Image credit: Pamela Powers Hannley

When old timers talk about Arizona’s economy, they often refer to the “5 C’s”– cotton, copper, cattle, citrus, and climate. The “5 C’s” built Arizona, but how relevant are they in today’s world of limited resources?

At least 4 of the 5 C’s come with a high environmental cost, since cotton, copper, cattle, and citrus all use more water than Arizona can afford to use. This practice has led to the destruction of desert rivers and streams. Three of the 5C’s– cotton, copper, and cattle– also have destroyed our state’s vegetation and desert ecosystem.

According to a recent article in the Arizona Daily Star, a 6th C has emerged as an important player (no pun intended) in the state’s economic development– casinos. In fiscal year 2011 (July 2010 – June 2011), casinos took in $1.7 billion. .

Although copper ($5.3 billion) and climate (AKA, tourism, $17.7 billion) have continued to be blockbuster sources of revenue, 2010 revenues from cattle ($637 million), cotton ($206), and citrus ($34) paled in comparison to gambling.

What is missing from this article about revenue is cost. What is the environmental cost of  copper, cattle, cotton, and citrus? What is the cost to the state in tax breaks and incentives to the copper industry or businesses related to tourism? If revenues of these businesses are so high, what are they paying to the state for the privilege of doing business here?

And what is the true cost of gambling? The Star article quotes expert sources who estimate that 75% of casino gamblers are Arizonans. Yes, the tribes made $1.7 billion on gambling, but that means that everyday citizens lost $1.7 billion on gambling.

The old saying is: gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math. Gambling can be highly addictive. Compulsive gamblers can lose everything… houses, jobs, families, lives.

Is this rise in gambling revenues a good sign for our state’s well being? I think not. It only shows the desperation of Arizonans trying to eek out a living however they can in a depressed state with few opportunities for the unemployed and undereducated.

Instead of relying on the 6 C’s, Arizona should move to an economy built on the 6 E’s — environmental sustainability, education, electronics (AKA technology), equity, excellence, and economic opportunity for all.

Mitt Romney has had such a lackluster showing on the national stage that I am amazed he is still running for president.

But he has enough money behind him to overcome the fact that he’s a milk-toast rich boy. The oligarchs would rather have a malleable milk-toast than a loose cannon (ie, Sarah Palen, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry) in the White House.

Watching Romney defend corporate personhood (top video) and promote bowing to market forces and allowing continued home foreclosures (bottom video), it’s obvious to see who his masters are, and it’s not the 99%. At the end of his clip about letting foreclosures happen, I’m surprised he didn’t say, “Aw… let them eat cake.”

Informational tents erected by Connect the Dots, Progressive Democrats of America, Jobs with Justice, and political campaigns drew in many interested people.

Labor Day 2011 in Tucson was a blend of old fashioned games and old fashioned politics.

As a volunteer with the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) booth, my job was to work the crowd and attach as many “Healthcare not Warfare” stickers to as many people as possible. This task afforded me the opportunity to engage in multiple conversations about universal healthcare, ending US military adventurism, and other political issues with dozens of people during the course of the day.

Two of the more extended and spirited discussions I had on Labor Day were with  Republican City Council candidate Jennifer Rawson and Republican Mayoral candidate Rick Grinnell. (I’m not sure if they were tag-teaming at the Labor Day event, but they passed by the PDA and Connect the Dots booths one right after another. Little did they know what they were stepping into.)

Rawson wandered by first, then Grinnell. They both accepted my “Healthcare not Warfare” stickers, and began to tell me who they were; but, of course, I already knew. I started my conversations with both of them with the same question:

If you are elected as a City Council person [or Mayor], how would you reduce the poverty rate in Tucson?

“Create jobs!” Rawson responded enthusiastically.

“How?” I asked.

At this juncture, Rawson shifted the topic from jobs and poverty to a story about a small business owner who received a bill for $5000 from the city for a light pole erected on her property. Boo hoo for the business owner was Rawson’s message. Of course, she didn’t offer anybackground information on this story– such as whether or not the small business owner has asked the city to erect the light pole on her property. Details, details. Instead she went off on the city and the fees…yada, yada, yada.

“Fix city government. It’s full of corruption. We really need to clean house!” was Grinnel’s answer to the poverty problem. (Well that didn’t answer my question at all. Ironically, when I checked Grinnell’s website today, I realized that he is on the Rio Nuevo Board… hmmm… city corruption… pot calling the kettle black?)

“So, do you want to know my ideas for creating jobs in Pima County?” I asked them both. Not allowing either of them to answer my rhetorical question, I launched into my ideas. I told them both that the Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities (better known as TREO) and the Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau (MTCVB) were a waste of money because they have been ineffective in their strategies to boost the Tucson economy or create jobs. Here is what I told them…

TREO’s tactic– also employed by economic development groups in dozens of cities– is to chase large corporations and sports teams with tax breaks, free land, and taxpayer-funded facilities (ie, ball parks, industrial parks, convention centers, etc.) This strategy benefits businesses, for sure, but it is was not producing long-term, good jobs in Tucson (remember IBM? remember Wiser Lock? remember spring training?)– or anywhere else– because these companies and sports teams are not loyal to the location. They are just looking for the best deal, and the cities and politicians are so desperate to look successful at job creation that they break the bank with the deals they offer. (I didn’t realize when I was dissing chasing sports teams that Grinnell used to do just that!)

The way to grow jobs– and help small businesses– in Tucson isn’t to give tax breaks to relocating corporations or to excuse fees levied on existing business; it’s to invest in businesses that are “born and raised” in Tucson — like Gadabout, Bohemia, Patio Pools, Technicians for Sustainability, Nimbus Brewery, Thunder Canyon Brewery, eegees, etc. Instead of spending $1 million to bring in another call center or baseball team, why not offer 50 – 100 individual $10-20,000 low-cost loans or grants to different local businesses with innovative ideas or well-crafted business expansion plans? (I’m talking real plans– not just “Hey, if we give you a $5000 tax credit, could you maybe hire someone someday?”)

With a $20,000 investment, would Gadabout start a skin care line? Would Nimbus or Thunder Canyon improve expand distribution to other states or start a spin-off business? Would Technicians for Sustainability start manufacturing their own line of solar shingles? Would Bohemia start marketing local art on the Internet or open another store or reduce their consignment fee (thus helping local artists make more money)? Who knows? At any rate, investment– not giveaways– will grow businesses (and jobs) because it fosters innovation and expansion– not just increased profits for the business owner.

After promoting Local First and trashing TREO’s ineffective strategies, I moved on to MTCVB. Tucson has a vibrant arts and music scene. Our musicians and artists are every bit as talented as Austin’s or New Orleans’. Tucson also has great musical events– the blues festival, the folk festival, Club Crawl, HoCo Fest, just to name a few– and local music in clubs nightly, but you won’t learn about any of these attractions on the MTCVB website. It’s all mariachis, golf, swanky resorts, rodeo, baseball(?), the Gem Show, cacti, and sunsets. On the MTCVB website, the only art represented is David Dominguez Gallery, Tohono Chul Park, the Tucson Museum of Art, and the Open Studio Tour. Huh? No mention of Dinnerware, Raices, the warehouse district galleries, or the Central Tucson Gallery Association. MCTVB is promoting business– not Tucson and Tucson’s cultural, artistic, and musical assets.

TREO and MTCVB should be de-funded, and their missions and tactics re-tooled. Their strategies are not working; it’s time to think forward.

What is our shared vision for Tucson and how do we realize it? Grinnell and Rawson offered me canned Republican answers to my sincere question about jobs and poverty. Is continued Democratic Party rule the answer? I’m not so sure about that; the Democrats have perpetuated the inept policies of TREO/MTCVB. Stay tuned for more…

Teams representing different labor unions prepare to push a giant ball back and forth across the field. Is this game an analogy for the political struggle between local Democrats and Republicans?

Each August Tucson– like college towns nationwide– sees a flurry of activity as students move back to town and scramble to find lodging.

In recent years, local mini-dorm developers have gone wild– buying up cheap houses (thanks to record foreclosures and a glut of houses for sale), unceremoniously leveling the said houses, and constructing mini-dorms– the scurge of Tucson’s University-area neighborhoods.

This year– with a 15.9 percent rental vacancy rate– Tucson is a renters’ market. For rent signs abound. Good for students and other renters. Not so good for landlords and mini-dorm developers.

Back in April, I pondered the fate of the mini-dorm market– given dramatic hikes in tuition at The University of Arizona. Tucson’s recent designation as the “sickest housing market in the US”, its recent designation as the most impoverished city in the Sunbelt, and its glut of unrented rentals make my question even more poignant: Will mini-dorms become empty monuments to greed?

How much you wanna bet that mini-dorm developers Michael Goodman and Richard Studwell try to sell these architectural behemoths to the city when they can’t rent them?

It’s highly ironic that the current social and political battle over our nation’s debt and deficit is occurring this week with the 46th anniversary of the signing of Social Security Act of 1965 on Saturday, July 30.

After a long political battle dating from Harry Truman’s presidency to Lyndon Johnson’s, Johnson signed this legislation creating universal, single payer healthcare insurance for the nation’s elderly (Medicare) and indigent (Medicaid).

From The Nation…

With reporters and photographers surrounding them, Johnson took a place beside former President Harry Truman, who the sitting president thanked for “planting the seeds of compassion and duty which have today flowered into care for the sick and serenity for the fearful.” [Emphasis added.]

These healthcare reforms were part of Johnson’s Great Society, which had two primary goals: to eliminate poverty and to eliminate racial injustice. After his landslide victory over Barry Goldwater in 1964, Johnson and his progressive Democratic Congress enacted forward-thinking reforms that were reminiscent of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and began the full-on War on Poverty, which reduced the poverty rate significantly over the subsequent 10 years. Many important Great Society programs– aimed at improving labor, healthcare, and education for poor and working class Americans– are still in existence: Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, student loans for college, work study, and Head Start. These programs were strengthened under Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

It is so sad how far we have fallen from this level of compassion. The programs of Roosevelt’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society– programs that have provided a social safety net for millions of Americans and wiped out many inequities of the past– are now facing a full-frontal attack by conservatives, bankrolled by big business.

Republican Congressmen would have you believe that the nation’s financial problems can be fixed by just cutting spending– specifically dramatically changing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (long-term spending) and dramatically cutting other discretionary (non-military) spending (ie, food stamps, children’s healthcare, food safety, pollution abatement, etc) which actually makes up less than 20 percent of the budget. Oh, yeah, and they want to protect oil subsidies, corporate tax loopholes (which allow multinational corporations like Bank of America to pay no taxes; tax loopholes for the rich; continue the Bush era tax cuts that they fought so hard for in December 2010; dismantle Social Security (so retirement funds for those under 50 can be gambled on the stock market); and offer more tax cuts (more trickle down economics).

At a time of high unemployment, high gasoline costs, high food prices, escalating college education tuition, skyrocketing healthcare expenses, a disintigrating social safety net, and soaring corporate profits– Republicans want workers, the elderly, and the indigent to “tighten their belts” to protect the profits and tax breaks of corporate jet owners, big oil, big pharma, big insurance, and Wall Street gamblers and corporate execs everywhere.

From the Associated Press (via the Arizona Daily Star)…

Two years after economists say the Great Recession ended, the recovery has been the weakest and most lopsided of any since the 1930s.

After previous recessions, people in all income groups tended to benefit. This time, ordinary Americans are struggling with job insecurity, too much debt and pay raises that haven’t kept up with prices at the grocery store and gas station. The economy’s meager gains are going mostly to the wealthiest.

Workers’ wages and benefits make up 57.5 percent of the economy, an all-time low. Until the mid-2000s, that figure had been remarkably stable – about 64 percent through boom and bust alike.

Executive pay is included in this figure, but rank-and-file workers are far more dependent on regular wages and benefits. A big chunk of the economy’s gains has gone to investors in the form of higher corporate profits.

“The spoils have really gone to capital, to the shareholders,” says David Rosenberg, chief economist at Gluskin Sheff + Associates in Toronto.

Corporate profits are up by almost half since the recession ended in June 2009. In the first two years after the recessions of 1991 and 2001, profits rose 11 percent and 28 percent, respectively.

And an Associated Press analysis found that the typical CEO of a major company earned $9 million last year, up a fourth from 2009.

Driven by higher profits, the Dow Jones industrial average has staged a breathtaking 90 percent rally since bottoming at 6,547 on March 9, 2009. Those stock market gains go disproportionately to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, who own more than 80 percent of outstanding stock, according to an analysis by Edward Wolff, an economist at Bard College.

But if the Great Recession is long gone from Wall Street and corporate boardrooms, it lingers on Main Street:

• Unemployment has never been so high – 9.1 percent – this long after any recession since World War II. At the same point after the previous three recessions, unemployment averaged just 6.8 percent.

• The average worker’s hourly wages, after accounting for inflation, were 1.6 percent lower in May than a year earlier. Rising gasoline and food prices have devoured any pay raises for most Americans.

• The jobs that are being created pay less than the ones that vanished in the recession. Higher-paying jobs in the private sector, the ones that pay roughly $19 to $31 an hour, made up 40 percent of the jobs lost from January 2008 to February 2010 but only 27 percent of the jobs created since then.

Hard times have made Americans more dependent than ever on social programs, which accounted for a record 18 percent of personal income in the last three months of 2010 before coming down a bit this year. Almost 45 million Americans are on food stamps, another record…

Federal Reserve numbers crunched by Haver Analytics suggest that Americans have a long way to go before their finances will be strong enough to support robust spending: Despite cutting what they owe the past three years, the average household’s debts equal 119 percent of annual after-tax income. At the same point after the 1981-82 recession, debts were at 66 percent; after the 1990-91 recession, 85 percent; and after the 2001 recession, 114 percent. [Emphasis added.]

At a time when Americans can least afford it and the income gap between the richest 1 percent and the rest of us is larger than the Grand Canyon, Republicans are asking for even further financial sacrifices from Main Street Americans AND they are willing to throw the world into financial crisis as they cling to their trickle down ideology of protecting the rich while casting the rest of us aside. If they want to “fix” Social Security, they should put Americans back to work at good-paying jobs. According to 2009 figures from the US Census, 14.3 percent of Americans (and 20.7 percent of American children) are living in poverty; 43 million Americans– the largest number ever.

What can you do about it?

Call your Congressional Representatives today and tell them to vote to:

• raise the debt ceiling (and stop the grandstanding),
• raise revenues (by cutting military spending, eliminating corporate loopholes that allow them to avoid paying taxes, eliminate Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, etc.),
• protect the programs that benefit millions of Americans: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment, college tuition grants, etc.
• solve the deficit problem by putting Americans back to work.

Here are the numbers:
CD8 Gabrielle Giffords: 520-881-3588 (local) or 202-225-2542 (DC)
CD7 Raul Grijalva: 520-622-6788 (local) or 202-225-2435 (DC)

CD6 Jeff Flake from Mesa (We need to lean on this guy who wants to be our next Senator.):
480-833-0092 (in Mesa) or 202-225-2635 (DC)

Senator Jon Kyl 520-575-8633 (local) or 202-224-4521 (DC)
Senator John McCain 520-670-6334 (local) or 202-224-2245 (DC)

What else can you do?

Progressive Democrats of America’s Tucson Chapter is holding a demonstration to show support for protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on Saturday, July 30 from 10 a.m. – noon at the corner of Speedway and Campbell.

Cluttered with so many signs that you can hardly see the street, Speedway Blvd. was dubbed the ugliest street in American by Life Magazine in 1970.

Being known as “ugly” is not a good designation for a town that lives on tourism. In the 1980s, Tucsonans passed landmark sign code legislation that has gradually whittled away billboards and reduced the number and scale of signs.

Tucson Sign Code works to beautify our city, and that is why it is under attack by the sign industry and local businesses. The question is: Will the Tucson City Council have the backbone to protect it? Judging by recent “business friendly” rulings by the City Council that have weakened the Sign Code, don’t hold your breath. (In December 2010, they voted unanimously to allow more signs and larger signs along Tucson’s scenic corridors. In March 2011, they voted to allow the Jewish Community Center to erect a billboard on the side of their building, which is in Tucson’s scenic corridor.)

The latest Sign Code battle is being fought on two fronts. Business interests are pressuring the City Council to eliminate the Sign Code Appeals and Advisory Board (SCAAB), the citizens’ review board that hears appeals when businesses want a variance to the sign code, and to pass a historic sign amendment to the Sign Code, which goes far beyond saying the funky neon signs along Miracle Mile.

Businesses are attacking the SCAAB because the SCAAB doesn’t roll over and do everything they want. From Sign Code activist Mark Mayer…

A proposal is now pending before Mayor and Council to eliminate the SCAAB and assign its functions to the Board of Adjustment.  This proposal, which is stealthily labeled “Improvement in Sign Code Administration”, is part of the City Manager’s Strategic Work Plan that you will be asked to vote on July 6.   The proposal is the apparent result of the repeated sign industry failures to stack SCAAB with its members and allies and it is now setting its sights on the Board of Adjustment as an alternative forum (with “recommended” appointments to undoubtedly follow).  Any claims that this move is due to budgetary issues ring hollow, as there are no proposals to eliminate the larger, more expensive, and sign industry-dominated Citizen Sign Code Committee (CSCC) and assign its functions to the Planning Commission.  The SCAAB proposal needs to be rejected, at least until such time sign regulations are appropriately incorporated into the Land Use Code and the CSCC issues noted above are fully addressed.

The proposed historic sign change sounds good on the surface, but it goes too far. Again, from Mayer…

An ordinance to ostensibly protect historic signs is now before the City Council in Study Session on June 14 [that's today!] and in public hearing on June 28. The draft ordinance has mushroomed well beyond what was originally conceived and would now open the door to the largest and tallest of signs being relocated or resurrected on properties where they never existed before and without any notification to surrounding property owners, without any public hearing, and without a legislative decision being made by Mayor and Council. Instead, the decision would be made by a single administrative official, which, if not without statutory authority, is certainly bad public policy. It is no wonder that the sign industry and its proxy, the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, are heartily supporting this ordinance. The Mayor and Council need to narrow the scope of the ordinance down to its original focus, which was to determine the relatively limited number of older signs that are widely embraced by the community for their historic value and focus on their preservation. [Emphasis added. ]

As I said at the beginning of this article, Being known as “ugly” is not a good designation for a town that lives on tourism. If the Mayor and Council truly want to be business friendly, they should keep the SCAAB and ask that the focus of the historic sign amendment be narrowed to its original intent.

Tell the City Council what you think. Here’s a link to their contact information, or better yet, come to the meetings and speak in favor of keeping Tucson off the worst-dressed list.

Rep. Paul Ryan’s extreme cost-cutting budget passed the US House of Representatives last Friday on a straight party line vote– all Republicans voting for it, all Democrats against it.

Although there are many parts of Ryan’s plan that I disagree with, the worst part is his scheme to change Medicare into a voucher system for anyone currently under 55 years of age.

We already have a medical bankruptcy problem in the US. (Check out the research or Sicko if you doubt this.) Ryan’s plan could plunge thousands more into bankruptcy. Check out this article from The American Journal of Medicine blog.

Ryan’s Medicare overhaul: Would it increase the rate of medical bankruptcy?

Here is an awesome commentary on the national debt debate from The Nation…

In the ever-so-smug company of the rich and powerful it is a given that there is never to be any expression of remorse or other acknowledgment of the pain they have inflicted on the lesser mortals they so cavalierly plunder. It’s convenient for them that the media and the politicians, which they happen to own, rarely connect the dots between the scams that made the rich so rich and the alarming rise in the federal debt that is crushing this nation.

The result of this purchased public myopia is that we are left with an absurd debate over how deeply to cut teachers’ pensions and seniors’ medical benefits while preserving tax breaks for the superrich and their large corporations. At a time when 10 million American families will have lost their homes by year’s end, when $5.6 trillion in home equity has been wiped out, when most Americans face steep unemployment rates and stagnant wages, a Democratic president is likely to compromise with Republican ideologues who insist that further cuts in taxes for the rich is the way to bring back jobs.

Let’s deal right off with that canard. There is currently no shortage of corporate profits or excessive executive compensation to explain away the failure of the private sector to create jobs. On the contrary, as the New York Times reports, “In the fourth quarter, profits at American businesses were up an astounding 29.2 percent, the fastest growth in more than 60 years. Collectively, American corporations logged profits at an annual rate of $1.678 trillion.” And to add insult to injury, the top executives, who seem unable or unwilling to create jobs or adequately reward their workers, have increased their own compensation by a whopping 12 percent over the previous year, setting the median pay at $9.6 million per year for those in control of the leading 200 companies. The Times adds that “CEO pay is also on the rise again at companies like Capital One and Goldman Sachs, which survived the economic storm with the help of all of those taxpayer-financed bailouts.”

Lost in this faux debate is the reality that our debt now looms so large because the government had to bail out many of those same corporations, quite a few of which, like General Electric and AIG, pay no taxes and have no problem paying truly obscene amounts to their top executives. GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, whom President Barack Obama named chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, is making as much as he did before the recession hit, a recession that his GE Capital division did much to cause with its reckless loans. AIG, saved with a government infusion of $170 billion, has just lavishly rewarded its top executives but has providing no relief for the homeowners ripped off by its phony credit default swaps.

The AIG deal was engineered by then-President of the New York Fed Timothy Geithner, who was rewarded for his efforts to save the bankers by being named Obama’s treasury secretary. Geithner, an energetic member of the team of Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers that ran Treasury when the Bill Clinton administration cooperated with Congressional Republicans in gutting regulation of the financial community, is proud of saving the banks from the wreckage that they and the Clinton policies caused. Last October he proclaimed the TARP banker bailout program “the most effective government program in recent memory.”

What he is referring to is that in order to escape the federal restrictions on executive compensation, the banks have been eager to pay back the TARP funds. What he and other apologists for the Obama and George W. Bush administrations’ Bankers First program choose to ignore—as Paul Atkins and two other members of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program revealed in a damning Wall Street Journal column titled “TARP Was No Win for the Taxpayers”—is that the banks are not paying back the trillions of dollars in non-TARP governmental assistance that saved them from bankruptcy. “It hides the full story of the government’s financial crisis effort, of which TARP is but a minor part,” the op-ed column said of the maneuvering. The major part is the $1.1 trillion in toxic-mortgage-based securities that the Fed purchased, relieving the banks of their obligations, and the $380 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, organizations that backed those securities, along with “other Fed and FDIC programs [that] added another $2 trillion of taxpayer money at risk to the 19 stress-tested banks alone.”

What Geithner celebrates is a shell game of his own construction in which far more costly federal programs, with no serious restrictions on banker greed, were used by the banks to “repay” the TARP funds. Nothing was obtained in return from those banks in the way of mortgage cramdowns to keep people in their homes or any restrictions on the interest rates that banks charge on credit cards: Clearly usurious rates of more than 25 percent are now the norm for those struggling to keep their families above water. No wonder consumer confidence is down, the housing market is expected to decline an additional 10 percent over the next year, and the job market is predicted by most of the experts to stagnate for years to come. Continued tax breaks for the 1 percent of the population that controls 40 percent of the nation’s wealth will do nothing to restore the confidence of the other 99 percent of consumers who are suffering so.

This at least Obama seems to understand, but count on him to betray his own better instincts by once again following the advice of his treasury secretary and the Wall Street crowd that contributed so lavishly to his first presidential campaign and whose support he seeks once again. [Emphasis added.]

All of the players are counting on the continued myopia of the American public. If we were really paying attention, we wouldn’t stand for this.

Congress sort of put the 2011 budget to bed last Friday with an 11th hour deal that forestalled a federal government shutdown. Teapublicans had a laundry list of progressive legislation that they wanted to completely defund or dramatically reduce:

• Head Start (which helps poor children be prepared to enter school) and public education, in general,
• Pell Grants (which help poor and middle class children go to college),
• AmeriCorps (which gives young people community volunteering experience and, in turn, helps pay their college tuition),
• Planned Parenthood (which helps poor and middle class women receive birth control),
• Community health centers (which help poor and middle class people get basic health care),
• Biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health (which spurs innovation and creates jobs–WTF?),
• National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System (which help us elites stay stay up-to-date on progressive politics and research breakthroughs– sarcasm alert).

Missing from the Teapublican budget-balancing list is any mention of:

• Cutting military spending, scaling back the wars, and stopping US imperialism,
• Closing unnecessary military bases (particularly in Europe– let them pay for their own defense!),
• Closing tax loopholes (so corporate giants like Bank of America have to actually pay some taxes),
• Taxing corporations for every job, factory, or bank account they send abroad,
• Raising taxes on the richest Americans to lessen the growing income disparities in the US,
• Intervening with lenders to help people stay in their homes (which would help middle class homeowners who have been hard hit by unemployment or other effects of the Great Recession)
• Ending the war on Drugs (which is a huge waste of money and never worked),
• Legalizing marijuana (which would put a dent in the drug violence and smuggling while raising sales tax revenue, but, of course, the big tobacco and big booze wouldn’t like it; the feds eased the effects of the Great Depression in the 1930s when they ended prohibition),
• Allowing Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate prescription drug prices (a very easy way to “fix” those programs without dismantling them),
• Adopting universal healthcare (a great way to keep healthcare costs down),
• Legalizing undocumented workers (so they can be paid a decent wage and contribute to social security),
• Allowing workers to organize (so they can be paid a decent wage and contribute to social security),
• Preserving public and private jobs,
• Creating jobs (duh).

What makes the first list so attractive to Teapublicans is that– except for the last two items (medical research and public broadcasting)– the cuts only hurt the poor and middle class families. These groups are too disorganized, too uninformed, or too distraught trying to find food and shelter to fight back. Teapublicans, Republicans, and some Democrats don’t want to touch most of the items on the second list because each item has at least one group of corporate lobbyists protecting it.

Except for throwing Washington DC’s reproductive health services under the bus (what’s up with that?), the top list of programs survived the recent budget battle which cut $38 billion from the current budget. (Tepublicans also wanted to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency’s [EPA] ability to protect air and water from pollution and weaken the Food and Drug Administration’s [FDA] ability to protect the food supply, but I couldn’t find an online reference for how those proposals faired in the 11th hour of budget negotiations. Except for the fact that deregulation is at the top of every corporate wish list, these EPA and FDA cuts would harm the public health and safety of all Americans.)

2012 Teapublican Budget
Now the 2012 budget battle begins. Ultra-conservative Representative Paul Ryan’s budget plan would:

• Defund and dismantle the Affordable Care Act (which saves money),
• Destroy Medicare for people under 55 by changing it into a voucher system, thus forcing patients to absorb ever-increasing costs — not the government, pharmaceutical companies, healthcare institutions, or insurance companies. (How business friendly could you be?),
• Destroy Medicaid by giving block grants to the states to manage it (Oh, God, the Arizona Legislature would give the money away to a group of corporations to run the program or just give it away in tax cuts!),
• Cut spending to 2008 levels,
• And, of course, promise to lower taxes (probably for the rich).

Although some tout Ryan as a conservative visionary with his brave budget-balancing act, I call him the ultimate hypocrite flip-flopper, since he was in the drunken sailors club that created the budget deficit during the Dark Ages (AKA the Bush Administration). Now he’s got religion and wants to cut-cut-cut, since that is currently popular in conservative circles.

2012 People’s Budget
To counter Ryan’s “artless war on the poor”, the 80-member Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC)– co-chaired by our own Representative Raul Grijalva and Representative  Keith Ellison– revealed the People’s Budget. According to their website, the CPC proposal:

• Eliminates the deficits and creates a surplus by 2021.
• Puts America back to work with a “Make it in America” jobs program.
• Protects the social safety net.
• Ends the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
• Is FAIR (Fixing America’s Inequality Responsibly).

Also according to their website, the CPC proposal accomplishes:

• Primary budget balance by 2014.
• Budget surplus by 2021.
• Reduces public debt as a share of GDP to 64.4% by 2021, down 16.9 percentage points from a baseline fully adjusted for both the doc fix and the AMT patch.
• Reduces deficits by $5.7 trillion over 2012-21
• Both outlays and revenue equal 22.3% of GDP by 2021.

Ironically, if you want to learn more about a proposal made by a Southern Arizona Congressman, you have to go to the Huffington Post– or the TucsonCitizen.com– because it was not covered by the Arizona Daily Star. From the Huffington Post…

Their [the Progressive Caucus'] plan is humane, responsible, and most of all sensible, reflecting the true values of the American people and the real needs of the floundering economy. Unlike Paul Ryan’s almost absurdly vicious attack on the poor and working class, the People’s Budget would close the deficit by raising taxes on the rich, taming health care costs (including a public option), and ending the military spending on wars and wasteful weapons systems.

So, the question is: Going forward, do we want the People’s Budget or military-industrial complex’s budget? Do we want government for the people or against the people? What transpires in the coming months is gravely important for future generations; we have to pay attention as events unfold in Washington.

Is the sleeping giant of the American electorate awakening to the destruction of our country by greedy corporatists? Well, maybe.

A new poll released by a Toronto company shows that Americans’ enthusiasm for capitalism has dropped from 80% in 2002 to 59% in 2010.

Since 2002, Globescan has been asking the question “Is the free market the best ecomonic  system in the world?” every year to citizens in 23 countries.

According to an article in Globalpost, Americans are less happy with the free market than citizens in Germany (the happiest capitalists at 68%), China (aren’t they supposed to be communists? 67%), or Brazil (67%).  Those socialists in France, of course, really don’t like capitalism; only 30% of the French said capitalism was a good economic system. From Globalpost…

“America is the last place we would have expected to see such a sharp drop in trust in the free enterprise system,” Globescan chairman Doug Miller said in a statement announcing the results. “This is not good news for business.”

The U.S. figure dropped 15 percentage points from 2009. It was led by a huge decline in America’s poor and women. Here’s how Globescan parsed the decline in these two groups:

“Americans with incomes below $20,000 were particularly likely to have lost faith in the free market over the past year, with their support dropping from 76 percent to 44 percent between 2009 and 2010. American women have also become much less positive, with 52 percent backing the free market in 2010, down from 73 percent in 2009.”

I find it telling that the Germans are the happiest capitalists, since Germany has the strongest unions in the world + has a thriving economy (because they didn’t dismantle their manufacturing base, as the US and the UK did). Comparing the Germans with the low-income Americans, you find that happy, well-paid workers who have universal healthcare say that capitalism is a good system, which underpaid and/or underemployed US workers with little or no healthcare say capitalism is not working for them.

By oppressing unions in the US and trying to squeeze every once of productivity out of workers while cutting wages and benefits, the capitalists are unwittingly breeding unrest. Now that the capitalists own the US House of Representatives and several state Legislatures, I don’t see the greed train slowing down any time soon. If Teapublicans continue to cut jobs in the name of fiscal responsibility while freely doling out corporate welfare, Americans are going to continue to be disgruntled. Is it November 2012 yet?