dubyaD40.com - Guest Blog

dubyaD40.com's Guest Blog

Only Fair and Balanced Trade Is Free
Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Stephen Crockett
March 27, 2007

Trade policies are finally starting to get serious consideration in Congress, and among Presidential candidates, for the first time since the 1993 NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) debates. Trade policy, by our federal government in the past 14 years, has been a disaster for the working people of America. Federal government trade policies have very seriously undermined the American Middle Class, weakened our economy, threatened our national security, crippled our self-reliance in war preparation, distorted our foreign policies and created social tensions been our economic classes.

The "so-called free trade," ideology-driven, policy has been a radical experiment that fails the tests of being fair and balanced. While the alleged "free traders" use economic theories taught at American universities to justify these policies, the real force behind the "so-called free trade" agenda seems to be monetary greed by the largest corporations in the world including some formerly American ones. These corporations are loyal only to the power of international wealth. They are absolutely not acting in American national interests or as loyal American citizens. They are being motivated solely by greed instead of American patriotism.

Our government should be run by elected officeholders who only serve American interests. Officeholders should never place ideology or corporate greed over practical results in developing government policies. Since the current Bush was established in the White House, America lost 3 million manufacturing jobs. Our yearly trade deficit to foreign nations has exploded. It currently stands at around $800 billion a year and with Communist China alone at $233 billion!

We export $55 billion a year to Communist China mostly in raw materials, machine tools and similar products designed to help them grow their export industries and become stronger economic competitors. In return, we import $288 billion mostly in finished consumer goods. This trade has financed the rapid military growth of the Communist Chinese military. It has costs astronomical numbers of good paying American jobs. American trade policies toward Communist China have weakened the export position of American manufactured good in other nations around the world.

The Chinese market was going to be a huge consumer of American manufacturers when the policy was first designed or so the American people were told. It has instead been only a cheap pool of labor for American corporations seeking ever larger profits by fleeing the American nation with their factories.

The Chinese example has been repeated in nation after nation like Taiwan, Korea, Jordan, Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt, Guatemala, etc. The list has been growing rapidly along with our trade deficits. The number of shipping containers rolling into the United States without proper inspection is a serious threat to national security. The "so-called free traders" ignore the national security threat posed by runaway, largely unregulated foreign trade.

Some newer members of Congress are finally fighting strongly against the policies of these "so-called free traders." Recently, I heard Congressman Phil Hare (17th Congressional District of Illinois) call himself a "fair trader," as he explained the crippling impact of unfair "so-called free trade" on the communities he represents like Moline, Galesburg and Decatur. Congressman Hare supports trade but stated he will not support "fast-tracking" of new trade agreements or any trade policies that result in the outsourcing of good jobs from his District. I want to know why Republican members of Congress like Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, Joe Wilson of South Carolina, Virginia Foxx of North Carolina and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee are not standing with Hare instead of against him on this issue!

Congressman Michael Michaud (2nd Congressional District of Maine) has long been a leader in the movement for fair and balanced trade that protects the jobs of American workers. Unlike most other members of Congress, Congressman Michaud worked in a mill in Maine before being elected to Congress. This writer had the pleasure of hearing Congressman Michaud speak to some auto workers in Washington, D.C. in 2006. He should be one of the main role models for every member of Congress especially on trade and worker issues. With luck, Michaud will someday be on a Democratic Presidential ticket.

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (9th Congressional District of Ohio) is a real expert on trade policy. Kaptur often says she supports "free trade among free people." The wisdom of this remark cannot be overstated! Communist China is not a free nation. It is not a democracy. It still has a closed and regulated economy. Japan is a democracy but still does not truly have an economy open freely to imports. Kaptur explained on the floor of Congress examples of trade barriers imposed by the auto industry in Japan that keeps American goods out of the country. She discussed the negative impact of "so-called free trade" on the Mexican peasants. Congresswoman Kaptur explained how labor union organizers and workers are killed in South American nations that Bush wants to include in new "so-called free trade agreements."

President Bush has been pushing "so-called free trade deals" with nations that kill labor union leaders and organizers, have almost no excess income to buy American goods and no desire to have imported American manufactured products compete with their domestic producers. Nations agreeing to these deals offer only low, low wages along with lax or non-existent environmental and worker safety laws to large corporations. They are ideal locations to locate factories that exploit and abuse workers. Child labor and prison labor are often readily available. There is zero benefit to American workers in these deals. America should not permit imports from these nations much less give them favorable access to our markets.

The federal government needs to change our trade and tax policies to punish corporations (and their officers) who export manufacturing facilities. We need more protection from unfair trade. Our trade policies and tariffs should be changed to bring imports and exports into a rough balance. Trade policies should be designed to maintain or improve the living standards and economic security of American workers. Selling foreign goods in America should be a privilege given only as a reward to our closest allies and when it serves our national interest. Free trade between other developed nations, who are democracies that return the privilege equally, is fine. In all other cases, it should be rather rare. It is time to demand our elected officeholders hold these views or be replaced.

Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio

Permalink

Republican Political Mafia and Federal Law
Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Stephen Crockett
March 19, 2007

There is nothing as corrupt as using the governmental powers of law enforcement to selectively prosecute your political enemies and to cover-up criminal behavior by your political organization and allies, while in a position of political power. This situation is the essence of the current scandal concerning the firing of US Attorneys by the Bush White House.

The Watergate scandal should have taught the Republican Party that this kind of abuse is outside the bounds of acceptable political behavior in American society. Republican activists failed to learn the lessons of Watergate and are now reliving history on issue after issue. Republican Presidential pardon powers were used to thwart the rule of law and let the Republican political criminal Richard Nixon avoid the jail time he deserved.

Republicans should have gone to jail in large numbers doing the Iran-Contra scandals. In that case, a Republican White House ignored the rule of law. They abused the traditions of normal American political behavior and federal law to impose their minority foreign policy views on an American public opposed to the Republican ideologically based policies. Instead, Presidential pardon powers were abused to help Republican political criminals avoid the jail time they deserved.

The current Bush White House by executive order changed the process on revealing prior Presidential papers to the public early in George W. Bush's first term in a way that prevented revelation of criminal behaviors concerning Iran-Contra figures. The role of his father, the first George Bush, in the criminal behavior concerning of Iran-Contra remains unexplored. The executive order may violate the Presidential Papers Act.

At issue is Republican Presidential politics influencing potential criminal investigations and prosecutions. The current Republican White House has definitely politicized the process of federal law enforcement in a way that corrupts American government. Unfortunately, they are continuing a long Republican tradition. Republicans seem to view this as politics as usual. It is not! It is corruption and deeply offensive to the real traditions of American government.

Under this Bush, it appears that federal prosecutors have targeted 7 or 8 times more Democratic officeholders than Republican officeholders. The investigations of Democratic state legislators in Tennessee looks politically motivated. Anyone familiar with Tennessee politics knows that Republican politicians in that state are just as corrupt or corruptible as Democratic ones. The federal government has not investigated the Republican officeholders in Tennessee in the way they have Democrats. The political strength of Republicans in Tennessee looks to be closely linked to politicized federal law enforcement by the Bush Administration. The Tennessee politicized law enforcement situation appears ripe for investigation.

Criminal investigations of Republican politicians are slowed to a snail pace by politicized appointees in case after case like the New Hampshire phone jamming scandal. The federal prosecutor who convicted California Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham for corruption was unjustly fired. The federal prosecutor who would not prosecute phony vote fraud charges against Democrats in New Mexico, in time for the 2006 elections as demanded by Republican politicians, was fired.

In 2005, a federal prosecutor investigating criminal charges surrounding the staff of then Republican Governor Bob Ehrlich was fired. The investigation was effectively derailed. This pattern of abuses repeats itself over and over again in state after state.

Unless the Republicans can purge their Party of this criminal tendency to abuse public office and government power for political ends, then Republicans at every level should be voted out of power. Public investigations and investigative journalism should be focused on abuses of office by those in power.

The Republican Party is starting to look like a potential target for a RICO indictment as a profit-making, criminal conspiracy. Their political traditions should be based on American political figures like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt instead of Richard Nixon, Dick Cheney and Tom Delay. The current Republican Culture of Corruption is a very sad situation for the Party of Lincoln to find itself in at the beginning of the 21st century.

Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio

Permalink

Where Are We Now?
Monday, March 12, 2007

Agnes Kincaid
March 12, 2007

As usual tonight before trying to go to sleep I was switching through channels and low and behold I have NOVA. A nifty little title of, "Battle Plan Under Fire", came into view talking about pre-war intelligence in Iraq. The NGA, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency has everything you ever wanted to know but were afraid to ask about the pre-condition to the "Shock and Awe" we saw in Iraq. The information took into account that 1-10 soldiers on the ground in Iraq before the war was Special Forces and that our government knew precisely where to hit...right down to the floor in any given building with the guided missiles for the fire work events that were to follow.

What I can't understand is if the government knew all this information then why were innocent civilians slaughtered in the beginning and why are our troops continuing to be sacrificed on a daily schedule with more to be deployed very soon? Is this "War", yes I use the term as loosely as I would an heinous killing, a measure of population control or is it now a matter of sacrifice our country must suffer in order to have what it so desires...and that would be the black gold that is below the sands on land that's not our own.

I'm sorry if this sounds a little Sci-Fi but honestly it reminds me of a more primitive "Logan's Run" with every age group imaginable included. Why are we, as Americans, allowing this farce to continue? Hasn't there been enough evidence and loss to satisfy the most blood thirsty of our lot that it's time to bring our people home? Maybe not. It's convenient to sit in your chair and watch worlds away from you explode into space, isn't it? You're completely distanced from the mire and hell that many face with each new day to only see their faces flash for an instance with greetings to home and the vacant, hopeless looks upon their faces as they tell those they love one more time how much they miss them. Dying for a cause is much easier to bear than becoming a hated monster in the free world, isn't it? What did America do to its Vietnam Vets upon their return home..hmmm? Were they greeted with Hail Good Fellow and bands with parades? No, they were spit upon and discarded like yesterdays trash and left to endure the hell and pain our government inflicted upon them with continuing hell through out their existence.

Here we are once again in 2007 and we still haven't learned our lesson at all. We must stop now what incompetent, greed mongering, inhumane, wanna be Foe Gods have put into action, and that would be the destruction of our world. This war is the destruction of our nation already and we will have to work far into the future to recover even a bit to have economic viability once again, and as far as reputation....well, it's going to take a very special leader to repair the damage caused by this administration as well as the complacent accomplis factor of American people for allowing one such as we have to remain in office under the guise of "Father Of Our Country". If this man is the "Father Of Our Country", then I want to be adopted...that's where I am now and I hope you are too.

Agnes Kincaid

Permalink

Employee Free Choice Act and Republican Disinformation
Monday, March 5, 2007

Stephen Crockett
March 7, 2007

Republicans opposing the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act are lying up a storm to swing public opinion against the proposed law. Their primary attack claim is that the bill denies workers a free, fair election by secret ballot. Unfortunately, there is nothing free or fair about the current system of voting on unionization. The law is tilted heavily in favor of company power and against the workers.

I have been involved in an unsuccessful attempt to unionize a business. I saw disturbing examples of intimidation and unfair tactics that the Employee Free Choice Act would have prevented.

Companies are able to hold "captive audience meetings" to argue against unionization. They are legally able to include certain workers and exclude others. Attendance is mandatory for some and prohibited to others. They are held on company time.

Workers trying to unionize are not able to meet on company property without permission of the company. Strong union supporters are usually excluded from "captive audience meetings" so the company position is the only one heard by the workers forced to attend. Sometimes illegal threats or statements are issued at these meetings when the company feels certain that workers attending them will not report them to the federal government.

The burden of proof by law regarding illegal tactics by companies in complaints filed with the National Labor Relations Board definitely tilts toward the company. Most companies fail to see violations of labor laws by anti-union "so-called worker committees" (often comprised of quasi-management employees) while pro-union workers are threatened frequently with being fired if suspected of engaging in pro-union activities. The anti-union "so-called worker committees" can operate on company time (which is illegal) without much fear. While most companies will deny knowing about such activity, it seems likely that these companies often secretly organize these anti-union "so-called worker committees" and direct their operations. In almost every case, the company has complete knowledge of their activities.

Supervisors will often threaten employees when no witnesses are present. Threatened workers are often afraid of reporting the threats or do not know the procedure for reporting them. These threats are illegal but very difficult to prove. The company can fire pro-union workers during the election process to intimidate other workers even if the federal government or courts eventually get their jobs back. In the meantime, the union vote will often go against unionization out of fear.

The company will sometimes threaten to close the business or move it if the workers vote for a union. This is illegal but it does happen. It is very difficult to prove. Illegal activity by the company is difficult to prove in part because many companies make rules against bringing recording devices or cameras into the work area. This also makes it difficult to document unsafe working conditions. Workers can lose their jobs trying to document violations of labor or safety laws by the company.

Union organizers and union officials do not have access to company property during the election cycle to discuss the benefits of unionization. They are not supplied with phone numbers of employees although the companies do have that information.

If you distribute any union materials including union pledge cards on company property during working hours, you can and usually will be fired. Pro-union workers are often warned about this even when they are not actively involved in the distribution of pledge cards or materials just to intimidate them from speaking up for unionization.

The current union election system is not fair or free. It is much like the "free elections" held in Communist countries or other dictatorships. The Republicans and their large corporate masters are being completely dishonest in the way they frame the issue and describe the current situation.

Republicans falsely claim that workers are intimidated into signing union pledge cards. This is so rare as to be almost non-existent. The intimidation is almost entirely on the side of the companies. Companies are in a position of power over workers. Co-workers are simply not in a similar power situation. Only the company is really in the kind of power position to intimidate workers.

Criminal behavior influencing union votes is almost always on the side of the company. The Employee Free Choice Act is designed to stop this criminal behavior and all intimidation of workers. The legislation says that if a majority of workers sign pledge cards in favor of unionizing the union will be automatically recognized by law. It is majority rule. It eliminates the opportunity for the company to block the majority desire for unionization by using illegal tactics and intimidation.

A vote against the Employee Free Choice Act is a vote in favor of the current rigged system. It is a vote in favor of company intimidation and illegal company behavior. It is a vote against the workers.

Democrats overwhelmingly support the Employee Free Choice Act. In the House vote, only 2 Democrats voted against the legislation. 13 Republicans voted for the Employee Free Choice Act. The final vote was 241 in favor and 185 against.

Some Senate Republicans may attempt to block a vote on this legislation. If they do, every working American should vote against them. If any Democrat joins them, they should be defeated at the next election. Workers should contact their Senators immediately and let them know their vote on this legislation will determine your vote in the next election.

It has been reported that Cheney has pledged that Bush will veto the Employee Free Choice Act. This is the best reason I can think of for voting Democratic in the 2008 Presidential Election if Bush vetoes this pro-worker legislation.

The Employee Free Choice Act is a vote for worker rights. A vote against it is a vote against worker rights no matter how the Republicans spin it.

Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio

Permalink