Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Citizens Manifesto -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (1)	6/11/2005 10:24:20 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 492

CJ, I'll start out by posting the following oped, which I think captures at least a part of the spirit of this thread --- Losing Our Country By PAUL KRUGMAN Baby boomers like me grew up in a relatively equal society. In the 1960's America was a place in which very few people were extremely wealthy, many blue-collar workers earned wages that placed them comfortably in the middle class, and working families could expect steadily rising living standards and a reasonable degree of economic security. But as The Times's series on class in America reminds us, that was another country. The middle-class society I grew up in no longer exists. Working families have seen little if any progress over the past 30 years. Adjusted for inflation, the income of the median family doubled between 1947 and 1973. But it rose only 22 percent from 1973 to 2003, and much of that gain was the result of wives' entering the paid labor force or working longer hours, not rising wages. Meanwhile, economic security is a thing of the past: year-to-year fluctuations in the incomes of working families are far larger than they were a generation ago. All it takes is a bit of bad luck in employment or health to plunge a family that seems solidly middle-class into poverty. But the wealthy have done very well indeed. Since 1973 the average income of the top 1 percent of Americans has doubled, and the income of the top 0.1 percent has tripled. Why is this happening? I'll have more to say on that another day, but for now let me just point out that middle-class America didn't emerge by accident. It was created by what has been called the Great Compression of incomes that took place during World War II, and sustained for a generation by social norms that favored equality, strong labor unions and progressive taxation. Since the 1970's, all of those sustaining forces have lost their power. Since 1980 in particular, U.S. government policies have consistently favored the wealthy at the expense of working families - and under the current administration, that favoritism has become extreme and relentless. From tax cuts that favor the rich to bankruptcy "reform" that punishes the unlucky, almost every domestic policy seems intended to accelerate our march back to the robber baron era. It's not a pretty picture - which is why right-wing partisans try so hard to discredit anyone who tries to explain to the public what's going on. These partisans rely in part on obfuscation: shaping, slicing and selectively presenting data in an attempt to mislead. For example, it's a plain fact that the Bush tax cuts heavily favor the rich, especially those who derive most of their income from inherited wealth. Yet this year's Economic Report of the President, in a bravura demonstration of how to lie with statistics, claimed that the cuts "increased the overall progressivity of the federal tax system." The partisans also rely in part on scare tactics, insisting that any attempt to limit inequality would undermine economic incentives and reduce all of us to shared misery. That claim ignores the fact of U.S. economic success after World War II. It also ignores the lesson we should have learned from recent corporate scandals: sometimes the prospect of great wealth for those who succeed provides an incentive not for high performance, but for fraud. Above all, the partisans engage in name-calling. To suggest that sustaining programs like Social Security, which protects working Americans from economic risk, should have priority over tax cuts for the rich is to practice "class warfare." To show concern over the growing inequality is to engage in the "politics of envy." But the real reasons to worry about the explosion of inequality since the 1970's have nothing to do with envy. The fact is that working families aren't sharing in the economy's growth, and face growing economic insecurity. And there's good reason to believe that a society in which most people can reasonably be considered middle class is a better society - and more likely to be a functioning democracy - than one in which there are great extremes of wealth and poverty. Reversing the rise in inequality and economic insecurity won't be easy: the middle-class society we have lost emerged only after the country was shaken by depression and war. But we can make a start by calling attention to the politicians who systematically make things worse in catering to their contributors. Never mind that straw man, the politics of envy. Let's try to do something about the politics of greed. E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

To: combjelly who wrote (1)	6/11/2005 1:28:56 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 492

My two cents to start worth: First, great idea, I'd love a viable third party. Various political pundits however seem to think that multiparty systems are less stable then dual-party ones, and more vulnerable to extremes, which is not your goal here. The term Citizen smacks a little of Comrade to me, and would more so to people on the right. Manifesto is also a bit contaminated in that regard. The two together, unavoidably so. Not that I have any brilliant names, but a marketing survey might be in order. The Five Guiding Principles & related Specific Proposals: Does the order reflect an intended ranking? 1)Middle Class 2)Pragmatic Policy 3)Balanced Budget 4)Local Social Control 5)International Relations I'd be inclined to place 2) in the top slot and rename the party to something like the Pragmatic Party, although I dislike that name as well. Two is the guiding method by which all other choices are made, including the fact that a strong middle class is important. A strong statement regarding how pragmatic decisions are arrived at is important. In particular, the party should strongly endorse scientific principles as the fundamental basis for modern societies and our standard of living. I known that this will be a red flag for some as well, so wording is important. I'd like to see an Office of Science established in a similar manner to the Federal Reserve, staffed with non-political appointees, and charged with reviewing all scientific input used in legislative decision making, as well as reviewing legislative output for scientific compatibility. In addition, I would like a statement regarding the importance of biological systems analysis as an input to social & legislative affairs. Regarding the Middle Class. Keep the death tax! It is one important mechanism that helps prevent the eventual accumulation of wealth in the hands of a small minority of citizens. There are other means, such as asset taxes of various sorts. Balanced Budget: My inclinations are towards a balanced budget, but Keynes had some useful ideas. Deficit spending now and then provides additional economic control which is a good thing. The problem is in restricting the use of that tempting lever. The final chapter in economics has not be written, and the function of deficit spending is not clearly mapped yet. The party needs to adopt the best economic theory available. Employee Compensation: Living wage & health care. Minimum wages should be upped with an eye on productivity. Regarding health care, we must work on cost effective health care. That could be a thread on its own! Illegal Immigration. Secure the boarders! I'd be in jail under your proposal. If you have ever tried to employ farm labor you would understand. I collect the required info, which often I find out after the fact is bogus. And calling it in to verify is not bullet proof either. Around here, even white teenagers will sell their SS numbers to illegals, which they'll regret a few years later, but what the heck, teens will be brainless at times. Lastly I would add a six'th plank to the party. We seek solutions. Steer the Federal government away from a legal/enforcement view to one of identifying problems, and actively enabling solutions.