Political News. Online

Jim Crow and Civil Rights in North Carolina

Jim Crow and Civil Rights in North Carolina

Segregation shaped black-white interactions in the post-Civil War North Carolina, where it reigned from the white supremacy revolt of 1898 until the 1960s. Jim Crow period was a crucial phase of race relations in American society. However, racial segregation had far deeper roots in the North Carolina past. Before the Civil War, slaveholders needed few regulations to isolate slaves and free people of color, who were kept apart by custom. After the Civil War, a white backlash against the former slaves began to legalize the customary distance between blacks and whites.

Planters intended to defy the emancipation guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment and exploit ex-slave workers. White employers flogged and even killed freed people who dared to assert their new liberties, even in the face of Union garrisons and Republican authority. While the state constitution of 1868 confirmed abolition and legitimated previous black and mixed-race births, it plainly stated that Black children and white children should study in different public schools (Franklin 73).

Despite the presence of federal and state militias, the Ku Klux Klan terrorized Republican voters and officeholders, black and white. In 1870, when conservative Democrats regained a legislative majority, Klansmen murdered 16 Republicans and whipped at least 121 (Franklin 88). An act of 1874 proclaimed that no white child could be apprenticed to a black adult. The amended state constitution in 1875 prohibited between white people and African-Americans and it reiterated the requirement for dual schools (Evans 55). The legislature soon established industrial and normal colleges for blacks, but it ignored the terror that drove thousands of them to Kansas and Indiana in 1879-80.

Blacks continued to vote and hold office in much of eastern North Carolina, backing “the Party of Lincoln” despite facing dangerous opposition (Anderson 37). For instance, between 1868 and 1889, fourteen black Republicans were elected to seventeen state house and six state senate terms from New Hanover County, home of Wilmington (Evans 54). Between 1874 and 1890, three blacks also won terms in Congress from the Second Congressional District, “a Republican and black stronghold.” (Anderson 34).

Legislators in 1892 proposed to segregate railway travel, as eight other Southern states already had done. Republican and Populist assemblymen opposed the enabling bill.

Oppression increased as black North Carolinians persevered. Their votes enabled Fusion men to gain 74 of the 120 General Assembly seats in 1894 and win the governorship in 1896, while electoral reforms passed by the Fusionist legislature helped blacks to regain numerous local offices (Anderson 93). By 1897, in Wilmington, four aldermen, an audit board member, a justice of the peace, the deputy clerk of court, and the coroner were black (Edmonds 162). Clearly, 1898 marked a turning point in Jim Crow. The election that year brought into relief not only extreme white racism, but also fallout from the legal disfranchisement of blacks in South Carolina (1895) and the Supreme Court’s “separate but equal” decision in Plessy v. Ferguson ( 1896) (Edmonds 165). Klansmen and White Supremacy Clubs frequently demonstrated at black and Fusion rallies, intimidating the crowds by a show of guns. In 1897-99 seven lynchings were reported in North Carolina, and racial intimidation and terrorism reached into even the most remote crossroads and towns during the fall of 1898 (Evans 87). Democrats reclaimed five of the state’s nine congressional seats; Republicans retained three seats, reelecting the nation’s only black congressman, George H. White, from the Second District (Evans 88). In state contests Democrats took ninety-four house and forty senate seats to the Republicans’ twenty-three (four black) and seven (one black) and Populists’ three and three (Evans 95).

During the Wilmington Race Riot of 1898 legally selected Republicans were overthrown by white Democrats. As the result, Democrats established the government which was based upon white supremacy (Wilmington Race Riot 1). It symbolized the creation of a codified and brutal color line, one that would last through the first half of the twentieth century.

In 1899 lawmakers adopted voting restrictions based on the Louisiana model of a literacy test, poll tax, and grandfather clause. Scheduled for a referendum in 1900, the suffrage amendment promised significant reduction of the black electorate, thereby undermining a multiracial or working-class challenge to Democratic and white dominance. Adult illiteracy then was 40 percent for black males, compared to 20 percent for white males (Edmonds 180). Registrars did not expect or permit black men to read and explain a section of the state constitution as specified in the amendment. Nor could most blacks afford to pay poll taxes, for they earned only subsistence incomes. Virtually none had grandfathers who voted prior to January 1867, so, as descendants of freedmen, they lost by fiat the protection given to illiterate white men.

The assault on democratic citizenship quickened. At least two acts proscribed racially mixed fraternal orders and mental hospitals; five empowered the utilities commission to enforce Jim Crow in transport. In 1900 black leaders issued “An Address to the White People of North Carolina” protesting the imminent passage of the constitutional amendment that would disfranchise blacks (Edmonds 195).

Legal separation proceeded apace. The state required the board of education to operate all-black school districts and dictated that school librarians “fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library.” (Jim Crow Laws, Libraries). One statute allowed for relief and pension benefits to “fire companies composed exclusively of colored men.” (Edmonds 199). Furthermore, a “person of negro descent to the third generation, inclusive” was defined as black (Jim Craw Laws, Intermarriage). Any officer who failed to confine black and white prisoners separately should be considered guilty, according to an order on prisons. Three orders similarly charged operators of streetcars and trains.

The legal and informal contours of Jim Crow covered a wide domain. The restrictions betrayed white fears of black-Indian cooperation, black educational progress and competition for jobs, interracial sex, and blacks’ political dissent. To wit, the state reordered the segregation of Indians in jails, homes of the aged, and hospitals. It warranted a curriculum of only “practical agriculture and the mechanical arts and such branches of learning as relate thereto” for black colleges (Murray 332). Toilets had to be “lettered and marked in a distinct manner, so as to furnish separate facilities for white males, white females, colored males and colored females.” (Murray 339). Indeed, by the eve of World War I, almost every visible space had been separated. During the war, the state stopped the “organization of colored troops . . . where white troops are available, and while permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers.” (Murray 342). Even a breach of the color line among convicts meant a fine or jail sentence for their jailers.

A sample of legislative acts from 1917 to 1945 can be useful to suggest the vagaries of Jim Crow. Of sixty-one Jim Crow statutes enacted in that period, three concern black aliens (Anderson 90). Education is the subject of nineteen, including a 1935 stipulation that “books shall not be interchangeable between the white and colored schools, but should continue to be used by the race first using them.” (Murray 331) An act detailing punishment for violations of the toilet restriction applies to all categories of labor. Seventeen measures relate to provisions for the handicapped, and fifteen cover buses and trains (Murray 338). Not until 1947 did the state restrict cemeteries, which had long been separated by tradition.

State permission to segregate the races resonated locally. Cities and towns tended to replicate the Winston-Salem housing pattern. Winston-Salem’s black residents had been segregated overwhelmingly into its southeastern corner by the 1920s. Black population clusters, always cordoned off by a main street, railroad track, or similar fixed barrier, shaped the social geography of every city and town. Hayti in Durham and Gilmer in Greensboro typified the urban ghettos (Woofter 67). In their segregated communities, veiled from white society, blacks forged a world of aspiration (Woofter 79).

Ordinances on accommodations (restaurants, theaters) and common spaces (auditoriums, stadiums) multiplied greatly. Lest there be trespassing, “White Only” and “Colored” signs policed entrances, exits, and seats. Banks, railroads, textile and tobacco factories, and other places of employment regularly exceeded statutory requirements. Tobacco plants in Durham, Reidsville, and Winston-Salem assigned “Negro and white workers to separate parts of buildings, or to different workrooms even when performing the same tasks, or to separate sides of the same room, or even to separate rows in the same room.” (Woofter 100).

Many African Americans struggled against Jim Crow laws and promoted dignity and liberty of Black people. For example, Charlotte Hawkins Brown whose grandparents were slaves made substantial contribution to the development of African American education and established the North Carolina State Federation of Negro Women’s Club (Charlotte Hawkins Brown Museum 1).

The other examples include Murray and Mebane who were emblematic of the black men and women who survived Jim Crow and struggled for protection of African-American civil rights. In 1938 the University of North Carolina denied Pauli Murray admission for graduate study. Two years later at Petersburg, Virginia, she was arrested for sitting in the front seat of an interstate bus.

Blacks such as Murray and Mebane responded to Jim Crow by pursuing an array of community-building activities to soften segregation’s harshest edges and build autonomy and self-respect. Within “autonomous institutions”–including the family, education, religion, cultural expression, labor, business, and politics–blacks built a sense of hope. Consider post-riot Wilmington: by 1930 institutions within the black community included one of five hospitals in the city, two of thirteen homes for the elderly, two of nine cemeteries, twenty-eight of fifty-two churches and four of fourteen public schools (Wilmington Directory 700).

Black colleges and universities which were founded after the Civil War contributed substantially to black North Carolina education. There are eleven Black higher institutions in North Carolina (Historically Black Colleges and Universities 1). Among them are Bennett College, Barberia-Scottia College, North Carolina A&T State University and others. These colleges also cultivated ambition and self-esteem in their students.

In 1960 a group of Black students from North Carolina A&T University was not served during lunch; they protested against such discrimination by their refusal to leave the lunch counter. The Greensboro sit-ins were started by four African-American activists such as Ezell Blair, David Richmond, Joseph McNeil and Franklin McLain (Greensboro sit-ins, Timeline, 1). This non-violent protest has continued to take place in many cities. Thus, within the period of two months the lunch counter sit-ins took place in 54 cities in 9 states (Greensboro sit-ins, Timeline, 2). Later the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was organized to support Sit-Ins (Six Years of the SNCC 2).

Thus, Black activists participated in college boycotts and other forms of nonviolent direct action, helping to catalyze the emergent civil rights movement in North Carolina. Their fight on the home front to abolish Jim Crow bequeathed a significant legacy of hope to the next generation. Due to the courage and high aspirations of those Black Carolinians of the post-Civil War Era, African-Americans in North Carolina can enjoy civil rights and liberties which they have today. Individuals on both sides of the color line started to take each other seriously, with neither preordained stereotypes nor false etiquette.

Produced by ProfEssays ( www.professays.com ) – professional custom essay writing service: custom essays, custom term papers, custom academic papers, custom admission essays, custom research papers, compositions, book reports, case study. No plagiarism, high quality, prompt delivery.

Ascendant Copper Holding Steady on Ecuadorian Nest Egg: Part 1

The situation at Ascendant Copper (TSX:ACX) in Ecuador might serve as a snapshot of the enormous risks and rewards facing management at mining companies—and their investors—worldwide, but particularly in Ecuador and South America, where the volatile political landscape has shifted towards socialist-populist democratic inspired government action in recent years.

On the upside, Ascendant is sitting on Junin, a world-class copper-molybdenum-silver-gold porphyry prospect, as well as two others, the Chaucha and Telimbela prospects. “We are sitting on the second if not the largest copper/molybdenum property in the world,” commented John Haigh, Ascendant’s Investor Relations manager. “Our Junín property consists of 23,475 acres of property containing billions of pounds of metal resource; in fact we are looking at a potential in excess of a billion pounds of molybdenum and in excess of 20 billion pounds of copper.”

On the downside, the Correa government on September 25 announced the formal suspension of Ascendant’s mining and community development activities in the Junin area in an effort to defuse tensions, an announcement Ascendant said was only a repetition of a previously announced order.

These tensions boiled over in December of last year on Ascendant’s agricultural property. Anti-mining activists confronted a third party contracted agricultural firm’s Intag workers and security guards resulting in almost 60 people being held captive by activists, and locked in the local community church for several days until order was restored by Ecuadorian police.

Ascendant in Ecuador

“ACX has magnificent assets in a country that has not had an operating metal mine for about 50 years. There are a few artisanal gold miners causing havoc with the environment with mercury that have the approval of the Government and that is the extent of metal mining in Ecuador,” Haigh told Resourcex.

Ascendant’s two main stakes in Ecuador are the Junin and Chaucha prospects, two NI 43-101 compliant copper-molybdenum properties. The Junin prospect has an inferred, NI 43-101 compliant resource estimate of 982 million tonnes. A drilling program is under way at the Chaucha property on the western flank of the Andes, the results of which are expected to up its combined resource estimate, according to Haigh.

Though preliminary indications of ore grade at the copper porphyry deposit at Chaucha are not as high as those at Junin, they are still high enough—above 0.4% copper excluding molybdenum, gold and silver credits—to warrant further exploration and development, particularly given the fact that the Pacific port of Belo lies just 40 kilometers away, he pointed out.

“The Junin deposit is supported by 10,000 meters of historical drilling and the Chaucha deposit is supported by 13,800 meters of historical drilling with about 10,000 meters of recent drilling by the company. We will have the current drilling sanctified by a NI43-101 report, and it looks like the resource package should increase to about 300 million tons,” Haigh elaborated.

“The Chaucha project would support a 30,000 to 40,000 tonne-per-day operation that would produce about 100 million pounds of copper per year at a cost of .40 per pound. At copper, it could generate cash flow of about 0 million a year for 20 years.”

Given the company’s 70.8 million shares outstanding and excluding deductions for non-operating and non-cash flow expenses, liabilities and other deductions, this would translate into annual earnings per share of .26. Taking into account options and warrants, this would result in a rough annual EPS of .69 on a fully diluted basis.

Ascendant’s management believe that world copper prices will remain high for the rest of this year and into next. “We think that reduced residential copper use in the States will be offset by increased copper use in hybrid gasoline-electric cars, which is double that of conventional cars and that China will continue to use all the copper they can get their hands on. We think that an average price of .18 per pound is achievable in 2008,” Haigh commented.

The Vagaries of a Shifting Political Landscape

Just how damaging the potential threat of socialist inspired, populist government intervention in mining projects is for mining companies and their investors is evident in the activity of Ascendant’s shares over recent months.

The company’s share price has been in steady decline since its November IPO, It has been trading downwards since July, when it was around C.40, only recently making slight gains to the C.20 per share level. Problems with environmental activists and with Ecuadorian politics have been the main causes.

“The problems that we have had and are having at Junin are the result of a massive campaign of ‘no mining in Ecuador’ conducted by a local NGO. This particular NGO has been operating since the mid-1990s and were violent objectors to Mitsubishi when they were drilling there from 1993 to 1997 on the same deposit.”

Despite all the promise Junin and Chaucha hold, and not just for Ascendant, further development at Junin will have to wait until the dust settles and Ecuador’s government establishes its new constitution and set of mining laws and regulations. In the meantime, larger mining companies such as Aurelian and Dynasty are moving forward on mine development in Ecuador; and work on Ascendant’s Chaucha and Telimbela projects continues. Furthermore, Ascendant is still moving forward with their Rio Tinto strategic partnership to develop additional properties.

In the meantime, Ascendant is shifting direction. Management began deploying a new business strategy about four months ago, the main thrust of which is an aggressive program to acquire near-term copper producing assets in North America, Haigh explained.

Ascendant is currently negotiating to acquire three copper assets in the western US. Announcements are expected in two to three months. “This should provide at least one cash flowing operation in 24 months and two in 36 months. The cash will be used to advance and protect the Ecuadorian assets,” Haigh commented.

NEXT WEEK: Visit Market News at www.resourcex.com for part two of Andrew Burger’s feature story on Ascendant Copper.

This article is intended for information purposes only, and is not a recommendation to buy or sell the equities of any company mentioned herein. It is based on sources believed to be reliable, but no warranty as to accuracy is expressed or implied. The opinions expressed in the article are those of the author except where statements are attributed to individuals other than the author, in which case the opinions are those of the individual to whom they are attributed.

Made in o3boR

Image by o3boR
My pinhole camera, based on Populist project by Nick Dvoracek

American Politicians ‘rescue’ the Economy

The US mortgage ‘crisis’ which affects 0-250 Billion worth of mortgages, or about 1 % of the market, needs of course a political rescue. Like good populists, American politicians are creating a crisis where none exists and engaging in Euro-style demagogeury. Politicians can never save anything. They can only destroy.

The economy is healthy and no where near a recession. The endless media drum beat of lies and bad news – end of the world; 2 million people will lose their homes and be eating dog food; poverty is racing ahead; only the rich benefit etc. is about as intelligent as the cult members, including the same media, who support globaloney warming. Sorry the end of the world is not nigh, and neither is a mortgage meltdown.

Some perspective is necessary. From 1997 when the tax rates on capital gains were first lowered, until 2006, home prices have increased on average across the US by almost 80%, or about 2.5 times faster than historical mean growth in real estate [about 4 % per year]. Clearly thanks to cheap credit, easy money, and relaxed lending standards, as well as lowered capital gains on flipping assets, the housing market had a bull run that was too strong for too long. A correction, or re-pricing was necessary.

The current correction is trending towards a 20% price correction. This still leaves the average person with a gain of 60%. And this correction is heavily concentrated in speculative markets – especially Florida and California. A crisis this is not. Speculators and those who bought loans they could not afford are the ones affected.

The political circus is started because 1.5-2.0 million people or votes, are at risk. Not to mention the media posturing and the desire to appear compassionate. This is where governments do their worst work. They intervene in situations in which they have no responsibility, no knowledge and no intelligence to offer. They intervene to posture and buy votes.

In such a market where a bank or a mortage broker has lent money to someone who can’t pay, because say interest rates which are coming down, are maybe too high, the bank has some options. They can seize the property if payments are not made, but this is expensive and if the property is foreclosed it is usually sold at a high discount to market – upwards of 50% of the value is lost. So most likely the lenders would prefer a second option, which is to arbitrate a payment plan, based on the income conditions of the borrower, to have them keep the house – especially if it is an owner-occupied house. In such a market exchange both sides would win, and the bank or lender would still collect most of the loan outstanding.

But politicians don’t view the world in such a way.

The White House, the Democrats, the assorted populist dandies are proposing that the government force lenders to freeze rates for a period of years and decrease immediately mortgage payment amounts. Just think of the stupidity of this concept. Government is mandating a re-pricing of contractual assets for a chosen few. Unbelievable.

First, the political action coercing a freeze on rates, breaks contracts. Adult, mature, law abiding states don’t break contractual obligations. African and Latin American states do.

Second, what is the incentive for people who make their payments on time? Why shouldn’t they now stop paying and declare hardship?

Third, how will the government implement its plan, the paperwork, the processes and the oversight to ensure that everything is fair? Will more workers be hired for this, and how will the politicians make it ‘uniform’ or standardized, a concept that apparently troubles them deeply since they have declared that the private market can’t solve the situation because the contracts are not uniform ?

Fourth, moral hazard. Now US investors will look upon any investment as one that the government will ultimately redeem and domestic and foreign investors will view US contractual law as optional, not obligatory. Well functioning capital markets need contractual law to be upheld, not raped by conniving politicians trying to get their ugly faces on CNN for the latest ‘crisis’ interview.

Fifth as the Wall Street Journal reports, ‘Moreover, the evidence suggests that even when troubled borrowers receive a generous reset on their mortgage payments, as many of 40% of those borrowers still eventually default. The refinancing plan might only delay the day of reckoning and lead to bigger losses in a falling market. An analysis by the financial services consulting firm Graham Fisher calls this “the rolling loan gathers no loss” philosophy, and notes its similarity to the strategy that prolonged the “S&L crisis and the Japanese banking crisis.”‘

So in other words, the political bailout will fail anyways.

Over 95% of US homeowners make their mortgage payments on time. 95%. So what is the government doing to insert itself into a market repricing phase, to ostensibly help out perhaps 1% or less of the total market? Shouldn’t the other 99% start to demand relief as well?

This manufactured mortgage crisis is just another example of media and political mendacity. Create a crisis. Declare that the end of the world is nigh. Position government as the messiah to save our souls. Implement a solution which will fail. Ensure that contracts, market pricing, and responsibility are subservient to political whims and cycles.

This terrible episode only reinforces the fact that the US is not a free-market, capitalist state.

Standing on a Beach

Image by o3boR
Photo taken with my "Kellog’s" pinhole camera, based on Populist project by Nick Dvoracek

Photojournalism Is Dead. Long live Photojournalism!

It’s ironic in a way that the rise of the Internet, a medium so perfect for photojournalism, is in fact putting professional photojournalists out of business in large numbers. How can that be? In short, there’s two factors:

More photographers out there with easy access to market. More media work ending up online for free.

In short, less revenue shared by more people!

It’s both exciting and frightening to watch! On the one hand, there’s more stunning photos being taken, of more subjects, by more talented photographers than ever before. In a few moments it can be put online and made available for the whole world to watch. And by the prevailing norms, it’s all available for free to watch! Whether it’s news coming out of one of the world’s hotspots or a long reportage from the height of the Himalayas or the depth of the Amazon jungle, we expect to see it for free.

On the other hand though, it is frightening to think about. Professional photojournalists risking their lives, or less dramatic, just putting in countless of hours to produce their stunning imagery and incurring expenses doing so. Going on long journeys and expeditions, carrying heavy equipment and doing all their work. And it just ends up for free on the Internet! Sometimes the photojournalist has been paid, but not always. But there’s no way around it. As a photojournalist, presenting your work online, for free, is a must if you want to get it to market. This opens up for image theft which is illegal but widespread. And often times, quality photojournalism is even drowning in all the other, crappy photos being taken by every Tom, Dick and Harry out there, by being put online side by side with the quality photography.

The traditional media outlets for photojournalism, magazines and newspapers, are struggling to stay afloat, most of them finding it extremely difficult to make the necessary profit to keep a staff of photojournalists and indeed to stay alive. These economic difficulties trickle down to the photojournalists, many of whom are now struggling to make a decent living from their work.

The traditional income sources, advertising and subscriptions, are drying up on the Internet. Without a fair revenue, we can’t expect professional photojournalists to continue their work. But the thing is, photojournalism is still needed, still in demand. Quality and trustworthiness equally so. Newspapers and magazines, not really that much needed anymore. The traditional outlets for photojournalism may be dying, but photojournalism is not!

Outline Of Future Scenario

Somehow the photojournalists, and indeed other professions with them, need to find a new way of connecting with their audiences. It will have to involve the use of new technologies that are used by people across the world. Online, mobile, fast, easy, adaptable, interactive and customizable are important key concepts here. At the same time, new revenue sources must be established. Micro-payments are often mentioned, and I think sponsorships (including government’s public service budgets) and affiliate programs will also become important.

When we’re talking about sponsored and ad-driven photojournalism, the danger is that the ideals of photojournalism can start to crumble. Both in the selection and angling of the stories, things like objectivity and focus on significant but underreported themes may be set aside. But these tendencies for the media world to be populistic and marked-driven in their coverage are in fact already here.

It will be interesting to see if media served via new technology will make matters better or worse in this respect!

The thing is, there’ll always be populistic, celebrity-driven material in the media, since that is what many consumers want – whether they like to admit it or not! But one of the huge differences between old media technology (stories printed on dead trees) and new technology (stories online) is that it can be done so that you only pay for what you get. When you buy a newspaper, you pay for the whole thing, including all those articles and entire sections that you don’t care about. If you subscribe to online news and features, you can select what you want and what you don’t want. You can select your niche. What the audience and sponsors will be willing to pay for is what we will get. But without the restrictions of geographical limited distribution, many new niches might emerge with a large enough audience to be worth wile pursuing for photojournalists!

There is still some technological development and change of user habits needed before this scenario can emerge. When a new king ascended the throne, the French used to say “Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi” (the old king is dead, long live the new king). And applying this to photojournalism, perhaps it is soon time to say “Photojournalism is dead. Long live Photojournalism!”

Political Parties of the US

Introduction

The United States is commonly classified as a representative democracy. What is that?

In a literal sense, democracy means government by the people. The word democracy originated in two Greek roots—demos, meaning “the populace” or “the common people”; and kratia, meaning “rule.” Of course, in large, populous nations, government by all the people is impractical at the national level. It would be impossible for the more than 246 million Americans to vote on every important issue that comes before Congress. Consequently, democracies are generally maintained through a mode of participation known as representative democracy, in which certain individuals are selected to speak for the people.

The United States is commonly classified as a representative democracy, since Americans elect members of Congress and state legislatures to handle the task of writing laws.

Unlike monarchies, oligarchies, and dictatorships, the democratic form of government implies an opposition which is tolerated or, indeed, encouraged to exist. In the United States, there are two major political parties—the Democrats and Republicans—as well as various minor parties. Sociologists use the term political party to refer to an organization whose purposes are to promote candidates for elected office, advance an ideology as reflected in positions on political issues, win elections, and exercise power.

So in my report I would like to tell you history of American donkey and elephant. Also I used to think that there are no politic parties in the USA except Democrats and Republicans but that was mistake I changed due to that report.

THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES:

The Democratic Party (DNC) today

After the 2002 elections, Democrats control several key governorships (including PA, MI, IL, VA, NJ, NC and WA) and many state legislatures – but lost control of the US House in 1994, narrowly lost control of the US Senate again in 2002 (but they still hold enough seats to block much legislation), and lost control of the White House in the 2000 elections. While prominent Democrats run the wide gamut from the near democratic-socialist left (Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich and the Congressional Progressive Caucus) and traditional liberals (Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy) to the center-right (Joe Lieberman, the Congressional Blue Dog Coalition and the New Democrat Network) to the GOP-style conservative right (Ralph Hall and Gene Taylor), most fall somewhere into the pragmatic Democratic Leadership Council’s “centrist” moderate-to-liberal style (Evan Bayh, Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle).

Brief History of  the Democratic Party

At the start of the 21st Century, the Democratic Party can look back on a proud history — a history not just of a political organization but of a national vision. It is a vision based on the strength and power of millions of economically empowered, socially diverse and politically active Americans. Over two hundred years ago, democsatic party’s founders decided that wealth and social status were not an entitlement to rule. They believed that wisdom and compassion could be found within every individual and a stable government must be built upon a broad popular base.

The late Ron Brown — former Chairman of the Democratic Party — put it best when he wrote, “The common thread of Democratic history, from Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton, has been an abiding faith in the judgment of hardworking American families, and a commitment to helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor strengthen our nation by earning themselves a piece of the American Dream. We remember that this great land was sculpted by immigrants and slaves, their children and grandchildren.”

Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party in 1792 as a congressional caucus to fight for the Bill of Rights and against the elitist Federalist Party. In 1798, the “party of the common man” was officially named the Democratic-Republican Party and in 1800 elected Jefferson as the first Democratic President of the United States. Jefferson served two distinguished terms and was followed by James Madison in 1808. Madison strengthened America’s armed forces — helping reaffirm American independence by defeating the British in the War of 1812. James Monroe was elected president in 1816 and led the USA through a time commonly known as “The Era of Good Feeling” in which Democratic-Republicans served with little opposition.

The election of John Quincy Adams in 1824 was highly contested and led to a four-way split among Democratic-Republicans. A result of the split was the emergence of Andrew Jackson as a national leader. The war hero, generally considered — along with Jefferson — one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party, organized his supporters to a degree unprecedented in American history. The Jacksonian Democrats created the national convention process, the party platform, and reunified the Democratic Party with Jackson’s victories in 1828 and 1832. The Party held its first National Convention in 1832 and nominated President Jackson for his second term. In 1844, the National Convention simplified the Party’s name to the Democratic Party.

In 1848, the National Convention established the Democratic National Committee, now the longest running political organization in the world. The Convention charged the DNC with the responsibility of promoting “the Democratic cause” between the conventions and preparing for the next convention.

As the 19th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more and more rapidly. The Democratic Party embraced the immigrants who flooded into cities and industrial centers, built a political base by bringing them into the American mainstream, and helped create the most powerful economic engine in history. Democratic Party leader William Jennings Bryan led a movement of agrarian reformers and supported the right of women’s suffrage, the progressive graduated income tax and the direct election of Senators. As America entered the 20th Century, the Democratic Party became dominant in local urban politics.

In 1912, Woodrow Wilson became the first Democratic president of the 20th Century. Wilson led the country through World War I, fought for the League of Nations, established the Federal Reserve Board, and passed the first labor and child welfare laws.

A generation later, Franklin Roosevelt was elected president running on the promise of a New Deal. Roosevelt pulled America out of the Depression by looking beyond the Democratic base and energizing citizens around the belief that their government could actively assist them in times of need. Roosevelt’s New Deal brought water to California’s Central Valley, electrified Appalachia and saved farms across the Midwest. The Civilian Conservation Corps, the WPA and Social Security all brought Americans into the system, freeing people from fear, giving to people a stake in the future, making the nation stronger.

With the election of Harry Truman, Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race and gender. Truman integrated the military and oversaw the reconstruction of Europe by establishing the Marshall Plan and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Truman’s leadership paved the way for civil rights leaders who followed.

In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy challenged an optimistic nation to build on its great history. Kennedy proclaimed a New Frontier and dared Americans to put a man on the moon, created the Peace Corps, and negotiated a treaty banning atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. Lyndon Johnson followed Kennedy’s lead and worked to pass the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. Kennedy and Johnson worked together to end the practice of segregation in many southern states. Following Kennedy’s assassination, Johnson declared a War on Poverty and formed a series of Great Society programs, including the creation of Medicare — ensuring that older Americans would receive quality health care.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected president, helping to restore the nation’s trust in government following the Watergate scandal. Among other things, Carter negotiated the historic Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel.

In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was elected the 42nd President of the United States. President Clinton ran on the promise of a New Covenant for America’s forgotten working families. After twelve years of Republican presidents, America faced record budget deficits, high unemployment, and increasing crime. President Clinton’s policies put people first and resulted in the longest period of economic expansion in peacetime history. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 — passed by both the House and Senate without a single Republican vote — put America on the road to fiscal responsibility and led to the end of perennial budget deficits. Having inherited a 0 billion deficit in 1992, President Clinton’s last budget was over 0 billion in surplus. The Clinton/Gore Administration was responsible for reducing unemployment to its lowest level in decades and reducing crime to its lowest levels in a generation. In 1996, President Clinton became the first Democratic president reelected since Roosevelt in 1996. In 1998, Democrats became the first party controlling the White House to gain seats in Congress during the sixth year of a president’s term since 1822.

In the 2000 elections, Democrats netted 4 additional Senate seats, one additional House seat, and one additional gubernatorial seat. Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote for President by more than 500,000 votes. In 2001, Democrats regained control of the Senate under Majority Leader Tom Daschle, while Democrats swept to victory in races all across the country, including races for Virginia Governor and Lt. Governor, New Jersey Governor, and 39 out of 42 major mayoral races including Los Angeles and Houston.

While we have accomplished a great deal — as a nation and a Party, we must continue to move forward in the 21st Century. We must work to incorporate all Americans into the fabric of our nation. The history of our next hundred years can be seen in the gorgeous mosaic of America, from the wheat fields of Nebraska to the barrios of New York City, from the mountains of Colorado to the rocky coast of Maine. The Democratic Party is America’s last, best hope to bridge the divisions of class, race, region, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation. We will succeed if we continue to govern by the same principles that have made America the greatest nation on earth — the principles of strength, inclusion and opportunity. The Democratic Party is ready to take advantage of the opportunities we have and meet the challenges we face.

The Democratic Donkey

When Andrew Jackson ran for president in 1828, his opponents tried to label him a “jackass” for his populist views and his slogan, “Let the people rule.” Jackson, however, picked up on their name calling and turned it to his own advantage by using the donkey on his campaign posters. During his presidency, the donkey was used to represent Jackson’s stubbornness when he vetoed re-chartering the National Bank.

The first time the donkey was used in a political cartoon to represent the Democratic party, it was again in conjunction with Jackson. Although in 1837 Jackson was retired, he still thought of himself as the Party’s leader and was shown trying to get the donkey to go where he wanted it to go. The cartoon was titled “A Modern Baalim and his Ass.”

Interestingly enough, the person credited with getting the donkey widely accepted as the Democratic party’s symbol probably had no knowledge of the prior associations. Thomas Nast, a famous political cartoonist, came to the United States with his parents in 1840 when he was six. He first used the donkey in an 1870 Harper’s Weekly cartoon to represent the “Copperhead Press” kicking a dead lion, symbolizing Lincoln’s Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who had recently died. Nast intended the donkey to represent an anti-war faction with whom he disagreed, but the symbol caught the public’s fancy and the cartoonist continued using it to indicate some Democratic editors and newspapers.

Later, Nast used the donkey to portray what he called “Caesarism” showing the alleged Democratic uneasiness over a possible third term for Ulysses S. Grant. In conjunction with this issue, Nast helped associate the elephant with the Republican party. Although the elephant had been connected with the Republican party in cartoons that appeared in 1860 and 1872, it was Nast’s cartoon in 1874 published by Harper’s Weekly that made the pachyderm stick as the Republican’s symbol. A cartoon titled “The Third Term Panic,” showed animals representing various issues running away from a donkey wearing a lion’s skin tagged “Caesarism.” The elephant labeled “The Republican Vote,” was about to run into a pit containing inflation, chaos, repudiation, etc.

By 1880 the donkey was well established as a mascot for the Democratic party. A cartoon about the Garfield-Hancock campaign in the New York Daily Graphic showed the Democratic candidate mounted on a donkey, leading a procession of crusaders.

Over the years, the donkey and the elephant have become the accepted symbols of the Democratic and Republican parties. Although the Democrats have never officially adopted the donkey as a party symbol, we have used various donkey designs on publications over the years. The Republicans have actually adopted the elephant as their official symbol and use their design widely.

The Democrats think of the elephant as bungling, stupid, pompous and conservative – but the Republicans think it is dignified, strong and intelligent. On the other hand, the Republicans regard the donkey as stubborn, silly and ridiculous – but the Democrats claim it is humble, homely, smart, courageous and loveable.

Adlai Stevenson provided one of the most clever descriptions of the Republican’s symbol when he said, “The elephant has a thick skin, a head full of ivory, and as everyone who has seen a circus parade knows, proceeds best by grasping the tail of its predecessor.”

The Republican Party (RNC) today

Republicans control a slim majority in the US House, several key Governorships (including NY, TX, OH, GA, MA and FL), recaptured the White House in 2000, and narrowly re-took majority status in the US Senate in 2002. Leading Republicans fall into several different ideological factions: traditional conservatives (President George W. Bush, Denny Hastert, Bill Frist and the Club for Growth), the Religious Right (Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, the National Federation of Republican Assemblies and the Christian Coalition), the old Nixon/Rockefeller “centrist” or “moderate” wing (Colin Powell, George Pataki, the Republican Main Street Partnership, the Republican Leadership Council and the Republican Mainstream Committee), and libertarians (Ron Paul and the Republican Liberty Caucus).

Brief History of  the Republican Party

The Republican Party was born in the early 1850′s by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin, a small town northwest of Milwaukee.

The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The name “Republican” was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party. At the Jackson convention, the new party adopted a platform and nominated candidates for office in Michigan.

In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President under the slogan: “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont.” Even though they were considered a “third party” because the Democrats and Whigs represented the two-party system at the time, Fremont received 33% of the vote. Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House.

The Civil War erupted in 1861 and lasted four grueling years. During the war, against the advice of his cabinet, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves. The Republicans of their day worked to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery, the Fourteenth, which guaranteed equal protection under the laws, and the Fifteenth, which helped secure voting rights for African-Americans.

The Republican Party also played a leading role in securing women the right to vote. In 1896, Republicans were the first major party to favor women’s suffrage. When the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control. The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, Jeannette Rankin from Montana in 1917.

Presidents during most of the late nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century were Republicans. While the Democrats and Franklin Roosevelt tended to dominate American politics in the 1930′s and 40′s, for 28 of the forty years from 1952 through 1992, the White House was in Republican hands – under Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush. Under the last two, Reagan and Bush, the United States became the world’s only superpower, winning the Cold War from the old Soviet Union and releasing millions from Communist oppression.

Behind all the elected officials and the candidates of any political party are thousands of hard-working staff and volunteers who raise money, lick the envelopes, and make the phone calls that every winning campaign must have. The national structure of the party starts with the Republican National Committee. Each state has its own Republican State Committee with a Chairman and staff. The Republican structure goes right down to the neighborhoods, where a Republican precinct captain every Election Day organizes Republican workers to get out the vote.

Most states ask voters when they register to express party preference. Voters don’t have to do so, but registration lists let the parties know exactly which voters they want to be sure vote on Election Day. Just because voters register as a Republican, they don’t need to vote that way – many voters split their tickets, voting for candidates in both parties. But the national party is made up of all registered Republicans in all 50 states. For the most part they are the voters in Republican Presidential primaries and caucuses. They are the heart and soul of the party.

Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home.

The symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. During the mid term elections way back in 1874, Democrats tried to scare voters into thinking President Grant would seek to run for an unprecedented third term. Thomas Nast, a cartoonist for Harper’s Weekly, depicted a Democratic jackass trying to scare a Republican elephant – and both symbols stuck.

For a long time Republicans have been known as the “G.O.P.”  And party faithfuls thought it meant the “Grand Old Party.” But apparently the original meaning (in 1875) was “gallant old party.” And when automobiles were invented it also came to mean, “get out and push.” That’s still a pretty good slogan for Republicans who depend every campaign year on the hard work of hundreds of thousands of volunteers to get out and vote and push people to support the causes of the Republican Party.

Origin Of The Republican Elephant

This symbol of the Republican party was born in the imagination of cartoonist Thomas Nast and first appeared in Harper’s Weekly on November 7, 1874.

An 1860 issue of Railsplitter and an 1872 cartoon in Harper’s Weekly connected elephants with Republicans, but it was Nast who provided the party with its symbol.

Oddly, two unconnected events led to the birth of the Republican Elephant. James Gordon Bennett’s New York Herald raised the cry of “Caesarism” in connection with the possibility of a thirdterm try for President Ulysses S. Grant. The issue was taken up by the Democratic politicians in 1874, halfway through Grant’s second term and just before the midterm elections, and helped disaffect Republican voters.

While the illustrated journals were depicting Grant wearing a crown, the Herald involved itself in another circulation-builder in an entirely different, nonpolitical area. This was the Central Park Menagerie Scare of 1874, a delightful hoax perpetrated by the Herald. They ran a story, totally untrue, that the animals in the zoo had broken loose and were roaming the wilds of New York’s Central Park in search of prey.

Cartoonist Thomas Nast took the two examples of the Herald enterprise and put them together in a cartoon for Harper’s Weekly. He showed an ass (symbolizing the Herald) wearing a lion’s skin (the scary prospect of Caesarism) frightening away the animals in the forest (Central Park). The caption quoted a familiar fable:

“An ass having put on a lion’s skin roamed about in the forest and amused himself by frightening all the foolish animals he met within his wanderings.”

One of the foolish animals in the cartoon was an elephant, representing the Republican vote – not the party, the Republican vote – which was being frightened away from its normal ties by the phony scare of Caesarism. In a subsequent cartoon on November 21, 1874, after the election in which the Republicans did badly, Nast followed up the idea by showing the elephant in a trap, illustrating the way the Republican vote had been decoyed from its normal allegiance. Other cartoonists picked up the symbol, and the elephant soon ceased to be the vote and became the party itself: the jackass, now referred to as the donkey, made a natural transition from representing the Herald to representing the Democratic party that had frightened the elephant.

THE THIRD PARTIES:
(in alphabetical order)

America First Party

The America First Party was founded in Spring 2002 by a large group of Buchanan Brigade defectors who splintered away from the declining Reform Party to form this new, uncompromisingly social conservative and fair trade party (with a strong foundation in the Religious Right movement). The views of the party largely echo those espoused by commentator Pat Buchanan during his three Presidential bids. The AFP is dedicated to “protect our people and our sovereignty … promote economic growth and independence … encourage the traditional values of faith, family, and responsibility … ensure equality before the law in protecting those rights granted by the Creator … [and] to clean up our corrupted political system.” Within a month of the AFP’s founding, ten former Reform Party state chapters formally broke away from the RP and affiliated with the AFP. By the August 2002 National Convention, the AFP had affiliates in around 20 states – and they hoped to be organized in nearly all 50 states by the end of 2003. Now, those hopes seem dashed. The AFP’s national chair, vice chair and treasurer have all resigned in mid-2003 after a hardcore group affiliated with ultra-right militia movement leader Bo Gritz purportedly grabbed control of key party elements. Others in the AFP denied this, saying the Gritz complaints were just a pretext to mask serious financial problems and personality divisions within the party that really caused the collapse. So – for whatever reasons – many AFP state parties apparently left the national party for the same reason. The AFP National Convention – set for July 2003 – was cancelled. The party even abandoned the possibility of fielding a Presidential candidate in 2004. A Buchananite AFP faction reported that they will attempt to reorganize at mid-2003 meeting – placing a greater emphasis on building state party strength.

American Party

The AP is a very small, very conservative, Christian splinter party formed after a break from the American Independent Party in 1972. US Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Governor Mel Thomson (R-NH) both flirted with the American Party’s presidential nomination in 1976, but both ultimately declined. The party won its strongest finish in the 1976 presidential election – nominee Tom Anderson carried 161,000 votes (6th place) – but has now largely faded into almost total obscurity. The party’s 1996 Presidential candidate – anti-gay rights activist and attorney Diane Templin – carried just 1,900 votes. Former GOP State Senator Don Rogers of California – the 2000 nominee for President – did even worse as he failed to qualify for ballot status in any states. The party – which used to field a sizable amount of state and local candidates in the 1970s – rarely fields more than a handful of nominees nationwide in recent years, although they do claim local affiliates in 15 states. Beyond the pro-life, pro-gun and anti-tax views that you’d expect to find, the American Party also advocates an end to farm price supports/subsidies, privatization of the US Postal Service, opposes federal involvement in education, supports abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency, supports repeal of NAFTA, opposes minimum wage laws, opposes land use zoning regulations and opposes convening a Constitutional convention. Of course, the AP also opposes the United Nations, the New World Order, communism, socialism and the Trilateral Commission.

American Heritage Party

The AHP, formerly the Washington State affiliate of the USTP/Constitution Party, broke away from that group in 2000 because of religious grounds (i.e., while the CP is clearly a Religious Right party, it is not explicitly a Christian party). Thus, the AHP describes itself as “a political party that adopts the Bible as its political textbook and is unashamed to be explicitly Christian … [and] whose principles are drawn from Scripture.” The AHP planned to become a national conservative party, with the ultimate goal of fielding candidates around the nation in coming years. The party previously fielded some candidate for Congress, Governor and local offices in Washington in 1998 – but ran just one local candidate in 2000 and another one in 2002.

American Independent Party

Governor George C. Wallace (D-AL) founded the AIP and ran as the its first Presidential nominee in 1968. Running on a right-wing, anti-Washington, anti-racial integration, anti-communist platform, Wallace carried nearly 10 million votes (14%) and won 5 Southern states. Although Wallace returned to the Democratic Party by 1970, the AIP continued to live on – although moving even further to the right. The 1972 AIP nominee, John Birch Society leader and Congressman John G. Schmitz (R-CA), carried nearly 1.1 million votes (1.4%). The 1976 AIP Presidential nominee was former Governor Lester Maddox (D-GA), a vocal segregationist – but he fell far below Schmitz’s vote total. The AIP last fielded its own national Presidential candidate in 1980, when they nominated white supremacist ex-Congressman John Rarick (D-LA) – who carried only 41,000 votes nationwide. The AIP still fields local candidates in a few states – mainly California – but is now merely a state affiliate party of the national Constitution Party. For the past three presidential elections, the AIP simply co-nominated the Constitution Party’s Presidential nominee.

American Nazi Party

Exactly what the name implies … these are a bunch of uniformed, swastika-wearing Nazis! This party is a combination of fascists, Aryan Nations-type folks, “White Power” racist skinheads and others on the ultra-radical political fringe. As a political party, the American Nazi Party has not fielded a Presidential candidate since Lincoln Rockwell ran as a write-in candidate in 1964 (he was murdered in 1967 by a disgruntled ANP member) – nor any other candidate for other offices since the mid-1970s (although a loosely affiliated candidate ran for Congress in Illinois in a Democratic primary in 2000). The ANP believes in establishing an Aryan Republic where only “White persons of unmixed, non-Semitic, European descent” can hold citizenship. They support the immediate removal of “Jews and non-whites out of all positions of government and civil service – and eventually out of the country altogether.” This miniscule party – while purportedly denouncing violence and illegal acts – blends left-wing economic socialism, right-wing social fascism and strong totalitarian sentiments.

American Reform Party

The ARP, formerly known as the National Reform Party Committee, was founded in September 1997. The ARP is a splinter group that broke away from Ross Perot and Russ Verney’s Reform Party, claiming the Perot organization was unfocused and anti-democratic when the memberships’ views clashed with Perot’s views. The ARP fielded some candidates for state and federal offices in “Reform Party” primaries against candidates backed by Perot’s Reform Party in 1998. The ouster of Perot’s allies from control of the Reform Party at the July 1999 national convention looked like a move towards ending the split. However, the resoration of control to the Perot forces in early 2000 and subsequent takeover of state party affiliates by the Buchanan forces killed any move by the ARP folks to rejoin the Reform Party. Instead, the ARP ultimately shifted towards the left and opted to “endorse” (but not co-nominate) Green Party Presidential nominee Ralph Nader in the 2000 elections. Since then, the ARP has become virtually invisible on the political scene – fielding only four state/local candidates nationwide in 2002 (plus co-endorsing several other third party candidates). The ARP vows to rebuild in the coming election cycle.

Christian Falangist Party of America

The CFPA appears to be the more active of the two Falangist political parties in the US (the American Falangist Party (AFP), below, being the other one). As for the ideology, they share the general historical and ideological roots expressed by the AFP – although the CFPA seems more closely affiliated with the Lebanese branch of the Falangist movement. The CFPA, founded in 1985, “is dedicated to fighting the ‘Forces of Darkness’ which seeks to destroy Western Christian Civilization.” The CFPA site explicitly defines “Forces of Darkness” as being “Radical Islam, Communism/Socialism, the New World Order, the New Age movement, Third Position/Neo-Nazis, Free Masons, Abortionists, Euthanasianists, Radical Homosexuals and Pornographers.” Numerous attacks against Islam can be found throughout the CFPA site. Yet, despite this lengthy list of foes that it wishes to destroy – umm, “defend” themselves against (the wording they use) – the CFPA helpfully notes it is “not a hate organization and does not condone acts of violence or hatred towards those of differing or opposing viewpoints and lifestyles, nor does it condone racism in any form.” In 1998, the CFPA and AFP united as one entity – but differences caused them to break apart after two years. The CFPA desires to be a direct action political movement – and criticizes the AFP as comprised mainly of “armchair patriots.” The CFPA promises to “bring excitement to the otherwise boring American political arena.” The CFPA is fielding it’s first candidate in 2004: CFPA National Chairman Kurt Weber-Heller is running as a write-in candidate for President.

Communist Party USA

The CPUSA, once the slavish propaganda tool and spy network for the Soviet Central Committee, has experiences a forced transformation in recent years. Highly classified Soviet Politburo records, made public after the fall of Soviet communism, revealed that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union illegally funneled millions of dollars to the CPUSA to finance its activities from the 1920s to the 1980s. The flow of Soviet dollars to the CPUSA came to an abrupt halt when the communists were ousted from power there in 1991, ultimately causing a retooling of CPUSA activities. Founded in 1924, the CPUSA reached its peak vote total in 1932 with nominee William Z. Foster (102,000 votes – 4th place). The last national CPUSA ticket – featuring the team of Gus Hall and Angela Davis – was fielded back in 1984 (36,000 votes – 8th place). While the party has not directly fielded any of its own candidates for over a decade, the CPUSA has backed some candidates in various local elections (often in industrial communities) and engaged in grassroots political and labor union organizing. In the 1998 elections, longtime CPUSA leader Hall actually urged party members to vote for all of the Democratic candidates for Congress – arguing that voting for any progressive third party candidates would undermine the efforts to oust the “reactionary” Republicans from control of Congress. As for issues, the CPUSA calls for free universal health care, elimination of the federal income tax on people earning under ,000 a year, free college education, drastic cuts in military spending, “massive” public works programs, the outlawing of “scabs and union busting,” abolition of corporate monopolies, public ownership of energy and basic industries, huge tax hikes for corporations and the wealthy, and various other programs designed to “beat the power of the capitalist class … [and promote] anti-imperialist freedom struggles around the world.” The CPUSA’s underlying communist ideology hasn’t changed much over the years, but the party’s tactics have undergone a major shift (somewhat reminiscent of those used by the CPUSA in the late 1930s). After the death of hardline communist leader Hall in 2000, Gorbachev-style “reform communist” activist Sam Webb assumed leadership of the CPUSA. The CPUSA also maintains online sites for the People’s Weekly World party newspaper, Political Affairs monthly party magazine, and the CPUSA’s Young Communists League youth organization.

Constitution Party

Former Nixon Administration official and Conservative Coalition chairman Howard Phillips founded the US Taxpayers Party in 1992 as a potential vehicle for Pat Buchanan to use as a third party vehicle – had he agreed to bolt from the GOP in 1992 or 1996. The USTP pulled together several of the splintered right-wing third parties – including the once mighty American Independent Party – into a larger, more visible political entity (although some state affiliate parties operate under names other than the USTP). Renamed as the Constitution Party in 1999, the party is strongly pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-tax, anti-immigration, protectionist, “anti-New World Order,” anti-United Nations, anti-gay rights, anti-welfare, pro-school prayer … basically a hardcore Religious Right platform. When Buchanan stayed in the GOP, Phillips ran as the USTP nominee in both 1992 (ballot status in 21 states – 43,000 votes – 0.04%) and 1996 (ballot spots in 39 states – 185,000 votes – 6th place – 0.2%) – and as the Constitution nominee in 2000 (ballot status in 41 states – 98,000 votes – 6th place – 0.1%). The party started fielding local candidates in 1994. Still, for a new third party attempting to grow, the party fielded disappointingly few local candidates since 1998. The web site features the Constitution Party platform, articles, archives, links and more. The party received a brief boost in the media when conservative US Senator Bob Smith – an announced GOP Presidential hopeful – bolted from the Republican Party to seek the Constitution Party nomination in 2000 (although Smith exited from the Constitution Party race just two weeks later). At the 1999 national convention, the party narrowly adopted a controversial change to its platform’s preamble which declared “that the foundation of our political position and moving principle of our political activity is our full submission and unshakable faith in our Savior and Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ” – although the party officially invites “all citizens of all faiths” to become active in the party. Any national candidate seeking the party’s nomination is explicitly required to tell the convention of any areas of disagreement with the party’s platform. In Spring 2002, Pat Buchanan’s 2000 VP runningmate Ezola Foster and many Reform Party leaders from California and Maryland defected to the Constitution Party, providing a nice boost to the party. In a blow to the party, many of the Buchanan’s followers from the 2000 race launched the nearly identical America First Party in 2002 (although it seemed to implode less than a year later). The Young Constitutionalists are the youth wing of the party.

Constitutional Action Party

The CAP is a tiny Religious Right party that wants to abolish the federal income tax, ban all abortions, end Affirmative Action, impose protectionist trade tariffs, fight pornography and end federal involvement in education. CAP founder Frank Creel wrote Politics1 in January 1999 that the CAP “has had virtually no success since its 1995 founding. It has no local chapters anywhere, no candidates for office and no prospect of running a presidential candidate in 2000. There is little to no prospect that we will be able to hold a convention anytime soon. … Only some sort of economic or other catastrophe will produce conditions favorable to the emergence of a new party.” Still, the CAP keeps it small web site online, and recently updated the design. The CAP fielded its first candidate in 2002, when CAP Chair Frank Creel ran for Congress in Virginia.

Family Values Party

This ultra-conservative, theocratic party seems to exist mainly to promote the frequent federal candidacies of party founder Tom Wells. Wells explained that God spoke directly to him in his bedroom on December 25, 1994 at 2:00 a.m. and “commanded him to start” the FVP. To be exact, Wells said God specifically told him to encourage people to stop paying taxes until the public funding of abortion ends. The FVP political platform is largely derived from religious fundamentalism, including many specific citations to Bible passages. This “party” remains largely an alter-ego of Wells – who always seems to be running as a write-in candidate for President or Congress (or both).

Freedom Socialist Party / Radical Women

The FSP – formed in 1966 by a splinter group of dissident Trotskyites who broke away from the Socialist Workers Party – describe themselves as “revolutionary feminist internationalists … in the living tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky.” That’s they reason they also refer to their entity as “Radical Women.” They use the typical heavy-handed rhetoric found on most ultra-left party sites (example: “the masses will sweep every obstacle out of their path and ascend to the socialist future”). The FSP has party organizations in the US, Canada and Australia. In 1998, the FSP fielded a handful of local candidates in Washington, California and New York. The FSP has never fielded a Presidential candidate.

Grassroots Party

Originally launched as a Minnesota-based liberal party, the tiny GRP advocates the legalization of marijuana, promotes hemp farming and the establishment of a national system of universal health care (among other things). In general ideology, the GRP is very similar to the Greens – but with a much stronger emphasis on marijuana/hemp legalization issues. The GRP fielded their first Presidential nominee – Dennis Peron – in 1996 (5,400 votes). In 1996, the GRP won permanent “major party” ballot status in Vermont. The Vermont affiliate was initially more libertarian and “states rights” oriented in philosophy than its leftist sister party in Minnesota (linked above) – and 2000 Presidential nominee Denny Lane, came from this group (on the ballot in only one state and captured just 1,044 votes – 12th place – 0.001%). Since 1996, most Minnesota GRP activists jumped to either the Green Party or the Democratic Grassroots Caucus. In 2002, many of the libertarian-leaning Vermont GRP leaders bolted to the Libertarian Party – a move that has restored the Vermont faction to largely being a leftist, marijuana/hemp legalization party. The remnants of the Minnesota GRP disbanded and merged into the Liberal Party of Minnesota in 2002.

Green Party of the United States (Green Party)

The Green Party – the informal US-affiliate of the left-wing, environmentalist European Greens movement – scored a major achievement when it convinced prominent consumer advocate Ralph Nader to run as their first Presidential nominee in 1996. Spending just over ,000, Nader was on the ballot in 22 states and carried over 700,000 votes (4th place – 0.8%). In 2000, Nader raised millions of dollars, mobilized leftist activists and grabbed national headlines with his anti-corporate campaign message. Nader ignored pleas from liberal Democrats that he abandon the race because he was siphoning essential votes away from Al Gore’s campaign – answering that Gore was not substantially different than Bush and that his own campaign was about building a permanent third party. In the end, Nader was on the ballot in 44 states and finished third with 2,878,000 votes (2.7%) – seemingly depriving Gore of wins in some key states. More significantly, Nader missed the important 5% mark for the national vote, meaning that the party will still be ineligible for federal matching funds in 2004 (Note: a third Nader run is still possible as he said “I haven’t ruled out going in 2004″ in February 2002). Until 2001, the Greens are largely a collection of fairly autonomous state/local based political entities with only a weak (and sometimes splintered) national leadership structure that largely served to coordinate electoral activities. This faction – formerly named the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) – is the larger and more moderate of the two unrelated Green parties. The ASGP voted in 2001 to convert from an umbrella coordinating organization into a formal and unified national party organization. Other useful Green Party links and information can also be found at the Green Parties of North America (unofficial), Green Information (unofficial), Green Pages (official online magazine), Green Party News Circulator (official – recent news clippings about the party) and Green Party Election Results sites (unofficial). The official youth wing of the party is the Campus Greens. Strong local Green Parties exist – with ballot status – in a handful of states. The Green Party Platform 2000 sets forth the party’s official views. The Green Alliance is an officially sanctioned, national network of Green Party political clubs.

The Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA)

The G/GPUSA is the older, smaller and more stridently leftist of the two Green parties. While the GPUSA also nominated Nader for President in 2000, Nader rejected the G/GPUSA nomination and embraced the other Green party. Prominent Nader campaign strategist Jim Hightower described the two Green factions as follows in 2001: “There are two Green party organizations – the [Green Party of the US] whose nomination Ralph accepted and the much smaller one [G/GPUSA] … on the fringes … [with] all sorts of damned-near-communistic ideas.” Some in the G/GPUSA protested that Hightower’s comments were a bit unfair – but read the G/GPUSA 2000 Platform and decide for yourself. While the Green Party and the rival G/GPUSA appear to be very similar – they advocate tactical (and some ideological) differences and somewhat compete with claims to the titular leadership of the national Green movement. The G/GPUSA largely emphasizes direct action tactics over traditional electoral politics. A majorty of the G/GPUSA delegates voted that the party’s 2001 convention to merge into the Green Party of the US – but the motion ultimately failed for lack of the required 2/3 majority. That outcome prompted many of the G/GPUSA activists to independently jump to the Green Party of the US – forming a new leftist caucus within the Green Party of the US – and leaving the G/GPUSA as a sizably diminished and more dogmatically Marxist party.

Independence Party

After two years of openly feuding with Ross Perot’s allies in the Reform Party, Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura and his supporters bolted from the party to launch the new Independence Party in February 2000. In departing, Ventura denounced the Reform Party as “hopelessly dysfunctional” and far too right-wing (in its embrace of Pat Buchanan’s candidacy). While this splinter party shared the Reform Party’s call for campaign finance and other political reforms, Ventura’s organization disagrees with the more social conservative and trade protectionist views espoused by many new leaders in the Reform Party. The IP – which is entirely under the control of Ventura and his allies – describes itself as “Socially Inclusive and Fiscally Responsible.” Like Ventura, the IP is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-medical marijuana, pro-gun rights and fiscally moderate. The IP fielded a slate of Congressional and state candidates in Minnesota in 2000. Ventura said he hoped to take this Minnesota party national and possibly field a Presidential nominee in 2004. However, as of 2002, the IP had nascent affiliate parties organizing in just a handful of states. Ventura’s retirement decision in 2002 was also a blow to the IP. Retired Congressman Tim Penny – a former Democrat – was the IP nominee for Minnesota Governor in 2002, but he finished a distant third. Also in 2002, IP co-founder Dean Barkley became the first IP member to serve in Congress when Ventura appointed him to the US Senate to complete the two months of a term left open by the death of the incumbent. The Independence Party Campus Network is the student wing of the party.

Independent American Party

The small Independent American Party has existed for years in several Western states – a remnant from the late Alabama Governor George Wallace’s once-powerful American Independent Party of the 1968-72 era. Converting the unaffiliated IAP state party organizations – united by a common Religious Right ideology (similar to the Constitution Party) – into a national IAP organization was an effort started in 1998 by members of Utah IAP. The Idaho IAP and Nevada IAP subsequently affiliated with the fledgling US-IAP in late 1998 … and the party established small chapters in 15 other states since then. The various IAP state parties endorsed Constitution Party nominee Howard Phillips for President in 1996 and 2000. In December 2000, the IAP’s national chairman issued a statement noting that third parties in general registered a “dismal” performance in the Presidential election – and questioned the IAP’s future participation in Presidential campaigns. Instead, he suggested that the IAP limit itself to congressional, state and local races in the future. In 2001, the IAP voted to formally associate with the Independent National Committee (INC), an umbrella organization for like-minded third parties. Based upon that affiliation, the IAP in 2002 “adopted” over 50 candidates from various other conservative parties.

Labor Party

The Labor Party is a liberal entity created in 1996 by a sizable group of labor unions including the United Mine Workers, the Longshoremen, American Federation of Government Employees, California Nurses Association and many labor union locals. The party says it was formed because “on issues most important to working people -– trade, health care, and the rights to organize, bargain and strike -– both the Democrats and Republicans have failed working people.” Ideologically, they seem close to the style of the late, labor-friendly Vice President Hubert Humphrey and US Senator Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party circa 1960s. A new party, they endorsed their first state and federal candidates in 1998 in Wyoming (“Green/Labor Alliance”) – and two more candidates in local races in California and Ohio in 2001 – but none since then. This group seems closely aligned ideologically with the New Party. The Labor Party has adopted a policy of “running candidates for positions where they can help enact and enforce laws and policies to benefit the working class and where we can best advance the goals and priorities of the Labor Party.” The party also gets involved in local and state ballot initiatives. The Labor Party held a national convention in 2002 and seems to be making some efforts to revive itself as a forum for the debate of issues.

Libertarian Party

The LP, founded in 1971, bills itself as “America’s largest third party.” Libertarians are neither left nor right … they believe in total individual liberty (pro-drug legalization, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-home schooling, anti-gun control, etc.) and total economic freedom (anti-welfare, anti-government regulation of business, anti-minimum wage, anti-income tax, pro-free trade, etc.). The LP espouses a classical laissez faire ideology which, they argue, means “more freedom, less government and lower taxes.” Over 400 LP members currently hold various – though fairly low level – government offices (including lots of minor appointed officials like “School District Facilities Task Force Member” and “Town Recycling Committee Member”). Typically, the LP fields more local candidates than any other US third party – although the LP has clearly been eclipsed by the Greens in size since 1996 in terms of having the largest third party following and garnering the most media attention. Former 1988 LP Presidential nominee Ron Paul is now a Republican Congressman from Texas – although Paul is still active with the LP. The LP’s biggest problem: Ron Paul, former NM Governor Gary Johnson, PJ O’Rourke, the Republican Liberty Caucus and others in the GOP are working to attract ideological libertarians into the political arena – arguing they can bring about libertarian change more easily under the Republican label. LP Presidential nominee Ed Clark carried over 921,000 votes (1.1%) in 1980. Subsequent nominees for the next dozen years, though not as strong as Clark, typically ran ahead of most other third party candidates. LP Presidential nominee Harry Browne carried over 485,000 votes (5th place – 0.5%) in 1996 and 386,000 votes in 2000 (5th place – 0.4%). The LP has affiliates in all 50 states. The LP web site features a link to the World’s Smallest Political Quiz … take the quiz and see if you’re a libertarian (a bit simplistic – but interesting just the same). Keep up on the latest from the LP by reading the Libertarian Party News online. The College Libertarians also maintain a web directory. A “reform” faction (anti-Browne) within the party attempted to wrest control in 1999-2000 away from the incumbent leadership (pro-Browne), alleging that the controlling faction among the incumbents have serious ethical conflicts of interest as to which favored consultants receive the bulk of the LP’s money (note: the incumbents denied the allegations and held control of the LP’s top posts … but this internal dissention is likely to continue for a long while). Other related sites are: American Liberty Foundation (Browne’s group) and GrowTheLP.org (LP outreach).

Light Party

The Light Party is is a generally liberal party – falling somewhere between the Greens and New Age feel of the Natural Law Party – and seems strongly centered around of party founder “Da Vid, M.D., Wholistic Physician, Human Ecologist & Artist” (he was also a write-in candidate for President in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004 – and seems to be the only visible leader of the party). This San Francisco-based party’s platform promotes holistic medicine, national health insurance, organic foods, solar energy, nuclear disarmament and a flat tax. Da Vid claims the party has “millions” of supporters – but he counts everyone who supports any position advocated by the party. The party does not seriously seek to elect candidates but advance an agenda. Not that it has anything to do with politics, but the party does sell a nice CD of relaxing New Age music.

Natural Law Party

Along with the Libertarian Party, the NLP was been steadily gaining votes over the past few years (although they lost some ground in the 2000 elections). The NLP – under the slogan “Bringing the light of science into politics” and using colorful imagery – advocates holistic approaches, Transcendental Meditation (TM), “yogic flying,” and other peaceful “New Age” and “scientific” remedies for much of our national and international problems. Nuclear physicist John Hagelin was the NLP Presidential nominee in 1992 (ballot status in 32 stares – 39,000 votes – 0.04%), 1996 (ballot status in 44 states – 7th place – 110,000 votes – 0.1%) and 2000 (ballot status in 39 stares – 7th place – 83,000 votes – 0.08%). Hagelin and the NLP also made a failed bid to capture control of the Reform Party in the course of the 2000 campaign – working with the Perot forces to thwart Pat Buchanan’s efforts – although the NLP did attract some supporters from the breakaway factions within the disintegrating Reform Party. The NLP also made a brief grab for control of the Green Party, but that effort quickly fizzled. In the end, the Reform/Green moves in 2000 helped Hagelin capture quite a lot of headlines but produced less results for the party than the 1996 campaign. In 2002, the NLP tried a new strategy of stealthy infiltration by running NLP activists as candidates under various party labels including NLP, Democratic, Republican, Green and Libertarian. In 2004, the NLP is actively supporting the Presidential candidacy of Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich shares their “New Age” views and has close ties to Hageling and the NLP national leaders in Iowa. Although started in the US, there are now NLP affiliates around the globe. In addition to the national ticket, the NLP regularly fields fields a good amount of Congressional and local candidates throughout the nation. The NLP was founded by followers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (the founder of the TM movement – a movement that some have labeled as a cult) – and many of these TM/Maharishi folks still play a major role in the leadership, although the NLP now claims that many others outside the TM movement are also active in today’s NLP leadership. The NLP youth affiliate is the Student Natural Law Party Club. The Institute of Science, Technology & Public Policy think tank is also closely associated with the NLP.

New Party

This leftist party advocates a “democratic revolution” to advance the cause of “social, economic, & political progress” in America. Their agenda is much in the style of the Western European socialist and labor movement – and somewhat similar to that of the late-1990s formed Labor Party (but the NP has more of a controlled growth outlook on environmental issues). Rather than fielding their own national slate or local candidates, the New Party has taken to largely endorsing like-minded candidates from other parties (mainly pro-labor Democrats like Chicago Congressman Danny K. Davis) and focusing on grassroots organizing. An amusing question: if the New Party lasts for 50 years, will they rename themselves the Old Party (or the “Fifty-Something” Party)? The New Party, to date, has endorsed candidates in about 400 local races around the country, and has active affiliate chapters in some communities. The NP site details the party’s long-term strategy.

New Union Party

Founded in 1980 by defectors from the Socialist Labor Party, this DeLeonist militant democratic socialist party “advocates political and social revolution” but denounces violence and is “committed to lawful activities to overthrow the capitalist economic system.” The NUP fielded its first candidates in 1980 – but has fielded few candidates since then. The site features party history, an archive of past articles and an online “Marxist Study Course.”

Peace & Freedom Party

Founded in the 1960s as a left-wing party opposed to the Vietnam War, the party reached its peak of support in 1968 when it nominated Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver for President. Although a convicted felon, Cleaver carried nearly 37,000 votes (ironically, Cleaver ultimately became a Reagan Republican in the early 1980s – then a crack addict in the late 1980s – before emerging as an environmental activist in the late 1990s). Famed “baby doctor” Benjamin Spock – a leftist and staunch opponent of the Vietnam War – was the PFP Presidential nominee in 1972. Since then, the small party has largely been dominated by battling factions of Marxist-Leninists (aligned with the Workers World Party), Trotskyists and non-communist left-wing activists. The PFP today is small, with activities largely centered in California. In 1996, the PFP successfully blocked an attempt by the WWP to capture the PFP’s Presidential nomination (and a California ballot spot) for their party’s nominee. In a sign of the party’s serious decline in support, the PFP’s poor showing in the 1998 statewide elections caused the party to lose its California ballot status. Likewise, they were unable to regain official ballot status by successive failed petition attempts for the 2000 and 2002 elections. However, the PFP finally regained its ballot status in 2003 – and is already fielding candidates in 2004 for Congress and other offices.

Prohibition Party

“If you are a reform-minded conservative and a non-drinker, the Prohibition Party wants you,” exclaimed an official party message in 2002. The Prohibition Party – founded in 1869 and billing themselves as “America’s Oldest Third Party” – espouses a generally ultra-conservative Christian social agenda mixed with anti-drug and international anti-communist views. The party’s strongest showing was in 1892, when John Bidwell received nearly 273,000 votes (2.3% – 4th place). Long-time party activist Earl F. Dodge has run as the Prohibition Party’s presidential nominee in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and again in 2004. Dodge received just 208 votes in 2000 – the party’s worst electoral showing ever. The party also fields a few local candidates from time to time – but 2002 was the first time since the 1860s that the party failed to field any candidates for any public office. An additional party-related organization is the Partisan Prohibition Historical Society, a group of party activists (somewhat independent of Dodge’s control) that want to turn Prohibition Party policy into law. The anti-Dodge folks – led by new National Chairman Don Webb – seem to have wrested control of the party by fall 2003, and have now demoted Dodge to just be the party’s “provisional” nominee for President. This is largely a matter of semantics, as Dodge will continue to run as the party’s nominee and the party will back him if he secures ballot status in some states. If he doesn’t gain ballot status, the party vows to hold a new nominating convention in Spring 2004 to pick a new ticket. Howeverm all of this in-fighting could result in the party being Presidential nominee on the ballot for the first time since 1872.

Reform Party

Once of rapidly growing, populist third party, the Reform Party shifted far to the right in recent years – but then experienced massive waves of conservative defections away into the Constitution Party and the new America First Party in 2002. First, some history: after running as an Independent in 1992, billionaire Texas businessman Ross Perot founded the Reform Party in 1995 as his vehicle for converting his independent movement into a permanent political party. In 1996, Perot ran as the Reform Party’s presidential nominee (8,085,000 votes – 8%). Although an impressive showing for a third party, it was much less than the 19 million votes Perot carried as an independent candidate back in 1992. The party traditionally reflected Perot’s center-conservative fiscal policies and anti-GATT/NAFTA views – while avoiding taking any official positions on social issues (although much of this group seemed to hold generally libertarian social views). The RP was plagued by a lengthy period of nasty ideological battles in 1998-2000 involving three main rival groups: the “Old Guard” Perot faction, the more libertarian Jesse Ventura faction, and the social conservative Pat Buchanan faction. A fourth group – a small but vocal Marxist faction led by RP activist Lenora Fulani – generally backed the Perot faction during these fights. To make this even more confusing, the Perot faction ultimately turned to Natural Law nominee and Maharishi follower John Hagelin as its “Stop Buchanan” candidate for President. After several nasty and public battles, the Ventura faction quit the RP in Spring 2000 and the old Perot faction lost control of the party in court to the Buchanan faction in Fall 2000 (and Perot ultimately endorsed Bush for President in 2000). That gave the Buchanan Brigade the party’s .6 million in federal matching funds. Within months, the Buchanan allies won control of nearly the entire party organization. Along with Buchanan’s rise to power in the party, the party made a hard ideological shift to the right – an ideological realignment that continues to dominate the RP. In the aftermath of the 2000 elections, it is clear that Buchanan failed in his efforts to establish a viable, conservative third party organization (comprised largely of disenchanted Republicans). Buchanan was on the ballot in 49 states, captured 449,000 votes (4th place – 0.4%) – and later told reporters that his foray into third party politics may have been a mistake. His weak showing also meant that the party is ineligible for federal matching funds in 2004. The new RP had the opportunity to become the leading social conservative third party (think of it as a Green Party for the right) – but more internal conflicts made this impossible. In Spring 2002, former Buchanan VP runningmate Ezola Foster and the California and Maryland RP leaders jumped to the Constitution Party. Almost simultaneously, the entire RP leadership in nearly 20 other states (the core of the Buchanan Brigade folks) defected en masse to form the new America First Party – delivering a demoralizing and devastating blow the the future viability of the RP. The remaining pieces of the RP now appear to be trying to reorganize back into a more centrist party – similar to the original one Perot wanted to create in the 1990s. But – without Perot’s involvement (and deep pockets) – even a new, centrist RP may have serious trouble rebuilding itself. Another official RP site is the State Party Organizations/RPUSA.

The Revolution

This party – simply named “The Revolution” – seems to be an ideological hybrid between libertarianism and environmentalism, with a dash of New Deal liberal views thrown into the mix. The Revolution’s 20-point platform calls for the legalizations of all victimless crimes (drugs, prostitution, etc.), the use of clean energy to stop global warming, massive tax cuts, an end ot corporate welfare, military spending cuts, an emphasis on human rights in foreign policy decisions, abolishing the CIA, government funding of the sciences to encourage “altruistic scientific and technological projects,” and a promise to “repeal five times as many laws as we pass.” The party’s leader – a digital culture journalist and cyberprankster who uses the pen name R.U. Sirius – made a whimsical write-in bid for President in 2000.

Socialist Party USA

The SPUSA are true democratic socialists – advocating left-wing electoral change versus militant revolutionary change. Many of the SP members could easily be members of the left-wing faction of the Democratic Party. Unlike most of the other political parties on this page with “Socialist” in their names, the SP has always been

The Chavez Effect

Since coming to power in 1998, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has not only transformed the political landscape of his own country and influenced the populist movement of South America, but he has also dramatically impacted investment and its outlook. Chavez’s power base has made the prospect of investing (and even preserving) money in Venezuela a complicated affair, and unfortunately it is becoming an increasingly difficult riddle.

Chavez during the height of the boom in oil prices found himself in a politically powerful and cash-rich position, able to spend money for pet projects and military rather carelessly. However, because of the global downturn and retrenchment in oil prices, Venezuela finds itself with a sinking economy that is cash strained. The Bolivar is losing value and its bonds ratings are suffering internationally.

Chavez is widely known as a hawk within OPEC and has called for the oil cartel to try to keep prices as high as possible. While one cannot fault him for wanting his country to profit on the heels of oil’s strength, it does leave him open to criticism considering oil’s fall and his inability to expand Venezuela’s economic base. His one-dimensional approach to growing Venezuela’s wealth has left him at a distinct disadvantage.
The question that arises for the private or institutional investor considering a placement of capital within Venezuela is a dynamic one. Because of the political situation, it would be foolhardy to invest without promises by the leader himself, Chavez, that capital would be welcomed and secure. Unfortunately his track record does not support that type of consideration, taking into perspective the fact that he has now begun to extort money from corporations by threatening them, in some cases going as far as taking over facilities of corporations and nationalizing them or penalizing them with a probation process consisting of different time frames per the government’s whim.

Chavez has not only made it hard to invest in Venezuela; he has also made it difficult to get money out of Venezuela, putting limits on amounts of money that can be carried out of the country personally and sent by wire transfer. These policies have left the people who have earned good incomes in Venezuela to formulate alternative methods to safeguard their wealth, which has not been easy considering the precipitous fall in the value of the Bolivar.

There is a theory in economics called diminishing return. In most cases this is used to point out that, when an entity receives initial funds for investment in order to create new industry, eventually the money that follows the previous investments will not match the percentage of profit made before. Too much money often makes the money that follows less valuable and thus less profitable in many cases. Unfortunately for Venezuela—though it certainly is not being overrun by investment from corporations and individuals currently—even if a person wants to invest in the country, one would be taking a huge gamble on the man in power. Unless one has an ability to know firsthand that their money is secure and that the investment is protected by the nation, why anyone would consider such a move? Chavez has helped reformulate a new law of diminishing returns.

In the past year alone, Chavez has not only set his sights on the continuing confiscation of oil-based corporate assets but has also gone after other companies like Cargill, the commodity giant. Because of Venezuela’s clear disregard for basic economic theory, Chavez has created inflation by trying to implement price controls on basic foodstuffs and caused scarcity as well.

Having increased Venezuela’s dependence economically on the oil industry, Chavez was able to enjoy a robust return of GDP during the boom oil years, and the end of the calendar year 2008 was even able to achieve a 4.8% gain. However with the downturn caused by the financial crisis within the United States, Europe and Asia, Chavez has seen a reversal not only in the demand for his black gold but also in unstable growth.

S&P now rates Venezuela’s bonds with a mere BB rating, which means the country’s economic conditions lack clarity and there are now doubts and severe questions regarding Venezuela’s ability to cover its debt obligations. With a global economic outlook that continues to be cautious, Venezuela’s circumstances will remain challenging in this environment as long as the oil industry remains the main engine for the Venezuelan machine.

Investors in Venezuela must play a strong and subtle game of political networking at this time to make sure they can maintain production and allow financial assets in the country to perform regularly. A pragmatic approach must be taken by the citizens of Venezuela to essentially safeguard their assets from becoming nationalized or seized “for the good of the people.” How to do this without raising the ire of the Chavez government is the one million Bolivar question. The specter of corruption growing in a country that has a “populist” leader is often a grim reality, one that has stood the test of political and economic history as governments try to make money in the “utopian” lands they try to control.

Politician’s Corruption Indulges Macroeconomic Crisis In Pakistan

Recent SBP reports shows progress in overall economy of Pakistan but this progress linked with IMF and other loans. Economic progress and stability with the help of loans could not be sustainable. Such progress is indicator of further deterioration in economy. SBP also discuss the uncertainties of the sustained economic progress. It is important to adopt effective policy measures to tackle with forecasted threats to economy to achieve sustained economic growth. In the last twenty-two months the tight monetary policy chased by various criticisms both by business community and some of economists. Most of circles were of thought that world wide the monetary policy in most of developed countries eased for the sake of investment due to financial crisis but Pakistan was opposite to this practice. Actually the socio-political and macroeconomic scenario of Pakistan is quiet different from developed countries. Continuing political instability, rising social unrest, riots and protests, corruption of civil servants, bureaucrats and politicians all this in combine provide no surety and security to ease monetary policy in high inflation and continues borrowing from central bank.

The dean of NUST Business School, Islamabad criticizes monetary policy in one of his article of daily newspaper of Pakistan “the News”. He says that “SBP should consider and analyze various macroeconomic developments whish are likely to unfold during the remaining period of the current fiscal year”. He discussed various components of current economic situations and criticizes monetary policy in presence of such unstable and uncertain environment. He furthered quote that” no country has ever achieved sustained higher economic growth in the midst of a rising debt service burden”

Hence either the monetary policy tight or easy it remains a point of criticisms and dissatisfaction among the economists, business and investment communities. Monetary policy changing depends on macroeconomic stability of Pakistan and this stability farther linked by various issues. However the rope of all these issues is strictly tied with one hook which is too much corruption of politicians. Various circles criticizing and highlighting the corruption of politicians clearly but unfortunately there is no immediate action. Pakistan is a country which built on the foundations of Islam and luckily it is the only country in the world which achieved on the name of religion Islam. The history of Islam has very transparent, accountable and noble leaders. After the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H), Hazrat Abu-bakr-Siddique, Hazrat Usman Ghani, Hazrat Umer Farooq and Hazrat Ali all have showed exemplary good governances to all Muslims. There was equality of rights, there was democracy there was concept of open market and investment in their era. There was a proper banking system, judiciary system, and jail system and aid institute at state level to benefit poor in the name of Bait-ul-maal. Nowadays Pakistani Muslims are confused in such a way that they may not have any history to learn from and follow.

In that era of Khulfai-Rashidine Muslims were not symbol of danger whereas they ran the state fully according to Islam. Our leaders are afraid of Islam just because they may catch up in a fully Islamic system. Some of Islamic groups of Pakistan which are called as extremists defame the Islam, in my eyes such people are no more Muslims they may be psychotically sick persons. Taking benefit of these people our politicians show their reluctance towards Islamic system. Whereas by following Islamic system Pakistan could become most beneficial country for investors, security of neighbors and for those who think Pakistan as symbol of threats.

The current constitution of Pakistan is taken as Islamic but my mind could not accept such a law as fully Islamic in which there is spacing for leaders to plunder public money by putting them in extreme poverty and enjoying luxurious life themselves. Even not any other religion either Christianity or others do not allow such constitutional pillage or havoc. This is our constitution which is supporting our corrupt President in addition with various important ministers. By declaring NRO (national reconciliation ordinance) as unlawful about 34 important politicians’ highlighted as extreme corrupt. The sign of being noble is to get resigning immediately by those leaders but they are still enjoying the ministries luxurious lifestyle and do not bother of any misconduct.

The corruption, miss management and poor administration of these politicians are a cause of all macroeconomic instabilities in Pakistan. Even poor security system is also due to their poor policies and evil acts. It is norm of Pakistani politicians that when any particular party become in power it accused previous governments for all sorts of problems and fails to tackle with the situation. Current government of Pakistan follow the same norm and blame Musharraf era for all sorts of problems and failed themselves to adopt effective and fair policy measures to tackle with all the issues and crises. Now I discuss various major crises which are mostly due to improper management, policy making and corruption of politicians.

Sugar crisis:

Sugar crisis were not new to handle with, they started in 1999-2000 when due to extreme heat stress its production decreased by 22% and it was forecasted in 2000 that further 17% production will be decreased in 2001. These percentages in production dropout are not negligible the current situation start arising from that time. The current government blame Musharraf government for this issue, no doubt extreme dropout in production occur in their era but despite this there was no shortage of sugar in this way during his time. I am not praising Musharraf era and blaming current government, the actual matter is to adopt uncorrupted fair policy measures. Pakistan is a third biggest country of producing sugar but despite this there is huge sugar crisis. Actually other than production shortage there is a problem of dues between growers and mill owners. Growers demand higher price i.e. Rs 250/40kg for their raw material whereas official rate is Rs. 100/40kg and millers complain about increase in production cost and imports. Other reasons of sugar crisis are late crushing by mill owners, stagnant can yield, low import parity prices and non-payment of dues to growers by mills. Growers feel underweight of cane at purchase centers and mill gates. Undue deduction by mill owners to growers is 10%. 65% of farmers decrease total sugarcane land area due to water shortage, behaviors of mills, late payments, increased input cost, diseases and rodent attack.

Government put forward various interventions like issuing export permit to mills, importing sugar on public account, controlling retail distribution below the market price through utility stores, sugar mill provided the government’s assistance in situation, supply to utility stores has been doubled to provide relief to the public. Nevertheless despite all these interventions there are no improvement in the provision of sugar because any sort of intervention by the government does not forget to take out its own benefit and, hence all sorts of policy measures are just slapdash. Huge quantity of sugar stocked by mill owners and lot of sugar smuggled through border. There could be no shortfall despite huge production dropout if all the sugar utilized lawfully within country. Most of mill owners are themselves politicians. They are at fault for non-payment of dues to growers and involved in smuggling through Afghan border. As politicians are themselves involved in illegal acts then definitely they could not adopt effective policy measure that could control the entire situation. Any policies made by such government left a lot of space for evil acts hence all policy measures are fraudulent.

On 9-febuary-2010 I saw a slide on news channel that” no one can buy sugar from utility stores without CNIC and children below 18 years cannot buy sugar”. In Pakistan so many poor people have no ID cards especially those who live in remote areas could not access cities to make ID cards. This policy adopted to minimize the flow of sugar also one person could buy only 2kg sugar once. In Pakistani huge families 2kg sugar is requirement of per day only. People have to daily lined up with ID cards to buy sugar. Government put strict rules on poor public but could not want to adopt such policy measures that could stop smuggling and illegal stocking of sugar by mill owners who themselves are politicians are linked with political groups. Sugar and floor and various expensive food products smuggled through Afghan border and others and police and politicians all involved in this act.

These all evil activities and financial mismanagement should be treated strictly and effective and transparent policies should be adopted by government to tackle with whole situation. However under the umbrella of highly corrupted leadership it may be impossible for government. Secondly to tackle with shortage in production there is a need for seed treatment in sugarcane cultivation by research institutes. Sugar mill should arrange and distribute high quality of seeds along with good and effective fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides at low rates to minimize diseases and rodent attacks. Demonstration plots should be organized by agricultural departments, NGOs and research institutes to enhance the local knowledge about better and advance farming activities.

Water crisis

In Pakistan main source of water is canal irrigation system including tow major dams Mangla dam and Terbella Dam. River Indus is the life line for Pakistan’s agriculture, nearly 450,000sqm. It is the largest river of South Asia having length of 1800 miles or 2900Km. Total supplies available to agriculture includes rainfall, surface water from river Indus and tributaries, ground water, sewage water and sea water. Annual rainfall in Pakistan varies from 100mm in Sindh to 1000mm in foot-hill and northern areas with average 400mm. About 60% come during monsoon. Rainfall contributes to 1650 thousand hectors meter of land. Thus 10mm of rain provides 100cubic meter/hec. Sea waters exist along 1,050Km coast of Pakistan and unusable due to salination but some palm and coconut trees can be grown using saline water. Sewage water could be used for production of crops like vegetables, fodder, oil palms, coconut etc by recycling.

Total quantity of available water is 160 million acre feet which includes river water and ground water. Rivers contribute 136 MAF and ground water contributes 24MAF. Out of this available water only 101.4 MAF reaches the modules, after deducting losses of the system i.e. seepage and distribution. 35 MAF water wasted in sea during floods every year, 45% lost due to seepage i.e. 45.6MAF and 15% lost due to improper irrigation system i.e. 8.4MAF. Hence total water arrived at farm gates is 56MAF. Total water required in 200 was 78.7 MAF there was a shortage of 22.9 MAF. It was predicted in 2000 that Pakistan will need 170MAF in future.

The first paragraph shows that there is lots of enough water in Pakistan whereas second paragraph immediately show shortage of water. Both the paragraphs in combine show that there is enough water to fulfill our requirements but the need is to use it properly through advance technologies and by repairing the systems frequently. Our government blames India to spoil the agreement did in 1959 over the distribution and use of Indus water. No doubt India has spoiled the agreement but Pakistan should be accountable towards use of its own water. Our provinces are quarreling over distributions and provision of water. Whereas distribution of country in provinces does not mean that everyone has its own territory to deal with, and he/she is not responsible for others. Our leaders of all provinces should understand that their consensus over distribution of all sorts of resources is in favor of whole country. Nevertheless unfortunately each province just wants to give loss to his brother province.

To resolve water issue it is important to solve political battle over distribution of water among provinces. On the other hand water should be saving from all sorts of losses through effective and costless mechanical techniques. There are lots of solutions available on Internet, research institutes should give solutions to all such problems through advance study of water saving technologies and government should effectively follow these without considering personal selfishness. Rainwater and flood water should store in time before it flows to sea. Available water resources should be evaluating and utilize effectively. Irrigation system should be repaired to improve and develop according to current needs also policies should be developed for judicious and effective use of irrigation water. In addition it should be evaluated frequently that what are the water requirements of various crops a changing weather effect the requirement of crops with the passage of time. In addition farmers should be well educated through seminars at local level by government, NGOs and research institutes about modern agricultural techniques along with analyzing, existing indigenous knowledge about cropping to reduce ill practices and enhance significant and effective practices did by farmers. Participation by farmers should be enhanced in policy making about water using, implementation of taxes and subsidies, about price fixing and about import-export rules and regulations. There should be effective coordination and understanding among farmers, water associations, government department and NGOs. Farmers should be put at center while discussing and solving agricultural issues. If Pakistan succeeded to overcome internal water problems then it could become strong enough to solve external water problems i.e. problem of Indus water treaty with India. We know very well that any influential personality could make its voice high and strong enough to listen and accept by others. Therefore Pakistan should develop itself like such a personality whose voice become influential internationally. For this they have to overcome internal problems immediately.

Energy crisis

There is another habit of our leaders that they wait for any issue until it do not rise as much that it  put them in deep waters. They do not want to adopt a policy of calling a surgeon before one is wounded. Energy crises are also ones of such crises. These crises do not occur naturally they are manmade. It could be taken as manmade disaster in Pakistan. Energy crisis is just like sugar crisis as there is again problem of payments there. Energy crises named as circular debt issue in Pakistan due to circular nature of non-payments of dues. In Pakistan energy crises raised when IPPs stopped to generate more electricity and at that time current government habitually start blaming previous government for energy shortage. Whereas this government immediately abandoned huge project of Kala Bagh Dam just after getting power by calculating its various environmental drawbacks. This was extremely poor decision of this government. They throw huge amount of money in dustbin foolishly. It was effective if this government minimize its environmental shortcomings by effective adjacent policy measures and through further small projects. The need was only of technical and transparent minds. Another example of such foolish decision of care-taker government was abandoning of Neelum-Jhelum project. It was constructed in 2003 at cost of .5billion it got abandoned by care-taker government. Later it revised by this government worth 5 billion. Delay costing the country fortune for extra 0 million.

Now it is easy to decide that how much previous government was at fault and how much present one. The circular debt issue should also be solved immediately by government in the beginning. The government has enough money to increase the number of ministers, to increase number of bullets proof cars , to visit foreign countries and to buy expensive power generators i.e. RPPs but they are unable to solve circular debt issue. Actually here again politicians take out their personal benefit. The current report by ADB on RPPs clearly shows the selfish nature of government. According to this report “there are major objections regarding the viability of the projects and tariff structure and doubted transparency in the deals which seemed to have made in hast. There are post-bid changes in the agreements that benefited the owners of the RPPs and NEPRA rules were also violated in these deals”. Besides various objections by the report one of the most important is that, government failed to go for the most economical solution and fully utilize the already existing capacity. (The News Sunday 7/02/10).Before the ADB report transparency international also highlights the government corrupt policy in this regard, but no actions were taken. It is important that Supreme Court should take notice of this government policy in the light of ADB report before the huge financial lose.

The shortfall of energy greatly influences the macroeconomic stability. Due extreme shortage of electricity about 400 factories closed down. The shortfall of energy cause loss of Rs.1 billion a day to the textile industry, threatening livelihood of 2.28 million textile workers around 500,000 already lost jobs. “Merrill Lynch ha estimated that everyone percent of GDP growth in Pakistan requires an increase in electricity supply of 1.25 percent. Thus, a GDP growth rate of 7 percent per year will require an increase in electricity supply of 8.8 percent”. (The News, Business page, 6/02/10).

The government should put their interests back and work for the prosperity of Pakistan. They should solve circular debt issue immediately and try to put forward more effective steps towards it solution. All the hydral power stations and dams should be repaired accordingly to rehabilitate the existing electricity capacity in Pakistan.

Miscellaneous issues and crisis:

Besides above discussed major crisis of Pakistan that contributes to macroeconomic instability, the government’s poor and corrupt policy making further dampen the economy and put the public fortune in ditch of risks, challenges and uncertainties. Insecurity situation rises with the emergence of this government which clearly shows the weaknesses of the government. After the successful Swat operation the gap between further operations give, place to terrorists to adjust themselves according to rising circumstances. Rising terrorism and insecurity hit the economic activities too much. Government should take effective and non-stop policy measures to tackle with the situation. However due to lazy and poor policy making, now they move towards negotiation with Taliban. Various circles in the politics of Pakistan are in favor of negotiation, but a common man question is that what could be the meeting point with Taliban? On the other hand according to Tehreek-e-Insaf there are good and bad Taliban, this mean we have to search out good Taliban negotiate with them and kill all other bad Taliban? If Americans ready to negotiate with Taliban it does not mean that we should also, because negotiations with Taliban do not effect daily life of America it would only effect the people of Pakistan and especially women of Pakistan. Whatever the Taliban are good or bad, but all the Taliban demands are to follow unislamic norms which abolish the human rights defined by Islam and further declared by United Nations Human Rights declaration 1948.

Rising insecurity and terrorism give economy as much loss in the beginning of this government that it becomes confused and situation crossed their ability to tackle. Hence due to extreme rising balance of payments government start lending. In the beginning all the foreign aid resources refused government for cash funding due to lack of trust. Finally government knocks the door of IMF. After this other foreign resources also open their doors as government got committed with 11 tough condition of IMF out of 16. Now the debt burden increased a lot and current values of debt certainly predicts the further failure of economy, rising inflation that could increase the number of people below poverty line which is already 34%. Now the public debt is becoming more than RS.8.1 trillion. In December 2009 domestic debt was RS. 4293 billion and total external debt was 794million. The improvement in various economic figures is also due to influx of these huge debt amounts. In the future major portion of GDP will be utilized to repay these loans and, hence it further deteriorate the social indicators of development i.e. education, health, shelter, employment, poverty and other developmental projects. With rising debts now a single Pakistani owed Rs. 46,648. On the other hand increasing expenditures do not allow economy to become mature which is mostly security related. The war on terrorism alone has cost more than billion while the aid received to combat is very less that is billion only. Other than terrorism rising riots in Karachi (a big commercial and industrial hub of Pakistan also known as mini Pakistan) because of ethnic and linguistic issues also hits the growth process. Two coalition political parties of Sindh i.e. MQM and ANP quarrel over language issues putting aside their real duties towards the development.

There is another very important issue i.e. tax evasion. According to joint report of FBR Pakistan, World Bank and Andrew Young School of Public Policy on Tax policy of Pakistan, the total tax evasion in Pakistan during 2007-08 was Rs. 796 billion. It is estimated that globally tax evasion every year is around US 5 billion. Pakistani tax evasion is 4% of overall global tax evasion. Although there is hardly any country in the world which could have excellent tax system but Pakistan is among the worst one. SBP repeatedly suggests in its various reports over economy including quarterly report that tax-to-GDP ratio should be improved. Mostly people related to business community, bureaucrats and politicians are taxed defaulters. According to report by World Bank Pakistan has a potential to increase Tax-to-GDP ration by 3.5 percent for next five years and if this happens it could overcome a lot fiscal deficit.

All the above discussed problems are easy to solve but the need is only of transparent, accountable, effective and efficient government. Pakistan is touching high ranks in corruption according to transparency international reports. Our politicians are good at deciding and according to personal interests, evidently they have technical and brilliant minds to adopt good policies but they use their brilliance in making policies in favor of their own bank balances which are mostly in foreign countries. Any politician in Pakistan promises the public for their prosperity before taking power but after getting power they only consider their own interests. Our poor people do not have shelter to save them and their small babies from extreme hot and cold weather conditions and our ministers enjoying foreign aid and design such projects and policies that could further enhance their bank balances by sucking sweat and blood of poor people. They may take three times meal in a five star hotel styles but our poor people’s babies could not have even single time a feeder of milk in a day. I don’t know how our politicians think to do evil acts against innocents in front of their own eyes.

Conclusion and Suggestions

With the help of media, news reports and various reports by international institutes available on Internet we are able to predict the economy of Pakistan. It is needed to put forward immediate measures to tackle the future threats to economy. In this regard first there is needed to clean completely the foundations for corruption. NRO declarations as unconstitutional sort out more than 8000 people who get benefit of this ordinance and, save them after misconduct. Supreme Court has now opened all these cases but there is a need of immediate action to save the Pakistan. Our president along with other 33 companions in the government also enlisted in NRO beneficiaries it is the extreme bad luck of Pakistan to have such leaders in power. In the presence of such leaders not a single positive policy measure could benefit the country because corrupt minds of these politicians do not give place for prosperity.

It is required to establish transparent system to put policy measure to solve various above discussed issues. Sugar crisis, energy crisis, water crisis and all other are just due to corruption. Various international reports showed the personal interests of the politicians towards their interventions to solve the problem. Supreme Court should take notice of these policies on international reports. Independent institutes should all condemn politician’s corruption and put forward solid steps to stub down the corrupt politicians

Pakistan is an agricultural economy based country. Agriculture has the main share to economy. It contributes 21.8% to GDP, providing employment to 44.65% of labour force and occupies nearly 60% of total exports. Although in the early years after independence of Pakistan the agriculture share to GDP was 62% but with the passage of time it decreased due to IMF conditions on one hand and poor policy implementations by different governments on the other hand. Various circles blaming climate changes for this decrease but despite huge climate change we till have yet enough water and land to cultivate enough to use locally besides export but the need is only of effective work and policies. To tackle with the agriculture losses water issue should be solved immediately and advance fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides along with good quality seeds and machinery should be introduced in the country. Agricultural problems should be addressed and solved by participatory approach and loss of land due to salination should be rehabilitating and using advance technologies available worldwide.

Morning Os Populist

Image by kylewm
I’ve been wanting to build a little pinhole camera for a while… Finally got around to it last weekend, and it turned out to be such a fun project! Easy enough to put together with stuff around the house–I had to buy a dowel and black plastic tape from the hardware store and steal one of those rubberbands from some brocolli at the grocery store but otherwise… I have to say I’m a little bit proud of the star in the middle–it was from an appropriately 4th of July themed Coke can

Great respect and thanks to Nick Dvoracek for making a really really nice how-to and template

Fuel Price Hike : A Farsighted Economic Reform

The economy of India is changing and the economic news in India is focusing on this new evolution towards decontrol in prices. The recent increase in the price of fuel that led to a hike in petrol, diesel, LPG and kerosene prices is a part of this process. The petrol price increased by Rs 3.50 a litre, diesel by Rs 2 a litre, domestic LPG by Rs 35 per cylinder and even kerosene by Rs 3 a litre. Headlines of newspapers, news channels and news portals are all debating about the pros and cons of this price increase. There is a shift from the populist ideology that has till now been strongly influencing Indian economic policies. So has the common man become more ‘elite’ or has the definition of the ‘common’ man changed? Is the common man ready for this decontrol or does India still needs to protect him from the freeing of prices? According to Dr Manmohan Singh there is no need for ‘excessive populism’ and though the common man may face some burden, he says it is manageable. This move is necessary and a step in the right direction for the economic progress of India. Despite several protests against it, it is a much needed policy that is far-sightedness. The hike in the prices was necessary because of the rising gulf between the cost of production and the retail prices. It would have been difficult to sustain any economic growth without bringing about this change. This straying away from the populist policy should not be thought of as a tilt towards the elite, but it is finally something that is going to benefit the common man. This movement towards a new economy that believes in decontrolling prices and freeing them eventually is an important economic reform, one that will lead us towards a new tomorrow. Reflection on the long term benefits, rather than the short term difficulties, is the need of the day. An open economic perspective, an understanding of the direction towards the country needs to move is the what we need to focus on.  So let’s not look at this price hike with a jaundiced populist eye but see it as an important economic reform.

Anti Poverty

Anti Poverty in USA

                          Even the wealthiest nation in the world like the United States does not escape the problem of poverty. This paper takes a critical look at poverty and anti-poverty policies in the United States. In this paper, I have argued that poverty is caused by several factors. This paper also discusses the liberal and conservative perspectives for reducing poverty in America. The conservatives have focused on individual factors such as wide wage gaps, breakdown of family, racial factors and other reasons while the liberals have focused on the structural transformation of the American economy to explain the persistence of poverty.  Since 1960, both the federal and state governments have been responding with policies that address the problem with mixed results. In this paper, I have analyzed the policies and have also recommended the possible ways to deal with this intractable nature of poverty.

                   According to Sen (1981), ‘the poor are those people whose consumption standards fall short of the norms, or whose income lie below that line’. The word “poverty” suggests destitution, an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. Over thirty-six million Americans live below the official U.S. poverty line (Blank, 2007). This means a family of three earns less than less than $ 16,000 or a single individual earns ,300 per annum (Blank, 2007, p. 17). Millions more struggle each month to pay for basic necessities, or run out of savings when they lose jobs or face health emergencies. Job cuts, high rates of unemployment, foreclosures and high food and gas prices continue to stimulate policy formulation designed to improve the condition of the poor.

                     Poverty is integrally associated with misery and suffering. The lost potential of children in poor households and the lower productivity and earnings of poor adults are all intertwined with poor health, increased crime and broken neighborhoods. Childhood poverty typically leads to poor health care and high crime neighborhoods. Persistent childhood poverty is estimated to cost the United States 0 billion each year, or about 4% of the nation’s gross domestic product (Blank, 2007, p.1).

                    One in eight Americans lives in poverty and poverty in the United States is far higher than in many developed nations (Rebecca Blank, 2007, p1). Inequality has reached record high. The richest 1 percent of Americans in 2005 held the largest share of the nation’s income (19%) since 1929 (Rebecca Blank, 2007, p. 2). At the same time the poorest 20% of Americans held only 3.4% of the nation’s income (Rebecca Blank, 2007, p.2).

                    Colorado in spite of being surrounded by the beautiful Rocky Mountains and experiencing a cool, mountain climate has many homeless people. Scholars have identified that, a growing number of single parent households, a shortage of jobs for lower wage workers and a low rate of high school graduation have contributed to the growth of poverty in Colorado. The Colorado poverty rate has increased from 9.2% in 2000-2001 to 10.6% in 2005-2006 while the poverty rate of United States has increased from 11.5% in 2000-2001 to 12.5 % in 2005-2006 (Center on Law and Policy, 2006, p.1).  Most of these ill-fated poor people suffer from mental and health problems. 

Causes of Poverty

                        Policy analysts are trying to explore numerous perceived direct and indirect causes of poverty in the United States to formulate effective policies to alleviate poverty. The work of scholars such as Corley (2003), Sowell ( 2004), Iceland (2006), Jencks (1992), James Tobin (1993) and others have shown that the intractable nature of poverty is a result of not any one factor but of the interaction of a variety of causes. The breakdown of family and other social causes as well as the structural changes in the economy, have all contributed to society’s failure to eradicate poverty inspite of ardent efforts by policy analysts.

                   Individual Explanation of poverty mainly stresses the attitudinal or motivational factors and human capital factors. Thus lack of motivation among indigents causes poverty. Generous welfare programs sometimes affect the mind-set of recipients and they prefer to stay at home and enjoy the benefits rather than work outside. Murray (1984) argues that individuals prefer to remain on welfare because of insufficient motivation to come out from public welfare programs.

                  Formulation and proliferation of policies to alleviate poverty has been a major concern of the United States Government since 1960. Educational attainment is necessary to get a high paying job. Elementary school education, as well as lack of adequate skills and motivation among indigents to come out of the situation is the major causes of poverty. People well equipped with technical skills get high salaried jobs while people who are school drop outs get low pay on an hourly basis. During the 1960s when the then- President of United States Lyndon Johnson began to implement the United States ‘war on poverty’, he placed great emphasis on education (Jencks, 1992). The Lyndon Johnson administration even invested in programs like Head Start and occupational training to upgrade the skills of the poor and also to prevent future generations from working in low-paying jobs. Scholars like Sowell (2004) and Corley (2003) have emphasized individual level factors as the central causes of poverty. They argue that a person’s compensation is based on his or her educational qualification and marketable skills. Sowell (2004) argues that the lack of appropriate skills has affected the ability of many indigents to climb out of poverty. He also argues that there has been an increase in the poverty rate of unskilled Americans, who have lost jobs to Asian immigrants. Corley (2003) also supports the above argument and regards ‘lack of educational attainment’ as one of the entrenched sources of poverty. Low quality education from poorly funded inner-city schools results in few marketable skills which leads to low-wage jobs and other miseries associated with it such as less ability to pay for housing, food, clothing, medical care, bad neighborhoods, funding problems for schools, and increased risk of serious illness (Corley, 2003). 

                          Many scholars have argued that structural changes are the primary reason for the persistence of poverty in the United States. Structuralists emphasize issues such as joblessness, discrimination in education, institutional racism and economic transformations in explaining the causes of poverty. Scholars argue that the inability to provide decent paying jobs for some American families and the ineffectiveness of American public policy to reduce poverty are basically the result of structural failures and processes. Poverty is rooted in the structure of American society. Rank, 2004 supports the above view and argues that lack of human capital tends to place individuals in a vulnerable state when events and crises occur. The incidence of these events like loss of a job, family break-up and ill-health often result in poverty. These ill-fated people unable to handle these situations often end up in paying more. Scholars also argue that the acquisition of human capital is strongly influenced by the impact of social class on this process (Rank, 2004). Apart from poor family, race and gender also play a role in the acquisition of human capital (Mark Robert Rank, 2004).

                          Globalization, the expansion of credit markets leading to greater indebtness and foreclosures leading to recession in 2008 all point to the growth of poverty.  Iceland (2006) primarily focused on economic factors and has argued that poverty is also the product of deindustrialization. As the U.S. shifts from a manufacturing, industrial society to a service-oriented, high-tech society, many of the blue-collar jobs that required little education but paid well are disappearing or are being outsourced. Rural areas, such as Appalachia, suffer losses of mining jobs, and cities such as Detroit lose many manufacturing jobs to automation or overseas factories. Some people are unable to follow the jobs or commute to work are left in neighborhoods without employment or tax-basis to support needed social functions, such as schools, public transportation, police departments, and so forth. Others simply cannot find jobs because of the shift towards a service-based economy; in economic terms these people are structurally unemployed due to the changing skills needed. Tobin (1993) supports the above viewpoint and emphasizes on the disappearance of jobs in the 1900s as the main reason for the country’s failure to eradicate poverty. Recent employment data shows that the US housing slump and the crisis in America’s credit markets are threatening to increase poverty levels. Isidore (2008) mentions that the job losses  are widespread, with the battered construction sector losing 51,000 jobs and manufacturing employment falling by 48,000 in the year 2008 . Retail employment dropped by 12,000 jobs, and business and professional service employers cut staff by 35,000. The unemployment rate jumped to 6.1% in September from 4.9 % in January (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008).

                         Kelso (1994), argues that over the last forty years, there has been a major shift of American firms first to the west and then to the south. Part of this shift was due to the rise of the Cold War and the decision of the government to enlarge U.S. military power (kelso, 1994). He argues that as America elected to invest more in defense and in the aerospace industry, cities like Seattle and Los Angeles on the West Coast began to boom while the growth of a high technology and information based technology led to the growing affluence of California and the San Francisco Bay area. Later with the expansion of inter-state highway system and growth of jobs, markets were created in the south.

                         Iceland (2006) also argues that although the service sector of the economy has generated millions of jobs, but again polarized earning distribution based on educational attainment separates better paying jobs from poorer paying jobs. He supports a Marxian analysis of class conflict and exploitation and emphasizes on business owners favor hiring inexpensive labor to maximize profit. This also accounts for the inflow of cheap labor to the United States from Mexico and other countries. Greater access to credit has put cars, computers, credit cards, and even homes within reach for many more of the working poor. But this remaking of the marketplace for low-income consumers has a dark side. Roubini notes that, “Having access to credit should be helping low-income individuals, but instead of becoming an opportunity for upward social and economic mobility, it becomes a debt trap for many trying to move up (Grow and Epstein, 2007).

                          Inspite of public assistance and wide initiatives taken by both Federal and State governments, poverty still exists. Meticulous analysis of the situation and effective formulation of policies is needed to solve the problem of poverty in the United States. Scholars like Rank (2004), Blank (2007) and others have shown that the United States Government spends fewer funds addressed towards poverty than any other industrialized country. Thus a major structural failure is found at the political level (Rank, 2004). Most European countries provide a wide range of insurance programs, unemployment assistance, and wide universal health coverage along with considerable support for child care (Rank, 2004). Such social programs are far more generous than those in the United States (Rank, 2004). While, low-income families in the United States work more than those in other countries, they are still not able to make up for lower governmental income support relative to their European counterparts (Blank, 2007, 141-142).

                          The gross disparities among impoverished people in the United States along racial lines have led many scholars to speculate that institutional racism is responsible for much of the poverty in the United States. Racial discrimination in employment and   education contribute to the growth of poverty. Some scholars like Massey and Denton (1993) interpret the statistics in terms of institutional racism while others like Kelso (1994) interpret the statistics as evidence of deficiencies and suffering of blacks.   In spite of efforts to remove racism, slavery and Jim Crow segregation, Massey and Denton (1993) argue that racial segregation still exists and that the fundamental cause of poverty among African Americans is segregation. They argue that segregation has created and perpetuated a black underclass by limiting educational and employment opportunities. Massey and Denton (1993) have shown that Blacks were shown homes in racially mixed areas or areas adjacent to predominantly black areas.

                           Also, changing patterns of family formation are more pronounced among racial and ethnic groups. Family patterns are also one of the causes of poverty in the United States. There is a wide gender gap in wages. In 2004 the median income of FTYR male workers was ,798, compared to ,223 for FTYR female workers (DeNavas-Walt et al, 2005) Pearce (1978) argues that ‘poverty is rapidly becoming a female problem’. Iceland (2006) supports this statement and showed that in 2000, the female poverty rate (12.5%) was 26% higher than the male poverty rate (9.9%) (Iceland, 2006). According to Iceland, women have fewer economic resources than men, and they are more likely to be the head of single- parent families. It also leads to the greater likehood that single, divorced or widowed women will be poorer than their male counterparts because of less social security income or other retirement income in addition to higher female life expectancies. Women’s lower wages, lower retirement benefits and the increasing number of single mothers have led some scholars to talk about the “Feminization of Poverty.”

Federal policies

                       After the Second World War, by 1963, creation of jobs by President John F. Kennedy’s tax policies could not remove the problem of poverty. Poverty was still recognized as a major national problem. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty led to a host of programs that included Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and others. These entitlements eventually consumed half the federal budget and could not alleviate poverty. The U.S. economy had been devastated by the recession of 1979-83 when the United Statess manufacturing infrastructure was shattered by the Federal Reserve’s skyrocketing interest rates causing unemployment to shoot up by sixty-five percent in four years (Cook, 2007). By the end of the 1980s the economy was in another recession, leading to the election of Bill Clinton who in 1992 replaced the incumbent George H.W. Bush. The investment boom of the 1990s was fueled by foreign capital lured in by the Treasury’s strong dollar policies. Jobs were created as the dot.com bubble expanded, trade barriers fell, and utility trading giants like Enron took off. NAFTA was enacted to promote free trade, welfare-to-work brought low-income women into the job market, and the Earned Income Tax Credit was extended. The party ended when the stock market crashed in December 2000 and millions of people lost their retirement savings and other investments. Recession was returning even as George W. Bush was being declared president by the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2000. The economic crisis deepened after the September 11, 2001 attacks when .4 trillion in wealth vanished during the worst five days of the stock market since the Great Depression (Cook, 2007). Cook (2007) argues that today, poverty is becoming a national catastrophe. Cook (2007) argues that from 2002 through 2006 the economy was floated by the housing bubble, with many lower income people getting into homes of their own through the proliferation of sub prime mortgages. With the financial woes in late 2008, many American citizens are left with inflated home prices and no way to pay for them.

                      The 1960’s policy initiatives and declaration of ‘unconditional war on poverty’ by the then president Lyndon Johnson marked a discrete change in the federal government’s willingness to intervene for the purpose of improving the economic situation of poor Americans. Despite the billions of dollars spent on programs like CETA (Comprehensive Employment Training Act), The Manpower Development and Training Act, Head Start, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the government efforts to deal with the origins of poverty have met with minimal success. During this period, implementation of the Social Security old-age program insured virtually all retired workers against the risk of outliving their savings. The Social Security Act of 1935 sought to protect the incomes of those who did not work because of age or a poor economy by establishing a federal framework for unemployment insurance, old-age benefits, and assistance to women. In early 1964, the two most pressing priorities of President Johnson’s antipoverty agenda involved passing a massive tax cut designed to stimulate the economy and organizing a task force to shape the ‘War on Poverty’. The Economic opportunity Act (EOA) signed by Johnson created a long list of programs designed to help individuals develop marketable skills, political power, and civic aptitude. But this anti-poverty legislation oversaw other programs like Community Action Program, Job Corps, VISTA, Head Start (1965), Legal Services (1965) which were not included in its framework. While extensive programs like the Food Stamp Program, Medicare for elderly, Medicaid applied to qualified poor residents, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for poor students overshadowed the EOA. The Higher Education Act eased the financial burdens of millions of college students. The Civil Rights Act opened up new spaces in the American marketplace, while the Voting Rights Act did the same for the political marketplace. The Fair Housing Act established an important base of law to combat housing discrimination. As a result the EOA slowly lost importance. Again, Murray (1984) argues that welfare benefits had soared so high so as to make living in poverty a meaningful option for the poor. Even Burton (1992) has supported the above viewpoint and argues that the programs have done more to cause poverty than to alleviate it.

                          When Nixon assumed power, he tried to deal with poverty in a more direct way than emphasizing social programs. . Although President Nixon expressed dislike for much of the War on Poverty, his administration responded to public pressure by maintaining most programs and by expanding the welfare state through the liberalization of the Food Stamp program, the indexing of Social Security to inflation, and the passage of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program for disabled Americans (Rank, 2004). The Nixon administration also endorsed a “New Federalism” in which the federal government shifted more authority over social welfare enterprises to state and local governments. His plan to implement the ‘Family Assistance Plan’ (FAP) consisted of various income provisions, work provisions, and training provisions for those below the poverty line (Rank, 2004). It failed to pass the Senate much like the ‘Programs for Better Jobs and Income’ initiated by President Carter in later years.                                       Welfare reform continued as a focus of federal policy debates even after the legislative defeat of FAP. Even though a cash ‘Negative income Tax’ (NIT) for all poor persons never passed, the Food Stamp program provided a national benefit in food coupons that varied by family size, regardless of state of residence or living arrangements or marital status. The number of AFDC recipients increased from about 6 million to 11 million and the number of food stamp recipients, from about 1 million to 19 million during the Nixon administration (Danziger, 1999, p. 8). Danziger (1999) also argues that as higher cash and in-kind benefits became available to a larger percentage of poor people, the work disincentives and high budgetary costs of welfare programs were increasingly challenged. The public and policy makers came to view increased welfare recipients as evidence that the programs were subsidizing dependency and encouraging idleness.

                        Despite the failure to enact a guaranteed income program, both the number of recipients and the amount of money spent on welfare programs increased substantially during the 1970’s (Rank, 2004). Rank (2004) has given an overview of Reagan’s policies and noted that Reagan emphasized individual action unhampered by government interference, rejected the social engineering of the 1960’s and also supported federalism, that is, returning power to the states rather than centralizing them within the federal government. Reagan tried to address the problem and set the tone for welfare reform that occurred in 1990 during his successor’s administration. The Reagan administration thought eligibility for welfare benefits had increased so much, that many persons who were not “truly needy” were receiving benefits. The Reagan Administration opposed simultaneous receipt of wages and welfare benefits. Rather, it proposed that welfare become a safety net, providing cash assistance only for those unable to secure jobs.

                    The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), enacted in 1975, provides families of the working poor with a refundable income tax credit (i.e., the family receives a payment from the Internal Revenue Service if the credit due exceeds the income tax owed). Thus the EITC raises the effective wage of low-income families, is available to both one- and two-parent families, and does not require them to apply for welfare. The maximum EITC for a poor family was 0 in 1975 and rose to 0 by 1986 (Danziger, 1999, p. 14). The 1986 Tax Reform Act increased the EITC so that by 1990 a low-income working parent received a maximum credit of 3 (Danziger, 1999, p. 14). The number of families receiving credits increased from between 5 and 7.5 million families a year between 1975 and 1986 to more than 11 million by 1988 (Danziger, 1999, p. 14). Danziger, 1999 argues that as the expanded EITC supplements low earnings, it became easier for policy makers to emphasize welfare reform policies that could place recipients into any job, rather than training them for “good jobs.” Thus he argues that if a nonworking recipient took a low-wage job, a substantial EITC could make work pay as much as a higher-wage job would have paid in the absence of an EITC.

                         The Family Support Act (FSA) of 1988 expanded the scope of the AFDC program for two-parent families, instituted transitional child care and Medicaid for recipients leaving welfare for work, and added funds and required states to establish programs to move greater numbers of welfare recipients into employment. When the welfare rolls jumped in the late-1980s and early-1990s, from about 11 to about 14 million recipients, dissatisfaction with welfare again increased ( Danziger, 1999).    

                        President Nixon identified the two main economic problems, inflation and unemployment, that justify the need for economic recovery to the American worker. Reagan has emphasized despair caused by unemployment combined with high inflation. Reagan’s rhetorical construction of welfare recipients and the welfare system was aimed at reducing anxiety among Americans caused by increasing taxes, inflation and the continuous fear of losing jobs. To end this victimization, Reagan proposed a plan for economic recovery (Rank, 2004). Apart from cutting government spending, specifically spending on social programs, Reagan also proposed to have State governments assume control of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and the food stamps program in exchange for the Federal Government control of Medicaid. Although this proposal failed to reach the Congressional floor, his presentation of the proposal to exchange AFDC and food stamp program with Medicaid made poverty a local concern (Mark Robert Rank, 2004).  

                       Liberals and conservatives still disagreed on other goals of welfare-to-work programs. Liberals thought welfare reform should expand opportunities for welfare mothers to receive training and work experiences that would help them raise their families’ living standards by working more and at higher wages. Conservatives emphasized work requirements, obligations welfare mothers owed in return for government support whether or not their families’ incomes increased (Mead, 1992). 

                       In later years President Clinton’s approach also emphasized empowerment as a way of helping welfare recipients and to accumulate more savings without being penalized and expanding the earned income tax credit (Blank, 2007). By the mid-1990s, the focus of policy concern shifted from fighting poverty to reducing welfare dependence. President Clinton’s signing of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (the PRWORA) ended the entitlement to cash assistance and dramatically changed the nature of the social safety net. The Act created the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program (TANF). TANF began on July 1, 1997, provides cash assistance to indigent American families with dependent children through the United States Department of Health and Human Services (The Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty, 2007).  Danziger, 1999 argues that each state can now decide which families to assist, subject only to a requirement that they receive “fair and equitable treatment.”  In instituting a block grant program, the PRWORA granted states the ability to design their own systems, as long as states met a set of basic federal requirements. The bill’s emphasis on ending welfare as an entitlement program, places a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds, and also aims to encourage two-parent families and discourages out-of-wedlock births. In granting states wider latitude for designing their own programs, some states have decided to place additional requirements on recipients. Although the law placed a time limit for benefits supported by federal funds of no more than 2 consecutive years and no more than 5 years over a lifetime, some states have enacted more stringent limits. All states, however, have allowed exceptions with the intent of not punishing children because their parents have gone over the time limit. Federal requirements have ensured some measure of uniformity across states, but the block grant approach has led individual states to distribute federal money in different ways. Certain states more actively encourage education, others use the money to help fund private enterprises helping job seekers. The PRWORA offers no opportunity to work in exchange for welfare benefits when a recipient reaches her lifetime limit of 60 months of federally-supported cash assistance. But the reform has certain limits. States may not use federal block grant funds to provide more than a cumulative lifetime total of 60 months of cash assistance to any welfare recipient, no matter how willing she might be to work for her benefits, and they have the option to set shorter time limits. States can grant exceptions to the lifetime limit and continue to use federal funds for up to 20 percent of the caseload. The extent of work expectations has also been increased. Single-parent recipients with no children under age one will be expected to work at least 30 hours per week by FY 2002 in order to maintain eligibility for cash assistance (Danziger, 1999, p 20). States can require participation in work or work-related activities regardless of the age of the youngest child. Thus PRWORA emerged from research that sought both to reduce poverty and welfare dependency (Danziger, 1999).  In the 1990s, following Clinton’s call to “end welfare as we know it,” policy makers escalated their demands for recipients to work and reduced government obligations toward and funds to serve them (Danziger, 1999).

                     When Bush took office in 2001, the U.S. was experiencing a national surplus, unemployment and poverty had been on the decline for years, and the economy was booming. Now, almost six years later, poverty is on the rise, healthcare coverage is on the decline, and the country is faced with the largest national deficit in history. Lower middle class families are slowly slipping below the poverty line and the poorest are becoming even more destitute. Most of these families are headed by women.

                      President Bush has extended the TANF. There has been a general economic stimulus policy initiative during the Bush administration but nothing targeting low income Americans has been enacted. President Bush signed the economic stimulus package (H.R. 5140) into law with the hope that it will provide a much-needed boost to the lagging economy. The package includes tax rebates for individuals, tax breaks for businesses, and a temporary increase of the Federal Housing Administration loans from 7,000 to 9,750 (White House report, 2008). More than 130 million people are expected to get tax rebates ranging from 0 to ,200 per household for individuals earning ,000 or less and couples earning up to 0,000 (White House report, 2008). While the stimulus package will provide much needed financial help to millions of people, it fails to target those most in need as it will not include an extension of unemployment benefits, energy assistance, food stamp benefits, or fiscal relief to states for Medicaid.                       

                  From the above analysis, the question arises whether poor are responsible for their own condition. The above analysis implies that recipients become dependent and lethargic due to vast welfare measures. Scholars such as Murray (1984) and Kilty and Segal (2006) have emphasized on individual factors. They argue that welfare measures and lack of spirit and motivation among indigents contribute poverty. Danziger, 1999 argues that during the Nixon era increased welfare measures encouraged idleness. Kilty and Segal, 2006 also argues that poor people can come out into a state of self-sufficiency from dependency by learning proper work attitude and skills. Kilty and Segal, 2006 argue the importance of welfare reform and a ‘tough love’ approach would ultimately help the poor by making them conscious of their condition and forcing them to take their own responsibility. Bill Clinton’s emphasis on ‘personal responsibility’ and measures to ‘end welfare as we know it’ in 1992 all supports the above argument.

                     Due to the implementation of TANF, the numbers of people on welfare have decreased. As a result more funds are accumulated. In 1996 the number of ADFC recipients was 12,644,076 while in 2001, the number of TANF recipients was 5,91, 811 and the poverty rate also reduced from 13.7 to 11.3 ( Kilty and Segal, 2006) and while in 2008 it is 1,628,422  ( US Dept of Health and Human Services). The share of single mothers on welfare (based on administrative caseload counts divided by population numbers) rose from 38 percent in 1969 to 48 percent in 1980, but had fallen to 30 percent by 1998 ( Kilty and Segal, 2006). These caseload changes are widespread, with every state in the country experiencing substantial caseload decline. This decline has been widely hailed by politicians as an indication that policies designed to reduce dependence on public assistance and move less-skilled adults into the labor market have been extremely effective ( Blank, 2007). But however Blank argues that declines in welfare do not affect the poverty rate. The poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent, increasing slightly from its level of 12.3 percent in 2006. The poverty rate increased for four straight years from 2000 to 2004. In 2007, the poverty rate was 1.2 percentage points higher than it was in 2000 (Blank, 2007).     

States welfare initiatives

                      Most states took a significant decision about reform, and this decision was sensible in light of state goals and experience. A few states did not seriously make reform policy. New York was so deeply divided that it took no serious decisions about AFDC (Mead, 2002). Alabama and Missouri were pushed into reform by federal action and appeared to have little welfare policy of their own (Mead, 2002). In several other Southern states (Florida, North Carolina), policymaking appeared to be casual and personalized, with the governor or legislators offering reform plans with, apparently, little inquiry or evidence behind them( Mead, 2002) . Texas policymaking was incoherent as the state claimed to pursue work first but based its policy on an experimental program and focused far more on education and training (Mead, 2002). States have always emphasized on reform. But sometimes lower contribution towards these plans result in total failure of the program. Mead (2002) argues that in Florida and Georgia, however, officialdom was dragged into reform but showed little commitment to it. In Arizona and California, the agency or major localities had been heavily committed to a skills-oriented approach to welfare and resisted the shift toward work first. In Texas, welfare reform was a lower priority to administrators than rebuilding non-welfare employment programs and other initiatives. In Colorado and New Jersey, local agencies had a history of defiance toward the state government, and this prevented them from fully endorsing reforms decided in the capital. Mead (2002) argues that inspite of establishment of Employment Service (ES), a federally-funded job placement agency, and training programs under the federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), poverty rate did not improve. After national welfare work programs were first enacted in 1967, the ES engaged in welfare practices. But because the ES’s routine stressed serving job seekers who came to it voluntarily, it generally performed poorly with welfare clients (Mead, 2002). These jobseekers came to it on a mandatory basis, as a condition of receiving aid. To succeed with them, the agency had to enforce work but also support employment with special services. The ES often found both these roles uncongenial (Mead, 2002). The ES was denoted to the role of contractor to welfare and later in 1988 the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) merged the ES, JTPA, and other non-welfare work programs. But this merging also created confusion. The problems included lack of clear procedures to refer clients to WIA, to serve them there, or to report results back to welfare. The states that lacked coordination and inadequate management information systems (MIS) were Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.      

                         Colorado’s public reform has been associated with decline in poverty rate. By the close of 2000, Colorado’s unemployment rate dropped to 2.6 percent, personal income showed steady gains, state welfare cases declined dramatically, and State legislators wrestled with an estimated 3 million revenue surplus (Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, 2001). But inspite of all the above facts poverty still persists as expenses like child care, out-of-pocket medical expenses and geo-graphic differences in housing costs increased. The increases occurred even after adjusting for income support such as tax relief, food stamps and school lunch programs, housing subsidies and energy assistance. A report published in 2001 by the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute determined that a single parent with two small children living in Denver County would need to earn an annual salary of approximately ,924 in order to meet their basic needs such as housing, food, health care, childcare and transportation without public or private assistance. Even child poverty rate is high in Colorado. About 180,000 children, 15.7 percent of the state total was living in poverty in Colorado in 2006, a 73 percent increase since 2000 (Frosch, 2008). The state of Colorado purchases childcare for income eligible families through the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP). The state allows individual counties to set the purchase price of childcare and make payments to providers from a combination of parental fees and federal, state and county funds. However, the Colorado Office of Resource and Referral Agencies (CORRA) found in a 2001 study that the average county payment fell below 75 percent of market value (Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, 2001, pp 9). As a result counties forced providers to subsidize the cost of service to low-income families, which many were simply unwilling to do when limited slots could be filled with families that could afford to pay full rates. Other providers that chose not to simply refuse service to CCCAP families saved money by limiting the number of children on CCCAP that they would accept, cutting programs, or reducing workers’ wages. All of these actions limited availability and sacrificed quality of care to low-income children. Poverty still exists in Colorado despite initiatives to alleviate poverty as too many working families lives with incomes below the poverty line and more families earn wages simply too low to afford their basic needs. The Colorado government started the Common Good Caucus in 2007 to develop a 2009 agenda, emphasizing on K-12 education and determined to bring technologies out of the laboratory and into the marketplace by investing .5 million dollars in bioscience industry, supporting the Clean Energy fund to reduce high family utility costs , creating the Colorado Solar Incentive Program with million to provide rebates for photovoltaic and solar thermal systems to help Coloradans join the new energy economy and cut their utility bills ( State Rep. Kerr Andy, 2008). Poor people cannot pay the full cost of heating and lighting their homes. Governments and social service agencies have long assisted low-income ratepayers in paying their bills through such programs as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), charitable fuel funds, levelized billing, discounts, home weatherization, energy efficiency, energy usage education and debt management. If all Americans live in weatherized and energy efficient homes and have the income to pay their full share of utility bills, all other ratepayers would save nearly billion in poverty costs, including fuel assistance, lifeline and other rate assistance, weatherization and efficiency costs, the costs of late payments and service disconnections (Oppenheim and MacGregor, 2007).      

Recommendations  

              From the above analysis it is clear that poverty remains pervasive due to the economic system, social stratification and welfare measures. According to Iceland (2003) on one hand, economic growth and technological changes contribute to increase in wages and overall standard of living. Economic growth accompanied by rising education levels improves the condition of people. On the other hand, the market economy often exerts a contrary effect on poverty levels (Iceland, 2003). To maximize profits, businesses usually seek to pay low wage to workers which increase inequality and poverty. Again policy may increase or decrease the harmful effects of inequality. Combining the factors emphasized by both liberals and conservatives, poverty is multifaceted. I believe that a strong national effort would alleviate poverty. Employment opportunities for all so that that worker and their families can avoid poverty, meet basic needs and save for the future. Increasing hourly wages would definitely improve the condition of these people. A smaller share of unemployed low-wage workers, receive unemployment insurance benefits. I believe that states (with federal help) should reform “monetary eligibility” rules that screen out low-wage workers, broaden eligibility for part-time workers and workers who have lost employment as a result of compelling family circumstances. Workers should use this period of unemployment and the money received from the Unemployment Insurance System and upgrade their skills and qualifications. Thus adults should have opportunities throughout their lives to connect to work, get more education, and live in a good neighborhood and move up in the workforce.

                         Child care assistance to low-income families and emphasis on K 12 education would definitely reduce the rate of poverty in the United States.                          Low-income youth hardly attend college than their higher income peers. Pell Grants play a crucial role for lower-income students. Simplification of the Pell grant application process, and encouragement of institutions to do more to raise student completion rates would definitely improve the condition. Expansion of Pell Grants would make higher education accessible to residents of each state. The states at the same time should also develop strategies to make postsecondary education affordable for all residents. Expansion of the Saver’s Credit would encourage saving for education, homeownership, and retirement. As a result all Americans would have assets that would allow them to weather periods of volatility and to have the resources that may be essential for upward economic mobility. Apart from Saver’s credit, expansion of Earned Income Tax Credit would raise incomes and helps families build assets. Thus there should be opportunity for all so that children grow up in conditions that maximize their opportunities for success.

References:

Blank Rebecca (2007); Poverty to Prosperity; Center for American task force on Poverty;

www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/pdf/poverty_report.pdf – Similar pages

Colorado Statewide Homeless Count (2007), School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado, denver.www.dola.state.co.us/cdh/Publications/Winter_2007_Statewide_PIT.pdf – Similar pages

Cook Richard (2007), Poverty in America

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5905 – 61k – Cached – Similar pages

Corley Mary Ann (2003); Poverty, Racism and Literacy; ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education

Danziger Sheldon (1999), Welfare Reform Policy from Nixon to Clinton, Institute for  for Social Research, University of Michigan.

De Navas-Walt, et al., “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States: 2005.

Diana Pearce Diana Pearce (1978) “The Feminization of Poverty: Women, Work, and Welfare,” Urban and Social Change Review.

Iceland John (2006); Poverty in America; University of California Press

Isidore Chris (2008); the Trillion-Dollar Mortgage Bomb,

money.cnn.com/2008/04/21/news/economy/fannie_freddie/?postversion=2008042103 – 66k –

James Tobin (1993); Poverty in Relation to macroeconomic Trends, Cycles and Policies; Cowles foundation discussion paper.

Obama Tax Proposal – Buffalo or Bangalore

Hardly ever, would you have found a tax proposal generating so much of interest amongst companies in the developed and the developing world, equally! The Obama Tax Proposol, infamously starting to be called as the Buffalo versus Bangalore proposal, has done just that – In a half an hour speech, Sen Obama has done enough to keep some companies guessing what needs to be done next.

Buffalo versus Bangalore demystified

The rhetoric draws comparisons to Bangalore, an Indian city, famous for the presence of a lot of BPO and ITES companies. These companies work on the outsourcing model. Sen Obama has proposed that taxes would be charged to companies who show profits made out of their overseas entities.

This statement has been grossly misunderstood by a lot of people. In fact, for now, this is just a proposal made to a country that is deeply submerged in recession. By the looks of it, the Obama Tax policy seems to be a mere appeal to people that the government is in control.

Nevertheless, this tax proposal change is applicable only for companies who have their captive centers in operation in developing countries like India. The third party BPO Vendors who outsource work to their Indian counterparts, seem to be largely unaffected by this suggestion.

It will take time

Sounds like a politician speaking, but the truth is for this one to come through, Sen Obama has to work his way (or rather charm) through multinationals and business conglomerates, who have a heavy presence in the Capitol Hill. Maybe, with some arm-twisting, Sen Obama could pull it off, but the key is – How much time will it take?

I have analyzed the situation well, and even if I was to assume, Sen Obama formalized the proposal by early June, 2009, it would take at least the end of 2011 for this plan to come through. Until then, this Obama Tax plan would have to follow the dubious circle of Congress and the Senate.

A lot of companies, overseas and American alike are watching Capitol Hill with great interest. One piece of advice for all such companies – Get back to your work for now, because this proposal to materialize has to come across a lot of variables. Given the dynamics of American polity, that seems unlikely.

Faith in Fakes by Umberto Eco

Faith In Fakes by Umberto Eco is a superbly entertaining beginner’s guide to semiotics. To what? Semiotics is the study and interpretation of symbols. In our increasingly iconic age, the discipline has much to say, and to do so must delve deeper and wider, into sociology, philosophy and psychology. In this superb selection of essays, Umberto Eco discusses topics as widely spaced as blue jeans, the film Casablanca, ancient monuments and theme parks. Throughout, he manages to communicate intensely difficult ideas with ease, making Faith In Fakes a truly enlightening read that both informs on theory and entertains via the mundane.

The reader must be prepared to go part-way into the discipline, however, especially in relation to specific authors and rarefied vocabulary. While names such as McLuhan, Foucault and Barthes might not deter most readers, words such as oneiric, corybantism, synecdoche, mytonymy, eversive and anthopophagy could prove to be stumbling blocks. There aren’t many of these specialist words, however, because overall Umberto Eco’s style is beautifully communicative and easy to read.

A particularly pleasing piece was Eco’s analysis of the film Casablanca and its cult status. He contrasts Casablanca with other films, ones that might be cited as “works of art”. He then makes a distinction not because these other films are intrinsically “better”, but because they aim higher in that they are better focused and constructed, intellectually. Basically they have potential meaning or significance, have been well written, well acted and well characterised, though most of them might not achieve any of their targets. Hence they are not necessarily better films.

Casablanca, on the other hand, Eco describes as a hodgepodge (bricolage) of ideas, badly characterised, poorly written and ultimately incredible, either as a film or as a reflection of any kind of reality. (Eco, I am sure, would also argue here that this latter point is wholly valid since the film employs realism both in its style and in its definite historical setting.)

But the point is that a near random juxtaposition of elements eventually becomes an art form of its own, able to make statements in its own terms. Copying from one learned text is called plagiarism, Copy from fifty and it’s called research. Use one cliché and it’s culpable. Use a hundred and it’s called Gaudi. It’s a brilliant point.

As a film, Casablanca, he argues, never inhabits a single genre, never communicates merely a single message. It is presented almost as a series of unrelated tableaux, where the characters do as required by the passing scenario. It thus becomes a pastiche where there’s something for everyone, where it can become more entertaining to spot, categorise, recognise and then discuss the loosely-related vignettes than to appreciate the whole, because there is no whole to appreciate.

McLuhan advised us that the medium had become the message. Eco takes us further, illustrating how mass media are no longer conduits for ideology because they themselves have become the ideology. So now, when we watch television news that concentrates on celebrity and the entertainment industry, we ought to be rendered keenly aware of the motives and interests at play. When, come to think of it, did you last hear a wholly negative film review? So where lies the line between reviewer and promoter?

We seem, according to Eco’s logic, to confuse three similar, related, but different concepts – popular, populist and demotic. What we call popular culture should really be labelled populist culture. Popularity is its aim, not yet its achievement. In a row over music downloaded via the internet, reports in July 2008 claim that over eighty per cent of musicians earn less than five thousand British pounds a year in royalties. And remember that they are the ones that actually have the recording contracts!

So what should we call this not so popular popular music? I argue we should refer to populist music and populist culture, because it aims to achieve popularity, though little of it ever will. But what happens if or when it does? At that point its very success becomes its prime platform for further promotion.  Now it carries the illusion of being demotic, that it both stemmed from and is the property of ordinary people, rather than, obviously, a marketed commodity aiming to achieve a status that will foster that illusion. Its adherents to date can now be trotted out as evidence of its potential to attract and as proof of its worthiness to do so. The medium has thus become the ideology, the mechanism by which a commercial enterprise that aspires to popularity from a narrow sectional origin might achieve popularity and then use its achievement to seek more of the same.

Finally, it is the demotic currency provided by success that then suggests we should make aesthetic judgments on that basis. Success becomes proof of worth, almost as if the winner has run for election to that office. Success then becomes the only basis for aesthetic judgments, thus denying the validity of those made an any other basis, because they lack demotic legitimacy and must therefore be based on snobbery or elitism or both. The ideology thus rejects any basis for aesthetic judgment except that which its own ideology defines. Aesthetics, incidentally, tend to resurface when the advocate is reminded of the success, and hence aesthetic worth, of The Bridies’ Song or Remember You’re A Womble!

The essays in Faith In Fakes by Umberto Eco are stimulating, eye-opening and enlightening. They provoke thought rather than the desire to write a simple review. For that, I apologise.

Stealth Taxation: Part IV

Discussing taxes and tax policy is a little like watching paint dry. A fact that those who want to increase taxes or create new ones rely on. But, the public’s seeming lack of interest is not really about whether they care. It’s more about the complexity and confusion created by the myriad of taxes that are employed to separate them from their money. When they become sufficiently resentful of legislative decisions about taxes, they can react quite aggressively.

America’s politicians and bureaucrats have created more ways to fleece the public than anyone can possibly identify. But that’s no surprise, given that they are able to work at it 24/7 – on our nickel.

The excessive complexities and inequities of the income tax are bad enough but, to me, stealth taxation is even more offensive. However, there is a slight gleam of hope shining through the fog of legislative hide and seek that our politicians and government bureaucrats employ to screen tax initiatives from public view, and people do sometimes fight back.

It’s not always easy to see the relationship between government actions and taxation, but transitioning from an increase in the budget to higher taxes seems like an obvious connection. Increased expenses generally lead to a search for more revenue to pay the bills, and this invariably translates into higher taxes, somehow, some way.

In a truly offensive display of political chutzpah, in July 2005, Pennsylvania’s GOP controlled legislature collaborated with the state’s Democratic governor to sneak a 2:00 a.m. vote past the public, to raise legislative salaries between 16% and 54%. There was no public notice, no review, no debate. Adding insult to injury, they even managed to circumvent a state constitutional prohibition against midterm pay increases by treating themselves to retroactive expense reimbursements.

But, all’s well that ends well.

When Pennsylvania’s voters got wind of the legislature’s sneak action by the very people who had been elected to represent them, a groundswell of opposition rapidly turned into an outright revolt that a few months later resulted in the repeal of their stealth pay raise, with only one dissenting vote.

In Indiana, the president of the state Senate, a 36-year incumbent who pushed through a bill to give lifetime health-insurance benefits to state legislators, was subsequently defeated by a political novice who rode the crest of a wave of public protest into office.

People tend to feel that trying to resist taxation is hopeless, what with politicians and bureaucrats constantly scheming to find ways of increasing taxes while taxpayers struggle to break free of the web of tax laws that they somehow never seem to be able to understand or control. And unfortunately, litigating tax issues is well beyond the means of most taxpayers, while the government has unlimited resources to draw on in pursuing its claims.

However, Scrivener.net reported on what may be the beginning of a growing trend toward resisting stealth taxes, noting:

>“The federal telephone excise tax — enacted as a temporary measure two centuries back to help finance the Spanish-American war — may finally in large part be meeting its demise as the result of evolving markets, bureaucratic punting, and Congressional bungling.”

>So on the face of things it’s pretty clear — the IRS has been collecting a lot of tax on phone service that it isn’t entitled to. . .And in the last year companies have begun asking for that tax back . . . and courts have been giving it to them.

Even in the face of a growing tide of resistance, “. . . the IRS says it’s not going to be paying any refunds soon, it is appealing these cases and hopes to win in the higher courts. Things don’t look so good for it up there either, but with more than billion (and rising) estimated as being at stake, it has reason to fight on.”

Although few taxpayers have the resources to challenge the IRS in court, the organized resistance they demonstrated in Pennsylvania and Indiana does show promise.

We may get there yet, but it will take concerted political effort. There is strength in numbers, provided people can be motivated and organized to act in concert.

A beacon of hope was ignited in 1999, when irate taxpayers blanketed the Tennessee state capitol with a parade of cars, horns blaring, to protest the imposition of a first-ever state income tax that was being debated by the legislature. In an embarrassing defeat, the state’s legislators were so intimidated that they adjourned without adopting the new tax. Proving that it can be done if taxpayers can get better organized.

© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

NOTE: Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at “opinionfest.com.”

8 Reasons Why (n) Obama is a Socialist

(n)Obama is a raving, race baiting populist. His record, statements, writings and church activities say so. The man is the most seriously under-qualified nominee for President in the entire history of the United States. Underachievers like Grover Cleveland or the abysmal Herbert Hoover look majestic when compared to the community organiser who believes there are 57 US states. The collective orgasmic expostulations around the little man with the big ears hides the relevant and important fact that (n)Obama is the worst possible leader imaginable – worse even than the stupidest man in US history, that obscene anti-semite dimwit Jimmy Carter. The Americans might as well elect Mickey Mouse to lead them than (n)Obama. At least Mickey is honest.

(n)Obama is a classic economic populist, cultural marxist and a raging ‘progressive’ liberal [an oxymoron with the emphasis on the moron]. Not only is (n)Obama the most left-wing Senator in the US Senate based on his voting record, but possesses the most radical ideas garnered from his supporters about redistribution, government’s role to ‘unite’ society, and genuflection to the global ‘community’ [whatever that means]. (n)Obama is simply the most dangerous demagogue to come forward in US politics since Huey Long.

Long was a nationalist-populist during a period of history when authoritarian rule was deemed ‘progressive’. So-called intellectuals supported the twin absurdities of corporate fascism and communism. State management was deemed moral, and community feeling and extremist nationalist ideology in which the individual was submerged into the whole was portrayed as necessary, spiritual and mandatory. Long’s program of populist race baiting; ecomomic management and the creation of ‘us versus them’ rhetoric was part of a troubled episode in which freedom and clear thinking were replaced by blind emotion and state created enthusiasm.

(n)Obama exhibits much of the same penchant for simplistic formulae, state organised parades and speeches; and ego-centricity as any tin horn dictator, populist or Roman senatorial demagogue. (n)Obama is just a pale version of what has long gone on in politics – the pandering to the populist mass by promising some set of nonsense to mask what is really at issue – the aggrandizement of state power. Ironicially the very lemmings and automata who support the little man with no experience, and who say that only they and he have the right ideas, programs and beliefs, are the same small people who cry about freedom, rights and individualism. Their statist program of course would result in the exact opposite of what they weep so emotionally about.

(n)Obama’s socialist agenda:

1. Taxes: The little Black messiah would enact the largest tax increase in US history. This would completely wipe out an already weak US economy and cause capital flight from the US, and from the US dollar, to overseas. There would truly be a deep and profound US economic recession.

2. Trade: Given that (n)Obama’s base are union and government workers, trade restrictions and an increase in barriers would be mandatory. Trade intra-NAFTA and with China would be put at risk. The world trading system would suffer reverses from 60 years of GATT-WTO tariff and protectionist reduction. The average consumer will suffer as will the economy.

3. Spending: The US government is going bankrupt. Social security and medicaid and future liabilities [ie future taxes] now stand at Trillion or 4 times the size of the US economy. (n)Obama’s plan of state power accretion would increase this future debt and increase the size of current and future entitlement spending by $ 1 Trillion per year. It is madness. Spending needs to be reduced by 50% and the entitlement programs need to be privatised.

4. The Death Cult: (n)Obama is the most pro abortion member of the Senate. He openly advocates the creation of government sponsored abortion clinics. Obviously the little Black man has never seen a video of a fetus’ development. How is murdering a human consistent with his rhetoric about love, humanity and unity?

5. Eco-fascism: (n)Obama’s plan to hire 50.000 green-workers to go around and trim trees smacks of FDR’s make work programs during the depression which did nothing to solve unemployment but did a lot to destroy private capital. (n)Obama would also raise taxes on carbon usage; engage in carbon trading [ie tax and redistribution]; and ensure that the eco-fanatics stopped any development of sensible carbon or nuclear energy usage. How this helps the ‘average’ man when energy costs will of course only increase, perhaps only (n)Obama knows.

6. The Useless Nations: Like a typical globalist-socialist little (n)Obama is deeply concerned about whether everyone loves the US or himself personally. Knee bending to the marxists at the UN would come very naturally to the little man from Chicago. That the UN is useless, corrupt and wastes 0 million per annum of US money never crosses the knotted little liberal minds. Yet they will weep that 0 million spent on Iraq per annum is too much.

7. Socialisation of the economy: Whole sectors from health care to energy will undergo a massive government re-regulation and imposition. Health care fraud wastes 0 billion per annum in the US – because it is managed by the government. Contrary to cartoonish portrayals that the US health care system is some free market nirvana, the reality is that the US system is 60% directly owned or managed by government with the remaining 40% under European styled regulation. The US needs a real market in health care, not (n)Obama state management.

8. Iraq and the war: (n)Obama is clueless about war, foreign affairs, or why we are in Iraq to start with [hint WMD is not the answer]. Being an appeasing clown (n)Obama has maintained over 4 years that the US must exit Iraq post haste. Leaving Iraq would have resulted in a huge US defeat and in a resurgence in extremist Islamic power and terorism. How that would benefit US strategic interests or that of the region perhaps the little orator can condescend to enumerate to us beknighted peasants. (n)Obama is a pacifist and a globalist. He has no idea about national strategic interests.

Summary:

Nice words don’t make nice leaders. Lenin was famously dynamic at the podium. Mussolini held most of Italy in thrall. Hitler speeches are apogees of stage management and acting to support emotionally galvanizing rhetoric. Huey Long could mobilise populist passions in a direction that was not only dangerous but at times immoral. Be aware of the charismatic leader. (n)Obama’s rhetoric means nothing. Any actor can stutter about hope, change, more hope, unity, some more change and of course love. It is just drivel.

What the little Black man from Chicago wants to do is reasonably straight forward: increase taxes; install more government spending; end US military paramountcy; lose the war against Islamic terror; regulate and limit freedoms and turn the US into a larger version of Sweden. That is what his plans and those of this supporters comes down to. Just another infantile set of measures designed to wipe out the US experiment. That is what this charlatan is all about. It is fantastically disgusting.

The Debra Medina Message

Debra Medina? Who in the world is that? I asked that question sometime back in 2009. Some call her the Texas Sarah Palin.  Factually, Debra Medina is a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2010 Texas gubernatorial election. She participated in the January 14 televised debate with incumbent Governor Rick Perry and challenger U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Soon thereafter, people began to know who Debra was as she tripled her support in public opinion polls. 

A funny thing happened on the way to the Kay Baily Hutchinson coronation!

First Rick Perry got a savvy pollster who said any message that painted Hutchinson as a Washington insider would work- and it did! Last year Ms. Hutchinson had a 20 point lead and now she’s hoping to just finish second this Tuesday thanks to Debra Medina.

So the second thing that happened was this national Tea Party phenomenon.

Medina has become a political headline in Texas. As a star of the rightwing populist Tea Party movement, she delivers the passionate that resonates with Texas particularly which is a message of slashing taxes and the abolition of almost all forms of federal government, and issues dire warnings that President Obama is taking America down a slippery slope to Soviet-style communism.

Both Debra and her husband Noe were born in Beeville, Texas. Raised on a South Texas farm, Debra’s hard work and perseverance saw her through nursing school, a bachelor’s degree and the start of her own business while homeschooling and raising two children. And she’s wrecking havoc with Republican Texas politics which is yet another precursor to what’s coming nationally this November.

Can she finish second in the primary Tuesday? Most pollsters say no; however, the people speak, and vote, Tuesday, not the pollsters.

Britons Set To Waste