Right Democrat: A Mainstream Populist Voice

Despite losing millions of manufacturing jobs, the stagnation of incomes among middle class Americans and a massive trade deficit, we still have many elitists who believe that "free trade" is the best thing since sliced bread. The reality that our standard of living is in decline thanks to self-destructive trade policies does not change the "free traders" insistence that "the world is flat."

Writing in his Capital Commerce column at http://www.usnews.com/, James Pethokoukis shares his fear that likely 2008 Democratic Presidential contender John Edwards is about to "raise the protectionist banner." Pethokoukis notes that Edwards has established a committee to explore running for the 2008 Democratic nomination led by former Michigan Congressman David Bonior. It seems that Bonior has consistently supported measures to secure American jobs while opposing unfair trade politicies - something that arrogant globalists tend to look at with displeasure.

"Before retiring from the House in 2002 and unsuccessfully running for governor of the Wolverine State, Bonior was one of the most protectionist members of Congress, not too surprising for a Michigan Democrat, of course. While in Congress, Bonior voted for withdrawing from the World Trade Organization, voted against presidential fast-track trade authority as well as giving China most-favored-nation trading status. His inclusion on Team Edwards leaves little doubt that the former trial lawyer will be the Sherrod Brown or Patrick Buchanan of the Dem primaries, bashing free trade and China all around the country." See complete article at http://tinyurl.com/y4qh8x

After reading the US News column, I am much more inclined to give John Edwards a second look as a 2008 Presidential possibility. As I recall, Edwards took a generally pro-fair trade position while in the U.S. Senate and on the campaign trail in the 2004 primaries but tended to downplay the issue. If Edwards is going to champion the interests of America's working class and middle class families, he might just surprise the political pundits and find a broad national base of support.

* THE GREAT RISK SHIFT

Jacob Hacker, a Fellow at the New America Foundation, has written an excellent book "The Great Risk Shift." Hacker explains how the so-called "Ownership Society" has destroyed the economic stability of our working and middle class. Listed below are some disturbing facts about the consequences of trickle down economics, deregulation and the weakening of collective bargaining for American families.

http://www.greatriskshift.com/facts.html

Income Insecurity

—The size of swings of pre-tax family income from year to year has tripled since the early 1970s. This sort of income instability—how far people move up and down the income ladder from year to year — has grown faster than income inequality—the gap between people on different points on the income ladder.

—The chance that a person with average demographic characteristics will experience a 50 percent or larger drop in income over a two-year period has risen from 7 percent in the early 1970s to 17 percent in 2002.

—Personal bankruptcy has gone from a rare occurrence to a routine one. In 2005, more than 2 million Americans filed for bankruptcy—up from fewer than 300,000 in 1980.—Income instability has risen just as quickly among the well educated as among the less well educated. As a result, college-educated workers today experience instability as great as workers without a high-school degree experienced in the 1970s.

Family Insecurity

— Parents with kids are much more likely than other adults to say they don't have enough financial resources to support themselves if they lose their jobs. All told, more than 70 percent of Americans say they could last no longer than 4 months without their current income before experiencing “significant financial hardship.”

— Married couples with kids are twice as likely to file for bankruptcy as are married couples without kids.— Families with children are more likely than other family types to lose their homes. Since the early 1970s, the mortgage foreclosure rate has increased fivefold. Each year in the last few years, roughly one in sixty households with a mortgage have fallen into foreclosure.

Job Insecurity

— Workers are scared. In 1982, amid a severe recession that had pushed the unemployment rate up to nearly 10 percent, a poll by the private business research firm ISR found that 12 percent of workers were “frequently concerned about being laid off.” In 2005, with the unemployment rate down to 5 percent, the number of Americans worried that they would lose their jobs was 35 percent.

— Although the unemployment rate has remained low, the rate of involuntary job loss has actually been steeply rising. In the 2001 recession, the rate of involuntary job loss was essentially the same as the levels reached during the deep downturn of the early 1980s. And the costs of job loss for workers are actually above the levels of the early 1980s, particularly for more educated workers.

— A major reason for the divorce between the unemployment and job-loss figures is that many of those displaced from jobs are not counted as unemployed, because they have stopped their employment search out of discouragement. In 2005, the “shadow unemployed” consisted of as many as 5.1 million men and women, which would raise the official unemployment rate to 8.7 percent.

Long-term unemployment

—that is, unemployment lasting longer than six months—is three times as high at the peak of the business cycle as it was in the 1960s. During economic downturns, the picture is even more worrisome. Long-term unemployment has been unusually high in each of the last two recessions, and educated and professional workers are most likely to experience it.

Health Insecurity— 46.6 million Americans lack health insurance, up from around 24 million in 1980. All of the decline is due to a drop in the scope and generosity of employer-provided health coverage. In 1980, the majority of employers at medium-to-large companies paid 100 percent of the premium for family health coverage. Today, fewer than a quarter do.

— Over a two-year period, more than 80 million adults and kids—one out of three nonelderly Americans—spend some time without the protection against ruinous health care costs that health insurance offers, and more than 50 million are uninsured for more than six months.

— One out of six working-age adults are carrying medical debt, and medical costs and crises were a factor in as many as 700,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001.

— Medicaid is now officially available to every poor child in America; yet the share of children who are uninsured has barely dropped and is still well above its level in the late 1970s. Only about 60 percent of poor children had health insurance coverage in 2002, and most of those who were uninsured lived in working families.

— With the exception of the recent prescription drug bill, Medicare coverage has remained largely unchanged since the 1960s, and still does not include a cap on catastrophic costs. As a result, seniors are actually paying a larger share of their income on medical care today than they did at the time of Medicare’s passage.

Retirement Insecurity

— In 1980, more than 80 percent of large and medium-sized corporations offered traditional “defined-benefit” pensions that provide a predetermined monthly benefit for the remainder of a worker’s life. Today, less than a third do. Instead, companies that provide plans now offer “defined-contribution” plans, such as the 401(k), in which returns are neither predictable nor assured.

— Between 1989 and 1998—a decade in which 401(k) coverage exploded and the stock market boomed—the share of families nearing retirement that found themselves likely to live on less than half of their prior income in retirement increased by a third, to more than 40 percent.

— Roughly three-quarters of 401(k) account holders in 2002 had less than the widely cited average of $47,000 in their account. The median among account-holders—which is a better measure of what’s typical—was around $13,000. And all these figures include only those who have 401(k)s. Only 53 percent of workers have access to a defined-contribution pension plan, and only 42 percent contribute to one.

— More than $100 billion dollars a year in lost income tax revenues is used to subsidize 401(k)s and other pension plans. Two-thirds of this total goes to the richest 20 percent of Americans, only 12 percent to the bottom 60 percent of Americans on the income ladder.

The following news release from the Federation for Immigration Reform makes a strong case that the 2006 election did not provide a mandate for illegal immigrant amnesty and guest worker programs. Voters across the country rejected Republicans on both sides of the border security issue and in many contested races Democrats took hard-line stands on illegal immigration.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Since the polls closed last
Tuesday, advocates for illegal immigrants and open borders have been busy
spinning the results as an endorsement of their calls for a massive amnesty
and guest worker program. These pundits have selectively focused on a few
races in which pro-immigration enforcement legislators were defeated, while
ignoring overwhelming evidence -- including direct referenda in which
voters approved tough immigration enforcement measures -- of bipartisan
support for enforcement.

In Arizona, where two vocal pro-enforcement Republicans were defeated as part of a nationwide repudiation of the party's overall management of the government, voters handily approved four ballot measures aimed at curbing illegal immigration. All four of the Arizona ballot initiatives were approved with more than 70 percent of the vote, including about half of Hispanic voters in the state.

"Entirely apart from their position on immigration enforcement, many Republicans lost their seats as voters registered their dissatisfaction with the overall direction of the nation. While a few pro-enforcement Republicans were defeated, it is also true that the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats who took firm stand on immigration enforcement were sent back to Washington by the voters," observed Dan Stein, president of FAIR.

Also ignored by the open borders pundits is the fact that many of the
Democrats who were swept into office last week ran on immigration
enforcement platforms. In each race in which a strongly pro-enforcement
Republican lost, they were defeated by a Democrat who vowed to be just as
tough on illegal immigration.

"Support for enforcement of immigration laws and opposition to amnesty
and guest worker programs came from Democrats as well as Republicans in the
recent elections," noted Stein. "Among Democrats, proposals for amnesty and more guest workers were widely seen as a component of the White House's overt preference for business interests over the interests of working Americans."Many of the so-called Reagan Democrats, who returned to the party in this election, have grown increasingly convinced that the current administration is betraying their most basic interests.

If the new Democratic majority wants to keep these swing voters in their camp, they would be well advised not to sell out the jobs and security of working Americans to the far left multiculturalists who see mass immigration as a tool to institute their own radical agenda, Stein warned.

"The American public sent a clear message that they want a real change in direction on a lot of issues. When it comes to immigration policy the changes they want to see are significant reductions in the number of people coming here and living here illegally," said Stein. "Neither party has a mandate from the people to enact amnesty and guest worker policies that
would further undermine the American middle class."

SOURCE Federation for American Immigration Reform
http://fairus.org

* WHY THE SOUTH IS CRITICAL TO DEMOCRATS

Chris Kromm posted a splenid analysis of why Democrats must not write off the South on the progressive blog Facing South http://southernstudies.org/

"The Democratic and progressive South-bashers are at it again.In the wake of the 2006 mid-terms, a host of Democrats and progressives are once again saying that it’s time to write off the South. Throw out Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, they say, especially in those backwards, southwards states. The November elections prove that the North is the Democrats' base, and the Midwest and West are the Democrats’ future.Nonsense. If anything, the 2006 elections underscore just how critical the South is to Democratic hopes across the country (Virginia Senate, anyone?). They also show that the South is a highly competitive region for Democrats, and that to cut and run would spell disaster for the party’s future."

"The current guru of the “forget the South” movement is Tom Schaller, the author of Whistling Past Dixie, a book which counsels Democrats to abandon the region in search of easier political pick-ups in the North and Midwest (in contrast to other Dixie doubters, who argue Democrats should look West). It was such beliefs that drove Schaller to make this bold prediction in the pages of In These Times last month (“Where the Seats Are,” October 23, 2006):“Whatever the magnitude of the coming changes, two things are certain: The Democrats are going to gain seats in the 2006 midterms, and *those gains will come from outside the South.”

"Oops. That “certain” prediction, which collided with the reality of key Democratic gains in the South on November 6, may have been off-base – but not as much as Schaller’s musings about the U.S. Senate from the same article: “None of the five targets [for Democrats in the Senate] are in the South … Current *Rep. Harold Ford* (D-Tenn.) is a formidable campaigner who hopes to take the Senate seat being vacated by Majority Leader Bill Frist, and the “macaca” blunder of Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) has breathed new life into party-switcher Jim Webb’s Virginia campaign. But these two seats are considered second-tier opportunities.”

"Right. Tell that to the Democrats, who – fortunately for them -- ignored Schaller’s advice and instead made both states competitive by injecting millions of dollars and dispatching top-shelf campaigners like Bill Clinton in the final hours. Tell it also to millions of Democrats nationally, who stayed glued to TVs and blogs for over a day as the Webb race decided the fate of the U.S. Senate.But back to the predicted “no” gains in the House from the South."

"At the end of Election Day 2006, Southern Democrats had seized no less than five seats previously held by Republicans in the U.S. House, in Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina and Texas.The next morning, another *three Southern House races – Georgia’s 8th and 12th districts, and North Carolina’s 8th – were still “too close to call.” Since then, Democrat Jim Marshall has been declared the winner in Georgia-08; Democrat John Barrow leads in still-undecided Georgia-12; and Democratic candidate Larry Kissell has successfully asked for a recount in the NC-08 race, where he trails by a tiny 449 vote margin.On top of that, there were two more Southern races – Virginia’s 2nd District and Florida’s 13th – that Republicans won by less than two percentage points.* In the Florida race, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports 61> that Democrat Christine Jennings’ race with Republican Vern Buchanan was “the second closest in the country” – Jennings lost by 368 votes – and likely would have gone the other way except for voting machine problems that led to 18,000 “undervotes” in Democratic strongholds."

" A recount is in the works. In other words: out of the 19 “key races” in the South followed by political analysts, Democrats won eight; will likely win one more (GA-12); should have won FL-13; could still pick up NC-08; and narrowly missed in VA-02.Despite this 47% victory rate – and that Democrats were competitive in 63% of these key Southern races -- I have yet to see the South-naysayers express doubts about their “certain” analysis."

"Of course, any pundit can be wrong -- it's an occupational hazard of the job -- but if there’s a defining feature of the “forget the South” crowd, it’s their certainty. Pre-elections, In These Times exclaimed that “Anything that argues counter to Tom Schaller’s compelling October examination of ‘Where the Seats Are’ can be safely dismissed as non-reality based.”

Post-November 6, Chris Bowers of the popular MyDD blog giddily declared that “This is the first time in 54 years that the party without a southern majority now has the House majority … Tom Schaller utterly vindicated.”Such sentiments can be found echoing throughout the blogosphere.But whose “reality” is “vindicated” by the 2006 election results? In addition to the key House victories for Democrats in the South, consider the following:

"Out of six U.S. Senate races in the South, Democrats and Republicans split four uncompetitive races (Florida and West Virginia for the Dems; Mississippi and Texas for the GOP).* In the two competitive U.S. Senate races, Democrats won Virginia, and they narrowly missed electing the first African American Senator in the South since Reconstruction – a remarkable achievement given that by mid-October, Republican Bob Corker had outspent Ford by over $3 million, and that was before Corker dumped another $1.35 million of his own money into the race days before the election. Democrats gained 26 seats in state legislatures across the South. "

"Although no chamber switched hands (the Tennessee senate came closest, Democrats missing by one race), Democrats strengthened their position in eight Southern states. The Republicans only did that in one state, Alabama, where Democrats still control the legislature.* Out of seven governor’s races in the South, Democrats were able to flip control to their party in Arkansas, something Republicans didn’t achieve in the region. Weak candidates doomed Democratic challengers to GOP incumbents in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, and a bizarre four-way field didn’t help Democrats in Texas. But the Democrats held on to the governor’s mansion in Tennessee, and gave the well-financed campaign of Charlie Crist a run for its money in Florida.But perhaps even more importantly, exit polls in the region reveal that the South* – far from being a conservative monolith – is deeply contested political territory.

"*The race divide* -62% of Southern whites voted Republican, while 87% of African-Americans, 57% of Latinos, and 52% of “others” voted Democrat. This is ominous for Republicans, given that the four states nationally with the fastest-growing Latino population are in the South, and Georgia and Mississippi are on the brink of joining Texas as so-called “majority minority” states. *Young Southerners.* In 2006, they preferred Democrats 51% to 48%.* *Class war.* 55% of Southerners making under $50,000 a year – 40% of those polled – voted Democrat. The 13% of those polled in a union household favored Democrats 56% to 44%.* *Conflicting faiths.* Southern Protestants -- 70% of those polled – voted Republican by a 58% to 41% margin, but all other faith groups favored Democrats. More than one out of four Southern white evangelicals (27%) – perceived as the hardened core of the Republican Party – voted for Democrats in 2006.* *Gender and marriage.* Surprisingly, Southern married women were the staunchest GOP supporters in 2006, with only 40% voting for Democrats (41% of married men did). By contrast, 60% of Southern unmarried men, and 63% of unmarried women, favored Democrats in 2006."

"Two pictures emerge from this and other data. One is that the Republican Party is increasingly the party not of "the South" in general, as some pundits claim, but _older, wealthy and white Southern voters_ – a base that puts the GOP on the wrong side of all the key demographic trends unfolding in the South.The second is that the South is a deeply divided region – red, blue and purple – and the question before Democrats isn’t whether to cut and run, but how to capitalize on constituencies and trends that clearly work in their favor.There are many other reasons for the Democratic Party not to write off the South."

"For any major party to pull up stakes in the fastest-growing region in the country is clearly a bid for political suicide.It would also put Democrats at odds with their self-image and _raison d'etre._ For Democrats to turn their backs on a region that half of all African-Americans and a growing number of Latinos and Asian-Americans call home, a place devastated by Hurricane Katrina, plant closings, poverty, and other indignities – in short, for “progressives” to give up on the very place where they could argue they are needed most – would rightfully be viewed as a historic retreat from the party’s commitment to justice for all.But most of all, November 6 proved that the “forget the South” strategy is a colossal mistake – if only because the elections revealed that, if they try, Democrats in the South can win."

I strongly agree with Kromm's observations. Tom Schaller is not only Karl Rove's favorite Democratic strategist - he's also been proven dead wrong.

WASHINGTON, DC – Democrats For Life of America applauded the Democratic leadership today for recruiting pro-life Democrats to run for key Congressional races in this week’s history making elections.

“Right after John Kerry’s loss in 2004, the Democratic Party finally started talking about including pro-life Democrats in the big tent of the Democratic Party. They put their money where their mouths are and assisted pro-life Democrats. Their inclusion helped pro-life Democrats win and played a significant role in handing over control of the US Senate and House. In addition to adding Bob Casey to the Senate, Democrats will see 6 new pro-life Democrats in the House,” said DFLA’s Executive Director Kristen Day.

The new pro-life faces in the US House include: Heath Shuler of North Carolina, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Charlie Wilson of Ohio, Chris Carney and Jason Altmire both of Pennsylvania.“We’ve said for years that when we expand the big tent of the Democratic Party, Democrats win. Tuesday night is proof. Now Democrats need to continue to allow pro-life Democrats to help set the agenda in the 110th Congress,” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats For Life of America. “We look forward to working with Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi and the new leaders of the House to promote an agenda that will dramatically reduce the abortion rate in America. We applaud Congresswoman Pelosi understanding that Democrats need to govern from the center and that we must put our words into action by promoting common ground as a way to solve the problems we face.”

Democrats For Life of America’s top priorities for the 110th Congress are: passing the Pregnant Women Support Act, introduced by Congressman Lincoln Davis and received bipartisan support, fully funding the National Cord Blood Inventory Act which will save lives and passing the Child Custody Protection Act.

Several pro-life democrats will assume leadership positions in the new Democratic majority in the House. Rep. Jim Oberstar will chair the Transportation Committee, Rep. Collin Peterson will chair the Agriculture Committee and Rep Ike Skelton will head the Armed Services Committee. Several other pro-life democrats will chair House subcommittees.

Democrats For Life of America was founded in 1999 to mobilize Democrats at the local, state, and national levels. Their primary mission has been to elect pro-life Democrats, support pro-life elected officials, promote a pro-life plank in the Democratic Party platform and achieve legislation that fosters respect for human life. Democrats For Life of America currently has 41 state chapters with plans to expand the group into additional states by the end of the year. In addition to the grassroots support across America, the group has several Members of Congress who are actively promoting the group’s mission.

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

* BAYH CALLS FOR DEMOCRATS TO TAKE MODERATE APPROACH

U.S. Senator Evan Bayh, who also served 10 years as Governor of Indiana, has emerged a leading possibility for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. Bayh recently received a major boost to his campaign with the withdrawal of former Virginia Governor Mark Warner. Many political observers expect that Bayh will pick up much of Warner's support base among moderate to conservative Democrats.

USA Today www.usatoday.com reported on Bayh's likely Presidential campaign and his strategy suggestions for the new Democratic majority in their November 9 edition:

"It's up to us to prove that we're something better than just a mirror image of the people they voted against," Bayh said. "And if we serve up a highly partisan, ideologically extreme, Democratic version of what they just voted against, we're not going to do very well."
"Bayh said Democrats must focus on middle-class concerns, including affordability of health care and college, as well as pension and job security. But they also have to prove Democrats can be trusted with national security and should implement all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission."

"He singled out reducing the nation's dependence on imported oil as an area where Democrats could immediately prove their willingness to work with Republicans. Bayh is part of a bipartisan coalition of senators backing a bill to promote energy independence through the increased use of alternative fuels and technologies."

Bayh served as Governor of Indiana from 1988 (elected as George Bush I carried the state by a wide margin) to 1998 and left office with a record approval rating. He won election to the U.S. Senate in 1998 with 64% of the vote and was re-elected in 2004 receiving 62% support despite a landslide victory by George Bush II who led the state by 20 percentage points.

Evan Bayh is a former Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council but is not really the typical DLC type. For one thing, he far more pro-labor than many DLC pols with a 93 percent rating (and a 91 percent lifetime score) from the AFL-CIO in 2005. Like many Democrats during the Clinton era, Bayh was conned by the free traders and is now taking a more worker friendly approach to trade issues. Bayh stood up to the big business interests and voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. See link to an informative article on Bayh and labor. http://tinyurl.com/pjqfl Bayh looks like a strong candidate who can uphold the traditions of Democrats while expanding the party's base.

www.allamericapac.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:53 PM
Subject: Blue Dogs Howl in Victory: Coalition Will Grow to 44 Members Stro ng in 110th Congress
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Contact: Eric Wortman 202-226-4571

BLUE DOGS HOWL IN VICTORY
Coalition Will Grow to 44 Members Strong in 110th Congress

WASHINGTON, DC – Nine new members-elect are set to join the Blue Dog Coalition, including FL-16 Tim Mahoney, IN-02 Joe Donnelly, IN-08 Brad Ellsworth, IN-09 Baron Hill, NC-11 Heath Shuler, NY-20 Kirsten Gillibrand, NY-24 Michael Arcuri, OH-06 Charlie Wilson, and PA-08 Patrick Murphy.

By electing Blue Dogs to Congress, the country has sent a strong message to Washington in support of fiscal responsibility and the bipartisan ideals that the Blue Dogs were founded upon. The Blue Dog Coalition is dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics with a particular focus on the financial stability and national security of the United States. Blue Dogs represent the center of the House of Representatives and appeal to the mainstream values of the American public.

In the 110th Congress, the members-elect will join the Blue Dogs in their fight for fiscal responsibility and greater government accountability. As moderates and fiscal hawks, the Blue Dogs have made a determined effort to reach across the aisle to engage in a real debate on fiscal responsibility – including the adoption of pay-as-you-go, a core Blue Dog value that government should not spend more than it has.

All 35 Blue Dogs who ran for re-election to the House will return to the Coalition in the 110th Congress. Those members include: Joe Baca (CA-43), John Barrow (GA-12), Melissa Bean (IL-08), Marion Berry (AR-01), Sanford Bishop (GA-02), Dan Boren (OK-02), Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Allen Boyd (FL-02), Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), Ben Chandler (KY-06), Jim Cooper (TN-05), Jim Costa (CA-20), Robert E. “Bud Cramer (AL-05), Lincoln Davis (TN-04), Jane Harman (CA-36), Stephanie Herseth (SD), Tim Holden (PA-17), Steve Israel (NY-02), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Jim Marshall (GA-08), Jim Matheson (UT-02), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Mike Michaud (ME-02), Dennis Moore (KS-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Mike Ross (AR-04), John Salazar (CO-03), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), Adam Schiff (CA-29), David Scott (GA-13), John Tanner (TN-08), Ellen Tauscher (CA-10), Gene Taylor (MS-04), and Mike Thompson (CA-01).

The returning members have built the Coalition into a serious player in the policy arena, promoting positions which bridge the gap between ideological extremes. Many of the group’s proposals have been praised as fair, responsible, and positive additions to a Congressional environment too often marked as partisan and antagonistic.

The Blue Dog Coalition was formed following the 1994 election debacle for Democrats. The founding members chose the name Blue Dog Coalition because they literally felt “choked blue by the extremes in both parties”. Over the past 12 years, the Blue Dog Coalition has grown from a small organizing group to a 44 strong member organization when the 110th Congress convenes.


* DEMOCRATS MAKE PROGRESS IN CLOSING THE "GOD GAP"

Steven Waldman has an interesting column on the faith-based website Beliefnet.com about how Democratic gains with religious voters in this year's election. Waldman points out that Democrats fielded several strongly pro-life Congressional candidates and increased support among those who attend church on a weekly basis. A majority of Roman Catholics voted Democratic this year in U.S. House elections and the party attracted greater support from evangelical Christians as well. See link to full article at http://tinyurl.com/ykxydd Waldman describes the increase in support for Democrats among the faithful especailly Catholics and evangelical Christians.

"The "God Gap" -- One of the most important factors in recent years has been the development of a religiosity gap in which the most church-going Americans voted Republican and the least devout voted Democratic. This gap closed a bit in this election.""People who attended church weekly voted 58 percent to 41 percent for Bush in 2004. This year, they voted 51 percent for Republicans to 48 percentfor Democrats."

"Catholics -- With all the attention on evangelicals, we shouldn't lose sight of another significant result: In this election, Democrats won back the Catholic vote. In 2004, President Bush beat John Kerry among Catholics 52 percent-47 percent. The exit polls for the House races show Catholics going 57 percent-42 percent for the Democrats. Democrats gained ground among white Catholics and Hispanics.""Pro-Life Democrats – Several seats were snatched away from Republicans by pro-life Democrats. Several incumbent Republicans in the House and the Senate were unseated by pro-life Democrats. Robert Casey, Jr., who is anti-abortion, defeated Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania. Brad Ellsworth, who defeated Indiana incumbent Congressman John Hostettler, also opposes abortion, as does former pro-football quarterback Heath Shuler, who defeated North Carolina Republican Congressman Charles Taylor."

"Evangelical Democrats – While it wasn't exactly an evangelical stampede, Democrats did make noticeable improvements among white evangelical Christians. In 2004, John Kerry got 21 percent of "white evangelical/born-again" Christians. This year, the Democrats got 29 percent.""In all likelihood, these were not conservative "religious right" voters but more moderate evangelical voters who had trended Republican in recent years but supported Democratic approaches to the environment and poverty."
http://www.beliefnet.com/

If the Democratic Party can recruit more candidates with a commitment to economic fairness and traditional values, our party will have a strong appeal to people of faith.

Today's New York Times has a front page article titled "In Key Races, Democrats Run To The Right." http://tinyurl.com/y5tzz9 Times writers Shaila Dewan and Ann Kornblut give the following analysis of the center-right trend among Democrats candidates especially in "red" states:

"In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party."

"Heath Shuler is just such a candidate. Shuler, a retired National Football League quarterback, comes from an evangelical Christian background and holds fast to many conservative social views like opposition to abortion rights."

"But if candidates like Shuler do help the Democrats gain majority control of Congress, it will come at a political price, raising the possibility of a new centrist tilt to the Democratic Party."

"My guess is that if Democrats are in the majority, it's going to be because of these New Democrat, Blue Dog candidates out there winning in these competitive swing districts," Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin, co-chairman of a caucus of centrist Democrats in the House, said in an interview."

"Democratic officials said they did not set out with the intention of finding moderates to run. Instead, as they searched for candidates with the greatest possibility of winning against Republicans in targeted districts, they said, they wound up with a number who reflected a more moderate approach. That is especially true in suburban areas and some rural districts, according to Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee."

"As a group, they are moderate in temperament and reformers in spirit," Emanuel said.

"But will they have an impact? Absolutely," Emanuel said. "They're going to have an impact on the Congress and the caucus."

"The candidates cover the spectrum on political issues - some are fiscally conservative and moderate or liberal on social issues, or the reverse. Their weight could help tip the balance, depending on how narrow the majority is in the House, as well as influence negotiations with Republicans on everything from Social Security to stem cell research."

"Shuler, who addresses environmental conservation from the viewpoint of an avid hunter and speaks of health care for the poor as a moral responsibility, is a prime example."

"There are currently two main groups of moderate Democrats in the House: the Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of socially conservative and moderate members formed in 1994; and the centrist New Democrat Coalition, formed in 1997."

"While there are differences between the two - the Blue Dogs tend to be more rural and Southern, with occasional alliances with Republicans, while the New Democrats are more suburban and wealthy and place a premium on party loyalty - there are members who belong to both."

"The centrist movement was embodied by former President Bill Clinton, who rose to prominence through the Democratic Leadership Council, which embraced a so-called "third way" of politics and eschewed what it saw as outdated liberalism. Yet since Clinton left office, Democrats seem to drift back in the direction of their liberal identity, nominating two presidential contenders who were seen as less committed to the moderate cause."

"Shuler, 34, grew up in a Democratic family, the son of a mailman in Bryson City, North Carolina. He has set out to bring conservative Democrats who have voted Republican, like Brenda Davis, back into the fold."

From behind the counter at Spud and Deb's Hunting and Pet Supplies in Enka, North Carolina, Davis, 41, said she voted Republican in the last election because of her religious beliefs, but this time around is supporting Shuler.

"Considering my son is a marine and he's done two tours in Iraq," Davis said, "I'm with the Democrats."

If Democrats continue to nominate candidates like Heath Shuler, I espect that many voters will consider supporting our party candidates once again. Shuler seems to have the right balance of social traditionalism and economic populism.

Democrats need to move to the mainstream on social values and national security issues. There must be no doubt about our commitment to family values and protecting America from the threat of terrorism.

At the same time, it is imperative that Democrats reaffirm support for an activist role by government to provide a safety net and protect workers and consumers. The greed of the marketplace has to be restrained by regulation to protect the public. Trickle down economic policies that have benefited the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class must be reversed. So-called "free trade" can be replaced by fair trade. A Democratic Party that embraces economic fairness for working families and respects traditional morality will become the majority party once again.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has released a new television commercial hitting Bob Corker for hypocritically talking tough on illegal immigration even though his construction firm was cited for having illegal workers on its worksite. Harold Ford Jr. wants to control the borders and get tough on employers who break the law on hiring undocumented workers.

“Bob Corker wants us to believe he can be tough on immigration even though his company employed illegal workers who were then deported,” DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said. “How can he be trusted to make the law when his own company broke the law?”

Corker’s Company Was Investigated By INS For Hiring Undocumented Workers, Some of Whom Were Deported. According to official documents, the INS opened an investigation into Corker’s construction company, Bencor, after a February 1988 complaint that 30-50 Mexicans were working at Bencor’s Riverset Apartments project on Memphis’ Mud Island. By the time the investigation was closed in 1989, after the INS held two meetings with Bencor, four illegal workers were deported.

Corker Responsible For Illegal Hirings, Broke The Law. According to the 1986 immigration law, Corker’s Bencor was legally responsible for have illegal workers at the worksite, even if the subcontractors had been at fault. Bencor could have faced fines of up to $10,000.
Corker’s Firm Ignored Warnings. Corker’s Bencor had plenty of warning that illegal workers were working on their site. According to INS documents, INS held “two meetings with Bencor, Inc” prior to their 1988 raid. Corker’s Bencor also ignored press reports about the illegal workers.

Click Here to Watch the Ad.
Click Here for Ad Backup (PDF)

* ELLSWORTH GETS "A" RATING FROM NRA

EVANSVILLE,IN – Democratic nomineee for Congress Brad Ellsworth (Indiana-D8) received a perfect “A” rating from the National Rifle Association (“NRA”), according to the November 2006 issue of American Rifleman, the official journal of the NRA.

“I believe in the Second Amendment, and I am pleased that the NRA has recognized my support for it,” said Ellsworth.

Ellsworth is a long-time gun owner and an avid sportsman.

Ellsworth is currently serving his second four-year term as Vanderburgh County Sheriff, a post to which he was first elected in 1998. Ellsworth has served Vanderburgh County law enforcement continuously since 1982.

http://www.ellsworthforcongress.com

* FAITH AND FAMILY VALUES by Heath Shuler D-NC
HENDERSONVILLE,NC - America is only as good as the families that comprise it. Strong families, blessed with hope and opportunity, filled with ambition and dreams and guided by faith and principle are the heart of America. Growing up in the close knit community of Swain County, I learned from my parents and my church to love God, respect life, and to help those less fortunate than myself. Those fundamental principles have shaped who I am today.

I am a pro-life Democrat and I believe that all life is sacred. I also believe that a commitment to life extends beyond the womb and means ensuring that all people have adequate health care, receive a strong education, and be given proper care in their later years.

I have never shied away from openly discussing my faith. Throughout my high school, college, and professional career, I have been an active member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and a spokesman for Character Counts. I have spoken to thousands of students across the country, sharing my testimony and trying to be a positive role model for them. With the help of my wonderful wife, Nikol, we are raising our two children in the mountains of North Carolina working to instill the same values with which we were raised.

* Heath Shuler is the Democratic nominee for U.S. Congress in North Carolina's 11th District.
http://www.heathshuler.com

* JACK DAVIS MAKES THE CASE AGAINST "FREE TRADE"

Jack Davis, our Democratic and Working Families Party nominee for Congress in New York's 26th Congressional District, makes a compelling case against free trade. A strong advocate for fair trade to save American jobs, here is Davis' argument for a change in direction regarding trade policies.

After 30 years of free trade, look at the facts;

Total trade deficits of 3.8 trillion dollars.
Trade deficit of 435 billion dollars last year and increasing each year.
Trade deficit of 125 billion dollars with China, mostly manufactured products and increasing.
The total national debt is 7 trillion dollars; a new all-time record high and increasing.
Over one trillion dollars is owed to our Asian suppliers.
Federal budget deficit of $477 billion last year. Why? Workers without jobs don't pay taxes nor do companies that are not profitable.
Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Albany, Binghamton, New York City and State of New York are all operating on deficits.
Family debt is also at record highs.
When companies lose business to foreign competitors, families lose jobs, health benefits and pensions.
An increasing gross domestic product is not a measurement of a good economy. GDP can be increased by borrowing, over spending and going into destructive debt.
An increasing value of the Dow averages is not a measurement of a good economy. Fifty percent of Americans own some stock. This increases their assets and retirement funds but is not what they live on.

A good economy for the majority of Americans is employment, a living wage, a possibility for advancement, affordable housing, affordable medical care, funded retirement, and a stable currency.

Looking at all these facts, free trade has definitely not improved our standard of living. In Engineering 101, we were taught, "If the facts don't support the theory, the theory must be wrong." I don't think they teach this theory in the University's economics or political science departments.

http://www.jackdavis.org

* THE GREATEST CHALLENGE FACING AMERICA
Jim Webb, D-VA Senate candidate

"There are many challenges facing Americans today: an unpopular war, skyrocketing health care costs, a shrinking job market and rising inequality in society. I believe in the strength of American character and the ingenuity of the American people. With the right leaders we can overcome all of these obstacles. America doesn't lack ideas, it lacks leaders willing to stand up and make courageous decisions.""I have fought — and continue to fight — to protect American values. I fought in Vietnam with the hope that the Vietnamese might share the same freedoms we enjoy. I fought as a congressional committee counselor to guarantee our veterans the treatment they deserve. I fought as Secretary of the Navy to maintain the excellence of our military. I fought, pro bono, on behalf of countless veterans and refugees, in order that they might have their voices heard in the vast government bureaucracy. And I will fight in the Senate to give all Americans the chance to achieve their dreams."

http://www.webbforsenate.com

A Little Help From Your Friends

http://www.bobcasey.com/blog/

Newspaper headlines this week confirmed what many of us have known for a long time: special interests have done very well with their buddy Rick Santorum in the Senate leadership, and they stand to lose a lot come Election Day.

Last year, Santorum voted for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that gave oil and gas companies $2.6 billion in tax breaks. Something tells me that the only people celebrating this bill one year later are the execs at ExxonMobil who raked in the second-largest quarterly profit ever recorded by a publicly traded U.S. company.(ExxonMobil also set the record for the largest quarterly profit last year).

The execs returned the favor. Only two other congressmen have received more money from Big Oil than Rick Santorum -- out of 535, he is virtually tied for 2nd.

Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum is a big beneficiary of the industry's push. He was a leading proponent of the 2003 law that gave seniors Medicare coverage for prescription drugs, and helped shape the law in ways that benefited the industry. Battling to keep his seat in a crucial Senate race, Mr. Santorum's campaign has received almost $500,000 from pharmaceutical interests and their employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. The industry has also helped fund television advertisements and aided get-out-the-vote efforts.

The Republican-controlled Congress has been kind to drug makers. As the prescription-drugs benefit was crafted, Republicans battled not just Democratic critics but also fiscal conservatives in their own party who opposed creating the expensive government program.

Congressional Republican leaders prevented Medicare from negotiating prices with the industry. They also killed a proposal that would have allowed the government to offer its own coverage in competition with those sold by private companies.
[Wall Street Journal, 10-25-2006]

Big Pharma has rewarded Santorum handsomely for his efforts. He has received more money from the pharmaceutical industry than any other member of Congress.

Voters are fed up with the special interests' stranglehold on Rick Santorum. We need a Senator for Pennsylvania, not ExxonMobil.

* ALERT FROM THE WORKING FAMILIES NETWORK ON PA SENATE RACE

Get the Facts: Bob Casey and Rick SantorumBefore you vote Nov. 7 for U.S. senator, check the record and get the facts.

BOB CASEY WILL FIGHT FOR WORKING FAMILIES. RICK SANTORUM HAS FAILED US.
JOBS AND WAGES

Bob Casey Will Protect Good Jobs and Wages. Casey supports raising the minimum wage and prevailing wage laws that guarantee we are paid a fair wage. He opposes unfair trade agreements like CAFTA that send our jobs overseas. (AP State and Local Wire, 7/25/06; www.bobcaseyforpa.com)

Rick Santorum Attacked Jobs, Wages, Benefits. Santorum voted for unfair trade deals like CAFTA that send our jobs overseas. He tried to eliminate the 40-hour workweek and cut our overtime pay, and opposed creating new jobs protected by prevailing wages. (S.1307, Vote #170, 7/1/05; S.AMDT. 128 introduced 3/7/05; Vote #68, 5/15/97; #93, 6/4/97; S.1072, #14, 2/12/04)

HEALTH CARE

Bob Casey Will Fight for Our Health Care. "No issue hits closer to home for me than health care." Casey advocated expanding CHIP, secured millions for our hospitals through his HELP program and supports the Family and Medical Leave Act. (The Hill, 4/26/06; Hospital & Nursing Home Week, 1/12/06)

Rick Santorum Undercut Our Health Care. Santorum supported $14 billion in cuts to Medicaid and voted against the Family and Medical Leave Act as well as the Patients' Bill of Rights, which ensures doctors answer to patients rather than to HMOs. (S.C.R. 18, 3/17/05, Vote #58; #393, 11/13/91; #22. 2/3/93; #443, 9/30/92; S.1052, 6/29/01, #220; S.2549, #121, 6/8/00)

RETIREMENT SECURITY

Bob Casey Will Strengthen Our Retirement Security. Bob Casey opposes privatizing Social Security and calls it a "scheme" that would jeopardize our guaranteed benefits. (The Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/17/06; The York Dispatch, 5/10/06)

Rick Santorum Tried to Privatize Social Security. One of the most vocal supporters of President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, Santorum co-sponsored a bill to create private accounts and voted against protecting our Social Security benefits. (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 12/6/05; The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/27/05; S. 1302, 2005; S.Con.Res. 18, Vote #49, 3/15/05)

How you vote is a personal decision. Working America has carefully researched all the candidates' records and believes Bob Casey is the best choice for working families. Whatever you decide, please vote.Click here to learn more about the 2006 elections in Pennsylvania.

During the past 25 years, we have seen a growing trend toward ideological polarization in both major parties. Single issue constituencies and idealogues have gained power in the major parties at the expense of those with more centrist views. The reality is that the largest group of voters remains in the middle which helps to explain why Americans are increasingly alienated from both Democrats and Republicans. Since self-professed conservatives greatly outnumber those who identity theselves as liberal, it is especially critical for Democrats to appeal to the center. This year, the Democratic Party is fortunate to have three nominees for U.S. Senate who recognize the need for our party to win back social traditionalists and to stress nationalism and economic populism. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee and Jim Webb of Virginia are all in a good position to claim victory and bolster the moderate-conservative wing of the Democratic Party.

Casey, Ford and Webb are certainly not the first center-right candidates to win a Democratic nomination for a major office. In past elections, moderate to conservative Democrats have often experienced the betrayal of progressive party activists and went down to defeat as party organizations withheld support. Some Democrats would prefer to lose with ideologically perfect candidates than compromise at all on any issue - especially the social issues like abortion, gun control and gay-lesbian concerns. While the moderate to conservative rising stars of 2006 have encountered some intra-party opposition, all have gained broad-based party support in their respective campaigns. Polls show Casey with a lead while Ford and Webb are in virtual ties with their Republican opponents.

Harold Meyerson has an excellent article on Bob Casey and Harold Ford in October issue of The American Prospect http://www.prospect.org/

Meyerson points out that Ford has shifted away from a formerly held "New Democrat" pro-free trade position and embraced nationalist positions on matters such as trade and port security.

"His (Ford's) campaign was one of the first to run ads against the Dubai ports deal. 'We need to control our borders," Ford says. 'We don't want to learn that terrorists came across the border and exploded our movie theaters, or that they have blown up 25 schools in the Midwest."

Ford has favored a hard line stand on ilegal immigration opposing any amnesty plan and supports a ban on same sex marriage. The American Prospect article quotes Ford as stating "They're going to say I'm a liberal. I believe that marriage should be between men and women. I don't know any better, that's how I was brought up. We didn't have any choice. Where I grew up, when you awakened on Sunday, you went to church...I learned the faith thing the old-fashioned way ! Me, a liberal ? I chair the faith-based caucus !"

Casey is described by Meyerson as a social conservative and economic liberal. The Pennsylvania Democrat is pro-life, pro-gun rights, a strong supporter of organized labor and a proponent of activist government. Meyeron notes "Casey's conservative positions on social issues are well known. This frees him to devote the lion's share of his speeches to economic fairness." In his Senate campaign, Casey has been focused on critical matters like developing renewable energy sources, fair trade agreements, a higher minimum wage and more affordable health care.

Jim Webb does not stress social issues like abortion and gay marriage in his Virginia Senate race but definitely reflects socially traditionalist values. Webb is first and foremost a military man. He wears combat boots to his campaign appearances. Webb is a decorated Vietnam Vet - a former Marine Officer who later served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. A former Republican, Webb switched parties over the failed military intervention in Iraq. A conservative friend of Webb, Mackubin Thomas Owens pointed out in a National Review Online column earlier this year http://tinyurl.com/mlhw5 that Webb's opposition to intervention in Iraq does not mean that he is any way soft on defense and national security matters. Owens explained in the February 13 edition of NRO that Webb has opposed the Iraq war "based on strategic considerations — he is concerned that by committing such a large force there for an extended period of time we have weakened ourselves in the long run against a rising China."

Webb is a strong Second Amendment supporter. WDBJ-TV reported in August that the Virginia Democrat favors the right of Americans to carrry weapons and defend themselves and their families. In a May interview http://tinyurl.com/hdyq6, Webb shared his views on trade policy:

"We are in a situation where workers are losing jobs because of unfair trade practices from foreign governments, and we cannot and should not allow these practices to continue. The first place I would look would be the protections available to our industries in our existing trade laws. We should make it clear to foreign governments that we will not allow them to operate outside of established international trade law to gain an advantage over U.S. companies. Beyond that, I believe it would be fair to re-examine NAFTA and other acts to try and rebalance the playing field." Webb has summed up his position on trade as "free trade is not fair trade." http://tinyurl.com/hb7k8

A victory by Ford and Webb would greatly help to break the Republican hold on the Solid South. At present, there are only four Democratic U.S. Senators from the South and just three if you fail to count Bill Nelson of Florida - a Southern accented native Floridian who represents a state that is increasingly non-Southern except for geography. To win a governing majority, it is critical that Democrats become politically viable again in the South and other red states.

Casey's election to the Senate would send a message to working and middle class social traditionalist-economic populist voters that they are welcome again and have a real voice in the Democratic Party. Such voters make up a significant part of the swing vote in Pennsylvania and other states like Iowa. Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. As a Senator, Casey will be a spokesperson for a long neglected element of the Democratic Party's constituency. Social traditionalists, often Roman Catholics from labor union backgrounds, once formed the base of the Democratic Party in many states. It is important that we welcome these voters back to our party. Let's hope that Casey, Ford and Webb prevail in November and move our party back to the mainstream values that have been exploited by hypocritical Republicans.

* "FOLEYGATE" FALLOUT - WASHINGTON TIMES SAYS RESIGN, MR. SPEAKER

The Washington Times cannot be accused of being a liberal newspaper. I think any reasonable person would agree that the newspaper leans strongly to the right on most issues and is certainly no front from the Democratic Party. In fact, the Washington Times, like Republican talk radio show hosts, often refers to the party as the "Democrat Party."

As a fairly partisan Democrat, I was shocked to find that yesterday's Washington Times contained an editorial which reflected my views on the mishandling of "Foleygate" by the Republican House leadership. The Times is calling for House Speaker Dennis Hastert to resign which I think under the circumstances would be the appropriate thing to do. I realize that Democrats in Congress have engaged in similar misbehavior at times, but the reality is that the Republican leadership despite all of the talk about moral values participated in covering up the actions of a pedophile. That is inexcusable in my view. See link to the Washington Times editorial http://tinyurl.com/r75ua
and text below:

"The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal --behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey. The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have relieved Mr. Foley ofhis committee responsibilities contingent on a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened."

"Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board, said he learned about the Foley e-mail messages "in late 2005." Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the leader of the Republican majority, said he was informed of the e-mail messages earlier this year. On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could beprowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. Moreover, all available evidence suggests that the Republican leadership did not share anything related to this matter with any Democrat."

"Now the scandal must unfold on the front pages of the newspapers and on the television screens, as transcripts of lewd messages emerge and doubts are rightly raised about the forthrightness of the Republican stewards of the 109thCongress. Some Democrats are attempting to make this "a Republican scandal," andthey shouldn't; Democrats have contributed more than their share of characters in the tawdry history of congressional sexual scandals. Sexual predators come inall shapes, sizes and partisan hues, in institutions within and without government. When predators are found they must be dealt with, forcefully and swiftly. This time the offender is a Republican, and Republicans can't simply "get ahead" of the scandal by competing to make the most noise in calls for afull investigation. The time for that is long past."

"House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance."

I applaud the Washington Times editors for their courage and willingness to speak out against the corrupt Republican leadership.

* NLRB CONTINUES ATTACK ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

The AFL-CIO Weblog today has a disturbing news item http://tinyurl.com/r58zl
about the latest attempt of the National Labor Relations Board to further weaken collective bargaining rights in our nation. As you may know, the Bush Administration has long been attempting to take away overtime pay protections from millions of workers. This decision is another blow to organized labor which has been under attack since the Reagan Administration declared war on the working class in early 1981.

"The Republican-dominated National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) voted along party lines to slash long-time federal labor laws protecting workers’ freedom to form unions and opened the door for employers to classify millions of workers as supervisors. Under federal labor law, supervisors are prohibited from forming unions."

"The NLRB ruled on three cases, collectively known as “Kentucky River,” but it’s the lead case Oakwood Healthcare Inc. that creates a new definition of supervisor. Dozens of cases involving the definition of supervisor now before the NLRB will be sent back, with employers having the option to craft arguments that will meet the new definition of supervisor and limit the number of workers who can join a union."

"Although the Oakwood decision covers only nurses, the expanded definition of superviors means up to 8 million workers, including nurses, building trades workers, newspaper and television employees and others may be barred from joining unions. In Oakwood, the board agreed with the employer that charge nurses are supervisors. But the ruling also sets broad definitions for determining who is a supervisor that invites employers to classify nurses and many low-level employees with minor authority as supervisors. The decision was issued Sept. 29 but not released until today."

"The board’s new definition essentially enables employers to make a supervisor out of any worker who has the authority to assign or direct another and uses independent judgment. Amazingly, the board also ruled that a worker can be classified as a supervisor if he or she spends as little as 10 percent to 15 percent of his or her time overseeing the work of others."
"AFL-CIO President John Sweeney calls the decisions “outrageous and unjustified.”

"It’s the latest example of how the Bush-appointed NLRB is prepared to use legal maneuvering to deny as many workers as possible their basic right to have a voice on the job through their union. The NLRB should protect workers’ rights, not eliminate them. If the administration expects us to take this quietly, they’re mistaken."

"This week, working people are coming together in the streets in cities across the nation to make sure everyone knows that the Bush administration is slashing workers’ right to have a voice on the job."

"In their dissent, NLRB members Wilma Liebman and Dennis Walsh say the decision “threatens to create a new class of workers under federal labor law—workers who have neither the genuine prerogatives of management, nor the statutory rights of ordinary employees.” Liebman and Walsh wrote that most professionals and other workers could fall under the new definition of supervisor, “who by 2012 could number almost 34 million, accounting for 23.3 percent of the workforce.” http://www.afl-cio.org

We must elect a Democratic Congress that will restore basic labor protections to America's workers.

As a nation, we continue to face a very real threat of terrorism and yet the Bush Administration has failed to implement the suggestions of the 9-11 Commission. Congressman Ike Skelton (D-MO) is ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee and a leading authority on national security issues. I am reprinting below a weekly column by Congressman Skelton which is right on target concerning the war on terrorism.

"This month, Americans will take part in public and private remembrances marking five years since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The terrorists who hijacked our airplanes and attacked our national symbols committed acts of war, ruthlessly destroying the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. Although Al Qaeda terrorists had attacked U.S. targets before, these crimes left no room for doubt that the U.S. was at war."

"Today, we are in the midst of a long struggle against the evil of terrorism. American and allied forces deposed Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, which supported Al Qaeda operations and training camps, and American military units have fought and are fighting terrorist cells in a number of other countries. But the recent arrests in Britain of alleged terrorists plotting attacks aboard U.S.-bound airliners highlights our country’s need to regain our focus on homeland security."

"Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the American people have spent a great deal of time and money working to prevent other attacks on the United States. While we have had a number of successes and have thwarted terrorist attacks during that time, I fear that we have not dedicated sufficient financial support and manpower to homeland security."

"The independent 9/11 Commission, which was established by Congress to investigate 9/11 and suggest policy changes, made a number of recommendations (www.9-11commission.gov), but many have not been implemented. In fact, members of the Commission issued a report card in December 2005 regarding the implementation of critical homeland security initiatives. Commissioners gave a failing grade to U.S. efforts to pre-screen airline passengers, a “D” for checked bag and cargo screening policies, and a “C” for passenger explosive screening efforts. Five years after 9/11, this track record is unacceptable."

"Our first priority as elected officials is the security of the American people. Unfortunately, our priorities have been misplaced over the past five years. Rather than extending tax cuts to millionaires, Congress should have directed more attention and resources to homeland defense and worked to ensure tax dollars were spent using a risk-based analysis."

"The conflict in Iraq, which is separate and distinct from the war on terrorism, has also taken resources and focus away from efforts to fight terrorism. The Marine Corps’ announcement that it will soon involuntarily activate up to 2,500 Marines from the Individual Ready Reserve is a reminder that valuable resources are being spent on the conflict in Iraq rather than being sent to the front lines in the war on terrorism."

"We need to recognize the mistakes made over the last five years so our nation can move forward to a more secure future. In the days ahead, I look forward to working with my colleagues to create a new direction for homeland security policy that provides real security to the American people. We owe it to those who lost their lives on 9/11, as well as to those who are currently serving at home and abroad to keep America safe."

Thank you, Congressman Skelton, for your leadership on national security issues and hopefully you will assume the chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee next year.

I have just finished reading "America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty and Our Democracy" by Gar Alperovitz. Don't let the title scare you. Anyone looking for a Marxist diatribe about the inherent evils of market economies will be disappointed by this book recently released in paperback by Wiley Publishers. Instead you will find a thoughtful book that presents realistic ideas about how prosperity can be expanded in our nation. "America Beyond Capitalism" is a good starting point for developing a "21st Century Populism" to effectively address growing economic inequalities and gain control over the rapidly expanding power of big business.

Alperovitz is a man of the Left on economic and social matters but he pulls ideas from across the ideological spectrum about how the American standard of living can be improved. The author pulls no punches in pointing out how tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, the weakening of collective bargaining protections and globalization have brought about economic stagnation for many workers, but looks for solutions rather just dwelling on the injustices resulting from these laissez faire policies.

Taking a realistic approach, Alperovitz expresses doubt that organized labor can regain its former political strength as a balance to corporate power and notes the virtual poltical impossibility of raising taxes on upper middle class suburbanites. Any successful attempt at rolling back tax cuts is likely to be directed at the upper one to five percent of the population. The dramatic growth of corporate power is illustrated by the fact that corporate taxes accounted for 35.4 percent of all federal tax receipts in 1945 and had fallen to 7.4 percent of federal receipts by 2003.

In his book, Alperovitz suggests that means of generating public revenue other than through redstribution of income need to be explored. One suggestion is to create a Public Trust which would oversee the investment of stock in the same manner as state and local public pension authorities. The proceeds from the Public Trust could flow to the federal treasury, states and even individuals. Alperovitz proposes a "Pluralistic Commonwealth" to create "new public and semi-public wealth building institutions" expanding prosperity and which "structrually tethers large scale firms at the top by lodging stock ownership in the Public Trust accountable to and open to scrutiny by the public."

Another big idea presented in the book is a system of Individual Development Accounts (IDA's). The IDA's would enable government to "directly match the savings of the poor - thus doubling their efforts and allowing low income individuals to benefit from the ownership of capital." Alperovitz describes a proposal by Yale economist John Roemer to provide every adult with "voucher-like coupons" to be used for the purchase of stock through a "new form of mutual fund."

Alperovitz makes a very insightful observation on page 73 of his book, "Neither tradional socialism nor traditional capitalism deals well with the power problems presented by large-scale enterprise. Significant economic actors in the socialist state are commonly unaccountable either to market forces or to the public, they are power systems within a power system. The modern for-profit corporation is for the most part unaccountable to the public - and contrary to traditonal theory, in most cases unaccountable to shareholders as well. As the Enron and other scandals have shown managers and top executives run the system dominating boards and annual meetings alike. Rarely are successful challenges to their power successful, even by major shareholders."

Increased tax incentives to encourage the formation of more employee owned corporations is one way that American prosperity can be expanded. Alperovitz notes that pay in employee owned firms is 12 percent higher than in non-employee owned companies. Employees of such firms earn far more value in stocks than workers with 401(k) plans which some bitterly joke that given dismal performance have become 201(k) and 101(k) plans.

Alperovitz praises neighborhood community development organizations (CDC's) for their social service projects and business development functions within economically deprived areas. CDC's are under local community control and would play a critical role in service delivery and economic development in the "Pluralistic Commonwealth." The emphasis on such social entrepreneurship has already been embraced by some American conservatives as well as even some European social democrats. In fact, some European social democracies long used voluntary organizations for service delivery rather than expanding government. Anthony Giddens, writing in "The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy" (Polity 1998) indicated that in Germany, Holland, Belgium and Austria about half the social services are provided by private groups. Certain functions like operating day care centers are almost universally left in the hands of private non-profit organizations.

Reinventing government would also be a focus of the "Pluralistic Commonwealth." Alpervoitz observes the "threat of privatization" can sometimes to improve government performance. The author tells of the experience of former Republican Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith who won election on a platform of vigorous privatization of public services. After winning election, Alperovitz writes: "Goldstein became convinced that 'competition' - not privatization per se provided the key to improving city services and reducing costs. Public employees were allowed to bid on city contracts, and to redesign their offices and operations in the process. Public employees won the majority of the contracts put out to bid, with estimated savings of $135 million in the program's first three years." Alpervovitz notes that city owned power companies in several major cities provide electric service at a cost of 11 percent less than investor-owned power companies. A municipally owned utility in Glasgow,KY offers high speed internet access for less than private competitors and Cable TV service with 80 digital channels for $15.95 per month.

Alperovitz describes the coming insolvency of our Social Security system but notes that a collapse is not inevitable. The author presents several possible solutions to the crisis which include raising the earnings limit, a 1 percent net worth tax and allocating a portion of Social Security contributions to an equity-invested fund that would operate in a similar fashion to the Federal Thrift Savings Plan.

Health care reform is likely to become viable again. While insurance companies were successful in blocking the last serious attempt to expand access to health care for all Americans, public opinion supports such a change and many corporations now favor some form of national health insurance.

Displaying something of a libertarian streak, Alperovitz suggests the potential for greater automony at the state level and the possible transfer of many powers of the federal government to the states or some form of regional government structures. Some of this appears rather unrealistic at the present time but may come into existence in the future especially given the growing cultural and ethnic divisions in our nation. The author points out that large states like California, Texas and California are increasingly diverse and have much larger populations and economies than many nations.

At times, "America Beyond Capitalism" seems like a confused jumble of sometimes conflicting ideas about how properity and personal liberty can be expanded in America, but Alperovitz at least does present a number of creative solutions for the growing income inequality in our nation.

I disagree with Alperovitz's positions on some matters such as the likely impact of illegal immigration in the U.S. The right kind of immigration could help to solve the Social Security shortfall, however, massive numbers of unskilled newcomers are likley to make our economic and social problems worse. Like many progressives, Alperovitz is convinced that a large influx of poor and low skilled individuals from south of the border will create a political environment more inclined toward activist government and challenging corporate power. This seems unlikely as a larger class of impoverished Americans will make social programs more expensive and therefore less likely to be supported by the surburban upper middle class fearful of tax increases and certainly the influential wealthy. Furthermore, many of these new immigrants may not be inclined to vote or end up voting against their economic interests just as significant numbers of working class and native born Americans do.

"America Beyond Capitalism" is well worth reading. The book presents ideas that will be of interest to a wide range of Democrats. There are some excellent ideas presented that populist, progressive, centrist-New Democrat and and libertarian Democrats can agree on.

http://tinyurl.com/o3ab3

Here's a review of Senator Byron Dorgan's new book titled "Take This Job and Ship It: How Corporate Greed and Brain Dead Politics are Selling Out America" from St. Martin's Press. This is an important book that deserves to become a best seller.

As big companies move their jobs to China, sell their products in America, and run their profits through the Cayman Islands to avoid taxes, they undermine American workers and threaten our future.

For some commentators, the world may seem to be “flat,” but Senator Byron L. Dorgan knows better. With both barrels blazing, the senator from North Dakota contends in this forceful and provocative book that while exporting jobs may be good for the giant corporations, it is a disaster for America as a whole.

Trade can’t be “free” when our small businesses and working people are expected to compete with exploited workers and slave labor in third-world nations that care little about the conditions in their factories and not at all about the pollution they generate.

Our trade deficit now increases by $2 billion a day, but pharmaceutical companies have such influence in Washington that Medicare, by current law, is not allowed to negotiate lower drug prices. We import oil on an ever-increasing scale, putting ourselves into debt with the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other Middle Eastern nations; with their windfall profits, they continue to buy American assets. China’s booming economy and abundance of cheap labor is threatening our economic survival as America’s manufacturing base is dismantled.

We have mortgaged our fortunes, our principles, and our way of life.

With biting wit and an unerring moral compass, Dorgan weaves colorful stories about the dancing grapes from Fruit of the Loom underwear, Fig Newton’s escape to Mexico, the disappearance of the flag decal from Huffy bicycles, and how a trade agreement sent exotic dancers to Canada. He exposes the absurdity of our global-trade policies, and isn’t afraid to name names.

Dorgan pulls no punches and, most important, he offers a refreshing, bold strategy for putting our country back on track. America can once again be a booming exporter as well as a good trading partner with the whole world, but to mindlessly cheer on the loss of more than 3 million jobs (and that’s only the beginning) is just plain folly. In the long run, the United States cannot help the rest of the world by impoverishing its own people and bankrupting its own economy. With a little courage and some original thinking, the negative trade balance can be slowed, even stopped and reversed.

Senator Dorgan’s is a message that must be heard – before it is too late.

* THE REAL CLASS WARFARE

Apologists for corporate greed often accuse economic populists of engaging "class warfare." Well, the real class warfare is being waged by overpaid CEO's who give receive additional perks while insisting that employee benfits and pensions must be reduced or eliminated.

Froma Harrop, one of my favorite syndicated columnists, called attention to this hypocrisy in Wednesday's Seattle Times http://tinyurl.com/o5xhl

"It's not news that American executives have put ordinary workers' benefits on a diet while they go for a fourth helping. What makes this redistribution of corporate wealth special is its brazen and unblushing quality. We are not talking here about some stock option deal where the top guys are rewarded for increasing shareholder value. In this case, the money gushing into the executive suite is simply being siphoned through holes drilled in workers' paychecks." An example, courtesy of The Wall Street Journal:

"General Motors has long complained that its "legacy costs" have made the automaker dangerously uncompetitive. By "legacy costs" it means the health benefits and pensions that it promised its workers and retirees. In an effort to ease those "burdens," GM recently announced it would end pensions for 42,000 of its salaried employees."

"But guess what The Journal discovered? It found that the fund for those middle-class pensions was actually bulging with $9 billion more than was needed to honor them. The real problem, it turns out, was GM's executive pensions, which management had been supersizing even as it demanded cuts from the lower-downs. GM's executive-pension obligations, we learn, are $1.4 billion."

"General Motors is not the only company to have built up extravagant pension deals for the privileged few. Executive-pension liabilities have hit $3.5 billion at General Electric, $1.8 billion at AT&T, and $1.3 billion at ExxonMobil and at IBM. "Sometimes a company's obligation for a single executive's pension approaches $100 million," The Journal reports.

"Cleary, the workers whose pension plans have been frozen aren't the only ones losing out. These unfunded executive pensions suck off earnings that are supposed to be going to the stockholders."

Corporate executive officer benefits are clearly out of control. Companies should not be allowed to escape their pension obligations and even file for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 while continuing to provide outlandish compensation packages to CEO's.

* THOUGHTS ON THE CONNECTICUT SENATE RACE

Despite Ned Lamont's narrow victory in last Tuesday's primary, the voters of Connecticut still have a race between two Democrats for Senator as the Republican nominee is not expected to be a significant factor. Joe Lieberman, now running as Independent Democrat, is not my idea of a perfect Senator.

While I did initially support U.S. intervention in Iraq, I now recognize that was a mistake. I also agree that Lieberman is out of touch with reality on Iraq and made himself vulnerable for a primary defeat by failing to criticize the Bush Administration's handling of the war. In my view, Lieberman has voted wrong on a number of issues including trade matters and some of the controversial social issues like abortion rights and gun control.

I do respect Lieberman for his willingness to take unpopular stands and that he seems to be a gracious man with a strong personal faith. Lieberman has been willing to criticize the entertainment industry for degrading our culture.

Far more important than saving Joe Lieberman's political career is stopping the Moveonner Left who want to have total control over the Democratic Party. If these people win control over the party, moderates and conservatives are eventually going to crushed although a few might be tolerated now.

Ned Lamont may not be radical but he is being backed by a dangerous faction in the party that will dissenting views if they are allowed to gain control of the party. Lamont will be obligated to this faction if elected. Any Senator from Connecticut will be relatively liberal but this struggle within the party is not so much about philosphy as about power and the tolerance for differing views within the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, Ned Lamont is a millionaire elitist who would have been a Rockefeller Republican thirty years ago. While Lieberman does not really fit the bill for a populist Democrat, Lamont will definitely take the party further in the direction of being a group of ivory tower social liberals. If re-elected, Lieberman will be a vote for Democratic Senate control as he will remain in the Dem caucus.

School vouchers has been a difficult issue for me. I am not a big fan of most ideas from Milton Friedman (who first proposed school choice back in the 50's) or most of the politicians who have promoted vouchers. Furthermore, I generally support public education and labor unions. I have always voted to fund public education at every opportunity. At the same time, I also recognize that education has traditionally been a public-private partnership with a significant number of our students educated in private or church-related schools.

Education does not seem to work well with one size fits all solutions. It seems unlikely that the public school system is going out of existence nor should that happen. In some districts, the public schools are doing a great job and there are some troubled public schools where it is difficult for a child to get a decent education. The notion that poor children ought to have the opportunity for private education where there are failing schools seems to be a very populist concept.

Democrats often strongly oppose experimenting with vouchers. Joe Lieberman dared to suggest that maybe school vouchers are not such an bad idea - one of a few issues that has haunted him in the Democratic primary. Like many issues, what cause problems with Democratic primary voters can be a strength in the general election. Teacher unions and secularists - both opponents of vouchers have a strong influence within the Democratic Party.

Educational choice is an important issue for values voters and Democrats might have more appeal to that constituency with a less hostile attitude toward vouchers. Our party should support public education but reconsider the knee jerk opposition to school vouchers. If approached the right way, a little competition between public and private educators can help improve all of our schools and the quality of education.

* SINATRA: AN INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN MUSIC AND POLITICS

Among my other interests outside of politics is music. I am especially into older musical styles - R & B, classic country, early (pre-Beatles) rock and roll, gospel, jazz and especially pop standards. One of my favorite singers is the "Chairman of the Board" Frank Sinatra. Eight years after his death, Sinatra continues to gain new fans around the world.

While his popularity was greatest with the WWII Generation, Sinatra had appeal to a wide range of age groups. In fact, Sinatra had top 40 hits ranging from "I'll Never Smile Again" in 1941 to "New York,New York" in 1980. Some of Sinatra's greatest recordings were never chart hits such as "Lady Day" - a moving song about the troubled and all too brief life of blues singer Billie Holiday - which appeared on the 1969 "Sinatra & Company' album.

There was also a political side and social activist side to Frank Sinatra. In the late 40's, Sinatra appeared in a 10 minute film short called "The House I Live In" (also a hit song) which appealed for racial and religious tolerance in America. Sinatra was always an outspoken critic of racial segregation.

As a John Kennedy supporter during the 1960 campaign, Sinatra recorded a version of "High Hopes" that promoted the JFK candidacy. The song was featured on Kennedy TV advertising and also blared from campaign soundtrucks in major cities. http://tinyurl.com/r6ddq

Like many Catholic ethnic Democrats, Sinatra became disillusioned with the Democratic Party following the McGovernite takeover. Sinatra later supported Ronald Reagan for President appearing with Reagan at St. Ann's Catholic Church in his hometown on Hoboken,New Jersey. In supporting Reagan, Sinatra symbolized millions of New Deal Democrats who felt alienated from the party.

Bill Clinton paid tribute to the "Chairman" recognizing the need to win back the "Sinatra Democrats." Some observers have even suggested that George W. Bush has looked to Sinatra for inspiration in his developing his misguided foreign policy "I Did It My Way."

I am a Baby Boomer and became familar with the wide range of Sinatra's recordings in part by listening to a weekly syndicated radio program called Sounds of Sinatra which is still on the air in a number of markets. Sounds of Sinatra has a website at www.soundsofsinatra.com with links to radio stations that stream the program on the internet.

There was certainly a dark side to the "Chairman" but in my opinion, Sinatra was among male vocalists the greatest interpreter of the American popular song. Mel Torme was also a great singer but was more the leader in the jazz realm. Given the present state of American popular music (and I think we are really more in a post-musical era in terms of pop music), the odds of another Sinatra coming along are quite slim.

The Second Amendment Foundation has issued a press release about a U.S. Senate vote on Thursday affirming gun rights during emergencies and major disasters. I agree with Alan Gottlieb, spokesman for the group, that this vote represents a strong shift in the pro-gun rights direction.

A change in political climate toward defending the right to keep and bear arms was evidenced by a majority of Senate Democrats voting for the Vitter Amendment (Senate amendment 4615) which was co-sponsored by Robert Byrd D-WV.

The Vitter amendment passed by a 84 to 16 vote. All sixteen Senators voting no were Democrats which suggests that those of us who support gun rights within the Democratic Party still have some work to do. Among the Senators voting against gun rights, all but three were from the Northeast or California.

Passage of Vitter Amendment Shows Public Shift on Gun Rights After Katrina

7/14/2006 4:42:00 PM
To: National Desk

Contact: Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, 425-454-7012

BELLEVUE, Wash., July 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Senate's overwhelming 84 to 16 vote this week to prohibit gun confiscations from private citizens in emergencies shows there has been a remarkable shift in the public's attitude about gun rights after the Hurricane Katrina debacle, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said today.

"For many in the Senate, like Republicans Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, and Democrats Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington," observed SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb, "it was the first time they've voted to support the individual rights of law-abiding gun owners. They saw the looting and lawlessness, and watched the outrage of post-Katrina gun confiscations, and so did their constituents.

"Incredibly," he continued, "sixteen extremist anti-gun Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, demonstrated by their vote that they think it's just swell for the government to seize private property from law-abiding citizens, often times at gunpoint and always without warrant or due process of law. This time, it's guns but what about next time? If it is okay with these senators for police to take legally-owned firearms without probable cause, what would they advocate next for confiscation?"

SAF successfully sued the City of New Orleans and St. Tammany Parish last September to force a halt to those illegal gun seizures. The National Rifle Association joined in that lawsuit.
"For people of such divergent political views as Joe Biden, Robert Byrd, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, Patrick Leahy, Chuck Hagel, Orrin Hatch, Wayne Allard, Max Baucus and 75 of their colleagues, this vote was a no-brainer," Gottlieb observed. "What a pity that Sen. Clinton's group remains so myopic about firearm civil rights that they vote to essentially support the warrantless seizure of private property.

"We hope the House concurs with this vote," Gottlieb concluded, "so that never again, on American soil, will we witness a police state mentality that would sooner disarm people and leave them defenseless when they should be offered assistance and medical aid if necessary. Being secure from warrantless search and seizure is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, even if some people in New Orleans, and a handful on Capitol Hill, seem willing to ignore that."

The Second Amendment Foundation ( http://www.saf.org ) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

Pro-gun Democrats must continue to push our party in the direction of supporting our Second Amendment rights. Groups like Amendment II Democrats http://www.a2dems.net are getting out the word that many of us in the Democratic Party do favor the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control doesn't work and it bad politics too.

* HELP 57 MILLION WORKERS GAIN A UNION

The following action alert was sent by the Working Families e-Activist Network
http://unionvoice.org

Today, 57 million workers in America want to join unions. But employers routinely block their efforts—and our laws are too weak to protect them. It's time for Congress to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow workers to make their own uncoerced decisions on whether or not to form a union. Please sign the following petition urging members of Congress to support this important legislation.

Subject:Co-Sponsor the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1696 and S. 842)

Dear Representative or Senator:

We, the undersigned, urge Congress to support the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1696 and S. 842) now. Workers need the Employee Free Choice Act because workers need unions. Union workers typically earn 28 percent more than nonunion workers to support their families and contribute to their communities.

Union members are much more likely than nonunion workers to have vital benefits such as health care coverage, disability insurance and retirement security. And no one can put a price tag on the pride of having a union voice at work.

Some 57 million workers would join a union if they could. But, as Human Rights Watch has documented, employers routinely harass, coerce, intimidate and stall to block workers' freedom to choose union representation. In fact, every 23 minutes a worker is fired or penalized for supporting a union.

We urge our elected representatives and senators to recognize the urgent need to restore workers' freedom to form unions and support the Employee Free Choice Act so workers once again can have the basic right to choose for themselves whether to belong to a union.

Sincerely,[Your name][Your address]

The Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) announced their endorsement of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s bid for re-election. The organization cited Nelson’s consistent support for pro-life issues in making the endorsement.

“Washington needs more leaders like Senator Nelson. Ben Nelson has been with the pro-life community every step of the way and we know we can always count on him to stand up for the unborn,” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of DFLA. “Senator Nelson has been a strong supporter of the issues important to our membership and we are proud to support his re-election campaign. Keeping Ben Nelson in the Senate will ensure that Nebraskans and all Americans have a strong voice advocating for the pro-life position.”

“I am very proud to accept this endorsement. I have always been committed to protecting unborn children and I’ve worked closely with DFLA to accomplish this goal,” said Nelson. “I look forward to continuing to work with them after November and into the future.”

In its endorsement of Nelson, the DFLA cited his strong support for the right to life. From his first day in public life, he has worked to reduce the number of abortions. As Governor and now as Senator, Nelson is a strong supporter of the partial birth abortion ban. He will continue to work to prevent taxpayer funding of abortions and supports stronger restrictions on abortion.
In 2003, Ben Nelson received the 2003 Legislative Award from Democrats for Life [Lincoln Southern NE Register, 7/11/2003] and he currently sits on the organization’s federal advisory board.

http://democratsforlife.org

* SAME SEX MARRIAGE ISSUE DIVIDES DEMOCRATS

Errol Lewis made a good point in yesterday's New York Daily News about the gay marriage controversy as a potential stumbling block for Democrats. Gay marriage is likely to be a major issue in the New York and California Governor's races as the Democratic nomineees Eliot Spitzer and Phil Angelides support same sex unions. It is certainly naive to believe this issue will not become a significant factor in other elections this fall and impact the 2008 Presidential contest. See link to full column http://tinyurl.com/o52k6

"Gay and lesbian political groups should think carefully before making their next move following yesterday's state Court of Appeals decision to outlaw same-sex marriages in New York."
"It's tempting - but politically counterproductive - to condemn the court's logic, condemn all opponents of gay marriage as bigots and Neanderthals and rally around the dissent by Chief Judge Judith Kaye and its ringing, history-will-absolve-me closing lines: 'I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep.'"

"There's a time to invoke future generations, and a time to focus on the politics of the moment. Right now, if gay activists continue to push for gay marriage as the all-important political litmus test for candidates in New York and elsewhere, they run the risk of helping to weaken and splinter the Democratic Party just as it stands within striking distance of winning a majority in Congress this year, and just as the party begins ramping up for the 2008 presidential elections."

"As pollsters, pundits and politicians have known for years, several key Democratic constituencies - gays, union households and black voters - have been clinging together in an increasingly unstable political coalition for the past two decades. Few issues disrupt this already-shaky alliance more thoroughly than gay marriage - and Republicans have built a string of political victories on exploiting these tensions."

"Black voters, for example, who vote in huge numbers for Democrats, get uneasy on the issue of gay marriage. Polls taken over the past decade consistently show that about 63% of black voters remain opposed to gay marriage - a position that stems from the theology of many black church denominations."

"That doesn't mean black voters are jumping party lines to vote Republican. But it does mean that introducing gay marriage into a campaign can create a trickle of black ministers and their congregations to the GOP."

"The same is true of working-class union households, many of them Catholic, who normally vote Democratic but draw the line at gay marriage."

"In a close election, shifting a few votes over the party line can make all the difference: The most recent presidential election was decided by only 118,601 votes in a single state, Ohio."

"Nineteen states have already passed constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage - 11 of them in 2004. Such amendments have never failed to pass when placed on the ballot."

"Six more states will hold votes on the issue this fall - a foolproof way to fire up the Republican base and drive a wedge between core Democratic voters."

I couldn't agree more. We are looking at a very emotional issue that may have as much impact on American politics as abortion or gun control.

* DICK CHENEY BETS AGAINST U.S. ECONOMY

Counterpunch http://counterpunch.com/ posted an excellent column on July 5 by Mike Whitney on how Dick Cheney is betting against the American economy. The Cheney investment strategy certainly helps to explain why how our leaders are so indifferent to the prospects of a U.S. financial collapse.

"Wouldn't you like to know where Dick Cheney puts his money? Then you'd know whether his "deficits don't matter" claim is just baloney or not."

"Well, as it turns out, Kiplinger Magazine ran an article based on Cheney's financial disclosure statement and, sure enough, found out that the VP is lying to the American people for the umpteenth time. Deficits do matter and Cheney has invested his money accordingly."

"The article is called "Cheney's betting on bad news" and provides an account of where Cheney has socked away more than $25 million. While the figures may be estimates, the investments are not. According to Tom Blackburn of the Palm Beach Post, Cheney has invested heavily in "a fund that specializes in short-term municipal bonds, a tax-exempt money market fund and an inflation protected securities fund. The first two hold up if interest rates rise with inflation. The third is protected against inflation."

"Cheney has dumped another (estimated) $10 to $25 million in a European bond fund which tells us that he is counting on a steadily weakening dollar. So, while working class Americans are loosing ground to inflation and rising energy costs, Darth Cheney will be enhancing his wealth in "Old Europe". As Blackburn sagely notes, 'Not all bad news' is bad for everybody."

"This should put to rest once and for all the foolish notion that the 'Bush Economic Plan' is anything more than a scam aimed at looting the public till. The whole deal is intended to shift the nation's wealth from one class to another. It's also clear that Bush-Cheney couldn't have carried this off without the tacit approval of the thieves at the Federal Reserve who engineered the low-interest rate boondoggle to put the American people to sleep while they picked their pockets."
"Reasonable people can dispute that Bush is 'intentionally' skewering the dollar with his lavish tax cuts, but how does that explain Cheney's portfolio?"

"It doesn't. And, one thing we can say with metaphysical certainty is that the miserly Cheney would never plunk his money into an investment that wasn't a sure thing. If Cheney is counting on the dollar tanking and interest rates going up, then, by Gawd, that's what'll happen."
"The Bush-Cheney team has racked up another $3 trillion in debt in just 6 years. The US national debt now stands at $8.4 trillion dollars while the trade deficit has ballooned to $800 billion nearly 7% of GDP."

"This is lunacy. No country, however powerful, can maintain these staggering numbers. The country is in hock up to its neck and has to borrow $2.5 billion per day just to stay above water. Presently, the Fed is expanding the money supply and buying back its own treasuries to hide the hemorrhaging from the public. Its utter madness."

"Last month the trade deficit climbed to $70 billion. More importantly, foreign central banks only purchased a meager $47 billion in treasuries to shore up our ravenous appetite for cheap junk from China."

"Do the math! They're not investing in America anymore. They are decreasing their stockpiles of dollars. We're sinking fast and Cheney and his pals are manning the lifeboats while the public is diverted with gay marriage amendments and 'American Celebrity'."

"The American manufacturing sector has been hollowed out by cutthroat corporations who've abandoned their country to make a fast-buck in China or Mexico. The $3 trillion housing (equity) bubble is quickly loosing air while the anemic dollar continues to sag. All the signs indicate that the economy is slowing at the same time that energy prices continue to rise."

"This is the onset of stagflation; the dreaded combo of a slowing economy and inflation."

"Did Americans really think they'd be spared the same type of economic colonization that has been applied throughout the developing world under the rubric of 'neoliberalism'?"

"Well, think again. The American economy is barrel-rolling towards earth and there are only enough parashutes for Cheney and his gang."