'Democrats Offer a New Direction' by Howard Dean WSJ

[applegrove]

'Democrats Offer a New Direction'

By HOWARD DEAN
Wall Street Journal
September 22, 2006

"We need a Democratic Congress to fight the war on terror -- and to end the war on America's families. Republican policies of the last five years have damaged our economy and failed Americans. Democrats believe strengthening the middle class is essential for a thriving economy that rewards work, provides economic opportunity to all and makes it easier for parents to devote time to their families. An economy that favors the top 1% at the expense of everyone else might be good for President Bush's politics, but a shrinking middle class is bad for capitalism, democracy and America. We need a new direction.

The Republican record on managing the federal budget is dismal. Republicans have turned surplus into debt, hope into lost opportunity; they have become the party of borrow-and-spend. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the total cost this year of the president's tax cuts is $258 billion. This means that even with spending for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the response to Hurricane Katrina, the federal budget would essentially be in balance if the tax cuts had not been enacted, or if they had been offset as required under the pay-as-you-go rules that Republicans allowed to expire. These economic policies amount to a war on American families:

• Under Mr. Bush and the Republican Congress, incomes today are $1,000 less for the typical household than during Bill Clinton's final year in office; incomes for the typical working-age household have declined every year since the president took office. Black and Hispanic households have fared worse over the same period: Black household income has fallen every year, after rising every year (except for a one-year $60 dip) under Mr. Clinton. Incomes for Hispanic households are down $1,000, after rising more than $7,000 under Mr. Clinton.

... skip

• Health and retirement coverage have declined for most workers and their families, and workers' costs have increased. The share of Americans with job-based health coverage fell over the last five years from 62.6% in 2000 to only 59.5% in 2005, virtually erasing gains in such coverage under Mr. Clinton, when coverage rose from 57.1% in 1993 to 63.6 % in 2000. Workers are also paying more for their coverage. Between 2001 and 2005, the amount workers paid for family premiums grew more than 50%. These factors have fueled increases in the number of uninsured every year under Mr. Bush, to almost 47 million last year -- roughly one in six Americans.

.....SNIP"

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB115888827162370858.html

[William769]

1. Thank God!

Something about a Democrat!

[ixion]

2. I like Dr. Dean, but whenever a Dem uses the phrase 'War on Terror'

they are playing right into the neocons hand, IMO.

[yurbud]

3. de-escalate by calling the 'terrorism problem'

Or just terrorism.

Maybe "We must deal with terrorism both by finding and punishing those responsible and by preventing it through security measures and addressing any legitimate grievances those in the Arab world have that make it easier for terrorist groups to recruit. The best way to do this is to disconnect oil companies from our foreign policy. We will not support dictators simply because they obey our oil companies, or overthrow leaders for trying to keep some of their oil wealth in their country for their people. No democratically elected president in any part of the world should have to fear a destabilization campaign, coup, or invasion simply because they drive a hard bargain with transnational corporations."

[applegrove]

4. Drive a hard bargain? They are an oil cartel. And America Oil Co.

benefits from the increase in price when they sell their own oil.

Really - I doubt you are going to get anyone to completely separate from big oil..because if Iran were to withdraw its oil from the market inflation would rock the Western World (the whole world) and we would be in a deep recession that would go on for decades. That still makes no excuse for starting a slow war in Iraq.

So up to a point you can separate your foreign policy from oil. Perhaps separate Haliburton or 'wars of choice' from foreign policy. But USA still needs a relationship with the middle east desperately..why the * WH tries to spread democracy in a desperate way..so that they will not be the enemy to this next generation of kids (and they can erase Cheney & Rummyies pasts). I'd rather see the energy policy separate. Where the battle to make the USA secure is fought also in universities research labs on a massive scale instead of just Afghanistan (like a wet noodle)

[yurbud]

5. A relationship and making them our bitch is two different things

We would ultimately have more stable relationships with people there if we respected them more. What would our relationship be like today if we had not taken out Mossadegh? The oil companies would have lost out in profits in the short term, but we would have had a better relationship with the people all along and they would have no reason to cut us off.

Also, if they did cut us off, they would be cutting off their own nose to spite their face. We consume 25% of the world's oil. If they succeeded in cutting us off, their would be a glut for everybody else.

Additionally, in the case of Iraq, Greg Palast found CIA insiders and oil execs who said the point of the war was to PREVENT Saddam from driving down the price by pumping a lot when the sanctions came off (and of course to make sure American companies profit from pumping it).

This was confirmed in one of the Downing Street Memos when Bush sent reassurances to Putin that if the invasion of Iraq was successful, it would not drive down the price of oil. Lowering the price of oil is about the only reason Americans would countenance a war for oil, and that wasn't even what happened. We are essentially paying for oil companies to have the opportunity to charge us more.

[applegrove]

6. Oh - I agree with that.

:hi: Price of oil rises whenever they feel like it. That is why oil people are so rich. It doesn't seem to matter ..war or peace..price is always way above the cost of extracting it (if you don't inlcude wars..which oil companies benefit from and seem not to pay for either..a subsidy for sure).

[yurbud]

7. yeah, some analysts say biofuels use more energy to produce than oil

but I wonder if they are adding the cost of seizing and protecting the oil militarily.

[applegrove]

8. Some biofuel stuff is waste.. animal parts and used cooking oil..so

they are currently in use. When price of oil gets higher.. all biofuels will be more cost effective than they are at present.

But then there is the whole fertilizer issue... does is take more oil to fertilize the plants (& the animals eat)to make ethanol?

I know in Canada cattle get fed grass and not corn so much. So the cost of fertilizer is much less (and happens quite naturally on the range). What happens when the climate gets hotter?

Don't know much about biofuels. But every new home with a big lawn should have geothermal built in. I hear it works as air conditioning as well as heating. That would help a great deal..if someone bothered to build in such technology in their million dollar homes.

[yurbud]

11. it would be nice if new houses were required to make roughly as much

electricity as they use.

[applegrove]

12. Everyone would need a brook! Those days are long gone. Perhaps

solar? In England there is a program where if you make electricity you can then sell it to the grid. Other places in the world will come up with the alternatives before the USA does at this rate.

[ShortnFiery]

9. But why publish in The Ruling Classes' Rag - WSJ? n/t

[applegrove]

13. Some business people need to have a little light shone up their asses.

Not all, but some...

[bklyncowgirl]

15. Why not? I like the fact that he's not preaching to the choir.

There are plenty of economic conservatives who have to be disgusted with the greed, ineptitude and arrogance of the Bush administration. These people are not going to read Mother Jones.

[rodeodance]

10. good, they are talking of health care.

[applegrove]

14. Yup! About 30 years after everyone else!!