Former Republican Senator and Ambassador to the U.N. Denounces Stronghanded Christian Politics

Did we mention that he is also an Episcopal minister? Wow!

John C. Danforth, a former United States senator from Missouri, resigned in January as United States ambassador to the United Nations.

From the March 30 New York Times

In the Name of Politics

By JOHN C. DANFORTH

St. Louis - By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.

Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party.

Christian activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral successes, would not be likely to concede that Republican adoption of their political agenda is merely the natural convergence of conservative religious and political values. Correctly, they would see a causal relationship between the activism of the churches and the responsiveness of Republican politicians. In turn, pragmatic Republicans would agree that motivating Christian conservatives has contributed to their successes.

High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo, including departures from Republican principles like approving Congressional involvement in private decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of religious power blocs.

In my state, Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have advanced legislation to criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells are artificially produced in petri dishes and will never be transplanted into the human uterus. They argue that such cells are human life that must be protected, by threat of criminal prosecution, from promising research on diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes.

It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible diseases. I am and have always been pro-life. But the only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law.

I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God's call to political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.

The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.

When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.

Take stem cell research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.

During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.

But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.

The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.

Bush's One-Sided Conversation on Social Security

From ADA Intern Kate Mewhiney

President Bush claims the public supports his plans for Social Security reform. Citing a part of a survey-ignoring results showing dropping support-the president referred to results that show the public believes there is a problem with the current system. Despite the fact that even members of his own party aren't backing him, Bush insists he has the American people behind him. And looking at the audiences at his Town Hall meetings on Social Security, it's easy to see why he thinks this.

Attendees at these events are carefully screened, and dissenters are turned away. Last week, at an event in Denver, three people were forcibly removed from the event because of a "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker on their car. Alex Young, Karen Bauer, and Leslie Weisse were told to leave. The administration says the man who removed them was a Republican staffer at the event.

This isn't the first time the administration has blamed their screening process on event volunteers. Last month in North Dakota, a list that banned 42 people from getting tickets to an event was blamed on an "overzealous volunteer." However, as the screening process becomes a pattern, it is impossible to blame local volunteers in every city. The Bush administration controls access to these events, and they see to it that only the people they want are filling the seats when the president takes the stage.

In a briefing, when asked about the incident, McClellan said "We welcome a diversity of views at the events." This statement has no factual support. The audiences at these events are handpicked by the Republican Party, and the questions are rehearsed in advance, so the president never faces any surprises-or criticism, during the events. There is no diversity and no difference of opinion, because the administration won't allow it.

The president drew criticism for the same screening practice during the campaign, when the events were privately funded. Now that Bush's events are paid for by taxpayer money, refusing admission to people who pose no threat and create no disturbance becomes a much more serious issue.

The administration is referring to these events as "conversations." Conversations usually have more than one side. But in this case, the other side is being barred from speaking up.

ADAers Talk Security on Capitol Hill

ADA's Thursday Forum on Social Security was successful. Local ADAers were joined by Hill staff in welcoming experts Dr. Christian Weller of the Center for American Progress and Dr. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Research.

Dr. Weller spoke and fielded questions from the audience on how Social Security and the current debate fits into the overall pension security picture. His notes can be found online HERE

Dr. Baker discussed what we can reasonably expect to achieve from private account returns. A hint: it's not worth the effort. His report can be found online HERE

Stay Tuned for next month's ADA Thursday Forum.

It's Not About Terry Schiavo

The unprecedented legal maneuvering by self-styled "supporters" of Terri Schiavo has nothing to do with the facts of her case. Those trying to keep her alive in any condition question her husband's motivations and her own reported wishes, while suspect physicians and untrained members of Congress offer long-distance diagnoses claiming that the hopelessly brain-damaged woman retains some consciousness. But the furor over the case is due to questions not of fact but of politics and religion.

The political motives are made clear in the Republicans' Senate memo, which rejoices that "the pro-life base will be excited" and "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats." That just drips moral concern, doesn't it?

But, to quote an ADA motto, it's not just politics. Many of the people allied with the GOP here are religious fundamentalists who fervently believe that it is wrong to end Terri Schiavo's life because it is wrong to end any life (except maybe via capital punishment), even if the patient leaves a living will, even if the family agrees, even if heroic medical measures are required. They even argued in court that withholding treatment would "jeopardize her immortal soul" because the Pope has called withdrawal of feeding tubes "euthanasia by omission." For these fundamentalists the Schiavo case is just an available vehicle, just as waiting periods are a vehicle for opposing choice on abortion.

Death is a painful subject which sparks emotional responses. I still remember shuddering when a terminally ill Cardinal Cooke of New York refused pain medication so he could present his continued suffering "as a beautiful gift to God." On the other hand, I was deeply troubled by the recent death of an infant removed from life-support against his mother's wishes, after an unprecedented ruling under a Texas right-to-die law signed by . . . Governor George Bush.

Many people oppose existing law on these issues for political, moral, or religious reasons. They should have the courage to say what they really believe, instead of hiding their radical positions behind Terri Schiavo's tragedy.


John Brodkin is an ADA member and former Executive Director of the Greater Washington chapter. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of ADA.

Frist has pulled the wool over our eyes!

Hey medical experts! Can HIV be spread by saliva or sweat? "No, of course not" you say? Only unenlightened homophobes believe that," right? Wrong, actually. As a matter of fact, 1 of the most prominent MDs on the natl stage, Senator Bill Frist, on national TV refused to rule out that HIV can be spread by sweat or saliva.

I am posting this because I am so fed up with Frist being held in high regard due to his being an MD. In the coming years we will be seeing his name quite a bit, and the safe bet is that he will run for high office on the strength of being a respected surgeon. If he really believes this about HIV, however, what kind of doctor can he be? Are there any doubts that he will rely on "I'm a doctor" ever more than Kerry relied on "I'm a Vietnam vet"? It's time to spread the word now, that this man's medical rep is not without blemish. If he wants to make hay out of his being a surgeon, then his medical opinions are fair game, and he has to be called on his beliefs.

ADA Social Security Forum

Call 202-785-5980 for more information

AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION (ADA)

Presents: THURSDAY FORUMS

Longworth House Office Building, Room 1129
Washington, DC

2:30pm
Thursday, March 24, 2005

RECLAIMING THE AMERICAN DREAM PART 2: SOCIAL SECURITY

Featuring:

Dean Baker, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Christian Weller, Senior Economist, The Center For American Progress

Please Plan To Join Us

Mr. Baker and Mr. Weller will be discussing the realistic expected rates of return on proposed private accounts and the Social Security debate in the larger context of the nation’s pension system.

The deficit trap

Instead of accepting Greenspan's false argument that deficits will undermine Social Security, Democrats should actually call for more federal borrowing -- and spend the money on rebuilding America.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By ADA Vice President James K. Galbraith from Salon.com

March 21, 2005 | In Reuters we read of Alan Greenspan's March 15 testimony to the Senate Special Committee on Aging, wherein he made a comment both true and outrageous, about his support for tax cuts back in 2001:

"Greenspan said most leading economists at the time had expected large surpluses to stretch into the future ... 'I don't think that the issue is a question of taking a wholly different view ... It turns out we were all wrong [about the surplus forecasts],' Greenspan said, but added he would take the same position again faced with similar circumstances."

Yes, most economists agreed that the surpluses of the 1990s would continue. But not all. Six years ago, in the Wall Street Journal, Paul Davidson and I warned, correctly, that the surpluses could not be sustained, that an effort to do so would produce recession. We wrote:

"This plan assumes that full employment will be maintained independent of federal spending, which will be strictly restricted in order to create surpluses. This assumption is foolhardy, for tight budgets depress economic growth and raise unemployment. Japan's recent experience illustrates the point: Strong economic growth plus a tight budget strategy produced a budget surplus by 1990 that then led to a decade of stagnation and recession ... The depressing effect of tight budgets means that the promised surpluses will probably never materialize."

But as we said back then, Democrats were to blame, no less than Greenspan, for fostering the contrary illusion. Their plan to retire the federal debt in 15 years was the brainchild of two former treasury secretaries, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers (where is he now?), and it carried the endorsement of President Clinton. As we wrote at the time, the plan wasn't responsible; it was "foolhardy."

Part of that fantasy was to put some of the surpluses into the Social Security Trust Fund to help "save Social Security." Davidson and I demolished that idea:

"But don't we need the surplus to save Social Security? No. The policy of 'saving the surplus' contributes nothing to the future of Social Security. It is impossible for 'savings' today to 'pay' for pensions 20 years from now. Proposals to 'fund' Social Security misunderstand the basic fact that putting 'funds' into the 'trust fund' is redundant. Congress, not the trust fund, controls benefit levels paid under Social Security. The promises to pay are already written into law. The special government bonds that the trust fund holds and that Mr. Clinton would have the projected surpluses add to are mere symbols of that legal commitment. So long as Congress leaves the law intact, benefits will be paid whether or not a bond is held in the trust fund to be redeemed when future benefit payments are met."

Why bring this all up now, when so much has changed, when Democrats are in the middle of a tough fight to save Social Security? Because today Greenspan is using their own argument against them. If the surplus was needed to save Social Security, doesn't it follow that today's deficits endanger it? Doesn't it follow that there is a "problem" and therefore "something should be done"? Shouldn't "responsible" Democrats therefore compromise on Social Security benefit cuts?

That is Greenspan's argument. In sounding his warning at Tuesday's meeting, Greenspan said that rising Social Security benefits, alongside Medicaid and Medicare, add to deficits that threaten to bring on an economic stagnation that will, at some future date, make our federal budget "unsustainable" and our current commitments to the elderly "unaffordable."

But just how is it that pensions for the elderly and payments to doctors and nurses hurt the economy? To begin with, such payments are the economy. It is nonsense to suppose that Social Security benefits per se can reduce the total output of goods and services. Purchases of medical care add directly to GDP, as do expenditures of the incomes provided to seniors. If you did too much of this (realizing full employment prosperity along the way) you might eventually have an inflation problem. But that is not Greenspan's complaint.

Greenspan's argument, closely paralleling that of many Democrats, is that budget deficits themselves cause a drag on growth. This drag theoretically offsets the direct, positive effect of the benefits themselves.

But how does this work? Only because financial markets don't like deficits. And how do financial markets supposedly express that dislike? Only one way: through a strong reaction by the interest rate.

Now, there are broadly two interest rates. The short-term interest rate, as it happens, is what Greenspan controls. Yes, he has been pushing it up. But if he chose to stop, that interest rate would not rise anymore. Isn't that obvious?

What about long-term interest rates, which are supposed to reflect the influence of future budget deficits -- inflation expected in 10 or 20 years when the baby boomers retire? They haven't risen at all. They are lower now than they were in 2001, even before Bush's tax cuts. If there is evidence for the idea that projected budget deficits threaten economic stagnation, the supposedly all-knowing financial markets are unaware of it.

So either Greenspan is wrong, or the financial markets are dumb. Either way, we're not in the trouble Greenspan supposes.

In the real world, deficits in the past four years were inevitable, as Davidson and I predicted back in 1999. So far as we know now -- based on the behavior of the markets -- deficits projected for the future are a problem only because they place a political barrier, fortified by an enormous amount of economic mumbo jumbo, in the way of public investment that we desperately need and of the preservation of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Moreover, in the near term, there is no way to fix the budget deficit. Cuts in Social Security and Medicare would only depress the economy (doctors and nurses would be laid off; hospitals and nursing homes would close), re-creating the budget deficit as tax revenues fell. Immediate tax increases would have the same effect, while raising taxes sometime off in the future -- while not a bad thing -- would be a cosmetic gesture. Would such a measure lower long-term interest rates? No, it would not -- they're already very low.

In short, to put deficits at the center of the economic universe is futile and defeatist. It is to concede that the government of the richest country in the world can afford to do nothing. That's an absurd position. And it's political suicide, to boot. It has rendered the Democrats impotent and useless, as voters long ago started to notice.

Greenspan did say one thing that was smart and sensible to the Senate committee Tuesday: "The bottom line in the success of all retirement programs is the availability of real resources at retirement."

This is precisely why private accounts, which Greenspan favors, make no sense. Such measures would only rearrange claims on future resources -- leaving a lot of losers. But they would do nothing whatever to increase the real resources available 20 or 30 years from now. Hence they would do nothing to encourage the appropriate productive capacity to meet the needs of tomorrow's old.

What should the government do, with the present blessing of low long-term interest rates? Obviously, it should borrow! But for a purpose, please -- not merely to keep 150,000 soldiers on a mission impossible in Iraq. It should borrow to repair and rebuild our cities, our transport, our schools, our environment -- either directly or through state and local government. That's the only way the country as a whole can become materially richer, a generation from now, than it would otherwise be.

And it's the only way the Democrats can succeed. Why on earth should voters be attracted to a party whose only program is raising taxes, for the sake of a sterile "fiscal responsibility" whose only plausible objective -- low interest rates -- already exists? If long-term interest rates do start to rise, then, yes, taxes should be raised and spending plans reconsidered.

But why be paralyzed in advance? Democrats might learn a lesson from Bush: Lay out a vision and go for it.

If we run our economy competently, we will all be much richer, 30 years from now, than we are today. And we will then be able to care for our aged -- today's working people -- however numerous they may be. At that time, an intact Social Security program -- which as a matter of law simply gives each member of the future elderly the right to a life of modest comfort -- will be vital.

Meanwhile, benefit cuts are as unnecessary as they are cruel. Some Democrats have been a bit too eager to help dig the grave of fiscal paranoia in which Bush and Greenspan would like Social Security to be buried.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer:
James K. Galbraith teaches at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. Professor Galbraith is also a Vice President of Americans For Democratic Action (ADA)

N&N IS UP!!

News And Notes
is online now.

Have They Finally Seen the Light?

For some reason, environmental issues have long been presented as a partisan debate in our country, with liberals generally arguing for treading lightly on the earth and conservatives generally arguing for trampling all over it. Common sense suggests that since we all live on the same planet, it would be in all of our best interests to keep it as conducive to supporting life as possible. But for decades now, industry apologists have called those who want to keep the air and water clean "enviro-wackos," turned people who think deforestation is dangerous into "tree-hugging hippies," and dubbed individuals who warn of the consequences of global warming "chicken little environmentalists."

It doesn't take much analysis to figure out why certain corporate executives might want those who try to regulate industry practices to be seen in a particularly unflattering light. The surprising part is how so many evangelical leaders have promulgated their scorched-earth policy rhetoric. Some common arguments the religious right has made against environmentalists run along the lines of:

1. Since God has ultimate control over our destiny, only He has the power to save or destroy the earth. (This is closely related to the "end times" theory, which says that since we're in the first stages of Armageddon, there's no point in trying to save the earth for future generations.)

2. New Age religion emphasizes ecology and oneness with the earth. This "nature worship" is sinful, because it equals idolatry.

3. Our responsibility to the earth is less important than our caring for each other. The environment might be important to God, but He is more concerned for the souls of people.

And if that isn't enough to convince God-fearing Christians they'd be better off worrying about things other than the earth, anti-environmentalists argue that the science supporting ozone depletion and global warming theories are "highly suspect" at best, or as Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair James Inhofe (R-Okla.) put it, the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.

Of course, many other Christians (as well as non-Christians) who aren't of the far-right persuasion find this kind of frightening "logic" little more than an excuse for ignoring our responsibilities to be trustworthy stewards of the environment. For years we have wondered why being ecologically prudent has been continually viewed through a liberal/conservative political prism when it should be one of the few things the vast majority of our diverse population should be able to agree on.

Well, it looks like some evangelical leaders have finally begun to see the light. The New York Times recently reported that the National Association of Evangelicals scheduled two meetings with more than 100 leaders to discuss global warming last Thursday and Friday on Capitol Hill. Several political officials also attended, including Joseph Lieberman and officials from the Bush administration.

These evangelicals believe global warming is a Christian issue because it disproportionately affects the poor, and since God appointed us as stewards of the earth, it is our duty to take care of His creation. The president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Rev. Ted Haggard, said his interest in the issue was sparked when he saw first-hand the effects of pollution and rising ocean temperatures on coral reefs while scuba diving in the ocean.

The good news for us is that it looks like the national discussion on environmentalism and global warming might turn into something a little more honest than a simple left-wing/right-wing debate. Besides that, evangelicals have a good deal of political sway, especially with politicians who aren't all that concerned with the desires of traditional environmentalists. The not-so-good news is that we have yet to see how serious the evangelical community will be in taking effective measures to deal with all of the inter-related issues. After all, the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship describes itself as a religious environmental organization that is, "dedicated to demonstrating widespread support for traditional principles of stewardship." At the same time its website states that the issues of global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss constitute "unfounded or undue concerns."

At least one way or another, it's heartening to know there is a growing community of evangelicals who are beginning to discover you don't have to listen to jam bands or play hacky sack to care about keeping the earth green and healthy.

News And Notes
is online now.

Can Enemies Join Forces?

From ADA Intern Kate Mewhiney

Prevention First Act

Earlier this year, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid introduced The Prevention First Act. The bill is designed to expand access to preventative health care services and education programs in order to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in the U.S. Reid has a record of voting against abortion rights, but has introduced the bill with the ultimate goal of eliminating the need for abortion.

The Prevention First Act will:
* Increase funding to the national family planning program (Title X of the Public Health Service Act) to $648 million a year.

* Require health plans to provide equal insurance coverage for contraceptives as they do for other prescription drugs and services.

* Require that federally-funded hospitals make Emergency Contraception (EC) available to victims of sexual assault upon request, as well as factually accurate and unbiased information about EC.

* Allocate $20 million annually in funding to teen-pregnancy prevention programs.

* Require that information about contraceptives, as a part of any federally-funded programs, be factually accurate and unbiased.

The bill aims to accomplish something both pro-choice and pro-life activists want: fewer abortions. Of the six million pregnancies each year in the U.S., roughly half are accidental. Half of those unintended pregnancies end in abortion. With better education and greater access to contraceptives, these numbers can be significantly reduced. The Prevention First Act seems like common sense, a bill over which even the bitterly divided sides of the abortion debate can reach a compromise.

NARAL Pro-Choice America is reaching out in an attempt to reach that compromise. In an open letter to Right-to-Life organizations, NARAL asks that the two clashing sides work together to pass the bill:

We will never resolve our differences on this basic question. But we should agree on an equally fundamental point: America would be a better country if we helped more women prevent unintended pregnancy.

So far, the Right has rebuffed NARAL's offer. Tony Perkins of The Family Research Council called the proposal "unacceptable," saying on the organization's website that the bill is just an excuse to push condom distribution and increase taxes. Based on reactions like this one, it looks like the Right isn't interested in compromise.

This bill is a big step in the right direction. As one of the richest countries in the world, the U.S. has the resources to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And stopping the problem before abortion is ever necessary is something both sides should be able to agree on.

"We hear a lot of talk these days about reducing the number of abortions," Gloria Feldt, the President of Planned Parenthood, said in a press release. "It's time for anti-choice politicians to put their money where their mouths are."


Links
The Prevention First Act
NARAL Letter
Family Research Council
Planned Parenthood of America Press Release

The State Of Liberalism

From the NY Times

Michael Tomasky, the executive editor of The American Prospect; Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation; Peter Beinart, the editor of The New Republic, were interviewed by Barry Gewen, an editor at the Book Review, about the present state of liberalism in America, and its future.

In part:
"Why has "liberal" become a dirty word for so many Americans today?

VANDEN HEUVEL. I would begin with the unrelenting assault on the term liberalism by the right wing. It has been a project over the last few decades. And by failing to take their own side in the argument liberals have conceded -- to the point where John Kerry was wary of being associated with liberalism in one of the debates. Liberals have also paid a heavy price by allowing liberalism to be defined almost exclusively as social liberalism. So that you lost sight of economic rights, economic justice.

TOMASKY. I essentially agree with that. But liberal concepts still have more resonance than you might think. Polls continually show that people are rhetorically conservative and operationally liberal or progressive.

BEINART. Yes, the term needs to be defended. But I think one also needs to recognize that while people may be conceptually liberal, they're not voting for enough liberals. Liberals need to look at how they grew estranged from large numbers of Americans in the post-Vietnam period. And I think another estrangement has occurred since 9/11. Many Americans have questions about the degree to which liberals are willing to defend the country."

"What would a liberal foreign policy look like?

TOMASKY. A kind of principled realism. First, terrorism is a threat. It threatened our shores more directly than the Soviet Union ever did. And it must be the focus of a foreign policy. We need alliances, yes. But alliances are a means. The end is the isolation of terrorists and the states that harbor them. The end is the control of nuclear proliferation, an extremely serious issue that the Bush administration sort of ignores. And the end is bringing liberty to the places of the world where it doesn't exist.

BEINART. I would just add that the Bush administration's guiding principle is a belief in military power, not a belief in human rights and democracy. It is why there has been no Marshall Plan since 9/11 by this administration. It is why they consistently try to cut programs to deal with the loose nuclear materials. It is why they have not seriously engaged with trying to create liberal currents in civil society in the Muslim world. This is where liberals have a real opportunity. Conservatives today, like conservatives during the cold war in so many ways, do not have a sufficient appreciation of the nonmilitary aspects of American power in this struggle.

VANDEN HEUVEL. I don't think we understand the challenges of the 21st century if we make the "global war against terror" our organizing principle. How does military dominance -- and that is at the core of too much of the establishment liberal conception of security policy -- deal with the central challenges of insecure and decrepit nuclear arsenals in the former Soviet Union? Or pandemics like we've never seen? Or environmental degradation? Or global inequality? Or failed states? I would also argue that you need far more effective nonmilitary responses to the fight against terrorism, which may be lost if one pursues the kind of hawkish security policy you're laying out."

Other questions include:
"To move on to domestic economic policy, the Bush administration pursues a more market-oriented philosophy while liberals tend to pursue a more government oriented philosophy. Is there some meeting ground?"

"Can the Democrats become the majority party in America again?"

Complete discussion and debate can be found at the New York Times

Agree? Disagree? Let us know by posting a comment.

Labor Must Stay United, Focus on Organizing

The current debate over the direction of the AFL-CIO has forced a wide-ranging discussion of ways to reverse the long-term decline of organized labor. Unions have issued various proposals, but five large "dissident" unions (Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers, Laborers, SEIU and UNITE-HERE) have drawn the most attention with plans to shift resources from the AFL to the unions, under the condition that the funds be used for organizing more workers. This would reduce the role of the AFL-CIO and shift labor's overall focus somewhat from political action to organizing work.

At the recent executive council meeting in Las Vegas, the dissidents were defeated, with AFL-CIO President John Sweeney instead winning a vote to increase spending on political action. But there will likely be another fight at the federation convention in July, under a cloud of threats from some unions to leave the AFL-CIO entirely. A split would be a disaster, leading to years of squabbling over leadership of the movement and a shrinking base of organized workers. Organized labor might never recover from such a move.

Some of the debate has been driven by personality issues and battles over turf and resources. But recent history suggests that the dissidents have a point. A union investment of perhaps $140 million in the Kerry campaign obviously fell short. And even when labor has elected Democrats, the decline in union membership has continued and national policy has stressed economic growth over improving the lives of working people.

The labor movement cannot wait until the political stars are aligned to turn to full-bore organizing-it is already down to 12.9% of the workforce, down from 32% in the 1950s and 20% as recently as 1983. The lesson from 2004 is not that labor didn't try hard enough to elect Kerry, but that there are not enough union members to elect a pro-worker President. If labor can reverse its decline, it will benefit both workers and progressives in the long run.


John Brodkin is an ADA member and former Executive Director of the Greater Washington chapter. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of ADA.

Click for Statement of Principles from reform unions.

How does Social Security benefit your state?

The link below is a breakdown of the benefits each state receives from Social Security and is very helpful in looking at how our Social Security system has succeeded in helping retirees, the disabled, widows, widowers and their families. The numbers clearly show how important these benefits are to millions of individuals and families in every state across the nation. The rhetoric that is coming out of Washington has failed to recognize certain groups like, the disabled and widows and widowers that are helped by Social Security and desperately need the guaranteed benefits it promises. You can see just how many people are helped in your state by Social Security and why we must keep the system stable and out of market fluctuations. So please voice your concerns about the Bush plan to privatize Social Security to your Senators and Congressmen.

Click HERE to find out about your state. Thanks to The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) for this wonderful information.

Mr. Bush, Meet Mr. Bust

The Christian Science Monitor's David R. Francis examines the ups and downs of the stock market and how questions we should ask about private accounts in the Social Security debate.

"The road to prosperity, Wall Street has long maintained, is paved with investments in stocks. President Bush takes a similar position in urging private accounts as part of Social Security."

"Stocks have averaged an annual return of 6 percent above bond yields since the 1920s. No wonder roughly half the households in the United States have invested money in stocks, either directly or through a retirement account.

There's a catch, though. Stock markets don't hit the average each year. Performance runs in streaks: Many strong years can be followed by many lean ones. This repetitive pattern has mystified many market analysts. So young Americans, contemplating Mr. Bush's proposal to replace a portion of Social Security with an investment component, may have to factor in this market cycle, not just their age, when planning a retirement date."

Full article HERE

New & Notes is Up

News And Notes is online now.

How Much Will You Lose Under Bush Privatization?

Find out using the Social Security Calculator

Sample:
A 35 year old making an average of $40,000/year will see nearly $5,000/year lost under the Bush plan. That's a 23% cut in benefits.

At Last, No Death Penalty for Children

A great victory for progressives and simple human decency came from an unexpected quarter Tuesday, with the Supreme Court banning the death penalty for crimes committed by children. The United States was the last country on earth that allowed this barbaric practice, with such bulwarks of civil liberties as Saudi Arabia, Iran and China having dropped it in the past decade. The decision spared the lives of 72 people now on death row.

The Court relied primarily on the steady movement of states away from executing juveniles, both legislatively and in practice, to conclude that the ban was required by "evolving standards of decency." Drawing howls of protest from Justice Antonin Scalia, whose judicial philosophy could best be described as medieval, the majority also invoked the international condemnation of the practice and returned to the principle that "the Constitution contemplates that the Court's own judgment be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty." This could provide precedent for a full ban on the death penalty under a more liberal future court.

One obvious lesson for progressives is that even this relatively conservative Court can make the right decision, and we must not allow the Bush Administration to pack it with young right-wing ideologues. Joining Scalia and his puppet Clarence Thomas in dissenting from Tuesday's 5-4 decision were Chief Justice Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor, possibly the next two justices to be replaced. Despite her decision here, O'Connor is the most common swing vote and her seat must not fall to a conservative extremist.

Another important area of work is in state legislatures. With the Presidency and Congress in Republican hands, state government provides opportunities to block some of the most retrograde proposals coming out of Washington, and to move forward on progressive issues such as health care, civil rights and social justice. State work is valuable for its own sake but can have national impact--the Court relied explicitly on the fact that 30 states prohibit the juvenile death penalty, including five that have dropped it since the question was last considered in 1989.

[Text of Supreme Court decision (large PDF)]

Background from the Death Penalty Information Center

John Brodkin is an ADA member and former Executive Director of the Greater Washington chapter. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of ADA.