If you haven't already, please call Senator Salazar and urge him to vote against the latest NAFTA agreement coming before the Senate for a vote tomorrow.

With your help, the House vote sounded a death knell for President Bush's expansion of NAFTA as the basis for future trade agreements. However, the Senate hasn't gotten the message. The vote was not supposed to occur so soon, yet now is expected tomorrow! The Senate needs to listen to what you helped a majority of House Democrats declare with their votes: We can't afford any more NAFTAs.

We can't afford any more NAFTA. With the highest U.S. trade deficit ever, and more than 3 million high-paying manufacturing jobs lost during the NAFTA era, we can't afford any more NAFTA-like trade deals. If Congress allows the Peru or Panama FTAs, big corporations will use these deals to ship more U.S. jobs away and push down the wages of jobs staying here. More family farmers and small businesses will go bankrupt.

The Peru NAFTA expansion will fuel the drug war. Decades of U.S. efforts to get poor Peruvian farmers to grow food crops instead of coca could be undone as tons of imported U.S. food crops flood into Peru. The Peru NAFTA expansion will undermine years (and billions of tax dollars worth) of our drug-eradication efforts by forcing the same NAFTA-style farm and food rules onto Peruvian farmers that resulted in 1.3 million Mexican campesinos losing their livelihoods. It is not only a moral outrage to so threaten so many of Peru's poorest citizens - the results will boomerang back on the Unites States with more coca production and more desperate people making the dangerous attempt to migrate here when their livelihoods at home are destroyed.

The Peru NAFTA expansion gives corporations too much power over Social Security. The Peru NAFTA expansion could allow Citibank or other U.S. investors providing "private retirement accounts" to sue Peruvian taxpayers in foreign tribunals demanding million in compensation if Peru tries to reverse its failed Social Security privatization. Americans don't want our own Social Security system privatized, so how can we use trade agreements to go around locking in other countries privatized systems that have resulted in the very damage we sought to avoid for ourselves? That is a terrible precedent.

The Peru NAFTA expansion will tie Congress' hands when it comes to food safety. The Peru NAFTA expansion agreement would replicate the NAFTA-WTO limits on Congress' ability to protect our food safety -- while increasing the amount of unsafe food imports. Some of the very policies Congress is now considering to tackle the imported food safety crisis would be threatened to challenge as 'illegal trade barriers.' We need to enhance our food safety system, not continue to weaken it!

The Peru NAFTA expansion threatens the upper Amazon basin, the most biodiverse area on earth. The current Peruvian president is opening up new, extremely sensitive tracts of pristine Amazon jungle to oil and gas exploration by the same multinationals that have caused mass environmental devastation in the region in the past. The trade deal's investment rules would lock in the rights to rip up the Amazon, even if future Peruvian governments reversed this terrible policy - allowing foreign investors to challenge desperately needed environmental laws and chilling future efforts to protect the environment.

Please call Senator Salazar right now - before it is too late.

Well folks, the votes are cast and the tally is in.  The entire Colorado delegation to the House of Representatives voted in favor of the U.S.-Peru FTA - H.R. 3688.

All the Democrats, including DeGette and Perlmutter, voted in favor of a trade agreement designed "of Wall Street, by Wall Street and for Wall Street."  Once again, American and , in this case, Peruian working people get shafted.

I just called Rep. Perlmutter's office. According to the person who deals with trade issues, Ed has not yet decided how to vote on the US-Peru FTA (HR 3688). This seems odd because the vote is scheduled today.

PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TODAY AND URGE HIM/HER TO VOTE AGAINST THE US-PERU FTA.

The switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.

UPDATE:  The vote has been put off until November 8, 2007.  You still have time to call.  For a report from Columbia University on how bad this agreement still is see http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/2007/11/report_peru_labor_provisions_w.html.

With the presidential primary season kicking into high gear, both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly nervous about taking unpopular positions.

And what could be more unpopular than supporting NAFTA expansion deals that will offshore more good U.S. jobs, trash the environment, jack up medicine prices, threaten food safety and impoverish millions of small farmers in Latin America - driving new waves of desperate immigration?

But politicians in both parties also are eager to hoover up donations from multinational corporations and the other special interests who benefit at our expense from NAFTA style deals. So, the Senate Finance Committee has quietly decided to test the waters on NAFTA expansion by holding a hearing tomorrow to kick off the process towards passing the Peru NAFTA expansion - formally called the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

All four of the pending NAFTA expansions to Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea were sunk - thanks to your activism - until a backroom deal on May 10th by some Democratic trade leaders. The deal added improved labor standards to the Bush-negotiated NAFTA expansions. Yet, the deal did not remove any of the core NAFTA provisions that are the main cause of job loss and wage drops here, cause the displacement of small farmers in our trade partner countries, and empower foreign investors to attack our basic health and environmental laws in foreign tribunals.

Outrageously, in the midst of the imported food safety crisis, NAFTA-expansions like those to Peru and Panama will worsen imported food and product safety problems.

And, unbelievably, the U.S.-Peru FTA would lock in Social Security privatization in Peru, even as Democratic presidential candidates compete to see who can make stronger promises to protect against privatization here at home.

Not surprisingly, not a single union in the U.S. supports the deal or the resulting NAFTA expansions. Also opposing is Oxfam and an array of environmental, faith, consumer and family farm groups. And, the two major labor federations in Peru have just sent a letter to Democrats in the U.S. Congress, urging them to reject the agreement.

In their own letter to Congress (PDF), prominent U.S. Latino groups have called on Congress to stop Bush's NAFTA expansion - expressing concerns that the U.S.-Peru FTA will reduce rural incomes in Peru and increase the pressure on impoverished Peruvians to migrate - legally or illegally - to the United States.

The Democratic leadership is attempting to revive the “compromise immigration bill.”  They just don’t get it – nobody likes this bill.  Whether conservative, liberal or leftist, the American public recognizes that this bill is bad news.  A recent poll from Rasmussen Reports demonstrates how out of touch the supporters of this bill are: 

As the Senate prepares to resume debate the “comprehensive” immigration reform bill, the legislation continues to face broad public opposition. In fact, despite a massive White House effort, public opinion has barely moved since the public uproar stalled the bill just over two weeks ago.

 

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 22% of American voters currently favor the legislation. That’s down a point from 23% a couple of weeks ago from 26% when the debate in the Senate began. Fifty percent (50%) oppose the Senate bill while 28% are not sure.

 

Among the public, there is a bi-partisan lack of enthusiasm for the Senate bill.  It is supported by 22% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats, and 22% of those not affiliated with either major party.  It is opposed by 52% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats, and 48% of unaffiliateds.

 

From an ideological perspective, the bill is opposed by 59% of conservatives, 54% of liberals, and 45% of political moderates. Among those for whom none of the traditional ideological labels apply, just 20% are opposed.

 

Support is found from 20% of conservatives, 32% of liberals, and 18% of moderates.

 

Just 32% believe it would be better to pass the current bill instead of doing nothing. Forty-five percent (45%) believe it would be better to pass nothing at all.

 

If the current bill passed, 71% of American voters believe that another bill would be required to focus on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration. That’s up from 65% in our previous survey.

 

Rasmussen Reports and other firms have consistently found majority support for a hypothetical bill combining border security and legalized status for the 12 million or so illegal aliens already in the country. However, the data has also shown a huge gap between support for the actual legislation and a hypothetical bill. The reason for the gap is simple -- reducing illegal immigration is the first priority for voters but only 16% believe the Senate bill would reduce illegal immigration.  In fact, 41% believe the Senate bill would make things worse and lead to even more illegal immigration.

Bernie Sanders - for my money the only true "progressive" in the Senate - makes the case very well at Link.  Bernie Sanders was joined by AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka at a Capitol Hill news conference to spell out how an immigration bill now under consideration by the Senate would hurt workers in the United States and other countries. Edward Sullivan, president of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, and United Food and Commercial Workers President Joe Hansen also participated in the press conference.

This bill is bad for everyone.  Write Senator Salazar and tell him to vote against it.

I don't usually extensively quote someone else - but I have to make an exception today.  Bernie Sander, the Independant (Socialist) Senator from Vermont hits the nail right on the head:

"The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act addresses the concern all of us have about securing our borders, something I strongly support. It addresses the need to hold employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants, something the Bush administration has neglected. It addresses the contentious and difficult issue of how we respond to the reality that there are some 12 million illegal immigrants in this country today, and carves out a path which eventually leads to citizenship, which I also support. What concerns me," Senator Sanders said, "are provisions in the bill that would bring low-wage workers into this country in order to depress the already declining wages of American workers. With poverty increasing and the middle-class shrinking, we must not force American workers into even more economic distress."

On May 9, 2007, President Bush promulgated two Executive Directives - NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51 and HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20 which will allow him to suspend our democratic republican government both national, state, local and tribal in the event of a "national emergency." Link The only problem is that the definition of a "national emergency" is so vague that literally any natural disaster anywhere in the country - earth quake in California or hurircane in the gulf coast - could trigger the implementation of the directive. Oh - and guess who decides if there is a "national emergency?" The Great Decider. There is no place for Congress or the Federal Courts to check the Executive Branch.

For those of you old enough or with a keen interest in recent history, this is Nixon's Houston Plan in spades.

Apparently, virtually no one in Congress is aware of these Executive Directives. Congress has the power to reject these directives if they act quickly. Please write your Congressmen and Senators and demand that they reject these attacks on our way of life.

The New York Times is reporting that the National Labor Relations Board has filed an unfair labor practice complaint against Starbucks for firing, intimidating and interrogating employees who supported efforts to unionize four of its stores in New York City. Apparently, this isn't the first time Starbucks has been caught violating the law:

"Thirteen months ago, Starbucks reached a settlement with the Industrial Workers of the World, agreeing to offer jobs back to two workers and to pay nearly $2,000 to several employees after the labor board brought a separate set of charges against the company, accusing it of illegally seeking to quash efforts to unionize." Article...

Over the years, I have become addicted to their high priced coffee.  I even got gift cards from my kids for my birthday.  Well, I guess that is all gone now - until Starbucks cleans up its act.

I waited with baited breath at the CAP/SEIU debate to hear what the Democratic candidates had to say about the health care crisis in this country. With the exception of Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, no one offered a comprehensive plan to address the problem. They all “felt our pain.” I am sorry but that is no longer enough.

The most disappointing was Barak Obama – primarily because I want to like him so much. (Disclosure: I even sent him a check.) When a member of the audience noted that Mr. Obama’s website contained no serious discussion of how he would address the problem, all he could say was, “Our campaign now is a little over eight weeks old.” How long have we known about the health care crisis? How many millions of dollars has Mr. Obama collected? How long has he been in political office? I believe Mr. Obama is currently a member of the U.S. Senate. If, as he says, the health care crisis is the most important domestic issue facing this country, what is and has he been waiting for? The time to show his “leadership” is now. Don’t ask the American people to wait.

In a very close second place was Hillary Clinton – but this may be because my expectations are so low. She spent most of her time whining about how hard it was in 1994. All she could offer was a series of minor band aides, which completely failed to address the underlying problem that a vast sector of the populous cannot afford health insurance and that employers are being bankrupted by the rising cost of the premiums.

While it may not be as much fun as kicking Scott McInnis or Bob Schaffer, the availability of affordable heath care is far more important.

For those of you who don’t know it, a commission to study health care proposals and report to the legislature is in full swing - 208 Commission. They are conducting hearings to receive comments from the public about what needs to be done. Formal proposals for consideration by the commission are due April 1, 2007.

Some very good people at Health Care for All Colorado have put together a proposal for a single-payer system to be submitted to the commission. They have done a very comprehensive job. (Even preparing proposed legislation for those detailed oriented of us who believe that the devil is always in the details.) I highly recommend that everyone read their proposal and give them your comments.

As important - SEND THEM MONEY! They will be facing an array of insurance company and health care industry opponents who have virtually unlimited resources.

I opened the Denver Post on Tuesday to find an article entitled "Ritter forms business council".  Link  As a small businessperson I was intrigued. Who was there representing my interests – a progressive small business. Try as I might, I could not find a list of the people on the council. However, the article did list the co-chairs of the council - Pat Vincent, president of Xcel Energy's Colorado operations and Rick Sapkin, chairman of the business lobbying group Colorado Concern.

Vincent was easy – a representative of big business and certainly not my friend or ally. But, I have to admit my ignorance of Colorado Concern. So, I started looking around. What did I find – Colorado Concern is another representative of big business – it donors are 80 chief executives. See, Denver Business Journal Link  In fact, Jessica Peck Cory, a policy analyst with the Independence Institute in Golden, describes Colorado Concern: as “the godfather of big business groups in Colorado.” Link

Where does a small progressive business fit in to your plans, Bill?

Update:  Well the list is out.  Not a single representative of small business let alone a true progressive political philosophy:

"The Business Advisory Group will be a bi-partisan effort to work on business issues that are in the best interests of Colorado," said Pat Vincent, president and CEO of Public Service Co. of Colorado, an Xcel Energy company. "We will look at economic development opportunities that benefit all residents in all parts of the state."

"Other members include: Reeves Brown, head of the Western Slope’s Club 20 organization; Rob Cohen, chairman and CEO of the IMA Financial Group Inc. and chair of the Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce board; Hubert Farbes, an attorney with Brownstein Hyatt and Farber; Craig Ferraro, partner and CFO of East West Partners; John Ikard, president and CEO of FirstBank Holding Co.; Walter Isenberg, founder of Sage Hospitality; Annette Quintana, co-founder of TeamExcel Inc.; Ann Sperling, former senior managing director of Trammell Crow Co.; Wellington Webb, former mayor of Denver and head of The Webb Group."

I give John Edwards a lot of credit for admitting that he made a mistake when voting for the war in Iraq. (Disclosure: I am supporting him for the nomination.) However, here is a quote from Barak Obama from 2002:

I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors... I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Nuff said.

Huffington Post is reporting that Hillary Clinton is playing a new kind of hardball:

Hillary To Donors: "No Money To Anybody Else"

Hillary Clinton is personally putting out the word that she has no intention of sharing the wealth: "She's calling all the big-hitter fundraisers and saying, 'I want you to understand: NO money to anybody else. You cannot play both sides of the street,'" in the '08 presidential race, says a longtime Democratic operative who has worked for the Clintons in the past but turned down a role in the current campaign, and is so far sitting this one out.

And what's the reaction been? "People don't like it, but they're afraid of her." Yet the far more palpable fear for Democrats, discussed constantly, is that she'll have so much money she'll sail to the nomination.

Well, if those are the rules, she can count on me - I won't be sending her a dime.

Clinton Bid Heralds Demise of Public Financing

By Dan Balz and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 23, 2007; Page A01

The public financing system designed to clean up presidential campaigns in the wake of the Watergate scandal may have died on Saturday when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) announced her bid for the White House.

Little noticed amid the announcement rollout was a page on her Web site in which she asked potential contributors to give her campaign checks of up to $4,200. That figure signaled not only that she plans to forgo public funds for primary season but also that, if she becomes the nominee, she will not take public money for the general election.

By opting out of the system, Clinton will be able to spend as much money as she can raise, both for the primaries and for the general election, rather than being forced to abide by strict spending limits imposed by the Federal Election Commission on candidates who accept public financing.

Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO): Salazar "said he was willing to consider putting more U.S. troops into Iraq, but only as part of a larger plan to stabilize that country and allow U.S. troops to withdraw. 'It's a concept that needs to be evaluated as part of an entire plan and I don't know what the president will propose,' he said earlier this week. 'Just putting more troops into Iraq hoping to stop the (civil) violence is not a plan. Our troops deserve a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice.'" [Pueblo Chieftan, 1/5/07]

Moody noted that Colorado labor unions helped to raise millions of dollars to support Democratic candidates this year. As the party of labor, Democrats have an obligation to support union organizing, she said.

"I don't believe the host committee has put the same amount of pressure on the Pepsi Center as they are on the unions," said Moody.

"The bill I voted for today was the best bill we could reasonably expect in this highly charged political environment. I am relieved that Senators McCain, Warner and Graham, former Secretary of State Collin Powell, and others helped preserve the fundamentals articulated in the Geneva Convention; a cornerstone to preserving America's moral high ground in the global efforts against terror.

"Due to the many controversial and far-reaching implications of this bill, I believe it would be appropriate to force Congressional review of this bill in five years. I have concerns with this bill, but on balance it meets my personal view of what America needs to get the job done."