Excerpt:

David Sirota on the House voting down the bailout plan and what might be coming next…

Those who are surprised by this turn of events just haven’t been paying attention to what’s going on out in the country - they haven’t been paying attention to, for instance, the social survey research showing rising rage against both our corrupt government and Corporate America. During my 3 month book tour, I faced a wave of skepticism from the Establishment media about my thesis. This earthquake on the floor of the U.S. House should end that skepticism once and for all.

Just as I said in the book that it’s not clear what is going to come out of the Left-Right grassroots uprising throughout the country, it’s not clear what is going to come out of this uprising in Congress. Will Democratic leaders tack to the hard right, load the bill up with corporate tax cuts and pass this bill with only Republican votes? Or will they actually be leaders of the Democratic Party, make this bill a vehicle for the kind of New Deal-style investments and regulations that are necessary to start rebuilding this country, and pass this bill with full Democratic Party support?

Sirota goes more in depth in a recently released strategy memo called Turning a Wall Street Giveaway Into an Economic Rescus for All Americans.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

David Sirota sums up what the passage of a $700 billion bailout for Wall St. would mean to progressive reforms…

Food for thought: $700 billion is about 5 percent of our entire economy. It is roughly enough to create a universal health care system for the next 5 to 10 years. It is also enough to fund the energy and infrastructure investments most economists say we need to build our economy in the 21st century. Handing that $700 billion over to Wall Street and putting it on the national credit card will make it almost impossible to finance these priorities.

Put another way, lawmakers who vote for this $700 billion bailout are potentially casting a vote to decapitate the progressive movement and the major tenets of its agenda - at least for the next generation.

Contact your members of Congress and tell them irresponsible CEOs don’t need to be bailed out.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

One of my favorite columnists, David Sirota, was on the Rachel Maddow Show talking about how McCain was for deregulation before he was against it.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Iowan and Olympic Gold Medalist Shawn Johnson started the day off by leading the pledge of allegiance.

Bill Richardson outlined how McCain has consistently changed his position on numerous issues and then nailed McCain on wearing $520 pair of Italian loafers, saying…

John McCain may pay hundreds of dollars for his shoes, but we’re the ones who will pay for his flip-flops.

Al Gore spoke last night and had this great line…

Today, we face essentially the same choice we faced in 2000, though it may be even more obvious now - because John McCain, a man who has earned our respect on many levels, is now openly endorsing the policies of the Bush-Cheney White House and promising to actually continue them, the same policies all over again?

Hey, I believe in recycling, but that’s ridiculous.

Then a group of everyday people who were Republicans, but are now supporting Obama spoke. One of these people was Barney Smith from Marion, Indiana who summed up the difference between Obama and McCain…

We need a president who puts the Barney Smiths before the Smith Barneys.

I will write more later about Obama’s speech, but this article by David Sirota sums up Obama’s speech, saying that Obama has made an economic populism the key theme to this election.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

I have been reading The Uprising by David Sirota. Sirota was on PBS’s NOW last week to discuss the book.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

David Sirota has a good post at Open Left about the debate over Free Trade. Sirota’s key point is that even though Free Traders call those opposed to Free Trade deals protectionists, in reality Free Trade agreements are protectionist provisions for corporate profits.

As Democrats sharpen their fair trade talk and promises, people like John McCain are making wild accusations claiming that such moves will alienate the rest of the world - when in fact the actual public opinion data shows precisely the opposite. Far from quelling anti-Americanism and building diplomatic bridges, our current trade policies exacerbate anti-Americanism and burn what few diplomatic bridges we have left.

This isn’t to say that the rest of the world is “anti-trade.” That’s the tired, cartoonish phrase that the “free” trade extremists use to describe anyone who wants a new trade policy (and I put “free” in quotes because, as Solis notes in my column, “free” trade deals are protectionist - they are just protectionist for corporations). Progressives here and abroad are all for trade and commerce - they just want the rules of trade to protect people and the environment, before they protect corporate bottom lines.

The problem, of course, is that the debate over globalization has left the “reality-based” world. While reformers are arguing with actual facts, figures and history, the Establishment argues with empty rhetoric that actually thumbs its nose at facts. Remember, it was none other than Tom Friedman - America’s leading cheerleader for status quo trade policies - who actually went on national television and bragged that “I wrote a column supporting CAFTA. I didn’t even know what was in it. I just knew two words: free trade.” That’s right - in the face of growing global animosity to America’s trade policy, our country’s leading Republican displays no understanding of trade policy, and our country’s leading “intellectual” thinker on trade trumpets the fact that he advocates for trade deals that he doesn’t even bother to read.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Here’s another example of the Clinton’s being willing to do anything to get elected.

From David Sirota…

Clinton is airing this advertisement in Indiana, bemoaning the closure of a defense contractor Magnequench’s manufacturing plant in Valparaiso (she is also echoing this line in her stump speeches). Looking at the camera, she tells us she’s upset that the 200 jobs that were sent to China, and that “now America’s defense relies on Chinese spare parts.” And then comes the kicker: She tells viewers that “George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn’t.”

Clinton is certainly right that it is a tragedy that 200 American jobs were killed in a corporate deal that also exported sensitive military technology to China. But she forgets to mention that it wasn’t George Bush who was in the key position to stop it - it was Bill Clinton.

Back in 1995, a Chinese consortium, which included two Chinese state-owned companies, made a bid to take over Magnequench. Because the company makes key parts for smart bombs, the takeover had to be approved by the Clinton administration’s Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Despite the national security and economic problems with selling off such critical manufacturing capacity to the Chinese - and despite the knowledge that such a deal would likely end in a domestic mass layoff - the Clinton administration approved the deal. This same deal - not surprisingly - paved the way for those 200 Indiana jobs and that sensitive military technology to be shipped to China.

The Clinton administration’s move was not surprising. This was an administration whose NAFTA and China PNTR record more than proved it was intent on helping Big Money interests face as little resistance to international financial transactions as possible - consequences be damned. But the move was very controversial, raising the ire of key Hillary Clinton surrogate Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN). As the Los Angeles Times reported in 2005, “Bayh was particularly disturbed by the committee’s decision in 1995 to approve a Chinese consortium’s takeover of Magnequench Inc.” In 2006, Bayh specifically slammed the Clinton administration’s approval of the deal to the South Bend Tribune, saying “It’s not smart to put ourselves in the position of relying on the Chinese for a critical component of a vital weapon system, and yet that is what the CFIUS process has allowed.”

Unfortunately, as he has campaigned around Indiana with Hillary Clinton listening to her decry the Magenquench fiasco, Bayh has suddenly gone silent on the matter.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

David Sirota takes a look at the cause of illegal immigration in his latest column…

Republicans like Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) are demanding the government cut off public services for undocumented workers, build a barrier at the Mexican border and force employers to verify employees’ immigration status. Democrats like Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) are urging their allies to either embrace a punitive message aimed at illegal immigrants, or avoid the immigration issue altogether. And nobody asks the taboo question: What is illegal immigration actually about?

The answer is exploitation. Employers looking to maximize profits want an economically desperate, politically disenfranchised population that will accept ever worse pay and working conditions. Illegal immigrants perfectly fit the bill.

Politicians know exploitation fuels illegal immigration. But they refuse to confront it because doing so would mean challenging their financiers.

Instead we get lawmakers chest-thumping about immigration enforcement while avoiding a discussion about strengthening wage and workplace safety enforcement — proposals that address the real problem.

Equally deplorable, these same lawmakers keep supporting trade policies that make things worse. Just last week, both Emanuel and Tancredo voted to expand NAFTA into the Southern Hemisphere. This is the same trade model that not only decimated American jobs and wages, but also increased illegal immigration by driving millions of Mexican farmers off their land, into poverty and ultimately over our southern border in search of subsistence work.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

David Sirota thinks she does…

Hillary Clinton thinks Iowans are stupid - very stupid. Here’s what I’m talking about.

TODAY:

“Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton says she wants to take a close look at foreign trade deals. She says she’ll call a ‘time out’ on trade agreement if she wins the White House to see if the deals are draining jobs from the U.S.Clinton, who spoke to a regional conference of the United Auto Workers in Dubuque today, says she’ll do everything she can to ‘move toward smart trade.’” - Associated Press, 11/12/07

FOUR DAYS AGO:

“Clinton Says Yes to Peru Deal…Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, after prodding from a rival campaign, has issued positions on several trade deals currently before Congress, including her support for an agreement with Peru that is dividing her party.” - New York Times, 11/8/07

As I said, Hillary Clinton clearly thinks Iowans are stupid. In this special edition of Strategery, I would suggest that treating voters like they are stupid is not a good strategy.

Another example of double talk from Clinton that Edwards mentioned during the last debate.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Is Grassley Mother Teresa? The Wall Street Journal thinks so.From David Sirota…Never - and I mean never - underestimate the willingness of Beltway journalists to fabricate power-worshipping, politician-glorifying storylines out of thin air. I say th…

Related Posts: