Greenspan: Open The Borders!

On a recent episode of "Democracy Now," whose website bills itself as "a daily radio and TV news program on over 500 stations," host Amy Goodman and, primarily, investigative journalist Naomi Klein, recently interviewed former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, continuing his tour to promote his memoir "The Age of
Turbulence: Adventures in a New World." Although the questions covered a fairly wide range of economic issues (even the war in Iraq was viewed in part in this context), a portion of one of Greenspan's responses caught my eye- or ear, when I heard it:

And I also argue in the book that we ought to be opening up our borders to skilled labor from all sorts of -- from all parts of the world, because if we were to do that, we would increase the supply of skilled workers, which our schools have been unable to create, and as a consequence of that, we would lower the average wage of skills and reduce the degree of income inequality in this country.

There are several interesting arguments made here, each disturbing:

1) "Our schools have been unable to create" an adequate "supply of skilled workers," a claim refuted by evidence, and offensive to the hordes of men and women highly trained in technology upon graduating colleges and universities each year;

2) "Lower(ing) the average wage of skills" would "reduce the degree of income inequality in this country, an implication which suggests that reducing income of workers somehow decreases income inequality, a bizarre idea;

3) "We ought to be opening up our borders to skilled labor... from all parts of the world," although clearly the United States has done so.

All in all, a worthwhile interview, for which Naomi Klein deserves credit- as does Alan Greenspan, whose argument here is seriously wrongheaded. He stuck with the interview even though he wasn't treated with the same reverence that he had come to expect from the American media.

Obama's Faith Initiative

CNN.com reports that the Obama campaign is organizing in
South Carolina "voter outreach through existing church Bible study programs" in an effort called "40 Days of Faith and Family" (40 days and 40 nights of rain, get it?). Although billed as "an opportunity for people of faith to come together across racial and denominational lines..." this article emphasizes the unavoidable, understandable racial (not racist) nature of Obama's bid in South Carolina. Note the phrases: "hoping to increase the candidate's profile among African-Americans;" "the candidate also has run radio ads here targeted at African-American voters;" "running neck and neck among black voters;" "two biographical entries that the campaign hopes will help the Senator appeal to black voters;" "a dead heat among African-Americans."

Response in the netroots to news of this faith-based effort seems primarily to fall along two lines: good that Democrats finally are recognizing the role of faith in the lives of American voters, or bad that Democrats are mimicking the Repub Party in dangerously entangling religion and politics. But here is the bottom line: roughly half of Democratic primary voters in South Carolina are black, which obviously presents Obama with a great opportunity. However, he is running against the spouse of "the first black President," as Toni Morrison famously described WTC. Even in the South, the role of religion generally plays a larger role among blacks than among whites. If Senator Obama truly is targeting both white and black voters (which I doubt) with the "40 Days of Faith and Family," he is making wasting valuable resources. If instead this is an effort to target black voters, which is highly likely, it is an intriguing, and probably worthwhile, approach.

An Implied Threat?

Suppose you are a father who has given his son money to go to the movies a couple of times. However, on both occasions he has misled you about the movie he has gone to see and has gotten into trouble. Now, he comes to you for a third time to fund his night out at the movies. But this time you refuse him, citing the problems he has caused your family with his behavior that you have funded.

And so it was that Chris Wallace, arguably the most objective of personalities on GOP TV, yesterday on Fox News Sunday asked of Hillary Clinton a variant of the question war opponents continually face: "But Senator, some of this money as you know goes to protect our troops against mines and IED's. No matter how you feel about the war, how can you vote to cut them off while they're still on the front lines?

Clinton, for her part, gave an excellent response. She began "I think, uh, the best way to protect our troops to to start bringing them home," then noted the body armor "the Bush Administration was not able or not willing to produce in the quantities that were necessary;" the armored vehicles which "needed additional protection in Iraq and they weren't getting it;" and "no-bid contracts and the cronyism" while Mr. Bush "keeps turning a blind eye to the abuses and the contracting process."

But I wonder about the question itself. Just as you expect that your son will not continue going to the movies now that you have denied him funding, why would you expect Mr. Bush to continue the war if he is denied funding? Could it be that the Administration which has denied soldiers superior body armor, as Lisa Myers of NBC reported here, or superior protection against rocket-propelled grenades (apparently the Trophy system, as the Israeli army now uses, according to Myers here) would leave soldiers out in the field unprotected? Could it be that the President who has always fought this war on the cheap, preferring tax cuts for the very wealthy to protection of soldiers and victory in war, would leave our fighting men and women vulnerable to attacks by insurgents bent on murder? I hope not.

The Ideal Opponent

There have been two major impediments to the nomination, but especially the election, of Hillary Clinton. She has had to demonstrate that she is likeable and that a woman can be trusted to maintain the security of the United States. Although the string of Democratic debates and forums have proven little, the perception of Mrs. Clinton as the stereotypical woman, concerned about children and peace and unable to handle the reins of government, has been dispelled. Still, she is viewed by a sizeable portion of the American electorate as shrill and unfeeling, and distrusted as a political chameleon.

On the "Chris Matthews Show" Sunday, a video was shown of an appearance Mrs. Clinton made in front of an influential group, presumably in New York City, on February 6, 2000 as she was campaigning to become United States Senator. She stated "I may be new to the neighborhood but I'm not new to your concerns.... Now I know it's not always going to be an easy campaign (slight pause) but eh (hey?) this is New York."

Matthews and his panel of journalists understandably, justifiably, groaned. Clinton was corny, transparent, and, speaking with a slight New York accent, disingenuous.

And she was elected- not specifically because of this appearance, but I doubt that it hurt. The Senator understands better than most the importance of telling the voters that you're at one with their concerns ("I feel your pain") and of identifying with those voters. It's why, at least in part, Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush assured Repub primary voters that he was pro-life when anyone minimally aware knew that he was not and, at base, probably never would be. And why Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney obfuscate and distort their records and figuratively twist themselves into pretzels to explain that they are anti-abortion rights, anti- gay rights, and pro- gun rights. They need not convince- and probably not even persuade- likely primary voters, merely assure them that they are concerned about their opinion and anxious for their support.... which they demonstrate by renouncing, or reinterpreting, their prior views. (Notably, GHWB remembered culturally conservative voters were powerful enough to help get him into the White House and acted accordingly.)

And Mrs. Clinton knows how to identify with voters, whether they be her base of educated, largely upscale and single women or black voters, with whom she at least once discovered her Southern accent. And perhaps she can identify with more mainstream general election voters. Matthews noted "lately, she's been selling this thing: 'I'm a Midwestern daughter.'" Asked whether voters would prefer a Clinton "blended background" or a Giuliani "big-city background," the program's panel of journalists (most of whom are not on the air for that particular episode) insightfully had chosen "blended background" 11 to 1.

And make no mistake about it. If in the very unlikely event HRC's prayers are answered and she gets Rudy as an opponent next year (an outcome Giuliani has been boosting), Mrs. Clinton will not run as the Senator from New York but as the "midwestern daughter." She still will not be especially likeable but Giuliani, whom Matthews (approvingly, oddly) quoted as saying "either you like me or I hate you," will be, once the country gets to know him in early autumn of 2008, seen as charming as Bobby Knight after a loss. Against Rudy Giuliani, that would be enough.

Talk Of The Payroll Tax

As with virtually any forum this election season, last night's Democratic Presidential debate sponsored by AARP, hosted by Judy Woodruff of PBS, and held in Davenport, Iowa, produced few sparks but significant boredom (except to political junkies, but who else would be watching it?). Five candidates participated, with Gravel and Kucinich not invited and Obama having announced fairly recently that he would avoid any forum not sanctioned by the national party.


There was, however, a significant exchange about the FICA, the payroll tax which finances Social Security and Medicare. As Bloomberg News reports it, Mr. Edwards "said that the income cap is currently about $97,000, and advocated extending it for individuals earning more than $200,000 a year. ``These millionaires on Wall Street ought to be paying their Social Security taxes,'' he said." However, ever the advocate of the plutocracy, Mrs. Clinton "said she opposed this increase of the payroll tax and is focused instead on the budget deficit. ``We have a lot of work to do in Washington to clean up the fiscal mess we're going to inherit from President Bush,'' she said.

As described objectively here, the FICA is a classic example of a regressive tax. Worse than a "flat tax," which, presumably, would tax all income at the same rate, we finance these great, anti-poverty, pro- middle class programs with a rate up to a certain (ever-growing) level-at which point the Social Security aspect (the bulk of the fee) of the tax goes away. Thus, Social Security is not financed with any income above (currently) $97,000- whether possessed by M. Gibson, Trump, Gates, Bellichick, or Couric.

Addressing this is not "class warfare" (more often practiced by the Repub Party, anyway) but rather intrinsic to saving the program. The Repub Party rants about depletion of the Social Security trust fund, and the mainstream media take it as an article of faith that the money to support America's elderly is running out. That is alarmist, but continued solvency of the fund can only be enhanced by a)not raiding it in order to supplement the federal budget; and b)extending applicablility of the tax to all income, so that the privileged will pay their fair share and lifting much of the burden off the middle class. It is disappointing that Senator Clinton, who undoubtedly understands this need, will not acknowledge it and disturbing that if elected, might continue to skew the tax system for the scions of Wall Street and the glitterati of Hollywood, and against Main Street.

Two Resolutions

Two resolutions condemning the ad from MoveOn.org criticizing General Petraeus were approved by Congress' upper chamber on Thursday. The first, introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Cal.) sought, as the Senate's website described it, "to reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization." It passed 51 to 47 with support from every Democrat/Independent present (except Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Biden of Delaware and Cantwell of Washington being absent) and the opposition of every Republican except Specter of Pennsylvania, Stevens of Alaska, and Hagel of Nebraska (Allard of Oregon being absent). The legislation cited a "reprehensible" attack in 2002 upon a "Senator from Georgia" (i.e., Max Cleland) and a 2004 "dishonest and dishonorable" attack upon a "Senator from Massachusetts" (i.e., John Kerry). (Note: Given that this legislation was all for show, Hagel's vote was consistent with that of a dove who otherwise is a right-winger; Specter's because he loves questioning the Bush Administration when it doesn't count and falling in line when it does; and Stevens probably needs all the friends he can get.)

Later that day, a resolution introduced by right-wing Republican John Cornyn of Texas sought "to express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces." This gutless resolution passed 72-25 with every member of the Stepford Party and twenty-three (23) Democrats without intestinal fortitude voting in favor of it. (Most in the latter group are from Repub-leaning states- which does not account for Senators Mikulski and Cardin of Maryland; Feinstein of California; Klobuchar of Minnesota; Kohl of Wisconsin; Leahy of Vermont; and, arguably, Carper of Delaware. Lieberman was, well, Lieberman.)

One may wonder whether Democrats- especially a liberal (this is not an expletive or slur) like Barbara Boxer- should vote for a resolution which, if enforceable, would prohibit unkind criticism of (if this came about) Presidential nominee John McCain, he of the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Distinguished Flying Cross. Not to mention constitutional issues. However, given the circumstances, the move probably was intended to put Repubs on the spot and expose their hypocrisy. (Haven't we seen enough of that lately?) The twenty-five Democrats who voted "nay" included Hillary Rodham Clinton. Absent were three Democrats- Senator Biden, Senator Cantwell, and.... Senator Obama. Senator Obama? Wasn't he there earlier in the day for the less-controversial vote? Why, yes he was.

I was tempted, initially, to credit Clinton's vote, in contrast to Obama's abstention, as an act of courage. But then I came to my senses. Clinton's vote- though not without its risk and, thus somewhat courageous, was due largely to something else, which she has consistently demonstrated this campaign season- savviness. For the the slashing, partisan style- and her words themselves- of the New York Senator have exhibited that she understands what Obama doesn't. The Democratic nominee will be attacked, personally and repeatedly, by the Repub Party, its candidate, and its toadys. The nominee must be prepared to counterattack- promptly and repeatedly. So, if Clinton is nominated, she will be attacked for allegedly being unpatriotic because of this vote- and, if she had voted otherwise, attacked for allegedly being unpatriotic (see Captain Cleland, Lieutenant Kerry). Better to secure one's base and demonstrate at least a little integrity in the meantime.

The GOP- Against The Troops

Late this afternoon, by a vote of 56 to 44, the Senate failed to impose cloture in the debate over Virginia Senator Jim Webb's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment would have mandated, for active duty units and soldiers, at least equal time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas and for National Guard and Reserve soldiers and units a minimum 1-to-3 year ratio.

Sixty votes were needed to force a vote on the measure, which gained the support of all Democrats except Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, who was elected as an Independent, proclaims himself an "Independent Democrat," and votes with the Democratic Party in caucus. (Independent Bernie Sanders, a Socialist who votes in caucus with the Democratic Party, voted "yea.")

Six(6) of fourty-nine(49) Republicans voted for the amendment. So, the next time you hear of a Democrat "not supporting the troops," remember: aside from Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine, Hagel of Nebraska, Smith of Oregon, Sununu of New Hampshire, and Coleman of Minnesota, the Rebub position in the Senate is: We support George Bush, not the troops.