26dems Homepage
Tech Advisory: This web page is best viewed in Firefox, Safari, or Internet Explorer version 7 and newer. You may have to upgrade Adobe Flashplayer if you experience problems. Report any problem to the webmaster.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Incoming House Finance Chair: Regulators exist to ‘serve the banks,’

By Sahil Kapur
"BIG BANK BACHUS"
Rawstory
Monday, December 13th, 2010 -- 3:25 pm

 Alabama Republican Spencer Bachus, the incoming chairman of the House banking committee, suggested Congress and federal regulators should play a subservient role with banks.

"In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks," Bachus told The Birmingham News in an interview.

The Republican leadership last week designated Bachus the next chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, which is tasked with overseeing banks, financial markets, housing and consumer credit.


Democrats characterized the remark as a Freudian slip, nicknaming the Alabaman "Big Bank Bachus" and claiming the new Republican-controlled House will put the interests of financial institutions ahead of the American public.


Continue reading here.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Raising cap on social security tax best way to fix shortfall

By John S. Irons
Economic Policy Institute
June 17, 2009



26 Dems Editorial Note: Dr. Irons, Director of the Economic Policy Institute provided written testimony to the Senate Special Committee on Aging, June 17, 2009

Thank you Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member Martinez, and other members of the committee for inviting me to testify today.

The Social Security system has been the bedrock of retirement security for Americans for over half a century. Over the years, the system has evolved in response to changing conditions. As is well known, program outlays are expected to outpace revenue so that the system faces a shortfall over the next 75 years. Responsible stewardship of the program would necessitate making feasible adjustments to move us towards sustainability.

Long-run balance within the system can be achieved in one or a combination of three ways: by reducing total benefits, by increasing payroll tax revenue currently dedicated to Social Security, or by transferring general revenue to Social Security.

My testimony today will focus on the second of these options - that is, increasing payroll tax revenue. Specifically, I want to suggest that any policy to increase overall revenue through the payroll tax should include an increase in the cap on earnings subject to the tax.

As you know, Social Security taxes are levied on earnings up to a maximum level that is adjusted each year to keep pace with average wages. In 2009, this payroll tax cap is set at $106,800 dollars, and roughly 6 percent of the population has earnings above the cap.

Due to growing income inequality, the share of earnings above the cap has risen from 10 percent in 1982 to over 16 percent in 2006. This is because incomes have grown strongly at the top while middle incomes have stagnated.

This trend is expected to continue, meaning that a growing share of earnings will remain outside the tax base.  
Continue reading here.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

How the Right Shapes US 'Reality'

By Lawrence Davidson
Consortium News
December 11, 2010

Consortium News Editor’s Note: In modern American politics, the Right and the neoconservatives have invested heavily in -- and proven to be very adept at -- shaping how large segments of the population understand reality, a concept sometimes called “perception management.”

This sophisticated propaganda now influences everything from why Americans distrust global-warming science to when they go to war, as professor Lawrence Davidson describes in this guest essay:

There is a postmodern position that states "reality is a social construct." In other words, individuals and groups have their own realities and, according to the postmodernists, one reality is as true as another.

Certainly there is more than one way to interpret things. It is because individuals see the world differently and, at least in the American cultural milieu, have such trouble reconciling those views, that U.S. divorce rates run at about 50 percent.

Then there is the inescapable fact that nation states and rival ethnic communities periodically slaughter each other (and persistently try to repress one another) in an effort to disprove the postmodernist assertion that all realities are equal.

Thus we see the competition among groups to assert the reality of the powerful as triumphantly more real than the reality of all rivals.

It is hard to argue with the notion that there are many social, cultural and political "constructs," each a product of its place and time. However, the notion that all realities are equal can quickly take us into a kind of theater of the absurd.

If you want to see what this looks like just take a close look at present-day American politics.

Take the issue of climate change. John Shimkus is a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Illinois. He is presently campaigning for the chairmanship of the House Committee for Energy and Commerce.

Last year, during a congressional hearing, he asserted that there is no need to be concerned about global warming because after the biblical flood God promised Noah that he would "never again ... curse the ground because of man."

Shimkus sees this as "the infallible word of God, and that is the way it’s going to be for his creation."

Well, this is an opinion for sure, but it is also John Shimkus’s "reality." As such is it the equal to the reality posited by the present scientific consultants of the Environmental Protection Agency?




Continue reading here.

Losing Our Moral Compass in Pursuit of Profit, Efficiency

by Caroline Arnold
Published on Sunday, December 12, 2010 by the Record Courier (Ohio) & republished by
Commondreams.org


Recently, on a cold morning with a little snow fooling around in the bright air, I was chilled by this sentence in an AP news story:

"The idea isn't to just raise revenue, economists say, but finally to turn Americans into frugal health-care consumers by having them face the full costs of their medical decisions ("Tax Break on Employer Health Plans Targeted" Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, AP 11/29/10)

Oh, of course -- all Americans should face the full costs of their decisions to have broken bones, heart attacks, or sick children, right?

Even more chilling to me were the underlying assumptions that economists/technocrats decide what's best for everyone, and that it's just as important -- if not more important -- to turn Americans into tame consumers for the private sector as it is to raise revenues for the common good.

This led me to some further, chillier assumptions:

  • democracy and politics are messy and unmanageable and must be replaced by the disciplined professionalism of scientists, technicians and economists.
  • ordinary citizens lack the ability to deal with the "real world" of money, brokerage, extraction of natural resources,wars, weapons and political power, and must be kept out of decisions about them or even knowing about them. 
  • our most important moral obligation to our children is to not leave them any debts.
  • to be secure we must pre-emptively kill terrorists, would-be terrorists, might-be terrorists, geriatric terrorists, stone-throwing juvenile terrorists.....
  • the economically sound is the morally right.

In his recent book "The Logic of Discipline", Alasdair Roberts proposes that democracy has been undermined by financial liberalization, free trade and a globalized economy. Technicians, economists and managers, he observes, are very skeptical of the ability of democracy to make "the right decisions" for financial stability and security, and they doubt that ordinary politicians and voters are ‘disciplined' enough to make sensible policy decisions.

Before joining Senator John Glenn's Washington staff in 1985, Caroline Arnold (csarnold@neo.rr.com) was a teacher, founded a small business, and served three terms on the Kent (OH) Board of Education. In retirement she sits on the boards of Kent Social Services and Family & Community Services in Portage County and is principal cellist of the Stow Symphony.
Continue reading here. 

Confronting the Myths About Tenure and Teachers' Unions

by Ellen Dannin
t r u t h o u t 
Saturday 11 December 2010


Current American education policy is built on these assumptions: The quality of American education has plummeted because our schools are filled with teachers who can't teach. Teachers' unions and contracts tie the hands of school administrators. And teachers' unions protect bad teachers. Here are a few reasons why these conclusions are leading our educational system in a bad direction.

First, these policies ignore the effects of poverty on educational outcomes. Given the increasing number of children growing up in poverty, we ignore its effects at our peril.

I know something about poverty and its effects because I grew up in an impoverished, single-parent home and attended a low-quality school through eighth grade. Despite those beginnings, I graduated from one of the top US law schools and am now a law professor. If I could make it, then poverty must not matter, right?

But not all poverty is the same. My mother had a nursing degree and our home was filled with books. We lived in rural, small-town poverty near my farmer grandparents, who made certain we had good-quality food. Crime in our area was almost nonexistent. I am white, and my family has spoken standard English for generations. And there wasn't much of a gap between the poorest and the richest in that area.

Compare my experience with a school I saw as part of a San Diego School District oversight team. The home language of 82 percent of the students at the school was not English, and 29 different languages were spoken in those homes. Most students qualified for free breakfasts and lunches. Many had had no formal education when they enrolled. The teachers there worked cooperatively to develop curricula to address the challenges they faced.  

Continue reading here. 

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Why Bill Clinton's Favorable View of Obama's Tax Deal Should Be Disregarded

By Robert Reich,Fmr. Secretary of Labor; Professor at Berkeley; Author, Aftershock: 'The Next Economy and America's Future'
Huffington Post
Posted: December 11, 2010 02:06 PM

Bill Clinton seems the perfect validator for Barack Obama -- which is why the president is utilizing the former president for selling his tax deal. After all, the economy boomed when Clinton was president and 22 million net new jobs were created. From a more narrow political perspective -- and this is important to Democrats in Washington -- Bill Clinton was reelected, even though he lost both houses of Congress in the 1994 midterms.

But the analogy falls apart as soon as you realize Clinton's economy was vastly different from Obama's. The recession Clinton inherited was relatively small, and caused by the Fed raising interest rates too high to ward off inflation. So it could be reversed by the Fed lowering interest rates -- as the Fed did in 1994. By 1995, the so-called "jobless recovery" had morphed into a full-blown jobs recovery. By 1996, at pollster Dick Morris's urging, Clinton could proclaim to the American people "you've never had it so good, and you ain't seen nothing yet."

The Great Recession has been far larger, caused not by the Fed raising interest rates but by the bursting of a giant housing bubble. In 2008, the biggest asset of most middle-class people, upon which they borrowed and that they assumed would be their nest eggs for retirement, collapsed. Housing prices continue to fall in most parts of the country. The Fed has lowered interest rates all it can, and unemployment remains sky high.

Bill Clinton presided over an economic boom engineered by Fed chair Alan Greenspan, who felt confident he could drop interest rates far lower than anyone expected without risking inflation. The result was 4 percent unemployment in many parts of America, as well as the best jobs recovery in history.


The price Greenspan exacted from Clinton -- and a resurgent Republican congress demanded -- was a balanced budget. As a result, Clinton had to give up much of his "investment agenda" in education, infrastructure, and other long-neglected means of building the productivity of average working Americans. The economy enjoyed a huge cyclical recovery.




Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Fuiture  and Reason, Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org. 


Continue reading here.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

What Elizabeth Edwards Did for the Antiwar Movement

Published on Wednesday, December 8, 2010
by John Nichols
The Nation

Elizabeth Edwards was a distinct political figure—the wife of a vice-presidential nominee and leading presidential contender who was consistently willing to stake out more dynamic and detailed positions than her husband. She was, for instance, dramatically more supportive of gay rights than John Edwards—so much so that when the former senator was asked about the issue during 2008 presidential debates he ended up having to explain why he had not yet "evolved" toward Elizabeth's more enlightened stances in favor of same-sex marriage and rescinding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

I always enjoyed interviewing Elizabeth more than John because Elizabeth, who has died at age 61 after a long battle with cancer, was so much more likely to say something that mattered. And where Elizabeth Edwards said the most that mattered during the time of her greatest political prominence was in her embrace of the anti-war movement at a point when her husband and other leading Democrats remained troublingly tentative.

Always more deeply and specifically critical of the Iraq War, Elizabeth Edwards played an essential role in moving her husband toward a more aggressively anti-war position as he prepared for his 2008 presidential run. But it was not just John Edwards that Elizabeth moved. With a specific act in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential contest, the wife of the Democratic party's vice presidential candidate in that race gave a sort of official blessing to a more militant—and meaningful—anti-war activism.

In the summer of 2005—long before John Edwards apologized for his 2002 vote to authorize President Bush to take the country to war in Iraq—Elizabeth Edwards expressed support for Cindy Sheehan, as the mother of slain soldier Casey Sheehan was emerging as the face of a noisier, more unapologetic and more uncompromising antiwar movement.

Continue reading here.


Ex-Intelligence Officers, Others See Plusses in WikiLeaks Disclosures

News Release
Institute for Public Accuracy
December 7, 2010

The following statement was released today, signed by Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Grevil, Katharine Gun, David MacMichael, Ray McGovern, Craig Murray, Coleen Rowley and Larry Wilkerson; all are associated with Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.

WikiLeaks has teased the genie of transparency out of a very opaque bottle, and powerful forces in America, who thrive on secrecy, are trying desperately to stuff the genie back in. The people listed below this release would be pleased to shed light on these exciting new developments.

How far down the U.S. has slid can be seen, ironically enough, in a recent commentary in Pravda (that's right, Russia's Pravda): "What WikiLeaks has done is make people understand why so many Americans are politically apathetic ... After all, the evils committed by those in power can be suffocating, and the sense of powerlessness that erupts can be paralyzing, especially when ... government evildoers almost always get away with their crimes. ..."

So shame on Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and all those who spew platitudes about integrity, justice and accountability while allowing war criminals and torturers to walk freely upon the earth. ... the American people should be outraged that their government has transformed a nation with a reputation for freedom, justice, tolerance and respect for human rights into a backwater that revels in its criminality, cover-ups, injustices and hypocrisies.

Odd, isn't it, that it takes a Pravda commentator to drive home the point that the Obama administration is on the wrong side of history. Most of our own media are demanding that WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange be hunted down -- with some of the more bloodthirsty politicians calling for his murder. The corporate-and-government dominated media are apprehensive over the challenge that WikiLeaks presents. Perhaps deep down they know, as Dickens put it, "There is nothing so strong ... as the simple truth."

Continue reading here.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Sorry, We Spent Your Unemployment Insurance on the Afghan Ambassador's Trump Tower Condo

By Robert Greenwald
Filmmaker, Brave New Films
Huffington Post
Dec. 1, 2010


While unemployment insurance payments are running out for millions of Americans who lost jobs due to no fault of their own, the Afghan ambassador to the UN is living in a $4.2 million Manhattan condo on our dime.
While Americans are standing in line for the local food pantry, we're paying for this guy's mahogany kitchen cabinets.

It's outrageous, and it shows the warped priorities in Washington, D.C. Are our politicians really so out of touch that they don't realize how angry this kind of thing makes us? In case you folks inside the Beltway haven't noticed, we're falling apart out here. The last thing we need to be funding is this guy's access to "private Pilates and massage rooms." But hey, if we're going to be blowing taxpayer money on massages, I know several million people who could use a neck rub.

WATCH VIDEO


Continue reading here.

It's Time To Save The Democrats From Themselves -- And All Of Us From Deficit Extremism

By Richard (RJ) Eskow
Campaign for America's Future
November 30, 2010 - 8:58pm ET
   
It's come to this: At a strange and bitter press conference this afternoon (where they even accused their opponents of "racism"), the co-chairs of the Presidential Deficit Commission laid out a proposal that literally meets the dictionary definition of extremism. They've apparently rewritten the Executive Order creating their Commission, too, so if enough Commission members back their proposal it could become law. That would spell long-term defeat for the Democratic Party. More importantly, it would create misery for generations to come.

The only four people who can prevent this disaster are the four Democratic members of the Deficit Commission who have yet to stake a clear position on this proposal: Sen. Kent Conrad, Sen. Max Baucus, Sen. Dick Durbin, and Rep. Xavier Becerra. They need to hear from intelligent, sober-minded people who will encourage them to take a brave stand against these destructive ideas. (Their phone numbers are below.)
_______________________________________________
ex·trem·ist (x-strmst): n. One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics. [1]

Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson are pushing ideas that lie well outside the norms that have governed mainstream politics for the last 75 years. Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed a Social Security advisory council back in 1959, for example, which disproved many of the talking points Bowles and Simpson are still using today.

That hasn't stopped them. And if their positions are out of step with political orthodoxy, they're even further out of step with public opinion. They want to cut Social Security to decrease the deficit - a move that's even opposed by most Tea Partiers. Washington ireporters and politicians get upset when anybody but one of them uses the word "extremist." But what's a better word?
When you're too right-wing for the Tea Party, it's official: You're an extremist.

As we reported elsewhere, 67% of the public opposes Social Security cuts. 69% are against raising the retirement age. 79% are against cutting Medicare. How many of these ideas are likely to be in the Simpson/Bowles proposal?

All of them.

And it gets worse - much worse. Simpson and Bowles kept repeating a new slogan for tax expenditures - "tax earmarks" - for the deductions familiar to most Americans. That term sounds like it was dreamed up by the same Pete Peterson consultant who came up with the tin-eared "Owe No" slogan, but the co-chairs repeated it as if it were the Lord's Prayer. "Senate earmarks only cost $16 billion a year," they said, "but 'tax earmarks' cost $1.1 trillion." They hinted strongly that they intended to recommend ending all tax expenditures.

What would that mean? Ending the mortgage interest credit would push millions more struggling homeowners underwater, triggering another wave of foreclosures. Ending the child tax credit would push many families with children deeper into a financial quagmire. Ending the employer tax credit for health benefits would erode or completely end health benefits for 144 million Americans who are insured through their employer today (a number that has already been dropping rapidly).
Millions of lost jobs, millions of lost votes

The EPI had already estimated that the co-chairs' proposal could cost 4 million jobs - and that was before the "tax earmark" routine. It's no wonder that some Republicans, who have been chafing at the bit to do these things for ages, are egging on Obama and Senate Democrats to embrace their proposal. They would get policies their party financiers have craved for decades - and Democrats would take the fall.

These Republicans are like schoolkids urging the unpopular nerd to break the principal's window. They'll hear the satisfying sound of breaking glass, and they'll get rid of a a pesky kid they didn't want hanging around anyway.

ex·tremism: n. Any political theory favoring immoderate, uncompromising policies. [2]

Ideas aren't bad just because they're outside the political mainstream. All of the principles we hold dear as a nation probably were, at one time or another. But one of the striking things about this afternoon's press conference was the vitriol and contempt that Simpson and Bowles slung at anyone who dares to react to their ideas with anything other than enthusiasm or submission. Dissent from their radical orthodoxy, as they presented it today, was an impermissible position that could only come from the basest of motives: "The far left and the far right have hired auditoriums to terrorize their minions," said Simpson. (They often use false equivalence - pretending that conservatives are as outraged as progressives - to mask their positions.)

Who's terrorizing who? The deficits are a "cancer," they said. They'll bring on a collapse that will come "all of a sudden" and "without warning." "The era of deficit denial is over," Smpson bragged - before adding, bizarrely, that their opponents were guilty of "racism" (no explanation was given) and were spreading "emotion, guilt, and fear."

Failing up?

Among other things, this press conference was an admission of failure. As Atrios pointed out, the Executive Order creating their commission gave them clear direction: " 14 out of 18 votes (are) needed to report recommendations, and recommendations must be reported to Congress by December 1, 2010. " The co-chairs made it clear they don't expect to win 14 votes and announced they would miss the date by which "recommendations must be reported."

But rules are apparently for the little people. They're forging ahead anyway, planning to submit a report that's missed their deadline and failed to win enough votes for passage. The fact that their "report" isn't an official report anymore, combined with their "immoderate, uncompromising" policy position, should be the end of the story. But we can't be sure. President Obama's wage freeze for Federal workers was an ill-advised nod to deficit hysteria, and an overly compliant Harry Reid told Bowles and Simpson that a vote on their proposed bill was possible next year. Those are warning signs that the Democrats may be preparing to do themselves - and everybody else - lasting harm.

The last line of defense

That's where the rest of us come in.

Simpson and Bowles will use every vote they get as an affirmation that the Senate must vote on their extreme legislative draft. If it passes in the right-leaning Senate, the Boehner Congress could be a shoo-in. And the President cannot be counted upon to veto such a bill. These four Democrats are the last line of defense. They need to be reminded that there are better ways to manage the country's finances (the Citizens' Commission report on Jobs, Deficits, and America's Economic Future is a great place to start.) They need to hear from thoughtful, rational citizens who can explain the serious flaws in the Simpson-Bowles proposal. In other words, they need to hear from you.

So why not call them? Sen. Conrad's office number is (202) 224-2043. Sen. Baucus can be reached at (2020) 224-2651. Sen. Durbin's number is (202) 224-2152. Rep. Becerra is at (202) 225-6235. Be respectful. They're undoubtedly under extreme political pressure. Please call them. Let them know that if they resist this rush to fiscal extremism, millions of grateful Americans will have their back.
_________________________________
[1] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
[2] WordNet 3.0 © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc
This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Daily Kos Ex Pat's Diary: Plutocrat Owned U.S. Media Keeps Americans in the Dark About Death of American Dream

Death of American dream, 60 million no sick leave, 132 million no dental, 59 million without medical
by Democrats Ramshield
Daily Kos
Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 04:20:39 AM PST


(Written by an American expat living in the European Union).
It wasn't until I left America that I started to realize how badly the American plutocrat owned media lies to the American people through its disinformation campaign.

Well today for a span of at least this one Daily Kos diary, you will get to see what the American plutocrat owned media never wants you to see, and that is how Europe in particular and the world in general has come to see America as a country in decline, whose people are so badly misinformed by the media, they actually don't realize that America is the only major industrialized nation in the world that by right of law does not offer universal medical access, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave and paid annual leave. It just seems almost impossible to get that word out to the American people. Even diaries on that subject at the Kos top out at just over 2,000 views. Let's please remember the purpose of the plutocrat owned commercial media isn't so much to inform us but rather to sell commercial advertising space.
Therefore this diary today will try to do something different. It will show you what the European media is saying about the American dream and you will be shocked!

Democrats Ramshield's diary :: ::


Here the British Guardian newspaper says that the so-called American middle class lifestyle for most people was fake and that was financed by three decades of a debt bubble which has now gone bust. The credit ride of working class folks living a middle class lifestyle is dead and gone. Is this article stating bluntly that it's over? The only remaining question is, will it ever come back? I mean, how long can people ride a wave of endless debt before the ride is over, all while pretending to be middle class? Is that what this British Guardian newspaper article is saying? Well, to that end I offer the quote below and a link to the full article. Please read it and decide for yourself what it says.

Continue reading here. 

WATCH VIDEO

Monday, November 29, 2010

Market-Based Dogmas Undermine Strong Education

26Dems Editorial Comment:  Rick Ayers explains how much the rightist free-market ideology has deeply infiltrated common knowledge by undermining widely accepted social norms and is sowing the seeds of destruction of our educational system as well as our entire society. According to Ayers, the "reform" movement at its core represents a Darwinian struggle highlighted in the recent film Waiting for Superman.  This is one of the most cogent, comprehensive evaluations of why the social institutions in our country are collapsing I have read. We must realize what has happened if we are to understand how to restore America to its ideals of social justice, equal opportunity and full development of creative potential.  And we must remember that exploitations by the corporate titan class in the nineteenth century were overcome by real reform that yielded a strong more just and prosperous society for all. If we are to turn the tide we must as the author suggests, not to be afraid to champion the values of an educational system based on building community, supporting students and inspiring every child to achieve potential. Moreover, we must do a better job of explaining how damage wrought by an emotionally dysfunctional ideologically driven educational model. It is imperative that we connect educational ills to economic and social suffering many are experiencing as rightists blame the victims and openly celebrate their glee at finally being able to destroy government altogether.

By Rick Ayers
Adjunct Professor in Education, University of San Francisco
Huffington Post
Posted: November 4, 2010 09:22 PM

One of the barriers we must overcome in framing a reasonable debate on school reform is the powerful hegemony of right-wing ideology which sees free-market mechanisms as the only way to organize a large social project such as education or health care. Indeed, the notion of a public space, a democratically controlled community effort, is almost impossible to advance in the current debates. For this, we have to thank the victory of the right-wing Reagan agenda, building on the dogmas of free-market gurus such as Milton Freedman and Ayn Rand.

The current free-market religion makes such pre-Reagan Republicans as Nixon and Eisenhower look like lefties. Politicians and researchers only a generation ago, even conservatives, entertained the possibility of various models of how to organize society, different versions of liberal capitalism, which allowed for aspects of social democratic ideas -- strong social supports, medical care, public education, etc. All of these are now under attack. The ideology of American politics today makes liberals such as Obama and Duncan act like blinkered rightists.

The goal of the most extreme exponents of the new ultra-right is nothing less than the turning back of all the reforms of the New Deal -- privatizing social security, ending trade unions, and even making such services as fire protection and medical care a matter of individual, private purchase. Everything functions when there is competition, self-interested battle, and Social Darwinist struggle. (Of course, as an aside, we note that these ideologues of competition usually end up supporting massive monopoly power -- a command economy where those calling the tunes sit in the top boardrooms).

This debate in American society goes back even before the New Deal. During the late 19th Century, when massive industrialization led to efforts of workers to build trade unions for decent pay and conditions, when Native American and African-American communities were struggling for basic survival, Horatio Alger wrote a series of popular pulp novels which proposed that the plucky determination of individuals could help them pull themselves up by their bootstraps, they could achieve success and happiness by looking out for only themselves. The dream of individual success, of escaping the working class, was supposed to keep the rest, the millions who did not escape, content and hopeful -- hey maybe they could make it. This myth was always in conflict with the vision of the unions and activists, the idea of a public good in public power.

During the 19th century, advanced education was reserved for the elites -- basic literacy and social discipline was the lot of those designated for factory work. As for people of color, the place reserved for them in the rightist universe was even more limited. Chinese men were brought in for railroad construction -- no education. Native Americans were kept out of schools or sent to such centers as the Carlisle Indian School whose mission was to "civilize the savages," by "killing the Indian to save the man." African-American education either did not exist or focused again on the civilizing (subordinating) mission of schools.

Today in the mainstream political discourse, any talk of public space, democratic options, or social justice is seen as just so much fuzzy headed socialism. Reintroduction of the claim that poor people are stuck in ghettos because of a self-destructive "culture of poverty" echoes the charge by school authorities in the 19th century that those who did not do well suffered from moral failings.  
Continue reading here.