Politicians prepare to shove the Trans-Pacific Partnership down our throats by choking us with more lies.

No bi-partisan agreement to raise the Minimum Wage to a real living wage, no bi-partisan support for a Full Employment Act, nor is there bi-partisan agreement to maintain extended unemployment benefits, no bi-partisan support to find out who is behind all these pension fund swindles--- but, when it comes fast-tracking the TPP; well this is a different story and it becomes all about "jobs, jobs, jobs."

Doesn't the way these politicians act make you wonder how much they really care about "jobs?"

No mention of "profits, profits, profits."

One would think the union "leaders" would finally draw the line in the sand and declare that they will not support any politicians who support the TPP.

Text of bill: http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/TPA%20bill%20text.pdf

http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=7cd1c188-87f1-4a0b-8856-3fc139121ca9

For Immediate Release
January 09, 2014

Contact:

(Baucus) Sean Neary/Lindsey Held	202-224-4515
(Hatch) Antonia Ferrier/Julia Lawless	202-224-4515
(Camp) Sarah Swinehart	202-224-4774

Baucus, Hatch, Camp Unveil Bill to Bring Home Job-Creating Trade Agreements

Finance, Ways & Means Leaders Team Up to Craft Bill to Deliver Trade Deals that Boost U.S. Exports, Create Jobs

WASHINGTON - Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) joined together today to introduce legislation that will establish strong rules for trade negotiations and Congressional approval of trade pacts, to deliver trade agreements that boost U.S. exports and create American jobs.
The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014 establishes 21st century Congressional negotiating objectives and rules for the Administration to follow when engaged in trade talks, including strict requirements for Congressional consultations and access to information.  Provided the Administration follows the rules, special procedures apply when moving a negotiated deal that satisfies the objectives through the Senate and House of Representatives.
“The TPA legislation that we are introducing today will make sure that these trade deals get done, and get done right.  This is our opportunity to tell the Administration – and our trading partners – what Congress’ negotiating priorities are,” Baucus said.  “TPA legislation is critical to a successful trade agenda.  It is critical to boosting U.S. exports and creating jobs.  And it’s critical to fueling America’s growing economy.”
“Every President since FDR has sought trade promotion authority from Congress because of the job-creating benefits of trade.  Renewing TPA will help advance a robust trade agenda that will help American businesses, workers, farmers and ranchers by giving them greater access to overseas markets,” said Hatch. “This bipartisan legislation helps meet the challenges of today’s competitive global economy and will play a key role in getting our nation out of years of economic stagnation by spurring economic growth and greater opportunity. From increasing protections for digital trade and data flows to enforcing strong U.S. intellectual property rights, this legislation will be instrumental to ensuring that our country’s current trade negotiations in Asia and Europe are a success and that these agreements meet the high-standards necessary for congressional approval.”
“The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act will give us the tools we need to move more job-creating trade agreements,” Camp said.  “This legislation will ensure that the Administration is following the rules and negotiating objectives that Congress has set out. In order to achieve the economic growth and job benefits that trade agreements can bring to the U.S., we must first pass strong, bipartisan TPA legislation.  I look forward to working with the Administration and with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to enact this bill.”
The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014 confronts many of the trade challenges facing the U.S. in the global marketplace, including: competition from state-owned enterprises; localization barriers to trade; and restrictions on cross-border data flows.  TPA-2014 updates labor and environment provisions to reflect recent trade agreements, as well as market access priorities for goods and services.  It strengthens oversight by Congress and the public by adding consultation and reporting requirements. TPA-2014 also provides for tougher, enforceable rules against barriers to U.S.  agriculture.  And for the first time, TPA-2014 sets out a clear directive on currency manipulation.
TPA-2014 also provides greater transparency and gives Congress greater oversight of the Administration’s trade negotiations.
Senators Baucus and Hatch and Congressman Camp called TPA a “vital tool” as the U.S. continues Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations as well as free trade agreement talks with the European Union (EU).  The two trade deals offer the U.S. landmark opportunities to boost exports. The TPP countries – which represent many of the fastest-growing economies in the world – accounted for 40 percent of total U.S. goods exports in 2012. And the EU purchased close to $460 billion in U.S. goods and services that same year, supporting 2.4 million American jobs.
In addition, the U.S. is negotiating the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) with 50 countries, covering about 50 percent of global GDP and over 70 percent of global services trade.  This agreement would create many opportunities for U.S. jobs in this critical sector.
Renewing TPA, which expired in 2007, is necessary to successfully conclude these negotiations.
The one page summary can be found here. The bill text can be found here.

###

After 50 Years, How To Move Forward In The War On Poverty

Note: My comment on this article is at the bottom.

 

After 50 Years, How To Move Foward In The War On Poverty

  http://ourfuture.org/20140108/fifty-years-on-moving-foward-in-the-war-on-poverty?utm_source=progressive_breakfast&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pbreak

 

January 8, 2014

Terrance Heath

 

Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson stood before Congress and declared war on poverty. His plans included broadening the food stamp program, extending minimum wage coverage, increasing education funding, and providing “hospital insurance” for older Americans. Johnson spoke of millions of Americans who lived on “the outskirts of hope,” and challenged the country to “replace their despair with opportunity.”

Contrary to conventional wisdom, American hasn’t lost the war on poverty. We stopped fighting it. It’s time to take up the challenge Johnson issued 50 years ago. We must not only renew the fight against poverty, but we must fight for jobs, livable wages, and economic growth that benefits all.

What Works

The war on poverty was successful. We have the numbers to prove it.

Critics of government anti-poverty efforts point to the current poverty rate as evidence of their failure. When Johnson stood before Congress, the national poverty rate was near 19 percent. After 50 years and trillions of dollars spent fighting the war on poverty, the national poverty rate is an unimpressive 15 percent.

Who can blame them? It’s simple. It’s also wrong. The poverty measure was established in 1963, and hasn’t changed since then. It only counts a family’s cash income before taxes, and doesn’t take into account anti-poverty programs that have lifted families out of poverty.

The Census Bureau solved this problem by introducing the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which factors in the effect of anti-poverty programs.  These Census statistics tell a different story: From 1963 to 1970, the poverty rate dropped from 22.6 percent to 12.6  percent — a staggering reduction, in just six years.

Poverty dropped substantially from the start of Johnson’s anti-poverty offensive. What made the difference? The very same “centralized, bureaucratic, top-down anti-poverty programs” that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) railed against this summer during a House Budget Committee hearing on the War on Poverty.

• A recent University of Chicago/Notre Dame paper by Bruce D. Meyer and James X. Sullivan, which looks at low-income families’ consumption rather than income, and accounts for the impact of anti-poverty programs found that:

• Poverty rates have declined steadily since the 1960s and 191970s, and dropped 12.5 percentage points since 1970.
• During the 1960s and 1970s, the tax code became friendlier to low-income families. Tax cuts for low-income Americans, combined with tax cuts for parents (the child tax credit) and the working poor (the Earned Income Tax Credit), accounted for a lot of the drop in poverty. In fact, the EITC pushed after-tax poverty down in the 1990s, and in 2011 kept 6 million out of poverty — including 3 million children.

A Columbia University study found that :

• Programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance have made huge difference in reducing poverty rates since the launch of the war on poverty.
• These safety-net programs have helped reduce the percentage of Americans living in poverty from 26 percent in 1967, to 16 percent in 2012.
• Without these safety-net programs, more Americans would be living in poverty today – 29 percent, compared to 27 percent in 1967.
• According to a study by the Agriculture Department, food stamps helped reduce the poverty rate by nearly 89 points during the recession.

Victories in the war on poverty show us what works. The decades that followed the war on poverty make it clear what doesn’t work.

What Doesn’t Work

“We fought a war on poverty,” Ronald Reagan famously said, “and poverty won.” America only fought a serious, well-funded war on poverty for a decade — even less, writes Michael Tomasky. In the 1970s, the war on poverty began losing steam, and money that might have funded the war on poverty was instead diverted to the war in Vietnam.

With presidency of Ronald Reagan, and rise of modern conservatism, the 1980s signaled a backlash against anti-poverty programs. The declining poverty rate plateaued, as the fates of anti-poverty programs ebbed and flowed. A new war, of sorts, began.

Ronald Reagan deployed the “welfare queen,” during his 1976 presidential campaign — an ’80s update of the Victorians’ “undeserving poor” in  blackface — as part of his mission to vilify welfare and welfare recipients, at the expense of black women living in poverty. It was the opening shot in what would become a full-fledged conservative “war on the poor.” Though mild when compared to present-day conservative rhetoric about the poor, it is echoed by every tea partier who mocks the poor and every conservative who blames the poor for their poverty.

In the 1990s, “welfare reform” presented conservatives with a model. Passed by a Republican Congress (with help from Democrats Who Should Have Known Better ™), and signed by a Democratic president, the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act marked a shift in the war on poverty. It ended welfare as an entitlement, placed a five-year limit on federal benefits, and block-granted programs to states.

Conservatives tout it as a success, but “welfare reform” was a “catastrophic success” at best. Welfare reform was only successful in getting people off the welfare rolls. Those who were kicked off the rolls either found jobs that paid too little, returned to welfare, or ended up with no income and few resources.

“Welfare reform” reduced the number of people receiving help, but did not reduce the number of people who needed government assistance. That’s the “success” on which Rep. Paul Ryan modeled his budget. It’s also the conservative model for “reforming” the programs of the war on poverty, from Medicaid to food stamps.

“Welfare reform,” in all its various forms, amounts to a surrender in the war on poverty.

Moving Forward

It’s too soon to declare victory in the war on poverty, but it’s also too soon to admit defeat. We are only halfway through this battle.

Without anti-poverty programs, nearly 24 million more Americans would be living in poverty. The poverty rate would rise to nearly 30 percent — almost double the current rate.

Antipoverty spending alone is not enough. These programs have been effective, but they have had to work even harder to address the challenges faced by the increasing number of people who are being denied the benefits of economic growth in today’s economy. Unless we address those economic realities, we’ll have to keep ratcheting up anti-poverty spending.

The war on poverty must be matched with a fight for a more equitable economy, that includes full employment, livable wages, and economic growth that benefits all.

• Livable Wages. Low-wage jobs keep incomes low. Half of all jobs in the U.S. now pay less than $35,000 per year. Many pay much less, leaving workers unable to afford food, shelter, transportation and medical care. Raising the minimum wage could lift 5 million out of poverty, and reduce the poverty rate for adults aged 18 to 64.
• Full Employment. Right now, there are three unemployed people competing for every job opening. Fighting for full employment must go hand-in-hand with fighting poverty. It will require major investment. But first, Democrats will to abandon complicity in prioritizing deficit reduction over job creation, and get over their fear of being labeled with “L Word.”
• Economic Growth. Full employment will require reviving economic growth, so that everyone who wants or needs a job can find one. Ending tax policies and trade agreements that make it easier for businesses and corporations to send jobs and money overseas might be a good place to start.

That poverty is still with us doesn’t mean we’ve lost. It means we have more work to do. The conservative response to poverty is to cut assistance and let the chips fall where they may. Progressives must to fight to preserve anti-poverty programs, and to create an economy that produces good jobs, full employment and livable wages – an economy in which everyone has opportunities to participate and to prosper.

My comment on the article:

Good article except there is only one way to determine what is poverty:

Do people have everything they are entitled to by birth as a human right? If we were to use the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights as our "measuring stick," poverty in this country would be much worse than what the U.S. Census Bureau implies.

Wages and any benefits derived must be considered against actual "cost-of-living" factors as tracked by the United States Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics which gives us a much better indication of living standards than do the figures coming from the U.S. Census Bureau.

It is like the United States government operates like a crooked and corrupt employer keeping two sets of books: one for the IRS the other for stock-holders. Some of these employers keep a third set of books to show the union at contract time.

We need a Minimum Wage that is a real living wage based on all cost of living factors.

At election time, politicians talk a good line about "jobs, jobs, jobs;" but, for all the talk, millions remain unemployed.

We are going to need a Full Employment Act which would require the president and Congress to work together to attain and maintain full employment if we ever hope to have full employment in this country. The Full Employment Act of 1945 was an example of such legislation; we need to revive calls for such advanced legislation--- call it the "21st Century Full Employment Act for Peace and Prosperity" because unless we end these dirty wars killing our jobs just like they kill people we will never have the resources for the kind of massive government job programs required that will put everyone to work at real living wages.

Here in Minnesota Democrats have a super-majority. Progressives from all over the country should be demanding and insisting that this Democratic super-majority here in Minnesota passes real living wage Minimum Wage legislation tied directly to all cost-of-living factors, indexed to inflation with periodic increases to improve the livelihoods and standard of living for all working people.

Let's get very specif with articulating just what is required to solve our problems in a progressive manner.

We have had enough of this George Lakoff crap of properly framed progressive policy directives enabling these politicians to campaign on the promise of enacting living wages and then once elected they pull this "bait and switch" bullshit on us by legislating "increases" in the Minimum Wage which leave the Minimum Wage remaining a poverty wage.

Extend Federal Unemployment Benefits NOW!!!!!!!!

Federal Unemployment Extension Benefits are necessary and needed by millions of workers as this rotten capitalist system continues to crumble.

I was part of the organization which launched the fight for these Federal Extensions back in the early 1970's.

Getting then Congressman Republican Gerald R. Ford to support this legislation was key since he was the leading Republican in the House. I led three delegations of unemployed people, rank-and-file labor activists and several elected union leaders to.

The Kent County Labor Council hired me to launch the fight to get Ford to support this legislation. In the end, Ford ended up backing our initiative as a result of a deal we made with him.

We never fought for the extension of unemployment benefits under the guise of keeping people out of poverty because we knew that unemployment benefits amounted to workers living in poverty. But, the extensions still help workers.

Today when the Democrats and the AFL-CIO leaders say they are fighting to extend unemployment benefits because it will "lift 1.7 million people out of poverty" this is an outright lie.

If they wanted to really "lift people out of poverty" with unemployment benefits they would have to launch a struggle for unemployment benefits to be based on all cost of living factors and just mentioning "cost-of-living" is something these millionaire labor leaders refuse to do because this would require a real working class struggle. it would take a struggle amounting to a lot more than a series of press conferences.

We are hearing all these properly framed progressive policy directives coming from the mouths of these millionaire labor leaders... words put into their mouths by self-serving Democrats.

These nice sounding phrases are:

"Lifting people out of poverty."

"We are for living wages."

"Jobs, Jobs, Jobs."

"We are for universal health care."

In the end what is the result?

The working class gets pushed and shoved deeper into poverty.

It is all about "bait and switch" politics.

Unemployed people will end up worse off then they were; instead of the Minimum Wage becoming a living wage it will remain a poverty wage; and the only jobs workers will get will be poverty wage jobs if they get any jobs at all; and Obamacare is all about enabling the insurance companies to pick the pockets of working people.

How much more are you willing to put up with?

Extend federal unemployment benefits now but stop playing games with words. Unemployment benefits as they are calculated now don't lift anyone out of poverty.

How can anyone paid a poverty wage be "lifted out of poverty?"

How dumb do these people think we are?

Question: How will a poverty wage of $10.10 an hour lift anyone out of poverty? This defies all common sense, logic and reasoning.

What we should be demanding is the Minimum Wage be based on all cost-of-living factors.

Once more we have millionaire labor "leaders" peddling Wall Street misinformation.

$10.10 Minimum Wage Would Lift 4.6 Million Out of Poverty, Study Says

As Congress debates the increase, a new study shows the real-world impact of raising hourly wages

By Eliana Dockterman @edocktermanJan. 02, 2014

Read more: Minimum Wage Raise Would Reduce Poverty by 5 Million | TIME.com http://nation.time.com/2014/01/02/10-10-minimum-wage-would-lift-4-6-million-out-of-poverty-study-says/#ixzz2pfna5fYy

http://nation.time.com/2014/01/02/10-10-minimum-wage-would-lift-4-6-million-out-of-poverty-study-says/

It is no wonder Time doesn't provide a link to this so-called "study."

If Congress were to go through with the plan backed by President Obama to raise the minimum hourly wage from $7.25 to $10.10, 4.6 million people would rise above the poverty line, a new study says.
The raise in minimum wage would reduce the poverty rate by as much as 1.7 percentage points according to a study by University of Massachusetts – Amherst economist Arindrajit Dube, who explains in his Dec. 30, 2013 report:

“Starting from the current 17.5% poverty rate among the nonelderly population, the estimate suggests a 1.7 percent reduction in the poverty rate from a 39 percent increase in the minimum wage as proposed in the legislation.”

In the long-term, the plan would reduce the ranks of the nation’s poor by 6.8 million, according to the Huffington Post.
Even with those impressive results, Dube pointed out that increasing the minimum wage isn’t the most direct way to fight poverty. Policies like the Earned Income Tax Credit and food stamps are more effective, he writes in the study.
[Huffington Post]

Read more: Minimum Wage Raise Would Reduce Poverty by 5 Million | TIME.com http://nation.time.com/2014/01/02/10-10-minimum-wage-would-lift-4-6-million-out-of-poverty-study-says/#ixzz2pfnOytOn

Duluth Forum next Saturday... January 11

A quick reminder that the Forum on "Building Progressive Political Power . . . " will be next Saturday,
January 11, 2014 at the Copper Top Church in Duluth, Minnesota.

Focus:  The basic question — the basic challenge — for us is to determine
             if we, from various persuasions on the progressive Left, can come together
             to organize around "issues" rather than "ideology" or "party" — as a way of building
             political power, influence, and credibility in the minds of the broader public.

Issues:  For starters, we're proposing to explore organizing around the following issues:
             1) a livable ("minimum") wage; 2) single payer health care; and 3) the indigenous
             and environmental communities' concerns about environmental protection, including
             sulfide mining, species extinction, and climate change.

Goals:     To collectively figure out . . .

             1.  how we, as progressives, can increase  our political power and influence
                 in Minnesota — by working within and/or outside the DFL.    All creative options
                 must be on the table.

             2.  how we can use "kitchen table," "lunch bucket," and "environmental sanity" issues
                  to recruit, organize, lobby, and achieve the legislation and policy decisions we need
                  for meeting the needs of Minnesotans and its environment.

             3.  how we can maintain momentum for pushing forth — for the long term.
            
Basics:  Saturday, January 11th, 11:00 a.m. to 4:00-ish.
             Please arrive early (10:30 - 10:50).  We hope to start on time.

             It'll be long day; jam-packed with short presentations.
             Coffee/tea/water and snacks will be available.
             Bring a bag lunch if you like.  The setting will be informal.
            
             Whole group deliberations also. 
             See latest revised schedule below.

Ground
Rules:    The agenda provides for the presentation of a wide array of ideas and opinion.

              Speakers are asked to respect their time limits (15 minutes).  Audience members need to
              be brief in their comments (2-3 minutes) so that we can accommodate the input of as many
              participants as possible..

              Presentations and discussion promise to be passionate and provocative. 
              Critical analysis and critique of ideas, policies, and programs are welcomed.
              Personal put-downs, insinuations, or innuendoes will be declared out of bounds.
              All discussion needs to be civil.

              Rev. Cathy Schuyler and Vern Simula will serve as co-facilitators. 

              Collectively, let's make this an enjoyable, profitable, and memorable day!

==========================
This is still a tentative agenda, open to some slight modifications to accommodate last minute scheduling changes.

11:00      Welcome/Opening/Overview   
11:15      Overview
11:30      Livable (minimum) Wage
12::00     Whole Forum Discussion

12:30      ====  BREAK  - 15 minutes    =====

12:45     Universal Single Payer Health Care for Minnesota       
1:15      Indigenous and Environmental Issues

2:45     ===== BREAK ================

3:00      How Do We Organize in Minnesota??            
4:30+    Closing

A book recommendation...

I would encourage workers to read the book: "Rebellion in the Unions, A Handbook for Rank and File Action" by George Morris... written back in the 1970's but still one of the best books on the topic around.

You can find this book very cheap on the internet.

Should Socialists and Communists engage in electoral struggles?

The election of a socialist to public office in this country is treated as some kind of novelty by both the mainstream media and most of the alternative and even left media; why?

This was my response to an article on a left wing web page and note I attached to it in an e-mail I sent out. A lot of people are being subjected to the lie that Socialists and Communists do not remain true once elected to public office in capitalist governments:

Socialists and Communists can, and more often than not, often do, "keep true" once elected to public office.

This has been proven time, and time, again. Examples are the socialist Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party, the most successful third party ever here in the United States. Even as Socialists and Communists were fighting tooth and nail at the national level, here in Minnesota they had the good common sense to figure out that if they worked together they could accomplish a great deal.

In more recent years there was the tremendous success of the Howard Pawley led socialist New Democratic Party majority government in Manitoba, Canada.

Fortunately, former New Democratic Party Premier Howard Pawley has written an excellent, honest, thought-provoking and informative book about his life in politics, "Keep True," which should be required reading for anyone involved in electoral politics. We have a great deal to learn about politics and the class struggle from our northern neighbors. We also have a great deal to learn from our own history which includes the incredible history of the socialist Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party.

If for no other reason, both the Pawley led NDP and the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party should be studied for the honest government that was delivered to the people of Manitoba and Minnesota. In addition to delivering honest and ethical governance with maximum citizen participation in the decision-making, both of these governments delivered huge reforms improving the lives of working people--- not to mention striking major blows against racist discrimination.

Many, many working class and progressive/left activists who become engaged in electoral struggles do remain true.

That there are also some who betray our struggles is just life--- no reason for us not to engage in electoral struggles as we fight in the streets, in our schools, our communities and places of employment for peace, social and economic justice.

We have seen and experienced first hand the betrayal of those on the left supporting Wall Street's imperialist warmonger--- Barack Obama. This has sown deep divisions in the progressive, left and working class movements which is proving to be a real challenge to overcome; but, this is the problem of our times, not whether or not we should be engaged in electoral struggles.

*****************

Note: I could have cited an untold number of Socialists and Communists who have run for public office--- and many who have won--- in both the United States and Canada to prove that most Socialists and Communists "keep true" once elected. I find, more often than not, that those who raise these questions about "if" we should be engaged in electoral activity, at least in some way, are just a tad dishonest since they are not providing a true picture of the electoral struggles in Canada and the United States. I could have provided the examples of Joe Zuken and Jacob Penner in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada or the long history of Coleman Young's election to public office. I think Jacob Penner may still be the holder of the record for the longest serving elected public official of any political party in North America--- Penner was continually elected and re-elected as the Communist Party of Manitoba-Canada's candidate. It is no secret to anyone that Coleman Young rose, not from the ranks of working class struggle--- but with the ranks of working class activists to become a state legislator and then Mayor of Detroit all the while carrying a Communist Party membership card.

There is nothing strange, nor unique, about Socialists and Communists being elected to public office here in the United States or Canada.

In fact,  had it not been for the decades of never-ending severe governmental repression brought on by Republican Joe McCarthy and Democrat Hubert H. Humphrey (the primary author of the vicious, undemocratic and fascist-like Communist Control Act), it can very reasonably be assumed we would have Socialists and Communists occupying many seats of political power in this country today. It is not our electoral system, as corrupt as it is, which prevents Socialists and Communists from being elected in large numbers today--- it is the failure of the left to defy government repression and intimidation which includes lies, smears and slanders from the corporate mass media.

Just a few months ago I met with a group of people in the Frank P. Zeidler Municipal Building in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to discuss creating a campaign for a "21st Century Full Employment Act for Peace and Prosperity. Zeidler and his Socialist Party have played a dominant role in Milwaukee politics for the better part of the 20th Century. No one wants to talk about this; why not?

Why is it that one can go into almost any school on Minnesota's Mesabi Iron Range and no one, including the history teachers, knows who John Bernard was? A Communist Congressman from the small mining community of Eveleth elected by the workers from the Iron Range on the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party ticket.

It is one thing to disagree with Socialists and Communists--- this is everyone's right in a democracy; however, it is quite another thing for these cowards who don't even dare to debate Socialists and Communists in the public square, to use the apparatus of government and the media to restrict the participation of Socialists and Communists in the political process and then go on to boast to the rest of the world that the United States is the world's greatest bastion of democracy.

I would also point out one very simple, basic and fundamental fact:

Unless Socialists and Communists lead the way in challenging Wall Street for political and economic power--- no such challenge will ever be made... think about that. 

To think that issues like peace, full employment, a living wage Minimum Wage, anti-scab and anti-lockout or the repeal of "At-Will Employment" legislation will even be discussed without bringing forward Socialist and Communist candidates for public office is very naive thinking.

The never-ending war in Iraq.

First Bush told us the war in Iraq was won and then Obama told us the war in Iraq was over. Will U.S. troops be taking on more casualties, again, in re-taking Fallujah:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/03/22166297-al-qaeda-linked-forces-capture-town-of-fallujah-in-iraq?lite

Elected public official responds to my Letter to the Editor in the Bemidji Pioneer.

An exchange with an elected public official in response to a recent Letter to the Editor of mine published in the Bemidji Pioneer.

This was my Letter to the Editor...

Letter: We need a full employment act
By Alan L. Maki from Warroad on Nov 27, 2013 at 8:01pm

http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/content/letter-we-need-full-employment-act

The article in the Oct. 25 Bemidji Pioneer headlined “Minimum wage discussion draws full house at City Hall” left out a very important aspect of what a living minimum wage should be based on.

Fact: Working people without jobs are going to be poor.

Fact: Working people paid poverty wages are going to be poor.

Seems to me a real living minimum wage tied to real cost of living factors is a basic and minimal requirement toward ending poverty with government assuming full responsibility for attaining and maintaining full employment which is so basic to ending poverty that it would seem that any politician talking about “jobs, jobs, jobs” when campaigning for election would be the very first, upon being elected, to introduce legislation requiring that the president and members of Congress mandate the responsibility for full employment to themselves lest they be viewed as hypocrites.

Instead of voting to fund militarism and wars which kill jobs the same way they kill people, we need to elect people to public office who will enact a “21st Century Full Employment Act for Peace and Prosperity.”

Alan L. Maki
Warroad, Minnesota


Response from Steve Pemble an elected public official...

Letter: Some issues are easy to resolve, if you don’t use your head
Posted on Dec 2, 2013 at 4:15pm


http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/content/letter-some-issues-are-easy-resolve-if-you-dont-use-your-head


I just finished reading the letter from Alan Maki (Nov. 28) wanting to put an end to poverty. I thought, “yeah, I’m for that’! Mr. Maki is suggesting that politicians run on a platform of introducing a “21st Century Full Employment Act for Peace and Prosperity”, where government would “assume full responsibility for attaining and maintaining full employment”.

I’m not sure if he is naïve, or just uniformed (or both). Does he honestly believe government can solve the unemployment issue by simply “mandating full employment”? Why didn’t I think of that. Some issues are so easy to resolve, if you don’t use your head.

A couple of quick notes for you Alan: 1. The government does not have any money. It gets its money from the producers in this country (through taxation). 2. If you haven’t been up on the news or your reading lately, this government has been currently spending about a $1 trillion more than it takes in with taxes each year (that $1T is created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve and passed on to us, the taxpayers, in the form of debt).

We are currently printing money to pay the interest on that debt (while adding more debt). So with that said, how do you expect to pay all the salaries in your “full employment” fantasyland? (remember, the government has no money of its own). I’m only to assume you would have the government “mandate all private businesses hire more people” since we now know the government can’t pay them (it is impossible to tax enough to make your fantasyland work). Are you a business owner? How would you handle that mandate? Please explain how that will work?

I know how it would end. My advice, Mr. Maki: Please don’t ever run for any political office; you’ll give politicians a bad name (wait, that was funny). I would also suggest brushing up on your economics just a tad.

Steve Pemble
Bemidji


My response to Steve Pemble, an elected public official...

I am responding to a letter written in response by Mr.Steve Pemble on December 2, 2013. Mr. Pemble made the claim that his letter was a response to what I wrote about the need for a "21st Century Full Employment Act."

First of all, Mr. Pemble's letter was needlessly mean spirited; a personal attack.

Second, Mr. Pemble created an entire argument in response to what I wrote based on his own mis-characterization of what I wrote.

What I wrote was very clear.

I stated I believed a full employment act was needed which mandated the president and the Congress to work together to attain and maintain full employment.

Mr. Pemble claims I wrote that these politicians should mandate full employment; something quite different.

Mr. Pemble then went on to suggest that I should never run for political office because I lack the intelligence.

I would suggest that Mr. Pemble is either an example of the deceitful politicians holding public office in our country today or he has never learned to read. Reading implies being able to comprehend what it written.

The majority of the United States Senate voted for the "Full Employment Act of 1945" which used the same language I used. The majority of the U.S. House voted against the "Full Employment Act of 1945" after its primary author, Texas Congressman Wright Patman, was viciously attacked by those like Mr. Pemble who claimed the Act was something other than what it really was. Congressman Patman was accused of being a Communist and this was the beginning of the nightmare known as the "Red Scare" launched by Joe McCarthy.

I expect an apology from Mr. Pemble. An elected public official. I also expect him to state his opinion based on what I wrote in my letter of November 28, 2013--- "We need a full employment act" and not what he made up about my letter.

It is no wonder people don't want to bring their views forward when a public elected official like Mr. Pemble, would so viciously attack an individual based on his own fabricated misinformation.

While I have no intent of running for public office, it is because I don't want to associate with dishonest people like Mr. Pemble not Mr. Pemble's mean-spirited insinuation that I am too stupid to hold an elected public position--- after all, how intelligent does one have to be to hold public office if Mr. Pemble is an example of such qualification. It might be wise for the voters to send Mr. Pemble packing given his dishonesty or inability to read. No doubt Mr. Pemble has both a reading problem and lacks basic ethical integrity required to hold public elective office.

As for me giving politicians a bad name, Mr. Pemble; you have done this quite well all on your own without any help from me.

Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Letter: We need a full employment act

www.bemidjipioneer.com

The article in the Oct. 25 Bemidji Pioneer headlined “Minimum wage discussion draws full house at City Hall” left out a very important aspect of what a living minimum wage should be based on. Fact: Working

The great pension fund and Social Security Trust Fund swindles and robberies--- from Detroit to Minnesota's Mesabi Iron Range.

Thanks for getting this out about the Detroit pensions.

In fact, workers' pensions are under attack all over the country in both the public and private sectors.

Here in Minnesota on the Mesabi Iron Range, a rank-and-file miners' organization--- Hard Rock Miners--- has been organized to defend the pensions at National Steel, a major player in the taconite industry where workers are members of the United Steel Workers Union but corrupt union officials are working in cahoots with corporate executives and corrupt Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party politicians and pension fund "managers" (read swindlers) to cover up this enormous swindle of pension fund monies paid in by workers and as part of the contract agreements between the USW and National Steel and other companies over the years.

We saw what happened with billions of dollars of pension funds at LTV, before.

We have seen how these crooks in the unions have collaborated with these pension fund swindlers as they get paid huge salaries for sitting on these pension fund boards supposedly looking after the interests of the workers they are supposed to represent but knowing that they derive these huge pension fund salaries only as long as the close their eyes and keep their mouths shut as these swindles take place on their "watch."

For those who want to learn more about how these pension fund swindles take place and what can be done to fight back, I would suggest reading "Always Bring A Crowd, the story of Frank Lumpkin, steelworker" about the struggle of Wisconsin Steel Workers to recover their pension benefits.

We must remember that when these pension funds "disappear," they don't "disappear into thin air. What is actually happening is someone else ends up in possession of this tremendous wealth that has been created by workers and invested in these funds for their retirement years. 

It is the Wall Street shysters, often called "investors" and "bankers," who end up with this tremendous stolen wealth. 

It is ironic that when workers begin to inquire as to what is going on with their pension funds by asking very legitimate questions, they are treated as if they are trouble-makers. 

And when they ask politicians who have been elected largely with their support, they are brushed off by being told, "We are looking into this for you and will get back to you with what we find out;" only to never hear from these politicians ever again.

The politicians continue to hold out one hand in front of them begging for campaign contributions and votes from from workers and their unions, while with one hand in back and out of sight they are taking campaign contributions and bribes from these Wall Street shysters robbing these pension funds blind as their greed is no longer satisfied with just the exorbitant "management fees the derive from supposedly taking care of these pension funds.

We have experienced the same kind of swindles in the Indian Gaming Industry where these politicians and the United States Department of Justice have not only allowed, but enabled, crooked and corrupt outfits like Alerus who work in conjunction with the mobsters who own the slot machines to rob workers of their hard-earned poverty wages invested in these "pension" scams and schemes.

In fact, workers would be better off fighting to expand Social Security and prevent the politicians from dipping their dirty, corrupt fingers into the Social Security Trust Fund so all workers would receive decent retirement benefits they could actually live on rather than the meager and miserly payouts leaving so many retired workers mired in poverty in their later years.

Just think what kind of pensions all workers could be receiving today had all these pension fund monies been placed in the Social Security Trust Fund with all these funds protected from the clutches of these Wall Street politicians who have robbed the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for their dirty imperialist wars from which Wall Street derives the greatest profits of all as people suffer and die.

One has to wonder why the media is covering up how this swindle of the pension funds is taking place.

Alan L. Maki

Director of Organizing,

Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

In state after state, Republican Party super-majorities have enthusiastically used their power to pummel the rights and livelihoods of working people... the question:

Why haven't the Democrats with their super-majorities wielded their power to defend and expand the rights of working people with the same enthusiasm the Republicans have used in attacking us?

Check out the map in this article:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/13/states-supermajority-legislatures/1758567/

Democrats are playing us for suckers and fools using "Bait and Switch" politics.



There can be only one explanation for what is going on:

The same corporate lobbyists are controlling both the Republicans and Democrats... bribing the Republicans to attack; bribing the Democrats to do nothing.

More on the Minimum Wage.

I am hearing more and more from those who think we need to "compromise" on the Minimum Wage issue.

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton and Minnesota State Senator Kathy Sheran keep accusing me of "tightening the springs" in insisting on the Minimum Wage being a real living wage.

Some Democratic Party big-wigs banded together under the "leadership" of MN DFL Chair Ken Martin for a private meeting to discuss "how are we going to handle Maki on this thorny Minimum Wage problem."

The problem isn't with me; it is with them.

I'm not for cutting the Democrats one bit of slack on this very important issue. There will be no other issue that affects so many working people as this one.

DFL Chair Ken Martin says I should be smeared for not attacking the Republicans on this issue. What do the Republicans have to do with anything? It is the Democrats who have the super-majority--- a Democratic Governor, a Democratic majority in the State House and a solid Democratic majority in the State Senate. The only thing Republicans can do is cry.

Martin and Company are crying about my "Letters to the Editors" appearing in newspapers across the state accusing the Democrats of "Bait and Switch."

They say I am not taking on the Republicans. This is an outright lie. When these morons were capitulating and acquiescing to the Republicans, as an elected member of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party's State Central Committee, my voice was more often than not the only voice publicly heard coming from the Minnesota DFL challenging the Republicans. The facts of this are plain as day for anyone who reads the newspapers, listens to the radio or watches the news on television to see and hear.

I have actually had quite a lot to say about the Republicans on this issue of the Minimum Wage, though, in my writings and speeches.

However, because, like everyone, I am forced to work within the number of words these newspapers allow, I can't get into the issue as I would want to in "Letters to the Editor."

So, I am content in leaving it to Minnesota Chair Ken Martin and Governor Dayton to explain to Minnesotans how these dirty Republicans are preventing them from passing real "Living Wage Legislation."

Anyone can write in following up on my letters pointing out what the problem is with the Democrats--- and I have stated this time and time again in relation to the Minimum Wage issue so I don't really find any need to waste my space allotted in a "Letter to the Editor" attacking Republicans when it is the Democrats we need to focus on.

I have made this clear about the Republicans--- over and over again:

1. The Republicans will not support an increase in the Minimum Wage;

2. Most Republicans in Minnesota are for doing away with Minimum Wage legislation altogether.

For years, many decades, the DFL has stated that if they were given a super-majority by the voters they would enact what amounts to a Minimum Wage that is a real living--- non-poverty--- wage.

It is not true that I would be opposed to anything the Democrats do in increasing the Minimum Wage as is being asserted to malign me.

If the Democrats enact real living wage legislation I welcome this.

A "living wage" means a non-poverty wage.

We, the tax-payers, are paying big money to two government agencies--- U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics--- responsible for compiling and collecting data relating to "cost of living."

It is not up to me to state what the Minimum Wage should be in order for the Minimum Wage to be a non-poverty wage.

A non-poverty wage is based on actual "cost-of-living" factors.

When I see my name on the paycheck for who is being paid to tell us what a living, non-poverty, Minimum Wage actually is, I will provide the detailed calculations of how I arrive at my figures--- but, my figures are irrelevant; it is the politicians, not me, who have to be held accountable for the figures they are bandying about.

It is not I anyone should be seeking this explanation from as to what a non-poverty Minimum Wage should be.

It is from the politicians like Governor Mark Dayton, State Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, State House Leader Erin Murphy and Senator Tony Lourey who Chairs Health and Human Services Committee or State Senator Kathy Sheran who Chairs Health, Human Services and Housing.

I do know a little something about what the Minnesota DFL Platform has to say about "living wages" because I helped to write this part of the Platform, which states in no uncertain terms what the rank-and-file and grassroots base of the DFL stands for on this issue; and I quote from the MN DFL Party's Platform:

"A minimum wage that keeps pace with inflation and provides full time workers with an income above the poverty level."

ANY Minnesota DFL politician who is not going to use the DFL's super-majority to enact Minimum Wage legislation in line with this part of MN DFL Party's Platform should be sitting with the Republican Party's legislative caucus.

I think we are all very aware that DFL super-majorities are very rare and when achieved they should not be frivolously squandered.

Unless we have hugely different interpretations of what is meant by a "living wage" I don't see where there is a problem.

Unless anyone has reason to believe we shouldn't be able to trust the United States Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics to compile data for the Consumer Price Index (CPI) than it seems to me WHAT the Minimum Wage should be is rather cut-and-dried.

Why should any working man or working woman be satisfied with anything less than a real living wage which is determined by analyzing all "cost-of-living" factors?

In fact, to do otherwise leaves people of color, women, the handicapped, youth and now even seniors forced back into the workforce holding the shitty end of the stick forever.

If the Minimum Wage should be $7.60 as Wisconsin Democrats claim, or $8.50, $9.50, $10.10 or $11.00 as various Democrats here in Minnesota are claiming--- all they have to do is show us the data from either the U.S. Statistical Abstract compiled by the United States Census Bureau or the CPI monitored by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to prove these figures to be a "living wage."

Obviously all these figures can't be correct; and any working man or working woman can tell you that none of these figures are correct because no one can live a "non-poverty" life on any such pathetic miserly wages.

Is a $10.00 an hour Minimum Wage "better than" Minnesota's current Minimum Wage of $6.15?

Democrats did not promise "better than;" Democrats campaigning for public office do not promise "better than."

The promise of the Democrats and their Platform calls for "living wages" which can only be interpreted as, "A minimum wage that keeps pace with inflation and provides full time workers with an income above the poverty level."

Their own words:

"Above the poverty level."

Do you see any government agency stating that $8.50, $9.50, $10.10 or $11.00 an hour is "above the poverty level?"

Republicans have no say in any of this; however, apparently, the lobbyists for the employers are the only ones Minnesota politicians are listening to--- which means Minnesotans are going to have to speak with one clear voice on this issue: for a Minimum Wage that is a real living wage.

We are entitled to this in return for our votes.

E-N-T-I-T-L-E-D.

It is about accountability which is as fundamental to democracy as a living wage is as basic and fundamental to human rights.

We must not tolerate "Bait and Switch" politics anymore than we would tolerate the highly illegal practice of "Bait and Switch" in the retail marketplace.

In addition to my long-standing disdain for the reactionary Republican Party, my views regarding Minimum Wage legislation and small business is also well known--- I think small business should be excluded from Minimum Wage legislation when it comes to these employers hiring family members and relatives... if these people want to pay their grandmas and grandpas poverty wages and all parties are agreeable to this than so be it--- eliminate the enforcement of the Minimum Wage in these circumstances; we don't want a bunch of selfish small business people shedding a trail of tears out in the suburbs and gated communities which seems to be where the Minnesota DFL is picking up most of its campaign contributions from.

The DFL with its super-majority should accommodate both workers and small business people as part of being accountable to voters and even larger campaign contributors--- but, compromise with the lobbyists representing the largest corporate employers? No way in hell.

Connecting the dots.

About "connecting the dots:"

There is massive unemployment, so many people forced to live on poverty wages--- and then people wonder why the Democrats and the mining companies make headway in their destruction of our living environment from peat mining and sulfide mining under the guise of promoting all of this as "jobs, jobs, jobs."

Think about this:

If people were being paid real living wages and everyone had a job, what would be the appeal of these Democrats and mining companies to promote environmental destruction in the name of "jobs, jobs, jobs."

They would have to promote all of this in the name of what it actually is:

"Profits, Profits, Profits."

It is all about divide and conquer--- labor gets exploited; Mother Nature gets raped.

And people are kept confused and fighting amongst themselves... as the mining companies profit and the politicians collect their bribes for doing dirty work for the mining companies.

Make the Minimum Wage a real living wage and provide jobs at decent living wages and people would begin to look at the need for protecting the environment in a different way.

And, as the mining companies destroy more pristine wilderness, habitat for wolves and other animals is destroyed and along comes the DNR with their wolf hunts to "ward off over-population."

But, who wouldn't want to work in a mine instead of a loud, noisy, smoke-filled casino at poverty wages and without any rights?

And, environmentalists and labor activists think they can win their battles without supporting one another because neither is looking to see how the "dots are actually connected."

As Wall Street seeks to expand into other countries, the process repeats--- and people object and wars ensue.

Forum to be held in... 
   Duluth, Minnesota on January 11, 2014 

From the Duluth News-Tribune:

Published December 24, 2013, 12:00 AM

Reader's view: Forum to explore building progressive power

I am deeply worried about the world in which my grandchildren will live their adult lives; for the trends suggest a world with less-than-adequate livelihood, medical care, nutrition and retirement security.

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/286847/ 

I am deeply worried about the world in which my grandchildren will live their adult lives; for the trends suggest a world with less-than-adequate livelihood, medical care, nutrition and retirement security. Not to mention the looming specter of climate disruption.

I’m also deeply conflicted, for all my adult life I was led to believe that voting for liberal candidates and policies would solve or prevent such problems. But that hasn’t happened. The trends continue to worsen.

Intuitively, I know what’s wrong and what needs to be changed. But can I risk voting in a new direction? Will I be undermining the electoral victory of a liberal candidate? Or do I need to look seriously at what some progressive thinkers are proposing?

Those will be the questions to be explored by presenters and the audience alike at the Forum for Building Progressive Political Power on Saturday, Jan. 11 at the “copper top church” in Duluth starting at 11:00 a.m. The event is free and the public is encouraged to attend (facebook.com/unitingpeopleMN).

Vern Simula

Mountain Iron

FORUM

“Building Progressive Political Power

                     in Minnesota”

        SATURDAY, JAN. 11^TH. 11:00 A.M. – 4:00 P.M.

               COPPER TOP CHURCH – DULUTH

                                        231 East Skyline Parkway, Duluth 55811

11:00      Welcome/Opening/Overview

11:10    “Connecting the Dots - What Has Brought Us Together -  and  Full Employment for All.”

                   Alan Maki, of Uniting People 

11:30    “Achieving Livable Minimum Wage Legislation for Minnesota Workers”

                  Liane Gale of the Minnesota Green Party with David Flaherty, a local college student.

12:00    Mobilizing Progressives for the Minimum Wage Campaign:  Small Group Discussion

12:30 ====================  BREAK ==================================

12:45    Whole Forum Deliberation 

1:05     “Getting it Passed: Universal Single Payer Health Care for Minnesota”

               Buddy Robinson of Minnesota Citizens Federation – Northeast

               Dr. Jim Hart of Physicians for a National Health Program

1:45     2014:  A Year Of Decision; Centuries of Risk; Being Idle No More!

              Reyna Crow of Northwoods Wolf Alliance and Idle No More

               NE MN Enviro Orgs; Allen Richardson, et. al,: Polymet SDEIS hearings.

2:30     ===================  BREAK   ==================================

2:40   How Do We Organize in Minnesota?? 

                  2:40   Kristin Larson:      “Precinct Caucus Importance”

                  2:55   Dennis Leahy:       “A Heave-Ho to the Electoral Paradigm”

                  3:10   Nathan Ness:         “Effective vs. Ineffective Organizing”

                  3:25   Virgil Boehland:   “Moving to Amend”

                  3:40   Allen Hancock:     “Building a Social Movement” 

 4:00+  Closing–

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Please arrive early.  We’ll try to start on time.  It’s a jam-packed schedule of presentations and audience discussion.  The coffee and cookies will be ready by 10:40!    For more information, call 218.591.5722