When Should Aging Politicians Retire?

Texas Congressman Ralph Moody Hall was born a few weeks after Warren G. Harding died in office, Vice President Calvin Coolidge had been sworn in and the Republican Teapot Dome bribery scandal was shaking confidence in the Republican Party. He was ten when FDR was first elected and an adult when there was an President in office not named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Other than John Dingell (age 87), Hall is the last living congressman who fought in World War II. An attorney, he was elected to the Texas state Senate in 1962 and then to Congress in 1980. He was an ultra-conservative Democrat, helped found the Blue Dogs, voted to impeach President Clinton, supported Bush over Gore and finally switched to the GOP in 2004. He's now not just the oldest Member of Congress, he's the oldest person to ever serve in Congress. Last June, smelling food and hearing the familiar refrain of I Will Survive, a confused Hall wandered into a Gay Victory Fund celebration in the Rayburn Office Building. Although he is a cosponsor of all kinds of homophobic GOP legislation, he was welcomed warmly by his LGBT colleagues and given "refreshments." Later when Roll Call mentioned that the doddering Texan had "let his hair down," a snappy staffer wrote a quote for him: "I would just say that while I do have a good head of hair for a 90-year-old, I do not have the quantity of hair, nor the inclination, to let it down."

Nor does he have the inclination to retire from Congress, despite 5 primary challengers, including one from well-funded ex-US Attorney John Ratcliffe. Hall's age is the key issue in the primary and Hall is begging voters to give him just one more term.

“There’s going to be a transition that’s inevitable,” Ratcliffe said. “I provide a good alternative for voters to consider right now.”

Ratcliffe, 48, a partner at a law firm headed by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, embraces Hall. In 2005, he donated $2,000 to Hall’s campaign. And their positions differ little-- both consider themselves conservatives but not tea party representatives.

Ratcliffe sees himself more as Hall’s successor than opponent, and many Republicans in Rockwall would agree. The question is whether voters will unseat Hall after more than three decades in Congress.

“He’s like everyone’s grandpa or great-grandpa,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican consultant in Texas. “It’s pretty hard for a lot of people to feel like he’s being ‘fired.’” … Ratcliffe said that rather than asking those loyal to the 17-term congressman to choose, he hopes to seek out new, younger voters. He plans to make social media a key part of his campaign, a contrast to Hall’s habit of sending handwritten notes.

…Matthew Orwig, who preceded Ratcliffe as U.S. attorney, said the race will be one of the energetic vs. the sentimental. Age is a factor for voters, he said.

“He is the oldest member ever to serve in Congress,” Orwig said of Hall. “Of course people are talking about his age.”

…But both candidates have vowed to say nothing negative against each other. Ratcliffe called Hall before he filed to tell him he was running. The incumbent said he told Ratcliffe he wished he wouldn’t but didn’t try to talk him out of it.

“He’s a friend of mine and a strong supporter,” Hall said. “I think he got tired of waiting.”

Hall skydives. And there's an unspoken conspiracy in Congress and in the media to make believe he isn't senile and that he can still function. An aide told the media “He’s a dynamo." The media reprinted it. Hall's office said he would swim the 21-mile English Channel-- but added it would take too long since he would have to swim one mile a day. “I may swim down to Cuba,” he said. “I’d be swimming downhill.” The media printed it. No one prints that he's not up to the job any longer. Hall is a devout non-believer in Science and Boehner and Cantor had a little joke when they made him chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Laughs over, he was gently pushed aside by a more lucid-- and more venal-- Texas colleague, Lamar Smith and now has the non-position position of "Chairman Emeritus."

Another member of the Science Committee is middling Democratic backbencher Eric Swalwell, who successfully primaried Pete Stark in 2012, ending the illustrious career of a Bay Area legislator who is a decade younger than Hall, but who was in Congress for nearly a decade when Hall first arrived. Ironically, Stark grew up as a Republican and switched parties because of his opposition to the Vietnam War. He beat a fellow Democrat, a man in his eighties in a 1972 primary, claiming his opponent had been in Congress too long. Swalwell used the same argument to defeat him 4 decades later and went after Stark a lot less genteelly than Hall's opponents are going after him. Currently, we have a similar situation just to the south of Stark's old district where a wealthy political opportunist, Ro Khanna, smells blood in the water and is relentlessly attacking 72 year old Mike Honda. Hall and Stark may well have been losing their facilities; Honda isn't. And 72 isn't necessarily an age when people should be pushed aside.

Last week, a fully lucid George Miller, age 68, announced his own retirement. He is one of labor's most avid and effective advocates and the hammer behind Nancy Pelosi's leadership. (His announcement has led to plenty of speculation that the 73 year old Pelosi will also be retiring.) One of Congress' best Members, Miller says he felt 40 years was enough. Perhaps he remembers how Pete Stark unceremoniously defeated the other George Miller in 1972, based on him having overstayed his time in Congress. Or maybe not. This George Miller was reelected in 2012 with 70% of the vote-- 2% better than Obama did in his East Bay district. "I was never," he told journalists at his announcement, "in awe of the 'indispensable man theory.' I tried that once on my high school football coach. And I sat on the bench for most of the year."

Within days, 75 year old Buck McKeon, as big a detriment to honest and effective governance as Miller was a boon, also announced his retirement. Good riddance! Earlier, a very ill, 82 year old Howard Coble announced his long-anticipated retirement, as did 74 year old Frank Wolf. When the longest-serving Republican in Congress, Bill Young announced he was retiring last October, he was 82 years old and died within a few days. Today, the oldest Members of the House are:

• Ralph Hall (R-TX), 90
• John Dingell (D-MI), 87
• John Conyers (D-MI), 84
• Louise Salughter (D-NY), 84
• Charlie Rangel (D-NY), 83
• Sam Johnson (R-TX), 83
• Howard Coble (R-NC), 82- retiring
• Sandy Levin (D-MI), 82
• Don Young (R-AK), 80
• Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), 78
• Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), 77
• Alcee Hastings (R-FL), 77
• Grace Napolitano (D-CA), 77
• Jim McDermott (D-WA), 77
• Lois Capps (D-CA), 76
• Hal Rogers (R-KY), 76
• Buck McKeon (R-CA), 75- retiring
• Maxine Wayers (D-CA), 75
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD), 74
• Frank Wolf (R-VA), 74- retiring
• Joe Pitts (R-PA), 74
• Henry Waxman (R-CA), 74
• John Lewis (D-GA), 74
• Tom Petri (R-WI), 73
• Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), 73
• David Price (D-NC), 73
• Jim Clyburn (D-SC), 73
• Rubén Hinojosa (D-TX), 73

The entire Democratic leadership is among the most elderly. Boehner just celebrated his 64th birthday, while Cantor is 50 and McCarthy is just about to turn 49.

There are only 7 Members under 35, Patrick Murphy (D-FL), 30, Aaron Schock (R-IL), 32, Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), 32, Eric Swalwell (D-CA), 33, Joe Kennedy (D-MA), 33), Justin Amash (R-MI), 33 and Jason Smith (R-MO), 33.

So why am I sharing all this congressional demographic information? Let's go back to George Miller for a moment. The earlier George Miller, in an adjacent district, was defeated in an ugly primary when he was 83 by Pete Stark, who was then defeated in an ugly primary 40 years later when he was 81. The current George Miller, decided he'd served enough years in Congress and announced his retirement at age 68, still in firm control of his facilities. Is it possible he felt he had given enough? I know it's possible.

I was still in my 50s when I retired as president of Reprise Records, making an incredible salary and still getting a great deal of satisfaction out of my work, despite some very unpleasant changes in the business of the Music Business. I had no need to buy a private jet or homes in Europe or leave my heirs vast fortunes that would spoil their lives. I had other plans-- giving back to society that had been so generous to me and enjoying life more and stressing about work less. And I felt that it was a positive example to make room for younger people to climb the career ladder below me. The music business-- like the politics business-- needs a mix of old people and young people in decision-making positions. The music business was even more unbalanced in favor of very old people than Congress is. There were peers of mine who didn't "believe" in computers… no, really. One gentleman not quite as old as Ralph Hall, told me, when I suggested he start using a computer, that he had a secretary to do his typing.

When George Miller announced his retirement, an e-mail list I take part in began a virtual wake. There was rending of garments and tearing of hair… an awful lot of shrieking and ululation. When I tried explaining the normal cycle of things, I was accused of not understanding the greatness of George Miller. Yeah, right.

Are The Beltway Democrats Serious About Raising The Minimum Wage This Time?

When the Democrats controlled the White House, the House and, briefly, the Senate, did they raise the minimum wage to the point where someone could call it a living wage? Not that I recall. But now that they know it's impossible to do because of an obstructionist Republican Congress-- and with the midterm election campaigns kicking off-- they're making a loud ruckus. If they wanted to do more than just create a campaign issue and deceive working families, they would crack the whip on Democrats who voted with the Republicans the last time a minimum wage vote came up March 15. The motion was defeated 233-184. Every single Republican voted against it, of course, always ready to show their hatred and disdain for working families on behalf of their wealthy patrons. But, despite the fuss Democrats are making this week over the issue, 6 Blue Dogs and New Dems, crossed the aisle and voted with Boehner and Cantor-- John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC), Bill Owens (New Dem-NY), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) and Kurt Shrader (Blue Dog-New Dem-OR).

You might say that Pelosi and Hoyer can't hold their hands and make them vote with the Democrats-- and that would probably be true. BUT, Barrow, Matheson, McIntyre and Owens-- and possibly Schrader-- have ZERO chance of being reelected without massive financial assistance for the DCCC. If the Beltway Democrats were serious about raising the minimum wage, beating up Republicans might not be as effective as insisting their own conservative members tow the line on something this definitive.

George Miller (D-CA) is one Democrat who is serious about raising the minimum wage-- actually many congressional Democrats are-- the progressive wing of the party-- and as the Ranking Member of John Kline's horribly reactionary, anti-worker Education and Workforce Committee, Miller has been trying to do something about it.

By a ratio of four to one, Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour and adjusting it for the cost of living in future years, according to a new poll released today. Conducted on behalf of the National Employment Law Project Action Fund, the poll also found that 75 percent of Americans think it important Congress raise the minimum wage over the next year. It was four years ago today that the federal minimum wage was last increased.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) will join Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) and other congressional leaders, workers, business leaders, and advocates today at noon to announce the results of the poll and to call on Congress to pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R. 1010).

“The time has come for American workers to get a rFrom July 15 to 17, 2013, Hart Research Associates conducted a national survey on the issue of the federal minimum wage. Interviews were conducted online among a representative national sample of 1,010 adults (including 860 registered voters), with a margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points (and ±3.3 percentage points for voters).

By a ratio of four to one, Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour and adjusting it for the cost of living in future years.

Eight in ten adults (80%) approve of this minimum wage proposal, including 46% who strongly approve, and just 20% disapprove. Support is equally strong among registered voters (79%), and is well over 70% in every region of the country. Approval is voiced not only by Democrats (92%) and low-income adults (83%), but also by such traditionally conservative groups as Republicans (62%), southern whites (75%), and those with incomes over $100,000 (79%). We also find solid support for the $10.10 minimum wage among swing political constituencies, including independents (80%) and non-college whites (80%).

...Rep. Miller, the senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. “The American people understand that a decent minimum wage is not a handout. It’s about valuing work. It’s about growing the economy from the bottom up by increasing working families’ purchasing power.”

“The American people are clear; they want the minimum wage raised for workers and their families and it’s time Congress took action,” said Rep. Edwards. “We also need to increase wages for our tipped workers, who have seen their wages frozen at $2.13 since 1991. As a result, waitresses and waiters are suffering from declining living standards and experience poverty rates three times that of the general workforce. By raising both wages, we will grow our economy, and ensure that families no longer have to work two to three jobs to make ends meet. Let’s meet the American people where they are, and get this done.”

  “Four years without a raise is three years too many. While millions of workers have been without a raise, costs have continued to climb. Between 2009 and 2012, rent has gone up 4 percent, food is 8 percent more expensive, child care costs 9 percent more, and public transportation takes a 13 percent bigger bite out of workers’ wallets. We have to make sure that working families can keep up with the economy. Also, by increasing the minimum wage, we can give tens of millions of workers more money in their paychecks to spend at local businesses, increasing sales and boosting economic activity,” Sen. Harkin said.

“A new poll released today also shows broad, bipartisan support for my proposal with Congressman Miller to raise the minimum wage to $10.10,” Harkin added. “Eighty percent of Americans-- a strong majority of Democrats, independents, and Republicans alike-- support our bill. Raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do and the responsible thing to do.”

Introduced by Rep. Miller and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) in March, the Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R. 1010) will increase the minimum wage in three steps, from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour. The rate will then be indexed to inflation each year thereafter. In addition, the legislation will increase the required cash wage for tipped workers in annual 85 cent increases, from today’s $2.13 per hour until the tip credit reaches 70 percent of the regular minimum wage, which was originally proposed by Rep. Edwards.

It has been four years since minimum wage workers received a pay raise. And in this time, the recession has inflicted long-lasting economic damage to the living standards of workers living on the minimum wage. And since the last increase, the federal minimum wage has lost value. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage today buys less than it did in 1956. It has not kept up with the cost of living or workers’ increased productivity. More than 30 million workers will get a raise under this bill.

President Obama is also echoing the importance of increasing the minimum wage for working families at a speech today on growing and strengthening America’s middle class.

Donna Edwards is also the head of recruitment for the DCCC. I hope she's asking candidates who are requesting DCCC help if they'll commit to backing raising the minimum wage. There are quite a few conservative Dems Steve Israel is getting to run next year, people not unlike Barrow, McIntyre, Matheson, Peterson, Owens and Shrader.

Is "Too Big To Jail" A Sacred Concept In America... Even With A Democrat In The White House?

The story of Henry Frick, one of the worst monsters of American capitalism, should have ended the idea of "too big to jail" in 1889. But he got off scott free and... it didn't-- nor have any of the other outrages against society done so. This week, after the latest HSBC fiasco, George Miller (D-CA) and a group of other progressives are giving it a try again. They blasted the Justice Department’s decision to “defer prosecution” of bank officials as symptomatic of an unacceptable lack of accountability for large financial institutions.

“We believe that the Department of Justice owes a greater duty of diligence to the American people in prosecuting the responsible HSBC officials to the fullest extent of the law for their criminal activities,” Miller and his colleagues wrote in a letter today to Attorney General Eric Holder expressing their strong disagreement with the decision that indictments will not be brought against the HSBC officers and employees responsible for abetting laundering actions.  The Justice Department based its decision to not pursue criminal charges on what it called the “collateral consequences” a prosecution could have on the financial system.

After sending the letter, Miller said the American people have been let down by the Department’s position in this case.  “It’s unconscionable that bank employees will not be held responsible for laundering upwards of a billion dollars in drug money and funds for dangerous foreign regimes that are known to support terrorist organizations,” he said.  “HSBC employees’ actions have helped to facilitate violence on the streets of our communities and the efforts of America’s enemies to attack American troops on the front lines.”

Recent reports have noted that Colombian drug traffickers who utilized HSBC’s lax regulations on money laundering have in fact been charged in U.S. courts and face over a decade in prison. However, no HSBC staff that facilitated those same traffickers’ work will face jail time.

“There has been a chronic lack of accountability for financial institutions for a number of years. Not only has this played a major role in the reckless behavior which collapsed our economy, but it now manifests itself in blatantly criminal activity,” Miller added. “The Justice Department’s decision to ‘defer prosecution’ is irresponsible. It broadcasts a clear message to financial institutions: if you’re big enough, you’re held to a separate set of standards with respect to our nation’s laws. No bank, no matter how large or important to our financial system, should be too big to jail.”

The lawmakers’ letter notes that, “Violations of anti-money laundering statutes in support of drug traffickers and America’s enemies are beyond the pale and must consistently be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and even banks that are very large and systemically important cannot be too big to jail.”

Full text of the letter to U.S. Attorney General Holder is below and attached:

January 14, 2013

Hon. Eric Holder
Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Holder:

We are writing you in support of the concerns expressed in the attached letter sent to you on December 13th by Senator Jeff Merkley regarding the deferred prosecution agreement with HSBC. We are committed to achieving needed accountability in the financial sector, particularly for large financial institutions that played a significant role in bringing about the 2008 financial crisis that has caused great pain and suffering over the last several years.

As you know, the case against HSBC details a number of serious offenses involving clear and blatant violations of anti-money laundering statutes, which facilitated the activities of drug traffickers, banks doing business in sanctioned countries such as Iran, and others. It is inconceivable to us that indictments would not be brought against those HSBC officers and employees that were responsible for these laundering violations. Money laundering was carried out on behalf of the Mexican drug cartels that are responsible for significant crime, violence and death in the communities that we represent.

Money laundering was also conducted on behalf of governments that are supporting terrorist organizations that are attacking and killing American troops and citizens around the world. All of us have had the heartbreaking experience of attending the funerals of our fallen heroes. It is unacceptable to us that indictments have not been pursued against those who have engaged in offenses that have supported the criminal drug activities on our streets and terrorist activities against our country, our military and our citizens.

We believe that the Department of Justice owes a greater duty of diligence to the American people in prosecuting the responsible HSBC officials to the fullest extent of the law for their criminal activities. We are particularly shocked by recent reports that Colombian drug traffickers who utilized HSBC’s lax regulations on money laundering have in fact been charged in U.S. courts and face over a decade in prison, yet the HSBC employees who made such laundering possible have not faced criminal prosecution. Violations of anti-money laundering statutes in support of drug traffickers and America’s enemies are beyond the pale and must consistently be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and even banks that are very large and systemically important cannot be too big to jail.

We join Sen. Merkley in urging your immediate attention to this issue and look forward to your response to his inquiry. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our concerns.

Making Trade Policies Work For American Families, Not Just What Romney Thinks Of As "People"

I really did like Bill Clinton on a personal level. His love of music and the music business was completely endearing to me at the time and, although I assiduously avoid Washington, was happy to come to a state dinner he invited me to-- just because it was him. Politically, on the other hand, he was way too conservative for me after he lost his first try at a gubernatorial reelection in 1980-- the country's youngest ever ex-governor. No one was ever able to accuse him-- at least not honestly, which is never an impediment for Republicans of course-- of being a liberal again. And almost the first thing he did on winning the White House was hire a then unknown Chicago thug, Rahm Emanuel, to kick the shit out of enough Democrats in Congress to pass George H.W. Bush's failed NAFTA legislation.

NAFTA was devastating to the American middle class and the net result was the loss of over a million jobs. It may have been a great policy for worldwide capital-- who Clinton (like all the post-Roosevelt presidents) served slavishly-- but it was a disaster for this country, particularly for working families in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana and California. WTO, GATT, giving China most favored nation status all conspired to hollow out the American economy. One would have hoped Democratic presidents would stop it. Clinton certainly never did-- quite the contrary-- and Obama, is every bit as terrible.

Lately he's cynically called the devastating trade legislation he and Boehner are trying to pass "job creation bills." It's things like this that make progressives say Obama is the same as Bush. Believe me, fair trade proponents like George Miller (D-CA)-- see video below-- have made sure Obama knows how catastrophic the Colombia "free" trade agreement is. This awful bill be sail through the House of Lords. Are there enough Democrats in the House willing to stand up to Obama and stop this thing in the House? I doubt it though labor-allied Democrats and some Tea Party conservatives still oppose the trade agreements, and still more Tea Party members staunchly oppose Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) to workers whose jobs are sent abroad by the trade pacts.

[E]ven if both chambers do agree to extend TAA to laid-off workers as part of the trade deals, Congress would still have to pass a separate appropriations bill to ensure that the money actually makes it out the door. And in a political environment dominated by harsh spending cuts, Democrats view that prospect as extremely unlikely.

"The TAA, even if it gets authorized, isn't going to get appropriated," Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) told HuffPost. "Have you ever met a Republican freshman in favor of appropriating TAA?"

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also pushed back against the trade agreements in an interview last week with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell.

"The White House may support it, but the Congress may have a different view," Pelosi said, adding that it's "debatable" whether the trade deals will create U.S. jobs.

Based on official estimates from the U.S. International Trade Council, economist Robert Shaw of the Economic Policy Institute expects the Colombia and South Korea trade pacts to send about 200,000 U.S. jobs abroad.

This week the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) pointed out that the U.S. international trade deficit in goods and services increased to $53.1 billion in June and that the goods deficit with China increased to $26.7 billion during that period. That organizations Executive Director, Scott Paul, was blunt:

"A rising trade deficit is not the prescription for job creation in America. The June trade deficit exceeded virtually every estimate and is further proof that our economy is falling behind. I'm particularly concerned by the rising trade deficit with China. Unless we achieve a major rebalancing with China, our manufacturing sector will continue to experience long-term challenges. China has taken sporadic baby steps to increase the value of the Yuan, when what we need is a revaluation of at least 30 percent. Unless the Obama Administration gets tougher with China, we'll continue to see high trade deficits and anemic job growth.

"Congress also needs to step up to the plate. Cracking down on unfair trade practices-- including currency manipulation-- should be at the top of the trade agenda. Instead, it's been sidelined and there are no clear indications from House or Senate leaders that it is a legislative priority. That's why our activists are letting lawmakers know that we expect swift action on China's currency manipulation. If Congress wants to get serious about job creation, it will pass this bipartisan legislation."

Obama's reelection-- if he needs the Democratic base to turn out-- could be riding on his ability to address the unemployment crisis. So far he's shown no inclination to do so. Last week Joan McCarter outlined how he-- and the Democrats in Congress-- could go about it.

Just 50 percent of voters believe President Obama is working to create manufacturing jobs, a loss of 11 percent from when the same question was asked last year. Congress, however, fares much worse: 41 percent think Democrats are helping, and only 32 percent think Republicans are helping. But 86 percent of Americans want a national manufacturing strategy "to make sure that economic, tax, labor and trade policies in this country work together to help support manufacturing."

Obama could take that advantage and use it to push a strong manufacturing jobs program. There are policies that could be pursued right now [pdf], policies that the White House needs to start pushing hard in its "pivot to jobs" for the national economy, but also to do one key thing politically: put Congressional Republicans in conflict with their base over jobs. The desire to "make it in America" again cuts across all party lines, and it would be a very hard message for Republicans to vote against. And political manna from heaven when they did fight it.

Here's the plan:

Expand American Production, Hiring, and Capital Expenditures

* Establish a manufacturing investment facility to leverage private capital for domestic manufacturing

* Expand and make permanent clean energy manufacturing tax credits and industrial energy efficiency grants to allow America to lead on green job creation

* Link federal loan guarantees for new energy infrastructure projects, including nuclear, wind, solar, other renewable energy sources, as well as the smart grid, with expanding domestic supply chains

* Adopt immediate, up-front expensing rules for plant and equipment to spur capital expenditures

* Enforce our trade-legal Buy America and other domestic procurement requirements to prevent leakage of tax dollars overseas

Invest in America’s Infrastructure

* Create a National Infrastructure Bank to finance high-value, long-term infrastructure projects, such as roads, bridges, high-speed rail, and other needs

* Enact a robust, multi-year surface transportation infrastructure program of at least $500 billion financed exclusively by fuel taxes

Enhance Our Workforce

* Refocus on technical and vocational education, providing a seamless program that bridges high school and post-secondary education to produce the next generation of highly skilled manufacturing workers

* Reward companies that are investing in effective skills and training programs for their workers

Make Trade Work for America

* Keep America’s trade laws strong and strictly enforced to provide a level playing field for our workers and businesses

* Penalize and deter mercantilist nations such as China that manipulate their exchange rates and implement non-tariff barriers to gain an unfair trade advantage

* As the Administration works to double exports, expand the goal to include balancing our trade account so that gains in exports are not overwhelmed by increased imports

Rebuild America’s Innovation Base

* Make permanent the research and development tax credit and enhance it to incentivize commercialization and production in America

* Focus federal investments in new technology and workforce training on promoting regional clusters of innovation, learning and production

UPDATE: Norman Solomon Rejects Conventional "Wisdom" From Both Party Establishments

This morning Blue America-endorsed congressional candidate Norman Solomon (D-CA) penned an OpEd for the Marin Independent Journal in his home county. He showed this overwhelmingly blue district (Obama won with 76%) that he's not planning on being a mouthpiece for either party establishment-- especially not when it comes to the well-being on his constituents.

The negative trends in the Nation's Capital are mostly due to extreme GOP ideologues in Congress. But they've been enabled by too many Democrats who keep giving ground while Republican leaders refuse to give an inch.

Many a political truth can be spoken in jest, and that was the case with a mock news item that appeared in The Onion last week.

"A day after signing legislation that raised the government debt ceiling and authorized steep budget cuts," the satirical magazine reported, "President Obama thanked Democrats as well as Democrats for their willingness to make tough, but necessary, concessions during negotiations."

The Onion went on: "Obama added that while it may look ugly at times, politics is about Democrats giving up what they want, as well as Democrats giving up what they want, until an agreement can ultimately be reached."

Compromise is one thing, but capitulation is another-- especially when core principles of decency and fairness are at stake.

We must stand our ground on behalf of seniors, children, the disabled and other vulnerable Americans. All the rhetoric about "shared sacrifice" rings hollow when the vast majority of us are being sacrificed to the financial benefit of big banks and large corporations.

There are plenty of sensible and effective ways to reduce the deficit-- including a transaction tax on Wall Street, closure of tax loopholes for big companies, an end to the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy and a major reduction in the military budget.

Instead, the bipartisan dealmakers in Washington are slashing the safety net that's essential for vast numbers of Americans.

One of the most dangerous aspects of the recent budget deal is that it explicitly sets the stage for future actions to undermine Medicare. This scenario strikes at the heart of precious values. I'm committed to defending Social Security and Medicare on the campaign trail and as a member of Congress.

I fully agree with Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey's explanation for why she voted against the new budget deal.

Woolsey pointed out that the deal "puts virtually the entire burden on working families and the middle class while asking nothing from billionaires, millionaires and companies that send jobs overseas."

In Washington, job one should be creating jobs. And that won't happen by continuing to give tax cuts to the wealthy while imposing benefit cuts on the rest of us.

Corporations are sitting on huge quantities of cash. But rather than expanding the workforce, they're hoarding the money-- and stretching workers in the name of "productivity"-- while often posting record profits.

Three years ago, on this page, I wrote a column opposing the Wall Street bank bailout then being debated in Congress. Unfortunately, my concerns were borne out by later events.

Banks took the bailout money and largely used it to buy other banks-- instead of making loans to small businesses and helping homeowners keep their homes.

With the new budget deal, Congress again acted in the financial interests of the rich instead of the vast majority of us.

With chronic unemployment at historic highs and personal savings in the tank, fewer and fewer Americans have the buying power that can pull the economy out of its deep ravine.
Call me old-fashioned, but I believe in the vital lessons of the New Deal. Many millions of good jobs must be created-- and that will require well-funded federal jobs programs on a large scale.

Trickle-down economics, relying on the tender mercies of powerful corporations, won't get it done.

DEMOCRATS DELIVER FOR AMERICAN WORKING MEN AND WOMEN-- EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT PASSES THE HOUSE

On Thursday 13 Republicans abandoned their reactionary leaders and joined all but 2 Democrats-- anti-Labor/business whores Boren (OK) and Taylor (MS)-- to pass George Miller's Employee Free Choice Act, H.R. 800 by a healthy margin of 241 to 185.

The immense hatred of working Americans the Republicans harbor was demonstrated by a last ditch effort in the House to kill the bill, by McConnell's vow to derail the bill in the Senate and by a Bush threat to veto the law if it gets through the Senate. George Miller was on fire when he slapped down the Republicans for trying to kill this bill.

I don't know, maybe you have been doing business so long where you have been paying back your supporters, you think that's the way everybody does business. And that's why you've got people heading down toward the courthouse and that's why you lost your leadership because they were paying back their supporters. Now, I know it's hard to change your stripes. Some of you may be wearing stripes. The fact of the matter is that's not the way we do business, ladies and gentlemen. But that's your language and that's your habit and that's the way you ran the congress. It was pay to play. Pay to play.

 
In short, the bill eases union organizing efforts that had been guaranteed by law until the laws were amended by Republicans at the behest of the powerful business interests that have, simply put, bought them. The Republican rear action fight was led by arch-reactionary Buck McKeon (R-CA), one of the most anti-worker Republicans in the whole Congress. He was as unsuccessful in his attempts to sabotage this bill as he was in trying to sabotage the bill to allow for more needy students to get help in financing college educations. The need to defeat Republican senators and to elect a Democratic president become clearer by the day. Even at their worst, the Democrats are overwhelmingly better than the Republicans in every way that matters for ordinary Americans.