Wall Street Dems Unveil Plans to Undermine the Progressive Movement

[Imperialism Inc.]

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0406-32.htm

Wall Street Dems Unveil Plans to Undermine the Progressive Movement
by David Sirota

Here's a big shocker - the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party today announced it would be beginning its new war in earnest on the grassroots elements of the party that are demanding serious public policy changes. As the Financial Times reports, Citigroup Chairman Bob Rubin held a press conference at the Brookings Institution to announce the formation of the so-called "Hamilton Project." After paying lip service to various economic problems afflicting the country, Rubin and his former Treasury colleague Roger Altman quickly let it be known exactly what they are up to.

Here's the key excerpt:

"At a time when Democrats have become more aggressive in voicing concerns about the foreign ownership of US assets, Roger Altman, former deputy Treasury secretary under Mr Clinton, added that more inclusive economic growth could also 'blunt the political demands for protectionism'... said it was willing to take on entrenched Democratic interests, such as teaching unions. Policy papers unveiled on Wednesday proposed vouchers for summer schools..."

There it all is. First there's the dishonest name-calling aimed at those courageous Democrats who are challenging the free trade orthodoxy that is destroying the lives of millions of American and foreign workers. Then there is the promise of an ensuing attack on the labor movement - a reflexive move, of course, for a bunch of corporate executives. And finally, the nod to efforts to defund public education through "vouchers."

None of this is surprising, of course. As head of Citigroup, Rubin has a financial interest in the agenda he's pushing. And he's made no apologies for the brazenness with which he pushes his corporatism. Remember, it was Rubin during the debate over the Central American Free Trade Agreement who demanded that congressional Democrats back off their efforts to include labor, human rights and environmental protections in the pact. He and his pals are the same people who rammed trade deals like NAFTA, WTO and China PNTR down the throats of Americans, and then left government service for the high life of the corporate boardroom. There, they reaped the rich financial rewards of the very sell-out policies they used public office to push, while millions of Americans saw their jobs outsourced, their wages frozen and their benefits slashed.

(more)

[EllieGreen]

1. Disgusting.

Maybe it is time from a good 'ol fashioned grass-roots based election? Through the bums out and put some REAL Liberals up in Washington, not the ones the DLC approves of.

[K-W]

2. Thread on this article from editorials forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=201735&mesg_id=201735

[Hubert Flottz]

3. There is NO difference between these "Democrats" and The GOP

NONE!

[movonne]

6. I do not believe that there is no difference..but there is a part of the

dem party that you are correct about.

[Hubert Flottz]

12. I never meant that All democrats were like the GOP, I meant that...

the DLC(Rockefeller democrats)are exactly the same as the Rockefeller republicans! A DINO is a DLC democrat!

[movonne]

13. It sounds like we are both on the same page....

[MadHound]

4. Not suprising, not at all

This is, after all, the two party, same corporate master system of government that we're living under.

[movonne]

5. I'm beginning to hate them almost as much as this administration. It

is like having this big rock around our neck when we are trying to make a good dem party. I really want a great liberal party not another dino substitute..

[nolabels]

7. Do you think the immigration bill was an accident?

They don't want a grass roots worker, minority, womens, etc, type of party. Their corporate sponsors tell them that if they want the bucks for their office they must be in line with the corporate sponsors. This shouldn't be that hard to figure out, should it :shrug:

[applegrove]

8. Extreme poverty in the world has been reduced by a few hundred million.

Trade has raised Asia. The question is what is the progressive stance on trade?

No trade? Trade deals negotiated by people other than neocons? (that is what I would pick).

I just read the end of poverty. Reducing agricultural subsidies across the board would help countries with a comparative advantage in agriculture.. notably Canada, the USA, Australia and other such bread-baskets.

It is a big new world.

We are all interconnected.

What is the progressive policy on this world of trade?

Cause the 20th century will never come again. USA didn't compete with 3/4 of the world. And it was the golden days. Now, when resources are bought from within a country - market price is demanded (unlike the United Fruit Company days).

Those days are gone.

What are we going to do.

Argentina is the example of a country that had land and resources and closed its borders to trade in the 20th century. That went really bad for them.

What are we going to do?

We need a policy of going boldly into the future. Kick ass science programs in public schools, public health care for the world, ... come on! These things and more (both make your workers more competative and keep costs down because of the externalities they create as well as the direct goals). How are we going to remain profitable and competitive?

Cause as oil rises - you do not want your kids to have been studying tool & die making for a factory job. There will be none in the USA or Canada (oil at $200 a barrel if you can get it in 20 years).

What areas do you want your country to have a comparative advantage in. Pick twelve. And you have to pick areas of specialization:

One) Okay - agriculture.. North America has good soil and rain and fields.

Okay what is number 2? Computers? To sell software across internet lines to asia? That sounds good.

Three? Nano-technology so that tunnels the world over will be painted with paint that changes harmful exhaust into water and less harmful gasses.

Four? Pharmaceuticals (monitored so that those suckers actually solve needed illness with their patents.. no more re-inventing the aspirin). Sell those pills around the world to the middle class. Give good deals to Africa or any poor country facing an epidemic. Public funding here too. Cause don't ya know pharmaceuticals are given monopolies. So it is regulated already.

Five? Green Revolutions. (And don't tell me about suicide seeds..). Trees that leach nitrogen planted on farms in Africa. Winter Wheat in Canada (1930s). That would be biology & Sciences - again with public funding if the privates don't seem to want to solve something important.

Six?????? Aerospace? Shoot down the next Saddam's satellites - the next Saddam gone (no neocons didn't invent this one.. it has been kicking around longer than they have).

Seven? ????????????????????????????????????? Alternative fuel technology. And why the hell isn't the good old US of A out there way out in front on this one?

Eight?

Nine?

Ten?

Eleven?

Twelve?

[BootinUp]

10. good post. n/t

[Imperialism Inc.]

15. Eight

Modify trade agreements to allow for environmental concerns. Or , at the very least, remove the power for corporations to overrule local democratically constructed laws. This removes the drain of jobs to places with little to no regulation

Nine

Do the same for wages. Require some minimum level of labor laws and wage levels below which tariffs are automatically applied to the goods. Again, to stop the drain of jobs. It also has obvious humane side benefits.


The bonus is that it still keeps a "free market" system. Yes it adds new restrictions but, the notion that these "free trade" pacts don't already have a byzantine labyrinth of rules and regulations is a myth anyway.

Without these modifications and possibly others I don't think your other 7 (good) ideas will be enough. It isn't that we lack the skills. Yes we are behind some places, but still way ahead of third world sweatshop and pollution filled lands.

[applegrove]

16. But my people and yours got off boats as slaves (or endentured servants

for three years if you were white.. and were willing to do that to get a farm because they were sorta slaves in Europe. So they farmed where all free time was spent to remove rocks from fields for 30 years). And who only saw their grandkids with enough cents to rub together to perhaps buy a beer. The people who could buy a beer then waited for another two generations till their kids could rub enough cents together to get a loan for college or a loan for a house and a salaried position (that paid shit - but they had more disposable income than a few beers over their lives.. they could save and dam if their kids didn't automatically go to college if they were willing to work like dogs in factories over the summer).

Point is.. the people who are not leading a subsistance living on land that is unproductive.. but actually saving or selling crap in a market.. have so much more choice than the people on the crap land. The people on the crap land have to wait for it to rain. It looks like nothing to you. But the total untility is mind-boggling from generation to generation. And the process seems to have sped up in places like Bangladesh. Instead of 9 generations we are talking about two where the "change" takes place. People used to, and still do, work like dogs if it means their kids will have a hiccup of a chance for something a little bit better. And they don't look back and they don't regret it.

I do not know what you mean by wages exactly. I look at it like "how many people will get help to have a more productive farm where they can make savings, or move to a lifestyle where their kids will have jobs where they can make a few bits of savings over the years. Cause there is 1/3 of the world where people have had no growth in the econoy for 200 hundred years while you and I live in places where there has been 3% growth every year for that whole time.

Yes Kyoto. Put that up there with universal health care and public education with kick-ass sciences.

Okay we are at 9. 8 being standards and laws against child labour (except on farms where kids the world over still have full time jobs or they don't eat).

[Montagnard]

9. All together now, say NEO-LIBERALISM

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/neoliberalDefined.html

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

1.THE RULE OF THE MARKET "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

2.CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care..

3.DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminish profits, including protecting the environment and safety on the job.

4.PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors.

5.ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility."

[applegrove]

11. I agree with all you say except that for 200 years - there has been

at least 2% growth rate (usually more) in the West who followed mixed market economics... everywhere else.. no growth (ask communists or former colonies or terribly poor places about what no change in growth over 200 years is like). Trade (where the people trading owned their own business) resulted in huge growth. Results in more money to go around. Every been to a boomtown vs. a busttown? Where people didn't own their own business (colonialism, or Communist China) no growth. Actually - China tanked its fleet of ships 500 years ago and growth stopped or slowed to a crawl right about then - then communism made it worse. Now they have 8% growth a year.


Of course markets alone do not do it all.

Universal health care and regulations are great. I agree with everything else you say. But to say markets do not help anyone.. when you have been living in the biggest one in the world for 200 years and have been the richest people for the last 100 is unfair.

Of course a mixed economy. Markets are just the enlightenment for the economy. It is just the economy. It isn't religion, or governance, or morals or lifestyle or laws, .. it is just the economy.

Good governance must stay the main goal. Without it - cabals and oligarchs and market interfearance destroys the markets.

[BootinUp]

14. I suggest

you review the history of economic policies in this country and the health of the economy and the middle class. I don't see anyone here advocating less progressive taxe rates, more deregulation, more privatization, and less investment in public works.

Certainly we have to reverse damage done since the 80's. But there must be a middle road that allows business to flourish and that encourages a healthy middle class and that reduces poverty in other parts of the world.