Was a good read..


Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears every Wednesday on CNN.com

NEW YORK (CNN) -- I don't know about you, but I can't take seriously anyone who takes either the Republican Party or Democratic Party seriously -- in part because neither party takes you and me seriously; in part because both are bought and paid for by corporate America and special interests. And neither party gives a damn about the middle class.

Our country's middle class is not just collateral damage in what has become all-out class warfare. Political, business and academic elites are waging an outright war on working men and women and their families, and there is no chance the American middle class will survive this assault if the dominant forces unleashed over the past five years continue unchecked.

They've accomplished this through large campaign contributions, armies of lobbyists that have swamped Washington, and control of political and economic think tanks and media. Lobbyists, in fact, are the arms dealers in the war on the middle class, brokering money, influence and information between their clients our elected officials.

Yet in my entire career, I've literally never heard anyone in Congress argue that lobbyists are bad for America. In 1968 there were only 63 lobbyists in Washington. Today, there are more than 34,000, and lobbyists now outnumber our elected representatives and their staffs by a 2-to-1 margin.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, from 1998 through 2004, lobbyists spent nearly $12 billion to not only influence legislation, but in many cases to write the language of the laws and regulations.

Individual firms, corporations and national organizations spent a record $2.14 billion on lobbying members of Congress and 220 other federal agencies in 2004, according to PoliticalMoneyLine. That's nearly $6 million a day spent to influence our leaders. We really do have the best government money can buy.

But as I discuss in my new book, "War on the Middle Class," what if we all resolved that we would not permit either the Republicans or Democrats to waste their time and ours with wedge issues? Both parties love to excite their bases by focusing on wedge issues like gay marriage, the pledge of allegiance, school prayer, judicial appointments, gun control, stem cell research and welfare reform.

Each of these wedge issues is important in varying degrees to large numbers of us, but none of them rises to the level of urgency or the requirement of immediate change in public policy.

These issues are raised by both political parties to distract and divert public attention from the profound issues -- like educating our youth, economic inequality and the war against radical Islamic terrorists -- that affect our daily lives and the American way of life. Imagine the consternation in Washington if both parties had to contend with a national electorate whose political affiliation had dramatically changed within a matter of weeks or months.

In both Republican and Democratic administrations, Congress has passed and sustained billions of dollars in royalty payments and subsidies to big oil companies; pushed through a corporate-written, consumer-crippling bankruptcy law; embraced the death of the estate tax; approved every free trade deal brought to a vote; and supported illegal immigration for the sake of cheap labor.

The party strategists and savants are telling us that fewer Americans will turn out to the polls than ever before, disgusted by a disgraced former congressman. But we don't have to wait for the midterm elections to begin to engage in our new political life.

There's something all of us could do that would have an immediate impact and send a powerful message to both corporation-dominated political parties and to our elected officials in Washington. Our so-called representatives in both parties have been working against the interests of the middle class for so long that they take our votes for granted, or they take advantage of the fact that a sizable number of us don't vote at all.

So what if a majority of us decided once and for all to walk into our town and city halls all over the country and change our party affiliation from Republican or Democrat to independent? What if that sizable number of us who don't vote at all decided to register as independents? For the first time in decades, working middle-class Americans might just get the attention of our elected officials in Washington.

Our middle class has suffered in silence for far too long, and it cannot afford to suffer or be silent much longer. Hardworking Americans have not spoken out about their increasingly marginalized role in this society, and as a consequence they're all but lost their voice.

Without that strong, clear and vibrant voice, all the major decisions about America and our future will be made by the elites of government, big business and the dominant special interests. Those elites treasure your silence, as it enables them to claim America's future for their own.

I sincerely hope that we will find the resolve to face these challenges to our way of life, and we do so soon. George Bernard Shaw said, "It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."

I'm stupid enough to be absolutely sincere in the hope that middle-class America will awake soon and take action.

But I thought the Workers controlled the means of production....

He's dead on...we need a third party. Unfortunately what has happened in the past is the disillusionment with both parties has hurt Democrats more than Republicans because Democrats at least try a little to appeal to lower income people and minorities (though admittedly that appeal is as thin as the one the Republicans put up to appeal to Bible thumpers).

I'm sick of both parties.....they're all corpoate ass clowns.

But I thought the Workers controlled the means of production....

They do, albeit in the same way that all governments are implicitly democratic.

What I do find funny is that for those of us who read Marx, his concept of socialism was post-Capitalist, that is, it is something that happens after a large and successful economy reaches the point that it no longer serves the majority of its members. It would serve the universe's desire for irony if the champion of anti-communism for the cold war became the first nation to satisfy Marx's originall thesis for real communist revolution.

And while Dobb's may not be right in all details, he is quite correct in pinpointing the single most important issue in American politics today, which naturally is unmentionable in Washington and verboten on the nightly news.

This is the reason it is impossible to convince someone who doesn't vote, to get out and vote. Their choices are either cherry flavored crap puppet or blueberry flavored crap puppet.

I sincerely believe this line of thought is exactly what will propel a woman president into the White House. And you know what, that's not a bad thing(tm).

But I thought the Workers controlled the means of production....

That assumes that Workers in the US actually produce anything ;) (only half laughing here)

To Grifter's point, I tend to disagree; with rare exceptions, women are generally 'allowed' to rise in power when they *epitomize* an established dogma (e.g. Margaret Thatcher), not when they stand up against it. Given the enormous amount of money, power, and access lobbyists have to our government, I think it will take either a *massive* public grass-roots movement, or a Mikhail Gorbachev-type idealist to 1) actually land in power and 2) to stand up on the floor of the Senate (or House) and say "This cannot go on", and for folks to look at the mess around them and actually listen to her or him.

I think that Mc Cain and Feingold really did make an attempt to at least address this runaway control of the political process not by citizens, but by corporations, by means of their campaign finance reform crusade; but it did not put the needed stake through the heart of the vampire, which are the Supreme Court decisions giving corporations and other public entities the same free speech rights and protections as individuals.

Corporations and corporate-funded lobbying groups do *not*, for reasons of their size, effective immortality, and anonymity (perhaps not the right word, but that they aren't tied to a single person), by their very nature, have the equivalent rights as a citizen as the result of this definition; they have far greater 'free speech' rights, or rather, the ability to exercise them, because of this wealth, immortality, and lack of personal accountability. This has gravely perverted the political process in this country and has produced something closely resembling an aristocracy, only worse, as the aristocrats now can exist in a quasi space where their offices are overseas and they are only nominally beholden to *any* government.

At the risk of sliding into melodrama, if we do not address this issue of 'undue influence' in a very direct and definitive fashion (and if you look at what is going on in Bolivia and some other South American and other countries, many 'plantation nations' see very clearly the gravity of the threat multinational corporations play to soverignty and are reacting, arguably excessively, to it), we too will wake up one day and find that we are a nation of serfs to scarcely identifiable masters.

That day may be much sooner than we think; indeed, it is arguable that it is already upon us.

Regards,
Nydia

Come to Canada! :D

By the way, if anyone is interested, I came across an interesting link just now; it outlines the development of 'corporate personhood' in this country (and is run by an organization interested in dismantling this concept for the good of democracy):

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/#significant

Regards,
Nydia

As my US political knowledge comes principally from you fellow ayo posters and Tom Clancy (not the head!), everytime I read about "lobbyists" I cringe.

As I read this interesting article, my first thought was "well duh mid class people have to wake up!", but I'm less optimistic on the "waking up" of the mass, yeah we all know what's wrong, but to take individual actions? Let's ask the chain leader.

Bring back Ross Perot !!!!! .... to bad Admiral Dull-guy is dead now... :(

I's sad. Ross Perot almost got me to vote. He was a real motivating factor for me to get involved in politics.
Then he started ranting about the CIA following him....

After having witnessed first hand this past Tuesday the power of the people when properly organized and motivated....I truly think if someone could muster the middle class and properly motivate them change could happen.

For the past several months my neighborhood has been fighting a proposed development of a 3 story, 3 building self storage mini-stip mall that would come a whopping 25ft from my nieghbor's property. As a community we caught wind of this from those people within (x) number of feet of this proposed development in commercial residential property. We only knew b/c about half a dozen people were sent letters indicating someone had proposed to change the zoning laws for self-storage and change the height restriction from 15ft to 45ft. Nothing was posted, nothing was put in the newspaper b/c it was to an "amendment to the text and map" and not a full blown change. (however the hell they figure that).

Anyway six months later and several "boards" later (county planning board, zoning board, county commissioners, and Tuesday, township board) we finally got the damn thing voted down but it wasn't easy. We met at others houses and formed plans for canvasing the nieghborhood and surrounding communities b/c this was a township change and could affect everyone. On Tuesday we had 5 represenatives of the community each speak on different sticking points, we were well prepared and the room with the exception of the developer, the developer's attorney, and the township board members the was basically my sub-division. They drug the damn thing out for two hours and the attorney got his 3minute rebuttal that turned into a 15minute closing argument courtroom drama style (ugh) but in the end the vote was 4 to 1 and that was the end of that "mini-storage".

Our next move as a community is to try to have some zoning laws changed or influence them at the very least for Commercial Shopping/Commercial Residential b/c we know that this is not the last attempt to build something there.

The whole experience has been really fulfilling not just b/c we won but b/c I have actually "met" my neighbors something I doubt I would have taken the time to do otherwise. It's a mixture of America all with one thing in common and that is where we live. There are two gay couples, elderly couples, young couples, a lady with a retarded child, hispanic family, and the list goes on. All of these people put aside petty differences and things that don't really matter and fought for the community. It really has been an inspiration and I have to wonder if the rest of the population could get this motivated what sort of things could happen.

At some point, I believe that most politicians and lobbyists had good intentions but somewhere along the line corruption or despair changed that.

It's funny the lady who basically organized the neighborhood is about 4'11" tall and is an older lady (late 50s) she rallied the troops and was amazing. Of course she was the one most affected by the proposed development as it would have been in her backyard...on Tuesday her husband had knee surgery and was actually in the recovery room during the board meeting, she was THAT dedicated.

Anyway enough rambling.

What I do find funny is that for those of us who read Marx, his concept of socialism was post-Capitalist, that is, it is something that happens after a large and successful economy reaches the point that it no longer serves the majority of its members. It would serve the universe's desire for irony if the champion of anti-communism for the cold war became the first nation to satisfy Marx's originall thesis for real communist revolution.


I think the real problem with Marixsts and communism is that the "communism" this world has seen implemented is not the same as Marx's ideas. Thus, Marxists and anyone else who might advocate for true communism takes a bad rap for it. WTG Red Scare.

Personally, I think the Libertarian party is the best alternative right now. I get tired of people saying voting for a third party is throwing your vote away. Fuck you, voting for a Republican or Democrat is throwing away the whole country's votes.

Yeah, but as soon as anyone mentions that Libertarians are for legalizing drugs, their credibility goes out the window.
They say they want it all regulated like alcohol: It's ok to possess, and use on your private property, but in public, or under the influence while operating a moter vehicle, is a no no. But a lot of people just think they are crazy when they hear that part of the Libertarian Platform.
Personally, I don't care what people do in their residences.
And kudos to you Fild. Sounds like you fought the good fight. Congrats on the victory!

Sixee, sometimes you sound quasi intelligent and others like a loon.

Legalize drugs and it's safe to use in your residence? wth...

The lasting effects and damage caused would bring so much ruin and destruction...sheeshhh

Perhaps a lil pot, unsure of it's lasting damage...but the rest?

Exactly one of the reasons why I'll never vote for that crazy 3rd party.

It's anarchy!!! honest it doesn't affect anyone as long as yer home!!

Fools, bound together under one chaotic banner...

Fandros Finglaflin

It's an economic question. Do you spend money treating the abusers, or spend money trying to fight the black market you create?

Option B has not been working out.

Just because it's not all sunshine and rainbows doesn't mean enforcement is the wrong option. Encouraging generations of meth heads would only accelerate our country's collapse (which is inevitable, but why help it along). I'm not sure if I see the economic argument for engendering a workforce of junkies.

Dear Sanchek:

Focusing drug abuse prevention funds at treating the issue of *demand*, rather than supply, makes eminently more sense (and even drug abuse treatment, as expensive as it is, is a bargain compared to our current 'warehouse them for life' strategy), but god forbid we appear to be coddling junkies, or worse yet, (shivers in horror) subsidizing health care for people so that they can become productive, tax paying citizens.

I've lived on the US/Mexico border, and watched the endless stream of drug interception, bribery, corruption, money laundering, prison construction projects, and murder totals long enough to be well-convinced the 'supply focused' approach has been a near-total failure.

Personally, I think Mexico was on the right track (and too bad they got shouted down by our righteous indignation) last year when they attempted to decriminalize possession of very small amounts (~ 1 dose) of most drugs. They were merely taking a pragmatic approach to a 'problem' that is completely unsolvable by tossing simple users into jail, which only sends them to 'training school for gang bangers'. We should have the guts to follow suit, decriminalize simple possession, stop clogging our prisons (and draining taxpayers with the expense of) with people who *aren't* hard core criminals, and save our enforcement money for major distributors. Simultaneously, we should be doing more to curb the demand end than 'just say no'; we should spend that saved enforcement money on rehabilitation treatment, counselors/social workers, and community development so that people have a way out of addiction (and most addicts eventually realize that their life sucks and genuinely want a way out of their addiction) and a path back into productive society. Slapping them all with felony convictions doesn't exactly help one's employment prospects, and often drives such people into criminality out of sheer desperation.

Regards,
Nydia

Fandros, I didn't say I was for the legalization of drugs, I said the Libertarians are for that.
I also said what people do in thier residences, is and should be their own business, as long as it doesn't endanger anyone else.
Believe it or not, people do use drugs in this country. They generally do it on thier own property. If they are doing it in thier own home, and not hurting anyone other than their own brain cells, then why is it a crime?
Could you please tell me these "lasting effects" of the currently controlled substances that we have, and what makes them so much different than the uncontrolled substances that we now have?
You get health effects from both alcohol and cigarettes that are detrimental to society.
Should these be banned as well? How about fast food? Fast cars? Leaving the house? Taking a shower? Can't have you slipping and falling in the bath tub you know...

Yeah, but as soon as anyone mentions that Libertarians are for legalizing drugs, their credibility goes out the window.

I know what the website says, but most are moving to the "softer" platform of decriminalization.

It's an economic question. Do you spend money treating the abusers, or spend money trying to fight the black market you create?

Option B has not been working out.

Libertarians would say neither.

Just because it's not all sunshine and rainbows doesn't mean enforcement is the wrong option. Encouraging generations of meth heads would only accelerate our country's collapse (which is inevitable, but why help it along). I'm not sure if I see the economic argument for engendering a workforce of junkies.

Why is it that the opposite of drugs being illegal is everyone using drugs? I don't believe there would be that much difference as far as usage. I think the only example we have in our history is when prohibition was repealed. Usage didn't change much, but the black market (and the inherent dangers associated with it) all but dried up (pardon the pun).


I've lived on the US/Mexico border, and watched the endless stream of drug interception, bribery, corruption, money laundering, prison construction projects, and murder totals long enough to be well-convinced the 'supply focused' approach has been a near-total failure.

Personally, I think Mexico was on the right track (and too bad they got shouted down by our righteous indignation) last year when they attempted to decriminalize possession of very small amounts (~ 1 dose) of most drugs...

Indeed, and if you want to dive deeper into it, our stance on drugs creates devestating economic, social, and environmental problems in Latin American countries.

I don't disagree that jailing people over small possession is pointless. I have no moral or religious convictions against people wanting to get fucked up on their own time.

However, I disagree that emphasizing reactive treatment over enforcement is a good idea. All of the data I've seen suggests that once you get to something like meth or coke, true recovery is unlikely. Heroin or crack is an even longer shot.

Now, do I even care if some people want to wreck their lives with the stuff? Not terribly. If that's how they want to go out, that's their business. What I do care about is the fact that their bullshit indirectly impacts the rest of us, and I believe that our enforcement efforts have protected many people from slipping onto that path.

So, I can't agree that we should give up and let the problem get worse, just because it's not easy or because there are flaws with the existing system. No system will be perfect, but apathy is never the right course.

Why is it that the opposite of drugs being illegal is everyone using drugs? I don't believe there would be that much difference as far as usage. I think the only example we have in our history is when prohibition was repealed. Usage didn't change much, but the black market (and the inherent dangers associated with it) all but dried up (pardon the pun).
The difference to me is that people don't typically switch from alcohol to turpentine or gasoline after awhile.

Legalizing marijuana or even small amounts of cocaine doesn't implicitly mean legalizing doing a pound of heroin a day. But the contention is that we currently allocate approximately 40 billion dollars, not even counting the massive prison industry we have created in the last ten years or so, to punishing drug use. We have been doing that for the better part of thirty years. Is there a place for a law enforcement solution to drug abuse? Sure, but it's clearly not what we have going right now, which is just throwing more and more money down a bottomless pit to reinforce failure. (and incidently, fund a large number of leech industries like all the private prisons in Texas and all the arms/defense conglomerates .. all of whom lobby quite strongly to protect their gravy train revenue stream)

It's hard to get comparitive figures anymore with a lot of the drug money in government getting wrapped up in secretive anti-terrorism rubric, but older figures put us as spending less than 5 billion Federally for rehabilitation and prevention by comparision, and NIMH studies that no longer get funded came to the conclusion that it was 3-5x cheaper per offender to treat it as a health problem and not a criminal one.

Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears every Wednesday on CNN.com

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (CNN) -- "War on the Middle Class" is the title of my new book and our broadcast's special report tonight on CNN. Tonight we broadcast live from the front lines of this all-out war, and we'll talk to American families facing the tough issues that are all but being ignored by our elected officials in Washington. Our middle class is the largest group of people in the country, but they are also the least represented in our nation's capital.

It's been a tough decade for the American middle class, which has been experiencing stagnant wages in the face of rapidly increasing costs for health care and prescription drugs, soaring energy prices and escalating tuition costs. But worst of all, the middle class is up against a Congress that is driven by powerful corporations and dominant special interests.

We're excited to give the middle-class families participating in tonight's town hall meeting in Kansas City a voice, because all too often they are simply ignored by their elected officials and the national media.

I look forward to hearing from people like Mary in Louisiana, who wrote our broadcast to tell us, "The two parties in power really don't represent me any longer and haven't for quite some time. I write letters to my representatives almost daily, and only occasionally do I get a reply. It's obvious that I don't matter to these people. It's definitely time for a voter revolution in this country."

Bob in Louisiana is also fed up with our leaders in Washington, and I suspect he has more than a little company. Bob wrote: "What ever happened to the concept in which politicians were elected to do the will of the people? Regardless of what the polls show the American people want done, it seems our brilliant elected officials always find a way to do just the opposite. What part of 'of the people, by the people, and for the people' don't they understand?"

It seems the best way to ensure prosperity in this country is to run for office, said B.L. in Michigan: "I wish like our members of Congress, I could supposedly work 80 days out of the year, vacation the rest of the year and still get a substantial raise, health benefits and a nice retirement package. If they had to eke out a living like most of us Americans, they might decide to cater to their constituents rather than the lobbyists and big corporations."

Congress has passed too many laws over the past few years contrary to the interests of the citizens they represent. One has to look no further than the bankruptcy bill, which was all but written by the credit card companies. Decisions like that led Jerry in Georgia to look forward to our elected officials leaving Washington to take another vacation: "The way I see it, Congress going home...is the equivalent of a cease-fire in the War on the Middle Class."

When our representatives are actually in session, they're constantly at odds with the will of the people. There's been no Congressional action on raising the minimum wage since 1997, and inflation has eroded wages as a result. The minimum wage in the 21st century now stands at its lowest level since 1955, according to the Economic Policy Institute and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Sean in North Carolina responded to my bringing up this issue by saying, "Lou, while I appreciate your support of an increase in the minimum wage, isn't it about time we institute a maximum wage in this country? Corporate America must be getting hernias by now from hauling away all the loot. When is enough enough?"

Daniel in Florida says, "I think the Senate pay should be directly related to the average pay of the middle class. If we go down, they go down, too."

What about the parents of our brave men and women in uniform fighting to preserve our values and freedoms? Paula in Texas said, "Lou, can you tell me why I should not be outraged to find out that my son and his fellow military personnel are receiving the lowest 2.2 percent pay raise for their efforts in Iraq, and yet the grand ol' body in Congress passes a hidden expense of $20 million for a 2007 Victory party for the successes in Afghanistan and Iraq? Now that is just an outrage. My son just returned from Iraq and I pray he doesn't have to go back. He might miss the party."

Finally, James in Idaho is thinking the unthinkable: "The middle class is a purposeful construct, a buffer keeping the poor from the throats of the rich. The continued destruction of the middle class will result in class warfare, social strife, social revolution in our country, if the trend is not reversed."

Voter turnout for this year's midterm primary elections fell to the lowest level for any midterm election in American history. I hope the working men and women and their families you watch and hear tonight in our town hall meeting will inspire you to raise the number of votes counted on November 7.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/17/Dobbs.Oct18/index.html

I don't understand why the middleclass is so upset. Our leaders have shown us that things can work really well once we remove the government regulations.

We removed all government regulation and involvement in health care and now look what we have:

No where else in the world can a family of 6 save 90% on a $75.00 doctor visit by paying $1100.00 dollars a month in medical insurance. Thats a great buy.

Removed all that government trade regulation and now we don't have to worry about unsightly manufacturing facilities in our country we moved all of that ugliness to China. We really fooled them.

No need to pay top dollar for computer programming when we can have it done in India for just a few dolars an hour.

There is so much more that we no longer have to worry about in the US anymore due to the fantastic work of our politicians...we should thank them for taking the worry away from us.