationwide people and organizations are starting to object. The Atlanta Business Chronicle wrote that "Georgia taxpayers spend $231million a year to educate illegal alien children" while "public schools(are) facing some of the most significant decreases in state education funding in decades, communities' tax dollars are being diverted to accommodate mass illegal immigration." How can the American educational system improve when it is impacted, year after year, by this source of "supply side poverty."
Health Care ImpactThe health care cost of this illegal workforce is also significant and also subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. You can go to virtually any emergency room in Colorado and you will hear Spanish as the predominant language. "Colorado has one of the highest rates of new mothers whospeak little or no English" (RMN 10/13/05). Over eighty percent of the births in Denver Health and Hospitals are to monolingual Spanish speaking women. Increasingly we are seeing elderly grandparents withhealth problems present in emergency rooms as extended families consolidate. No, we don't know for sure that they are illegal, because it is against Federal law to check, but it is safe to assume that most are. Denver Health alone estimates that they spend one million taxpayer dollars just in interpreting for non-English speakers. Whatwould the total taxpayer cost of interpreting be statewide, and that is just a fraction of the total health care costs? The cumulative cost of this "subsidized" labor is impossible to ascertain and difficult to even estimate, but it is immense and growing as our population of these workers grows. A few benefit, the rest of us pay.
It is technically illegal for illegal immigrants to claim Medicaid, but as Health and Human Services Inspector General found, "Forty-seven states allow self-declaration of U.S. citizenship for Medicaid" andover half of those do not verify the accuracy of these claims as part of their post-eligibility quality control activities." The barn doors are wide open! Families without a word of English boldly declare themselves U.S. citizens and nobody checks! When states don't use the tools available to them, it is more the states' fault than those abusing the system.
Many of my liberal friends like to think of themselves as "citizens of the world" who dislike borders, and indeed we all realize we live in a more interdependent, interconnected world. But "to govern is to choose" and if everyone is my brother and sister than nobody will ever get covered by Social programs liberals compassionately seek. I have been fighting all my life for universal health care, but we can't have"the best health care system in the world" combined with Swiss cheeseborders. Social and redistributive programs require borders. It is fine to think of yourself as a citizen of the world, but we solve most problems in a national context and therefore we owe a greater moral duty to our fellow Americans than we do to non-citizens. Liberals must defend borders or they will lose all the social programs that they care about! No social program can survive without geographic limits and defined beneficiaries.
We often hear that 45 million Americans are without health insurance,but this figure is likely overestimated, because it includes over 10 million illegal immigrants. Most of the estimated 12 to 15 millionpeople living illegally in America do not have health insurance. More and more hospitals are going broke because of the constant stream of uninsured, particularly in our border states. The Census Bureau estimates that 11.6 million people in immigrant households are without health insurance. Not all immigrants are illegal; nevertheless, our experience here in Colorado indicates a substantial majority is notlegally in the country. The problem is much like when the gods condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, and the stone would fall back of its own weight. It is not unlike when you expand education funding or Medicaid and give extrastate aid to impacted hospitals, but the problems grow faster than thesolution. We use the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover uninsured children, but a new flood of immigrant children without health insurance quickly overcomes our gains. The Center forImmigration Studies has estimated that for a recent five-year period, immigrants and their children accounted for 59 percent (2.7 millionpeople) of the growth of the uninsured.
Ironically, the price of compassion is restriction. The only way wecan help America's poor is to develop programs which are not constantly diluted by the rest of the world's 6 billion, no matter how sympathetic.
Impact on our Social Fabric: Illegal immigration is having a heavy impact on our social fabric. A vast majority of illegal immigrants are from Spanish speaking countries. The sheer numbers are retarding assimilation as large ethnic ghettos develop and a de facto apartheid is forming. It isimportant to America's future that we look at how our Hispanic immigrants are doing. Too many of our Hispanic immigrants live in ethnic ghettos, too many are unskilled laborers, too many are uneducated, too many live in poverty, too many are exploited, too many haven't finished 9th grade, too many drop out of school.
The Center for Immigration Studies issued a report last year, which found nationwide: "Almost two-thirds of adult Mexican immigrants have not completed high school, compared to fewer than one in ten nativesnot completing high school. Mexican immigrants now account for 22 percent of all high school dropouts in the labor force." But what is most disturbing is that second and third generations don't do much better. Again, the study from The Center for Immigration Studies: "The lower educational attainment of Mexican immigrants appears to persist across the generations. The high school dropout rates of native-born Mexican-Americans (both second and third generation) are two and a half times that of other natives." It found that Mexican immigrants and their young children comprise 4.2 percent of the nation's total population, yet they comprise 10.2 percent of all persons in poverty.They also comprise 12.5 percent of those without health insurance and their use of welfare is twice that of Native Americans.
Robert J. Samuelson writing in the Washington Post states:
"Our interest lies in less immigration from Mexico, while Mexico's interest lies in more. The United States has long been an economic safety value for Mexico: a source of jobs for its poor. By World Bank estimates, perhaps 40 percent of Mexico's 100 million people have incomes of less than $2 a day. The same desperate forces that drive people north mean that once they get here they face long odds in joining the American economic and social mainstream. Surely we don'tneed more poor and unskilled workers, and Mexican immigrants fall largely into this category. The stakes here transcend economics."(July 20, 2000)
The question has to be asked: "By tolerating illegal immigration are we laying the foundations for a new Hispanic underclass? A HispanicQuebec?" The mere phrase makes liberals cringe. Frankly, it makes me cringe, but immigration is building the new future of America. Are we not building up a large, unintegrated, unassimilated underclass similar to what France is suffering from currently? Is this not a harbinger of social unrest in our own society? We owe it to our children to have a candid dialogue.
Conclusion Illegal aliens are, as is pointed out endlessly, "good hard working people who just want the American dream." But that can't be the end of the argument. The trouble with that level of analysis is that ther eare over four billion "good hard working people" in the world living below the American poverty level, most of who would love to come to the U.S. Obviously we can't take then all. We already have ten-percent ofMexico living here, and a recent poll showed that forty-six percent of all adults in Mexico want to move to the U.S. Then there is Central America. South America. Bangladesh? China? The pool of poor people is bottomless. Yet, we are a nation of laws, with our own unemployed and underemployed, our own kids to educate, and our nation needs to come to some enforceable consensus on what our policy should be on people entering the country illegally.
I have not mentioned what is perhaps the biggest reason to get control over our borders: terrorism. It isn't that I forgot, it is just that all Americans are concerned about terrorism and I seek here to make uniquely liberal arguments. I sense a backlash against illegal immigration that risks many/most of our most important social programs.Polls show that over 70 percent of Americans object to illegal immigration, and we run a serious risk of a backlash against all immigrants if we don't reach some consensus on this issue. Polls also show that there is no issue in America where there is a bigger gap between public opinion and opinions of the media and other "elites."But many of us are against illegal immigration because we do take social justice seriously.
The late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, one of my liberal heroes, was a consistent foe of illegal immigration. In testimony to the House Immigration Subcommittee, February 24, 1995 she stated: "Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence:Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.""...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."Barbara Jordan was a liberal who understood that immigrants must be legal and that the law needed to be enforced for the sake of our own poor and our own social fabric. But reasoned dialogue in America is rare these days and issues of immense importance to America's future are not being discussed or even debated. The question of illegal immigration is high on that list.

Democrats can be competitive again in the South if we can present a positive agenda, reflect mainstream values and connect with religious voters. Two examples of New South Democrats are Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee and Gene Taylor of Mississippi. Ford has developed a reputation for a sound approach on issues like fiscal policy and national security as well as showing a proven ability to appeal to voters across racial lines. Taylor is a populist conservative Democrat who has won re-election to Congress in a district that voted more than 2 to 1 for Bush over Kerry. Artur Davis, a Congressman from Alabama, has some great ideas of how to make the Democratic Party dominant again in the South. Democrat Tim Kaine just won the Virginia Governorship where he is expected to continue the moderate policies of Mark Warner. With candidates who can appeal to the vital center, there is no reason that Democrats cannot make the South a two-party region.
Related links
http://www.house.gov/ford/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Taylor
http://standupdemocrats.org/links/Davis.pdf
http://www.southnow.org/pubs/reports/browder.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/bfgsv

Democrats need another Scoop Jackson - that's the conclusion of Froma Harrop writing an extended version of her syndicated column in today's Seattle Times http://tinyurl.com/7528f For those too young to recall the days that Scoop Jackson was a powerful Democratic Senator and advocate for U.S. military strength who twice sought his party's nomination, Jackson is best remembered for being a strong advocate of national defense and security during the Cold War era. Harrop quotes a Jackson biographer who stated that the late Senator from Washington State recognized that "the root cause of the Cold War as a messianic ideology and totalitarianism," says Kaufman, professor of public policy at Pepperdine University. "He would have seen similar root causes in 9/11."
The memory of Scoop Jackson is frequently invoked by Republican neo-conservatives. Harrop points out while acknowledging Jackson's influence on many of today's neo-conservatives that Jackson might not have favored U.S. involvement in Iraq. In 1982, Jackson opposed Ronald's Regan's action to send U.S. troops in Lebanon as he felt that American intervention would have fueled increased religious and ethinic tensions in the Middle East. Regardless of what his position would have been on Iraq if still alive today, Jackson would have a strong credibility on national defense and security issues as Harrop points out "no one would have questioned his determination to defend America." A similar figure today might be Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, a mainstream Democrat and Vietnam veteran with a strong background in defense matters, who recently called for phasing out our involvement in Iraq.
I would take some exception of Harrop's description of Jackson as a modern day liberal across the board on domestic issues. Jackson was strongly pro-labor and definitely a economic populist which was often defined as liberal at one time. He believed that the Democratic Party needed to represent the interests of working Americans. Jackson though in contrast to the Moveonner Left of today was capable of seeing moral absolutes. Jackson used to say "I'm a liberal but not a damn fool." The late Senator recognized that Soviet authoritarianism was evil and needed to be destroyed. In addition to his strong anti-communism, Jackson had some socially conservative leanings opposing forced school busing to achieve racial balance in public schools (although a firm believer that discrimination on the basis of race must be prohibited) and felt that the emerging gay rights movement was a sign of societal decay. If Jackson were alive today, he certainly be regarded as a conservative in Democratic circles.
We must revitalize the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party. Too many Democratic leaders come across as weak or indifferent to defense and national security matters. Any sane person wants to live in a peaceful world, however, there are times when a nation must be prepared to use military force. Many Democrats today leave themselves open to the impression that they want peace at any price. A lot of Democratic activists seem to feel that the need for a war on terrorism is an illusion dreamed up by sinister neo-conservatives. The reality is that Islamic militants really do pose a threat to America and all democratic nations just as Soviet totalitarianism did during Scoop Jackson's tenure in the U.S. Senate. American intervention in Iraq was, in my view, a distraction from the real war on terrorism. Our party must take a strong stand for securing our borders (something that the Bush Administration has refused to do), bolstering intelligence capabilities and facing up to potential threats from terrorists who may use chemical, biological weapons or nuclear weapons against America and our allies. Democrats continue to be perceived by voters as weak on national security matters and this must change if the party is to regain majority status.

House Republican leaders have won passage by a vote of 217 to 215 of a budget reconciliation package which cuts critical programs such as student loans, aid to farmers and Medicaid while doing nothing to curb the expanding deficit. While Congressional Republicans hailed the measure as a courageous exercise in fiscal responsibility, the budget bill only covered most of the costs of $57 billion in tax cuts. Congressman Marion Berry of Arkansas, a leading member of the House Blue Dog Democrats explained why he vigorously opposed the Republican-backed budget plan.
"The Republicans are deceiving the American people by using fiscally responsible rhetoric to hide billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans," said Congressman Berry. "No matter how you package this reconciliation bill, it is still one big Christmas gift for the richest 1% of America."
The Republican leadership decided to go forward with a budget reconciliation package after enacting large emergency appropriations to fund recovery efforts for hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Each committee voted on a series of cuts to reign spending in by $53.7 billion. The largest proposed cuts include $14.3 billion from student loans, $11.9 billion from Medicaid, and $3.7 billion from agriculture programs.
With the budget reconciliation now approved, House Leadership intends to proceed today with a tax-cut package targeted at the wealthiest Americans. The package, which costs an estimated $56.6 billion, would make the tax cuts for the top 1% of Americans permanent and extend the lower tax rate for capital gains and dividends. The total cost of the tax measure exceeds the savings in the budget reconciliation package and only adds to the deficit for 2006.
"If $8 trillion of debt does not get this Administration's attention, I am afraid to see what finally does," said Congressman Berry. "We are going to drive this economy into the ground and leave our children and grandchildren to clean up the mess if we don't start making responsible decisions now about spending."
The U.S. Senate has approved a similar budget reconciliation package with $36 billion in savings and is also expected to consider a tax-cut measure in the coming days that will cost $59.6 billion. A conference committee must work out the differences between the House and Senate versions before Congress votes on the final reconciliation measure.

Washington's The Hill newspaper http://www.hillnews.com reports that House Republicans are holding off on a vote regarding a budget bill which has drawn strong Democratic opposition and some concerns within Republican ranks. House Republican Leader Roy Blount acknowledged that the budget reconciliation bill simply did not have sufficient votes for passage. The Republican budget plan had drawn fire from the Blue Dog Coalition - a group of 36 moderate and conservative Democrats in the U.S. House with a strong reputation for fiscal responsibility. The Blue Dog Coalition issued a press release on the budget reconciliation which I will reprint as follows:
Reality: the Republican reconciliation plan completely fails by any standard to reduce the deficit, fix the broken budget process, or reduce our dependence on foreign governments and financial institutions to finance our reckless spending. To make matters worse - the U.S. national debt recently broke the $8 trillion barrier. Yet, Republicans in Washington are advocating for a plan that drives our nation even deeper in debt.
“Most Americans hear the word ‘reconciliation’ and think that this means ‘cooperation’ and ‘compromise.’ The reality is that ‘reconciliation’ is a thin disguise for partisan warfare,” said Rep. Jim Cooper (TN), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy. “Many Americans also believe that reconciliation is supposed to lead to a balanced budget. But again, the reality is far different. The Republican reconciliation package actually increases the federal deficit by at least $16 billion.”
The current plan moving through Congress includes $54 billion in spending cuts and $70 billion in tax cuts, therefore reconciliation actually worsens the deficit. Additionally, reconciliation makes no mention of how to pay for the president’s bird flu initiative ($7.1 billion) or the reconstruction efforts along the Gulf Coast (approximately $200 billion).
The Blue Dogs have long expressed tremendous concern over mounting U.S. debt and are particularly troubled by our growing dependence on foreign governments to finance our debt. Earlier this year, the Coalition offered a 12 Step Plan to cure our nation’s addiction to deficit spending. The Blue Dog plan required, among other things, that all federal agencies pass clean audits, a balanced budget, and the establishment of a rainy day fund to be used in the event of a natural disaster.
“The Republican-driven reconciliation plan is a misleading and ineffective attempt to promote fiscal responsibility, something most Republicans haven't been serious about in the last five years," said Blue Dog Rep. Allen Boyd (FL). "It is painfully obvious that our budget process is broken, and until this Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress enact budgetary guidelines, such as the common-sense reforms proposed by the Blue Dogs, I’m afraid our country's financial situation will only get worse.”
“Republicans in Washington have created a credit card Congress that relies on borrowing billions from foreign nations like China and Japan. In fact, President Bush has now borrowed more money from foreign nations than the previous 42 U.S. presidents combined,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza, Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications. “We owe it to our children and grandchildren to do better."
http://tinyurl.com/ckjd9




.

Former President Jimmy Carter has called on Democrats to do more to attract religious voters and move away from a hard-line stance on abortion rights. United Press International quoted Carter, a evangelical Christian and Sunday School teacher as stating that "I've never been convinced that Jesus Christ would approve of abortion." Carter criticized Democratic Party activists who have "over-emphasized the abortion issue."
The Houston Chronicle reports that Carter's suggestion to Democrats hoping to regain an electoral majority is "to let the deeply religious people and the moderates on social issues like abortion feel that the Democratic Party cares about them and understands them is a crucial element that has to be inserted for victory in 2008." Carter also stressed that regaining support among working families is critical to a Democratic Party comeback. "We should protect our environment. We should cast our lot with working-class families instead of the ultra-rich on taxation. We should reduce the deficits, which I think would appeal to the conservatives in both parties," Carter said.
My already high opinion of former President Carter has increased to an even greater level of respect. Democratic leaders and activists would do well to heed the wise counsel of our greatest living former President.

Just in case you missed the CNN/USA Today poll released yesterday, it showed that a Democrat would win 55% of the vote over George Bush if another Presidential vote were held. Of course, hypothetical polls have little meaning. There is no Presidential election until 2008 and George W. Bush will never appear on a ballot again. Theoretical Democrats have often run better in polls that real Democrats. If a poll showed a real live Democrat leading John McCain, then we might have a political realignment in the making.There was a relevant message for Democrats in the poll. Democrats led Republicans in public confidence concerning the ability to handle pocketbook issues like the economy, health care, gas prices and Social Security. The poll did not cover any hotton button social issues, but terrorism is still a weak point for Democrats. Voters still trust Republicans to lead the war of terrorism by a 49 to 38 percent margin. If Democrats can establish strong national security credentials and move to the center on social issues, we might see the Democratic Party become a governing majority once again.

The Senate has just rejected a Democratic proposal to lift the minimum wage to $6.25 per hour. The minimum wage is presently $5.15 per hour and has not been raised since 1997. During the past eight years since the increase, transportation and housing costs for working Americans have soared. The Bush Administration and our Republican Congress have opposed a minimum wage increase and taken overtime pay away from millions of workers. Democrats must keep fighting for a living wage and the 40 hour work week. Low wages and dismal benefits are really a subsidy for big business as their employees can often qualify for food stamps and Medicaid programs. The Democratic Party needs to focus on representing the interests of working families. For too long, Democrats have been distracted by exotic social issues and allowed Republicans to get away with their hypocritical talk about compassionate conservatism and family values. It's hard to have family values without the wages and benefits to support a family.

Our friends at Booker Rising called my attention to this idea of the week from the Democratic Leadership Council concerning urban revitalization http://tinyurl.com/dmnnd. I am glad to know that the City of San Jose under the leadership of Mayor Ron Gonzales and the DLC are focusing on the need for stable neighborhoods. A city is only as strong as its neighborhoods. We should support initiatives that improve the quality of life in urban neighborhoods. Community policing has been an effective strategy to build communication and trust between local residents and law enforcement. Neighborhood beautification and anti-graffiti campaigns can make a difference in reducing urban blight and crime rates. Environmental design concepts have been applied to urban neighborhoods to give residents relief from traffic and crime by carefully targeted street closures and traffic diverting. Neighborhood civic and church groups can help homeowners bring their property up to code enforcement standards and improve pride in the appearance of the community. All of these things help to improve our urban neighborhoods which is very important since everyone deserves a decent place to live.

Dr. Bill Frist won a seat U.S. Senate seat from Tennesseee in 1994 by portraying himself as a compassionate physician. Once in office though, Senator Frist became an advocate for big medicine opposing legislation that would allow patients to sue HMO's and guarantee patient access to medical specialists. Many of Frist's original supporters were disappointed. A Washington Post article from October 4, 1999 quoted a doctor who supported Frist's first Senatorial campaign. Dr. Charles Handorf, a pathologist, was quoted as saying, "Dr. Frist has been a huge disappointment. We thought we knew what he was about. But it looks like he's stepped out of the tradition of patient advocate and become a pure politician." Despite the disenchantment of past supporters, Frist's pro-big business voting record won him many friends among the corporate lobbyists who welcomed his election as Republican Senate Majority Leader in 2002.
Frist has long insisted when asked about possible conflicts of interest with his "family" company that his HCA holdings were in a blind trust. Now Frist has been caught in a lie as it turns out that he did have detailed personal knowledge of the contents of the "blind" trust. Reuters reported that the SEC has subpoenaed Frist's records for a insider trading investigation. Frist recently dumped his shares in HCA, founded by his father and brother, just before lower company profit forecasts brought down the value of shares. The good doctor now may have the opportunity to use his medical skills in the federal prison clinic. At the very least, Frist should have the decency to step down as leader of his party although he does fit the ethical standards of corporate Republicanism very well. Under the circumstances, Frist can hardly represent the interests of his Tennessee constituents and it would be appropriate for him to surrender the U.S. Senate seat along with a public apology. In addition, to Frist's long-standing deception as his relationship with HCA, it should be noted that this "family" business has engaged in a pattern of fraudulent conduct. For documentation about HCA's history which includes Medicare and Medicaid fraud, check out this link http://tinyurl.com/bdbk7 and read about the unethical and criminal conduct of the Frist "family" business.

Voters in California's 48th Congressional District went to the polls last Tuesday to fill the U.S. House seat being vacated by Republican Chris Cox. As expected in this predominately GOP district, two Republicans State Senator John Campbell and former State Assemblyman Marilyn Brewer were the two top vote getters in a seventeen candidate contest for the Congressional seat. The big suprise was the strong third place finish of American Independent Party candidate Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minutemen, running on a single issue platform of halting illegal immigration. Gilchrist received 14.8 percent of the vote - well ahead of the top Democratic vote getter Steve Young who got 8.7 percent of the vote and only 2.3 percent behind Brewer, the runner up. In fact, Gilchrist nearly outpolled all Democratic candidates in the contest - the two other Democrats in the race split slightly over 7 percent.
Of course, the 48th District based in Orange County is well known as a traditionally Republican area where Democrats are outnumbered in party registration by an almost 2 to 1 margin. Despite the Republican edge, it is certainly a sign of the disarray within the Democratic Party when a candidate of the tiny American Independent Party (seldom heard from since George Wallace's 1968 Presidential candidacy) is able to outpoll the strongest Democratic contender in a Congressional race. Gilchrist, a retired accountant who gained recognition through media coverage of his Minutemen border patrol activities, kept hammering away at the illegal immigration issue and apparently found a responsive chord with the voters. A run-off of the five finalists will be held on December 6. Campbell who led in the October 4 balloting is expected to prevail, but Gilchrist has demonstrated how a hot button issue like illegal immigration can propel even the poorly funded candidate of a moribund third party into becoming a significant electoral force.
Democrats need to recognize that illegal immigration is going to be a big issue and get on the right side of the fence. The Bush Administration and the Republican leadership in Congress have failed miserably to protect our borders, however, political correctness and false assumptions about what is good for the Democratic Party have kept Democrats from effectively addressing the issue. A Center for Immigration Studies report documented how workers at the low end of the wage scale - often Hispanic or African American - are the hurt the most by the influx of illegal aliens. Undocumented workers suppress the wage scale and hurt lower income American workers. A June survey by the Pew Center found a division of opinion among Hispanics over the impact of illegal aliens. We need to recognize that illegal immigration does not benefit working and middle class Americans - instead it is a subsidy to big business. A lack of border security is an open invitation to terrorism.
Democrats must take the lead in protecting America's borders - the actions of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to direct state resources toward securing the border with Mexico is a good first step. We need to demand that Congress enact and enforce laws that will punish businesses who continue to hire undocumented workers, require that all local, state and goverment agencies share information concerning the presence of illegals and cooperate with enforcement agents, ban all forms of public assistance to illegals and encourage citizens to report illegals to the authorities. If illegal aliens cannot find employment or public assistance, most will simply go back to their home country. We need to be pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration.

Have some thoughts about how to restore the American dream ? A website established by the Service Employees International Union is seeking ideas about how to improve the quality of life and economic opportunity for working families. There are even cash prizes for the best ideas. You can submit concepts and also read what others are suggesting to help working Americans compete in the global economy. Check it out the site at http://www.sinceslicedbread.com

The NRA is taking on big business in supporting legislation in Florida that would guarantee the right of workers to keep a gun in a locked vehicle in the company parking lot. Workers often have to travel through dangerous areas to get to their place of employment. If a company bans guns locked in a car of their parking lot, they are in effect prohibiting the employee from having a gun while traveling to and from work. It's a classic case of the rights of workers versus big business interests. I would love to see the NRA win this one. I hope that Governor Jeb Bush will grow a spine and support this proposal. Bush claims to support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. I know that he caved into the illegal aliens on the driver's license issue, but let's hope that Bush will take a stand for the safety of Florida's workers by allowing them to travel to and from work with guns. If a company is worried about potential workplace violence, hire more security guards - the cost can come out of the absurd salaries being paid to corporate CEO's. You will note that country club Republicans like the chairman of Duval County's Republican Party - also a big business lobbyist - are lining up against the proposal. Link to article from Florida Times-Union http://tinyurl.com/8wgmg

Democratic state legislators and party officials in California and Massachusetts has embraced gay marriage and many of the Deaniac party activists across America have done so as well. I supported non-discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing and employment long before it was a mainstream position, but pushing for gay marriage is something that will trigger a strong backlash against Democrats and the gay community as well in Middle America. Social issues often take a while to heat up and gay marriage could become a bigger wedge issue for Republicans than late term abortion or gun control.
Our society has grown more tolerant toward homosexuality, however, it is far from ready for gay marriage. The gay activists would be well advised to concentrate on getting local doomestic parternship laws (a different concept than civil unions as they do not involve the controversial tax benefits for same sex couples) passed which already exist in many cities and urban counties which can provide the kind of documentation of a relationship for health insurance and hospital visitation issues that the gay community is concerned about. It is a good idea for a same sex couple to consult with an attorney who specializes in estate matters and have them draw up an iron-clad will and power of attorney agreement. We do not need to have gay marriage or even civil unions to address these concerns.
If Democrats are aligned with gay marriage, we will be locked out of power for at least a generation. Democrats are already a virtual edangered political species in the South and large areas of the Midwest and rural West. A pro-gay marriage stance will only strengthen the hand of right-wing Republicans. Are the Deaniacs willing to sacrifice the remaining social safety net, protections for workers and consumers, environmental laws, our Social Security benefits, public education and other concerns for all the important gay marriage issue ? I fear the answer is yes.
Democrats must appeal to working families once again. At the risk of offending my gay and lesbian friends, I think we need to recognize that a party and a society must be more focused on the well-being and stability of traditional families than on alternative lifestyles. Societies and parties that survive and thrive are pro-family and pro-child something that the hard-line pro-gay marriage and rabidly pro-choice folks in our party sometimes overlook.

A recent report from The Third Way shows why Democrats need to move to the center on social and national security issues, but it will done with the Moveonner Left and the Deaniacs yelling, kicking and screaming. The Daily Kos keeps pushing the idea that Democrats should follow Lincoln's strategy in the election of 1860. Perhaps, they want a Civil War between red and blue states. It just doesn't make any sense for Democrats to just scream louder. The Moveonner Left nut cases have given me a renewed appreciation of the Democratic Leadership Council although I still disagree with their advocacy of free trade. Given the insanity of the Kos crowd, it is easy to look at the "New Democrat" era of the Clinton Administration with nostaglia. A more careful and objective look at that time will show it was filled with not only accomplishment but also missed opportunities and failure. We need a Democratic nominee in 2008 that can appeal to the center, but a somewhat different approach than Bill Clinton took while campaigning and in office.
I think almost anyone would agree that the Clintons are very shrewd politically. While I have never been a big fan of Bill Clinton (if only Sam Nunn had been our nominee instead in 1992 !), he was certainly more in touch with mainstream America than the many failed Democratic nominees that we have seen in the past thirty five years. It should be kept in mind that Clinton did not win a popular vote majority in either Presidential election and was basically a product of Ross Perot's strong independent-Reform Party candidacies. Perot pulled 19% of the national vote in 1992 and 8% in 1996. Even Perot's weaker eight percent showing the second time around was quite strong for a third party campaign and pulled many more votes away from Republicans than Democrats. Furthermore, Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994 and never regained a majority in either house under Clinton. The ideal Democratic nominee-President would have been a Bill Clinton with character and more populist on economics and somewhat more conservative on social issues than the 42nd President.
Clinton's decision to raise taxes on upper bracket taxpayers in 1993 helped to return our nation to a balanced budget although the tax incease was obviously unpopular in some circles. The family medical leave legislation passed at Clinton's urging was not only good public policy, but also great politics. Clinton's support of welfare reform helped Democrats by reducing the perception that we support "welfare cheats." The fact that Clinton had signed death warrants as Arkansas Governor and was willing to criticize the hateful lyrics of "gansta" rappers (if only on the campaign trail in 1992) helped to put Democrats more in the Middle American cultural mainstream. If Bill Clinton had been able to keep his pants zipped with the staff and taken a more populist approach to approach to economics, I think he would have left office with great public respect and personal popularity that would have likely benefited his party for at least a generation.
Clinton's support of NAFTA and GAAT in the long run hurt low and middle income workers and alienated working class voters from the Democratic Party. Campaign contributions from the rich angry at the tax increase and insurance companies concerns about a national health care program not doubt helped fill the campaign coffers of Republicans to win Congressional control in 1994, but I do think the alienation of working class voters over NAFTA and culutral issues was a major factor in the Republican sweep of that year. Republicans had made gains under Nixon and Reagan in winning working class white voters at the Presidential level using cultural issues and Cold War concerns, but many of these voters had returned to support Clinton in 1992. The enthusiastic backing of NAFTA by Clinton-Gore basically told these blue collar voters to get lost and they started voting Republican at the Congressional level and below based upon the social issues.
While Clinton's framing of abortion as something that should be "safe,legal and rare" was preferable to the strident language of many pro-choice advocates, he did little to build bridges to pro-life voters. In fact, it was the Clinton campaign that was behind the snub of Bob Casey at the 1992 convention and pro-life Democrats felt increasingly alientated during Clinton's tenure which included a veto on late term abortion bans. Clinton's strong support of the assualt weapons ban in 1994 mobilized pro-gun rights voters aginst the Democratic Party - many of these voters are working class white males - a group that we were starting to win back in 1992. If Clinton had insisted on environmental and labor standards in trade agreements, taken a more incremental approach to health care (starting with health insurance coverage for every child in America), stayed away from gun control and done more publicly to seek a true middle ground on abortion, avoided stepping in the "gays in the military" controversy in the early days of his administration and exercised greater discretion in his personal conduct, I think we might have a Democratic majority in Congress and a quite different political environment across the nation today.
Links to articles about The Third Way report:
Democrats Are Advised to Broaden Appeal by Robin Toner
10/07/05 New York Times
http://tinyurl.com/8jp46
Democrats urged to broaden appeal by Nina Eason
10/07/05 Bostone Globe
http://tinyurl.com/adgxn

Writing in the October 4th edition of the Christian Science Monitor, Monica Campbell shines the spotlight on the Bush Administration's actions to cut wages and import illegal aliens to do post-Katrina reconstruction work along the Gulf Coast. Our so-called Department of Homeland Security has agreed not to impose sanctions on contractors who hired undocumented workers. Once again, the Bush Administration has sold out American workers and our national sovereignty. http://tinyurl.com/cwcuo

Congressman Harold Ford released the following statement in response to Bill Bennett's comments on Salem Radio Network:"To advocate the killing black babies as a way to reduce crime is the dumbest and most heinous thing a person of faith or any human being could say. It is indefensible. Salem Radio Network should remove Mr. Bennett and if they choose not to, they should be severely punished by the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Bennett owes America an apology."

As pro-life Democrat and a believer in racial equality, I am deeply offended by Bennett's comments. I also hope that Congressman Ford and the Congressional Black Caucus will get behind the 95/10 plan which will promote alternatives to the tragedy of abortion.

President Bush has signed an executive order suspending the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon act for the areas ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. The Davis-Bacon act mandates that construction workers on projects for federal contractors are paid the prevailing local wage rather than the minimum wage. This means a wage cut for workers involved in rebuilding New Orleans. These workers would be paid $9 per hour at the prevailing regional wage for the New Orleans metro area, but due to the Bush executive order - they may be paid as little as $5.15 per hour. The action is further proof of the hostility of the Bush Administration to American workers. Bush has stripped overtime pay away from millions of workers and now is giving a wage cut to already hard-hit workers in areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Contact your U.S. Senators and Representatives and demand action to reinstate the Davis-Bacon act prevailing wage provisions.

I am delighted to see a self-serving power broker like Tom DeLay fall from his position of leadership, but we should not kid ourselves that corruption and ethical conflicts are limited to the Texas Representative from Sugar Land or his fellow corporate lobbyist friendly Republicans in Congress. It is time for Democrats and moderate Republicans to clean house in Washington and pass some real reform measures. We need real campaign finance reform and to stop the revolving door from member of Congress to lobbyist. The Democratic Leadership Council has some good ideas about where to start in the article link below:
http://tinyurl.com/8yx6v

Pro-life Democrats in Congress have introduced a proposal that has the potential of reducing the abortion rate by 95% within the next 10 years. The 95/10 plan is a comprehensive legislative package which would ban discriminatory insurance industry practices against pregnant women; make the adoption tax credits permanent; fully fund the WIC program; expand funding of domestic violence programs; establish pregnancy prevention programs and require that insurers cover contraceptives. It is a proposal that should receive wide public support from both pro-life and pro-choice advocates. Listed below is a link to a recent column from the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle about the plan. http://tinyurl.com/bs5ax
More details of the 95/10 initiative at http://www.floridadfla.org/news.asp?newsid=17

Public opinion shows that the American public lacks confidence in the Democrats ability to handle issues relating to national security. In polls before the 2004 Presidential election, thirty six percent of Americans indicated that dealing with terrorism was their biggest concern. These voters heavily favored Bush and other Republican candidates. Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer has a task force working to change perceptions that Democrats are weak on national defense and responding to terrorism. Conservative commentator Cal Thomas had a favorable column in Friday's Miami Herald on Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer's national security vision project. From reading the Thomas column, one would think that the Scoop Jackson-Sam Nunn wing of the Democratic Party is coming back to life. I am not in complete agreement with the report concerning policy in Iraq, but think it otherwise points Democrats in the right direction concerning national security issues. If Democrats want to become the majority party again, it will be necessary to show that we support a strong national defense, securing our borders and taking the necessary actions to combat terrorism. Hoyer's national security vision document is a step toward restoring public trust in Democrats to protect America.
Link to Democratic Whip documenthttp://tinyurl.com/a98wr
Document: "Ensuring America's Strength and Security: A DemocraticNational Security Strategy for the 21st Century."Link to Cal Thomas columnhttp://tinyurl.com/a7eqt

I think that Congressman Boyd's comments in the Pensacola News-Journal are right on target. We have tried to fight a war and cut taxes at the same time. Trickle down economics just isn't working.
From Pensacola News Journal 9-22-05 WASHINGTON -- Conservative House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a laundry list of government programs to cut in order to pay an estimated $200 billion Hurricane Katrina recovery price tag. Some Florida lawmakers rushed to endorse the ideas, even if it meant embracing cuts to popular programs such as Medicare. However, U.S. Rep. F. Allen Boyd Jr., a Democrat who represents Tallahassee and other Panhandle communities, criticized the Bush administration for past spending policies that have made funding Katrina recovery efforts all the more difficult. "The administration's policy of spend now and pay later is finally catching up with us," Boyd said. "With no regard for fiscal restraint, the administration has led us into a war that we cannot pay for, pushed legislation that we cannot afford, while borrowing billions of dollars from foreign countries at the same time." Boyd said the Blue Dog Coalition, an informal organization of conservative Democrats that he belongs to, is working on its own set of plans that could help the nation pay for the mounting Gulf Coast recovery costs. "For years, the Blue Dogs have stressed the need for a rainy day fund in the event of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and 9/11," Boyd said. "Unfortunately, this concept, which is adopted by most families and businesses, has eluded many members of Congress and the current administration." Link to full article http://tinyurl.com/bfxn5

"Where there is no vision, the people perish." Pete Ashdown, a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate from Utah discusses the lack of vision in Washington in his campaign blog.
"I have a hard time seeing any vision in our federal government. The recent energy bill is a good example of this. Rather than pushing for a national effort towards clean and plentiful energy, our government wanders the room like a drunk looking for leftovers in bottles. The best example of this is a $5 Billion Loan to China to fund new nuclear reactors. The reason our representatives give for this? Well, if China has more nuclear reactors, they’ll use less oil. In other words, if you send your neighbors on an all-expenses-paid vacation, there will be more crack in the neighborhood for you."
Ashdown continues, "I challenge anyone of any political persuasion to stand back and admire the utter awesomeness of this legislation. What is even more special about this is that the fact that the Chinese have been buying significant amounts of U.S. Treasury Bonds, which is another way of saying they’re financing our debt. So we’re borrowing money and loaning it back to them, so they can take steps towards oil independence. That is what I call a lack of vision."
We could definitely use some more common sense in Washington. Here is a link to Pete Ashdown's campaign blog.http://vote.peteashdown.org/journal/

Writing in American Politix http://www.americanpolitix.com/, James Haywood declares compassionate conservatism to be one of the casualities of Katrina. Haywood writes "Republicans love to tell people that they care about average Americans, not just the rich ones. Sadly, no one's buying it. And this week, too many Republicans showed their true colors." One example cited by Haywood is Barbara Bush's comment that the evacuees were poor and now better off huddled inside the Houston Astrodome. Another is Republican National Chairman Ken Melhman's declaration, post-Katrina, that the GOP's number priority is more tax cuts for the well to do.
In a web exclusive for the Online edition of American Prospect http://www.prospect.org/, Matthew Yglesias also calls the compassionate conservatism of the GOP into question. "Spending has gone up -- way up -- nearly across the board even while tax cuts have been lavished on the wealthy. Less noted is that one very small portion of the federal government's activities really has been curtailed: the spending of money on efforts to help poor people."
Yglesias continues, "It started with housing assistance, primarily a concern in big cities from which virtually no Republican legislators hail. Next on the chopping block was heating assistance, vital in the northern parts of the country but easily neglected by the GOP's Sun Belt leadership. Then came food stamps, cut as part of perhaps the cruelest of many farces initiated by 21st-century conservatism."
I am unconvinced that compassionate conservatism ever existed within the Republican Party. The original and real compassionate conservatives are Democrats who have supported socially conservative positions such as a pro-life stance while favoring activist government and a safety net for the less fortunate. As long as the GOP remains in the grip of the big business interests, it is unlikely that there will be anything compassionate about Republican economic policies.