Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn 2006, Sherrod Brown ran on an anti-war populist economic message and won in towns across Ohio long written-off by Democrats. On March 4, the Democratic primary will be held in the state, with Obama possibly looking to continue a streak of victories, while Clinton faces as close to a must-win situation as we are likely to see in the fight for the nomination.
While Senator Brown has said he won't endorse either candidate before the Ohio primary, he's in close contact with both candidates, and in an interview with me he spoke candidly about trade, globalization, and lessons on how to win in his state. To paraphrase, it's about economic populism, stupid. And as Obama battles to make inroads with the white and Latino working-class, and Clinton distances herself from the trade policies of her husband's administration, Ohio is there for the taking.
Here then is the transcript of my conversation with Senator Brown:
Q: How are you approaching any endorsement decision?
I will not endorse before the Ohio primary. I'm weighing what my state does, that's certainly part of it. Also, my conversations with both Barack and Hillary, and with Governor Sebelius calling for Barack, and with Bill Clinton calling for Hillary, and Dick Durbin – all the people who have called for them, in addition to talking directly with the candidates… [we] talk about trade, talk about a populist, progressive message in Ohio, talk about privatization and anti-privatization, and all the things they need to do around tax and trade policy.
Both of them are obviously significantly better than Bush Republicans, McCain. They're close. I've talked to Barack a lot about his Patriot Corporation Act, which is not trade per se, but it's certainly part of the economic package around globalization. The Patriot Corporation Act has not gotten the attention that I would hope it would. But, basically it says that if you play by the rules, if you pay decent wages, health benefits, pension; do your production here; don't resist unionization on neutral card check, then you will be designated a "Patriot Corporation" and you will get tax advantages and some [preference] on government contracts. Jan Schakowsky first came to me… I co-sponsored and worked on it with her in 2005 or 2006. And Barack has been a sponsor of it in the Senate. Hillary is not on it as of now, but those are the kinds of things I want to see them talk about and do and I am hopeful – and pretty much expect – that they will talk about those issues in Ohio.
Q: Have you had a chance to talk to Sen. Clinton about the Patriot Corporation Act?
Yes, I did some time, back – early, like October or November. I've talked to her since about other things, more specifically, trade. And Barack I've talked to within the last week both on trade and on the Patriot Corporation Act. It does two things, the Patriot Corporation Act and better trade policy: it helps win Ohio and helps them govern in the right way. I think you can really take the country in a very different direction building a progressive message around that kind of economic issue – the Patriot Corporation Act and trade. We won 32 or 33 more counties than John Kerry did mostly in small towns in rural Ohio where they were very responsive to a populist progressive message. One town in particular – this is something that just happened – there's a company called American Standard, they make toilets, plumbing fixtures, you'll see them in near any public restroom anywhere. They're in Tiffin, Ohio, town of 20,000. They've just announced back around 3 months ago, the closing of the plant. It was bought by some investors, they're moving offshore, they're honoring the union contract as far as they have to, which is those who already have their 30 years. If you have less than 30 you're pretty screwed--they give you something, but you can't get to the 30 years because they close the plant. And the company that came in and bought it was Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's firm…. These investors come in, take millions of dollars out of the company, and you know, it's pension and healthcare. And those are going on all over the country. And this is a town of 20,000. I carried that county, Kerry didn't. They had already laid off some people…. It's those kinds of situations that cause small town Ohio to vote for somebody like me regardless of the social issues.
Whenever Hillary says the right thing about trade, the Washington Post just slams her. It's unbelievable. I met with the Post editorial board back in about November or December, and I said, kind of joking with them, "Do you have a full-time person, every time Hillary says anything that you don't like on trade, you like automatically write an editorial within 24 hours?" They kind of laughed and said, "Yeah, we have a full-time person on it." But the newspapers – I got one newspaper endorsement in the state of the big nine papers. It was the only paper that's been a bit more even-handed on trade…. They're gonna get slapped around by the newspapers for this. Particularly Hillary… Hillary's clearly moved way away from the old Clinton [administration] position, but the newspapers want to slap her every time she speaks out about that. Because they think it's all for political reasons. I really don't. I think that both of them genuinely see the problems of globalization. I think they understand that, I don't think their solutions are quite strong enough yet – either of them. But I think they're on the way and they're getting close, and I think we'll see more of that kind of growth as they focus on these kinds of issues in the Midwest now.
Q: So it sounds like you think the candidates are doing a decent job but there's definitely room for improvement?
Yeah, I wish they'd go a little further but they're getting there. And I wish they would emphasize it more. You know, again, they emphasize it, the media will attack them on it, I understand that. Most of the mainstream media, that's what they do. You know, they attacked me, and so what? I won by well into double-digits, in a slightly Republican state, against an incumbent with this message. Granted, it was a good year, and the Republican Party's in trouble, but that was big part of the reason. My numbers compared to Kerry were not a whole lot better in the big Metropolitan counties… but in the small counties I ran ahead of him by 10-15 points. Just looking at that, there has to be a reason, and the reason was a populist economic message.
Q: What are some of the specifics you would like to see them speaking more openly about, being more aggressive about?
They should certainly talk about the Patriot Corporation Act. I think they should strongly speak out against the Columbian Trade Deal. And they should call for a time out – as Hillary has, perhaps Barack has, I haven't heard – call for a time-out on trade agreements. I have a bill I'm about to introduce to set up a Commission – both parties, both Houses – to look back at what we've done in trade, and decide which ones we renegotiate. And work to renegotiate. And what we learn from that, and what we move forward on. I know what I think we should do, but I think we need to build a better consensus in Congress to get there. It's labor and environmental standards, that's a start. It's also stopping the shift of power from governments to corporations. Part of the privatization effort that we have in these trade agreements… we're giving away our sovereignty to corporations in terms of environmental law, food safety law, labor law, allowing these companies to overturn democratically arrived at, democratically determined, health and safety rules and laws. That's where I wish [Barack and Hillary] would go when they start to get more specific.
Q: How much are we able to reopen and renegotiate?
That's unclear. I mean, the first thing we do is stop. But we are such a huge, lucrative market. If you make the analogy to a business. If you have a customer that's 40 percent of your sales you're gonna pay a lot of attention to that customer. We are 35 percent still of China's sales, China's exports, that's the most recent number I've seen…. With Mexico, we're maybe 80, I don't know what percent exactly. But we're important enough to these countries that we can use our market – not to exploit them – but, in fact, to lift their standards up and to lift their standard of living up. And to make those countries more open towards unionization, and more environmentally responsible. And that's what we've never done, of course.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Let me get this straight....Sherrod Brown hit the proverbial gold mine by espousing an economic populist message in an old-economy Belt and won, good for and smart of him...or just opportunistic.....now, is Ohio better off today than 2006? Must be, he sure sounds mighty proud!
Brown cited the Patriot Corp. Act twice in this Q&A, as a KEY to fight globalization? Watch all the old companies that already qualify, but maybe struggling a bit, line up at the trough instead of finding better ways to compete without shutting US plants and bust its unions.
Oh, if Sherrod Brown represents the Ohio Dems' way of increasing investments in their states....then, they are headed north, like Michigan!
Why don't Rust Belt states try eliminating all corp. taxes, open shop, state tax credits for REAL in-state R&D, state-backed bonds for mid-sized firms needing growth capital......more corp. pork that do nothing to improve productivity or push the technological envelope just isn't in the long-term interest of risk capital or labor.
Posted by Happy at 02/11/2008 @ 10:12pm
Patriot Corporate Act? Just like UHC and going green, it all sounds good in theory (and on paper) until you apply it directly.
This a total copout. Why should decent Americans use their hard earned tax dollars to pay greedy companies not to offshore their business? I say if those companies want to base their HQs and manufacturing facilities outside of the US, let them, and then make them pay heavy import tariffs.
Posted by ACook at 02/11/2008 @ 11:53pm
That's a great idea ACOOK, now if we could just figure out how to make those plans not drive the price of goods sold in the US (in the short term, if possibly not the long term) skyrocket as they make the U.S. consumer pay for those import tarrifs?
Posted by shadow master at 02/12/2008 @ 12:38am
Prediction markets now see Obama defeating Clinton
Mon Feb 11, 12:54 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Traders wagering on the outcome of the U.S. presidential vote were overwhelmingly betting on Monday that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will defeat former first lady Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination and ultimately win the presidency.
Obama, whose campaign swept four state Democratic presidential contests against Clinton over the weekend, was trading at about 70 on Monday on the Dublin, Ireland-based Intrade predictions market, meaning traders gave him a 70 percent chance of being the Democrats' presidential candidate in the November election.
Clinton, who replaced her campaign manager in a staff shake-up, was selling at about 30, meaning traders gave her a 30 percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination, data on the Intrade web site showed.
Traders on the Iowa Electronic Markets, a nonprofit exchange run by researchers at the University of Iowa, had similar expectations, giving Obama a 70 percent chance of winning the nomination and Clinton about a 27 percent chance.
---Yep, after crushing defeats by eye-popping margins in the Potomac Primaries and the following week in Wisconsin and Hawaii, Hillary's campaign is gonna be pretty much Post Toastee'd.
Just add milk and enjoy.
;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/12/2008 @ 12:53am
ACOOK, So tariffs are better than jobs? And within the WTO framework how do you make these corporation specific tariffs work?
This was a good thing for me to read. I need things from time to time that highlight Obama's strengths. It would be better to not be party to free trade deals with countries with low or no labor standards, but you would have to make that kind of change gradually, so this is good in the meantime.
May I suggest that Obama talk about this a little more and talk about change and unity a little less. Focusing on bills like this have to be a part of a succesful nomination strategy.
I am wondering what moves by Clinton suggest to Sherrod Brown that she is moving away from Bill's record on trade? I am willing to trust Brown on this matter but I would feel better if I knew the details. I am worried that what he is engaged in is the activity of not tearing either candidate down because they might be the nominee. I certainly see no reason, given her fundraising base, to think that she will be anything but a NAFTA democrat if elected.
Posted by dentedpat at 02/12/2008 @ 01:11am
Feels good to beat Mask with his: "What, the same Sherrod Brown showing concern for human rights after voting for the Torture Amendment!!!???!!!??!"
Posted by OUSTBUSH 03/16/2007 @ 12:26pm | ignore this person
Posted by OUSTBUSH 03/16/2007 @ 12:26pm
Good for you!
After all, if Sherrod stays loyal on "anti-globalism"...what's a few tortured detainees to get him in the Senate, huh?
Posted by MASK 03/16/2007 @ 12:38pm | ignore this person
Richard Kim....do you READ "The Nation" or look at its website?
Just curious, because as I've stated ("ad nauseum" to some here)....this magazine both on its cover story of last week and in CONTINUEING banner ads...
is supporting Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)...who voted FOR the "Military Commissions Act".
Of course, as was "explained" to me....he "had to" because otherwise it would have "given DeWine too much ammo to use against him".
Posted by MASK 10/01/2006 @ 2:20p
BTW....
"Sherrod Brown (D-OH) for Senate We can't emphasize enough the importance of Sherrod Brown's victory. Read my post about Brown from last night, and John Nichols' recent Nation cover story."
I know Ms vH loves Brown...for his anti-NAFTA stuff, but again, how does she explain his vote FOR the "torture bill"!?!!?
Posted by MASK 11/10/2006 @ 07:07am
Speaking of rigging the news....(this should set off a few here!)
I noticed that SOMEBODY at "The Nation" must have been reading my posts....the ads for Sherrod Brown have been pulled....uh, I mean..."their run was completed".
(last time guys....but considering the hypocritical crap and LILLIAN dodges, I felt the need for a self-indulgent moment here!)
Posted by MASK 10/01/2006 @ 9:15pm
Again, has amnesia struck some here....
SHERROD BROWN...for instance? Newly-elected US Senator from Ohio, who defeated that evil Mike DeWine?
Voted FOR the "Military Commissions Act" (aka "torture bill") and is STILL being praised by Katrina vanden Heuvel (BLOG | Posted 11/07/2006 @ 10:09pm --The New Senate Democrat) as the ...
new Paul Wellstone?!?!?!
Posted by MASK 11/13/2006 @ 09:23am
Posted by DRHAMMER 09/13/2007 @ 08:20am
No, that's MASKian query into Brown's vote in support of the Military Commisssions Act or "torture bill".
But hey, forgive and forget. The guys he allows tortured can get "free health care"!
Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 09:22am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/09/2007 @ 6:14pm
Well, JOHN remember that's Sherrod "I'll Vote For Torture If It Gets Me Elected & Then Come Out Against It AFTER I'm In Office" Brown!
Posted by MASK 10/09/2007 @ 7:29pm
BTW, what is Democratic US Senator Sherrod Brown saying about the HCBA....and why he's going to overturn Representative Sherrod Brown's vote FOR the Military Commissions Act last year???
Posted by MASK 06/14/2007 @ 12:22pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 02:03am
MASK:
just teasin', brother.
you're right to point out the man's hypocrisy and i respect you for that.
fz
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 02:05am
That's a great idea ACOOK, now if we could just figure out how to make those plans not drive the price of goods sold in the US (in the short term, if possibly not the long term) skyrocket as they make the U.S. consumer pay for those import tarrifs?
Posted by SHADOW MASTER 02/12/2008 @ 12:38am
gee, weren't those things made in the u.s.a. 5 years ago?
oh yeah, i forgot that 30 trillion in consumobiznizguvmint debt requires that inflation be hidden by exploiting po' folk overseas.
btw tariffs are a bad idea.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 02:08am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/12/2008 @ 02:03am
Thanks FROSTY.....couldn't have said it better myself!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 09:07am
Posted by SHADOW MASTER 02/12/2008 @ 12:38am
Actually, when a US company moves its HQ outside of the US, then it should be treated as a foreign entity and tariffs should be applied. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
Posted by ACook at 02/12/2008 @ 09:25am
Posted by ACOOK 02/12/2008 @ 09:25am | ignore this person
great idea...here's an economic populist in you yet!
sounds like she-rod wants to endorse the o-train....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 09:35am
Import Tariff - a euphemism for deep recession or depression. See United States history, circa 1930.
Also, implementation of import tariffs means we are too incompetent or too lazy to compete on a level, economic battlefield.
If there is not a level economic battlefield, and I would argue that there is not, then the battlefield has to be made more equitable.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 02/12/2008 @ 09:36am
ACOOK, So tariffs are better than jobs? And within the WTO framework how do you make these corporation specific tariffs work?
Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/12/2008 @ 01:11am
No, tariffs are not better than jobs. As for the WTO framework, I say drop it like a bad habit. The framework is not good policy. In order to make tariffs work, Congress must stop allowing tax breaks, strengthen current business and regulatory laws (get rid of any loopholes) and limit how those companies can lobby members of the House and Senate.
Posted by ACook at 02/12/2008 @ 09:40am
Posted by ORAIBI1952 02/12/2008 @ 09:36am
I agree with you in that respect, however, our companies feel they need to go outside our borders in order to compete. It's not because the bulk of them are lazy or incompetent. (Although the few greedy ones makes us look that way)
Why? I put most of the blame on the American consumer and their insatiable need for all things cheap. We wouldn't be half of the deep doo doo we're in now if we took the time to think about we should use our finances wisely and understand how our goods and services are processed.
Posted by ACook at 02/12/2008 @ 09:51am
If there is not a level economic battlefield, and I would argue that there is not, then the battlefield has to be made more equitable.
Posted by ORAIBI1952 02/12/2008 @ 09:36am
level?
paying people 50¢ a day and filling their rivers with mercury?
level?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 09:57am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/12/2008 @ 09:35am
I don't know about becoming a "populist"... ;-)
I'm gonna take a wait and see approach on that one. I want to see what the next batch of pigeons will look like in 2012.
Posted by ACook at 02/12/2008 @ 10:00am
ACook,
My reference to incompetence and/or laziness was meant to apply to our political class. I should have been more clear about that.
----------
Frosty Zoom,
I see you get my point. What do you suggest should be the corrective action to offset the comparative advantage of cheap labor and/or lax or no environmental laws?
Posted by oraibi1952 at 02/12/2008 @ 10:25am
I see you get my point. What do you suggest should be the corrective action to offset the comparative advantage of cheap labor and/or lax or no environmental laws?
Posted by ORAIBI1952 02/12/2008 @ 10:25am
being nice.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 10:27am
being nice too - no sarcasm intended. would like your thoughts on corrective action.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 02/12/2008 @ 10:32am
being nice.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/12/2008 @ 10:27am
"Until it's time...to NOT be nice"----"Dalton"
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 10:45am
what Sen. Brown fails to mention is that the American Standard plant was going to go out of business anyway because it was an uncompetitive, money-losing plant which manufactures a product that the company does not want to keep in its product line; if Bain had not come in, those workers, even those w/ 30+ years, would have lost more and faster. instead of losing all the jobs, at least Bain is bailing out some of them. why is the company getting out of the business? high costs of Ohio labor, high Ohio taxes, and an increasing meddling by government. in other words, it is leaving in no small part because sherrod brown is now there
Posted by jgo2.0 at 02/12/2008 @ 10:57am
Is there an excess profit issue at play when considering the movement of jobs from first world countries to third, and I would say fourth world nations?
Posted by oraibi1952 at 02/12/2008 @ 11:19am
being nice too - no sarcasm intended. would like your thoughts on corrective action.
Posted by ORAIBI1952 02/12/2008 @ 10:32am
that's a big one -- gotta run, sorry.
i'll try to do some heavy duty typing this evening.
thanks,
fz.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 11:24am
Ren: You like Men At Work? Willard: what men? Ren: Men at work. Willard: well where do they work? Ren: No, they're a music group. Willard: well what do they call themselves? Ren: Oh no! What about the Police? Willard: What about 'em? Ren: You ever heard them? Willard: No, but I seen them. Ren: Where, in concert? Willard: No, behind you.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 11:27am
BTW, figured out another reason that Ms vanden Heuvel put her "MSNBC misogyny" article in Winston Smith's "memory hole"....
Liberals are rallying to David Shuster's defense, as it became apparent that this was part of a Clinton campaign attack to intimidate the Media!
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 12:50pm
There are merrits in many of the ideas here. Some of you say that Tarrifs to American companies would lead to a recession or depression. But why should a companyt be considered American if their HQ and production is somewhere else? What makes them American? They don't pay taxes here. They don't contribute to the American economy other than bringing products for us to buy while they then give that money to another country. If large buisnesses want to offshore fine let them and make them pay for it. That way higher prices of their products will open up a market for smaller businesses who can charge less for products and stop the price fixing. It will leave an opening for small buisnesses and startups to compete with the likes of Best Buy and Walmart. Once the coporates learn that leaving their country leads to higher costs and therefore less demand of their product when smaller US owned and run businesses replace them they will start to think maybe they should have left their companies in the US. Or as Happy suggests we can turn into a socialist economy where the government pays gives all our tax money to help out businesses who then export more and more jobs overseas because it's cheaper to use labor in countries with no regulatory policies.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 1:29pm
But the thing is why should we allow American corporations to benefit from being in America while giving nothing back to the economy? This act isn't charging corporations it's giving tax breaks to those who don't move. Isn't that what you want Happy? More tax breaks to companies? I think you just disagree with this because it was posed by Dem's not because it's fundamentally flawed. This doesn't hurt corporations who offshore this helps the ones who don't. Gives incentives to stay. The only reason this hasn't been passed yet and the only reason the "do nothing Congress" hasn't tried is because they know Bush will stop it. As he has done with so many bills. There are a lot of bills waiting in the wings right now to be pushed through once Bush leaves office because he has a history of stopping bills without ever sending them back to Congress. They don't want the bill to just get shut down so they are being patient and waiting for the president to change before they start trying to pass bills that help this country. They are do nothings they just CAN'T do anything because your friend in the White House has usurped most of the governmental power and used it to proclaim himself emperor.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 1:49pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/12/2008 @ 1:29pm
Thom Hartmann is big on tariffs...basically claims that every downturn in American history since the 50s is blamed on us dropping them for the last 50 years.
Problem is, he never fully explains how, when the tariffs get imposed, how the working families who save upto $2500 of their income in Wal-mart...are supposed to make up the difference to pay the higher prices for "American only" goods.
Sure, in the LONG RUN, it seems to help, after you re-construct 5000 factories from Maine to California....but no answer for what happens in the SHORT RUN when a pair of Nikes is $500 a pair or a bag of socks cost $50.
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 1:52pm
Posted by MASK 02/12/2008 @ 1:52pm
Those people will have better job oppurtunities when American companies start paying Americans to do the job.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 2:12pm
The thing is Mask you HAVE to think in the long term and right now the solution that has come up has been destroying our economy. Sure Nike's are cheaper but people can't afford them because they don't have jobs or they are working a minimum wage job at McDonalds. What's the good of cheap products if still no one can afford them because they aren't working. You should watch the piece they did where two people tried to lived on minimum wage jobs. For their anniversary they split a pizza. The woman got sick and completely wiped them out. You can't live on minimum wage jobs in this country and yet that's what everyone is turning to because all the decent jobs are being shipped overseas. Minimum wage jobs are for teenagers who want some extra cash not for adults trying to raise a family. We need to start thinking in the long term. Because in 20 or 30 years the gap between rich and poor will be vast and the middle class will be destroyed as coporates keep exporting labor and the only viable jobs to get are the minimum wage ones.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 2:16pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/12/2008 @ 2:16pm
I'm not sayint the LONG TERM solution may not have merit....
what I'm asking is, what do the pro-tariff people offer in the SHORT TERM for the economic crunch they're going to engender?
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 2:20pm
Posted by MASK 02/12/2008 @ 2:20pm
I don't I'm not a pro-tarriff person I'm pro fixing our economy. But we need to think of something because our current system isn't working. People like Happy who want to give more tax breaks to corporates and give them more of our tax dollars as well as more money out of our pocket are the problem.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 2:31pm
Forget globalization! Forget renegotiating those worthless treaties! We need tariffs! Following Hamilton's lead the American System (economics) was created in the 19th century along with an internal , INDEPENDENT , NATIONAL market support by American industries and farmers. We do not need trade for our economic existence. We have the natural resources, the know how, and the people to recreate that internal market along with the Middle Class life style we enjoyed. Anyone who wants to be a part of that market must produce their products within the United States. This is the model for development for any country. "Free Trade's" only function is to drive down wages and allow every country in the world to be raped by multinational big business. BUSH USES DEMOCRACY AS AN EXCUSE TO BREAK DOWN BARRIERS FOR MULTINATIONAL BIG BUSINESS. He has no interest in real Democracy, but he is trying to build a CORPORATE FASCIST STATE by centralizing power in the executive branch of government. Anybody who took a high school history class should know about Hamilton and the American system which followed. Bush is a new experience for America.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/12/2008 @ 2:58pm
I am wondering what moves by Clinton suggest to Sherrod Brown that she is moving away from Bill's record on trade? I am willing to trust Brown on this matter but I would feel better if I knew the details.
No details that I could find - just TALK! Her trade advisers are the same cast of characters from Bill's administration, so I wouldn't count on any dramatic shift in her free-trade position.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/12/2008 @ 3:18pm
Bush is a new experience for America.
Posted by P. J. CASEY 02/12/2008 @ 2:58pm
I like that line. Bush is a president which has displayed to us why there is a devision of power and why we elect a new president every 4 years and why terms are limited to 8 years, if they weren't he would keep stealing elections. He has centralized power in his branch and taken the power to govern from Congress and the House. He instead of vetoing bills lets them sit on his desk until they die so that Congress has no power. He uses the media to disiminate a message of fear so that people will not vote for those who don't agree with his agenda, that is how he got the ability to attack Iran and Iraq. Never before have we had a leader who has such callous disregard for America and everything it stands for and such a want for complete and total control of the government. He is one step below what will happen if we allow a president to assume complete control.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 3:20pm
...People like Happy who want to give more tax breaks to corporates....
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/12/2008 @ 2:31pm
You didn't read my lonely post correctly.....I suggested state bonds as growth capital for mid-size firms (esp. old-economy firms that NEW money just ain't much interested in)....bonds need to be repaid! I am perfectly fine with NO TAX BREAKS on all corp.....even better, NO CORP. TAXES at all, which will eliminate a huge swath of K-Street out fighting to make sure their clients get a piece of the corp. pork. As long as thes `pork' exist, companies I invest in would be stupid NOT to fight for its `share'....it's the system of playing preferences......Gov't does it w/companies, just as it does among people.
You want to eliminate money as the corrupting influence in gov't? Eliminate all taxation of corp. first and foremost, they don't pay taxes, they aren't flesh and blood `workers', `inventors', `consumers', `families'....
Why do you think I'm essentially a Libertarian that votes Repub?
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2008 @ 4:34pm
Posted by P. J. CASEY 02/12/2008 @ 2:58pm
Okay, P.J.....you explain it then. What is the "pro-tariff" folks answer to what happens in the SHORT TERM (3-5 years) before all the new factories spring up to fill in the gaps for the "cheap Chinese" stuff?
How do WORKING FAMILIES make up $2500 in savings at Wally World, etc. for half a decade?
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 4:36pm
At the very best, this is a half-hearted, overwhelmingly cautious first step. I would suggest a few provisions to address the systematic attack on our economic security: 1. Any corporation that moves its HQ offshore should be taxed exactly as any other "person" is taxed in this country. That means individual rates for single taxpayers with only the same itemized deductions and credits allowed. 2. Allow any and all outsourcing of production, BUT prohibit any of that outoverseas output to be imported into this country. 3. With respect to the auto industry and Japanese, Korean and Chinese manufacturers: Allow the same volume importation of parts and finished products into this country as are shipped into their countries multiplied by the relative size of the markets (For example, Japanese manufacturers could send us 3.5X as much auto output as we send them. In 2006, we sold approximately 24,500 vehicles in the Japanese market of 5,612,528 total vehicle sales. They sold approximately 5,350,000 into North America in a total market of 19,311,924 total vehicle sales. That would limit all Japanese mfrs. to about 24,500 X 3.5 = 85,750 vehicles instead of 5,350,000. I would also point out that when they build cars here, their domestic parts content is usually considerably lower than that of the domestic mfrs. The second item, above, would prohibit domestic mfrs. from importing parts from abroad.) Another idea to protect our taxes from being granted to corporations with little or no long-term benefit. 4. Prohibit state and local governments from offering tax incentives to any mfr. for locating anywhere.
Posted by RADWRITER 08/06/2007 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person
The link provided above takes us to an older William Greider article on this legislation, after reading through the posts I saw this excellent comment isolated at the end of the thread.
Rad is right on. Japan and China don't play by the absurd and arbitrary rules of market dogma; they write their own rules according their own interests. So should we. Back in the early 80s, Japan was forced by other nations it was setting up shop in, to comply with Domestic Content Laws; which mandated certain proportions of domestic content to be contained in the cars built in the nations Japan was producing in. This was an area where Japan had a huge advantage over their American competitors. If we had passed such a law, and the American auto executives would have modernized their assembly plants to more resemble the Japanese innovation techniques (from the outdated ‘Taylor-Fordism' to the more streamlined Japanese ‘Just in Time' process), rather than simply chasing down cheap labor as a response to their inability to compete, the American auto industry would be in much better shape today.
mask, that $2,500 dollars saved at Walmart (having recently replaced GM as our number one employer) kind of gets lost in the $12,500 pay cut workers have lost over the past several decades.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/12/2008 @ 4:36pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/12/2008 @ 4:34pm
Sorry I think the way you phrased it threw me. I still believe however that just because a company calls themselves American if they are not based in America they should be treated like any other foreign company is treated.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 5:35pm
Today's WSJ's Editorial "States of Opportunity" cites some stats from United Van Lines and from U-Haul. For those that don't know, UVL (& Mayflower) are the names of the game in corporate relocations (ie: tax-paying families' company-paid movers).
- Biggest population loser last year was Michigan, two households out for every one in....
- Other states being fled from: Clinton's New York, New Jersey, Brown's `winning' Ohio, Pennsylvania and Obama's Illinois!
The winning states? Your worst fears....`redneck' and cowboy states very well represented....and ZERO's Washington!
NOTE: both Dem front-runners are from States of Lost Opportunities....any wonder they both belong to the cup-is-half-empty tribe?
At uhaul.com, you can enter any pairs of cities and see what the charges are for one-way rentals:
- From Austin to Southern Cal = $407, from S. CA to Austin = $1,831, ouch!!
- Dallas to Philly = $$663, from Philly to Dallas = $2,433!@#$^
It seems, Americans are not all that willing to pay more taxes so that the gov't can deliver more INefficient or flat out wasteful services!
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2008 @ 7:28pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/12/2008 @ 7:28pm
I don't think you're looking at it right. You are look at states like Illinois which is heavily populated. Which means housing costs will be high. People are probably fleeing to much less populated states where housing costs are low. To say people leaving from Cali and going to Virginia isn't fair. Cali is highly populated and heavily sought after housing costs are high, My brother got a house in Virginia for 130,000 in a nice area. So your data needs to show where they are going and why not just that they are leaving. Of course people are leaving NY the cost of housing there is even worse than here and it's because they are major cities that are heavily populated.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 8:21pm
mask, that $2,500 dollars saved at Walmart (having recently replaced GM as our number one employer) kind of gets lost in the $12,500 pay cut workers have lost over the past several decades.
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/12/2008 @ 4:36pm |
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 10:37pm
I'm personally not too well-informed on the legislation Brown is talking about, but, man, that was a cool surprise to be on this site and by just happening to click on this blog, find a reference to the city I live in (Tiffin, OH) and a link to an article from the newspaper I'm a reporter for (Advertiser-Tribune). Kind of funny and ironic as well, to see an article from my paper, which has a newsroom full of conservatives and staunch Republicans, (I'm literally the only liberal in my newsroom) used as a link in one of my favorite left-wing publications. Gotta love it...
Posted by molotov at 02/13/2008 @ 01:59am
In response to a Maytag plant closing and the loss of Illinois manufacturing jobs...Obama had a more robust Patriot Corp proposal in his 2004 U.S. Senate Primary Campaign which he called "Real USA Corps"....The current Patriot Corp legislation is a much reduced version of Obama's orginal proposal.....
Posted by Billdemo at 02/13/2008 @ 08:24am
Just for fun, let's pretend none of the above solutions, nostrums, delusions, fantasies, can be, will be, should be implemented.
Let's imagine a world in such flux no human effort is sufficient to control it, because humans aren't as clever as we think we are or want to be; wise enough to do no harm while tinkering with melting icecaps and gasping life forms.
It seems to me hunkering down into tribalism may be useful in winning an election. But for whom? I suggest the only reasonable test for a candidate is, will that person do least harm and be most effective at overcoming the harm already done?
It might be good to spend some serious time thinking past the fantasy and self-delusion so evident in these comments to a clear-eyed assessment of how best to build on the rocks that have rolled downhill rather than trying to roll them back up.
Posted by JFHill at 02/13/2008 @ 08:45am
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/12/2008 @ 4:36pm |
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/12/2008 @ 10:37pm
Fine guys. Again, you implement the tariffs...how do those working families make up the $2500 a year they save at Wal-mart?
Nobody would support a massive Minimum Wage hike...not even a goodly number of Democrats. It'd be an economic killer alone (even without the tariffs).
Gradual phase-in? Fine...how gradual? Too fast and it's the same as what I outlined. Too slow and it's no different from now.
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 3:43pm
In reply to mask" If you don't go with tariffs ,you are looking at universal poverty and wage slavery forever. Do you want to compete with Chinese or Mexican workers in a race to the bottom?
Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/13/2008 @ 5:32pm
i've NEVER said i want tariffs. that's dumb.
read this first:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13reich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The underlying problem has been building for decades. America's median hourly wage is barely higher than it was 35 years ago, adjusted for inflation. The income of a man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago. Most of what's been earned in America since then has gone to the richest 5 percent.
Yet the rich devote a smaller percentage of their earnings to buying things than the rest of us because, after all, they're rich. They already have most of what they want. Instead of buying, and thus stimulating the American economy, the rich are more likely to invest their earnings wherever around the world they can get the highest return.
The problem has been masked for years as middle- and lower-income Americans found ways to live beyond their paychecks. But now they have run out of ways.
***************************
The only way to keep the economy going over the long run is to increase the wages of the bottom two-thirds of Americans. The answer is not to protect jobs through trade protection. That would only drive up the prices of everything purchased from abroad. Most routine jobs are being automated anyway.
A larger earned-income tax credit, financed by a higher marginal income tax on top earners, is required. The tax credit functions like a reverse income tax. Enlarging it would mean giving workers at the bottom a bigger wage supplement, as well as phasing it out at a higher wage. The current supplement for a worker with two children who earns up to $16,000 a year is about $5,000. That amount declines as earnings increase and is eliminated at about $38,000. It should be increased to, say, $8,000 at the low end and phased out at an income of $46,000.
i suggest reading the whole thing. please stop making assumptions as to my opinions.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 8:28pm
We do not need trade for our economic existence.
omigod, another antediluvian. this was NEVER the case, never.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/15/2008 @ 08:58am
Firstly, with minimal to nil knowledge of the "military commissions act" I would still hope Brown's assenting vote means it was for some good end. NOT to legalize torture, regarding which, the controversy about "water-boarding" indicates political awareness of overstepping the bounds of propriety, even when exploiting the fears of John Q. Public, as in the current effort by Bush to give retroactive immunity to the telecommunications giants who "cooperated" BY BREAKING THE F'N LAW DOUCHBAGS!
Sorry, but those Boner-led Repubs walking out on the vote to cite Miers and Bolton for contempt was so contemptibly childish, that my ire is at redline.
And good reading you as always Oustbush!
Posted by lewwelge at 02/16/2008 @ 09:32am
Where's the "T" word ? ....... Tariffs !
Every other emerging economy in the world is practicing mercantilism, that is protectionism for their industries. They are manipulating their currencies and dumping product.
Even the WTO agreement allows for Tariffs when a country's trade deficit threatens 3%. Ours is over 6% .
The fact is that our neoliberal economic policies have not only failed in underdeveloped and developing countries, but they have failed right here at home. We have gutted our productive capacity.
Read this article:
Tom Friedman's Folly: The Lies Behind 'Free Trade' - Chalmers Johnson
I'm afraid to say that even Sherrod Brown doesn't get the whole picture and a few side agreements for the environment and trade unions just won't work. Without tariffs we will bleed to death.
It's Time for Tariffs !
Posted by mmckinl at 02/16/2008 @ 5:37pm