Council on Foreign Relations: Edward Alden & Bernard L. Schwartz- 'Free Trade Agreements Signal Bipartisan Cooperation'

Source:Council on Foreign Relations- Senior Fellow Edward Alden.

"The U.S. ratification of the stalled Free Trade Agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama indicates that "there is a possibility, despite the very great partisan divisions in Congress, of bipartisan cooperation on economic issues," says Edward Alden, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. However, Alden emphasizes that "it is important not to overstate the potential job creation benefits" of the agreements." 

From the Council on Foreign Relations

The fact is America has to trade with foreign countries. We are a country of 310M people in a world of 6B people. We are huge, but we only represent 5% of the world's population. Most of the customers in the world live outside of America, so it's in our best interest to trade with these countries especially in our own neighborhood like Canada, Mexico, Central America, and Caribbean and in emerging markets in South America like Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, and of course with the European Union, Arabia and Asia, and even in Africa. 

An economic policy that would work best, includes foreign trade. Making things in America, selling them here which creates jobs in America for Americans. But also selling those products to other countries by exporting them, including our natural Resources. If we ever get around to establishing a national energy policy to sell as many products as possible to make as much profit as possible to create as many American jobs as possible. 

What foreign trade is about when it works and it works when tariff rates are low and equal, meaning you have the same tariff rate in your country, as your trading partners have in their countries. 

You also have assistance for people who lose their jobs as a result of free trade and help for them to find another job for people who lose a job thats not coming back. Assistance to learn a new trade even while they are on Unemployment Insurance. 

What we shouldn't be doing is having an isolationist policy either on trade or foreign policy and limit the influence that we can have as a world power both economically and in foreign policy. But we shouldn't be trying to run the world either but representing our own national interests and expressing our own democratic values. And foreign trade is a way to do this to be engaged with what is happening in the world. 

One of the reasons why I'm for eliminating the trade embargo with Cuba, who doesn't represent a threat at all to us economically, their military or in the war on terror, Cuba is simply not a threat to America, perhaps never has been. The trade embargo has cost both countries and hasn't helped anyone, denying Cubans and Americans access to the other country and allowing Cubans to see what liberal democracy looks like, individual liberty as well. But this is what we should be doing with any country whether they are democratic or not, as long as they don't represent a threat to us. 

If you want to have a strong economy and be able to influence other people's and other countries, you need to talk with them in order to do that and do business with them to give yourself maximum access around the world and be able to make as much profit as possible. And have as many customers as possible as well, otherwise you are just talking and dealing with yourself, which can get lonely.

VOA News: 'Activists Seeking to Capitalize on Occupy Protests'

Source:VOA News- a woman who was interviewed for this piece.

"Voice of America (VOA) is an American international broadcaster funded by the United States Congress. It is the largest[1][2][3] and oldest U.S. funded international broadcaster.[4][5] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 47 languages which it distributes to affiliate stations around the globe. It is primarily viewed by foreign audiences, so VOA programming has an influence on public opinion abroad regarding the United States and its people.

VOA was established in 1942,[6] and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103-415)[7] was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.

VOA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent agency of the U.S. government.[8] Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. In 2016, VOA broadcast an estimated 1,800 hours of radio and TV programming each week to approximately 236.6 million people worldwide with about 1,050 employees and a taxpayer-funded annual budget of US$218.5 million.[9][10]

Some commentators consider Voice of America to be a form of propaganda." 

From Wikipedia 

"As anti-Wall Street demonstrations continue in New York City, the growing furor over bank bailouts and the weak economy continues to spread throughout the United States.  In Boston, dozens of protestors were arrested for refusing to leave Dewey Park. In Washington DC, protestors were hoping to have their permit renewed to allow demonstrations to continue.  The "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations there have given a boost to several other local campaigns looking to draw national attention to their causes." 

From VOA News   

“Vijay Prashad: With the 99% slogan, the Occupy movement raises the issue of inequality in a profound way”

Source:The Real News- New-Leftists occupying New York City.

From The Real News

I believe at least a majority of the country supports these protests on Wall Street all across the political spectrum. Wall Street is not very popular with any political party right now, except for maybe the Libertarian Party and Tea Party. That's why we are seeing large protests all across the country against Wall Street and even corporate America to a certain extent. I wish these protests would reach Congress as well, (both in the House and Senate) to get them to start moving and legislating and even coming together.

Occupying Congress and the members who are bought by Wall Street, at least in too many cases, would make more sense, then to simply try to occupy buildings where a lot of investing is done. 

I mean if this was a real occupy movement (Left or Right) and this time it is certainly coming the Left (if not Far-Left) you go where the money is. (So to speak) And occupy the people who take the money from the business's and investors you are say are destroying the American middle class. I know that sounds like commonsense and what does that have to do with American politics, probably nothing, but something to think about. 

And hopefully OWS will at some point, with a 13% approval rating of Congress (and with the people who officially who approve of Congress either dead, living in Mongolia, or in a coma) there's plenty incentive for them to do that, if they have the guts to take on their political bases. 468 members of Congress (between the House and Senate) are up for reelection in 2012. 

And if 2012 is another anti-incumbent election, then a lot of members of Congress (in both parties) could be looking for new jobs after election night. Seriously, the scariest thought for any career politician, perhaps especially someone in Congress, is looking for a new job, Which is why pissed off Americans should be scaring the hell out of them right now.  But right now they are focused on Wall Street so I'll focus there. What these protesters have in common is that they are independent. Meaning they aren't Democrats or Republicans in a lot of cases. 

Not one national organization is running these protests and putting them together. But a bunch of different political organizations perhaps working together. And there's also political diversity within this movement: Socialists, Libertarians, and some Liberals are all part of this movement, perhaps even some true Conservatives, who are fed up with bailouts corporate capitalism and want to see change in our economic system.A diverse somewhat American melting pot of political philosophy. Who have found at least one issue to not try to beat the heads of people they normally don't agree with.

The political diversity in this movement is positive for them in this sense, it indicates that there's broad support for it. That there's not one political party behind it and that the country wants to see real change in our country and our economic system. But it's a problem as well, because there isn't a consensus in what change and reform should look like. 

Conservatives and libertarians would like to see government less involved with our economic system spending less and downsizing and less regulation and no more bailouts and tax less. Socialists obviously are the complete opposite of that and perhaps would like to nationalize some industries, especially banking and health care. 

Liberals would like to see reform with our entitlements, cutting the deficit and debt, infrastructure investment, tax cuts for the middle class, expand free trade. And bring our foreign troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq and other places. 

There's significant support for what Conservatives, Libertarians and Liberals want to do. Socialists have the most ambitious agenda of everyone, perhaps put together. Having a political coalition of Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatives and Socialists is not an odd couple. More like a melting pot put into a big stew, that makes people want to vomit after eating it. (Or go to jail for their food instead)

Socialists want to return America to the 1950s as far as tax policy. Tax rates starting at 25% and going up to 90% and people like socialist economist Richard Wolfe have been very upfront about that. As well as nationalizing our healthcare system, nationalizing our higher education system. With the Federal Government now paying for everyone to go to college at taxpayer expense. As well as other things. If you think America has a big government now, put Socialists in charge and this government would look like a midget that is shrinking in comparison to what they want to do.

There's potential for a movement here as being against something, but that's the easy part. The question is what do you do instead, what do you and what do you replace it with. And all of these political factions have their own agendas that they would like to see pass. 

This is not a governing coalition (more like a prison riot made up of all certain types of gangs) but more like a protest coalition similar to what the Ross Perot movement of the 1990s. So I don't see a consensus right now in what to do instead after the partnership between Wall Street and the Federal Government is broken up. 

And that can only happen with either getting private money out of Federal politics. Can't be done without a constitutional amendment, because the Supreme Court would throw it out. The only other alternative I see is full- disclosure which is very difficult to pass. Because it would require public officials to release to the public who they deal with and how much money they receive from them. Asking a career politician to release their political contributors, is like asking an obese food addict to give up eating cold turkey (including turkey) for a week straight without supervision. Good luck with that and let me know how it works out.

Until there's a movement that has broad support in not only what its against, but what they want to instead and can get elected and reelected and puts proposals on the table that becomes law, We are stuck where we are in gridlock, with a do nothing Congress with its first eye always on the next election and how to get their base to the polls and votes for them. 

But look at the bright side: when things aren't going well for you and you are in trouble, you'll always have Congress to make fun of and say: "At least I'm not as bad as those people and know how to get my work done, because I have to work for a living." 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Did Senator Reid Screw Senate Dems?'

Source:The Young Turks- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has angered Republicans with a controversial maneuver that weakens the power of the Minority party. Did he do this because he believes Democrats will soon be the Minority party? The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur explains." 

From The Young Turks

I'm about to write a fairly wonky post here designed for political junkies such as myself and able to put the rest of the population to sleep. So you now heard my warning and like they say in the movies, this is not attended to all viewers and viewer discretion is advised. 

This post is about the U.S. Senate (the upper chamber in Congress) which is an actually bicameral legislature. (Newsflash for leftists) And how the Senate operates and how it's supposed to operate and how the Senate Republican Leadership has abused its rules in order to stop the Senate Democratic Leadership from doing anything. And to give this impression of the Senate that it's locked in gridlock. 

Thanks to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Senate Republican Conference, as well as I'm sure Senate Democratic obstructionism when they were in the minority, the Senate needs to reform its rules, not to make it more like the U.S. House of Representatives, but to still respect minority rights in the Senate, like they should be respected in the rest of the country. 

The Senate needs to be able to function, brings legislation to the floor, votes on amendments, including alternatives from the minority party, but then debate and vote. Especially on non-controversial legislation, so that the minority party leadership could still block legislation, but that they just can't prevent legislation from being brought to the floor, debated and amended and then after the debates, if the minority leadership has the votes, then they can block legislation, they just can't prevent legislation from being brought to the floor, amended and debated that the Senate would be able to conduct its business. 

What Senate Leader Harry Reid did Thursday night and I actually saw the debate and discussion, because again I'm a political junky, was bring and pass a motion with a 51-48 vote (of course) a party-line vote, that would prevent any Senator from bringing non-germane amendments to the Senate floor. 

With Leader Raid's motion, no Senator can bring an agriculture amendment to a defense bill. And Leader Reid did this because Senate Republicans have brought countless non-germane amendments to legislation that Leader Reid has brought to the floor, knowing that they didn't have the votes to pass them. But just to slow the debate down and make the Senate Democratic Leadership jump through more hoops in order to bring a Senate debate to an end with the cloture rule. Which I'll explain later. (Hopefully you are still awake at that point) 

So what Senate Republicans have done and I'm guessing under the leadership of their Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, is every time Senate Democrats bring legislation to the floor, Senate Republicans bring as many amendments to the legislation that they can in an attempt to drag on the debate as long as they can and they've done this on anything that Senate Democrats bring to the floor. Including on legislation that ultimately passes with bipartisan votes. 

As a result of all of this obstructionism, Leader Reid has decided that he's seen enough, even though I believe it's a little late in the game for this. He's should've done it in the last Congress when he had 59 votes, but this is a good move in attempt to get the Senate moving again. Especially on things like the American Jobs Act, where Senate Democrats are going to make a huge push to pass it. After they amend it and even pay for it with a tax hike on millionaires and above to pay for it. Which of course Senate Republicans would try to block and try to pass this legislation. 

Even if the Republican House doesn't pass a jobs act of their own, but then Senate Democrats will at least be able to say that they are in charge of the Senate and its Congressional Republicans that are in their way. But the Senate needs to go farther to make the Senate more functional. Like eliminating the motion to proceed rule, which takes 60 votes, or at least amend it to 51 votes for the Majority Leader to bring up legislation and just to debate anything. As well as limiting blocking of legislation with the cloture rule to just the final votes on legislation. 

Instead of the U.S. Senate being the "most deliberative legislative body in the world" it's become a debating society (and has given the United Nations a great name) where all they do now is talk about how they are going to talk. Meaning how they are going to debate and they are going to consider. Which is why they need these rule reforms and even go farther like having a real rules committee like in the House , but different, make it bipartisan. Instead of spending time debating how they are going to debate on the Senate floor.

VOA News: Mil Arcega- 'US Adds 103,000 Jobs, Unemployment Still 9.1 Percent'

Source:VOA News- a woman who was interviewed for this piece.

"Voice of America (VOA) is an American international broadcaster funded by the United States Congress. It is the largest[1][2][3] and oldest U.S. funded international broadcaster.[4][5] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 47 languages which it distributes to affiliate stations around the globe. It is primarily viewed by foreign audiences, so VOA programming has an influence on public opinion abroad regarding the United States and its people." 

From Wikipedia 

"The U.S. economy added 103,000 jobs in September, but the nation's unemployment rate held steady at 9.1 percent for the third straight month.  Although September's job growth was stronger than most economists were expecting, it is still not growing fast enough for the millions of Americans looking for work.  Mil Arcega reports." 

From VOA News

103,000 job net created in September is a hell of a lot better than of course 0 (but what isn't better than 0) that was created in August. Actually, 103K times better and at least the unemployment rate didn't increase. And President Obama finally put a jobs plan on the table and sent it to Congress and the Senate will take it up next week. And they'll offer a plan that will have a sir tax (Sir Tax, sounds like a British Lord) on millionaires. Meaning anyone making a million$ a year or more, would receive a tax hike to finance the American Jobs Act. 

The President's plan has some credibility as far as creating economic and job growth by focusing on infrastructure investment, free trade, and tax cuts. As well as some debt relief for the middle class. And the House is finally talking about a plan that would include infrastructure investment by talking about a six- year highway bill that would be paid for and hopefully in the neighborhood of 200B$ a year. 

This jobs report I believe is a good start and hopefully will advance the ball rolling in Congress to at least debate different plans including the President's and even put their own plans on the table. And hopefully these rallies in Washington will have some affect at getting Congress to do something. The Senate will debate the American Jobs Act next week and will probably amend it. Along with the Chinese currency bill and hopefully the House will at least put their own plan on the table. 

Congress may be forced to put their own jobs plans on the table politically because according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the President is beating by a large margin Congress when it comes to the economy. (Both the House and Senate) And the approval rating for Congress right now is around 15%. (And I wonder if those 15% are willing to make their votes public or fear being ridiculed and looking crazy or both) 

The President has his own plan and the Senate will debate that plan and probably offer their own ideas. And Senate Leader Harry Reid scored a huge victory Thursday night when he won on a motion that would disallow Senators to offer amendments that are non-germane to the Jobs Act. Meaning they have nothing to do with the actual bill, like an agriculture amendment being offered to a defense bill (To use as an example) And Senate Republicans (the minority party) have routinely offered amendments to bills that Leader Reid has brought to the Senate floor just to slow the bill down, knowing they don't have the votes to pass their amendments. 

So hopefully this means Senate Democrats can pass the American Jobs Act out of the Senate. Looks like American business's are hiring again at least according the the September jobs report ,but to continue this in the future, we need to jump start economic growth which will lead to job growth. And the President and Congress need to come together to push a plan to do this so we can get people working again and bring down our unemployment rate.

John Fitzhamh: 'The Iranian Hostage Crisis'

Source:John Fitzhamh- President James E. Carter (Democrat, Georgia) I believe meeting with his National Security Council in 1979. But I don't know that for sure.

"The Iranian Hostage Crisis" 

From John Fitzhamh

The 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis was awful for lots of reasons. For one, the hostages who had to go through that ordeal. The hostages friends and families who had to go through that ordeal. The American People who had to go through this ordeal as well with all the news coverage and news specials that was dedicated to covering the hostage crisis. The country had to not only go through this ordeal, but also the embarrassment that came with it with how weak America looked as a result, that a group of students Islamic Terrorists in a third-world country could essentially take a country hostage.As well as take an American presidency hostage. 

President Carter had to go through the Iranian hostage crisis as well (obviously) and probably crushed whatever hope he had left in getting reelected in 1980, especially with Senator Ted Kennedy announcing that he would run for president in the Democratic primaries. 

America in this period was already going through a very rough period especially economically with double figure interest as well as inflation rates, with another recession in 1978 as well as 1980 and was facing several other issues that all commanded the attention of the Carter Administration. 

But when you have American hostages in a foreign country especially in a country thats not friendly with where we had already closed our embassy there, thats job one. And you stay on that job until you (pardon the pun) get the job done. (To paraphrase President Richard M. Nixon) 

The Carter Administration was on top of the hostage crisis and I give them credit for that despite all of the other issues they were dealing with. Like looking weak (to use as an example) with Russia invading Afghanistan a neighbor of Iran in late 1979 to try to install a communist government there. 

There are lots of reasons that led to the Iranian hostage crisis, none of them justified taking innocent people hostage. But most of them America's fault and the Iranians were justified in being angry at America. The main reason I believe being the Shah of Iran who was installed by the United States and United Kingdom. And could be removed and replaced at anytime the U.S. and U.K. wanted to.

The Shah even though he was pretty progressive on economic and foreign policy and was a very bright man, was brutal dictator in how he dealt with political dissent in Iran. And this was a reason why the Islamic Revolution started in 1978 and took over the Iranian Government in early 1979. 

And the Shah fled to Egypt and an Islamic Theocracy was formed in Iran in 1979. And of course the Iranian hostage crisis in November 4, 1979. And even though the United States officially declared War on Terror in late 2001 after 9/11, I believe we were already in this war over twenty years earlier.

I believe the Iranian Hostage Crisis was the start of it in 1979. The U.S. Marine barracks bombing in 1982. Libya's sponsoring of terrorism in the mid and late 1980s in Lockerbie, Scotland and other areas as well. 

And then you go to the 1990s with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. As well as Saudi Arabia in 1996 and the East African Embassy bombings in 1998. America was already in the War on Terror long before 2001, we just hadn't officially declared it yet. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger.

ABC News: World News Tonight- 'Three Mile Island, Safety Fears in 1979'

Source:ABC News- Dr. Harold Denton: Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Governor Richard Thornberg (Republican, Pennsylvania)

"March 30, 1979: Pennsylvania residents fear radiation after a nuclear reactor disaster."

From ABC News

The meltdown of Three Mile Island in March of 1979 looked to be a disaster for several reasons. For one for the nuclear industry, because it was evidence that nuclear power might not be safe for our economy that had already tanked in 1978 and only got worse in 1979. With almost no economic growth, high unemployment and interest rates. 

This was potential political disaster for the Carter Administration where President Carter was already unpopular. But this accident was handled very well so they weren't hurt by it. So there were several different factors that happened because of Three Mile Island. And if there were any positives that came as a result, it was more evidence that America needs a national energy policy that thirty-two years later that moves America towards energy independence by promoting our vast amount of natural resources including nuclear power.

If it's done right and when you to do something like this in a bad economy like in the late 1970s and thirty-plus years later, similar circumstances that could put millions of unemployed workers back to work in brand new American energy industries that promotes our vast renewable energy resources. As well as promoting our older energy industries like coal as well as clean coal, gas and natural gas and nuclear power. 

President Carter I believed advanced energy policy very well on in his Administration. Actually, within the first few months of it in early 1977 in the heart of a brutally cold winter and had some success getting a bill through Congress in 1977. Which was a very good idea on his part. Both from an economic point of view and a political point of view. Because President Carter inherited a weak economy and the Middle East was sort or playing games with our oil supply.

With the 1973 Oil Embargo and President Ford picked up on this in 1974-75 after he became President and he inherited an economic recession from President Nixon who he replaced in 1974, so he picked  a good time to push a national energy policy as well and he gave speeches about it. Including from the Oval Office, but had no success getting an energy policy passed out of a Democratic Congress. They saw President Ford as very vulnerable being an "Accidental President" who came in during an economic recession. And he had also pardoned President Nixon within a month of becoming President as well. 

After President Carter in the late 70s, a push for a national energy policy didn't really happen again to President George W Bush after he became President in 2001, tried to pass a bill in 2003. Which was blocked by Senate Democrats, but got an energy policy passed in 2005, but that was mostly just about big oil, not comprehensive at all. 

America will never be able to drill for energy independence. American oil has to be one of the resourced we use, but it should only be part of a broader energy policy, but not the whole policy. A national energy policy has to be about of promoting all of our natural resources in order to finally get to energy independence.

Brookings Institution: Clifford Winston: 'Open Legal Services to Competition'

Source:Brookings Institution- Clifford Winston.

"Clifford Winston: Opening up the legal services industry to competition is the way to go. From trucking to telephones, every U.S. industry that's been deregulated has been improved in two critical ways: with lower prices and more jobs. More:Brookings" 

From the Brookings Institution

The fact is American justice especially when to comes to dealing with legal services is about how much money you have and what you can afford to spend on your legal team. People win cases all the time because they had more money to spend on their case than their opponents. And can literally bankrupt the opposition or get them to drop the case or worst case scenario, force them to settle in way that doesn't hurt them and if their opponents had more resources, they could force the defense to pay more or give up more otherwise. 

People avoid going to jail or prison for crimes they probably committed. The OJ Simpson Case comes to mind in the mid 1990s, because they have a lot of money to spend on their defense. And people end up in prison a lot for crimes they didn't commit, because they didn't have the resources to put on a solid defense. And I'm thinking of people who have to settle for public defenders all the time, because they can't afford any lawyer, let alone a good enough lawyer who can put on a good defense for them. 

The American justice system unfortunately a lot of times is based on how much money you have. To sue or put up a solid defense, when it should always be about both sides putting up the best case possible. Having the resources to do so and the side that wins is the side that puts on the best case and has more facts on their side. 

But unfortunately thats of course not always the case and we've tried certain things to equalize this. With the Legal Services Corporation of America and public defenders offices and this is better than nothing but hardly equal. What the Brookings Institution is talking about is deregulating the Legal Services Corporation, which is a non-profit national law firm set up by Congress and funded by the Federal Government.

The LSC not having their own revenue being dependent on the politics in Congress and the Administration to determine their annual funding every year, instead of LSC going out and making their own money. LSC is a national law firm dedicated to representing people who can't pay for lawyers to defend them. Or represent them in prosecuting lawsuits. Its sorta like a national public defenders office, but the handle civil and criminals cases. 

What Brookings is proposing is to deregulate LSC and bring more competition into the system. And allow their clients to get a lawyers from private law firms. I'm guessing so their clients would have more choice in who represents them in court and out of court. Sounds like a reasonable proposal to me, the question is how would this be financed because these clients would still not have the resources to pay for their legal services. 

What I would like to do is two things, set up a system of non-profit law firms that have the resources to put on proper representation for their clients. As well as a legal services insurance system that people along with their employers would pay into. And then use that revenue to cover their legal bills. That the whole country would pay into and a system like this could replace both LSC and public defenders offices. Which can both be expensive to run because they don't have dedicated revenue to pay for them. And they have to compete with other parts of government budgets to pay for their operations. 

So what I would like to do is set up two systems, a legal services system and a legal insurance System. And each state would have their own systems that would have to meet basic Federal standards. And people would have the option of either paying into their state legal insurance system that would be run independent of government. Or buying private legal insurance, as well as the choice of paying for their state legal services firm for their legal services. Again run independent of government or paying for private legal services. 

Equal justice for all really needs to mean just that or its just another goal thats never been reached by this country. Instead of people getting the justice that they can afford. And end up not getting what's owed to them or end up going to prison and having a criminal record because they couldn't afford a sold defense.