Interesting update on toll increase or D*mn them, Part 2

Tom Fahey's column in the New Hampshire Union Leader this morning revealed an interesting part of the new tax increase: The change buckets are going to go. And, guess what will replace them? Yup, 200 new part-time tolltakers. So, let's say, on average that the part-timers make $15,000 per year. That would be another $3 million in expenses. This doesn't include workman's comp expenses or anything else. So, it is safe to estimate that more than 1/5th of the new revenue from the $14 million toll increase will go to new employees, not road repair. What a joke.

The Best Editorials Money Can Buy

Guest Perspective/Ralph Nader

On September 26, 2007, the powerful National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) bought two pages in the Wall Street Journal to tout a prosperous, expanding group of member-companies producing products.

It occurred to me as I began the copy, that the NAM rarely bought expensive space like this in the Journal. Then after going through NAM’s introductory message, I realized why they purchased the ad. Month after month in hundreds of loyal editorials, the Journal’s editorial writers already have been conveying the cravings and demands of this trade association.

The parallels between this revenue-producing two page spread and the Journal’s opinion scribes, in contrast to its often sterling news pages, are the stuff of the corporate state.

The editorials argue for more “clean” coal and nuclear power and emphasize expanding production of U.S. oil and natural gas with a token tip to renewables (with plenty of taxpayer subsidies).

So does the NAM.

NAM wants more so-called “free trade” agreements without recognizing, at the very least, that there can be no “free trade” with dictatorships like China. Dictatorial, oligarchic regimes determine wages, prevent free trade unions, and otherwise through grease and no-rule-of-law or access to justice, obstruct market-based costs and pricing.

So do the Journal’s editorial writers.

In scores of frenzied editorials, the Journal assails tort law, tort attorneys and “unreasonable awards.” Having read just about all these advertiser-friendly diatribes, I have yet to discern any data to back up their flood of declamations about “frivolous” litigation and “wild” awards.

Neither did the NAM produce any evidence about “lawsuit abuse” because the evidence points to declining product defect and malpractice suits, notwithstanding that 90% of these injured people suffer without any legal claims filed on their behalf. (See: http://www.centerjd.org/ and http://www.citizen.org/)

The Journal’s rigid ideologues demand less regulation (read less law and order for corporations) and the weakening of the Sarbanes-Oxley law enacted to modestly deal with part of the corporate crime wave of the past decade.

So does the NAM.

The NAM wants further reduction of the already reduced corporate tax rate and more taxpayer pay-out to corporations, including super-profitable ones like Intel, GE, Cisco and Pfizer. These latter windfalls are called research and development tax credits. How many Americans know that they are paying these and other super-profitable companies more money to make still more profits? Cisco does not even pay dividends.

So also demands the big business echo chamber on the Journal’s editorial pages.

The Journal has been campaigning for years to end the estate tax which is so diluted that less than 2 percent of all estates have to pay anything to Uncle Sam. Conservative Republican wordsmith, Frank Luntz, in a moment of abandon, called lobbying an effort to end “the billionaires tax.”

The NAM wants an end to the estate tax, even though none of its corporate-members ever has to pay an estate tax. For good measure, NAM wants to keep the maximum tax rates on investment income and capital gains at a level half of a worker’s maximum tax rate. Far lower taxes on capital than on labor suits the NAM three-piece-suits just fine.

The Journal is for brain-draining the Third World. Drain those critical doctors, nurses, scientists, engineers, innovators and entrepreneurs from Asia, Africa and South America. Give them permanent visas and then wonder why those countries are having trouble fielding the skilled leaders needed to develop their own economies. It is easier than training talented minority youths in our country.

The NAM ad calls for “reform of the visa system to attract and retain global talent.”

And so it goes. Such a symbiotic relationship! Big business members of NAM pour millions of dollars in ads daily into the Wall Street Journal. In return, the dutiful and gleeful editorial writers deliver the screeds that caress the brows and deepen the pockets of the CEOs.

There is another recurrent message in the insistent materials of NAM and its comrade-in-greed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Enough is never enough.

For over a quarter century, there has been more and more de-regulation (electricity, motor vehicles, coal, drugs, nuclear, occupational safety, pollution, aviation, rail, truck antitrust and more) with detriment to the health, safety and economic well-being of the American people. Still not enough, they say!

In the same period, you the taxpayer have been forced to have your tax dollars pour out of Washington and into the coffers of Big Business in a myriad of ways. Hundreds of billions of your dollars. Not enough, they say! They roar for more coddling.

You want chapter and verse, evidence and data? Get ready to read Free Lunch, a riveting new book by the Pulitzer-prize winning tax reporter for The New York Times, David Cay Johnston. It will be out in about two months. Just in time for your gift-giving season.

Update on NH tolls

Well, my toll bill isn't going up as high as I previously thought. EZPass users will continue to get a 30 percent discount which means that we will essentially be paying what everyone else is paying now. That rate will increase from 52 cents to 70 cents. So, I will see an increase of about $188 not $260. Obviously, this isn't as bad as previously thought. But, that's not really the point. The larger point is that the Legislature needs to control its spending. The money raised from current gas taxes and tolls should all be put towards road improvement costs and not spent on other things.

More tolls in NH?
It isn't just Massachusetts that is considering higher taxes to repair roads. The head of DOT has requested a hike in the tolls on the state's turnpikes: ["Tolls Would Rise 25 Cents Under DOT Plan"]. Great, thanks DOT. You're basically hiking my taxes another $260 per year. Why don't you just use the money you collect now for highway repairs instead of allowing the Legislature to use the money on other things? State tolls and gas taxes should only be used for road repairs. And what repairs are needed on the Everett Turnpike? I ride the thing every day and there is nothing wrong with that road. What is this guy talking about?

Channel 9 News Updates
I'm now subscribed to these pretty cool news updates from Channel 9, WMUR-TV. As many times per day as you like, they will email their news headlines to you. I've picked the 7 a.m., Noon, and 8 p.m. updates. I also receive news updates from the New Hampshire Union Leader and the WSJ.

The view from Capital Commons

A.G. Edwards & Sons, the financial firm with a slew of local offices worldwide, held an open house at their new Concord office on the top floor of the new multi-million dollar Capital Commons office complex. It was an all day affair, complete with munchies, soda and friendly conversation from those who bothered to stop by and check the place out. I took the opportunity to drop in and see my tax dollars at work, since tax increment financing, or TIF, helped fund the $14 million parking garage as well as the property tax waivers, set asides, and bargain basement price for the lot, which were given to the developer to construct the project.
Three quick things on the positive side: The building is beautiful, the views are spectacular [see more pictures and video online at OurConcord.com], and it is great to see the old hole that was there for years finally filled. It is also great to see the new movie theatre coming along.
The bad news? Well, according to the entrance ledger, at least two floors are empty. The restaurant space, a major component of the project, is also empty. The Concord Monitor has a story about the restaurant space here: ["At Commons, eatery still vacant"].

There were rumors that Tio Juan's Margarita's, currently housed on Warren Street in the old city jail, was going to move into the space.
This reportedly irked the owners of Hermano's, another Mexican restaurant. The restaurant has had to bear the brunt of the construction project – dealing with the constant noise, having most of its parking lot consumed by construction equipment, etc. Hermano's has reportedly been barely hanging on, thanks mostly to the loyal clientele who have supported it through the inconvenience. A new Mexican restaurant just a block away would surely be the end of the long-time, local-owned and operated establishment.
When the rumors began flying about Margarita's, it also ticked off taxpayers who were told that they would be getting a new food choice at the location - not an old one that would abandon an already shaky Bicentennial Square. Now they're talking about a food court? We're losing millions in set aside tax revenue for this? Hello, Eagle Square anyone? There used to be this fancy food court with small shops down at the Eagle Square plaza. During the recession of the late 1970s, early 1980s, the federal government pumped millions and millions into reconstructing old buildings like the Eagle Square plaza, in an effort to preserve all the old buildings. Everyone raved about how the project was going to be the salvation of downtown. Well, it wasn't. They did a great job on the construction and it was well-worth the money to preserve the buildings. But in typical Concord fashion, its eyes were bigger than its stomach. The downtown food court/mall concept was a complete disaster. The businesses quickly went under after the Legislative session ended in 1984. The spaces were quickly converted into a historical museum, a law firm, and a cluster of small offices and non-profits. So much for saving the downtown.

Speaking of TIFs for a moment, it is interesting to note that if one were to add up all the lost property tax revenue due to the current TIF bonds which are outstanding, they would find that it comes pretty close to the amount of a budget deficit the city had last year. Gee, I wonder why?
Now, we have the Capital Commons project. Is this all going to turn out like one of those other failed promises of the past? As developer Michael Simchik

said in the Concord Monitor article, it took him 16 months to fill up his last project. With a plummeting real estate and construction market, who knows what will happen now.
We should probably all be patient and hope for the best. But, at the same time, the building might actually have been built too large for its size. It is a disappointment, for example, that the building blocks the gorgeous state Capital building, gateway to the city, while approaching the city from I-93 north. At night, it is unnerving. This is also, as Alan Hershlag noted before the building was constructed, a zoning violation. Scoff, who cares about the zoning laws.
Whatever happens, our community really needs to learn to take those small steps first, instead of always taking the big grand ones. We might find that we will be more financially secure and just as happy.
Here are the video and pictures:

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this post has been corrected.

Making Economic Growth Work Ecologically

Guest Perspective/Roy Morrison

Our hearts tell us what we should do. Prices tell us what we will do.
The principle is clear if we want to make economic growth mean ecological improvement, not ecological destruction. More pollution must mean a decrease in the rate of profit. Less pollution must mean increasing profits.
It’s not hard. We need to tax consumption, not income. Pay taxes on whatever we buy or use. More pollution, more tax. Lower pollution, less tax. Ecological consumption taxes can enlist the invisible hand of Adam Smith in the cause of ecological sustainability.
An average 18 percent ecological value added tax, or E-VAT, can replace all U.S. government taxes on income, fund the federal budget, and get the prices right by raising taxes on more polluting goods and services. The more polluting, the higher the E-VAT tax rate, and the lower the rate of profit.
Helping save the planet and our kids’ futures is to phase out income taxes and the IRS. How painful is that? Just make the E-VAT rate on all goods and services increase with the amount of pollution, depletion, or ecological damage. That is the path to ecological sustainability and peace, instead of climate change and resource wars for oil, water, and fertile high ground.
We can phase in the E-VAT over 10 years as we phase out income taxes. The E-VAT is simple for consumers. You pay a sales tax at the point of purchase. You file no tax forms. You avoid taxes by buying less polluting goods or services with lower tax rates indicated by color codes.
And the E-VAT is simple and largely self-enforcing for businesses. Businesses file only a simple form reporting the tax you collected from your sales and taking credit for the tax you paid your suppliers. You send the difference between what you collected and what you paid to the government. This credit for invoices system means that the value sellers add to their product is only taxed once. The E-VAT could be based, first, on average amounts of pollution, depletion, and ecological damage by S.I.C. code (Standard Industrial Classification) with less polluting items applying for reductions.
The E-VAT is consistent with WTO rules that permit taxes on imports with exemptions for exports. If the U.S. adopted an E-VAT, it would make exporters from China to Germany change their practices.
The E-Vat tax base is final sales to domestic purchasers, more than $13 trillion a year. An 18 percent average E-VAT, with allowances for collection and non-compliance, could replace all personal , corporate, and payroll taxes.
The E-VAT as a tax on all consumption, not simply on pollution, is positively reinforcing. As the market responds to E-VAT rates, highest polluting items would lose market share. To maintain revenues, the tax on moderate polluting items would rise. Over time, this would mean the E-VAT would tend toward a flat tax on most items that were sustainable in impact with high taxes indeed on the few polluting outliers.
The regressive nature of the E-VAT can easily be remedied by a targeted negative income tax. An additional $64.5 billion for a negative income tax would keep federal tax rates flat for the 40 percent of U.S. households with the lowest income. My forthcoming book, "Markets, Democracy & Survival," discusses the E-VAT in detail.
The simple relationship between less pollution and higher profit will lead in short order to a fundamental transformation in the way we do business and make investment and consumption decisions. If polluting goods and services cost more, we just need to be price conscious shoppers and businesspeople. Our ethics and our pocketbooks will be once more aligned.

Roy Morrison is Director of the Office of Sustainability at Southern New Hampshire University.His latest book, "Markets, Democracy & Survival," is forthcoming in 2007. "Markets, Democracy & Survival" available now for download in PDF from: www.RMAenergy.net.

Making Economic Growth Work Ecologically
Guest Perspective/Roy Morrison

Our hearts tell us what we should do. Prices tell us what we will do. The principle is clear if we want to make economic growth mean ecological improvement, not ecological destruction. More pollution must mean a decrease in the rate of profit. Less pollution must mean increasing profits.
It’s not hard. We need to tax consumption, not income. Pay taxes on whatever we buy or use. More pollution, more tax. Lower pollution, less tax. Ecological consumption taxes can enlist the invisible hand of Adam Smith in the cause of ecological sustainability.
An average 18 percent ecological value added tax, or E-VAT, can replace all U.S. government taxes on income, fund the federal budget, and get the prices right by raising taxes on more polluting goods and services. The more polluting, the higher the E-VAT tax rate, and the lower the rate of profit.
Helping save the planet and our kids’ futures is to phase out income taxes and the IRS. How painful is that? Just make the E-VAT rate on all goods and services increase with the amount of pollution, depletion, or ecological damage.
That’s the path to ecological sustainability and peace, instead of climate change and resource wars for oil, water, and fertile high ground.
We can phase in the E-VAT over ten years as we phase out income taxes. The E-VAT is simple for consumers. You pay a sales tax at the point of purchase.
You file no tax forms. You avoid taxes by buying less polluting goods or services with lower tax rates indicated by color codes.
And the E-VAT is simple and largely self-enforcing for businesses. Businesses file only a simple form reporting the tax you collected from your sales and taking credit for the tax you paid your suppliers. You send the difference between what you collected and what you paid to the government. This credit for invoices system means that the value sellers add to their product is only taxed once. The E-VAT could be based, first, on average amounts of pollution, depletion, and ecological damage by S.I.C. code (Standard Industrial Classification) with less polluting items applying for reductions.
The E-VAT is consistent with WTO rules that permit taxes on imports with exemptions for exports. If the U.S. adopted an E-VAT, it would make exporters from China to Germany change their practices.
The E-Vat tax base is final sales to domestic purchasers, more than $13 trillion a year. An 18 percent average E-VAT, with allowances for collection and non-compliance, could replace all personal, corporate, and payroll taxes.
The E-VAT as a tax on all consumption, not simply on pollution, is positively reinforcing. As the market responds to E-VAT rates, highest polluting items would lose market share. To maintain revenues, the tax on moderate polluting items would rise. Over time, this would mean the E-VAT would tend toward a flat tax on most items that were sustainable in impact with high taxes indeed on the few polluting outliers.
The regressive nature of the E-VAT can easily be remedied by a targeted negative income tax. An additional $64.5 billion for a negative income tax would keep federal tax rates flat for the 40 percent of U.S, households with the lowest income. My forthcoming book, "Markets, Democracy & Survival," discusses the E-VAT in detail.
The simple relationship between less pollution and higher profit will lead in short order to a fundamental transformation in the way we do business and make investment and consumption decisions. If polluting goods and services cost more, we just need to be price conscious shoppers and businesspeople. Our ethics and our pocketbooks will be once more aligned.
Roy Morrison is Director of the Office of Sustainability at Southern New Hampshire University. His Web site is RMAenergy.net.

Not too late to get your telephone tax refund

A quick note here before I get back to my two week stint away from the blog. Ralph Nader writes about a telephone tax refund which few people are getting: ["Get Your Telephone Tax Refund: It's Your Money"]. While it only may be $30 to $60, that's better than no dollars. If you're a late filer like I am, don't forget. If you've already filed your taxes and missed it, called the IRS now at 800-829-1040.

Thank goodness New Hampshire has 'the pledge'

By ANTHONY SCHINELLA
Commentary [From the New Hampshire Union Leader]

AS A NATIVE of the Granite State who has lived in states that have income and sales taxes, I've learned to appreciate what some call the New Hampshire Advantage.

Despite a political perspective that would be considered left-of-center by most, I'm glad that many elected officials took "the pledge" in 2006. The long-term health of our state and its quality of life will only be preserved by trying to solve our problems without broadbased taxes.

After spending many years living and working in Massachusetts, I can tell you firsthand that broadbased taxes rarely solve society's ills. At the same time, they can lead to corruption and dishonesty by governments.

For those of you who don't know, here's a bit of Massachusetts history. In 1989, after the state experienced a real estate slide and recession, then-Gov. Michael Dukakis and the Democratically controlled Legislature raised the state income tax from 5 to 6.25 percent and promised that after the economy improved, the tax would return to 5 percent.

In just a few years, the economy did improve, as expected. But instead of rolling back the income tax, Republican governors, with the assistance of Democrats in the Legislature, lowered taxes and fees on just about everyone but the individual.

Democrats in the Legislature were the worst, awarding anyone and their lobbyist targeted tax cuts while the rest of us got nailed with the higher income tax rate year after year. It was so bad that the voters had to pass a lobbying reform and disclosure bill via initiative petition.

Fidelity Investments, for example, screamed poverty while reaping millions in profits and landed a huge tax break. Then, the company moved thousands of jobs to Rhode Island. Raytheon was able to create a break for itself and then proceeded to layoff thousands of workers, despite record profits. Another loophole, which still exists, allowed banks like Citizens and Fleet to pay as little as $456 annually in state income tax while residents barely surviving on $20,000 a year paid more.

At the same time all this was going on, the state budget doubled. In 1998, a citizens group attempted to roll back the income tax rate via initiative petition. The campaign slogan was "Keep the Promise" and every interest group under the sun did all they could to thwart the effort. After two tries and a slew of lawsuits, the question was finally put on the ballot in 2000 and it passed overwhelming by more than 19 percent.

But legislators scoffed at the will of the people. The Massachusetts state income tax was lowered over the years, but it was never returned to 5 percent, as promised.

You would think that after doubling the budget all of Massachusetts' problems would be solved. Well, anyone who watches Boston-based television news these days knows the problems weren't solved: The schools still aren't good enough, there are still people who are hungry and homeless, many remain unemployed or underemployed, and residents continue to flee the state in droves. In the last decade, according to MassINC, a non-partisan think tank, more than 110,000 people have moved out of Massachusetts. Many of them moved here or to Florida where taxes are lower.

While New Hampshire is not Massachusetts, we can learn a lot from the mistakes our neighbor to the south has made. We can also preserve the reason many people move here (or move back here).

One thing I would like to see attempted is zero-sum budgeting. Essentially, every budget cycle, the state should start at zero and work its way up to what was collected the budget before. We might be surprised that we can actually live within our means without these taxes. It is worth a try.

While we are trying to be thoughtful about solving our state's problems, we need to be wary about assumptions made from election results or "discussions" about tax reform that are fronted by activists who have repeatedly thrust broadbased taxes into the political arena. Seldom do these types of discussions lead to anything but the conclusion at which the group wants to arrive.

No matter what anyone says, November's election results had nothing to do with ending "the pledge" and implementing a sales or income tax. The results, however, had everything to do with getting government to use the resources it already has more efficiently and wisely.

Anthony Schinella is the station manager of WKXL 1450 in Concord. He also writes for Politizine, a blog about politics, music, and modern times, at www.politizine.blogspot.com.

Catching up on things, Part 2

Well, this is part two of Catching up on things since that is what I've been trying to do. Plus, a few new things too.

Headlines
Well, here are some headlines I've found pretty interesting in the last few days. And, my Wall Street Journal finally started its subscription after almost two months waiting for the damn thing! I have the interactive site working. But I prefer to read the newspaper in my hands and not online, even if that is the wave of the future.

First, Sen. John Sununu and Sen. John Kerry may be in a little bind in the next year: ["Approval Rankings for all 100 Senators]. Look at those approval ratings. Yikes! And both are up for reelection in 2008.

Kerry is probably safe but you can see how he might not be. There is uncertainty there. Look at previous polling numbers from the state, like in 2003 when Howard Dean polled higher than Kerry twice before the 2004 primary cycle. Also, Kerry did have at least one tight race, against then-Gov. Bill Weld in 1996, with a Conservative Party candidate shaving off some support.
You could see a multi-level scenario where Kerry might have a problem getting reelected: 1) A well-funded, union-supported Democratic challenger could give him a run for his money in a primary and beat the daylights out of him; and 2) Some combination of a well-financed, popular liberal Republican was on the ballot with a well-financed and aggressive Green-Rainbow Party candidate, in the wake of the primary battle.
OK, "a well-financed Green-Rainbow candidate" is an oxymoron. But Grace Ross became very popular at the end of gubernatorial race in 2006 and both Dr. Jill Stein and James O'Keefe scored impressive numbers, granted, running against Democrats who didn't have any GOP challengers. Again, it would be a really long-shot for this to come together but you never know. In addition, I don't know if a primary challenge to Kerry would even get on the ballot since there is a 15 percent delegate threshold. It would depend on how early the candidate started and whether or not that candidate could firm up the support.
As we've seen, Kerry's support is fickle at best. He is aloof, out-of-touch, and hasn't passed any significant legislation in his years in the Senate. Although, he always manages to pull it off in the end and there is something to be said for that.

Sununu is a different story especially in the wake of the results of the mid-term elections where no one expected Carol Shea Porter to do anything in District 1 and she cleaned Rep. Jeb Bradley's clock. Again, a well-financed, aggressive, and popular Democrat would have to be on the ballot to challenge Sununu, whose name is a legacy in some ways in this state. Although with the dynamic trends of population shifts in New Hampshire, who knows whether that all matters any more.
Gov. John Lynch has already ruled himself out of that one. There have been some rumors that former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen might end her job at Harvard's JFK School and try again. But that 2002 race was a bloodbath and Dems can't use that GOTV phone-jamming scandal as a reason why they lost that one. They lost it because Shaheen was suffocating her own base - like claiming to be for higher defense spending on radio spots which aired on Seacoast radio stations. Who thought of that one?

Second, Sen Russ Feingold has decided not to run for president: ["Feingold rules out 2008 run for president"]. This is terribly disappointing. Sen. Feingold was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. He was one of the only ones considering a run who voted against invading Iraq. It isn't good enough to say some of the things that Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Hillary Clinton have been saying to cover their asses on their invasion votes or their Patriot Act votes. I'm sorry. If the regular folks of America knew that these votes were unConstitutional and unneeded, then they did too and just ignored the facts.

Next, daddy Bush gets shellacked by Arabs in what he thought was going to be a soft crowd: ["Pop rocked by criticism of W, U.S.A. "]. I'm surprised that guy didn't get his tongue cut out! Oh, that's right, we don't run the world ... yet.

The Boston Phoenix recently turned 40 and put together this Web site in celebration of the milestone: ["40th"]. There are some pretty cool articles in there, which, obviously, I never got a chance to see because I only started reading the paper in the early 1980s.

Have sex on a plane? You're a terrorist!: ["Mid-flight sexual play lands US couple afoul of anti-terrorism law"]. Obviously, they were being stupid. But come on. Does Homeland Security really have to be called for a bit of nookie?

More stupid stuff from that hack Robert Rubin: ["Rubin's Tax Gambit"]. When will the Clintonistas learn? When will they go away? The government doesn't need more money - it needs to spend what it has more wisely. And, if it does need more money, then it needs to get it by ending corporate welfare, subsidies, and giveaways and stop taking money from us working stiffs.

Rehash, rehash, rehash. Do we really wonder why the music industry is in such dire straits? Could it be rehashing the same old thing every year?: ["An Oldies Christmas"]. I am, though, intrigued by the Beatles compilation especially since they have been using pieces from one song, and splicing and mixing them into another. Interesting, indeed.

I meant to post this months ago but spaced. When I was looking for other folks who had been banned from the Daily Kos site, I found this blog entry from another person who was also participating in the site during its early days: ["Payola at DailyKos?"].

Here is another old post which has been sitting the saved bin for awhile: ["Media ownership study ordered destroyed"]. While this is a couple of months old, it points out a number of problems with the commissioners currently running the FCC. And, in the wake of the Clear Channel sell-off in Northern New England and the problems over at Nassau Broadcasting, one has to wonder why anyone would try to squelch this stuff.
The impending change in the Senate and Congress, however, should make things a tad better - or, at least not any worse. Although, I don't know, since it was Clinton and the Republicans who got the Telecom Bill passed in the first place which created this mess. Before the election, I started working on a post about the need for the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine, which I never finished. I hope to finish it soon though.

Another old post I've been meaning to put up is this one: ["Longtime Rock Critic, Christgau, axed at 'Village Voice' in Latest Layoffs"]. This is sad. When I lived in NYC and later, when I moved to Boston, I would pick up the Voice religiously just to read the guy's reviews. After reading this piece, I did a Google on "I f*cked Christgau with my AIDS-inflicted dick," which was the name of a song put out by Sonic Youth - or some other downtown art band of the early 1980s, I'm getting so old - which was put together after the band received a bad review from the guy. Imagine being immortalized like that! Christgau has his own site here: ["Robert Christgau"].

Probably the most powerful political ad of the 2006 election cycle: ["Body Armor"].

Can she get sworn in first?
I can't believe the 2008 Congressional elections are already starting: ["Shea-Porter: Republicans are already campaigning"]. And Bradley, what the heck is he thinking? He gets swamped and he actually thinks he has a second chance? Unless Shea Porter really, really screws up, he doesn't stand a chance, especially in a presidential election year with New Hampshire shifting and becoming a slightly more liberal state with each year. And I don't think being concerned about Katrina victims is going to cost her the Congressional seat. We are all still concerned about Katrina victims and we should be.

Catching up on things, Part 1

I do want to thank all the new visitors the site has been getting of late. I hope you are enjoying what you see here. I will also be reposting some of the side columns which were taken down while I tweaked the design and layout of the site. These were taken down because Blogger has added a ton of new features which make the entire process a lot easier.

Press releases
One of the neat things about working in the news business is the press release. In some ways, press releases are a nag; the people who send them, usually paid press relation reps., can be difficult. Some, can be very cool. But the information you get in a press release - barring political ones, which can often be biased or manipulated - are pretty interesting. If you don't have a ton of time, and you get your news from briefs, there is a good chance it came from a press release. In addition, press releases can serve as a good source of helping a reporter to get to a story which is important to readers.
Here are a couple of I have gotten recently which I thought were interesting but which weren't really relevant to a local radio station.
This first is from the group known as Consumers for Cable Choice. They are essentially trying to break open the cable monopoly. The flack sent out a quick release - late, albeit - trying to get people to look at the cost of cable in a new light. Thanksgiving dinner this year will cost American families a little under $37, which is up a bit from last year. "Too bad for American consumers that the cost of watching the big parade and games on television will cost significantly more than that," the release notes.
The release goes on to say that according to the FCC, from "Report on Cable Industry Prices" from Feb. 2005, cable rates rose 86 percent between 1994 and 2004, with all the major cable companies raising rates in 2006 and Comcast, my cable company, announcing another 6 percent increase in January 2007.
But compare this with other services which are becoming modern necessities, during the same time period: The average cell phone bill has decrease by almost 6 percent over that time, with three times as many people owning cell phones; long distance rates have dropped 50 percent; PCs have dropped 78 percent; electricity has dropped 6 percent [Sidebar: I wonder about the electricity rates. Maybe these are national rates but I can tell you that per kwh, I'm playing more than I was in 2004, never mind 1994!]
Here is another one from a representative of Experian entitled "Consumer Borrowing Trends Released As Holiday Shopping Kicks Off." It should have been called "Borrowers in trouble as the holiday approach."
Since 2001, according to the release, "there has been a near 17 percent decline in the rate at which consumers are opening new credit accounts, and a near 13 percent increase in the rate of late payments. The study also revealed a 7-point decline in the national average credit score from 2001 (682) to 2006 (675)."
Now, the bad news is pretty clear - people are having problems paying their bills and it is effecting credit reports. The net positive is that with fewer cards being opened, there is less debt, although that probably comes from problems with current debt.
But here are some other problems: During the same time period, auto loans are down 17.5 percent ... that's not so good for the auto industry which is already hurting; Installment loans are down 15.6 percent ... this could be a positive or negative though, as more people could be paying off their loans or budgeting better as to not have to take out installment loans; Nationwide, the percentage of consumers late on their installment loan payments in the last 90 days increased by 15.5 percent ... again, missing payments on installment loans is kind of the point before bankruptcy; and lastly, what should be considered positive news, late payments on car loans and credit cards have declined by 4.1 and 11.9 percent, respectively.
Here is an opinion piece from Mother Jones I finished reading the other day, granted, written before the election, but which outlines some of the issues about the lack of a war dividend: ["The Firing Line"].
These statistics shouldn't be that surprising but they are if you consider that millions of people think the economy is great. As the political slogan goes, are you better off than you were four years ago, or eight, or 12? Maybe, maybe not. But is it better for everyone else? Clearly not. Those less fortunate are falling through the cracks during a modern time where everyone is expected to not only keep up with the Jones but to surpass them. Some of those things can be controlled by subduing desire and teaching our children what is worth valuing. But that is work on top of the work a person is already performing to survive. Life isn't easy, as the saying goes, but life is good.

Taxes
In keeping with the theme of press releases, I did want to post this one by the people who organized the recent gubernatorial campaign of Rep. Jim Coburn, the GOP's sacrificial lamb, who ran against popular Democratic Gov. John Lynch this year.
They have formed the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition, a PAC which serves "as watchdog protectors of New Hampshire’s low tax and less spending traditions." This is a smart move by Heath & Company. Democrats promised to keep things in check, with many campaigning and promising that there won't be a sales or income tax passed in New Hampshire, while at the same time, some of my liberal friends claiming that sweeping victories by Democrats means that it is time to throw out "the pledge" [For those of you that don't know, the pledge is a commitment to not implement a sales or income tax in New Hampshire].
I'm afraid that I'm with conservatives on the issue of the pledge. I've seen first-hand, living in Massachusetts for many years, how income and sales taxes, with little oversight, can lead to wasteful spending and no solution to the nagging problems of society.
The 2006 election wasn't about more taxes and more spending - it was, however, about oversight, accountability, and prioritizing our taxes and spending. It was a solid vote against badly planned wars, with no end, which are ripping our nation apart. It was a solid vote against spending hundreds of billions of dollars turning the deserts of Iraq into glass. That is what the vote was about and anyone who can't see that will unfortunately risks the return of swing voters sending Republicans back into power. Don't screw it up, Democrats!
Back to the Coalition for a second, it is made up of former Superior Court judge and U.S. Rep. Chuck Douglas, who can be thanked endlessly for spearheading a ballot question to protect New Hampshire citizens from the U.S. Supreme Court's eminent domain ruling, Coburn, Tom Thompson, the son of former conservative icon Gov. Meldrim Thompson, and State Rep. Pam Manney of Goffstown.
One cheap shot side note though, which is important to state: Heath's group, Meridian Communications, didn't do the best job spending Coburn's money, IMHO.
During one campaign press release, Meridian announced the launch of some radio spots for the campaign. The ads were aired on a few stations and it wasn't a bad run of spots. But, the airing of spots on a well-known Top 40 station with high ratings in youth numbers was a waste of money. Young people don't vote in high numbers in New Hampshire. Compare their audience with that of smaller AM stations with less expensive ad rates and adult numbers - i.e., people who actually vote - and it is clear that Coburn's media buyers were throwing some of his money out the window. While I have no love lost of Coburn losing - like many others I think Gov. Lynch is doing a good job - I hate to see political parties unable to compete for the hearts and minds of voters.

A Sustainable Energy Strategy: It's Time
Guest Perspective/Roy Morrison

The earth is getting hotter. Arctic ice and permafrost are melting. In New Hampshire, my neighbors are still harvesting tomatoes in October. It's time to act.
But there's good news. We can slash greenhouse gas emissions while eliminating dependence on oil imports and building sustainable prosperity.
This isn't pie in the sky. It's the law in California mandating greenhouse gas cuts of 25 percent by 2020. It's detailed nationally by the Sustainable Energy Network in a blueprint for efficiency and renewables.
We don't need new inventions. A National Renewable Energy Laboratory draft report finds that renewables could meet 99 percent of U.S. electricity needs by 2020. We don't need to break the bank. And we can't depend on a deal with the nuclear power devil to save us.
Electricity is 19 percent of world energy use. Nukes contribute just 3 percent. Even doubling or tripling the number of nukes, at great expense per pound carbon saved, will only be of modest help.
Today, a nuclear plant's fuel cycle (mining, milling, enrichment, et. al.) produces about a third of the net carbon dioxide of a natural gas plant. But the world is rapidly running short of high-grade uranium ore. Low grade ore processing can release more net carbon than it saves. The available alternative for a high grade uranium shortage is reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to launch a global trade in plutonium.

Choices

We need to cut rampant energy waste and take advantage of efficiency measures and plentiful renewable resources.
It's not heavy lifting to double auto mileage per gallon over the next decade, or to reduce oil and coal consumption 1 percent a year.
Conventional electric plants waste two-thirds of their energy. Instead, home based cogeneration systems (to be sold by Keyspan) are 90 percent efficient, producing electricity and space heat. Existing power plants, like the Bow N.H. coal plant, should pipe heat to Concord for district heating instead of dumping it into the Merrimack River.
Oil, coal, and nukes remain "cheap" because they do not have to charge their true costs. We have pollution belching coal plants because the producers can shift costs to people downwind or to future generations. We pay for Middle East resource wars in blood and in treasure, but not at the gas pump. We endlessly subsidize nuclear plants and their waste.

The Path toward Sustainability

Our hearts tell us what we should do. Market prices tell us what we will do.
The challenge of the 21st century is to make prices reflect what we know is right.
The single most important step to help assure sustainable prosperity is to use ecological consumption taxes to make polluters and green house gas emitters charge their true costs.
By replacing income taxes with ecological consumption taxes, the market will send clear price signals. What's unsustainable will cost more. What's sustainable will cost less. Entrepreneurs and customers responding to price will quickly move emissions toward the sustainable.
Al Gore has proposed a carbon tax to replace payroll taxes.
My preferred alternative is stronger medicine. An ecological value added tax, or E-VAT, could replace all income taxes with consumption tax paid at the point of sale for all goods and services.
The E-VAT is a smart sales tax that avoids double taxation for businesses.
The more polluting, the higher the E-VAT tax rate. Phased in over 10 years, the E-VAT would replace all income taxes.
An average 18 percent E-VAT could finance the federal budget. There'd be no IRS and just a one page E-VAT tax form for businesses.
Get rid of greenhouse gases and the IRS. Ecological taxation is a good deal for America.
Roy Morrison's Democracy, Markets and Survival on ecological taxes will be published in 2006. He is a energy consultant working on wind hedges and smart metering.

Another Inconvenient Truth
Guest perspective/Roy Morrison
As Al Gore's global warming call to action flickers on the screens of America's multiplexes, we must face another inconvenient truth.
We need to confront the really bad climate change news behind China's economic boom built on dirty coal.
And we also need to grasp the available market based solution to the global warming and sustainability crisis, one that can curb China's and our own poisonous habits.
In the last two years, China has put on line a phenomenal 90,000 megawatts of carbon dioxide belching coal fired electric plants. That's equal to the total British installed electric capacity.
China now burns more coal than the U.S. (2.73 to 2.10 billion tons/year), and by 2025, if the breaks aren't applied, Chinese coal consumption will be 40 percent of the world's total.
The U.S. position as global carbon dioxide king will soon be threatened by Chinese dirty coal powered industrialization. The U.S. will nevertheless remain safely in the lead as oil consumer and carbon emitter to power our ever-expanding motor vehicle fleet - unless we change.
While the West talks about clean coal technologies to make low carbon gaseous and liquid fuels, the Chinese plants are smoke and sulfur belchers using second hand equipment and obsolete technology.
The Kyoto treaty thoughtfully exempted China and the rest of the developing world from greenhouse gas reductions in the name of pollution equity.
Unless the Chinese (and Americans) conduct is fundamentally changed, we likely have no chance of stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at 500 parts per million (ppm) or less by mid century (370 ppm today and rising ). And, of course, 500 ppm may already be way too high an amount of carbon for our liking.
So, what's a concerned movie goer and citizen to do?
Technologically, we have the means, if not the will or the proper price signals, to vastly improve energy efficiency, cover the plains and the coasts with wind turbines, the deserts and our roofs with solar cells, drive ultra light hybrids fueled with ethanol and biodiesel, use clean coal technologies, bubble power plant carbon dioxide through enormous biodiesel algae ponds. The solution to global warming is not simply to appeal to Chinese (or our own) long term best interests to stop pollution before it's too late. As long as pollution is "free," the price for sustainability remains too expensive.
The key is to make what's polluting, depleting, and ecologically damaging more expensive than sustainable alternatives. The means replacing income taxes with ecological consumption taxes and enlisting the market price mechanism and business acumen in service to sustainability.
We can swiftly help domesticate the Chinese dragon by getting our own house in order through ecological consumption taxes, in particular, an ecological value add tax, or VAT, a kind of smart sales tax on all goods and services.
The more polluting, the higher the ecological VAT rates.
What's more polluting will cost more. What's sustainable will cost less. Buy cheap, save the planet can be the new watchword.
And, most importantly, these ecological consumption taxes are consistent with World Trades Organization (WTO) rules. They can be levied on all imports--Chinese imports for instance --to level the economic playing field.
If the industrial world led by the U.S., the biggest consumer, adopts ecological taxes, the Chinese and the other exporting Asian Tigers will be forced to follow and substantially clean up their act or be forced from our markets.
The market and ecological taxation is an available and potent means to transform our own, and Chinese conduct, from the path of ecological self-destruction to that of sustainability and prosperity. It's time.
Roy Morrison is an energy consultant (http://www.rmaenergy.net) and writer. His latest book is "Eco Civilization 2140."

Tax, Don't Trade Pollution
Guest Perspective/Roy Morrison

The Pittsburgh Steelers in the NFL playoffs against the Cinncinati Bengals called their trick play Fake 38 Direct Throwback. My son Sam and I call ours Chicago Lateral 2 Yellow. There's a pitch to the end who throws a lateral across the field to the quarterback who fires to the streaking end. TD.
Sometimes there's a correspondence between your backyard and the bigs, pro football or sandlot, an e-mail across town or to a friend's son serving in Iraq.
Then there are things that just aren't quite right.
A brand new pickup from Public Service Company pulls up to read the meter. If I can send e-mail and data around the world, why can't my electric meter be another smart control node of a 21st century network?
And I drive into Concord on I-89 while a huge plume of sulfurous smoke pours from the Public Service Company coal fired power plant in Bow and a brown mist heads south toward Manchester along the Merrimack River. Why are we told that the coal burned in Bow meets all environmental regulations and is a money-saving bargain as if its toxic mercury and particulate emissions and climate changing carbon dioxide are without costs?
For us to be both prosperous and healthy in the 21st century, we must get the prices right. It's time to let our market system work. It's time for poison power to charge its true costs and not have the rest of us be forced to pay its way.
By taxing polluters from the first gram of toxins and harmful emissions, we would decisively help put sustainable power on a fair and even footing with poison power. The market, not regulators, if we get the prices right, can take care of much of the pollution problem not just at Bow's Merrimack Station, but with sustainability in general.
The current regulatory system that allows a set amount of pollution without charge is fundamentally flawed. To permit "free" pollution is to pollute not only the air and water, but also the marketplace.
Poison is regulated only on the margin. Polluters only pay for exceeding their free poison allowance.
This is the basic problem behind the admirable Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative pollution cap and trade system adopted by Northeast Governors attempting to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that drive global climatic change. The governors are to be applauded for their initiative in the face of Bush administration intransigence.
Slashing carbon dioxide emissions is essential. But the modest RGGI plan, which will most strongly impact coal plants such as Merrimack Station, is already running into trouble. Massachusetts and Rhode Island have pulled out.
Some businesses worry about further increases in electric rates in a year where electric prices have soared after Hurricane Katrina. Public Service Company and other powerful polluters who want to keep operating coal plants as a "bargain" for ratepayers are less than enthusiastic.
Pollution taxes, not the sale of artificial pollution allowances ultimately are the way to solve our problems. Environmentally, if we had State sales taxes on emissions from electricity from the first gram, we would help the market send signals for sustainability. The more polluting the power, the higher the price. Buy cheap. Save the planet.
Economically, the income from the pollution taxes should all be recycled as rebates or efficiency retrofit grants to businesses and to low income people. The tax would help our businesses be competitive, protect the health of our kids, help low-income people to pay their bills, and advance prosperity and sustainability.
Pollution taxes are the way forward.
This is the concept. Next, I'll provide details.

Roy Morrison is an energy consultant and writer. His next book, forthcoming, is Eco-Civilization 2140. His Web site is www.rmaenergy.net.

Kennedy gets the budget crisis right

Speaking of Dan Kennedy, he gets the answers to the budget crisis dead on in his Media Log entry this morning:

Since the legislators lack both guts and brains, they're almost certain to go along, notwithstanding their plaintive cry to Romney to explain what he's got in mind. But they shouldn't. Here's what they ought to do: Borrow the $600 million needed to get through the rest of the fiscal year without any further cuts.
Reform the state tax system. That means going ahead with the voter-approved mandate to return the state income tax to five percent, but rethinking and possibly repealing the $3 billion to $4 billion in tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy that were passed during the 1990s. That's where the money is. Here's a good place to start: reversing the special-interest tax break that Fidelity got in the mid-'90s. Wonder what former Fidelity executive Robert Pozen -- currently receiving all kinds of praise for serving in the Romney administration without pay -- would think about that? Go after the hackerama head-on. Today's Herald reports that MDC commissioner David Balfour continues to run amok, and that virtually the first act of Tim for Treasurer was to reward one of Tom Finneran's coat-holders with the six-figure job of "running" the Lottery. Ugh.

It really is that simple.

Contenders scramble: But which Democrat can lead the nation?

In recent weeks, a cornucopia of Democratic candidates have announced plans to run for the highest office in the land. Seizing on issues such as the weak economy and a president who is completely distracted with "regime changes" and the globalist desires of his warlords and campaign contributors, the Democrats are thinking, "Why not me?"
Fresh in the minds of all of these candidates is the 1992 election.
In early 1991, President George H. W. Bush was riding high in the polls after "liberating" Kuwait during the first Gulf War. At the time, the only Democrat who was thinking about challenging the president was former Mass. Sen. Paul Tsongas. All the other "heavy hitters," like Sen. Al Gore and Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, didn’t think Bush was beatable and sat out the primaries. Eventually, Bush’s numbers crashed after the economy continued to slide and the Democratically-controlled Congress tricked him into breaking his “No new taxes” pledge. Everyone knows the end result: Bush was clobbered, with the help of Ross Perot, and a glad-handing, sex-crazed governor from Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton, played Fleetwood Mac songs and pied-pipered right into the White House.
But of all the candidates who have announced that they are running [or at least forming exploratory committees to raise and spend money to flirt with the idea] which can actually turn the economy around? Should Democrats take advantage of the 54 weeks before the first primary to find out what these candidates stand for and what they plan on doing differently than Bush or past candidates? As well, will the populist-progressive wing of the Democratic Party be told – once again – to cast aside their values in favor of a candidate who is more conservative or viable?
Thankfully, Issues2002.org, a Cambridge-based Web site, and Vote-Smart.org have compiled scads of information on almost all of the nation’s elected officials. The Issues2002.org site uses a "VoteMatch" chart – similar to the little card libertarians hand out to assist voters in analyzing their political affiliations. Vote-Smart has downloadable PDF files of voting records.
The announced candidates, alphabetically, are Sen. Tom Daschle, SD, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. John Edwards, NC, Rep. Dick Gephardt, Sen. John Kerry, MA, Sen. Joe Lieberman, CT and the Rev. Al Sharpton. Other candidates will probably come forward in the future. For now, this is what the Dems have to choose from. Not surprisingly, most of them score in the "moderate liberal" category according to VoteMatch. But a closer examination of voting records and positions reveal that some are very closely aligned with Republican President George W. Bush – bleak results for voters hoping for a progressive-populist candidate.
In the last few election cycles, decisions on international trade treaties have been controversial. The passage of NAFTA in 1993 and later, GATT and the World Trade Organization [WTO] in 1994, put forward by Clinton – with the help of Republicans – have led to millions of American jobs being shipped to Mexico and China, decimating many unions who have historically supported Democrats. These treaties have also devastated the manufacturing sector – a part of the economy relied on when economic times turn sour. Unfortunately for many Americans, that factory job down the street that a person could raise a family on has been replaced by that retail job [or two] that no one will ever be able to raise a family on. Another negative result of the trade deals is the loss of tariff tax revenue, which less than 90 years ago, once paid for the entire federal government.
But, if Democrats are looking for a candidate who is the champion of “fair trade” issues, their choices are slim.
Daschle, Kerry, and Lieberman have all been champions of the failed free trade cult, voting for NAFTA, GATT, and Fast Track authority to Bush and Clinton – usurping their own Constitutional authority as senators to negotiate trade deals. They all supported Permanent Most Favored Nation Trade Status [PMFN] for China, a repressive dictatorial regime that, frankly, should be on Bush’s list for “regime change” but will never be because of the cheap goods flooding our markets. Edwards, who was elected in 1998, didn’t have the opportunity to vote on NAFTA or GATT. But he did support PMFN for China. CNN suggested this vote could help differentiate Edwards from the other candidates in a move to the center, even though they all supported this vote. Gephardt, to his credit, is the best Washington-based candidate on trade. Gephardt voted against PMFN, against giving Bush and Clinton fast track, and rebuked NAFTA, assisting in organizing the opposition although according to John MacArthur’s book, "The Selling of 'Free Trade,'" did not fight as hard as he could have while the Democrats controlled the Congress. But like the others, Gephardt supported GATT. Since Dean is a governor, he did not vote on any of these treaties but he seems to understand the importance of the issues. During a September interview with the Texas Triangle, Dean said he leaned “towards the notion of fair trade,” but then added, “Free trade is good, but it has to be accompanied by environmental standards and labor standards in order to be fair trade. And if we don’t have that, free trade is probably going to hurt us more than it will help us in the long run.” On his Web site, Dean said, “Unfortunately, our free trade policies have also had the effect of hollowing out our industrial capacity, and most worrisome, undermining our own middle class.” Sharpton has been a long time critic of the trade deals and has seen first hand the damage the agreements have done to both urban and rural minority communities. Many of the factory jobs that fled across the border were filled by minorities who quickly found themselves in unemployment lines. In an exchange on FoxNews on Nov. 7, host Bill O’Reilly accused Sharpton of trying to move the Democrats to the left, Sharpton countered by saying, "I want to move [the Democrats] to the center. I think pro big business, pro NAFTA, pro GATT, pro what they’ve done to this country is not the center. That’s to the right,” according to transcripts published on the FoxNews Web site.
As Americans struggle to balance their own books, some have looked to the government for assistance, either through extended unemployment benefits, tax breaks, bankruptcy law revisions, minimum wage increases, or welfare benefits.
But Washington Democrats haven’t always been helpful on these issues. Senators and Reps. headed home for the holidays without extending unemployment benefits and almost 800,000 people didn’t receive a check last week. Elected officials say they will work on the issue in the next legislative session but that remains to be seen since both parties are divided on how best to remedy economic problems.
On taxes, the democrats running do differ with the administration with all of them voting against Bush’s $1.3 trillion tax cut and the elimination of estate taxes. And, at the same time, each have promoted their own specialized plans for tax breaks, including payroll tax cuts and "middle class" tax cuts.
However, when it comes to bankruptcy laws, surprisingly, many of the announced Democrats preferred to support the banking industry – that regularly floods the economy with easy credit at astronomical rates – over people who need relief from the debts. Daschle, Edwards, and Lieberman voted for stricter filing rules which would basically keep people eternally in debt to the credit card industry without any regulation on how that industry performs its business. Kerry was one of a handful of senators who voted against the measure. Gephardt has no record on the matter, according to Vote-Smart. Dean also has no information available on the issue. But Sharpton aggressively campaigned against the issue, noting that a rider was put into the Senate version of the bill would allow police to search homes without a warrant.
Admittedly, supporters of Clinton’s 1995 welfare reform bill say it has had mixed results. Some say it is because the program is laxly administered. Others say, the economic downturn has pushed many former welfare recipients from the jobs they were filling [at the same time jobs low-skill, decent-wage work was being sent overseas]. But to rank-and-file Dems, welfare reform is considered one of the most disgraceful things promoted by Clinton. But he wasn’t alone. Daschle, Kerry, and Lieberman, all voted for welfare reform while doing nothing to rein in billions spent on corporate welfare and subsidies, International Monetary Fund spending, or foreign aid. Edwards, who was not in office in 1995, has no record on the issue. Dean, as well, was unable to vote on the federal legislation, but did testify before the Senate Finance Committee in favor of continuation of the law, according to a National Governors Association press release. But in implementing the law in Vermont, Dean guaranteed that health care, child care, transportation and job training were provided to people in the program, according to a profile in the Columbia University Record. Sharpton has always been against welfare reform, saying in a piece from Delaware Online, "When they [white politicians] talk about their welfare reform plans, they are talking about theory. When I talk about welfare reform, I'm talking about something I lived. I know the humiliation of having to go down and stand in line to get the welfare cheese and the welfare peanut butter."
On wage issues, the democrats again are pretty good. Gephardt has always promoted "a living wage" although he has not specified what it should be and all the senators running voted “no” to killing an increase in the minimum wage. Sharpton’s National Action Network has been active in the living wage cause and Dean has a very good voting record with the local AFL-CIO.
In stepping away from the economic issues, liberal democrats will also be a little bewildered at what they will find. On almost all the issues surrounding the war on terrorism, whether the fascistic USA PATRIOT Act, the wasteful Star Wars program, or the Iraq war resolution, Democrats have been lockstep with the president.
Daschle, Edwards, Kerry, and Lieberman all approved the USA PATRIOT Act and two other bills which gave sweeping wiretapping authorities to law enforcement officials. They also all voted for expanded military spending, Star Wars, and for the president’s Iraq war resolution. Kerry did vote against Star Wars in 1998, but flipped and supported the program in 1999. Gephardt also voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. While Dean and Sharpton have not voted on military or terrorism issues, they have taken political positions. Dean, trying to have it both ways, told the Iowa City Press-Citizen on Sept. 24 that “he would endorse a pre-emptive strike against Iraq if it can be proven that Saddam Hussein has access to weapons of mass destruction and the means to discharge them,” but later told the Boston Globe he was against pre-emptive strikes, and has since been touted by liberals as the peace candidate. Sharpton, on the other hand, has been actively involved in the anti-impending war movement, speaking at rallies in NYC and DC. Sharpton has also had a long history of bouts with the military industrial complex, including protesting the Navy’s test bombing in Puerto Rico which landed him in prison for a short stint.
Wildcards: While most of the issues here are Washington-based, or the results of voting records, there are a few wildcards in this emerging campaign that need to be considered.
The first is Sharpton himself. While the "experts" will write-off any chance at the nomination, his power during the primary process cannot be rebuked. South Carolina, the third primary state, is a heavy minority state and if he spends enough time there – with a crowded field – he could win. [Barring any attempts by Donna Brazile to siphon votes from Sharpton with minority “favorite son” candidates, as she has already threatened to do.] There will also be other primaries in which he can compete including New York, Georgia, and Florida. As well, if he tears a sheet out of the Jesse Jackson 1988, Jerry Brown 1992, Pat Buchanan 1996 campaign playbooks, and campaigns on a populist theme about working class issues, he could become a powerful force in Iowa and NH. People forget that Buchanan won NH in 1996 with about 23 percent of the vote in a crowded field by hammering away at the globalists in Congress sending jobs to Mexico. There is still a receptive audience to these issues, years later, if a candidate focuses on them. If Sharpton comes in fourth or better in either contest, he could survive to South Carolina and beyond.
Dean’s pro-gun position and support for single-payer health care system will open many doors for the relatively unknown governor. Both issues are very popular with grassroots support, albeit most often, on different sides of the political aisle. However, with independent voters, a key to almost all the primaries, their opinions can vary. If Dean can last through the early primaries or take similar strides that Sharpton needs to take, he could see his support galvanize in the south and industrialized mid-west. As well, by clarifying his war position, he could easily be seen as the "electable" default peace candidate, which will play with primary voters in the west.