Making Sense 2008

Bad Recession Requires Bold Responses

Bernie Horn — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:45:28 -0800

Tax Cuts for the Rich Don’t Work

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:35:49 -0700

THE POLITICS

John McCain and many other conservatives say they would solve our current economic problems by expanding George Bush's tax cuts for the rich. For example, McCain has called for making the Bush cuts permanent and for cutting the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. This is a recipe for economic disaster. Tax cuts for the rich have not and will not help middle-income Americans.

THE FACTS

Bush promised that his tax cuts would create jobs, but they didn't. A conservative-dominated Congress enacted two sets of Bush tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003. Job creation was a major Bush selling point, especially in 2003, when the administration asserted that the tax cuts would create 5.5 million jobs from July 2003 through the end of 2004. Instead, only 2.4 million jobs were added during that period—1.7 million fewer jobs than the economy was expected to produce without any tax cuts. [Center for American Progress] Today, the impact of the Bush tax program is clear: 8.5 million Americans are unemployed—2.5 million more than when Bush took office. [Joint Economic Committee]

Bush promised that his tax cuts would pay for themselves, but they didn't. Conservatives persistently repeat the myth that, as Bush put it, "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," or as John McCain declared in March, "tax cuts…as we all know, increase revenues." But as Time magazine reported, "Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves—and were never intended to." [Time] In fact, Bush took office with a $236 billion surplus and will leave with a 2008 deficit of more than $400 billion. [The New York Times] The Bush tax cuts, which cost $300 billion last year alone, are primarily responsible for that deficit. [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities]

Bush promised that his tax cuts would help the middle class, but they didn't. During the 2000 campaign, Bush said his tax cuts focus "on low- and moderate-income families," and would provide the "greatest help for those most in need." [The New York Times] But in fact, the Bush tax cuts gave an average tax break of $118,000 to those who make over $1 million per year and only $740 per year to middle-income households. The bottom 20 percent of households received an average tax break of only $20. [CBPP]

THE ARGUMENT

The current tax system is unfair. Middle-class families pay too much while the very richest individuals and corporations pay too little. Now, McCain and other conservatives are pushing proposals that would make taxes even more unfair.

Conservative tax cuts for the rich hurt America's economy. The Bush program, which McCain has vowed to continue, caused our economy to be more sluggish than during any comparable period over the past 60 years. [CBPP] Unemployment has increased, basic costs have skyrocketed, incomes have stagnated, poverty has risen, the number of uninsured has increased and mortgage foreclosures are at record levels. Bush's conservative economics has been a spectacular failure, so why would anyone want more of the same?

By getting rid of giveaways and loopholes for the rich, we can lower taxes and increase benefits for the middle class. It's time to adjust our tax system so that everyone pays their fair share. At the same time, we urgently need to divert some of those wasted revenues toward projects that will make America stronger and more secure.

THE PROGRESSIVE SOLUTION

Balance the tax code. We need to shut down loopholes and roll back tax breaks for the rich. The Bush tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations should be eliminated.

Reward companies that create jobs in America. Our current tax system gives incentives for companies to move jobs offshore. We need a tax code that rewards companies for investing in American workers.

Reinvest tax cuts into the economy. After rolling back the top-end tax cuts and closing tax shelters, we need to invest in areas vital to our future—fixing bridges and roads, becoming energy independent, developing new "green" technologies, and providing every child with a high quality education. That way, we will create more jobs, incur less debt and build a stronger future for our nation.

LINKS

For more information about progressive taxation, click here.

To subscribe to future CAF Making Sense 2008 talking points, click here.

July 10, 2008

A Time To Demand a Stand With Workers

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:56:36 -0700

One year ago today, a Senate Republican filibuster killed the Employee Free Choice Act, and with it died one of the most important things Congress could have done to repair the economic damage done to working-class families caused by decades of conservative economic policies.

The right-wing effort to keep that legislation from resurfacing continues in over-the-top fashion. One of the most recent jeremiads against the bill—brought to the fore by the discredited Center for Union Facts, the source of a misleading ad campaign against unions—compares union organizing efforts at a Minneapolis hotel, where the card-check provisions of EFCA were in place as a result of a local law, to the effort by strongman Robert Mugabe to keep power in Zimbabwe, calling the efforts “coercive.”

The idea that union volunteers visiting workers’ homes and encouraging them to sign union organizing cars is remotely comparable to the brutality of the Mugabe regime points to the hysterical desperation of the right over this issue — and the fact that they have no answer to what workers actually say they want.

What they want, as our latest Making Sense 2008 alert shows, is clear from polls in which more than half of all U.S. workers—nearly 60 million—say they would join a union right now if they could. Their best opportunity to get ahead is by uniting with co-workers to bargain with employers for better wages and benefits. Working people want that opportunity.

Plus, the allegations of abuses of union organizers pale in comparison to the abuses of anti-union employers taking advantage of what is now a broken system. Corporations routinely intimidate, harass, coerce and illegally fire people who try to organize unions. Workers are fired in a quarter of private sector union organizing campaigns; 78 percent of private employers require supervisors to deliver anti-union messages to their employees; and even after workers successfully form a union, they can’t get a contract one-third of the time. The National Labor Relations Board, once a reliable arbiter of employer-employee disputes, is now so politicized under a Bush administration that is ideologically opposed to unions that it has issued a torrent of precedent-busting anti-union rulings.

The federal government is blocking the freedom of working people to make their own decisions about joining a union. The current “election” system for union recognition is decidedly undemocratic. One side—the corporation—has all the power, controls the information workers receive, and routinely poisons the process by intimidating, harassing, coercing, and even firing people who try to organize unions.

Enacting the Employee Free Choice Act would do three simple, fair things for workers: It would make it possible for a majority of employees to sign union authorization cards, validated by the National Labor Relations Board, to have that union recognized by their employer; it would strengthen penalties for companies that coerce or intimidate employees in an effort to prevent them form forming a union; and it would bring in a neutral third party to settle a contract when a company and a newly-certified union cannot come to an agreement after three months.

Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama supports this legislation, Sen. John McCain does not. This is a good time to ask people running for office whether they stand with workers and their right to form unions or with the corporations and conservative enablers who would block this right.

Trading Away America: Time For a Trade Policy That Works for Main Street, Not Just Wall Street

Isaiah J. Poole — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:38:10 -0700

THE POLITICS

Today, Sen. John McCain will travel to Canada to celebrate the North American Free Trade Agreement and pledge to pursue more of the same corporate trade agreements. He will criticize Sen. Barack Obama for calling for renegotiating NAFTA and similar agreements. This echoes the position of President Bush and most Republicans in Congress.

Americans, however, overwhelmingly believe that current trade policies have "subjected American companies and employees to unfair competition and cheap labor" [Rasmussen Reports; NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll]. They are looking for a different course. This is a golden opportunity for progressives to speak out against the unfair trade policies of Bush, McCain and their congressional enablers, and to lay out a progressive trade strategy that works for working people.

THE FACTS

America has lost millions of jobs due to trade policies designed for multinationals, not for the nation. Every year, about 400,000 American jobs are lost because of our foreign trade policy—and that number takes into account employment created by increased exports [Dean Baker, The American Prospect; Associated Press]. The manufacturing sector has been hit the hardest, with 3.4 million jobs—one out of every five manufacturing jobs—shipped overseas over the past seven years. Under current policies, as many as 40 million more jobs will be at risk over the next 10 to 20 years [Associated Press].

America's trade deficit has nearly doubled during the Bush presidency. Last year's trade deficit was $711 billion compared to $365 billion in 2001 [U.S. Census Bureau]. In 2007, the trade deficit with China alone hit a record $256 billion [U.S. Census Bureau]. Almost half of our trade deficit—$327 billion—is attributable to oil imports [Petroleum Intelligence Weekly]. To finance this debt, we must either borrow from countries like China or sell off American assets at the rate of $2 billion every single day.

The American economy is increasingly in hock to foreign governments. Led by Japan, China, the United Kingdom and the oil exporting nations of OPEC, foreign governments now own more than $2 trillion in American debt. China and the OPEC nations are setting up sovereign investment funds to buy up pieces of America. China recently bought a $5 billion stake in Morgan Stanley. Abu Dhabi bought $7.5 billion of Citigroup. Singapore paid $4.4 billion for a part of Merrill Lynch [The New York Times].

American consumers are at risk from toxic imports. Just last year: 20 million toys from China were recalled, including more than 1.5 million toys covered with lead paint; 450,000 unsafe tires were recalled; four brands of toothpaste were recalled because of a toxic ingredient; and 5,300 product lines of pet food were recalled because they contained deadly chemicals that killed more than 4,000 pets [USA Today].

THE ARGUMENT

The current Wall Street trade policy has undermined our economic security. These trade deficits cannot be sustained. Those who call for more of the same have to explain how they plan to get us out of the hole we are in. Platitudes about level playing fields aren't enough anymore. We need a new national strategy to sustain America's middle class in a global economy. Without a new strategy, we simply cannot compete successfully against foreign businesses that pay their workers less than one dollar an hour [U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics].

More of the same will only continue to benefit multinational corporations at the expense of working families. The current global economic strategy was designed by and for the multinational corporations and banks-a strategy for Wall Street, not for Main Street. Our laws and trade agreements encourage companies to ship our inventions, technologies and jobs abroad where they can take advantage of minimal safety, environmental and labor standards. That needs to change.

It isn't about free trade or protectionism. It's about whether our trade strategy is designed to benefit global corporataions or to help secure a broad middle class. As Barack Obama points out, "allowing subsidized and unfairly traded products to flood our markets is not free trade." Opening our markets to countries like China and Japan that manipulate their currencies and control access to their own markets is not free trade. America's trade deficits have driven down the value of the dollar in Europe, so our exports are rising there. But our deficits with China are still rising, because the Chinese policy is to control the value of its currency to sustain its export-led growth strategy. Thus, "free trade" doesn't work. The only way to achieve a relative trade balance is by adopting an aggressive national strategy.

PROGRESSIVE SOLUTIONS

No more flawed trade agreements like NAFTA. When you're in a hole, stop digging. It's time to stop approving trade agreements modeled after NAFTA. It's time to renegotiate our current trade agreements so that they work for American workers.

Move to energy independence and capture the green markets of the future. The cost of imported oil now amounts to about half our trade deficit. We need to launch a concerted drive for energy independence, investing in conversation and renewable energy, developing the new machines and appliances of the future. We will create jobs now, reduce our trade deficits, limit the transfer of wealth to often hostile oil producing nations, and capture the lead in the green industries that must grow in the future.

Invest in America. In order to restore our position as the best country in the world for both business and labor, we need to invest in ourselves. That means fixing our nation's bridges and roads, expanding mass transit and broadband access, becoming energy independent, developing new "green" technologies. It means major efforts to provide every child with high quality education, and every worker with the opportunity for advanced training. To sustain a high wage policy, we need to insure that our country is the most efficient, and our workers the best educated.

Champion new global rules that lift standards up, not drive them down. We need rules that help raise up safety, environmental, and labor standards abroad, rather than driving them down here. In addition, we need to pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce existing rules against export subsidies and import barriers that foreign governments use against the U.S. And we must repeal federal laws that give tax breaks to multinational corporations that move jobs abroad.

LINKS

For Robert Borosage's article about a progressive strategy for global trade, click here.

For Damon Silvers' article in The American Prospect on how to turn around the economy, click here.

For more progressive trade policy, click here.

To subscribe to future CAF Making Sense 2008 talking points, click here.

June 20, 2008

The Real Cause of the Mortgage Crisis:[br]Conservative Opposition to[br]Sensible Financial Standards

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:20:49 -0700

THE POLITICS

Home prices are falling and foreclosures rising across the country. With one in six mortgaged homes now worth less than the loan balance, our entire economy is at risk. Few Americans are aware that the housing bubble was the natural result of reckless Bush administration policies. Let’s place blame where it’s due and outline a series of progressive solutions to the problem.

THE ISSUE

One of every 11 mortgage holders in America faces major loan problems. During the first quarter of 2008, nearly 9 percent of all mortgage holders were delinquent or in foreclosure, the highest rate since recordkeeping began in 1979 [The New York Times]. Foreclosure filings more than doubled from 2007 to 2008 [RealtyTrac].

Houses are rapidly losing value. Nationwide, home values have declined about 16 percent since the summer of 2006 and experts project that the drop will continue until homes have lost about 25 percent of their value [The New York Times]. Sixteen percent of mortgaged homes are now "underwater"; that is, the mortgage owed equals or exceeds the value of the house. It is estimated that by June 2009, nearly one in four homes will be underwater [Chicago Tribune].

The mortgage crisis was created, in large part, by a rise in subprime lending. Subprime mortgages are high-interest loans, supposedly designed for high-risk borrowers. Only two percent of mortgages issued in 2000 were subprime compared to 28 percent in 2006 [The Washington Post]. By 2007, subprime loans accounted for only 14 percent of all outstanding mortgages but fully 64 percent of all mortgage foreclosures [Center for Responsible Lending].

The mortgage crisis was also fueled by an increase in "exotic" and "low doc" loans. Non-traditional or "exotic" mortgages are interest-only loans, no-down-payment loans, and adjustable rate loans (ARMs) with low teaser interest rates that "explode" after only two or three years (2/28 and 3/27 ARMs). From 1999 to 2006, the percent of subprime loans that were exotic 2/28 or 3/27 ARMs went from 53 percent to 93 percent [Center for Responsible Lending].

The mortgage crisis was also fueled by an increase in "exotic" and "low doc" loans. In addition, lenders expanded "no or low doc" loans, requiring limited documentation to verify a borrower's ability to repay the mortgage. In 2000, 23 percent of subprime loans were low doc loans, and by 2006, that skyrocketed to 43 percent [The Federal Reserve].

The lack of rules and enforcement by the Bush administration allowed banks and hedge funds to run wild, recklessly profiteering off exotic and subprime loans. For decades, bonds backed by mortgages were a safe, reliable investment. After conservatives succeeded in loosening the rules that governed financial institutions, all that changed [The American Prospect]. Investment firms could now profit by buying, repackaging and selling high-risk loans. Since mortgage lenders could make a quick buck selling loans to hedge funds, they had little incentive to ensure that borrowers could make their payments. The mortgage industry went from being a safe investment to a kind of pyramid scheme.

THE ARGUMENT

Conservative policymakers created the conditions that resulted in America's housing debacle. To increase profits, finance companies sold subprime and nontraditional mortgages to millions of Americans who—the companies knew—could not afford to make the payments. The Bush Administration and the Federal Reserve shirked their responsibility to stop these reckless lending practices.

As the Washington Post recently pointed out, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development allowed federally-chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase far more subprime loans from mortgage companies in 2004, thereby encouraging the explosion of these risky loans [The Washington Post].
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision, both agencies of Bush's Treasury Department, had the power to prevent the worst of these loans by designating them "unfair and deceptive practices" but failed to act [Center for Responsible Lending]. Instead, they actually blocked states from regulating subprime lending by nationally chartered banks [The New York Times].
The Federal Reserve Board has power under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act to regulate mortgage lending, but despite repeated warnings about subprime and exotic loans, the Fed sat on its hands [The New York Times]. "The Federal Reserve could have stopped this problem dead in its tracks," said Martin Eakes, chief executive of the Center for Responsible Lending. "If the Fed had done its job, we would not have had the abusive lending and we would not have a foreclosure crisis in virtually every community across America [The New York Times]."

THE PROGRESSIVE SOLUTION

We've got to step into the mortgage crisis and stop the downward spiral, not to save speculators or simply to rescue individuals who agreed to unwise loans, but to protect our communities from an epidemic of boarded-up houses and plummeting home values. The time has long past for real action.

Crack down on fraudulent and irresponsible lending practices. Mortgage brokers should be required to verify that a consumer has a reasonable ability to repay the loan. Predatory interest rates, prepayment fees and balloon payments should be banned, and credit counselors should review subprime loans before they are signed (A bill with these provisions, HR 3915, has passed the House and is awaiting action in the Senate.)

Close the loophole that prevents bankruptcy courts from adjusting mortgage payments. Bankruptcy courts have the power to modify other types of debts, but not mortgages on the debtor's principal residence. The subprime mortgage industry should not be shielded by an obsolete federal law. This would change under a proposal (HR 3609) that is currently being blocked by congressional Republicans.

Mandate accurate disclosure of mortgage costs. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has proposed the creation of a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, (similar to the annual percentage rate), to provide homebuyers with a simplified, standardized method to compare mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.

LINKS

For Terrance Heath's article about predatory mortgage lending, click here.

For a progressive housing policy, click here.

To subscribe to future CAF Making Sense 2008 talking points, click here.

Let’s Tell the Bush-McCain Crowd To Stop Blocking College Aid Programs

Terrance Heath — Thu, 29 May 2008 10:19:58 -0700

THE POLITICS

Over the next few weeks, the problem of paying for a college education will be particularly newsworthy for two reasons: (1) As students graduate, high school seniors and their parents will face the anguish of paying for college while college seniors will face the agony of student debt. (2) The U.S. House and Senate recently passed legislation to pay college tuition for recent military veterans—legislation that John McCain opposed and President Bush is threatening to veto.

Progressives need to put these stories in context—that Bush and his conservative allies have fought for years to squelch direct federal assistance to college students. Let’s remind the media, bloggers, and local activists where conservative policy has taken us and explain the progressive alternatives.

THE ISSUE

College costs have risen dramatically during the Bush Administration. Tuition and fees at a public four-year college have increased from $3,500 to nearly $6,200 since Bush took office—an increase of 46 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars. Tuition at private colleges also became more expensive, increasing on average from $16,000 in 2000-01 to $23,700 in 2007-08.

At least two-thirds of college students graduate with some debt; the average debt among graduates exceeds $19,000. One-fourth of all students borrow $25,000 or more. These statistics were last published by the U.S. Department of Education in 2004, so they understate current student debt.

With McCain’s support, Bush and the Republican Congress enacted the largest cuts to federal student aid in history. In 2006, they cut $12.7 billion from student loan programs. The law also imposed higher fees on students and increased the interest rate on loans to parents. When Democrats recovered Congress the following year, they passed the College Cost Reduction Act which restored funding cuts, lowered interest rates on subsidized student loans by half over five years, increased Pell Grants, and banned unscrupulous tactics by private student loan companies.

Under Bush, direct federal aid to college students declined while subsidies for private student loan companies skyrocketed. While Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress, federal funding for Pell Grants and Direct Student Loans remained flat, while federal work study funds and Byrd Honors Scholarships declined. Conversely, funding for the Family Education Loan Program, a program which subsidizes private student loan companies, more than doubled from $25 billion in 2001 to $51 billion in 2007.

Once again, Bush, McCain, and conservatives in Congress are blocking federal student aid by opposing the new G.I. Bill of Rights. On May 22, the U.S. Senate voted 75 to 22 to enact a new G.I. Bill of Rights that would pay tuition and other expenses at a four-year university for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11. The U.S. House passed similar legislation by a vote of 256 to 156. Even though the G.I. Bill is attached to a military funding measure, McCain opposes it and Bush has threatened to veto it.

THE ARGUMENT

Bush, McCain, and the majority of Republicans in Congress have fought against federal aid to college students all along:

Bush and McCain oppose the new G.I. Bill passed by Congress which would fund college tuition for vets of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. McCain missed the vote in order to attend a fundraiser, but he made his opposition clear. (Both Senators Clinton and Obama cast votes for the new G.I. Bill.) The Bush-McCain position contradicts their “support our troops” rhetoric. But it is consistent with their efforts to starve a wide range of college aid programs.

Bush, McCain, and the Republican Congress slashed student aid programs. Bush promoted and McCain supported the largest cut to federal student aid in history. During “the raid on student aid,” the last Republican Congress slashed $12.7 billion from student loan programs. Aid was restored and enhanced only after Democrats took over Congress in 2007.

The right-wing attack on student aid programs has been motivated by ideology and fueled by entrenched corporate lobbies. Bush and conservatives in Congress broke promises to increase Pell Grants, forcing students to take on more student debt. Then they squeezed the federal direct student loan program, forcing students to borrow at higher interest rates from private lenders.

THE PROGRESSIVE SOLUTION

Congress should focus on expanding the federal direct student loan program. Compared to federal subsidization of the private loan industry, the federal direct student loan program provides lower interest rates to students and saves taxpayers millions of dollars. Need-based student aid, such as Pell Grants, should also be increased so that all qualified students have access to the American Dream.

LINKS

For Alex Carter’s blog about rising tuition and student debt, click here.

For more about progressive education policy, click here.

To subscribe to future CAF Making Sense 2008 talking points, click here.

SOURCES

College tuition costs: College Board

Student debt at graduation: U.S. Department of Education

The "raid on student aid" and the Democratic response: U.S. House Democratic Caucus

Federal spending on college grant and loan programs: U.S. Department of Education

Explanation of federal student loan programs: New America Foundation

Lower costs with federal direct student loans: National Direct Student Loan Coalition

Tell the Media To Stop Ignoring a Major Cause of All-Time High Gas Prices: the Bush-McCain Energy Policy

Terrance Heath — Wed, 21 May 2008 12:09:33 -0700

THE POLITICS

Americans are angry about gasoline prices. Gas prices have become a "financial hardship," 71 percent of respondents said in a recent poll, and 78 percent believe the price increases will be permanent. Meanwhile, 83 percent think "oil companies as a whole are making too much profit."

At the same time, the media is giving a free pass to the Bush administration and its conservative allies. Yes, there has been a totally predictable increase in demand for oil from China and India. But while news stories blame higher gasoline costs on this increased demand, as well as commodities traders and "global unrest," they completely ignore the conservative energy policies that led America to this point. The run-up to Memorial Day is the perfect time to link pain at the pump to right-wing energy policies.

THE ISSUE

Gas prices are at an all-time high. When George W. Bush took office in January 2001, the average price of regular gasoline was $1.47 per gallon. The average price has more than doubled to $3.80 (as of May 20, 2008). Even adjusted for inflation, gas prices have more than doubled under the Bush administration. As a result, the average household will spend about $2,300 more on gasoline this year than in 2000 (adjusted for inflation).

Oil company profits are the highest in history. Exxon Mobil reported a profit of $41 billion for 2007, the highest profit ever reported by an American corporation. Profits of the five biggest international oil companies have tripled since 2002.

The Bush administration energy plan was written by the secret Cheney Energy Task Force with the help of big oil companies. According to the National Journal, "Executives from such industry giants as Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Shell Oil Co., as well as company and trade group lobbyists, held productive sessions with task force officials." As a result, "the task force recommendations read pretty much like a wish list of subsidies and giveaways to oil, gas, and coal producers who made hefty campaign contributions to the Bush-Cheney Team," the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

Since 2001, the Administration and its allies in Congress blocked efforts to promote U.S. energy independence. The most important of these:

They repeatedly blocked measures to encourage conservation and greater use of renewable energy sources. The Bush Administration slashed Department of Energy programs that had promoted conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy sources. Bush and Senate conservatives killed 2007 legislation that would have required 15 percent of our electricity to come from renewable sources. The Administration and Senate conservatives continue to block the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008.
They obstructed efforts to increase fuel efficiency. Conservatives did nothing to improve fuel efficiency for cars and SUVs while they controlled Congress and the White House. Then in December 2007, the day after Bush signed Democratic legislation which modestly increases fuel efficiency standards, the administration blocked laws enacted in 18 states that would improve auto efficiency rules for a majority of Americans.

Other Bush-McCain energy proposals wouldn't lower gas prices, but would increase oil company profits. Drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would, at most, lower the cost of a barrel of crude oil by 50 cents in 2025, a drop in the bucket compared to the $90 increase in the price of a barrel of oil during Bush's presidency. Suspending the 18-cent federal gasoline tax over the summer would, at most, cover the cost of a half-tank of gas. By a single vote, conservatives killed Senate legislation that would have ended major tax subsidies for Big Oil—a vote that John McCain skipped. No wonder, since McCain's energy plan would give away $3.8 billion dollars to the five largest American oil companies.

THE ARGUMENT

The fact is, all of us are paying a “Bush premium” at the pump—we are the victims of bad policy, misplaced priorities and a misbegotten war.

The top three arguments are:

1. For seven years, Bush's policies have utterly failed to protect our nation's energy security. The primary reason for our current high gas prices is that the Bush administration and its allies made no serious effort to end America's dependence on foreign oil. They blocked efforts to encourage conservation, improve fuel efficiency, and mandate the use of renewable energy sources.

2. The Bush-McCain war in Iraq caused most of the "global unrest" and unleashed the speculators that have driven up world oil prices. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz found that the Iraq war substantially increased crude oil prices, which in turn pushed up prices at the pump. Bush-McCain saber-rattling and threats of war against Iran and others raises additional fears of supply disruptions, prompting speculators to jack up prices.

3. Skyrocketing fuel prices shouldn't surprise anyone because big oil companies wrote the Bush energy policy. The same big oil companies that recently reported windfall profits participated in Vice President Cheney's 2001 task force that wrote the Bush Administration's energy plan. Despite a lawsuit, the proceedings of this task force have remained secret to this day. But it would be hugely naïve to think that the oil companies didn't get exactly what they wanted.

LINKS

For Bill Scher's article about gasoline prices, click here.

For a progressive energy policy, click here.

To subscribe to future CAF Making Sense 2008 talking points, click here.

SOURCES

Polls cited: PollingReport.com

Gas prices: Oil Price Information Service

Oil company profits: The Washington Post

Quotes about Cheney Energy Task Force: National Journal, April 7, 2001; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 22, 2003.

Repeatedly blocked energy conservation and renewable energy: Center for American Progress

Conservatives killed 2007 legislation: The Washington Post

Bush blocking California standards: The New York Times

Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Associated Press

Suspending the federal gasoline tax: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

McCain energy plan: Center for American Progress http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/pdf/oil_tax.pdf

Joseph Stiglitz report: MSNBC

McCain Plan Would Undermine Americans’ Health Insurance

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 21 May 2008 10:08:59 -0700

So Let’s Challenge Conservative Candidates to

Tell Us Which Side They’re On.

THE POLITICS

Health care really matters to people; this issue will provide an important dividing line between candidates. For the most part, Americans want to know one thing about a health care plan: how it will affect them personally. Citizens will be hostile to a plan that pushes them off their current health insurance, and that’s what Sen. John McCain's plan would do. Americans want to lower their health care costs, but the McCain plan would increase those costs for most families.

Now is the time to demand that conservative candidates go on record about health care: Do they endorse the McCain health care plan, yes or no?

THE ISSUE

John McCain spent the week of April 28 to May 2 touting his health care plan. His plan contains few details, but here are the main principles:

1. The McCain plan uses the tax code to push Americans away from the health insurance coverage they get at work and into the individual insurance market. Currently, employer payments for health insurance are not taxable to the employee as income. The McCain plan would end that tax exemption, eliminating the incentive for employer-based coverage. McCain would instead offer a tax credit of $5,000 for families/$2,500 for individuals for health insurance payments, which is nowhere near enough money to compensate for the loss of employer-based coverage. Nine out of 10 Americans with private health insurance—158 million Americans—receive it through an employer. So the McCain plan directly threatens the coverage of more than half of all Americans.

2. The McCain plan fails to require insurance companies to cover patients with preexisting health conditions. Pushing Americans to individual insurance plans means that those with preexisting health conditions—from asthma to cancer—will be unable to obtain affordable coverage. For the 56 million Americans with chronic illnesses who are currently covered by benefits they get at work, the effects would be devastating. McCain concedes this point and now claims he “will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow” to create health insurance products for “high risk” patients. However, this fig leaf fails to cover the ugly truth—although 34 states have some kind of high-risk health insurance pool, there are no successful state models for insuring a large number of individuals who are denied coverage because of preexisting health conditions.

3. The McCain plan wipes away nearly all existing regulation of health insurance, leaving us to deal with private insurance companies on our own. The McCain plan would overrule patient protections in state law by allowing people in one state to purchase insurance from any other state. Just as credit card companies moved their operations to Delaware to avoid state regulations, health insurance companies would move to states with the least regulation. As a result, states would “race to the bottom”—eliminating existing regulations—in order to attract those companies. Right now, mammograms must be covered in every state except Utah—we’d lose that. Mental health must be covered in every state except Alaska, North Carolina and Wyoming—we’d lose that. Mothers who give birth are guaranteed a minimum hospital stay in every state except Wisconsin—we’d lose that. Breast reconstruction must be covered in every state except two. Family health insurance must cover adopted children in all states except seven. Chiropractors must be covered in all states but four. There are nearly 2,000 state laws protecting patients from inadequate health insurance—we’d lose them all.

THE ARGUMENT

There are probably a hundred good arguments against the McCain plan. However, in order to be heard, health care advocates need to stick to—and repeat—our very best arguments. It is clear that the top three arguments are:

1. The McCain plan will cause most Americans to lose their current health insurance coverage. 158 million Americans are covered through benefits they get at work and the whole point of the McCain plan is to cut this link and make us all struggle to find individual health insurance plans. Remember the scramble for Medicare drug insurance? This would be 100 times worse.

2. The McCain plan will leave Americans with preexisting health conditions at the mercy of private insurance companies. The 56 million Americans with chronic illnesses wouldn’t even be able to qualify for individual coverage. McCain’s suggestion that he will “work with governors” to save these Americans from catastrophic loss is half-baked, untried and downright dangerous.

3. The McCain plan will increase health care costs for most Americans. First, a $5,000 tax credit doesn’t begin to cover family health insurance, which averages over $12,000 per year. Second, the plan wipes out the group risk pools that keep insurance down for middle-aged individuals and families. Those of us over age 35 would be socked with insurance cost increases.

SOURCES

McCain plan’s tax credit and plan to “work with governors”: McCain On the Issues.
158 million Americans with employer-based coverage: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
56 million Americans with chronic illnesses: Center for American Progress Action Fund.
34 states with high risk insurance pools: Health Insurance Resource Center.
Nearly 2000 state laws protecting patients: Council for Affordable Health Insurance.
$5,000 credit does not begin to cover $12,000 health insurance: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

How Progressives Can Be Making Sense in 2008

Bernie Horn — Thu, 15 May 2008 07:18:54 -0700

Let me tell you about a new project from Campaign for America’s Future called "Making Sense 2008." Or, if you want, skip this advertisement and go right to the project’s first set of talking points.

I’m sure it’s no surprise to you that most Americans are progressive on most issues. By margins of at least two to one, our fellow citizens believe corporations and upper-income people are paying too little in federal taxes; oppose repealing the federal estate tax; favor quality, affordable health care for all “even if it means raising your taxes”; support the idea that the federal Medicare program should negotiate prescription drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies; want federal action to address global warming; would require auto manufacturers to make cars more energy efficient; say laws covering the sale of handguns should be more strict; think labor unions are necessary to protect workers; believe that gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military; and do not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

That’s the good news. Here’s the bad. Most Americans also support traditional conservative principles—limited government, lower taxes, free markets, and personal responsibility. (Yes, friends, polls persistently show this.) In other words, a large group of Americans favor both progressive policy and conservative philosophy. As a result, they may side with either progressives or conservatives, depending on how a political question is framed.

These are the persuadable voters. They’re the ones who will make the difference in the 2008 election because, unlike the progressive/Democratic or conservative/Republican base, they can be persuaded to join either side. And the only way to persuade them is to address issues that are most important to them in language that appeals to them.

Here’s my point—I doubt that very many of this column’s readers are persuadable voters. You’ve made up your mind already. So you’re different than the people we have to convince. Compared to persuadable voters, you may have a different set of concerns and somewhat different values, and you undoubtedly pay more attention to political news, know more political facts, and make different assumptions when thinking about issues.

In short, if an argument appeals to you—a committed partisan—it probably doesn’t appeal to persuadable voters!

So I’m asking you to do something that is not natural for progressives—take direction from poll-tested message frames. How will you know what to say? Making Sense 2008 will produce and distribute research-based talking points on a variety of issues during the election season.

\The first is about McCain’s health care plan and you can see it here: http://www.ourfuture.org/makingsense2008. If you want to receive these talking points—sent about once a week at first and then more frequently as Election Day approaches—please sign up by clicking here.

There’s no doubt that George W. Bush’s administration has been a catastrophe, and that historians will one day rank him as one of our nation’s very worst presidents. That’s why this election is so critical—the very soul of America hangs in the balance. We’ve got to take back America, and soon, before solutions to national and global problems slip beyond our reach. I know you’re going to work your hearts out. Let us help you become a more effective advocate.

Making Sense 2008

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:08:21 -0700

Making Sense 2008

Bad Recession Requires Bold Responses

Tax Cuts for the Rich Don’t Work

THE POLITICS

THE FACTS

THE ARGUMENT

THE PROGRESSIVE SOLUTION

LINKS

A Time To Demand a Stand With Workers

Trading Away America: Time For a Trade Policy That Works for Main Street, Not Just Wall Street

THE POLITICS

THE FACTS

THE ARGUMENT

PROGRESSIVE SOLUTIONS

LINKS

The Real Cause of the Mortgage Crisis:[br]Conservative Opposition to[br]Sensible Financial Standards

THE POLITICS

THE ISSUE

THE ARGUMENT

THE PROGRESSIVE SOLUTION

LINKS

Let’s Tell the Bush-McCain Crowd To Stop Blocking College Aid Programs

THE POLITICS

THE ISSUE

THE ARGUMENT

THE PROGRESSIVE SOLUTION

LINKS

SOURCES

Tell the Media To Stop Ignoring a Major Cause of All-Time High Gas Prices: the Bush-McCain Energy Policy

THE POLITICS

THE ISSUE

THE ARGUMENT

LINKS

SOURCES

McCain Plan Would Undermine Americans’ Health Insurance

So Let’s Challenge Conservative Candidates to Tell Us Which Side They’re On.

THE POLITICS

THE ISSUE

THE ARGUMENT

LINKS

SOURCES

How Progressives Can Be Making Sense in 2008

Making Sense 2008

If your browser does not redirect you, please click here.

So Let’s Challenge Conservative Candidates to

Tell Us Which Side They’re On.