Takeback12

Video: Rep. Jan Schakowsky Takes On The 'B.S. Plan' To Tank The Middle Class

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:07:36 -0400

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., explains in this interview with Richard Eskow that progressives can and must win the fight against the right-wing austerity policies wrapped in the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction plan.

Schakowsky was a member of the deficit commission created by President Obama and led by Clinton administration official Erskine Bowles and former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson. Bowles and Simpson drafted the plan, but the commission never ratified it.

"We are not impotent here," Schakowsky says, even though Democratic leaders, including Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, have to at least some degree embraced Bowles-Simpsonas the framework for a grand bargain on reducing government spending and changing the tax code.

"If we are able to mobilize our opposition, we can get the Democratic Party leadership to back off their embrace of some sort of grand bargain that would include cutting those essential programs," she said.

The mobilization to stop the austerity push was one of the strategy topics at the Take Back the American Dream conference.

The Enthusiasm Gap, and How Obama Can Close It

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:50:20 -0400

A straw poll taken at the Take Back the American Dream conference shows that the "enthusiasm gap" between progressives and President Obama is very real.

Progressive leaders are nonetheless committed to Obama's reelection, the poll shows. The question that Obama must answer, however, is that if the activists and intellectuals at the core of the progressive movement have such mixed feelings, will he take bold steps to assure the progressive rank-and-file that he will be a more effective fighter for progressive values in his second term than he was in the first? Yes, progressive leaders will have his back in the coming months, the straw poll indicated. But will he have ours?

This straw poll, done with Democracy Corps, reveals the feelings of a cross-section of the people who attended the conference, which attracts the most politically engaged progressives, from labor activists to community organizers. It should be taken with the grain of salt with which all straw polls should be taken, but it is an important data point nonetheless in determining what will drive political momentum in the months ahead.

Forty-nine percent of poll respondents said they were "less enthusiastic" about the presidential election than they were in 2008, while 51 percent were the same or more enthusiastic. But 90 percent of respondents said they would vote for President Obama, and 60 percent of those respondents said they were for Obama "strongly." Only 24 percent said their vote for Obama was more a vote against Republican candidate Mitt Romney. And 61 percent believed that reelecting Obama and taking back the House should be the top priority of progressives in the coming months.

The straw poll makes it abundantly clear what issues progressives want President Obama to champion. Among poll respondents:

87 percent agreed strongly "the first priority of Washington should be creating jobs."
89 percent agreed strongly that "we have not made the necessary reforms to keep Wall Street and too-big-to-fail banks from bringing down our economy again."
87 percent strongly support a constitutional amendment overturning the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling.
73 percent agreed strongly that the government should enable underwater homeowners to reduce the principal on their loans.

The message of the Take Back the American Dream conference is that the progressive movement in 2012 is committed to, and enthusiastic about, an agenda that puts ordinary Americans back to work, holds the institutions that wrecked the Main Street economy accountable for their actions and responsible for its restoration, and protects American democracy as the domain of all of the people, and not the purchased possession of the moneyed elite. President Obama has an opportunity to close the enthusiasm gap by closing the perceived gap between this progressive agenda and his actions in the White House.

Fight Against Racial Profiling

Radhika Raman — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:23:17 -0400

At the Take Back the American Dream conference Wednesday, strategies and tactics were weaved with moving personal stories at a session on racial profiling with Gaby Pacheco, Rashad Robinson, Jasiri X, and moderator Cathy Montoya.

The panelists described racial profiling as a form of both physical and psychological violence that affects communities of color and, indirectly, communities as a whole. For example, if a hate crime is committed against an undocumented person or if an undocumented woman is raped, then there is almost zero chance that they will report the crime for fear of being deported. This makes communities less safe overall, according to panelists Pacheco and Montoya.

The conversation extended beyond the impact of Trayvon Martin, the Florida youth whose death by gunshot has ignited a national debate on race and “stand your ground” gun laws. Pacheco pointed out that such violence against black and Latino communities happens on a daily basis. The only difference was that their names did not trend on Twitter or hit the front pages of prominent national newspapers. As activists, it is our job to either create our own media or push the mainstream media to tell the stories of people who become victims of racial profiling. It is how we can politicize otherwise unconvinced people to rally to our side.

The Importance of Stories

Each panelist spoke of some type of personal experience with racial profiling. The panelists noted that experience of being stopped and assumed to be undocumented is parallel to the experience of a young black man being stopped by the police. The panelists and the audience both emphasized the commonalities between communities.

As an organizing tactic, Rashad Robinson pointed out that publicizing people’s personal stories in the media could move people who weren’t already on our side. Robinson also said that progressives needed to start talking to people outside the base through strategies such as building common ground through personal stories.

Audience members also shared their personal stories of racial profiling. Adam, a 17 year-old from Durham, N.C., once questioned a police officer’s rationale for profiling him and violating his rights. The officer then told Adam that he had no rights. Montoya, who is of Korean-Latino descent and says that she carries her passport with her everywhere in the South, recounted her experience of a Korean police officer profiling her in Alabama. Jasiri X shared the story of a 13 year-old black boy in Milwaukee who was shot by his 75 year-old white neighbor’s house for allegedly robbing the man’s house.

Combating History through New Tactics

Every panelist saw storytelling itself as a powerful organizing tactic. Jasiri X brought in the elements of art and culture as important tactics for telling stories. Hip-hop started as a mechanism for social commentary, and progressives can use that as a tool for spreading messages to communities of color about their experiences. Montoya especially emphasized the role of Latino hip-hop artists in the South in bridging the divides between black and Latino youth.

The panel also discussed mobile applications such as the one developed by the Sikh Coalition that can be used to report airport profiling. Websites such as Copwatch can also be used to monitor the behavior of the police, especially towards people of color. Recording a police officer’s actions and using social media to draw attention to racial profiling are all strategies that progressives can use to engage people outside the activist community.

The general consensus focused on a desire to engage people outside the progressive community in creative, innovative methods designed for and by the people who are most deeply affected by racial profiling and racist legislation. Empowering communities of color through various organizing tactics and social media can be the solution to a culture that justifies rampant profiling of black and brown youth.

Support Take Back The American Dream

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:57:29 -0400

It takes a lot to build a progressive movement strong enough to go up against the hundreds of millions of dollars the right is pouring into an agenda that will continue to shrink the middle class and further concentrate wealth with the top 1 percent. It takes informed, energized and mobilized people. And we need the money to fuel the research, communications and organizing necessary to take back the dream of an America that works for all of us, not just the few.

You can use your phone to text a pledge to keep our movement for a better America strong, so we can win beyond November.

We have a goal of $6,000 for this campaign. Monitor our progress and help us meet our goal.

Progressive Breakfast

Bill Scher — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:05:37 -0400

MORNING MESSAGE: Why You Should Join Wednesday's March Against Money In Politics

OurFuture.org's Richard Eskow: "We'll be marching on the headquarters of Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS organization in Washington DC to protest the corrupting, debasing, and anti-democratic influence of money in politics ... while the Dems have their big-money donors, frankly they're pretty small potatoes when compared to the deep-pocketed, un-American, anti-Democratic funders of the GOP like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson ... The Republicans and their corporate backers have gone absolutely crazy, not just in buying elections but in pushing a multi-pronged strategy to undermine democracy..."

Final Day of #takeback12

The following are key panels from today's Take Back the American Dream schedule, convening at the Washington Hilton in Washington, DC. Registration available on-site. Watch livestream of key panels, and access full conference agenda, at OurFuture.org.

8 AM Progressive Breakfast with Greg Kaufmann, Kate Sheppard, Terrance Heath and Amanda Terkel

8:45 AM Reversing the Right's Offensive on Rights with Sandra Fluke, Barbara Arnwine, Clarissa Martinez de Castro, Rashad Robinson and Wade Henderson

11 AM Power - It Takes A Movement with Van Jones, Billy Wimsatt and more

12:45 PM March to Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS SuperPAC

Obama Campaign Demands Disclosure From Rove Super PAC

"Obama Camp Demands the Names of Crossroad GPS Donors" reports WSJ: "Crossroads is organized under a section of the tax code that allows it to keep its funding sources private. But since the group is spending millions on campaign ads attacking Democrats, it should disclose its donors as traditional campaign committees are required to do, Robert Bauer, the top lawyer for the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee, argued in the complaint."

Take Back the American Dream ends conference today with march on Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS Super PAC.

Today in Austerity Senate Prepares To Cut Food Stamps

Food stamp cuts remain after votes on amendments to Senate farm bill. AP: "The Democratic-led Senate defeated 56-43 a proposal by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., that would have restored strict asset tests for food stamp eligibility [and] saved taxpayers $11 billion over 10 years ... A second Sessions amendment, to prevent states from getting bonuses for increasing registration of food stamp recipients, was also defeated ... The base bill [still saves] $4.5 billion over 10 years by ending another practice by some 15 states of giving low-income people as little as $1 dollar a year in home heating assistance, even when they don't have heating bills, in order to make them eligible for increased food stamp benefits. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., sought to rescind those savings, saying the reduction would result in half-a-million households losing an average $90 in monthly food benefits, but her amendment went down 66-33."

House GOP bill cuts taxes for wealthy, raises for middle-class, according to new report. W. Post: "...although households earning $100,000 to $200,000 a year would save about $7,000 from the lower tax rates in the GOP plan, those savings would be swamped by eliminating major deductions, according to the report by the Democratically controlled congressional Joint Economic Committee ... Households earning more than $1 million a year, meanwhile, could see a net tax cut of about $300,000 annually."

Sen. Min. Leader McConnell adopts tax-the-poor stance. ThinkProgress quotes: "Between 45 percent and 50 percent of Americans pay no income tax at all. We have an extraordinarily progressive tax code already. It is a mess..."

Obama chides Romney campaign for urging Germans, in a German oped, to ignore US appeals for ending austerity. CNN quotes: "I would point out that we have one president at a time and one administration at a time and I think traditionally the notion has been that America's political differences end at the water's edge."

Little movement at G-20 Summit. NYT: "[Obama] appeared to make only modest headway in persuading Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany to drop her opposition to more government spending to alleviate Europe’s debt crisis ... The meeting did, however, appear to foreshadow a move toward deeper banking integration in Europe, including possible action to put together a banking union that would guarantee deposits. But such a pact is still a ways off..."

Sen. Maj. Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner step up efforts for a transportation bill compromise before June 30 deadline. W. Post: "'Senate Leader Harry Reid and Speaker John Boehner have told Chairman John Mica and me to finish our work this week on the transportation bill,' Sen. Barbara Boxer(D-Calif.) said after a Capital Hill meeting of the four leaders. 'I have asked Chairman Mica to meet continually over the next several days to achieve this deadline.'"

Low expectations for Fed action today. Politico: "Several months of atrocious employment reports have the recovery wobbling but not to the point that would prompt massive intervention, economists say ... Wall Street economists anticipate the Federal Open Market Committee could announce plans Wednesday to keep its key interest rate for lending to banks near zero percent through 2015, a policy hinted at in recent speeches by Fed Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen."

Public Backs Help for DREAMers

Huge support for Obama directive in Bloomberg poll: "Sixty-four percent of likely voters surveyed after Obama’s June 15 announcement said they agreed with the policy, while 30 percent said they disagreed. Independents backed the decision by better than a two-to-one margin."

20 GOP senators complain to Obama about his immigration directive, while Sen. Min. Leader McConnell punts. The Hill: "A group of 20 Republican senators led by Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter to President Obama late Tuesday questioning the legality of his recent directive ... [But] Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Republican lawmakers would wait to weigh in on it until they heard from Mitt Romney on the issue. Romney avoided taking a clear stance on the issue in interviews over the weekend..."

Dimon On Defense

Jamie Dimon faces tough questioning at House hearing. The Hill: "...Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told Dimon he was 'disappointed' when the vocal critic of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law refused to say how much money a financial regulator should need to do their job ... He even went so far as to press Dimon on whether his own paycheck was in jeopardy due to the trading gaffe ... Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) effectively accused Dimon of being duplicitous when he said before the Senate that he supported large parts of Dodd-Frank, even as his bank pressed regulators working to implement the law to ease its requirements ... Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) accused JPMorgan of 'throwing darts' in what it claimed was efforts to hedge risk."

Dimon defiant, defensive on size of JPMorgan Chase. Bloomberg; "Dimon didn’t hesitate to push back against lawmakers who criticized the bank’s lobbying or size. He said big banks like JPMorgan provide loans for homeowners and businesses of all sizes. 'I assume you want us to do that,' he said."

Sens. Sanders, Boxer and Begich look to get bankers off the Federal Reserve. Bloomberg: "The bill to ban employees of bank holding companies or other firms regulated by the Fed from serving on regional boards calls the arrangement a 'conflict of interest that must be eliminated.' ... Sanders, an independent, said in a June 14 interview that while Democratic leaders have not assured him they will allow a vote, he will try to force one as an amendment to unrelated legislation..."

20 Questions: Why You Should Join Today's March Against Money in Politics

Richard Eskow — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:39:58 -0400

There's a march and demonstration taking place tomorrow (Wednesday, June 20) to protest money's corrupting influence in our political process. We'll be marching on the headquarters of Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS organization in Washington DC to protest the corrupting, debasing, and anti-democratic influence of money in politics.

I'll be there, and you should be too. Why?

I'm glad you asked.

Hey, I marched when I was in junior high school. Like many other people, I thought those days were over. Maybe you did did too. News flash: They're not. Maybe you're like me and rediscovered the power of protest by joining the Occupy movement. Or maybe you're still sitting on the fence.

If you've got doubts about whether or not to join us, here are twenty questions (and answers) that should help you make up your mind.

1. March? Really? On foot? That's so retro, so sixties! Weren't demonstrations just something that was fashionable when guys wore Nehru jackets and women wore granny skirts?

Actually, no. Public demonstrations for "redress of grievances" are as old as the Republic itself - older, in fact. Nonviolent demonstrations defeated the British Empire in India. They triggered the American Revolution. They gave working people their rights, created the middle class, and led to the greatest prosperity in our history during the 20th Century.

More recently, public demonstrations helped bring down the Iron Curtain and sparked the Arab Spring, a fight that's still underway but which has already changed the political landscape of the Middle East.

Protest marches are a pure form of democracy in action. That's something that never goes out of fashion.

2. But don't we do all of that political stuff on the Internet now?

Blogging and social media are great tools for political change. But there's no substitute for the physical presence of human beings as they make their presence felt to those they oppose. Human proximity creates a different kind of social momentum. (And hopefully to more news coverage, too.)

Occupy Wall Street reminded us all of the power of human presence.

Here's another way to put it: Being in the same physical space as lots of other people is - well, it's the new Internet. A big crowd is still the best form of "social media" ever invented.

3. Don't you ever feel stupid when you're protesting?

To be honest, I used to. Then I read an anecdote in Paul Loeb's book Soul of a Citizen (or it might have been his other one, The Impossible Will Take a Little Longer) about the '60s antiwar movement. One of that movement's most influential leaders was Dr. Benjamin Spock, whose book on baby and child care was on almost every parents' bookshelf back then.

Dr. Spock's conversion to the antiwar cause helped make being a "peacenik" socially acceptable and increased pressure to end the Vietnam war.

Paul's book includes the account of an early antiwar protester who stood outside the White House in 1963 or 1964 with a few other "Mothers for Peace." There were only three or four other people there, and she talked about feeling very silly standing in the snow with a sign. She wondered what she was doing there.

Later, after he had become an influential leader, Dr. Spock was asked how he got involved. He said he had been invited to lunch at the White House, and on his way inside he saw three or four women standing in the snow. And he got to wondering why they felt so strongly ...

That protester felt silly, but that one afternoon's protest had an enormous impact. You never knew when or how, but your actions may make all the difference in the world.

4. Mitt Romney says it's "envy" when you criticize rich people or their influence in politics.

Hey, they robbed us! That's like stealing your wallet and then calling you "envious" when you ask for it back.

It's true that, once he's robbed you, the pickpocket has a wallet and you don't. But acting to get it back isn't "envy." It's justice.

5. If they robbed us, why aren't they going to jail?

Look at the testimony of JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon before the Senate Banking Committee. How are you going to grill, much less prosecute, somebody who's been giving you money - and whose money you're going to need to get if you want to be reelected?

6. Why was the House's questioning of Dimon this week ever-so-slightly rougher than the Senate's?

Members of the House don't need as much money for their elections campaigns as Senators do - at least not yet. The difference between the House's treatment of Dimon and the Senate's is no coincidence.

Like they used to say: Follow the money.

6. Hasn't there always been money in politics?

Sure, but not like this. As Dave Gilson pointed out in Mother Jones, "Barack Obama spent $730 million getting to the White House in 2008—twice as much as George W. Bush spent 4 years earlier and more than 260 times what Abraham Lincoln spent in his first election (as measured in 2011 dollars)."

Senate elections, especially in the bigger states, went up exponentially too. And the cost of Congressional elections is beginning to soar too.

7. Does the Citizens United ruling really mean that rich people and corporations can spend as much as they want to spend on elections?

Yes.

8. How can they justify that?

The corporate-funded far right had a long-term plan to capture a lot of judgeships and impose a bizarre theory called "corporate personhood." It says that corporations have the same rights as people - but none of the penalties or obligations.

Then they said that corporate "people" use money as their "speech," so it's un-Constitutional to deny them their "right."

9. Wow, that theory is completely bizarre. And thanks to the Supreme Court, it's now the law of the land. That's just ... insane.

I'm sorry, but I can't respond to that. Our format today is kinda like Jeopardy. Even if you think you have an answer, your answer must be given in the form of a question. If it isn't you will hear the sound of this buzzer.

10. Okay, here's my question: Is that the weirdest legal theory ever, or what?

It gets even weirder: Right now it's not clear that campaigns (or closely related SuperPACs) are obliged to disclose who corporate and wealthy individual donors even are. And the Right is fighting the DISCLOSE Act, which let people know who's contributing to political campaigns, at the national and state levels.

By their logic, corporate speech is real speech - but it's the only kind in which the speaker is allowed to exercise its "right of speech" without ever being heard.

No, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't have to. Judges just have to declare that it does.

11. The bankers and big corporations are incredibly powerful. They have the media, their ad campaigns, and billions of dollars. How can we possibly stop them? They can't be defeated.

They said that about the Soviet Union, too. And apartheid. They said that about the British Empire and the Axis powers. They said that in this country in the 19th Century, when the robber barons owned everything. They always say that.

Sure, it's going to be tough. Victory is never guaranteed. But unless we act, defeat is guaranteed.

12. You're marching on Rove, but aren't Democrats part of the problem too?

Some of them are. The worst symptom of money's corrupting influence usually comes bearing the "bipartisan" label.

A good example of this bought-and-paid-for "bipartisanship" is the new venture between former Republican Party official Michael Steele and Lanny Davis, a former Clinton White House official whose pandering work for dictators has made him the symbol of everything venal about today's insider political process.

I think they're going to call it "Purple Nation Solutions" or something, supposedly because red for "red states" and blue for "blue states" would make purple if they were mixed together. But purple is also the color of royalty, people who rule without democratic process.

So remember: Look for the "purple" label. And when you see it, Protest!

13. If there are big-money Democrats, why aren't you marching on the Democratic equivalent of Crossroads GPS?

Because it doesn't exist. And while the Dems have their big-money donors, frankly they're pretty small potatoes when compared to the deep-pocketed, un-American, anti-Democratic funders of the GOP like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson.

At least these executives have made some good movies. And when Bill Maher's funny, it's on purpose. What've the Koch Brothers and Adelson done except take your money at their casinos and rape the environment?

Those GOP contributors want carte blanche from the government, in the form of deregulation, so they can break the law, or the rules of fair play, and harm the rest of us. What rules do the entertainment types want to break - the rule against expository dialogue? The three-act screenplay format? Sure, they'll expect help on intellectual property issues, but that's about it. Agree with them or not, they're mostly spending the money because of their beliefs. They're certainly not out to undermine democracy like the big-money guys are.

Besides, it all comes down to dollars. Katzenberg, Maher and their peers have given contributions in the $1 million to $2 million range. Adelson? $70 million to $100 million. There's no contest.

The Republicans and their corporate backers have gone absolutely crazy, not just in buying elections but in pushing a multi-pronged strategy to undermine democracy that includes: 1) appointing more radical judges to overthrow democracy until corporations have the rights of people, but people don't; 2) cooking the books by throwing legitimate voters off the role if they belong to groups (minorities, students, etc.) that traditionally vote democratic; 3) rigging the electoral process - and on and on and on ... That makes the GOP and its corporate sponsors the logical first targets for demonstrations like these.

We can slam the Democrats when they pander to big-money interests. (I do, often.) But we can't criticize them for trying to please big-money donors if that's the only way anybody can win an election. The system will be corrupt until we get big money out of it.

On the other hand: If you ever organize a demonstration at Lanny Davis' place, count me in.

14. What else can we do?

We can push back against companies who use their money to distort our politics, the way Target did. Citizen action forced Target to back down. It also forced Coca-Cola and many other corporate sponsors to withdraw their support for ALEC.

We can also support Sen. Menendez' "Shareholder Protection Act," which would require a vote of shareholders for any political contributions over $50,000 and would also force the company to publicly disclose its expenditures.

15. I'm in. What day does the march take place?

Today. (Wednesday, June 20.)

16. Where?

We meet at the Take Back the American Dream Conference, which will conclude at 12:45 pm. That's at the Washington DC Hilton (1919 Connecticut Ave NW.)

17. Where will it end?

At the headquarters of Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, 1401 New York Avenue NW, Washington DC.

18. When?

1 pm.

19. What will happen there?

A demonstration. We'll be doing everything we can to make our voices heard - peacefully and democratically.

20. Last question: If this is part of a great struggle to reclaim our democracy, how long will it take us to win?

It could be a long, tough road. We could be marching for a while. But as the old saying says: A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Reviving and Strengthening U.S. Manufacturing

Dave Johnson — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:32:15 -0400

Following is the talk I gave to the Take Back the American Dream conference panel, Making It In America: Reviving and Strengthening U.S. Manufacturing.

You have undoubtedly heard the numbers, almost all of them bad.

We have a trade deficit of more than $550 billion dollars a year. This is actually an improvement from before the financial collapse, but only because people’s buying power remains down.

On this chart that first line down is $100 billion. Each line down is another $100 billion. Each year. This is real money that bleeds out of our economy.

If we were engaged in actual “trade” the money would be coming back as fast as it is leaving – that is what the word “trade” means. And that would be a win-win for all trade partners. But it has not worked out that way. Imports stay ahead of exports.

Our manufacturing sector has been bleeding out of our country along with the money.

The lure of low-prices, fueled by currency manipulation and subsidies, combined with the ability to treat workers in ways they cannot be treated here where people have a say, has led businesses to close factories here and open them over there. Eventually entire industries vanish.

This problem of the loss of manufacturing – and its jobs and factories and industries -- has been building for decades but in the Bush years it reached a crescendo. We lost 54,000+ factories, and 1/3 of all of our manufacturing jobs.

Our country has allowed key industries, key supply chains and key national skills to erode or vanish. And along with those we allowed communities and entire regions to decline. And worse than just decline – how many of you have seen Detroit with your own eyes?

We have lost hard-won capacity that will take enormous investment to get back. We lost a large part of our ability to make a living in this world. And now we are feeling the consequences of these losses.

This is because manufacturing is different.

Manufacturing doesn’t exist in isolation; it requires a manufacturing ecosystem, or commons, to properly function. This is where manufacturers, suppliers, designers, innovators, educators and all the other manufacturers, suppliers, designers, innovators and educators all complement each other, creating a synergistic "cluster" effect.

This is why they say that a manufacturing job supports so many other jobs. Manufacturing in particular supports communities surrounding the factories. This is why closing a factory loses so many jobs and effects entire communities. This is why so many of our country’s once-strong manufacturing areas now look the way they do.

So we are here to talk about what we can do to revive and strengthen American manufacturing.

I would like to present an overview of the key policies ideas for reviving American manufacturing.

First, of course, is the trade problem. We have to find ways to BALANCE trade.

This starts with CURRENCY. China manipulates its currency, keeping it low so the price of things made there stays a lot lower than the price of things made elsewhere. So out of the gate they start with this competitive advantage.

The administration has been unable to make a formal currency manipulation declaration. The Senate has passed legislation to address currency manipulation but it is stuck in the House, with over 60 Republican co-sponsors who won’t sign a discharge petition, and a Presidential candidate who says he will address the problem on his first day in office – but won’t ask his party to address it today.

Next, a national economic / industrial policy. Other countries see themselves as COUNTRIES, and have national policies. We do not. So we send our companies into the world alone to fight against countries. We need to say that WE as a country will work to put the components in place to secure a share of key industries like green manufacturing so that we can continue to make a living as a country.

We need to fix tax policy to promote manufacturing. We should eliminate tax incentives that encourage U.S. companies to ship jobs overseas and end the system of tax deferral that allows American multinational firms to keep profits offshore.

And finally, Buy American! Trade rules allow us to specify that our tax dollars be used to buy American, and it’s just a no-brainer to strengthen this. If other countries reciprocate, fine – but they don’t!

One last point. To kick-start this effort, we need to invest in rebuilding and modernizing our infrastructure. In the plenary with Paul Krugman he pointed out that this really would be a free lunch. He said that we would not be diverting anyone from other jobs because we have millions of construction workers looking for jobs. We have construction equipment sitting idle. And we can finance the necessary projects at the lowest cost in history. And, of course, all of this work is work that needs to be done eventually, so we should do it right now.

And we should require that all of it be done under Buy American procurement policies!

Update: two videos from this session:

Maria Leavey Award Winner Samantha Corbin: 'No One Gets To Sit This One Out'

Radhika Raman — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:09:55 -0400

There are people who become the face of a movement. They attend press conferences, head panels at conferences, and claim to speak for those who do not traditionally have a voice.

Then there are the “behind-the-scenes” activists. They are the people in back rooms who make repetitive phone calls, and do the tireless, thankless work which allows the faces of a movement to emerge. They allow others to take the credit and do not demand any for themselves. That was Maria Leavey’s role in her lifetime as a progressive organizer.

After her passing in 2006, the progressive community wanted to honor other activists and organizers who embodied Maria’s spirit. Today the Maria Leavey Award went to Samantha Corbin for her work as an actions coordinator for The Other 98 Percent.

Corbin’s work as an actions trainer at Occupy Wall Street has spread innovative protest tactics all over the country.

Borosage noted that the decision to honor Corbin was based on online nominations and voting on the CAF website.

Leavey not only helped bring media to the Campaign’s conference and link young journalists with powerful people in Washington. She was “tenacious, persistent, and creative,” in the words of Bob Borosage. He called Corbin’s work an embodiment of “the backbone of the progressive movement.”

“When you’re shut out of traditional media, you have to have some fun, get in the face of the media, and make them take notice,” said Alex Lawson of Social Security Works, who introduced Corbin.

Corbin’s modesty and humility as an activist showed during her speech. She took the emphasis off her own accomplishments and emphasized the struggles of other activists and organizers. Corbin also learned a very important lesson on September 16, 2011 at Zuccotti Park.

“Our liberation is connected because we share core values,” said Corbin. “At (Zuccotti) Park, (for example), the veterans were talking to the environmentalists, and they realized that their struggles were combined.”

She mentioned her involvement in the anti-stop and frisk march in New York City and how her participation reflected her values as an activist for money out of politics.

“In addition to my job, I will protest against stop and frisk and incorporate equity, justice, and love into my organizing.”

At the end of her speech, Corbin called on every person in the room to connect their struggles and stand in solidarity with others.

“We have to show up in every way. Every tactic is on the table. Everybody has to come. No one gets to sit this one out.”

Elect The Dream: Strategy For Progressive Political Power

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:07:37 -0400

What is now more clear than ever is that building a progressive political force is a 24/7/365 effort. It's not just work to be done during election cycles, and not just done in presidential and congressional elections.

Tuesday morning at the Take Back the American Dream conference included major sessions on how to build a lasting progressive power base, from the ground up.

"I think we increase our chances of winning when we have an infrastructure that has been laid down" based on progressive issue stands over a long period of time, in which deep relationships have been developed, said Bob Master, legislative and political director for the Communications Workers of America in New York, at a "99 Elect: Dream Candidates in 2012" strategy session.

One way to do it is to have more progressive people actually running for state and local offices. That's why Progressive Majority distributed cards that said, "Progressive Majority wants you to run for office!" (You can take up the challenge at RunForAmerica.org.)

"Most national candidates started at the state or local level," said Gloria Totten, Progressive Majority's director. "It is literally the system though which people come to Washington."

The long-term goal is to have a Congress and state legislatures that represent the 99 percent because their members are from the 99 percent, representing the diversities of profession, race, gender and class in a way that actually reflects America, Totten said.

That effort is being coupled with stepped-up efforts to make sure that progressive candidates have adequate support once they make the decision to run — not just financial support, but logistical support as well.

Adam Green, director of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said that some promising progressive candidates have lost races they could have won because they were not equipped to make sound decisions about choosing a campaign manager or advertising consultant. So Green said his organization is moving beyond raising money for candidates and is helping candidates spend that money wisely.

Groups such as the PCCC are devoting more attention to helping candidates hone a more progressive message during campaigns, then holding candidates responsible for turning that message into progressive political action after they are elected. They are doing so in an environment in which conservatives, armed with the unlimited corporate money unleashed by the Citizens United ruling, are running increasingly disingenuous campaigns.

"A challenge that we've consistently had is that the progressive message is the winning message" but "as our progressive candidate takes bold positions, conservative candidates start imitating our messaging and have the money behind it," Green said. "I would identify this faker phenomenon as the biggest challenge we have in this election."

This year there are 6,115 state legislative seats up for grabs in 46 states, according to Progressive Majority. That group and other progressive electoral organizations are paying particular attention to Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

More than 200 progressive candidates have already been recruited to run in these races, and the goal is to have thousands recruited over the next few weeks.

In addition to state-level races, more than 50 progressive candidates have run for Congress with the support of at least some members of the Progressive Congress Table, a coalition of 11 labor and progressive grassroots organizations that meets monthly to discuss how to expand progressive representation in Congress.

These candidates have filled out a 99Elect questionnaire, and their responses can be found on the 99Elect website. The goal is to have as many candidates as possible fill out the questionnaire, which contains questions about the candidate's stands on such issues as holding Wall Street accountable, public investment to create jobs, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and tax fairness.

At a plenary session early Tuesday, two members of Congress emphasized that this type of bottom-up, continuous political engagement was necessary to win in 2012 and beyond.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, explained that he is in a tough re-election battle fueled by $8.5 million in right-wing corporate cash, being spent at a rate in excess of $500,000 a week. "It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'Buy America,'" he said.

That's why, he said, progressive people power is essential in this election to overcome the flood of money the right is pouring into the election.

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., said that on the one hand reports that the left is discouraged are misleading. There was incredible energy around the "resolutions week" devoted to getting local governments to pass resolutions condemning Citizens United. But he criticized some progressives who say they feel demoralized and unmotivated because of some actions President Obama has taken since he's been in office.

"Martin Luther King never called Lyndon Johnson and said, 'You're not inspiring me. You're not making me feel it,'" Ellison said.

That's because the civil rights movement that surrounded King was ultimately motivated by values, not by a political personality. Progressives must see themselves the same way, driven by shared values, not a charismatic leader. "The movement always drives the leader," he said.

Krugman Does Ireland

Terrance Heath — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:06:51 -0400

At the Take Back the American Dream conference this morning, Paul Krugman reprised what he said on the Colbert Report recently, concerning Ireland's austerity agenda and it's frightening resemblance to Mitt Romney's economic agenda.

If Mitt Romney is elected president, the U.S. will experience an economic disaster the likes of which have been recently seen in Ireland, according to Paul Krugman.

"Ireland is Romney economics in practice," the Nobel-Prize winning economist and New York Times columnist said on the Colbert Report on Monday. "I think Ireland is America's future if Romney is president." (h/t Politico.)

"They've laid off a large fraction of their public workforce, they've slashed spending, they've had extreme austerity programs, they haven't really raised taxes on corporations or the rich at all, they have 14 percent unemployment, 30 percent youth unemployment, zero economic growth," Krugman said.

Romney, the likely Republican nominee for president, recently suggested that the government should lay off more firemen, policemen, and teachers, according to CNN. Romney's campaign website says that if elected president, Romney would aim to slash federal spending at least 18 percent by the end of his first term.

As the saying goes, "Great minds think alike.

OK, OK. Granted, I'm not a Nobel-Prize-winning economist. Far from it. Still, I've been writing about Ireland's austerity debacle for what certainly seems like a long, long, long, long, long time.

I've also written a lot about Mitt Romney's economic agenda, which is virtually identical to the budget written by Rep. Paul Ryan, and almost unanimously embraced by Republicans.

Budgets, Jim Wallis says, are moral documents. They reveal our priorities, and show the world what — or whom — we're willing to sacrifice. Mitt Romney has shown us both.

In February, when Mitt Romney released his new economic agenda, Ezra Klein summed it up in less than 150 words.

Mitt Romney is promising that taxes will go down, defense spending will go up, and old-people programs won't change for this generation of retirees. So three of his four options for deficit reduction "taxes, old-people programs, and defense" are now either contributing to the deficit or are off-limits for the next decade.

Romney is also promising that he will pay for his tax cuts, pay for his defense spending, and reduce total federal spending by more than $6 trillion over the next 10 years. But the only big pot of money left to him is poor-people programs. So, by simple process of elimination, poor-people programs will have to be cut dramatically. There's no other way to make those numbers work.

Romney showed us his priorities with a budget that includes a 20% "across-the-board" tax cut that essentially requires across-the-board cuts to programs that serve and support the poor, as well as the working- and middle-classes. Romney showed us his priorities with a budget that preserves his 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends, eliminate taxes on investment income for those earning more than $200,000 per year, and lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.

Romney showed us what and whom he is willing 10 sacrifice, with a budget that would require cutting non-defense programs by $637 billion in 2016 alone, and $6.5 trillion between 2014 and 2021. Romney showed us who and what he is willing to sacrifice with a budget that would shred the safety net, throwing 10 million off the benefit rolls for food stamps, and leave 30 million without health care coverage provided by the Affordable Care Act.

Romney showed us what and whom he is willing to sacrifice with his embrace of Paul Ryan's budget. Romney showed us what and whom he is willing to sacrifice with his support of a budget that would end Medicare as we know it, and render America itself unrecognizable.

I've written about how Romney's economic agenda would render America unrecognizable.

Yesterday, Bob Borosage wove an alternate narrative of life under a Romney presidency out of nine things Mitt Romney believes, reflected in his new economic agenda. It's a narrative of life in an America where rich no longer have "too little money."

It's a narrative of life in an America where:

the wealthy no longer have "too little money"

"those blessed by being born to the wealthy few should inherit the earth"

the world is "the oyster of corporations seeking tax havens"

Wall Street is "free to gamble with other people’s money, and you rubes are on your own"

the military no longer has "too little money," where elderly workers no longer have "too much security and leisure"

"our schools, water systems, roads and bridges, subways and trains, nutrition programs for children, Coast Guard and FBI" no longer get "too much money" and "do with much less"

and "children must play the hand that fate dealt them. If they are the heirs to the rich, they live charmed lives. If they are born to the poor, they must rise above it "

But perhaps the best summary I've heard of Romney's budget comes from Republican columnist Frum.

Compassionate conservatism has been dead for a long time. Romney's Detroit speech cremated the remains. As a man, Romney remains far and away the most capable of the presidential candidates seeking the Republican nomination. But he has now finally eliminated the policy differences separating him from the radical congressional wing.

Actually, America wouldn't be entirely unrecognizable. If you've seen the snapshots of austerity from Europe, there's a haunting resemblance. That's where Krugman and I see eye to eye on Ireland.

While he regularly accuses President Obama of "making us like Europe," Mitt Romney's economic agenda would truly make America more like Europe, because the Republican agenda is essentially that same austerity agenda shrinking national economies in Europe.

An odd thing happened during Mitt Romney’s victory-lap speech after Tuesday’s Republican primaries: He didn’t once mention the word “Europe.”

The absence was jarring, because Romney’s claim that President Obama is dragging the United States toward a loathsome European-style “social welfare” future has been a staple of the former Massachusetts governor’s shtick ever since he started campaigning in earnest.

It’s always been an easy line for him: Europe, Romney’s audience understands, is the land of the not-free. The continent gave birth to Karl Marx, for crying out loud! Every now and then, socialist political parties actually take power!

But there is a big problem with Romney’s formulation. For the last year or two, Europe has been implementing, in real time, exactly the policies that Romney and congressional Republicans fervently believe are the best strategy for boosting economic growth. It’s called “austerity,” and it means cutting deficits, slashing spending, and chipping away at all those goodies the social welfare state provides.

Like I said before, I'm not a Nobel-winning economist. But when a Nobel laureate like Krugman says what I've basically been saying all along, I take it as a sign that I'm at least on the right track.