Kerry On Corporate Subsidies

[DrFunkenstein]

The special interests will stop at nothing to keep their special deals. That’s why I’ve joined John McCain in calling for a “Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission” modeled after the military base-closing commission. A bipartisan group would recommend corporate subsidies to be eliminated and Congress would have to vote up or down on the entire package.

It’s the only way to stop the games that go on in Washington. When I first came to the Senate, each year millions upon millions of dollars were lavished on a wool and mohair subsidy cooked up during WWI to make sure we’d have plenty of wool and mohair for our soldiers’ uniforms. But even after we stopped making our uniforms out of wool and mohair, the subsidy continued. I came to the Senate floor again and again - finally we killed it. Or we thought we did. Last year it came back. This kind of wasteful, no-growth, special interest giveaway is alive and well -- again. But it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

We were presented a defense bill that gave away $250,000 to an Illinois firm to research caffeinated chewing gum; $750,000 for grasshopper research in Alaska; $250,000 for a lettuce geneticist in Salinas, California and $64,000 for urban pest research in Georgia. This is our defense budget?

By eliminating these expenditures would you balance the budget? No. But that’s not the point. The point is that no politician can - with credibility - tell you he’s ‘fiscally responsible’ if he stays silent while these games are played. Is wasteful spending a tiny part of the budget? Yes. But it’s far more than most working people will ever see in their lives and invested in choices that do matter -- that do grow our economy -- it can make a world of difference.

It’s a question of choices. The Fossil Energy Research and Development program spends more than $400 million on R&D for oil companies who can afford their own R&D- and even duplicates research they’re already engaged in. And for 130 years the Federal government has allowed companies to mine on publicly owned lands for free, in addition to letting them buy those lands way below market price -- $5 an acre or less. If we simply required small, fair royalties and eliminated the giveaway of public lands we could save another $519 million over 5 years.

[DrFunkenstein]

1. Kerry On The Back Cover Of "Pigs At The Trough"

Arianna Huffington has always been willing to speak and write with conviction about the world around her. Her sharp wit and thoughtful commentary help put issues on the agenda ignored by conventional thinkers. I'm certain, that with her powerful new book, Arianna Huffington will be stirring the waters for some time to come.

- Senator John Kerry

Free Your Mind And Your

[DrFunkenstein]

2. Kerry On Tax Loopholes

Just think - offshore tax havens and shelters enable corporations and
executives to evade an estimated $70 billion in taxes each year. How can anyone in this country suggest we have a fair system when companies can take $70 billion off the table? That undermines the very essence of our government.

It’s a system only companies like Enron could love. And did they ever. Enron held over 800 subsidiaries in countries with no taxes on income, profits, or capital gains -- 692 in the Cayman Islands alone. I believe in opening new markets and I want American companies to win. But I know we can distinguish between legitimate businesses and sham transactions. Assets in offshore entities have climbed from an estimated $200 billion in 1983, to an estimated $5 trillion today - and too many are brass plate addresses with a fax machine in an offshore tax haven.

What does that say to the vast majority of Americans who actually pay taxes? And the silence from this Administration speaks volumes! They’ve dragged their feet and fought every attempt to crack down on corporate loopholes. It’s time we stood up and insisted on real reform and real tax fairness.

[DrFunkenstein]

3. On The Bush Tax Cuts

How can anyone reasonably suggest to our fellow Americans that the way to get the economy moving today is to cut taxes 8 years from now?

And as for fairness, we’re not calling for redistribution - what we want is for average, middle class Americans who work hard to be able to get ahead just like their parents did. 20 years ago, the average CEO made 42 times what the average worker made. Now it’s 531 times more. It’s out of whack. Yet 40 percent of Bush’s tax giveaway goes to that very top 1 percent. I think that’s an attack on the fundamental fairness that holds this country together.

And perhaps most outrageous if the violation of generational responsibility -- The largest cost of the Bush tax giveaway will not be born by any of us here today - it will be paid for by our children. That’s right - we’re borrowing from Social Security and Medicare to put money in some peoples’ pockets today - and sticking our children with the bill.

We need to repeat the truth again and again. The new Bush tax cuts are unfair, unaffordable and unquestionably ineffective in growing our economy -- because they come at the expense of choices we need to make now so more Americans can enjoy greater wealth and a higher quality of life later.

Because of those cuts this Administration is clinging to, there are riorities going completely ignored - all of which make a difference in the quality of our lives - education, health care, transportation, our environment.

So our task is to get our economy moving again now. To create jobs and raise incomes... to grow out of the deficit... and to meet our needs.

[DrFunkenstein]

4. On Job Creation

I propose a new job creation tax credit to encourage employers to start hiring and raising wages again. This tax credit would give a 1-time break from the payroll tax for every new job and for any raise given to an existing employee. It would benefit every business, from the smallest Mom and Pop shop to the largest employer. Most importantly - it would start creating jobs now.

And to encourage investments in the jobs of the future - I think we should excite the capital markets by eliminating the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it’s held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should encourage the measurement of the real value of companies by ending the double taxation of dividends.

You know politicians are always talking about the importance of small business. How they create 90% of the jobs and are the engine of job creation. I say it’s time we did something to really help them.

During this credit crunch, we should let every rapidly growing small
business defer up to $250,000 of federal taxes if they are reinvested in the business. I can think of no better single idea to stimulate the economy - it would create more than 600,000 jobs within three years at little cost to the Treasury.

Free Your Mind And Your Ass Will Follow

[ProfessorPlum]

5. Excellent positions

do you have a link for this?

I would love to see all of the candidates and top Dems pounding these kinds of points home.

[DrFunkenstein]

6. All From His Economic Speech in Cleveland

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?pagename=spc_2002_1203

It is a long speech, so it is easy to get lost in it. Which is why I tried to break it up a little bit.

I have a hard copy of Pigs at the Trough in front of me. It was only recently that I realized Kerry was on the back. If you are unfamiliar with the book, it is a SCATHING attack on corporate crookery and how it erodes democracy at its very core. Bill Moyers, something of a personal hero of mine, also endorses the book on the back cover.

As someone who has never taken a PAC contribution, I know that Kerry does not take this issue lightly.

There seems to be a connection building between Moyers and Kerry in my mind. Not only their commitment to fighting corporate malfeasance and sham subsidies, but there is a startling passage about spirituality in another post I put up (Kerry As A Person) that seems right out of the conversations between Moyers and Joseph Cambell.

[ProfessorPlum]

7. Funkenstein,

this is an excellent post - full of meaty issues and well thought out policy. I didn't realize Kerry doesn't take PAC money, that is a fantastic stance.

I am very happy that the Democrats have such a good field of candidates coming up to this election, and also glad that Kerry is the perceived front runner - he shows an excellent public face for the Democratic party.

I'll vote for anyone but Bush.

But this is my problem with Kerry, and I know you've heard it a thousand times, but I need to have some real, serious discussion about it with a Kerry supporter and get a real answer.

His vote to authorize Bush to proceed with his plans for Iraq. I don't want to get caught up in the details, yes I know he was supposed to get UN approval before invading another sovereign country, etc. etc.

Kerry knew what kind of people he was dealing with here. Kerry met the workings of the Bush Family machine back when he was uncovering Iran-Contra. I know that there is some Senatorial "getting along to get along" which allows some egregious things to be done and the people in the Senate just let it happen to preserve the dignity of their positions.

Having known the horrors of war, having known Bush rapacity, having known that Bush and Co. were likely to screw up any occupation of a foreign country (especially one with a) a different major religion and b) oil) - having known all that - was it finally just fear of being called "unpatriotic" that drove Kerry to vote for that bill? What else could have been his motivation? And why doesn't he seem to realize what a huge mistake it was? Does he honestly think that his vote has made the world a better place?

I'm not trying to bash - I want to be able to place a lot of hope in Kerry - we certainly may need to in about another year. But what is your take on this very weird lacuna in Kerry's otherwise pretty excellent record? Why would he support W. in anything?

I guess I know the answer - political triangulation or something. But I'm really interested in your take.

[blm]

8. Kerry helped preserve the viability of the UN

by forcing Bush to present evidence to them. That was worth his vote and the vote of Hillary and others. Many fail to understand that Bush had another agenda at play and that was to render the UN "irrelevant" and push for its dissolution. It cost the vote of certain Senators to keep the UN in the process as an international institution. If that hadn't occurred, Bush would have had his war anyway without the onus of his bogus presentation at the UN that he will eventually have to defend.

[DrFunkenstein]

9. I Hope This Helps

I always respect honest inquiries into Kerry's Iraq vote, especially from people who find this a major obstacle in supporting Kerry. I must admit that I would be more comfortable with a simple "Hell no!" But politics is never the simple issue we as activists wish it to be.

I hope that people genuinely engaged with this issue, even Dean fans, will take the time to read through this. I apologize for the length. I wish this issue could be summed up with a catchy slogan, but it simply can't.

These quotes are from his Senate floor speech, 10/9/02.

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?pagename=statement_iraq_2002_1009

Note: Kerry makes a veiled jab here at Gephardt and other Democrat leaders who - if you remember - undercut the party by agreeing very early to Bush's terms, making it extremely difficult to negotiate.

[ProfessorPlum]

20. Thank you,

Doc F for the link. I've tried to create a summary of this speech to boil it down a little. I think Kerry is a good candidate, but the war issue still bothers me. I'll post my summary in another thread.

PP

[DrFunkenstein]

10. Bush And Authorization

The Bush Administration began talking about Iraq by suggesting that congressional consultation and authorization for the use of force were not needed. Now they are consulting with Congress and seeking our authorization. The Administration began this process walking down a path of unilateralism - today they acknowledge that while we reserve the right to act alone, it is better to act with allies.

The Administration which once seemed entirely disengaged from the United Nations ultimately went to the United Nations and began building international consensus to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. The Administration began this process suggesting that the United States might well go to war over Saddam Hussein's failure to return Kuwaiti property - last week the Secretary of State and on Monday night the President made clear we would go to war only to disarm Iraq.

The Administration began discussion of Iraq by almost belittling the importance of arms inspections. Today the Administration has refocused their aim and made clear we are not in an arbitrary conflict with one of the world's many dictators, but a conflict with a dictator whom the international community left in power only because he agreed not to pursue weapons of mass destruction.

That's why arms inspections -- and I believe ultimately Saddam's unwillingness to submit to fail-safe inspections -- is absolutely critical in building international support for our case to the world. That's how you make clear to the world we are contemplating war not for war's sake, but because it may be the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism.

I am pleased that the Bush Administration has recognized the wisdom of shifting its approach on Iraq. That shift has made it possible, in my judgment, for the United States Senate to move forward with greater unity, having asked and begun to answer the questions that best defend our troops and protect our national security.

The United States Senate can now make a determination about this resolution -- -- and in this historic vote, help put our country and the world on a course to begin to answer one fundamental question - not whether to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, but how.

[DrFunkenstein]

11. Clinton And Regime Change As A Reason

Regime change has been American policy under the Clinton administration and the current U.S. administration. It is a policy that I support. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.

[DrFunkenstein]

12. The Limitation of Bush's Power

I want to underscore, this Administration began with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some Democrats supported it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force, not only to enforce all U.N. resolutions related to Iraq but also to produce regime change in Iraq and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.

It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take. I am pleased that our pressure and questions pushed the Administration to adopt some important changes in language.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force against Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region.

It authorizes the President to use U.S. Armed Forces to defend the "national security" of the United States - a power he already has under the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief - and to enforce all "relevant" Security Council relations related to Iraq. None of these resolutions, or for that matter any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, call for regime change.

[DrFunkenstein]

13. Biden-Lugar

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar, because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and delivery vehicles.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted by the resolution, to send a determination to the Congress that the United States has tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great that he must act absent a new U.N. resolution.

I believe that this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority that Congress was giving the President. The Administration, unwisely in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach.

[DrFunkenstein]

14. War And Weapons Enforcement

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test.

Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption.

Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite.

This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and only Iraq, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq "and" enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

[curse10]

15. So many reasons to support Kerry

and yet people STILL insist on saying that all Kerry does is support Bush :eyes:

[blm]

16. I blame the media mostly....

they have people dumbed down and unable to comprehend what is being said. If it's not a soundbite, the redmeat crowd can't handle it.

[DrFunkenstein]

17. As Close To A Soundbite As You'll Ever Get

“Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot—and will not—support a unilateral, U.S. war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.”

In even simpler terms:

1. He would first seek a multilateral, non-military effort to disarm Iraq (presumably, some sort of voluntary inspections).

2. If that fails, he would support a multilateral military effort to disarm Iraq.

3. He would support a unilateral military approach if the threat from Saddam became imminent.


This is seen as Kerry "waffling." It flies in the face of "You're either anti-war or pro-war." I keep seeing people claim that Kerry is somehow "pro-war," I suppose because he quieted his attacks during the weeks between the commencing of the invasion and Bush's flight suit debacle. He said he would do this out of respect for the soldiers in combat.

I personally didn't see him as waffling. I felt that he was remarkably consistent in arguing for the conditions he believed in, an argument that was consistent with his Gulf War vote. The conditions he argued for don't lend themselves to sloganeering, and I think this is his crime amongst many in the activist class.

If Kerry was to reduce it to a slogan, I guess it would be, "We should go to war not because we want to, but because we have to."

[blm]

18. Somerby at Daily Howler destroyed the "waffling" charge

but many here still repeat it.

[DrFunkenstein]

19. Here Is A Good Site For Kerry Confusions

http://www.eriposte.com/media/bias/media_bias_kerry.htm

I have it linked to my home page, because people are always trying to misrepresent Kerry around here.

But I think it is time we went on the offensive and tried to focus on presenting Kerry as the Viable Progressive, the War-Hero Ralph Nader, the Liberal Without Wimp, the National Security Environmentalist, the White House Corporate Watchdog.

We are never going to convince people of Kerry's worth by spending our time wrestling the Deanies. We'll only end up arguing on THEIR terms, instead of getting out information on why Kerry is such a good choice.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

21. Kerry Bashers need to be forced to view this thread

much as Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" was made to view those films.

Thanks Dr.F!

[blm]

22. heheh...

they won't. It doesn't match with their declaration that Kerry is "Bushlite."

[DrFunkenstein]

23. So Tempted To Make A Bad "Eye-Opening" Joke

But I won't...

[Duder]

24. But you agree with Kerry subsidizing Boeing, right?

Kerry backs subsidies to help Boeing compete.

http://www.theunionleader.com/Articles_show.html?article=23199&archive=1