Politics or Poppycock

A Look From the Left At Politics, Politicians, Policies and Issues of National Concern

Archive for May 6th, 2008

First Lady Condemns Junta’s Response to Storm

Posted by James O'Rourke on May 6, 2008

VIDEO
First lady Laura Bush urged the military junta in Burma to accept disaster assistance from the U.S. and other countries and organizations to help the thousands of its citizens affected by a recent devastating cyclone.

Washington Post Staff Writer 
Tuesday, May 6, 2008; Page A15 

Laura Bush condemned the military government in Burma yesterday for its “inept” response to a deadly weekend cyclone, marking an unusual foray by the president’s spouse into a high-profile foreign policy crisis.

THIS STORY
View All Items in This Story

Appearing at a White House news conference, the first lady said the military junta in Burma is preventing the United States and other nations from providing help in the wake of Tropical Cyclone Nargis, and she alleged that the country’s rulers purposely declined to warn people of the impending danger.

“Although they were aware of the threat, Burma’s state-run media failed to issue a timely warning to citizens in the storm’s path,” she said. “The response to this cyclone is just the most recent example of the junta’s failures to meet its people’s basic needs.” Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Politics As Usual | 1 Comment »

Eight Questions About Today’s Primaries

Posted by James O'Rourke on May 6, 2008

Eight Questions About Today’s Primaries

By Dan Balz
The Washington Post
Tuesday, May 6, 2008; Page A06

Has Obama put the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy behind him?

1. Barack Obama dealt forcefully with the issue last Tuesday, breaking with his former pastor and denouncing his words in strong language. Many Democrats think he’s done the best he can for now, and even prominent Clinton supporters say they doubt that the relationship between Obama and the minister will have much impact on Democratic voters.

Some Democrats think this is now largely a media-driven story, though a few party strategists say the controversy will hurt Obama today in Indiana and North Carolina. And there is near-universal agreement among strategists in both parties that, if Obama emerges as the Democratic nominee, the Wright issue will continue to dog him through the November election. “This story will continue to drip and seep into the electorate,” one Democrat noted. Another said that “all bets are off if the reverend decides to go on another press tour.” Republicans were adamant that Obama will have to deal with the Wright fallout through the rest of his campaign. They argue that his handling of the controversy has raised questions about his judgment and veracity. But they predicted, and Democrats agreed, that John McCain and the Republican National Committee will try to stay away from the story, though other groups — whether state parties, as happened in North Carolina last week, or independent groups — will put it into the laps of voters. One GOP strategist, however, offered this warning: “The chance that such an attack could backfire, though, seems to be relatively high.” Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Politics As Usual | Leave a Comment »

The Income Divide

Posted by James O'Rourke on May 6, 2008

www.americanprogressaction.org

The Income Divide

The gap between rich and poor in the United States has widened exponentially over the past three decades. The Congressional Budget Office reports that since 1979, the average income for the bottom half of American households has grown by 6 percent. In contrast, the top 1 percent of earners have seen their incomes shoot up by a 229 percent during that same period. Under the Bush administration, the average income of most Americans has fallen, but the average income of top wage earners (those above the 95 percentile range) has increased from $324,427 in 2001 to $385,805 in 2006. Only one other year has seen a comparable income gap: 1928, the year before the Great Depression. Inequality has not been confined to one region or sector but has spread all across the country.  North Carolina and Indiana, two geographically and economically disparate states whose upcoming presidential primaries have brought them to the forefront of the national media, are no exception. With the average income of the richest 20 percent of families 7.2 and 6.7 times larger than the poorest 20 percent of families, respectively, North Carolina and Indiana are a microcosm of a larger national trend. Both of these states are looking for relief from declining wages, sinking job security, and falling benefits

WHY THE DIVIDE?: The reasons for this rise in income inequality can be split into three basic components: government policies, tremendous wage inequality, and high investment income. The federal government under Bush, which provides the fundamental rules that guide how economic gains are distributed around the country, has embraced deregulation and an unstructured financial system. Consequently, huge corporations have raked in profits while the economy sags. The administration’s tax policies, which lower taxes on the wealthy rather than the middle class, have furthered the problem. As billionaire Warren Buffett explained, “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.” CEO pay, which has increased by 20.5 percent over just the past 12 months, dwarfs the mere 3.5 percent salary increase for American workers. To put this in perspective, the top 500 American corporate executives earned a combined total of $6.4 billion in 2007, about $12.8 million each and roughly 10 percent of all company profits. An absence of laws protecting collective bargaining has removed the leverage that unions once had on companies to increase wages quickly.  Wage inequality, the shrinking value of the minimum wage, and the all-around decline in manufacturing jobs only intensify the problem. The New York Times’ Steven Greenhouse explains, “A little-known secret is that, over the past seven years, the United States has lost one in five manufacturing jobs. … Those are usually jobs that pay good wages, middle-class wages, usually provide middle-class benefits on health and pensions.”

WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO?: With less money available, Americans are increasingly forced to make tough choices on how to spend their diminishing disposable incomes. Consumer spending and confidence have fallen to record low levels, causing families to skimp on discretionary spending. U.S. consumers, up until recently the most powerful force on planet Earth, are in retreat,” wrote Joseph Quinlan, a chief market strategist for Bank of America. A recent report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the largest increases in consumer spending between 2006 and 2007 was on necessities: fuel, food staples, and medical bills. Not surprisingly, the largest decreases were in a newly defined category of “luxury” goods: electronics, toys, home decor and fresh fruits, and vegetables. “People are not not spending, but they are changing how they spend,” said Marshal Cohen, chief analyst at the NPD Group, a consumer and retail market research organization.

HEALTH INSURANCE PERILS: The decline in the average middle class wage means that Americans who were once financially comfortable are now feeling the sting. Approximately 158 million Americans enjoy employer-provided health care benefits. More and more workers, however, are opting out of their health insurance because they simply can’t afford it. The average cost of those benefits to employees has increased by $1,500 — from $1,800 to $3,300 — since 2001.  For a middle class worker, that amount is an entire month’s paycheck, which is particularly troubling as national incomes rose only one-tenth that amount during that same period.  Due to a combination of bigger out-of-pocket deductibles and co-payments, higher premiums, and less extensive coverage, medical bills now account for almost one-fifth of average family income.

Posted in *Economy, Politics As Usual | 1 Comment »

Why We Need a Shield Law

Posted by James O'Rourke on May 6, 2008

Why We Need a Shield Law

By Arlen Specter
Monday, May 5, 2008; Page A17

Attorney General Michael Mukasey is wrong when he says we do not need a federal media shield law.

Mukasey recently argued in an op-ed that there is no need for Congress to provide a qualified, evidentiary privilege for journalists. As evidence, he cited a few of the many important news stories that, even in the absence of a shield law, were brought to light because of sources who provided information to journalists under a promise of confidentiality. Pending media shield legislation would impede the investigation of crimes and threats to national security, he argued. As the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I strongly disagree with him.

I championed Mukasey’s confirmation as attorney general, and I certainly believe that we must protect national security and preserve effective law enforcement. But a media shield law would not primarily be protection for journalists; it would be protection for the public and for our form of government.

The importance of a free press is so woven into the fabric of our history that Americans often take it for granted. But when we observe fledgling democracies around the world, Americans can see just how essential a free media are to democracy — and how easily they can be chilled. If we are to have a free press, it is necessary to protect the relationship between journalists and trusted sources to whom journalists have promised confidentiality. For this reason, every state but Wyoming has established some form of reporters’ privilege.

The federal courts are split, however, on whether reporters have a common-law privilege to withhold information from a federal court. Attorneys general of 34 states recently urged the Supreme Court to recognize a federal reporters’ privilege because the lack of a federal standard undermines state shield laws and the public interest embodied in those laws. It takes only a few well-publicized cases of the government or federal courts forcing reporters to reveal confidential sources — Time’s Matt Cooper; former New York Times reporter Judith Miller spending 85 days in jail; or former USA Today reporter Toni Locy being ordered to pay up to $5,000 for each day she remains silent, with no contributions allowed from her employer, family or friends — to chill those who have important things to say. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Civil Liberties, Rights, Justice, Politics | Leave a Comment »