Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditRecently, Congresswoman Barbara Lee said to me, "This is a moment when people are suffering. They are one paycheck -- if they have a paycheck -- away from poverty."
That's why Lee has maintained a laser-like focus on addressing poverty. One in eight Americans -- approximately 37 million people -- now live below the federal poverty line of $19,971 for a family of four. (A woefully inadequate measure that is 42 years old and fails to account for basic necessities.) That's 4.9 million more people than in 2000 and the poverty rate for children is the highest of all age groups. Nearly 60 million people live just above the poverty line. Using the British standard of measurement, approximately 30 percent of Americans -- and 40 percent of American children -- are living in poverty.
In January, Lee introduced House Concurrent Resolution 198 to get her colleagues on record saying that the US should set a national goal of cutting poverty in half over the next 10 years. The resolution stated that "policy initiatives addressing poverty have not kept pace with the needs of millions of Americans" and that "the United States has a moral responsibility to meet the needs of those persons, groups, and communities that are impoverished, disadvantaged or otherwise in poverty."
"That resolution passed on a bipartisan basis," Lee told me. "No opposition. And so we're looking now at the specific recommendations of many groups that have come together to talk about what makes sense to begin to reduce and eliminate poverty. And so, that's the mission of the Out of Poverty Caucus which I co-chair. And it's moving. The Speaker has taken note, the Leadership has taken note."
Lee said that a real test of Democratic priorities occurred in the budget debate earlier this month. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), which she co-chairs along with Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, introduced its Progressive Caucus Budget which included an Anti-Poverty and Opportunity Initiative. The CPC budget spent $468.3 billion on defense, $68.7 billion less than President Bush's request of World War II-proportions.
It called for $73 billion in FY 2009, increasing to $129 billion in FY 2018, to fund a comprehensive strategy to cut poverty in half in a decade, including: expanding child care and increasing Head Start funding; making the Child Tax Credit fully refundable and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit for larger families; increasing funding for Food Stamps programs; increasing housing vouchers by 200,000 annually; lifting restrictions on TANF, Food Stamps, SSI and Medicaid for documented immigrant families; fully funding block grants to states with broad anti-poverty strategies and distributing targeted grants to states for families where a parent or child has a disability; increasing funding for Indian Health Services, education, housing and infrastructure, natural resources management, and other areas impacting Native American poverty; and reversing the 20 percent cut in child support enforcement.
The CPC budget also offered a second economic stimulus package -- to pump $118.9 billion into the economy -- with funding increases for unemployment insurance, food stamps, foreclosure relief and housing assistance, and Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) payments to states; and also job creation through repair of schools, transportation infrastructure and public housing, and building new wastewater treatment plants. Over the next decade its sustained Rebuild and Reinvest in America Initiative would create green jobs and overhaul our nation's crumbling infrastructure.
In the end, the budget was defeated by a 98-322 vote. But it received 17 more votes than last year, and the Democratic vote was 98-131(during an election year when too many Democrats still fear criticism from Republicans on domestic spending). Clearly, the progressive movement in Congress is growing. Lee and her CPC colleagues will introduce the Anti-Poverty and Opportunity Initiative and also the Rebuild and Reinvest in America Initiative as their own freestanding bills in coming months. She also continues to work on a second economic stimulus package.
"I'm cautiously optimistic," Lee said. "We heard while negotiating the first stimulus that there would be a second -- and that the reasons why we couldn't get the food stamps, and unemployment insurance, and those efforts -- in the first stimulus, it just wouldn't pass and we needed to get money in the hands of people right away. But that we'd come back and work on the second piece, and so that's what we're working on."
Lee is disappointed that Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton aren't addressing poverty more aggressively in their respective presidential campaigns.
"Every now and then they'll say a little bit but for the most part I don't think any of them have made this a bold initiative like Senator Edwards did," she said. "Of course, I'm an Obama person. Every chance I get I'm pushing [his campaign] to talk about poverty in a direct way. And I assume the Clinton people are talking to their candidate about this.... We've always talked about the middle-class -- which is fine, we want to make sure the middle-class stays [strong]. But we never seem to fix our mouths to talk about the poor and low-income individuals. And, of course, when you talk about poor people there may be some negative connotations about that. You know, maybe there's a messaging issue. But when people are poor, they're poor. When they don't have any money, they don't have any money."
As for Lee, she will continue to strengthen the anti-poverty coalition and fight for strategies that work. Within the halls of Congress, she's part of the Faith Working Group -- united in its view that the budget is a moral document and that there is a moral imperative to fight poverty. She works closely with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty who urged her to push the resolution setting a national goal to cut poverty in half in a decade. She and the CPC have reached out to work with Martin Luther King III's Realizing the Dream initiative. And the Economic Policy Institute and Campaign for America's Future are very involved in the second economic stimulus package. Labor, health care, and affordable housing advocates are also on board in helping to move progressive legislation.
"A major coalition could develop from this effort," Lee said.
With the poor getting poorer, and the middle-class shrinking, Lee's steadfast commitment to fighting poverty -- and building a coalition to win that fight -- is needed now in new and urgent ways.
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
Gleaned out the important part...
"In the end, the budget was defeated by a 98-322 vote."
Why? Because hardly anybody wants to blow the budget and ABSOLUTELY nobody wants to raise the taxes to pay for it in an election year, when the Dems stand a good shot at the White House and holding Congress (probably picking up seats).
Non-binding "concurrent resolutions"...will get passed all day long.
But sorry, Ms vanden Heuvel "17 votes more" is not "clearly" the progressive movement in Congress growing. Unless you're willing to wait until sometime in the 2020s when 17 votes every Congressional term will start to ADD up to something like what you want getting passed.
First job of the next Congress and hopefully Dem President...get the fiscal house in order by letting the Bush cuts lapse and getting us on a glide path to getting out of Iraq.
That's it.
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2008 @ 2:18pm
Even workers who traditionally vote Democratic will have difficulty supporting programs targeted at 'poverty' - rather than education or health care. That's because families living in poverty are working, taxpaying families who are descending into poverty due to the Republican attack on America's industry.
So a comprehensive 'War on Poverty' will have to include fair trade policy - and fewer ameliorative programs that the Republicans can single out as 'welfare'. Incredible as it seems, the Republicans still have support among workers below the poverty line - ignorant white workers who are easily swayed by appeals to racism.
Posted by samcrossett at 03/24/2008 @ 2:29pm
mask, there is a distinct difference between what you do, and what ms. van den heuvel does:
you make forecasts
she has principles
let me say this once, and once and for all: the ONLY way the united states is going to get out of the mess we are in is if we significantly raise taxes, starting with the wealthiest on down.
if you look at any other western country, all of them have a higher standard of living. why? higher taxes. trust me.
if we only had principles (nobody without health care, education, food, clothing, shelter)......alas. everyone is SO afraid of higher taxes.
Posted by darladoon at 03/24/2008 @ 2:41pm
Please, please stop it. Government cannot end poverty. In countless cases Government is the CAUSE of poverty. Poverty has been used forever as a dependency tool for politicians, a sure-fired method of BUYING votes and redistributing wealth
how can you explain, then, the significantly higher standard of living in canada, sweden, iceland, france, spain, etc, etc?
they have much, much higher taxes, but the people live well, considering.
more sick pay, more vacation time, paid pregnancy leave, 35 hour work weeks, pension, health care, education (through university), etc, etc.
is anyone in this forum opposed to paying higher taxes for these benefits? not me!
Posted by darladoon at 03/24/2008 @ 2:43pm
But the private sector and investment is the only way to end poverty. Not more government entitlement schemes and hand-outs
but clearly (!), the private sector has interests which fundamentally contradict the principle of compassion. namely, if the investment doesn't pay off, then is it less likely the rich will help.
the likeliness of a profit, or even the likeliness of breaking even, must be eliminated from the equation. we're talking about people's lives here.
a voluntary approach to ending poverty cannot sustain. it must be compulsory. we all have a stake in ending poverty, and it begins with higher taxes.
Posted by darladoon at 03/24/2008 @ 2:48pm
i have an honest question for the forum:
would you be interested in higher taxes (even just slightly) if it meant lifting us out of debt?
then,
would you be interested in even higher taxes (even just slightly) if it meant lifting 37 million of people above the poverty line?
i would even go a step further: i would have my "salary" cut by 40% to pay for health care, education, and pension for ALL americans.
Posted by darladoon at 03/24/2008 @ 2:55pm
Better education will undoubtedly lift some families out of poverty . . . on the other hand, our vaunted public educational establishment has produced voters who believe that "only the private sector" has the remedy to poverty. These public-educated private sector enthusiasts vote for military-Keynesian Republicans who enlarge the public sector to buy votes - but as long as none of that borrowed money is returned to poor working families in the form of tax credits, education or health care, then it's OK - it's not 'welfare'.
Posted by samcrossett at 03/24/2008 @ 3:25pm
Posted by DARLADOON 03/24/2008 @ 2:41pm
DARLA, she can have principles until the cows come home...or she and Prof. Cohen retire somewhere warm....I'm stating political reality.
A bit of "anti-poverty" legislation defeated JUST ON THE DEMOCRATIC side by 131-98 (nearly 35 votes)...does not bode well for its future even if the Dems pick up another 10 seats in the House.
And we haven't even gotten to the US Senate! Where wild-eyed plans of the House go to die a quiet death.
Now, if Ms vanden Heuvel wants to laud Barbara Lee for TRYING...fine. But don't act as if "just a little more time" or "right after the Dems win in November"...we'll see a "New New Deal" or "Great Society II: Electric Boogaloo" when we simply...DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY...nor the political climate for taxation needed to raise the money...
and act like you're showing some political acumen.
Nibble at the edges?...sure. Minor programs and grants?...probably. Little things that will help the middle class?...maybe.
Big, grandiose plans to "cut poverty in half in a decade"?...no, sorry. Neither the will, nor political climate, nor CASH (thanks to a debt that supposed "conservatives" have given us) to see that come to pass.
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2008 @ 3:38pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 03/24/2008 @ 3:18pm
For the obvious reason that "free markets" are good at concentrating money in the hands of the few and don't do certain things well - such as administer justice or provide "national security". Anyone familiar with the Gilded Age and the development of capitalism since the industrial revolution is aware of this fact. Why aren't you?
And anyone that knows anything about healthcare knows it is more expensive to treat problems in the emergency room than with basic preventative care. "I want choice in healthcare folks" don't understand that some folks have no choice under the current system - and even those folks in the upper 1% with healthcare can be bankrupted by a major catastrophic illness such as cancer, which can take away both livelihood, medical coverage, and everything you ever worked for in your life - and there is nothing the "free market" offers to cover such a situation because there's no way to make a profit off of it - much like many of the other problems of society.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/24/2008 @ 3:40pm
Haha, that's not going to happen though is it? because the politicians you trust so amazingly to me, will never relinquish their power. Politicians like barbara Lee believe they know better than you how your healthcare should be provided. Why you so adamantly put your faith in the unbridaled power of politicians will never cease to amaze me. You act as if politicains were somehow different than businessmen and women...
there is a distinct difference between a civil servant and a businessman. you know the difference. the other two brances of government are a check on the civil servant. who holds the businessman accountable?
now, i stand by my original post.
Do you ever consider how dangerous your vision for our future really is?
is life so dangerous in norway? i really wonder that.....
i know many scandinavians. they are tough lot. and they trust their government. there isn't this sort of paranoia, distrust, anxiety there. in fact, they love hot saunas more than anyone....and aren't afraid of sex or nudity or whatever....
Posted by darladoon at 03/24/2008 @ 3:42pm
can we please the deeper issue here? namely, why are americans so afraid of socialism?
in norway, when you goto the spa, there are families everywhere. naked. talking about politics, art, people touching each other, not in a sexual way.
americans are so afraid of SHARING, that's the real problem....can't share space, money, anything. they are PARANOID, SCHIZOPHRENIC weirdos....
Posted by darladoon at 03/24/2008 @ 3:48pm
Darla:
I can't speak for all Americans, but I fear socialism precisely because of people like you. You'll never be satisfied until perfect egalitarianism is reached. That will require the coercive power of Gov't. Big time. Way worse then any unregulated capitalist system could ever be. You'd happily give away 40% of your wages, and I bet you'd happily give away 60% of mine.
Posted by sntauri at 03/24/2008 @ 4:12pm
Posted by DARLADOON 03/24/2008 @ 3:48pm
You equate public nudity and socialism?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2008 @ 4:16pm
BTW, DARLA....was this YOU on Think Progress?
darladoon Says: January 18th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
"poverty is an abstract qualification.
for me, i like expensive cheese and wine. and expensive resorts.
if i don't have these things, i'm poor."
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2008 @ 4:27pm
A simple suggestion: Assuming the Democrats take the White House in 2008, the bureau that puts out the "poverty line" figure could administratively recalculate it to reflect the actual cost of a very basic subsistence existence. (For those who don't follow the numbers, the administratively determined poverty line for 2008 is only 2.7% above 2007, even though the inflation rate and the increase in Social Security were far above that. I guess seniors vote and people living on $10,000 a year don't.) That would automatically increase eligibility for all of the safety net programs, without having to haggle in Congress about e.g. whether SCHIP should be available at 200, 250, or 300% of poverty level.
Posted by bcazden at 03/24/2008 @ 4:43pm
Posted by BCAZDEN 03/24/2008 @ 4:43pm |
It's called "raising the poverty level"...problem again is political.
It means that same Administration just "created" a huge increase in poverty and now has to go out and tell the electorate in 2010, 2012 that things just got "statistically" WORSE under their Administration.
Not very helpful at election time, is it?
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2008 @ 4:55pm
Posted by SNTAURI 03/24/2008 @ 4:12pm
There is a difference between equal and equitable. Can we dispense with the Harrison Bergeron fantasies? You don't live in his world, and you never will.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/24/2008 @ 5:11pm
Freiheit, I appreciate your opposition to "out of control government spending", the "nanny state" and taxing poor workers. I hope you're not a Republican; I'm a former Republican who opposes the out of control borrowing and spending, police state tyranny and regressive tax policies of national socialist Republicans like Reagan, Gingrich and the Bushes.
As for the 'free market', it's an animal I've yet to encounter in the wild, but still have hope of sighting. The greatest obstacle to establishing a genuine free market is not big government per se, but big government that is owned and operated by oligopolists.
Posted by samcrossett at 03/24/2008 @ 5:12pm
Repeating due to time warp.
Posted by SNTAURI 03/24/2008 @ 4:12pm
There is a difference between equal and equitable. Can we dispense with the Harrison Bergeron fantasies? You don't live in his world, and you never will.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/24/2008 @ 5:13pm
blrp! sclrp! but but but!!!
spending taxpayer money on something other than killin' towelheads?????
COMMERNIST!!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/24/2008 @ 7:03pm
if it's so dangerous, as you two believe, then why is there no apparent anxiety or fear in other western countries, like sweden or norway?
is it a distinct cultural difference with america which allows those two countries to sustain (and maintain the highest quality of life on earth)?
Posted by darladoon at 03/25/2008 @ 01:16am
Everywhere else in the world except dictatorships, 'tax the rich and raise the poor' is considered obvious. The more wealth is distributed through a market, the more active the market is. The more sophisticated and healthy the market is, the more active it is. The less poverty there is, the less 'informal redistribution' there is through crime. And so on. Take a tour through Europe. It works rather well.
But Americans en masse can't seem to notice this. I have often wondered why the 'world's leading economy' is so backward. Still uses Imperial measures, and allows mal-distribution on a scale not seen since the '20s. Won't someone explain?
Posted by mikecope at 03/25/2008 @ 05:48am
Unlike other developed nations, the U.S. allows millions of poor immigrants to move there every year. Most end up taking low-wage jobs and have larger familes than the statistical average for U.S. citizens. As a result, there is a statistical skew toward poverty among a sizeable base.
By the year 2050, the population of the U.S. will skyrocket to 500 million people, mostly due to immigration, and will put a tremendous strain on already dwindling resources.
Posted by Zeddmen at 03/25/2008 @ 08:42am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/24/2008 @ 11:30pm
Elsewhere in the world $19,971 will sustain TEN or Twenty more families of four depending on the country!!!!!!!!
Excellent example of not understanding relative cost of living. There's a reason why $90 is the official poverty line in rural China and $10,800 is the poverty line in the United States and it has everything to do with the cost of living and factors like the United States infrastructure makes assumptions like that you own a car.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/25/2008 @ 11:40am
AFTENPOSTEN: News From Norway
Irritation grows over taxes Norwegians have long accepted high taxes to finance their social welfare state, but a new survey indicates rising dissatisfaction and, in some cases, outright hatred of some taxes that are viewed as way too high and unfair.
Norwegians are among the most heavily taxed people in the world, and that in turn has made Norway one of the most expensive countries in which to live. Most accept the taxes they're ordered to pay on income and even net worth and property, but growing numbers are publicly complaining about sky-high taxes on everything from cars to fuel to consumer goods.
The study also showed that 67 percent of the population think Norway's inheritance taxes are too high, while 63 percent think fuel taxes are too high. Norway's hefty 25 percent VAT (like a sales tax) on nearly all consumer items is considered too high by 53 percent of the population.
Just give it a little more time...cracks in the socialist utopia!
Posted by sntauri at 03/25/2008 @ 12:06pm
Posted by SNTAURI 03/25/2008 @ 12:06pm
People said the same about France, which doesn't seem to much like Bush style governance either.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/25/2008 @ 12:38pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 03/25/2008 @ 12:38pm
Maybe all the Norwegians who like high taxes didn't answer their phones, like you do, SRJ????
heheh
Posted by Mask at 03/25/2008 @ 12:44pm
it's one thing to be unhappy about certain high taxes in norway; it's another thing to be indifferent about bush's egregious, permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest americans..
do you think norwegians would forget about their pensions? health care? paid leave?
think again.
Posted by darladoon at 03/25/2008 @ 1:30pm
Posted by MASK 03/25/2008 @ 12:44pm
The study, and in particular, SNTAURI's quote fails to mention relevant details like that they have problems with the regressive avgifter (duties, fees or user taxes) rather than income taxes, who paid for the study and the fact that there is no discussion of their methodology - without which we can't comment on whether call screening might impact it.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/25/2008 @ 1:48pm
well, if life is so bad in norway, or the rest of scandinavia for that matter, why do all five scandinavian countries rank in the top 10 for highest quality of life?
canada, france and ireland are also in the top 10.
Posted by darladoon at 03/25/2008 @ 2:27pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 03/25/2008 @ 1:48pm
See, I KNEW the poll had to be wrong....no REAL Norwegian would ever tire of paying high taxes. They love it...in their blood or something, right, SRJ?
Posted by Mask at 03/25/2008 @ 2:45pm
AFTENPOSTEN News From Norway March 25 2008
Immigrants subject to discrimination in Norway
Immigrants, especially those from Africa and Asia, must routinely tackle discrimination in Norway, both on the job and on the street. Some notice that no one sits next to them on the bus, and in some cases ethnic Norwegians hurl insults at them.
A new study conducted by research firm MMI for the government agency in charge of integration (IMDi) indicates that a considerable portion of non-western immigrants have experienced discrimination based on their ethnic background.
I'm shocked, shocked to find such a thing in the People's Socialist Paradise...
Posted by sntauri at 03/25/2008 @ 3:10pm
The more wealth is distributed through a market, the more active the market is. The more sophisticated and healthy the market is, the more active it is. The less poverty there is, the less 'informal redistribution' there is through crime. And so on. Take a tour through Europe. It works rather well.
Posted by MIKECOPE 03/25/2008 @ 05:48am
Is that why there always seems to be so much rioting in France, because people are so happy?
If there is a direct correlation with crime rates and tax rates then why does Japan have significantly lower crime than every country in the EU, yet also has lower taxes as well?
Why do Spain and the U.K. have higher robberies per capita than in the U.S.; Denmark, Finland, U.K., Canada, Iceland, and Switzerland have more burglaries per capita than the U.S.?
Why do the hig-tax, "social utopia" countries of Scandinavia have higher suicide rates than the U.S.?
Spare me any single, simple, direct correlation argument between crime and taxes.
If you do go to Europe sometime, please wave to all the police cameras watching you. Hmmmmm, I wonder why they need them?
Posted by Zeddmen at 03/25/2008 @ 4:28pm
Posted by MASK 03/25/2008 @ 2:45pm
I have no idea what real Norwegians think, are tired of or what not. I do, however, know how to use facts and critically evaluate them. If you don't link to the report and it's methodology - and then want to make some larger claims about a population based on this vague report in an effort to spin it your way, well, it trips off my bullshit detector.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/25/2008 @ 5:59pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 03/25/2008 @ 5:59pm
Oh, come on, SRJ....speaking of bullshit detection.
If polling showed that overwhelmingly the Norwegians LOVED their "social democratic" welfare-state and HAD NO PROBLEM with paying 80-90% income tax rates....you'd have NO problem with the "methodology" and would probably cite it to us libertarians and to conservatives!
Posted by Mask at 03/25/2008 @ 8:13pm
I get your point. You believe the government can manage our lives better with our money than we can. And quality of life is measured by being able to comfortably talk to fellow taxpayers while sitting naked in a sauna.
Ooookaaaay then.
i don't need money. i just need food, shelter. and as far as who manages the general fund: if they are competent, compassionate, and love their job----then, they can manage the general fund.
as far as your comment about saunas: i couldn't agree more. saunas are incredible places to unwind, connect with your inner Self, and others, and release a lot of bad energy.
if more people went to saunas in this country, we'd be a lot better off. trust me.
Posted by darladoon at 03/25/2008 @ 8:26pm
It does an excellent job indirectly of explaining why you cannot compare them with the US (or suggest that we could implement their brand of socialism)
nobody is suggesting we implement "their brand of socialism." we are only trying to point out where tax dollars could go, if we only raised them, and had competent people in charge of the general fund.
and all western, democratic countries are comparable. i didn't claim we are similar, only comparable.
yes, we have an immigration issue which norway doesn't have, but that is why you lay out a comparison.
Posted by darladoon at 03/25/2008 @ 8:30pm
Posted by MASK 03/25/2008 @ 8:13pm
Feel free to bring up any time where I've used opinion polls from another country to provide support for an argument. I know exactly what opinion polls are good for - informing speculation when you lack other concrete data.
It would be one thing if someone that knew a lot about Norway factored this into their larger understanding of the country to offer up their sense of the direction of people's sentiment there. It is quite another to pick a opinion poll out of the hat and use it to forward a critique of socialism.
It would be like me taking a Gallup poll that says 4 in 10 Americans rate the economy as poor and saying that it suggests that capitalism is on its way out. Yet, I don't do such things, because it's stupid.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/25/2008 @ 9:37pm
Let's look at some elements from the Platform of the Socialist Party USA web site. Not the whole thing, just parts of several planks
2008-2009 Platform : International Policy 6. We call for the abolition of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and all other institutions of covert warfare. 7. We stand for unconditional disarmament by the United States. 9. We call for an immediate 50% cut in the military budget, followed by additional cuts, with the aim of rapidly reducing the military budget to less than 10% of its current level, with the "peace dividend" directed to essential social services and to the cost of cleaning up contaminated military sites. 10. We call for the disbanding of NATO and all other aggressive military alliances, and the closing of all overseas bases. 13. We call for a constitutional amendment requiring a binding vote of the people on all issues of war or military intervention. 14. We support the right of soldiers to form unions to represent their views and interests
2008-2009 Platform : Labor 9. We call for the same benefits for part-time workers as for full-time workers. 10. We call for increased health and safety regulation of business, and for increasing the size and enforcement power of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 11. We support the creation of a fund for workers which would pay a worker's full wages and health insurance as well as necessary educational and/or retraining costs if that worker loses a job due to environmental transition, down-sizing, corporate dismantlement, or capital flight. 12. We call for a 30 hour work week at no loss of pay, with six weeks annual paid vacation.
2008-2009 Platform : Economics 2.. We call for worker and community ownership and control of corporations within the framework of a decentralized and democratically determined economic. 3. We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living. 4. We call for a full employment policy. We support the provision of a livable guaranteed annual income. 5. We call for all financial and insurance institutions to be socially owned and operated by a democratically-controlled national banking authority, which should include credit unions, mutual insurance cooperatives, and cooperative state banks. In the meantime, we call for re-regulation of the banking and insurance industries. 6. We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax, and a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum. 10. We demand cancellation of Third World debt. 11. We call for a National Pension Authority to hold the assets of private pension funds, and a levy against corporate assets for any pension fund deficits. 12. We call for increased and expanded welfare assistance and increased and expanded unemployment compensation at 100% of a worker's previous income or the minimum wage, whichever is higher, for the full period of unemployment or re-training, whichever is longer. 13. We support a program of massive federal investment in both urban and rural areas for infrastructure reconstruction and economic development. 14. We support tax benefits for renters equal to those for homeowners.
And there's much more of course. Over what time period do you want to implement all this?
Posted by sntauri at 03/25/2008 @ 10:19pm
sntauri, is your question directed at me? if so, i only agree with some of the platform's positions, not all of them.
Posted by darladoon at 03/26/2008 @ 02:08am
The flogging of 'straw men' and 'straw women' by some bloggers is raising enough dust to obscure the real issues; and come to think of it, this straw evisceration is precisely the tactic employed by national socialist Republicans to obscure their betrayal of our country and its people.
Any proposal to stop the giveaway of our industry is 'protectionism'; just compensation for workers is 'socialism'; preventing poverty with public education and health care is 'redistribution'. Meanwhile, the bankrupting of our nation and the impoverishment of the workers is, somehow, attributable to the 'free market'.
Posted by samcrossett at 03/26/2008 @ 08:07am
Posted by SRJENKINS 03/25/2008 @ 5:59pm | ignore this person
very nice.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/26/2008 @ 08:18am
Freiheit: "But the private sector and investment is the only way to end poverty. Not more government entitlement schemes and hand-outs"
I take it, then, that you would also be against our current corporate nanny state - with it's bail outs, hand outs, interest free loans, etc. After all, fair is fair. It's amazing that the loudest trumpeters of free market are some of the first to run to big government for help.
"...the freedom to choose your healthcare at the best price and convenience to you."
I already have that freedom, here in Canada, and it is (despite propaganda claiming otherwise) downright convenient. I get to choose which Doctor, what type of care, etc. Part of the convenience is knowing that regardless of the need (high or low cost), everyone is entitled. Actually, I never really understood how anyone, especially good capitalists, would not want their workers healthy and productive. That way, more money can be made by all.
"For the obvious reason that "free markets" are good at concentrating money in the hands of the few and don't do certain things well - such as administer justice or provide "national security"." Yeah, or health care, or anything else that involves 'people issues'. You said it yourself.
CanadaKat
Posted by CanadaKat at 03/26/2008 @ 11:07pm
if the capitalistic system is working so well in the united states, then why are we in the midst of a severe recession?
Posted by darladoon at 03/27/2008 @ 12:13am
Looks as if he comments have moved from the specific issue of poverty in the U.S. to the swaths of big philosophies. Nothing wrong per se with the latter, but engaging in it here diminishes the utitlity of gaining some insight into the matter at hand.
The current effectiveness of the various programs like TANF and the EITC ought to be evaluated--some are better than others in making a difference. Politically, the issue of poverty cannot be treated in isolation but rather needs to be a part of a broader movement of change as, I believe, Obama is rightly advocating.
Poverty as a condition and as a political issue is treated for the most part as a personal experience. The Right stresses individual responsibility or the lack of it as a factor. On the other hand, the Left sees the matter sytemically, yet uses the stories of unfortunate individuals to politically argue for righting this tragedy.
Consequently, poverty in the political realm becomes one dimensional: individual choices/laziness on one side versus individual misfortune/tragedy on the other. The issue remains locked in a 'push-pull' forum of special interests.
If the issue becomes a part of an overall movement of different classes, ethnicities and religions, then the narrow view can be transcended and the opportunity to eliminate the usual zero-sum results can be realized.
A practical approach rather than an ideologial debate can then develop in which it becomes more acceptable to question the components of the TANF program or to understand that in the long run a meaningful increase in the minimum wage will benefit all of us.
Posted by alfven at 03/27/2008 @ 12:25am
or to understand that in the long run a meaningful increase in the minimum wage will benefit all of us.---Posted by ALFVEN 03/27/2008 @ 12:25am
Okay, ALF....what IS a "meaningful" increase in the MW? Specifically....a number per hour?
Posted by Mask at 03/27/2008 @ 09:14am
Posted by CANADAKAT 03/26/2008 @ 11:07pm
Just as a point of clarification, Freiheit was quoting me when he said:
"For the obvious reason that "free markets" are good at concentrating money in the hands of the few and don't do certain things well - such as administer justice or provide "national security".
It's easier to ignore the fact that capitalism isn't the answer to every problem, but you know what they say about people that only have a hammer, they think everything is a nail.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/27/2008 @ 11:05am
about a decade ago,the nation's katha pollitt wrote a terrific essay on child poverty in the usa.she keenly noted that nations in europe,with a third of our gdp,do not permit the barbaric rates of child poverty which appear normal to americans.she might well have been refering to norway,when she remarked that you cannot tell the social class of a european kid from casual observation. i don't know how the poll supposedly reflecting norwegian dissatisfaction with the high taxes collected to fund their "socialist utopia,was framed and contextualized,or what "think tank" funded it for that matter.i do know that even in the depths of the great depression,the rightist natl assoc of manufactures published tracts which revealed widespread public dissatisfaction with "new deal socialism' -most of that angst was actually located in the clubhouses of the nation's remaining country clubs. is norway sending emissaries over here to learn how to run their healthcare system for proit?,they must be dying to know,how they too,can jack up their administrative costs to our admirable 30%.what could norwegian housing experts glean from the wisdom of our eminent scholars at hud? how to stand aside and let pirates create a bubble of epic proportions,and go demanding the public dole when the inevitable finally occurs? of course norwegian child welfare advocates are breaking down the doors,to learn from our crack-no pun-crew,how to neglect norwegian kids,till its time to lock 'em up at exponentially higher costs than meeting their legitimate needs would have been.
Posted by David Lucke at 03/27/2008 @ 11:34am
Freiheit mentions wanting "choice" in healthcare. This is something I simply don't understand. When it comes to healthcare, what I want is the healthcare I need, period. And this is exactly what Europe (where I am fortunate to live) provides.
People here have health insurance. Period. The cost is reasonable, regulated by the state. And it covers healthcare. Period. Why would anyone ever prefer the U.S. system, which offers a "choice" of insanely expensive plans that only cover a portion of your healthcare, and allow you to die or go bankrupt if you happen to get the wrong health problem?
Why are so many Americans so afraid of having a healthcare system whose main goal is to provide healthcare? Do average Americans really believe that profits for the healthcare and insurance industries are more important than their own family's health?
Posted by rachelinka at 03/27/2008 @ 1:11pm