|
archived: 7 - 13 Mar, 2004 Back Next MARCH 11, 2004 UPDATE
STEVEN JONAS, MD, MPH, MS Well, all the world knows that Ralphie boy has done it again. How should progressive Democrats react? Yes, we could talk about why, if one is really interested in changing the Democratic Party, one didn’t do what Governor Dean and Rep. Kucinich did, entering the Democratic primaries? Yes, we could engage in analysis of Nader’s ego needs (as some leaders have already done): why did he have to start on another one of his destructive ego trips outside of the Party? We could ask if, regardless of any other considerations, it is really helpful for progressive politics and policies for Nader to be doing what he is doing? (Apparently he really, really, deep down thinks that it is). It should be noted that Nader hardly gives one the impression that he is capable of negotiating anything. How much change in the Democratic Party would be enough for him? It has already changed a great deal in the last six months, due in large part to the efforts of Dean and Kucinich. One observer of the latest Nader raid said that the Democratic Party “needs to grow up.” Well, yes, if “grow up” is taken to mean really differentiate itself from the Republicans, shed the DLC, and return to its 20th century, Progressive Era/New Deal roots. But that process is, finally, underway. When we are talking about Ralph Nader, it's the man with the ego larger even than that of Mario Cuomo, who now needs to grow up. But those types of considerations are at base aimed at trying to change Ralph Nader’s behavior. In my view, that is a lost cause, a total waste of time. This man is totally convinced of his own rightness. He will listen neither to leading Democrats who agree with him on many of the issues, nor even to a number of his own advisors, former and possibly even present. He marches to his own drummer, whose drumbeat is so loud in his ears that no other sounds can possibly get through. So let’s forget about Nader and either trying to analyze him or worse yet, trying to get through to him with a view to getting him to back off. If the results of the 2000 election couldn’t do that, I don’t know what can. His behavior is so obviously unchangeable that why then should time and effort be wasted trying to change it now? Thus what we need to do now is ignore Ralph and aim at getting through to the Nader voter, past and potential. Here are a few suggestions for how to do that.
And so. Let’s focus on the Georgites, let’s focus on the issues, let’s focus on potential Nader voters and what their concerns are, and let’s just forget about Ralph. If you happen to be interested in payback (not an interest of mine), the worst thing that could happen to Ralph personally is to be finally ignored, and to go down in the history of Presidential campaigns as just another Ralph Stassen/Lyndon LaRouche. Postscript For those of you interested in seeing how Ralph Nader thinks on paper (and it is fascinating) rather than over the airwaves, take a look at the March 8, 2004 issue of The Nation. In the Letters column Nader has a very long reply to The Nation's plea to him not to run that appeared in the February 16 issue. – (See Nader’s Letter and the Editor’s Reply by clicking here: The Nation) He of course said "no," but he did it at great length. He also seems to be caught in a time-warp, justifying his running by attacking a Democratic Party that is fast undergoing major change before our very eyes. But Nader either cannot see that or doesn't want to. He can't take "yes" for an answer. He cannot declare victory and say, "OK now let's work very hard to make sure that all of our very correct concerns most surely get into the platform and Sen. Kerry's primary message." He cannot even claim some credit for forcing that change (although since he has been just attacking, not trying to build, I don't think that much of the credit belongs to him). The Democratic Party is in the process of changing because of the work of Gov. Dean and Cong. Kucinich, the work of people like Steve Gheen and Michael Carmichael and Joe Napolitan, the work of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, and yes because of the work of people like Sen. Kennedy, an old-fashioned liberal who just happened to supply the steam that reinflated the Kerry campaign on both process and substance. Unless there are some very big surprises in Sen. Kerry's choice for VP and in the platform, the DLC is on its way to being history. This all tells us that the focus on the Nader issue must be on the potential Nader voter. The man himself (who without a party may not be able to even get on the ballot in very many states anyway) should be simply told that he is behind the times. The train has left the station, and he ain't on it. Of course he could have been if Democratic Party reform were what he really is about. But it isn't. But in his letter, he did lay out many issues that are important. I don't have to repeat the list here. And so, the Party can address his voters with the "these are the issues that we know you are interested in, and this is how our party is handling them. Perfect, no, but who is? Much better than the Georgites, and not just a lesser evil, however, aren't they?" Let's focus on that and leave perfectionism to Ralph Nader. Junkie: Dr. Jonas has aptly captured the perfectionism that lies at Nader’s core. I encountered Nader in the early 1970’s when I introduced him to a very large audience in the mountains of North Carolina. In the personal time I spent with Nader my sense of the man was: brilliant intellect; highest moral character; Spartan dedication to his cause; and pursuit of perfection in all things. Certainly the attributes of a true sage, but unbending and uncompromising pursuit of perfection in a political system designed to foster compromise in order to reach a majority consensus is impractical. Dr. Jonas has the best prescription for the approach the Democratic Party should take in dealing with the “Nader issue.” I would only add that we should never speak ill of any man who has dedicated a life’s work to the betterment of mankind – even when we should disagree. Nader has earned and deserves that respect. ________________
Dr. Steven
Jonas as a TPJ contributing author. He is a Professor of Preventive
Medicine at
Stony Brook University (NY)
and author of some twenty books. Dr. Jonas is one of America's most
perceptive Democratic political analysts. The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022 is available from Amazon under the name "Johnathan Westminster." _____________________________________________ MARCH 9, 2004 UPDATE POOR BECAUSE THEY ARE LAZY Warren Buffet is the second richest man in the world. He is head of Berkshire Hathaway, one of the biggest business conglomerates in the United States. Because of his years of success, Buffet is called the “Sage of Omaha.” Buffet is certainly no “bleeding” liberal. In May, 2003, Buffet warned the investors in Berkshire Hathaway that Bush’s tax cuts “’screams of injustice. The main beneficiaries will be people like me and Charlie,’ he said, referring to the Berkshire Hathaway vice-chairman Charlie Munger. Mr. Buffett said the tax plan was equivalent to ‘us giving a lesser percentage of our incomes to Washington than the people working in our shoe factories.’” – Times (England) See: TPJ, “Omaha Sage Pans Tumble Weed,” May 2003, Wk. 1 Most recently, Buffett again told shareholders in Berkshire Hathaway that Bush’s tax policies are abhorrent: I can understand why the Treasury is now frustrated with Corporate America and prone to outbursts. But it should look to Congress and the Administration for redress, not to Berkshire.
Corporate income taxes in fiscal 2003 accounted for 7.4% of all federal tax receipts, down from a post-war peak of 32% in 1952. With one exception (1983), last year’s percentage is the lowest recorded since data was first published in 1934.
Even so, tax breaks for corporations (and their investors, particularly large ones) were a major part of the Administration’s 2002 and 2003 initiatives. If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning. Today, many large corporations – run by CEOs whose fiddle-playing talents make your Chairman look like he is all thumbs – pay nothing close to the stated federal tax rate of 35%. – Berkshire Hathaway (emphasis added).
Deeper in Buffett’s report to his shareholders lies a far more ominous pronouncement – one that the main stream media has not published. Buffett has been selling share in American stocks, believing them to be overvalued. Instead of investing the entire mountain of cash that Berkshire has in US Treasury obligations, which Berkshire normally does, Buffett is buying foreign currencies. Buffett explains: During 2002 we entered the foreign currency market for the first time in my life, and in 2003 we enlarged our position, as I became increasingly bearish on the dollar. I should note that the cemetery for seers has a huge section set aside for macro forecasters. We have in fact made few macro forecasts at Berkshire, and we have seldom seen others make them with sustained success.
We have – and will continue to have – the bulk of Berkshire’s net worth in U.S. assets. But in recent years our country’s trade deficit has been force-feeding huge amounts of claims on, and ownership in, America to the rest of the world. For a time, foreign appetite for these assets readily absorbed the supply. Late in 2002, however, the world started choking on this diet, and the dollar’s value began to slide against major currencies. Even so, prevailing exchange rates will not lead to a material letup in our trade deficit. So whether foreign investors like it or not, they will continue to be flooded with dollars. The consequences of this are anybody’s guess. They could, however, be troublesome – and reach, in fact, well beyond currency markets.
As an American, I hope there is a benign ending to this problem. . . . Then again, perhaps the alarms I have raised will prove needless: Our country’s dynamism and resiliency have repeatedly made fools of naysayers. But Berkshire holds many billions of cash-equivalents denominated in dollars. So I feel more comfortable owning foreign exchange contracts that are at least a partial offset to that position. – Berkshire Hathaway (emphasis added). Buffett’s concerns should give pause to every American. Simply stated, Buffett is warning that Bush’s economic policies and unprecedented failure to support the US Dollar threatens economic stability. Buffett is hedging his bet in America. Buffett must also be considering these facts: 8 million unemployed -- a fifth of whom have been out of work for more than six months. --Reuters
The latest job report from the National Urban League finds African Americans have a higher unemployment rate than whites and they remain out of work longer and continue to endure elevated unemployment rates despite the recovery. The overall U.S. unemployment rate was 5.7 percent in December 2003, but the black unemployment rate was 10.3 percent. In January, overall unemployment dropped to 5.6 percent, while unemployment for blacks jumped to 10.5 percent, according to the Department of Labor. The Urban League report calls lingering high unemployment the worst reversal for African Americans in the labor market in more than 25 years. – Seattle Times (emphasis added)
A new study by Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, found historic lows in the reported labor force participation of 16- to 19-year-olds. According to the study, "The estimated 36.8 percent employment rate for the nation's teens was the lowest ever recorded since 1948." A more ominous finding was that over the past three calendar years the number of people aged 16 to 24 who are both out of work and out of school increased from 4.8 million to 5.6 million, with males accounting for the bulk of the increase. – New York Times
1.6 million Americans who have dropped out of U.S. workforce in the past year. The percentage of those working or looking for jobs has skidded for four years and fell in February to 65.9 percent, a 16-year low, the Labor Department said Friday in Washington. Last month, 588,000 people left the labor force , , , , -- Bloomberg (emphasis added).
The unemployed rate of January this year was 5.6%, dipping only 0.1 percentage point. President Bush hailed it as the "unemployment declines for four months in a row." In reality, however, the U.S. has had four months of consecutive decline in the unemployment rate because so many formerly "unemployed" became too discouraged to keep seeking jobs and were eliminated from the unemployment statistics. The U.S. has over 5 million part-time job holders who want full time jobs but cannot find them. – GLOCOM
From late December, when the federal program designed to help the long-term unemployed began phasing out, through the end of February, an estimated 760,000 jobless workers will have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without receiving additional aid, according to new projections by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. – Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (emphasis added).
The economy added only 21,000 jobs in February . . . . All of the 21,000 new jobs last month were government jobs, with none in the private sector. And manufacturing firms lost 3,000 jobs, the 43rd straight month of decline . . . . Adding to the gloomy news, the Labor Department revised downward its job numbers for January, from 113,000 to 97,000. That means the economy has produced 118,000 jobs this year - less than one-third the rate promised by Bush - to reach a total of 130.2 million. – Sacramento Bee (emphasis added).
"New data from the Labor Department show that after adjustment for inflation, salaries of the country's lowest-paid workers - those who fall just inside the bottom 10% of the pay range - fell 3% last year, from 2002. Meanwhile, the salaries of the highest paid workers - those who are just inside the top 10% - were unchanged. The divergence appeared to grow in the fourth quarter as higher-paid workers gained ground and lower-paid workers slipped further. The numbers continue a movement to greater wage inequality that began around the time President Bush succeeded President Clinton." – Washington Post (no active link)
Jobs are more likely to be shipped overseas from Silicon Valley than any other region in the nation, placing the Bay Area's economic engine directly in the path of the global freight train known as offshoring. Specifically, 1 in 6 jobs in Silicon Valley are at risk of being sent abroad, compared with only 1 in 10 positions nationwide, according to researchers at UC Berkeley. The economists estimate that 1 in 7 San Francisco jobs could be exported. – SF Gate
With nationwide gasoline prices expected this month to top a record $1.75 per gallon . . . [e]nergy costs -- and smaller supplies -- have pinched the pocketbooks of consumers and pushed up business expenses. . . . . . "It looks like another two years of high crude and petroleum prices," Jay Saunders, energy analyst at DeutscheBank, said during a Senate hearing Thursday. – Boston Globe Yoshi Tsurumi, a Professor of International Business, Baruch College, the City University of New York. Taught Bush had Harvard Business School thirty years ago. Professor Tsurumi states that, “I still vividly remember him. In my class, he declared that "people are poor because they are lazy." He was opposed to labor unions, social security, environmental protection, Medicare, and public schools. To him, the antitrust watch dog, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities Exchange Commission were unnecessary hindrances to "free market competition." To him, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was "socialism." . . . President Bush and his brain, Karl Rove, are leading a radical revolution of destroying all the democratic political, social, judiciary, and economic institutions that both Democrats and moderate Republicans had built together since Roosevelt's New Deal.” – GLOCOM It is obvious Bush has learned nothing in 30 years. The Democratic Party must hope that the “lazy poor” have learned a lot in just 3 years.
Last Update: 03/23/2006 |
