Right Democrat: A Mainstream Populist Voice

CQ Politics reports that Congressman Artur Davis is considering a campaign for Governor of Alabama. If elected Davis would become the first African American to serve as Alabama Governor.

Annie Johnson writes in the November 28 edition of CQ Today Online News:

“The first barrier is, according to the exit polls, there are more Republicans than Democrats in Alabama. For a Democrat to win, you have to win virtually all the Democrats and then get a huge majority among the independent voters,” said Merle Black, the Asa G. Candler professor of politics and government at Emory University in Atlanta. “It may be tough for any Democrat.”

The Democrats’ performance in this year’s congressional races could provide some ground for optimism within the party’s ranks. Conservative Democrat Bobby Bright, the mayor of the state capital city of Montgomery, won the seat in the 2nd Congressional District — usually a Republican stronghold — left open by retiring eight-term Republican Rep. Terry Everett ; state Sen. Parker Griffith staved off a fierce Republican challenge to hold the 5th District seat of retiring nine-term Rep. Robert E. “Bud” Cramer in Democratic hands; and lawyer Josh Segall, a political newcomer, staged a narrowly unsuccessful bid to unseat Republican incumbent Mike D. Rogers in the 3rd District.

And Davis, who is more conservative than many Democrats on social issues such as abortion and gun owners’ rights, also insists that the next governor of Alabama will be dealing with issues such as education and balancing the state’s budget, issues that transcend politics and race.

While Davis admits a win for governor would be historic, he says that is not why he wants to run.

“If I run a campaign that’s based on race I will lose, more fundamentally I will deserve to lose. If I run a campaign that is as empty as ‘we need to make history,’ I’ll lose and I deserve to lose,” he said. “I will and should run a campaign based on my ideas about where my state can be and where my state can go.”

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002991837

Congressman Heath Shuler of North Carolina, a leading advocate for working families, is considering a race for U.S. Senator in 2010 according to a report in the Times-News.

http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20081113/NEWS/811120188/104

U.S. Rep. Heath Shuler is not yet sworn into his second term, but some Democrats hope he sets his sights two years from now on a run for the Senate.

That election would pit Democratic nominee Shuler, a star quarterback at Swain County High School and the University of Tennessee, against U.S. Sen. Richard Burr, who played defensive back at Wake Forest.
Shuler said he has not ruled out a run for Senate, but wants to focus now on Congress.

“First and foremost, I am going back to Washington and work on the economy,” Shuler said. “At this point in time we need to focus on the economy.”

Shuler won re-election last week with 62 percent of the vote over Republican Carl Mumpower, an Asheville city council member.

Shuler has established himself as the kind of middle-of-the-road Democrat who can win a statewide election. After he knocked off eight-term incumbent Charles Taylor in 2006, Shuler was approached about running against Sen. Elizabeth Dole.

“It was my first term, and we decided against it,” Shuler said in an interview Wednesday.

Shuler said he has no regrets about the decision despite the fact that Dole was defeated by state Sen. Kay Hagan last week.

“You can always play Monday morning quarterback,” he said.

Shuler acknowledged the talk about a Senate campaign and said he would “weigh options” in the future.

“I need time to breathe right now after the election,” Shuler said.

Facing a challenge

Gibbs Knotts, a political science professor at Western Carolina University, said being talked about for a Senate seat probably doesn’t hurt.

“Any time a politician can be in line for a higher office, it is not a bad thing,” Knotts said. “It keeps their name in the press and is an honor to be considered.”

But a 2010 race against Burr would be a challenge. Shuler could not “ride on the coattails” of the presidential race, and in Burr he would face a rising star in the Republican Party whose name was floated as a vice presidential candidate last summer.

“I think it would be a tough race,” Knotts said. Burr “is popular in North Carolina, and he is popular in Washington.”

If Burr wins re-election, he will be the first incumbent to hold the seat since Sam Ervin, who retired in 1974.

The political parties have swapped the seat every election since then. In 1980, Democrat Robert Morgan lost to Republican James Broyhill, who lost to Democrat Terry Sanford in 1986. Sanford got beat in 1992 by Republican Lauch Faircloth, who lost to Democrat John Edwards in 2004. Burr won the seat over Erskine Bowles in 2004 when Edwards ran for president.

James Parks reports in the AFL-CIO's NOW Blog:

The global economic crisis will lead to deep cuts in the wages of millions of workers worldwide in the coming year, according to a report published today by the International Labor Organization (ILO). Meanwhile, wage inequality in the United States between the top 10 percent and bottom 10 percent income brackets is the highest of any developed economy.

The report, Global Wage Report 2008/09, warns that wages are likely to fall worldwide and exacerbate an already unacceptable level of inequality. Based on the latest growth figures from the International Monetary Fund, the ILO forecasts the global growth in real wages will at best reach 1.1 per cent in 2009, compared to 1.7 per cent in 2008.

Says ILO Director-General Juan Somavia:

For the world’s 1.5 billion wage earners, difficult times lie ahead. Slow or negative economic growth, combined with highly volatile food and energy prices, will erode the real wages of many workers, particularly the low-wage and poorer households. The middle classes will also be seriously affected.

The wage crisis is not confined to poor or developing countries, the ILO says. Wages in industrialized economies are expected to actually fall, from an increase of 0.8 percent in 2008 to a decline of -0.5 percent in 2009. In the U.S., average wages are expected to decrease by about 1 per cent in 2008 and fall even further in 2009.

In the United States, workers at the top earn 4.75 times more than those at the bottom, compared to a ratio of 2.10 in Norway, 3.0 in France and 3.15 in Germany.

The ILO report shows this bleak outlook follows a decade in which wages failed to advance as much as economic growth. According to the report, while the global economy grew at a 4 percent annual rate between 2001 and 2007, growth in wages lagged behind, increasing by less than 2 percent per year in half of the world’s countries.

The report also points out that growing wage inequality is creating a dangerous situation. Since 1995, inequality between the highest and lowest wages has increased in more than two-thirds of the countries surveyed, often reaching socially unsustainable levels. Among developed countries, Germany, Poland and the United States are among the countries where the gap between top and bottom wages has increased most rapidly. In other regions, inequality also has increased sharply, particularly in Argentina, China and Thailand.

The wage gaps are so wide, Somavia says, that they threaten the future of free societies.

The legitimacy of globalization and of open economies and societies hinges critically on greater fairness in outcomes. Central to this fairness is the ability of working women and men to obtain a fair share of the wealth they create.

To prevent the decline in wages from deepening the global recession and delaying its recovery, the ILO suggests that governments provide stimuli for consumers and increase the purchasing power of workers:

Firstly, social partners should be encouraged to negotiate ways to prevent a further deterioration in the share of wages relative to the share of profits in GDP. Secondly, minimum wages should effectively protect the most vulnerable workers. Thirdly, minimum wages and wage bargaining should be complemented by public intervention through, for instance, income support measures.

The report shows that collective bargaining is an efficient way to counter declining wages and fight wage inequality. However, the ILO notes that in the United States, less than 15 percent of workers are covered by union collective bargaining, compared with more than 70 percent in a number of European countries, including Denmark, Finland, France, Netherlands and Spain.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/11/25/global-wages-decline-us-income-gap-worst-of-developed-countries/

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_100786.pdf

A Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge has struck down Florida's law banning gay adoption. The state law passed in 1977 by a Democratic-controlled Legislature and signed by one of Florida's most progressive Governors Reubin Askew was enacted to preserve traditional family values within the Sunshine State.

On November 4, Florida voters again showed their support across party lines by voting overwhelmingly to ban place a ban on same sex marriage in the Florida Constitution. In the debate over gay adoption, few consider the best interest of the child. At the very least, traditional families must receive priority in adoption and foster care placement. A 2005 report from Spain makes an excellent case against adoption by same sex couples.

http://www.fides.org/eng/news/2005/0505/25_4993.html

Madrid (Fides Service) - HazteOir Spain in collaboration with the Spanish Forum for the Family and the Institute for Family Policy has just published a “Report on infantile development in same sex couples " on the consequences for children adopted by same sex couples. The report, compiled by first class psychologists and experts, includes a vast bibliography of articles and documents on criteria for judging suitability for adoption of same sex couples. Only days before the Spanish senate will be called to vote on the proposed amendment to the Civil Code to allow same sex couple to ‘marry’ the report was sent to all the senators to provide them with a full picture of scientific opinion on this important matter.

The report demonstrates that none of the studies on the development of children brought up by same sex couples has the minimum scientific rigor necessary to reach conclusions with an acceptable grade of validity. It is curious, the report underlines, that the members of associations in favour of same sex adoptive parents, like the American Psychological Association and the American Association of Paediatrics, are homosexuals, lesbians, authors and editors of homosexual publications. The woman author of one of the most frequently mentioned papers reportedly said on several occasions that the presence of the father is completely superfluous for the correct development of the child, she also said she did not believe in the family as an institution and the openly defended the possibility of enlarging the same sex couple to include more than two members. These opinions are totally different from many other important studies. For example the Spanish Association of Paediatrics said that a “family nucleus with two fathers or two mothers is clearly dangerous for the child”.


From the few serious studies on the matter it emerges that the development of children educated by a couple of the same sex is very different from that of children in a natural type of family with a father and a mother, and can be very dangerous under various aspects. These children are also more prone to physical and mental problems than those in a normal family. Psychological disturbances range for lack of self-esteem, stress, confusion with regard to sexual identity, behaviour, greater tendency to drug dependence, school failure, bad behaviour at school; greater tendency to homosexuality; weaker health and more risk of mental disorder, suicide, and possibility of contracting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Another important fact is that same sex couples were seen to be less stable. For example in Sweden the number of separations of same sex couples is 37% higher than that of heterosexual couples. In Holland same sex union last for an average 18 months. Instability does not guarantee the good of the minor.


On the basis of these facts Ignacio Arsuaga HazteOir President said: “In no way can a couple of persons of the same sex be judged suitable for adopting a child. Considering the findings of this vast bibliography we are obliged to protect the minor and say that same sex couples must not be allowed to adopt children". (RG) (Agenzia Fides 25/5/2005, righe 40, parole 563)

A warning from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission:

WASHINGTON, DC (November 20, 2008) – China relies on heavy-handed government control over its economy to maintain an export advantage over other countries. The result: China has amassed nearly $2 trillion in foreign exchange and has increasingly used its hoard to manipulate currency trading and diplomatic relations with other nations. These are among the conclusions in the sixth Annual Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. “Rather than use this money for the benefit of its citizens—by funding pensions and erecting hospitals and schools, for example--China has been using the funds to seek political and economic influence over other nations,” said Larry Wortzel, chairman of the Commission, at the official release of the group’s 2008 report to Congress on Thursday.
The bipartisan Commission, established by Congress to analyze the economic and national security relationship of the two nations, made 45 recommendations to Congress for further action. The 393-page report was unanimously approved by the 12 Commissioners. The Commission held eight hearings; traveled to China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan; commissioned original research; and consulted with the U.S. intelligence community.

The report acknowledges some progress by China. Its adherence to non-proliferation agreements has continued to improve. China’s involvement in the Six Party Talks assisted the negotiations to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear weapons production capacity. Yet China has stepped up its capacity to penetrate U.S. computer networks to extract sensitive government and private information. Beijing’s “continuing arms sales and military support to rogue regimes, namely Sudan, Burma, and Iran, threaten the stability of fragile regions and hinder U.S. and international efforts to address international crises, such as the genocide in Darfur,” the report notes.

The report is critical of China’s use of prison labor to produce goods for export and of China’s refusal, despite promises, to allow inspections of prisons by advancing the specious claim that forced labor constitutes “reeducation” rather than punishment. The Commission also notes that China’s government “has created an information control regime intended to regulate nearly every venue that might transmit information to China’s citizens: the print and broadcast media, the Internet, popular entertainment, cultural activities, and education.”

The Commission warns Congress that fish imported into the U.S. from Chinese fish farms “pose a health risk because of the unsanitary conditions . . . including water polluted by untreated sewage; fish contaminated by bacteria, viruses, and parasites; and fish treated with antibiotics and other veterinary medicines that are banned in the United States as dangerous to human health.” The Commission recommends greater powers for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The report and its key findings, analysis, and recommendations to Congress are available on the Commission’s Web Site, www.uscc.gov.

Thanks to my fellow blogger Irish Elk http://mcns.blogspot.com for sharing this video of clips from John F. Kennedy's TV press conferences. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC_B3OBmb0Y#

Here are some interesting facts from the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library:

"John F. Kennedy was the first president to effectively use the new medium of television to speak directly to the American people. No other president had conducted live televised press conferences without delay or editing."

"By November 1963, President Kennedy had held 64 news conferences, an average of one every sixteen days. The first, less than a week after his inauguration, was viewed by an estimated 65 million people. A poll taken in 1961 indicated that 90% of those interviewed had watched at least one of JFK’s first three press conferences. The average audience for all the broadcast conferences was 18 million viewers."

http://www.jfklibrary.org

The AFL-CIO Now Blog reports:

Tragedy struck a Georgia factory in February when combustible dust caught fire and exploded at the Imperial Sugar plant in Port Wentworth, killing 14 workers and injuring many more.

Now, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), an opponent of working families who’s in a tough runoff to defend his Senate seat, is facing questions about whether he improperly aided Imperial in its efforts to avoid the consequences of its negligence.

The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) hit the company with $5 million in fines for “willful and egregious safety violations” over the blast. And a Senate subcommittee held a hearing in July, finding that Imperial had no plan to deal with the dangerous combustible dust and ignored warnings about plant safety.

During that hearing, Chambliss—who has received $21 thousand in campaign contributions this election cycle from the sugar industry—berated a corporate whistle-blower who exposed the dangerous conditions at the plant.

Mark Tate, an attorney representing families of two workers killed in the blast as well as two injured workers, has subpoenaed Chambliss to testify about his involvement in trying to protect Imperial Sugar from consequences of the explosion. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Chambliss is accused of interfering with the case both inside and outside of Congress.

Tate says he wants to know if Imperial Sugar executives persuaded Chambliss to sharply criticize a company whistle-blower during a July Senate hearing on the explosion. He says he also wants the senator to respond to plaintiffs’ claims that the company arranged a meeting between Chambliss and victims’ families to dissuade them from suing.

Chambliss is refusing to answer the subpoena and testify about his actions, but Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) says his claims of immunity don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Neither does the anti-worker record of Chambliss. He has opposed workers’ interests on issues like the minimum wage and overtime protection. Chambliss needs to put workers first and come clean about his relationship with Imperial Sugar.

Chambliss’ opponent in the Senate race, Jim Martin, has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO. www.martinforsenate.com

For more information on the shameless record of Saxby Chambliss, check out this website. http://www.saxby-chambliss.com/

The Institute for Southern Studies demolishes every argument of the "Schaller school" in their analysis of the 2008 election. I would encourage everyone to check out the link and read the full essay.

http://new.southernstudies.org/2008/11/a-new-south-rising.html

A NEW SOUTH RISING

2008 proved that the South is politically competitive and growing in importance. But the pundits are telling a different story.

On the day before Election Day -- that final moment when candidates decide where they want to make their last case to the voters they want to win the most -- Barack Obama chose to visit three big battleground states: Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.

Since 1968, these Southern states had voted Democratic for president only six times between them. And president-elect Obama was about to ask voters in these states -- all members of the old Confederacy -- to vote the first African-American ever into the White House.

Obama's Southern Strategy worked: the states went blue, and history was made.

But just as Southern Democrats were clinking glasses of sweet tea in celebration, the powerhouses of political punditry -- especially in the North -- made a bizarre move: They turned against the region that had just given one-third of its Electoral College votes to the President-elect.

Ignoring McCain's dominance in, say, the Great Plains and Upper Mountain states -- Obama's most crushing defeats came in Idaho, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming -- legions of commentators instead curiously trained their guns on the South, dismissing the region as politically irrelevant, a bastion of red-state conservatism uniquely out of touch with national trends.

Gawker, a popular New York-based website, put a finer point on it: "North Finally Wins Civil War."

SCHALLER RIDES -- AND FALLS -- AGAIN

It's a familiar refrain. The Obama campaign heard it when they first began talking about changing the political map, including putting several Southern states in play. Leading the pack, as always, was the relentless Tom Schaller, the oft-quoted political scientist whose passion for downplaying the South's political significance has frequently put him on the wrong side of history.

Just this past July, Schaller declared with typical bombast in a New York Times column that "Mr. Obama can write off Georgia and North Carolina." That certainly would come as a surprise to Obama, who won N.C. and made McCain fight for the Peach State.

It would also be news to McCain and Sarah Palin, who scheduled seven campaign stops in North Carolina in the final month leading into the election. As for Georgia, McCain is now headed there to help fellow Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, forced into a run-off largely because of the surge of Obama voters.

This wasn't the first time Schaller's "forget the South" thesis was proven wrong. In 2006, Schaller famously declared he was "certain" now-Senator Jim Webb (D) would lose in Virginia. But the string of bad calls and Obama's success in the South hasn't silenced Schaller and the rest of the "write off the South" crowd -- oddly enough, it seems to have emboldened them.

THE REAL LESSONS FROM THE SOUTH

In fact, the 2008 elections provided two important lessons about the South, clear to any willing to see them: First, the South is rapidly changing in a way that makes it a more -- not less -- politically competitive region.

And second, despite the fevered hopes of certain wings of the Northern intelligentsia, the South's political clout is rapidly growing -- making the South a centerpiece of any strategy for national political power.

Read the full article at:
http://new.southernstudies.org/2008/11/a-new-south-rising.html

Kent Garber, writing in a recent edition of U.S. News and World Report, calls attention to a nuclear fuel with the potential to revitalize the peaceful use of atomic energy. Thorium has tremendous potential as a replacement for uranium in the nuclear industry. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) are the bipartisan sponsors of a bill to fund thorium research.

Garber writes:

In the midst of renewed global interest in nuclear energy, a long-overlooked nuclear fuel, thorium, is being re-examined as a potential solution to some of the industry's most daunting problems, including disposal of wastes.

Widely available in the sandy beaches of India, Australia, and the United States, among other places, thorium is a naturally occurring, slightly radioactive element that is being heralded by advocates as a safer alternative to uranium that could help limit the production of nuclear waste and prevent nuclear technology from being used for weapons rather than energy.

Though many nuclear scientists have known about thorium's potential for decades—it was briefly used in the 1970s at the first U.S. commercial reactor in Shippingport, Pa.—it never caught on commercially. Today, however, with nearly three dozen nuclear reactors under construction worldwide and plans for at least two dozen more, world leaders are facing mounting pressure to make sure that the nuclear industry's expansion takes place as safely and cleanly as possible.

Could thorium be the solution? Some politicians and businesses hope so. Earlier this month, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch introduced a bill (S.3680) would set aside $250 million for research and development of thorium fuels.

Abroad, interest in thorium is even greater. The Indian government publicly has said that it wants to promote new nuclear plants running on thorium to help meet its soaring energy needs. Russia, France, the United Arab Emirates, and many others also have expressed interest.

Proponents say thorium has multiple advantages over uranium fuel. Because it is consumed more slowly in nuclear reactions than uranium, it has the potential to cut the volume of nuclear waste produced in half. Unlike a uranium reaction, a thorium fuel reaction doesn't produce weapons-usable plutonium, which would allay concerns about developing countries pursuing nuclear weapons under the pretext of nuclear energy. And proponents also say that thorium fuel could be used in new and existing reactors without companies having to make major changes to their reactor designs or fork out money for retrofits.

The dilemma of nuclear waste disposal, a longtime political lightning rod, is part of the reason no new nuclear plant has been approved for construction in the United States in some 30 years. The federal government's decades-old plan to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., remains stuck in limbo, and many observers speculate that the repository will never get built. Thorium would not eliminate the problem but, at least in theory, could reduce the amount of waste that would need disposal.

At the moment, thorium isn't quite ready for commercial use. The research is not yet complete, and approval of thorium fuel by the U.S. government still remains at least several years off. But some surprising international partnerships already are yielding promising developments.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/10/14/some-nuclear-energy-backers-say-uranium-alternative-could-be-a-magic-bullet.html

See link to text of S. 3680 - Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.3680:

Hat tip www.pronucleardemocrats.blogspot.com

In a column at Ethics Daily.Com, Alabama Baptist minister Jim Evans questions the fairness of his state's regressive tax structure.

Don’t Perpetuate Economic Injustice

Jim Evans
11-14-08

The 2008 presidential campaign was a taxing affair, and in more than one sense. For one thing, the campaign went on for nearly two years—taxing our patience and the limits of civil discourse. And at the end, the campaign was mostly about the economy, of which taxes are an integral part. Who should be taxed or not taxed? How should those tax dollars be spent?

Unfortunately, even though the campaign is finally over, the debate about taxes will continue. And in Alabama that debate needs a particular focus.

Recently the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-partisan group based in Washington, published a report revealing a deplorable reality about income taxes in Alabama. According to the center, Alabama's taxes are higher at the poverty level than any other state in America.

Let me state that again so as to ensure we don't miss the point here. It's not just that we tax the poor, but we tax the poor at a higher rate than any other state in the union. A family of four earning $21,203, which is the poverty line, will owe state income tax in the amount of $423. If they moved to Mississippi, they would owe $48.

Of course, it's not as bad as it used to be. Not that long ago we began taxing families earning as little as $4600. That changed in 2007 when the state legislature raised the amount at which taxes are assessed to $12,600. But what may seem like progress to some in reality remains a gross injustice.

We are not talking about welfare here or some so-called government giveaway. These people work. They are trying to make a living and be productive members of society. And the reward they receive from their state is a regressive tax that only serves to drive them deeper into poverty.

This past spring the Alabama Legislature fell one vote short of passing more tax cuts for the working poor and removing sales tax on groceries. The anti-tax crowd hailed this as a victory. But it is not. When we allow a tax system to exist that willfully punishes those who earn the least, we are guilty of perpetuating an insidious economic injustice.

What makes this all the more amazing is to know how many followers of Jesus live in Alabama. How can it be possible that so many people who claim allegiance to Jesus can be so complacent about the plight of the poor? How can they ignore what Jesus said about loving our neighbor?

It is time and past time to fix this. People of faith and good will all across this state need to be calling on their representatives to put an end to this injustice. If not out of a commitment to biblical principles and the teaching of Jesus, then maybe out of some basic sense of fairness for our fellow citizens.

It's not fair for the poor to carry the heaviest part of our tax burden. We should adopt a progressive tax code that provides for those who make the least to pay the least. We should be willing to do that as a part of our Christian commitment—as a statement about what it means to invite Jesus into our lives as Savior and Lord.

For his part, Jesus put it this way: "As you have done it to the least of these members of my family, you have done it to me."

James L. Evans is pastor of Auburn First Baptist Church in Auburn, Ala.

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=11330

U.S. AUTO INDUSTRY HAS PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE IN OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY SINCE THE DAYS OF THE FORD MODEL T. IS IT WORTH SAVING ?

Robert Scott makes the case for preserving the American automobile industry in a Economic Policy Institute memorandum.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/pm134

An investment, not a bailout
The $25 billion rescue loan being considered for automakers would help maintain an essential industry, along with 3 million critically-needed jobs

By Robert Scott

With the U.S. Senate prepared to take up the question of a $25 billion rescue package for automakers as early as Monday (Nov. 17), partisans are loudly debating the merits of another bailout. But given current economic conditions, the answer should be clear. Government intervention in the form of a bridge loan will allow the industry to survive until the economy stabilizes, new fuel efficient models are introduced, and recently negotiated changes to United Auto Worker (UAW) contracts kick in. That means saving millions jobs—not only in auto factories, but also at component suppliers, dealers, and elsewhere—when employment is desperately needed.

Other circumstances strengthen the argument for this loan:

Although domestic automakers made strategic blunders in the past, they have recently made tremendous strides in restructuring. But many of those changes won’t kick in until 2010, when new models such as GM’s plug-in hybrid, the Chevy Volt, and a new model getting 45 mpg are introduced. New union contracts will also take effect in 2010, which will greatly reduce automakers’ many legacy costs.

The current industry collapse is a direct result of the financial crisis rather than past industry decisions. Nervous consumers are delaying large purchases, sending vehicle sales in the United States to their lowest level in decades. More than 16 million light vehicles were sold in 2006 and 2007. Sales fell to 10.6 million units in October, a 35% decline from 2007 and the lowest absolute level since February
1983.

The collapse in light vehicle sales has hit both import and domestic companies. GM sales fell 47% in October, but Suzuki (-48%) and Isuzu (-49%) were equally hard hit. While Chrysler sales fell 38%, Kia’s fell 40%. Ford’s sales were off 33%, but Nissan’s fell 36%. Overall, domestic sales fell 41%, and Asian producers dropped
29%. Every company experienced a sharp drop in sales last month. These declines are particularly troubling because the auto industry is one of the most capital-intensive sectors of the U.S. economy.

Unionized U.S. automakers are highly productive. The top two most productive auto assembly plants in the United States in 2005 were UAW plants (in terms of hours per vehicle assembled). In fact, six of the top 10 plants were UAW shops (Harbour 2006, as cited by Shaiken 2007). Product reliability for U.S. manufacturers is now approaching that of Japanese producers in some cases (Cohn 2008). This high productivity has allowed domestic manufacturers to compete with foreign companies that benefit from government subsidies, including manipulated currencies in Korea and Japan that reduce costs by 10% to 20%, and national health insurance systems in most competitive countries that remove the burden of covering costs for existing workers and retirees. Such high-productivity industries are exactly what is needed to ensure future economic growth.

Union auto workers have already taken substantial hits on pay and benefits. For example, contracts negotiated in 2007 slashed wages for new workers by 50%. In addition, new workers will not be guaranteed any retiree health care benefits, and will not participate in the traditional defined-benefit pension plan. On top of that, the UAW agreed that the responsibility for health care benefits for existing retirees would be transferred from the auto companies to an independent trust, called a Voluntary Employee Benefits Association. Analysts now believe that the labor cost gap between the Detroit-based auto companies and the foreign transplants will be largely or completely eliminated by the end of the current contracts.

A collapse of the Detroit-based auto manufacturers would result in the loss of 2.5 to 3 million jobs, according to a 2008 study by the Center for Automotive Research (CAR). There would also be a ripple effect throughout the local economies of auto communities across the United States. Furthermore, liquidation of the auto companies would put at risk the pension and health benefits of 1 million retirees and dependents, and could saddle the federal pension guarantee program with enormous liabilities. Under current law, the federal government would also be required to pay for part of the retiree health care costs for pre-65 retirees from the auto companies.

The automotive industry represents almost 4% of U.S. gross domestic product and 10% of U.S. industrial production by value. The failure of the Detroit-based auto companies would severely aggravate the current economic downturn, compounding the difficulties facing working families and businesses. Revenues to the federal, state, and local governments would drop, forcing cuts in vital social services at a time when they are most needed.

An airline-style (Chapter 11) bankruptcy re-organization is not an option for U.S.-based automakers. They have already extensively restructured product lines and labor contracts. They would be unable to get debtor-in-possession refinancing to continue operations, and consumers would be unwilling to buy cars from bankrupt companies. Hence, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation is the only alternative for domestic automakers. The bankruptcy of one or more of the “Big-3” automakers would endanger thousands of large and small parts and services suppliers. Massive job loss and community disruption would result. Increased government payments and tax losses alone would exceed $150 billion in the first three years following bankruptcy of all three domestic auto companies, according to the CAR report. The $25 billion rescue plan is a bargain by comparison.

References

Cohn, Jonathan. 2008. “Panic in Detroit.” The New Republic.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=a4893b49-36df-4784-9859-2dfa3a3211bf

Cole, David, Sean McAlinden, et al. 2008. “CAR Research Memorandum: The Impact on the U.S. Economy of a Major Contraction of the Detroit Three Automakers.” Center for Automotive Research, An Arbor, MI. http://www.cargroup.org/documents/FINALDetroitThreeContractionImpact_3__000.pdf

Shaiken, Harley. 2007. “Unions, the Economy, and Employee Free Choice”. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. EPI Briefing Paper #181. February 22. http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp181.html

ELECTORAL MAP OF 2008 VOTE BY COUNTY SHOWS THAT DEMOCRATS STILL HAVE SOME WORK TO DO DESPITE OUR NOVEMBER VICTORY (Click on map to view)

Shortly before the November election, Hal Herring wrote an excellent essay for the High Country News www.hcn.org about Democrats and the issue of gun control. Of course, Democrats won the Presidency and a Congressional Majority despite a strong effort on behalf of John McCain by the NRA but there are still vast areas of the country that vote Republican. Guns are not the only issue involved but most of the red territory has high gun ownership rates so it is a major factor. Take a look at the national map color coded to show red and blue counties. You will still see a lot more red than blue since the Democratic vote is concentrated in the major urban centers. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymapredbluer1024.png

Democrats won many critical states by playing down any support of gun control. Taking gun control off the table would help to make Democrats far more competitive with rural voters and assure a dominant role for the Democratic Party in American politics for at least a generation. Furthermore, it would be a sound policy decision since gun laws are ineffective at curbing crime and the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

Herring writes:

At this year's annual Gun Rights Policy Conference in September, National Rifle Association President Sandy Froman endorsed Arizona Sen. John McCain in the presidential election. This came as no surprise; the Democrats have long been denounced by the NRA as the anti-Second Amendment party — Nanny-State know-it-alls, Big-Government gun-controllers out of touch with the majority of Americans, yearning to impose their vision on a population that wants none of it.

In this election, however, it's not that simple. The U.S. is facing a host of challenges, most of them brought on by the antics of a Republican administration that governed as a team of mendacious plunderers, with no regard for the future, or even for the beliefs that their own party once espoused. The Constitution — the very document that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms — has been treated with scorn. The economy, manipulated by the kind of "crony capitalism" we once despised in less-enlightened nations, is a shambles, at least for the middle class, and our energy policies are the laughingstock of the developed world. Today's Republicans are not just the party of the Second Amendment; they are also the party of the big energy companies. Is it possible, then, that gun-rights advocates might consider voting for someone who is not a Republican?

It's unlikely, unless the Democrats start acknowledging the gun vote and respecting the views of Second Amendment proponents. Gun owners represent at least 4 million of the nation's most dedicated voters. Election after election, they help change the outcome, sometimes electing politicians who are inept, corrupt or unabashed lackeys of corporate interests — people whose only appeal to gun owners is that they promise to leave the Second Amendment alone.

Now, however, the Second Amendment is more resistant to those politicians who might want to mess with it. The Supreme Court's recent Heller decision just declared Washington, D.C.'s restrictive firearms laws unconstitutional, thus weakening the power of state and local politicians to control guns or limit gun ownership. Given that — and given what is at stake in the U.S. today — it may be time for Democratic and independent voters to simply give up on gun control. We have so many more pressing issues to deal with.

For two decades, many liberals have thrived on despising the NRA and its members. Those who believe in gun control often hold enormous prejudice against those who don't. But there are already reams of laws pertaining to the use, abuse, purchase and sale of firearms. What new regulations would the gun-controllers create, and how would they work to address the problem of gun violence? Do they want to prohibit private ownership of firearms altogether? Many would like to ban handguns, without considering just what this would entail, what inequities of power would result, and what new, potentially dangerous, powers would have to be awarded to government to accomplish it. Like activists who want to ban pit bulls, the gun-control advocates remain relentlessly unspecific about what they hope to achieve. It has become clear, too, that these advocates hold a double standard regarding the U.S. Constitution: The First Amendment is vital to the health of a free nation, as is the Fourth, but the Second is respected only by the un-evolved and the violent. Only the parts of the Constitution that their side respects are valid, in this view.

According to Dave Workman, the senior editor of GunWeek, a publication of the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation, "The Clinton-era 'assault weapons ban' was more symbolic than anything else. The reason it was so overwhelmingly supported by the gun control movement was because it represented a federal ban on firearms based on cosmetic circumstances — what they looked like — not on their lethality. It was to condition the public to accept a piecemeal destruction of the Second Amendment."

Workman believes there was much to learn from the Clinton election. "When George H. W. Bush took the gun vote for granted in 1992, most of the gun owners voted for Ross Perot, or else they sat it out," he says. The election of Clinton, though, and what followed, cemented the gun voters' dislike of the Democratic Party. The Brady Law went into effect in 1993, and the "assault weapons ban" passed a year later. That was enough, says Workman, for the gun voters to see "how this was all going. They mobilized and threw out many of the Democrats, costing them control of Congress (in 1994)." The National Rifle Association first endorsed a presidential candidate — Ronald Reagan — in 1980, but gun politics as we know them today were born in 1994.

Herring continues:

The gun-rights advocates have their own contradictions, though. As a group, they have failed to explain why, if they despise government power, they consistently vote for a political party that has claimed government authority over decisions like abortion rights, religion, and marriage rights. Few gun-rights proponents address the attacks on civil rights made by the current Republican administration, or explain why those attacks shouldn't matter when it's time to endorse a Republican candidate for president. Although gun rights and social conservatism may appeal to the same kinds of people, they are actually two opposing ideas. To hold them both smacks of a citizen who does not really value liberty at all, but wants a government empowered to enforce his or her values on everyone else. How is this different from the way gun-control advocates want only their values respected?

Single-issue gun-rights voters are especially destructive when it comes to environmental issues. Year after year, Republican politicians swear allegiance to the Second Amendment, an act that costs them nothing, but guarantees the gun vote. Then they support measures to exploit, degrade, and even sell off the public lands and waters that hunters and fishermen depend on. Neither the NRA nor the gun voters themselves do anything to protest this. The gun vote has gone to anti-environment politicians for so long now that millions of non-hunting American no longer associate hunters with conservation, despite the fact that sportsmen have painstakingly restored wildlife and habitat, rivers and lands, with their gun and ammunition tax dollars, their license fees and waterfowl stamps. This will eventually backfire on gun owners — and on conservationists. In a society increasingly disconnected from nature and hunting, with places to shoot growing increasingly scarce, fewer citizens grow up in a traditional gun culture. That means fewer hunters will fund assets like the Federal Wildlife Refuge system, and fewer shooters will respond to future, inevitable challenges to the Second Amendment.

It is not too late for a new vision, one as unique as the nation itself. If the Democratic Party would recognize the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court has interpreted it in the Heller decision, and reassure gun voters that the years of backdoor maneuvers to promote gun control are over, the Republican deadlock on the gun vote could eventually be broken. It seems a small price for the Democrats to pay. All they have to do is recognize the Constitution.

Read the full essay at http://www.hcn.org/issues/40.19/why-we-all-need-the-democrats-to-abandon-gun/

Excellent column by E.J. Dionne in today's Washington Post:

Obama's Promise to Pro-Lifers
by E.J. Dionne, Jr.
November 15, 2008

Of course, President-elect Barack Obama's most urgent task is to repair an ailing economy. But one of his important promises was to end the cultural and religious wars that have disfigured American politics for four decades.

A good place to start the healing process: our decades-long conflict over abortion.

In theory, common ground is hard to find on abortion. Neither those who see it as a fundamental right nor those who see it as a form of murder are prepared to compromise on their core principles.

Yet a very large number of Americans are simultaneously uneasy with a government ban on abortion and with abortion itself. Substantial majorities would not make abortion illegal but would still like there to be fewer of them.

One candidate spoke directly to this unease. "There surely is some common ground," Obama declared toward the end of the third presidential debate.

He argued that "those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, 'We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.' " Obama added: "Nobody's pro-abortion."

Once he assumes office, Obama might be tempted to forget that moment, issue the pro-choice executive orders that the abortion rights movement expects and move back to the sagging economy. But doing this would be both politically foolish and a breach of faith with the pro-life progressives who came to Obama's defense during the campaign. They argued that Obama truly was committed to reducing the number of abortions. He shouldn't turn them into liars.

Rep. Tim Ryan, a pro-life Democrat from Ohio, stumped all over his state urging Catholic groups and others on his side of the abortion question to put their faith in Obama's pledge. He's confident Obama will keep it.

In moving quickly, he says, Obama would "show that there is a new politics by acting on one of the most divisive issues of the last 30 years." This should not be hard, Ryan says, since the central elements of their bill are "bread-and-butter issues for Democrats."

These include contraception programs, even if they are a sticking point for some social conservatives, along with "programs that are going to encourage women to bring their children to term." Among them: expanded health coverage for women and children, more child care, adoption help and income support for the working poor.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who is staunchly pro-choice, notes that many new members of the Democrats' expanded House majority oppose abortion. "A common-ground approach is more consistent with the times and -- with the increased diversity of new House members -- more likely to succeed," she says.

Obama, who has shown he can draw lessons from Bill Clinton's presidency, can find one on this issue. Picking up on the pro-choice movement's most popular slogan, Clinton declared during his 1992 campaign that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."

Abortions did become rarer during Clinton's time in office, dropping by 11 percent. But since Clinton made no major public moves on abortion reduction, many pro-lifers who had been inclined his way felt he ignored the third word in his motto. There's no reason for Obama to make the same mistake -- and no reason for advocates of abortion rights to get in the way of his trying to build a new consensus. He should not lose his chance to make cultural warfare a quaint relic of the past.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008111303364.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

From American Economic Alert www.americaneconomicalert.org

Dire Economic News Present Immediate Challenges for President-Elect

Friday, November 07, 2008

Commentary by Peter Morici, Ph.D.

Today, the Labor Department reported the economy lost 2400,000 payroll jobs in October, after losing 284,000 jobs in September. This was much worse than was expected and represents wholesale capitulation.

The economy is a two wheel recession. The banking meltdown and failure of the Treasury bailout to free up credit are choking the housing market and construction industry, and falling retail sales, month after month, are leaving businesses with unsold goods and forcing layoffs in manufacturing and services alike.

The challenges facing President-elect Barack Obama could not be clearer. He must reverse the hemorrhaging of high quality jobs and declining real wages, and set the course to restore high quality growth. In particular, Obama’s policies must instigate growth that is not founded on excess borrowing by American consumers and from foreigners.

The economy has shed 1.2 million jobs since December, as the full weight of the banking crisis, trade deficit with China, and burdens imposed by high-priced imported oil are bearing down on manufacturing, construction and the broader economy with unrelenting pressure.

Unemployment increased to 6.5 percent in October; however, factoring in discouraged workers, unemployment is closer to 8.2 percent. Add workers in part time positions that cannot find full time employment and the hidden unemployment rate is about 12 percent.

Reflecting a weaker job market, the wages of most working Americans lagged inflation through the recent economic recovery, and are now likely to decline further as the economy falls into a recession.

The banking crisis, hidden unemployment and wages lagging inflation made the economy the most important issue in the Presidential campaign. President-elect Obama got traction out of his proposals to redistribute income by raising taxes on the top five percent and cutting taxes for many other Americans. However, cutting the typical worker’s taxes by a few hundred dollars will make them feel better off for only a few months, and redistributionist policies won’t do much to create better paying jobs that have been lost in manufacturing, construction, and elsewhere in the economy.

To accomplish lasting prosperity, President-elect Obama will have to fix the banks and the trade deficit. Obama must ensure that the banks use the $700 billion in federal bailout assistance to make new loans to homebuyers and businesses, and not squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks, and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading, and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have announced plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers enjoyed influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign. Now it remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these same bankers and persuade or compel them to reverse course.

In addition, Obama must address the huge cost of imported oil and trade deficit with China – or any effort to resurrect the economy is doomed to create massive foreign borrowing, another round of excessive consumer borrowing, and a second banking crisis that the Treasury and Federal Reserve will not be able to reverse.
Ultimately, reducing the oil import bill will require higher mileage standards for automobiles and assistance to automakers to accelerate the build out of alternative, high-mileage vehicles. Fixing trade with China will require a tax on dollar-yuan transactions if China continues to refuse to stop subsidizing dollar purchases of yuan to prop up its exports and shift Chinese unemployment to the U.S. manufacturing sector.

Near term, a stimulus package focused on infrastructure is critical for resuscitating growth. The recent round of tax rebate checks ended up in savings accounts or spent at the Wal-Mart on Chinese goods, and did little to create jobs or accelerate growth. Whereas projects to repair roads, rehabilitate schools and refurbish public buildings would create high-paying jobs at home and provide a legacy in capital improvements that assist growth now and in the future.

Wages and Unemployment

In October, wages rose a moderate 0.4 cents per hour, or 0.2 percent, and not enough to keep up with inflation. Moderate wage increases and decent labor productivity growth should help abate Federal Reserve concerns about inflation. Core inflation—nonfood and nonenergy price inflation—should decline over the remainder of 2008 and settle below 2 percent per year in 2009.

The unemployment rate was 6.5 percent in October, up from 6.1 percent in September. However, these numbers belie more fundamental weakness in the job market. Discouraged by a sluggish job market, many more adults are sitting on the sidelines, neither working nor looking for work, than when George Bush took the helm. Factoring in discouraged workers, who have left to workforce, and those forced into part-time work, raises the unemployment rate to about to 12 percent.

During the presidential campaign, declining real wages and fewer adults working gave Barack Obama’s proposals to redistribute income through the tax system a lot of traction. However, those policies will do little to correct the fundamental systemic problems that are destroying good jobs and squeezing middle class families.

Going forward, solutions that create better jobs will require cutting the trade deficit by at least half – in order to substantially boost domestic manufacturing; solving the problems of the large money center banks to get mortgage money flowing and housing construction going again; and creating energy policies that more aggressively develop alternative fuel sources, conserve oil, and open up new domestic fields for conventional oil and gas production. Reducing dependence on foreign oil requires doing all the things environmentalists want us to do -- and all things environmentalists don’t want us to do.

Politically correct promises to create millions of new jobs producing alternative fuels make effective presidential campaign slogans, but realistic policies for governing require aggressive development of more conventional oil and gas, as well as nonconventional energy sources, and efforts to improve the energy efficiency of personal transportation.

If the Democrats are not willing to drill for more oil off shore and take on the automobile industry’s resistance to significantly higher mileage vehicles, the U.S. economy will be even more indentured to Persian Gulf oil exporters at the end of President-elect Obama’s first term than it is today.

Finally, diplomacy has failed to redress the currency issue with China. If President Obama is not willing to take tough steps to redress the trade imbalance with China and reduce oil imports, together China’s sovereign wealth funds and the Persian Guld oil exporters may be able to buy the New York stock exchange eight years from now. Americans, outside those working for the New York banks that facilitate this sellout, will find their best futures waiting on tables for Middle East and Chinese tourists.

Manufacturing, Construction and the Quality of Jobs
Going forward, the economy will add some jobs for college graduates with technical specialties in finance, health care, education, and engineering. However, for high school graduates without specialized technical skills or training and for college graduates with only liberal arts diplomas, jobs offering good pay and benefits remain tough to find. For those workers, who compose about half the working population, the quality of jobs continues to spiral downward.

Historically, manufacturing and construction offered workers with only a high school education the best pay, benefits, and opportunities for skill attainment and advancement. Troubles in these industries push ordinary workers into retailing, hospitality, and other industries where pay often lags.

Construction employment fell by 48,000 in October. This is a terrible indicator for future GDP growth. Retailing shed 38,000 thousand jobs, and financial services lost 14,000 jobs. Manufacturing has lost 90,000 jobs, and over the last 103 months, manufacturing has shed more than four million jobs. The trade deficit with China and other Asia exporters is the major culprit.

The dollar is too strong against the Chinese yuan, Japanese yen, and other Asian currencies. The Chinese government intervenes in foreign exchange markets to suppress the value of the yuan to gain competitive advantage for Chinese exports, and the yuan sets the pattern for other Asian currencies. Similarly, Beijing subsidizes fuel prices and increasingly requires U.S. manufacturers to make products in China to sell there.

Ending Chinese currency manipulation and other mercantilist practices is critical to reducing the non-oil U.S. trade deficit, and instigating a recovery in U.S. employment in manufacturing and technology-intensive services that compete in international trade. Neither President Bush nor Congressional leaders like Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have been willing to seriously challenge China on this issue, and Senators McCain and Obama appeared comfortable with continuing their all-talk, no-action approaches during the campaign.

Now President-elect Barack Obama must alter his position, and get behind a policy to reverse the trade imbalance with China, or preside over the wholesale destruction of many more U.S. manufacturing jobs. These losses have little to do with free trade based on comparative advantage. Instead, predatory Chinese practices deprive Americans of jobs in industries where they are truly internationally competitive.
In the end, without assertive steps to fix trade with China, as well as fix the banks and curtail oil imports, the Bush years will seem like a walk through the park compared to the real income losses Americans will suffer during the Obama years.

Instead, were the trade deficit cut in half and the banks fixed, manufacturing would recoup at least 2 million jobs and U.S. growth would exceed 3.5 percent a year. Real wages and domestic savings would climb, and the federal government would receive more revenues to balance its budget or address other pressing domestic needs.

The choices for the new president are simple. It’s either renaissance or decline. Fix the banks, address unfair Chinese trade practices, and formulate new energy policies or become America’s Nero.

Peter Morici is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission.

http://americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=3079

Georgia U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss has consistently voted against funding for our nation's veterans. Chambliss voted nay on this year's GI bill and opposed a program help Iraq vets suffering from traumatic brain injuries. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Chambliss a D- rating.

Of course, Chambliss has supported the Iraq War and opposed any relief for service members sent on repeated combat missions. A former University of Georgia baseball player, Chambliss avoided service in Vietnam due to a "bum knee" but remains an excellent golfer and regularly played on a Congressional baseball team during the 1990's.

To add further insult those who have served our country, Chambliss questioned the patriotism of his triple amputee Vietnam vet opponent Max Cleland during the 2002 Senate campaign.

Chambliss now faces an uncertain political future after years of supporting trickle down Bush economic policies, "free trade" deals that destroy Georgia jobs (186,000 in 2007 alone) and and voting for a 700 billion dollar bailout for his Wall Street cronies. Following the Chambliss vote for the bailout, Democratic challenger Jim Martin's numbers rose quickly in the polls. A Vietnam veteran, Martin will defend the interests of veterans and fight for working families. A runoff election is scheduled for December 2.

http://www.votevets.org/candidates?id=0019

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), the nation's first and largest nonpartisan organization for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has urged President-elect Barack Obama to move boldly to make veterans issues a top priority.

"President-elect Obama has a historic opportunity to lead America in supporting Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. He has the power to finally turn the page on the way America treated veterans after Vietnam. In doing so, his first step must be to quickly convene a Presidential Summit of Veteran Leaders to solicit input from the real experts: veterans," said Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). "IAVA is hopeful that the President-elect will make veterans issues a top priority and reach out to legislators on both sides of the aisle to quickly implement our legislative priorities. IAVA looks forward to working closely with the Obama Administration and the 1111th Congress to improve the lives of our newest generation of heroes and their families."

As the new President considers cabinet appointments, including the VA Secretary, he must bring together leading veterans' organizations, and specifically veterans of the current wars, to make sure he's getting the "ground truth". Candidates for appointed positions within the VA should have a proven track record of innovation and reform, and should be ready to address the urgent needs of new veterans. By having veterans involved in the decision-making process, we can ensure that potential contenders fulfill these qualifications and are best to lead this country forward.

In the coming months, the President-elect has the unique opportunity to make a series of critical decisions impacting Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Here are the 3 critical policies veterans need to see from the new Administration in the first 100 days:

Advance-fund VA Healthcare
Year after year, the VA budget is passed late, forcing hundreds of veterans' hospitals and clinics to ration care. IAVA believes that veterans' health care should be funded one year in advance and we ask that the President present to Congress an advance-funded VA budget that continues to match the Independent Budget recommendations made by leading Veterans Service Organizations.

Implement GI Bill Transferability

While the new GI Bill was passed several months ago, the Department of Defense has yet to release guidelines for the transferability of GI Bill benefits from service members to their spouses or children. The President must take action and direct the Secretary of Defense to issue the appropriate guidelines, so that GI Bill transferability can be implemented by August 2009.

Aggressively address the lack of access to Mental Health Professionals
The military and the VA need innovative strategies to recruit and retain more mental health professionals to combat the high rates of PTSD and major depression among returning troops. The President should issue a national call, urging mental health professionals nationwide to make their services more available to military members and their families. Those who answer the call should receive incentives and benefits for donating time to this valuable cause.

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.IAVA.org) is the country's first and largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has more than 125,000 veteran members and civilian supporters nationwide. Its mission is to improve the lives of this country's newest generation of veterans and their families.

Tuesday's election returns send a clear message from the American people to the political parties and also to the single issue pressure groups. The voters want economic change but sent a mixed message on the divisive social issues. Most Americans have rejected "trickle down economics" and are very concerned about their jobs, health care and the housing market.

For the first time since 1976, a Democratic nominee for President has captured a majority of the popular vote. The question is can President-elect Obama and the Democratic Congress deliver for our nation's working families ? Will we have a newer New Deal that realigns American politics or just a re-hash of the Clinton era ?

The voters embraced a message of economic change - not an agenda of political correctness. In critical swing states, the electorate voted overwhelmingly on the basis of pocketbook issues like jobs and health care.

Voters in states like California and Florida favored Obama but also supported traditional family values by passing initiatives to ban same sex marriage. Two critical groups within the Democratic Coalition - African Americans and Hispanics soundly rejected legalization of same sex marriage at the polls. This sends a clear a message to President-elect Obama and the Democratic Congress. Leave the Defense of Marriage of Act alone and think twice about changes in the present "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy.

Colorado voters chose Obama but also enacted a law ending racial and gender preferences in education, employment and public contracting. The repeal of affirmative action in Colorado provides the perfect opportunity for an Obama Administration to save preferences for the truly deserving. Obama should advocate mending instead of ending affirmative action by shifting the focus from race and gender to class. http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/05/12/kahlenberg

As voters rejected some portions to the liberal social agenda, lessons were also taught to the right. Voters clearly repudiated the economic policies of the past 27 years and want a more activist role by government. The era of "small government" is over and Republicans will have to accept this reality if they wish to remain a viable party. Republicans lost ground even among social conservatives. In key states, church-going Catholic voters favored Obama (along with a substantial number of evangelical Protestants) on the basis of pocketbook issues despite differences over the issue of abortion.

The election also provided a reality check to the pro-life movement which has been long focused on a reversal of the Roe vs. Wade decision. Voters in the socially traditionalist state of South Dakota (favoring the McCain-Palin ticket by 8 percentage points) rejected a ban on abortion which contained exceptions for saving the life of the mother, rape and incest by a 55 to 45 margin. Pro-life activists had hoped that the proposed South Dakota law might serve as a test case to challenge Roe vs. Wade. Instead, the rejection of an abortion ban by the voters in a conservative rural state like South Dakota suggests that few states are likely to pass substantial restrictions on the procedure even if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Pro-lifers are going to need a new stategy focused on changing hearts more than laws and advocating social and economic supports to reduce the number of abortions.
http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/files/CACG_Final.pdf

At the same time, President-elect Obama and the Democratic Congress must recognize that the pro-choice movement hard-liners do not speak for most Americans either. Polls have shown strong public support for prohibiting late term or partial birth abortion. A CNN/Public Opinion Research poll last year found that 66 to 28 percent of the public supported banning late term abortion. Any attempt to repeal the Hyde Amendment(passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Carter in 1977) and provide public funding for abortion would prove to be not only politically unpopular but also an outrage to the conscience of tens of millions of Americans. Congress needs to approve the Pregnant Women Support Act sponsored by Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania which deserves the support of the pro-life and pro-choice citizens.

For too long, our political process has been paralyzed by a culture war. We need to move beyond the culture war. I am not saying that the social issues are not important or suggesting that everyone must agree on divisive cultural matters like abortion, gun control or gay marriage. We will continue to disagree on some issues but it is also critical that Americans have the ability to unite and deal with the urgent economic problems that our nation faces today.

NOTE: Since writing this post, a reader has called an error to my attention. The final count in Colorado showed a narrow defeat for the measure repealing affirmative action in that state. The closeness of the vote in Colorado and the passage of similar measures in other states suggests that affirmative action policies are still politically vulnerable. Revising such programs to address socio-economic status rather than race and gender seems like the fair thing to do as well.

ATLANTA – Jim Martin released a new ad today, kicking off the start of the Georgia runoff election. The Martin ad emphasizes the candidate's service to his country in Vietnam and his ability to work with President-elect Barack Obama in fighting for the middle class and getting America back on track.

"Hardworking middle class Georgians need a leader who will stand up for them in the Senate, instead of the special interests Saxby's been serving," Martin spokesperson Kate Hansen said. "The choice in this runoff is clear: Jim Martin will work with Barack Obama to deliver for Georgia families, and Saxby Chambliss will obstruct change and continue his record of fighting for the special interests bankrolling his campaign."

A veteran and church elder, Martin served with distinction for nearly two decades in the Georgia House of Representatives. Martin later led the Department of Human Resources under Gov. Roy Barnes and Gov. Sonny Perdue. He and Joan, his wife of 38 years, have four children and three grandchildren. He is running for Senate to continue his long record of standing up for Georgia families, and to fight for change in Washington.

From Economy in Crisis:

What an Obama Presidency Could Look Like
Published 11/05/08 Dustin Ensinger
E-mail - editor@economyincisis.org

The arduous campaigning is over. Now comes President-elect Barack Obama’s real work: fixing an economy not beset by such turmoil since the Great Depression, handling two wars and the ever-present threat of terrorism, ending the nation’s addiction to oil, providing health care to the uninsured and restoring America’s reputation around the world, just to name a few.

If it was an Everest-like ascension for Sen. Obama to defeat Sen. John McCain to become the nation’s first African American president, governing will be much the same. Except now the Senator is trying to reach the summit with two broken legs and a 200 pound backpack on.

No president in modern history has entered the White House with such a raft of problems to contend with, perhaps with the exception of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 when he inherited the Great Depression from Herbert Hoover. But, come Jan. 20, 2009 that is precisely what Sen. Obama must do. And, as the exit polling showed, the top concern for most Americans is fixing the ailing economy.

To do that Obama has said that he will focus on reviving the middle-class by allowing the Bush administration’s tax cuts to expire. Currently, the tax code puts the majority of the burden on middle-income earners and rewards the wealthy. Under Sen. Obama’s proposed plan 95 percent of Americans would receive a tax break. Only the top two percent of earners, those making over $250,000, will see their taxes increase. In addition, Sen. Obama has vowed to end tax loopholes for companies that outsource jobs overseas and will instead provide a tax credit to those companies that hire American workers. Capital gains taxes will also be returned to pre-Bush levels.

Another key portion of Obama’s plan to strengthen the middle-class is to make a serious investment in alternative energy. Obama’s plan includes enacting a windfall-profits tax on energy companies that would finance tax breaks to American families. Obama has also claimed that he will invest $150 billion over the next 10 years in alternative energies. The plan will create five million new “green jobs” according to his Web site. To pay for part of his plan he will impose a cap-and-trade emission tax that will essentially put the right to pollute up for auction to the highest bidders.

Exploding costs of health care are also causing a serious strain on American families and the economy. Currently, 47 million Americans have no health insurance. Obama’s plan will address the uninsured and the exploding costs. He has said that he will maintain the employer-based system and even expand it by providing tax incentives to businesses that provide health care to their employees. To combat the number of uninsured Americans, Obama will provide a tax credit to those individuals seeking insurance to help them cope with the costs. In addition, he would mandate coverage for all children, but has not said what the penalty would be if your children were left uninsured. He has also said that by expanding the number of people with health care it would make it easier to negotiate with insurance companies for lower premiums.

Perhaps the most important issue of the day, the economic crisis, is the area where Sen. Obama was able to draw a clear distinction between himself and his opponent. During and immediately after the crisis Obama opened up a lead in the polls that he never relinquished. Many pundits have attributed his handling of the crisis as the turning point of the election. While Sen. McCain appeared erratic and uncertain - suspending his campaign, threatening not to debate, injecting himself into the debate over the bailout package - Sen. Obama appeared calmed, posed and pragmatic. However, appearing to be able to handle a crisis and actually handling one are two different things.

Sen. Obama has acknowledged that the financial meltdown is the most pressing issue facing the nation and could alter his plans in other key areas. To help Americans that are currently hurting, he has proposed exempting taxes on unemployment benefits along with extending them. He would also advocate imposing a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and has said he would allow bankruptcy judges to renegotiate the terms of mortgages. Many advocates have praised this plan saying it will force banks to renegotiate on their own for fear of a judge determining the payments they receive.

Finally, Sen. Obama has vowed to take a more thoughtful approach to globalization. Instead of “free-trade” he is advocating a “fair-trade” policy that includes protections for worker and environmental rights. He has said that the American people would be more than happy to pay a little more for American-made products if it also meant good American jobs.

Will Sen. Obama be able to climb that mountaintop twice and restore America to its rightful place in the world? Only time will tell.

http://www.economyincrisis.org/articles/show/2031

A growing number of Democratic candidates and elected officials are in favor of building more nuclear power plants to reduce carbon emissions and help meet our nation's energy needs. Democratic U.S. Senate nominee and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner is a proponent of atomic energy.

"Nuclear power should be expanded and should play a role in addressing our energy and environmental needs. Nuclear power generates one-fifth of America's electricity. It holds the potential to provide clean, relatively inexpensive power and lessen our dependence on fossil fuels at a time when prices are rising."

"France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power and Japan is aggressively building new reactors. If they can do it, so can we. While safety around using nuclear power has improved greatly, we need to invest in research to find a long term solution to storing nuclear waste. And as we look to increase our nuclear energy, nuclear plant security also must be a top priority."

Another leading Democrat - Senator Thomas Carper of Delaware has stated: "I am a strong supporter of safe and secure nuclear power and believe it must be a prominent part of any global warming solution. The resurgence of nuclear power in the United States gives us a unique opportunity to rebuild a carbon-free energy industry, and creating tens of thousands of highly-skilled jobs."

Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana says that it is "very important for our country to move forward in a very deliberative direction" toward building more nuclear power plants.

According to NEI Nuclear Notes, the following Democratic Senate contenders support expansion of nuclear power:
Nick Carter of Wyoming, Bob Conley of South Carolina, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Scott Kleeb of Nebraska, Larry LaRocco of Idaho, Jim Slattery of Kansas and Mark Udall of Colorado.

(Owensboro – KY) In a continuing sign of the success of David Boswell's mainstream Democratic campaign for U.S. House, two recently released analyses of Congressional races moved KY-02 into the "Toss-Up" category.

Yesterday, the Cook Political Report moved the race from "Lean Republican" to a "Toss-Up," and this morning the Rothenberg Report moved the race from "Toss-Up/Tilt Republican" to "Pure Toss-Up." In just one month, Rothenberg has moved KY-02 from "Lean Republican" to where the race stands now.

"The national political analysts are just catching up with the voters of the Second District," said Mark Riddle, Boswell's senior strategist and media advisor. "It's no wonder that the excitement continues to build on our side – while our opponent supports trade deals that send our jobs overseas, David Boswell will fight to make government work for middle class families here in Kentucky. Across the district, voters are responding to that message."

David Boswell on the Issues:

Jobs and the Economy

I have no greater priority than bringing good paying jobs to the men and women of Kentucky’s 2nd district. I strongly oppose any effort like NAFTA that sends work to Mexico and China instead of keeping it right here in Kentucky. I believe that we should investigate the deregulation that led to our current fiscal crisis so we can avoid these serious lapses of judgment in the future. Any economic recovery plan needs to be just as focused on home owners as it is on corporate bankers. In these turbulent times, we must focus on the needs of Main Street instead of the needs of Wall Street.

Health Care

I believe that the number of Americans without health insurance represents a very serious problem in this country. We need to create a private/public partnership that will help the 46 million Americans without health care to find coverage, with special attention given to insuring our children. This nation needs a smart health care policy that looks out for the health of citizens as well as the finances of the country, and I plan on working hard to achieve that.

Iraq

I believe that we have accomplished all that we reasonably can be asked to do in Iraq, and it is time to withdraw American forces. The war has proven unacceptably costly in both military casualties and economic expenditures. All domestic federal spending, be it law enforcement, infrastructure, education, health care or border security, will suffer so long as this war continues. I believe we need to rely on diplomacy to make a safe and swift withdrawal, and that we should refocus on the heart of the war on terror – Afghanistan.

Veterans

The brave men and women of our armed forces are true heroes, and it is high time that they be treated as such. We need to do more to support them both in the field and when they return home to their families. I am committed to improving veterans’ health care, education, and other services, and I hope to represent the needs of our armed forces as a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee.

Energy Policy

America's energy production cannot continue to be based almost exclusively on petroleum, nor remain vested solely in the hands of multinational corporations and hostile nations. While I believe in a limited expansion of drilling here at home and in the exploration of our oil shale fields, we are a resourceful, creative nation and should think more broadly. I support a comprehensive bio-fuels program which, in tandem with offshore drilling, renewable sources, clean coal technologies, and an exploration of safe, clean nuclear power, will help alleviate the nation's energy crisis and also make Kentucky a player in the field of energy production.

Agriculture

Small farms form the backbone of Kentucky’s economy, and as a Member of Congress I will always support initiatives to help them prosper. As Commissioner of Agriculture, I promoted many programs to help small farms, including agriculture diversification and investments in the infrastructure that small farms need to succeed, and I plan on pursuing family farm friendly policies in Washington.

Second Amendment Rights

I am an avid sportsman, and have a lifetime “A” rating from the National Rifle Association based on my legislative history. I am also a member of the Wild Turkey Federation and Ducks Unlimited. I believe firmly in our right to bear arms and will always vote accordingly.

Right to Life

Protecting life from conception until death is one of the most important roles of our government. I am opposed to abortion in all cases except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

Florida Red & Blue continues to distort the facts in their campaign against the Marriage Protection Amendment 2. The latest TV commercial from the group falsely claims that unmarried couples will be denied hospital visitation rights if Amendment 2 is approved.

First of all, Amendment 2 will not impact local domestic partnership laws. All state constitutional amendments are carefully reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court before being placed on the ballot to assure that the proposal addresses a single subject. Amendment 2 deals solely with the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Secondly, most Floridians do not live a city or county where domestic partner registration is available but there is a state law which allows anyone to designate a health care surrogate. Take a look at Florida Statutes 765.202 and it will be clear that the heart-wrenching stories told to us by Florida Red & Blue are pure fiction.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0765/SEC202.HTM&Title=-%3e2007-%3eCh0765-%3eSection%20202#0765.202

Saint Leo University's student newspaper The Lion's Pride makes a strong case for Amendment 2.

Vote "yes" on Amendment 2

October 24, 2008

BY JOSHUA M. SMITH

Lions’ Pride Online Editor

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. That is what the word “marriage” means. It’s a shame, but, due to the Gay Rights lobby, Floridians now find it necessary to write that definition into law.

Amendment 2, which will appear on the November 4 ballots in Florida, states, “In as much as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

This amendment is not anti-gay. It does not make gays second-class citizens. It merely upholds Florida’s right to define marriage for itself.

Without Amendment 2, Florida finds itself in a position to have to arbitrarily decide whether gay marriage agreements from other states such as Massachusetts and California should be honored by Florida gays who travel to those states and get married under those states’ laws.

Whether one feels that gays should be allowed to marry or not, this issue should not be decided for Florida by the legislature or courts of another state. State sovereignty must be upheld, because allowing one state to set policy and law for another state sets a dangerous precedent for the entire nation.

That is why all Floridians—gay or straight—should vote “yes” on Amendment 2.

A vote of “no” does nothing to advance the cause of gay rights and gay marriage. Under current law, gays are allowed to enter into any legal agreement they wish. Gay couples live together, raise children together, visit each other in the hospital, and receive domestic partner health benefits already without being “married.”

If gay couples already enjoy the same perceived benefits as married couples, what then is the point of working to allow gays to be married?

After following the issue for several years, I have found no satisfactory and reasonable answer to that question. Gays’ desire for the right to marry is often nothing more than a coercive attempt to force society to accept their behavior.

If gays want to live the way they live, why must a heterosexual agree with that lifestyle? Why must a heterosexual society condone and endorse that lifestyle through its laws?

The answer too often is “so gays can feel better about themselves,” which is unfortunate, since gays ought to be deciding the value of their lifestyle on their own terms rather than looking to society to justify it for them.

If gays want to be gay, fine. But, gays shouldn’t expect others to agree with their lifestyle. I like owning a gun, but I do not feel the need to require other people to like the idea of me owning a gun. So long as no one tries to pass a law telling me I do not have the right to own a gun, I am satisfied.

Likewise, gays ought to find satisfaction in the equality they enjoy in America. Gays can do everything heterosexuals can in terms of what really matters: partnership, parenthood, and equal treatment under the law. Anything they choose to agitate for beyond that equality equates to special treatment, which actuality works against their interests by setting them further apart from others.

Florida’s Amendment 2 is a defense of state sovereignty. It is not an attempt to curtail anyone’s rights. As such, every Floridian has a duty to vote “yes” on Amendment 2 in order to stop other states from being able to tell Florida what to do.

If California is allowed to tell Florida what to do on the gay marriage issue, just imagine what other states such as Texas might then be able to tell Florida what to do on issues such as oil drilling. We as Floridians must act now to stop such intrusion into our laws by other states. A vote of “yes” on Amendment 2 is an important first step to that end.

http://pride-online.net/wp/2008/10/24/vote-%E2%80%9Cyes%E2%80%9D-on-amendment-2-pic-more/