[OccupyCU] (no subject)

[Ricky Baldwin]

Well, I was with him until we came to the end.  Stiglitz and others have pointed out that the real reason the "stimulus" didn't do much was that it was WAY too small, and it mainly targeted the financial sector and not infrastructure.  OK, so the Administration's new proposals would target infrastructure stimulus, but once again WAY too little.  WAY too little.  I think Dean Baker has some very good ideas on the way out of this mess: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/books/the-end-of-loser-liberalism.

But, look.  I have nothing against "third" parties.  I have helped start them - the Labor Party, the Working Families Party - and I've helped the Greens out on various ways here and in New York.  But that said, it's a big leap to go from support and "it's a good idea" to the argument that a third party is even a serious option as a solution.  The American system is of course very resistant to third parties overall and in most state and local systems, too - so it would be tough as hell at best, and take thousands of people at least a decade but probably several decades, unless some catastrophe mixes up all the vectors.  And there's no predicting that.  Be ready for it?  Sure.  Count on it?  Never.  These efforts are probably most productive on the local level for now.

I know the author says "realignment" not just "third party".  That can mean a lot of things.  In one sense, that has happened several times - in the 1850s and 60s, in the 1930s and 40s, in the 1960s and 70s ... but are these things cause or effect?  Others may have a different opinion, but it seems to me that widespread sustained organizing around certain principles, such as the anti-slavery movement, the labor and unemployed movement, the civil rights movement, ... as in the Occupy Movement ... can shift the political topography somewhat "indirectly" by not supporting political candidates, or political parties, but political demands.  If successful, this will affect the parties and candidates, and by organizing around principles rather than parties or candidates the whole necessity of compromise is shifted into another arena.  Pollsters and campaign managers will do their calculations in any event.

This is not to say no one should support a candidate or party if they chose to.  But the movement, in my opinion, should always be about demands, sometimes pointed demands, and yes occasionally a bill may be supported or a politician may be allowed to address the protesters.  And they may applaud.  No harm done.  Like it or not, politicians pass laws, direct resources, foster business investment that can be sustainable or not, etc.  But I think we focus too much on the politicians.  They make great cartoons.  But we need to focus more on what we want and need, which I think the Occupy Movement has done pretty successfully.  It can be useful to -er- enlist strategic numbers - ahem- at certain weak points in the political system, or put some elbow grease into a third party effort locally, or a bill or ordinance, even work for a candidate.  But usually not.  Our time is almost always better spent in movement building, in my opinion.

That's all.

Ricky 
________________________________________
From: occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net [occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Johnson [dlj725 at hughes.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:07 PM
To: "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@mail0.frost.chambana.net
Subject: [OccupyCU] (no subject)

America has lost the battle over government
By Jeffrey Sachs<http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/21d103cc-e6c3-11e1-af33-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fcomment_columnists_clivecrook%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz23dvqGMVy>

With Congressman Paul Ryan as the Republican vice-presidential candidate, the US election is shaping up to be a full-throated ideological brawl. President Barack Obama champions public investment and social support for the poor, while Mitt Romney and Mr Ryan call for a smaller state with lower taxes and spending. Yet for all the rhetoric, the small-government agenda has already prevailed. No matter who is elected on November 6, dangerous cuts in public goods and services are already in train. There is considerable controversy about Mr Ryan’s budget plan, which exemplifies an aggressive Republican pitch to cut government spending, tax rates and social protection. Mr Ryan would reduce the top rate of personal income tax from 35 per cent to 25 per cent and slash transfer programmes for the poor, such as Medicaid and food stamps. His plan would also eliminate Mr Obama’s healthcare legislation. Radical stuff.

There are also deep doubts about Mr Ryan’s claim that top tax rates can be reduced in a “revenue neutral” way by plugging loopholes. Mr Ryan invites these doubts by offering few details on how such loophole-plugging would work. It is more likely than not we would repeat the history of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts: revenues would plummet and the supposed offsets would never materialise. Today’s enormous deficits would become even larger.
Still, American liberals (those to the left of the political centre), who are now vehemently blasting Mr Ryan’s budget should take note. Their candidate has also already accepted a brutal shrinkage of government programmes in coming years. The similarities of the Obama budget and Mr Ryan’s are striking.

Mr Ryan’s plan calls for federal revenues of 18.4 per cent of gross domestic product in 2016 and 18.5 per cent in 2020 (though his lower tax rates would probably put those targets out of reach). His budget outlays come in at 19.7 per cent and 19.5 per cent in 2016 and 2020, respectively. Of the total outlays in 2016, Mr Ryan targets “discretionary” programmes at 5.9 per cent of GDP; social security, 5 per cent; Medicare, 3.2 per cent; other mandatory spending, 3.7 per cent; and interest payments, 1.9 per cent.

Now consider Mr Obama’s budget unveiled in February. Federal revenues are targeted at 19.1 per cent of GDP in 2016 and 19.7 per cent of GDP in 2020, only about 1 percentage point above Mr Ryan’s revenue targets. In Mr Obama’s 2016 budget targets, discretionary spending is set at 5.9 per cent of GDP; social security, 5 per cent; Medicare, 3.2 per cent; other mandatory spending, 5.8 per cent; and interest payments, 2.5 per cent.

In fact, Mr Obama’s overall discretionary spending targets are essentially the same as Mr Ryan’s. Whether Mr Obama or Mr Romney wins, the “non-security” discretionary budget – for education, job skills, infrastructure, science and technology, space, environmental protection, alternative energy and climate change adaptation – is on the chopping block. Mr Obama’s budget would shrink non-security discretionary programmes from an already insufficient 3.1 per cent of GDP in 2011 to 1.8 per cent in 2020. That is the “liberal” alternative.

In bemoaning Mr Obama’s budget, I do not mean to equate it with Mr Ryan’s. Mr Ryan’s budget is nothing short of heartless in the face of the dire crisis facing America’s poor. It is also reckless, guaranteed to leave millions of children without the quality of education and skills they will need as adults. Yet the sad truth is that the Democrats offer no progressive alternative. Both parties are accomplices to the premeditated asphyxiation of the state. Viewed from an international perspective, the constricted range of the US fiscal debate is striking. Total US government revenues (combining federal, state and local governments) in 2011 came in at about 32 per cent of GDP. This compares with an average of 44 per cent in the EU and 50 per cent in northern Europe.

Many Americans will say that they are dodging the European curse by keeping taxation so low but they should look again. Northern Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) gets great value for its tax revenues: lower budget deficits, lower unemployment rates, lower public debt-to-GDP ratios, lower poverty rates, greater social mobility, better job training, longer life expectancy, lower greenhouse gas emissions, higher reported life satisfaction and greater macroeconomic stability.

America’s two political parties depend on wealthy contributors to finance their presidential campaigns. These donors want and expect their taxes to stay low. As a result, social divisions, broken infrastructure, laggard educational attainments, high carbon emissions and chronic budget deficits are likely to continue no matter who is elected, even though the public supports higher taxes on corporations and the rich.

Only a big political realignment, perhaps spurred by a third party bold enough to campaign on free social media rather than expensive television advertising, is likely to break the status quo. Until then, the demise of public goods and services will continue apace.

The writer is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and author of ‘The Price of Civilization’