Since the Congressional Election, a caucus of Democrats has been ascending; the Faux Populists. These are Democrats who, although they support some noble causes (higher minimum wage, single payer healthcare), they also have the intractible need to demand protectionism and use escalation rhetoric which is reminiscent of the late 80's, when everyone could have sworn to you on their lucky charm that Japan was going to crush America's exporters, flatten Wall Street like Germany's invasion of Poland, enslave us, etc. Boy, they were sure right, uh? Japan went through over a decade of recession, and even now is not on a great footing. Now we have these same people, who got it so wrong before, off on another crusade, this time having convinced themselves (and hopefuly no one else), that China and India are our new adversaries in the trade wars, and that we need to protect American jobs and industry like a national treasure, while saying that we are really for environmental protections and better wages in these other countries.

   Now, if you were to tell someone that, because of the color of their skin, they could not get a job, would that not be racist? Well, if you were to tell someone that, because of their nationality, the country they lived in, they should not get a job, is that not also morally and ethically wrong? Well, this is exactly what these Faux Populists are advocating, while cloaking themselves in the rhetoric of "Progressive Values". Seriously, can someone call the adults in Congress (if there are any), and get them to restrain these folks? We have just lost a trade agreement with Vietnam, which would have been great for the trade of our two countries and good diplomatically as well (if countries trade a lot with each other, then they will be less likely to go to war).

   If people are going to talk about working class and middle class problems, talk about the median income and productivity decoupling from each other, unions in the service sector, etc. But don't run around saying you are for protectionism and barriers to trade, etc. Otherwise, you will get your wish, meaning stagflation, basically. So, lets get back to real politics, and stop the politicians playing with matches and bombs we call protectionism.

      Many people, from prominent Democrats such as Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown, to premiere bloggers, in particular David Sirota, have been peddling the panacea of protectionism. Now, these people don't say they are for protectionism, but rather are for "fair trade", meaning that they want more environmental and labor regulations in these agreements. As if countries that are signing free trade agreements are  not concerned with the environment and labor standards,  and want to sacrifice their countries to US commercial interests (imagine how popular the government will be). Also, there actually are fair trade policies in place, but they are on a small scale and are directly between customers and producers, obviously because large scale trade deals, such as those that the Congress signs, are impractical for dealing with issues regarding small producer compensation. Now then, think about what that means. It means that the inputs for the goods and services we import rise substantially. Many Americans are at breaking point trying to scrap together down payments for college, housing, health care and child care. Now we want to seriously limit the scope of things Americans may purchase, such as clothes, appliances and electronis, cars, etc.? This is not a good idea. Although the environment and labor conditions are important, such clauses in trade agreements would be nearly impossible to enforce, and if enforced would raise the price of goods imported, and increase our trade deficit greatly, which these very same people despair of (the trade deficit is really not a problem, but thats another issue). Perhaps what these people want, but aren't willing to admit, is to make America an autarky, self-sufficient, so we can keep our jobs. Well, that can be done, if you think most Americans except the wealthy should go  fewer cars, clothing, food, durable goods, and a whole host of things that they currently enjoy only by free trade. I am not saying this is a bad idea, although politically it could be devastating (remember how people responded to Carter). And to think these people are concerned about the rich getting richer; the stark contrasts will become even larger if these policies they support are put in place! Seriously, protectionism is a bad idea. Not only does it increase the cost of goods Americans depend on (as the benefits from fair trade of this sort are near impossible to quantify at this point), but it could also lead to electoral mishaps, as some libertarian inclined voters return home to the GOP (provided the culture wars cool, which could happen). So seriously. Just say no to protectionism, including its sheep's clothing, fair trade, and support free trade.  

     Although it won't be New Year's for a while now, in about five, six weeks, I've decided to jot down what I want the Democrats in the House and Senate to do, and what to watch for as being trouble.

     1) Raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation. It's clear that Pelosi will pass a minimum wage hike in the House with the Dems in almost unanimous support. A few Repugs will join as well. As for the senate, we need nine Repugs there to pass it. It will be interesting to watch. Whether the indexing to inflation goes through is another issue.

    2) Have Medicare and Medicaid negotiate for lower drug prices. This one too will be a no-brainer for the Dems in the House, and I suspect more than a few repugs will decide it unwise to vote against Seniors. As for the senate, this one also relies on nine repugs votes, although it will most liekly go down because of the addiction of GOP law makers to big Pharma funds.

    3) Ethics reform. I just don't see this one going anywhere. Although the CPC is general for it, as is Ms. Pelosi herself, the Blue Dogs are in general dead against it, as are many DLCers. I expect the Dems to pass only shallow legislation, otherwise it will get shelved. The Murtha-Hoyer episode did not go down well for Pelosi; she doesn't need the party to be labled as AWAL on ethics.

   4) Iraq. This one is a biggie, for obvious reasons. While I wish the Dems would just set an exit date and begin withdrawing troops and then leave things up to the Iraqi gov., I can't help but think that the Repugs would then declare it a defeat from the jaws of victory moment (even though it isn't), and that the outcome would be the American people seeing it like the evacuation from Saigon, a major defeat, laid at the feet of the Democratic Party. Instead, they are going to do troop "redeployment" -- a less bold and dangerous strategy, although troops will still be getting shot at in large numbers come 2008.

   5) Trade. On this one, the Dems are split, between those for it, and those against. I am for free trade agreements, albeit with strings attached (they shouldn't be feudal handouts, like Medicare D and the Bankruptcy Bill). I think Pelosi will table it. If free trade bills are brought to the floor, a coalition of Dems and Repugs could pass it through the House. In the Senate, the Repugs would vote for, as would some Dems, and of course Bush is for them, so you don't need sixty votes.

  6) Immigration. I'm for it. I really wish we would setup a new Ellis Island, you know? On this one the party has some spliters, but so does the GOP. I think this one will be done with most Dems and some Repugs supporting some sort of amnesty or guest worker program or something along those lines. If Congress doesn't address the issue, the two parties get hit from both sides; the die-hard nativists on the right, and the demonstrators and mainstream Hispanics on the left.

   7) Taxes. Nothing doing here. Rangel ain't touching it, leaving the tax cuts to expire in 2010. As long as the Repugs aren't able to frame it as "biggest" tax hike in US history, should be a net neutral. Besides, get to cut the deficit (instead of cooking the numbers to achieve that goal, as under Bush).

   8) Impeachment. I wish this one was on the calender, but it ain't. Pelosi has ruled it out fearing that the Repugs will call it partisan (and Dems remember the five seat loss Repugs took in 1998). However, I think if Dems don't do something about the Bush crew, from War Crimes in Iraq to dismantling the Constitution at home, the Dem base could be demoralized.

  9) Investigations. On this one, too, I fear inaction. For reasons listed above, with the same consequences on the base.

  10) Environment. I think its going nowhere. I was just reading that the sugar producers lobby is preventing the US from getting cheap ethonal derived from world sugar. With the farm lobby lined up against energy independece, Repugs against Kyoto, fuel standards leading to union vs. enviro activist, I just don't see where the policies get by right now. I see alot of grid lock.

    That's it for my New Year's Wish List of things for the coming year. Hopefully some of these will get covered, but I'm not going to count on it.

       I was taking a look at past polls for mid term elections for Congress, and I found some disturbing stuff. Polling registered voters didn't matter, at all. In all the mid terms, they showed Democrats leading among registered by large numbers, but when likley voters were polled, support for the Democrats plummets, always below 10% lead. This is very important. The difference in the actual vote versus polling likely voters is off by only 1-2 points in either direction, much more accurate than the typical 4-5% margin of error that pollsters use. We know that the Democrats have been leading among registered voters by over 10% forever now, but we lead by 6-8% at most, and more likely 4-6% among likely voters. Since we need an edge of at least 5% to take back the House, much less the Senate, I think that we now basically have a coin toss, not a 70-90% chance of taking back the House, and that worries.

                           Beginning with Molly Ivins in July 2006, there has been a growing movement to draft Bill Moyers to run for Presidet, to throw his hat into the ring of Democratic contenders for the nomination. I believe that this is a great idea, and I wish to lay down the reasons for pursuading Mr. Moyers to campaign for President. Bill Moyers is a very well known an respected media figure. After being involved in the Peace Corps and the Johnson White House, he went to PBS in 1971 and did a news progam until 1981. He also worked at CBS as an news analyst, and hosted the show NOW on PBS.The reasons for drafting Bill Moyers are clear, and stark. Bill Moyers is not afraid to speak truth to power. He has consistently supported liberal causes, denounced the conservative media, class warfare by the rich, corporate power, and the sleazy activites of the GOP. With the field of Democratic hopefuls being what it is, Moyers would be a perfect addition. What Democrat out there is carrying the liberal/progressive banner? Hillary Clinton? Hell no, she supports the war and has many other problems. Evan Bayh and Joe Biden? Same problems. John Edwards might be on to something, but he just doesn't have the base, and much as I love Russ Feingold, I don't know how he will do in the primaries.     Bill Moyers is well known by people, very respected, has integrity, and has a record of supporting liberals and the left, especially when times have been terrible. If he were to run in the Democratic primaries, issues that might not come up otherwise, will; media consolidation, totally transforming US foreign policy, fighting back against Class warfare, dealing with the oncoming baby boomer retirement crisis, and other issues that desperately need to be addressed, not soon, but NOW. So, with that in mind, I fully support a Bill Moyers candidacy, and hope other liberals and progressives will too.  

     This Nov. 7th, most, if not all close Congressional races, in the House and Senate, could be going to the Republicans, whether you like it or not. The reason for this is simple; fraud. In 2000, 2002, and 2004, the GOP threw out millions of legitimate ballots, rigged e-voting machines everywhere, and basically prevented large numbers of overwhelmingly Democratic voters from casting meaningful votes. Will the Democrats win the races which they lead by large amounts? Yes, but the races which they need to take back the house and senate could go to the GOP anyway. As such, it seems like the thing to do now, first and foremost, is to raise the alarms on voting fraud which is enveloping the nation as I write this post. If we don't, we could be staring at permeanent one party dictatorial rule forever.  

The Democrats, in making their list of issues to run on, have conspicuously missed what is probably the biggest issue in America today; our growing Plutocracy. Although talking about National Security, exit strategies from Iraq, National Health Care and other issues is important, the Democrats need to talk about the threat of Plutocracy if they want to push for real change. People may disapprove of the Bush administrations policies and that of the GOP congress, but the policies aren't coherent to people. What the hell does invading Iraq have to do with Tax Cuts and school vouchers? The answer is Plutocracy. The policies that have been implemented under the ush regime serve one purpose; to calcify America's class structure, to give us a rigid caste system, so that people as incompetent as Bush will run the country, while geniuses like Albert Einstein will have to make do as janitors. Seriously, look at what they are focused on. Cut taxes on unearned income an high earned income, repeal taxes on large inheritances, smash public education and squeeze access to college, run deficits to Starve the Beast,etc. If you look at the other two ages in which we have had vast inequality, the Gilded Age and the Roaring 20's, check out the erie similarities. Rising anti-immigrant ferver? Check. Tendencies toward unilateralism and isolationism? Check. Invasions based on power politics (the US fought a brutal colonial war in the Phillipines following the Spanish-American war in 1898)? Check. Corporate interests served? Check. You get my point. America is in another Gilded Age, and unless we do something about it, we could be headed for the road to serfdom (bet Frederick Hayek wouldn't have guessed). If the Democrats want to go anywhere in the longterm, they need to begin fighting back against the rising tide of Plutocracy. For over 30 years the Republicans have been waging class warfare against over 80%,90% of the population. The Democrats might be able to take back Congress in 2006 because the American people are fickle, but they will not stay in power for long if they just talk about the war in Iraq(which for now they are neglecting to mention), or other issues. In an election cycle or two, the Republicans will then be back, and the tax cuts will begin again, except this time they will have teeth to them; abolishment of taxes on all unearned income, and perhaps the introduction of national sales taxes in place of income taxes. Also, for some reason, this is the one issue that resonates with the vast majority of the American public. When polled about Washington, over 65% of people regularly say corporations and the rich have too much influence. In Connecticut, over 60% of Republicans, and over 70% of the general electorte, supports a surcharge tax on incomes over one million dollars. See, even Republicans are worried for crying out loud! That Democrats are not addressing this issue is essntially them saying they won't take on the problem at the core of all of our country's woes, and which has bipartisan, widespread support among the public at that. All I can say is, if the Democrats don't start talking about Plutocracy, they are going to get into power, but it will either be deadlock or a tilt to the right (think Clinton years), as opposed to the New Deal and Great Society, when the leaders of our party understood the threat of Plutocracy.

  So, the Republicans have increased the debt limit to nearly nine trillion dollars, between 70 and 75% of US GDP right now. Every single Dem voted no, while only three Republicans voted no. How can Dems turn this against the GOP? The key here I think is for the Dems to underline two things; first, this demonstrates the bankruptcy (intended pun) of the Republican party. While they are always claiming to be the party of small government and fiscally responsible, their vote on the debt limit belies this notion. And Dems should say it, in unison, over and over again, until the right wing MSM is sore in the throat screaming it aint so. Secondly, the Dems need to present the debt limit raise as a tax increase. The Republicans have been claiming that allowing the tax cuts to expire is a tax hike, so they claim that the expiration of the dividend tax cut is a tax hike of over 100%, since the rate goes from 15% to 39.6%, while the capital gains goes from 15% to 20%.
   If the Republicans can get away with painting expiration of tax cuts as tax hikes, why can't the Dems say the same of raising the debt limit, especially when it will entail raising taxes in the future? I have this in mind especially because of the Santorum Casey race, and I think Casey can make some serious hay out of saying Santorum voted for a tax increase of over $2500 for every person in America. What can Santorum say to that? Nothing, since he would have to admit that we had to borrow the money, which just shows that the GOP controlled Congress is not fiscally responsible. Every Dem in the races for Congress this year should repeat this talking point, it can't hurt.