by Andrew Gavin Marshall
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
Feb. 29, 2008
The next North American Summit is set to be held on April 21-22, 2008, in New Orleans, as a fitting memorial – returning to the location where the state turned its back on the people, literally leaving them to die; and where they now meet to turn their backs once again on the people, leaving them in the dark and their countries near death.
Cleveland’s corporate establishment is pouring massive amounts of money into an unprincipled attack campaign against Congressman Dennis Kucinich, distorting and misrepresenting his record in a way that comes right out of the Republican dirty tricks playbook.
At the same time, everyday citizens are coming to Dennis’ defense — real people who live here, work here, raise their families here, and rely on him to represent their interests. (Contribute)
With only a week until the March 4th primary election, we need your help to counter the attacks and put those hardworking citizens on television and radio so they can tell the truth.Here’s a special message from Dennis explaining what’s going on (click here)
Here’s an example of their distortions (click here).
And here are 11 television ads that we’ve produced featuring real people explaining in their own words why they support Dennis and why this election is so important.We need your help to get these messages on the air and to keep them on the air. (Contribute)
Please, today, contribute as generously as you can to keep a Real People’s Representative in Congress. And please ask your friends and family to help in any way they can.
Thank you.
Added: February 25, 2008
Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod
.
see
Revisiting Longshoreman’s Union Hall with Dennis Kucinich
Revisiting 2003 with Dennis Kucinich: “No More 16 Tons In America”Longshoremen’s Union Hall in Tacoma, WACongressman Dennis Kucinich announced he is withdrawing from the 2008 presidential race. While it is true that neither the PepperSpray Collective or “Indymedia Presents” endorses ANY candidate for ANY office, we have always liked Kucinich for raising the issues so clearly, and for his consistency.On the occasion of him withdrawing from the race, we reached back into our archives and dug out a speech he made at the Longshoremen’s Union hall in Tacoma, WA four years ago. It was a great speech, and if we didn’t tell you it was that old, you’d probably think it was right up to the moment.This speech was given BEFORE Al Gore came out with “An Inconvenient Truth,” This speech was given BEFORE the exposure of the broken health care system in “Sicko.” This speech was given BEFORE 80% of the American people had turned against the war.
Dennis Kucinich has been there all along.
http://www.dennis4president.comInternational Longshore and Warehouse Union
ILWU Longshore Division Homepage
http://www.ilwu.org/longshoreBE THE MEDIA!
Pepperspray Productions formed shortly after the WTO protests in Seattle, in response to the Independent Media Center’s call, “don’t hate the media, be the media!”. We believe that the Corporate Media is not telling us the whole story, and that the people must make our own media if we want our voices to be heard.Related Free Speech Websites:
Independent Media Center
http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtmlIndymedia NewsReal
http://www.newsreal.indymedia.orgFree Speech TV:
http://www.freespeech.orgDemocracy Now!
http://www.democracynow.org
Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod
.
see
By Richard Backus
02/16/08 “ICH‘
While claiming to be attempting to increase the number of well-paying jobs in the U.S. (having created laws in the past explicitly designed to do this), the Congress has really been following a completely different course. Almost all recently passed laws have done just the opposite.
The following Acts of congress were ostensible made in order to keep American workers fully employed and to create a healthy economy:
The Full Employment Bill of 1946 was designed for the federal government to promote “maximum employment, production, and purchasing power”. Amendments removed a guarantee by the government to explicitly provide “full” employment, but certainly the intent of the bill was to provide this as indicated by it’s title.
The Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 was designed to attain full employment, growth in production, price stability, and balance of trade and budget. Goals were established including a maximum of 3% to 4% unemployment rate, an attempt to balance the federal budget, and the avoidance of trade deficits. If private business interests did not attain these goals the government was entitled to create a “reservoir of public employment.” The Act explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of age as well… .
There was no effort to carry out the intent of these Acts. They were passed to create an appearance that these goals were being pursued while congress passed laws which did just the opposite. “Gloabalization” was intended to allow American businessmen to replace American workers with low-priced foreign ones. Since American corporations own much of the foreign manufacturing businesses, a foreign worker is simply an employee of an American firm hired overseas to replace an American worker stateside. The congress threw in an added tax sweetener to further facilitate this giveaway.
NAFTA and CAFTA had the same intent. So much for “promoting” full employment for U.S. citizens. Immigration policy, legal and illegal as well, was designed to do the same. No real serious efforts were made to stop the border crossings. The proof of this is in the number of illegal immigrants who succeeded. Legal immigration in the high-tech sector was a fraud from the get-go. Businessmen simply wanted younger, less expensive, and more pliable employees. Those older native ones wanted to be fairly treated and paid appropriately for a highly-trained engineer. Again, it was the government that “legally” made this jobs giveaway possible. The age-discrimination laws were ignored and tons of young (inexperienced) but low-salaried foreigners came surging in.
The immigration laws themselves were violated from the very beginning, proof being that high-tech salary levels immediately took a big dip violating the law’s requirement that immigrants were to be paid equal wages. When it was obvious that wages were falling, the congress did nothing.
The following is a excerpt of the law regarding age discrimination:
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
PROHIBITION OF AGE DISCRIMINATION SEC. 623.
SEC. 2.
(a) The Congress hereby finds and declares that:
(1) in the face of rising productivity and affluence, older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment ….
(b) It is therefore the purpose of this Act to “promote” employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age; to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment…
Section 4
(a) It shall be unlawful for an employer- (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age; (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s age.
Again the government claimed to be interested in “promoting” employment for this group when it was blatantly passing laws giving away the jobs of these older persons (younger ones as well). No effort was made to modify or reform these immigration laws even after it was obvious that American businessmen were violating them on a massive scale.
But the primary reason behind these giveaways was really not disclosed. The dollar’s exchange rate has been manipulated over the last 30 years in order to suit the wishes of the rich causing American worker’s wages to become progressively less and less competitive. This ultimately resulted in American manufacturing wage levels , on average, of ten times those of foreign workers in those less-developed countries which had been perfecting their manufacturing capabilities. Only if an American wage earner agreed to work for $2-$3/hr. would he have been competitive.
In contrast to this policy of overpricing American workers, Japan has built the world’s third largest economy by consistently doing just the opposite. Every time the yen’s exchange rate appreciated, causing a potential loss in production (and employment), the Japanese reserve bank acted to lower its exchange rate (simultaneously increasing the dollar’s exchange rate). Thailand has recently attempted to do the same when the appreciation of it’s currency caused a possible overpricing of the Thai worker’s wage levels. Investors reacted negatively but Thai worker’s jobs may ultimately prove to have been saved. The U.S. government, by doing just the opposite, has not only caused U.S. jobs to surge to overseas locations, but has resulted in the massive trade deficits which may ultimately threaten a catastrophic fall in the value of the dollar.
This exchange rate manipulation resulted in the failure of one of the major goals of the aforementioned Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 , a balanced trade. The other goals of that Act, concerning the unemployment level and “balanced budget”, have failed as well. Needless to say, an effort to establish a “reservoir of public employment” went nowhere.
The public’s inability or unwillingness to face up these betrayals will result in the destruction of the working class in the U.S. If the public does not protest, they will continue to get a government that no one deserves.
Richard Backus, author of this article, is a free-lance journalist specializing in political economy and politics. He resides in Miami Beach, Florida and his personal website is uncensoredops.blogspot.com
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
by Andrew Gavin Marshall
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
Feb. 14, 2008
9/11: The “Perfect Opportunity” for North American Integration
On February 12, 2008, the Canadian newspaper, the Financial Post, published an opinion piece by Michael Hart, of Carleton University, entitled, “Canada Blew It,” in which he blamed the “slow” approach to North American integration on Canada’s policies following 9/11. The article begins by stating:
“The Canadian and U.S. economies have become intertwined in response to demands by Canadians and Americans for each other’s products, services, capital, and ideas. Yet the border as presently constituted protects Canadians and Americans from each other, not from global security threats. It also presents a risk to the wealth-creating flow of people, goods, services and capital between the two countries.”1
Hart states that in order to “address global security concerns”, Canada and the US need to, “develop co-operative solutions to common problems.” He stated to do this, Canada and the US should implement an, “agenda aimed at removing the border to the largest extent possible as an obstacle to Canada-U.S. interaction and integration.” He continues in outlining the steps to be taken in this agenda, the first of which is to, “re-imagine the border.” Hart explains that much of the problems with the border are a result of “regulatory compliance”, as in having a border, to which he proposes a solution in which, “Canada and the United States need to aggressively pursue regulatory convergence,” or in other words, harmonization. He continues, “It is in Canada’s interests to align as many of its regulatory requirements as possible with those of the United States.”
In discussing the security of “North America’s” economic infrastructure, Hart states, “Similar to our interdependence in ensuring the security of the North American continent, neither country can ensure the security of its economic infrastructure without the full co-operation of the other,” to which he elaborates that, “we need to build the necessary institutions and networks of co-operation that ensure that American and Canadian officials are working together toward common objectives and doing so on the basis of constructive political oversight.”2 Amazingly, Hart stated that it is “not a trade agenda”, but is, in fact, “an integration agenda that requires the full participation of departments and agencies on both sides of the border responsible for border administration, economic regulation, and infrastructure integrity.”
Hart continued in his critique of the slow process of integration, stating that, “The crisis of Sept. 11, 2001, provided a perfect opportunity to seize the moment to re-imagine the border, but Canada blew it [emphasis added].” This is a clear example of how important it is for those who oppose the processes of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), and the North American Union which it seeks to create, must also examine the relationship between integration and terror; between the North American Union and 9/11. These are not separate elements of one another, these events are themselves deeply integrated, in both purpose and strategy. It is integral for those that oppose the NAU to review the attacks of September 11, 2001, to see the linkages between them and understand them as something beyond random associations and reactions to one another.
As to explaining why “Canada blew it,” Hart states that, “Rather than work with the United States to address real security and related concerns, and to build a much-better functioning, more open, and more integrated North America, Canadian authorities reacted defensively and anxiously to American security concerns.” But this is a gross misrepresentation, as shortly after 9/11, in December of 2001, “Governor Tom Ridge and Deputy Prime Minister John Manley Signed the Smart Border Declaration and Associated 30-Point Action Plan to Enhance the Security of Our Shared Border While Facilitating the Legitimate Flow of People and Goods,”3 according to the White House’s December 2002 press release on the subject. Part of the 30-Point Action plan included “Biometric Identifiers”, stating, “In the interest of having cards that could be used across different modes of travel, we have agreed to use cards that are capable of storing multiple biometrics.” Another of the 30 points was “Permanent Residence Cards”, or in other words, ID Cards. Further, the plans also stated that, “The United States and Canada have agreed to share Advance Passenger Information and Passenger Name Records (API/PNR) on high-risk travelers destined to either country.” This is hardly stepping away from integration between the two countries, as Michael Hart seems to imagine.
Hart further explains that, “In the absence of another crisis, only inspired leadership can overcome the narrow-minded response of special and entrenched interests and bureaucratic self-preservation.”4 Then, in revealing the true intent of the SPP, Hart states, “Each group [Canada and the US] is adept at exploiting the default position of incrementalism, exemplified by such initiatives as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Progress will be made under the SPP banner, but at a snail’s pace and without the impact needed to make a perceptible difference.” This is a public admission of the SPP being an incremental approach to “deep integration”, of which then ultimate goal is to form a North American Union. Hart explains that a key source of leadership is, “a business sector prepared to speak out forcefully and convincingly about the costs and lost opportunities flowing from misdirected and overzealous border administration.”
So who is Michael Hart? He is the Simon Reisman Chair in Trade Policy at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University.5 He is the first person to hold this position, which is named after Simon Reisman, “Canada’s Chief Negotiator during the free trade talks with the United States, he also participated in a series of important international trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.”6 Reisman was recently quoted by CTV regarding the 1988 Canada US Free Trade Agreement, saying, “We got it, we didn’t get it all. We left a little for posterity.”7 Further, Michael Hart “was a senior official in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade specializing in trade policy and trade negotiations.”8 He was also the author of a document entitled, “Free Trade in Free Fall? Assessing the Impact of Nontariff Barriers on Canada-U.S. Trade,” published by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.9 From 2004 to 2005, Hart was a visiting scholar at the Center for North American Studies at American University,10 of which the Director is Robert Pastor.11
Robert Pastor is infamously referred to as the “father” of the North American Union, and arguably its chief public spokesperson and champion, and was the Co-Chair of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, a joint task force between the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the United States and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) in Canada, as well as the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, which produced the document “Building a North American Community.”12 This document is the blueprint for the Security and Prosperity Agreement of North America, which outlines the overall objectives of the agreement in its goals of “integrating” North America.
Robert Pastor is also on the Board of Directors of the North American Forum on Integration, or NAFI, alongside the Chairman, Stephen Black, who is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.13 NAFI, “aims to address the issues raised by North American integration as well as identify new ideas and strategies to reinforce the North American region,”14 which every year, since 2005, holds what it calls a “Triumvirate”, which their website describes as, “an annual North American mock parliament,” which, “allows a hundred Canadian, American and Mexican university students to better understand the North American dynamic as well as the challenges faced by NAFTA partners.”15 Among the participating Universities in NAFI, is the American University, (of course), Simon Fraser University, of which an economics professor emeritus recently wrote an article for the Financial Post in which he mentioned the amero currency as a goal in North America [See: North American Monetary Integration: Here Comes the Amero, Global Research16], and another notable university is Carleton University.17 It just so happens that the author of Canada Blew It, Michael Hart, works at Carleton.
The process towards a North American Union is embedded in our societal institutions, from the corporate world, to media, government and education. These are individuals connected through joint membership in think tanks and interest groups of those who share ideological beliefs in internationalism and globalization. So, too, must those who oppose the SPP and the NAU be embedded in all the institutions of our societies, working not for personal gain and profit, but for country and freedom, preserving our rights, liberties and identity, and exposing those who seek to challenge our inherent human rights.
Notes
1 Michael Hart, Canada Blew It. The Financial Post: February 12, 2008:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=302151
3 Office of the Press Secretary, U.S. – Canada Smart Border/30 Point Action Plan Update. The White House: December 6, 2002:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021206-1.html
5 About NPSIA, Simon Reisman Chair in Trade Policy. Carleton University:
http://www.carleton.ca/npsia/school/simon_reisman.html
7 CTV.ca news staff, Poll says most North Americans support free trade. CTV News: September 30, 2007:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070930/free_trade_070930/20070930?hub=Canada
8 About NPSIA, Simon Reisman Chair in Trade Policy. Carleton University:
http://www.carleton.ca/npsia/school/simon_reisman.html
9 Events at the Center, Free Trade in Free Fall? Assessing the Impact of Nontariff Barriers on Canada-U.S. Trade. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: February 8, 2008:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event&event_id=372221
10 Past Senior Fellows, Michael Hart. Center for North American Studies at American University:
http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/ed/fellows/hart.cfm
11 Center for North American Studies, Robert A. Pastor. Center for North American Studies at American University:
http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/staff/rpastor.cfm
12 CFR.org, Building a North American Community. Council on Foreign Relations Press: May 2005: http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/
13 NAFI, Our Board of Directors. NAFINA: http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/fina/conseil.asp?langue=eng&menu=fina
14 NAFI, The North American Forum on Integration.
http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/finapresentation.asp?langue=eng&menu=fina
16 Andrew G. Marshall, North American Monetary Integration: Here Comes the Amero. Global Research: January 20, 2008:
https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/north-american-montetary-integration-here-comes-the-amero-by-andrew-g-marshall/
17 NAFI, Triumvirate 2006.
http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/triumvirat06/default.asplangue=eng&menu=triumvirat06
Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.
From the archives:
North-American Montetary Integration: Here Comes the Amero by Andrew G. Marshall
By Jim Hightower
AlterNet.org
Hightower Lowdown
February 7, 2008
Seal-the-border hysteria is everywhere. Instead of blaming immigrants for America’s problems, let’s look at executives on both sides of the border.
The wailing in our country about the “invasion of immigrants” has been long and loud. As one complainant put it, “Few of their children in the country learn English …The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages … Unless the stream of the importation could be turned they will soon so outnumber us that all the advantages we have will not be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious.” Continue reading
by Ralph Nader
Friday, January 25. 2008
For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the ultimate American dream is eight more years. Yet how do you think they would react to having dozens of partisans at their rallies sporting large signs calling for EIGHT MORE YEARS, EIGHT MORE YEARS?
Don’t you have the feeling that they would cringe at such public displays of their fervent ambition which the New York Times described as a “truly two-for-the-price-of-one” presidential race? It might remind voters to remember or examine the real Clinton record in that peaceful decade of missed opportunities and not be swayed by the sugarcoating version that the glib former president emits at many campaign stops.
The 1990’s were the first decade without the spectre of the Soviet Union. There was supposed to be a “peace dividend” that would reduce the vast, bloated military budget and redirect public funds to repair or expand our public works or infrastructure.
Inaugurated in January 1993, with a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton sent a small job-creating proposal to upgrade public facilities. He also made some motions for campaign finance reform which he promised during his campaign when running against incumbent George H.W. Bush and candidate Ross Perot.
A double withdrawal followed when the Congressional Republicans started roaring about big spending Democrats and after House Speaker Tom Foley and Senate Majority Leader, George Mitchell, told Clinton at a White House meeting to forget about legislation to diminish the power of organized money in elections.
That set the stage for how Washington politicians sized up Clinton. He was seen as devoid of modest political courage, a blurrer of differences with the Republican opposition party and anything but the decisive transforming leader he promised to be was he to win the election.
He proceeded, instead, to take credit for developments with which he had very little to do with such as the economic growth propelled by the huge technology dot.com boom.
Bragging about millions of jobs his Administration created, he neglected to note that incomes stagnated for 80% of the workers in the country and ended in 2000, under the level of 1973, adjusted for inflation.
A brainy White House assistant to Mr. Clinton told me in 1997 that the only real achievement his boss could take credit for was passage of legislation allowing 12 weeks family leave, without pay.
There are changes the Clinton Administration actively championed that further entrenched corporate power over our economy and government during the decade. He pushed through Congress the NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that represented the greatest surrender in our history of local, state and national sovereignty to an autocratic, secretive system of transnational governance. This system subordinated workers, consumers and the environment to the supremacy of globalized commerce.
That was just for starters. Between 1996 and 2000, he drove legislation through Congress that concentrated more power in the hands of giant agribusiness, large telecommunications companies and the biggest jackpot—opening the doors to gigantic mergers in the financial industry. The latter so-called “financial modernization law” sowed the permissive seeds for taking vast financial risks with other peoples’ money (ie. pensioners and investors) that is now shaking the economy to recession.
The man who pulled off this demolition of regulatory experience from the lessons of the Great Depression was Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who went to work for Citigroup—the main pusher of this oligopolistic coup—just before the bill passed and made himself $40 million for a few months of consulting in that same year.
Bill Clinton’s presidential resume was full of favors for the rich and powerful. Corporate welfare subsidies, handouts and giveaways flourished, including subsidizing the Big Three Auto companies for a phony research partnership while indicating there would be no new fuel efficiency regulations while he was President.
His regulatory agencies were anesthetized. The veteran watchdog for Public Citizen of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Sidney Wolfe, said that safety was the worst under Clinton in his twenty nine years of oversight.
The auto safety agency (NHTSA) abandoned its regulatory oath of office and became a consulting firm to the auto industry. Other agencies were similarly asleep—in job safety (OSHA) railroads, household product safety, antitrust, and corporate crime law enforcement.
By reappointing avid Republican Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Clinton assured no attention would be paid to the visible precursors of what is now the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Mr. Greenspan, declined to use his regulatory authority and repeatedly showed that he almost never saw a risky financial instrument he couldn’t justify.
Mr. Clinton was so fearful of taking on Orrin Hatch, the Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that he cleared most judicial appointments with the Utah Senator. He even failed to put forth the nomination of sub-cabinet level official, Peter Edelman, whose credentials were superb to the federal appeals court.
Mr. Edelman resigned on September 12th, 1996. In a memo to his staff, he said, “I have devoted the last 30-plus years to doing whatever I could to help in reducing poverty in America. I believe the recently enacted welfare bill goes in the opposite direction.”
Excoriated by the noted author and columnist, Anthony Lewis, for his dismal record on civil liberties, the man from Hope set the stage for the Bush demolition of this pillar of our democracy.
To justify his invasion of Iraq, Bush regularly referred in 2002-2003 to Clinton’s bombing of Iraq and making “regime change” explicit U.S. policy.
But it was Clinton’s insistence on UN-backed economic sanctions in contrast to just military embargos, against Iraq, during his term in office. These sanctions on civilians, a task force of leading American physicians estimated, took half a million Iraqi children’s lives.
Who can forget CBS’s Sixty Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl’s tour through Baghdad’s denuded hospitals filled with crying, dying children? She then interviewed Mr. Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeline Albright and asked whether these sanctions were worth it. Secretary Albright answered in the affirmative.
Bill Clinton is generally viewed as one smart politician, having been twice elected the President, helped by lackluster Robert Dole, having survived the Lewinsky sex scandal, lying under oath about sex, and impeachment. When is it all about himself, he is cunningly smart.
But during his two-term triangulating Presidency, he wasn’t smart enough to avoid losing his Party’s control over Congress, or many state legislatures and Governorships.
It has always been all about him, Now he sees another admission ticket to the White House through his wife, Hillary Clinton. EIGHT MORE YEARS without a mobilized, demanding participating citizenry is just that—EIGHT MORE YEARS. It’s small wonder that the editors of Fortune Magazine headlined an article last June with the title, “Who Business is Betting On?” Their answer, of course, was Hillary Clinton.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Wish news people would remember that Mike Gravel is still in this race, too. Not sure why Kucinich doesn’t mention it either, that does bother me. Gravel was also excluded from many debates. ~ Lo
You can click on this link to hear Dennis’ interview with WKOH (posted 1/18/2008):
see
Open Letter To Leno, Maher & G.E. From Your Anti-Censorship “Disruptors”
Dennis the Menace? The Vegas debate, missing in…Vegas By Megan Garber
Las Vegas Sun: You Won’t See This on TV (link)
Detroit MI 01/12/08
Video by Robert Malin
Added: January 13, 2008
Kucinich – Economic and Health Security
Address to Union Workers in Detroit MI
see
Boycott Disney & GE: Mickey Mouse Politics by Manila Ryce (vid)
On The Issues: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul by Lo (updated again)
Attention Democrats: Who’ll Stand Up for Working Americans? (video)
Want Change? Make It Happen.
Added: January 11, 2008
see
Time to join your Dennis Kucinich Statewide Meetup group!
This info needs to be shouted from rooftops! People need to hear Dennis speak on the issues. ~ Lo
Protect American Jobs.
Added: January 04, 2008
see
Dennis Kucinich: My Fellow Americans… (video)
A Call to Action: Candidates Excluded Again from Debates By Manila Ryce
Used with permission by the author.
by Joey Shelton
Joey’s blog post
The debate over illegal immigration is emotionally charged and the contentious points are highly nuanced. The economic issues are argued back and forth by those who want a more tolerant immigration policy and those demanding further restrictions or an stricter upholding of the laws already in place. There are numerous justifications cited by both camps; some are valid and others are not. We should go into some background before we get into the facts and figures of today’s immigration debate.
SOME BACKGROUND
The origins of the so-called immigration crisis have roots in basic earthly struggles for survival. The competition for scarce resources is a battle waged by all species, humans included. What’s more, when we take a closer look at civilizations we see that fear of outsiders has been a common theme in world history. The Nazis considered Gypsies and Jews as outsiders to be eliminated. The Chinese built the Great Wall to keep out Mongol invaders. At different times, many Native American tribes enjoyed relations and trade with white settlers and later suffered starvation, disease, and annihilation. So while the antipathy against immigrants is to some extent natural, history shows us it is often based on hatred and paranoia, some instances are entirely legitimate, and that these feelings can alternate over time. In the historical discussion surrounding illegal immigration to the United States, the most paranoid assessments are often heard most piercingly.
The United States, while a relatively young nation, has a long history of selective exclusion of immigrants. Immigration barriers were directed against Chinese, Irish, Mexican, Jewish, and even many Southern Europeans deemed unworthy. Criminality, drunkenness, disease, and immorality have all been used as ammunition vilifying immigrants of various nationalities. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1878 meant to deport those calling for an end to the Quasi-War with France. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 sought to prohibit the Chinese due to their supposed wanton drug use and criminality, though overt racism was perhaps more significant. The policies enacted during the first Red Scare were a response to immigrants and other dissidents who challenged the U.S. economic system and foreign policies. The Immigration Act of 1918 was intended to do away with the unruly anarchists and communists in our nation. The huge numbers of Irish flooding the United States following the potato famine were resented for lowering the wages of native workers. There has never been a shortage of reasons to resent outsiders in our “nation of immigrants.”
While overt racism is seldom acceptable in today’s debate about Mexican immigration, the standard vitriolic accusations are employed. Now (again) it’s the Mexicans who are filling our prisons, desecrating the flag, having “anchor babies”, spreading leprosy, driving down wages, and increasing the tax burden on the native population. History repeats itself. While the sensational allegations usually merit disregard, some more sober inquiries concerning actual costs of illegal immigration should be openly discussed.
COSTS
There are many qualifiers that need to be specified before continuing. When we discuss illegal immigration, it is important to note who we are talking about. As investigative journalist Juan Gonzalez pointed out, “75% of the undocumented immigrant population in this country comes from Latin America. And not only that, 65% comes from one country: Mexico. So the crux of the illegal immigration problem in the United States is the question of Mexico and the United States.” (Fact-Checking Dobbs, 2007) The current debate is largely about Mexico. It is also useful to point out that nearly half of all immigrants residing in the United States illegally were legal immigrants until their visas expired. (Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population, 2006)
We should also identify the various actors involved and some of the real and/or perceived costs to them. It seems obvious that the costs and benefits to business, to political leaders, to native workers, consumers, and to the immigrants themselves will vary. For example, white nationalist groups* in our society might argue that the threat posed by the “criminal aliens” and “invaders” is the very destruction of our society. According to the Southern Poverty Law Institute, the immigrant community as a whole feels the implications of this. Citing hate crime statistics gathered by the FBI, “anti-Latino hate crimes rose by almost 35% between 2003 and 2006.” (Mock, 2007) Indeed, many different groups are paying a price. For simplicity’s sake, I will elaborate on the actual dollar costs of illegal immigration to the native population.
WAGES
According to our economic system, as the supply of a commodity grows the price drops. In this immigration discussion, workers are the commodities. The laws of capitalism suggest that an increase in available workers will decrease the overall wages of competitive workers. In their widely cited 2006 research paper, The Evolution of the Mexican-born Workforce in the United States, Harvard economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz argued that there is a correlation between numbers of workers and fluctuations in wages. Since the 1970’s, average wages have declined. Borjas and Katz contend that the wage decrease of high-school dropouts since 1980 is caused exclusively by the increase in immigration. They further conclude, “The wage fell by 8.2 percent for high school dropouts and by 3.9 percent for college graduates… Overall, the immigrant influx from 1980 to 2000 is estimated to have reduced the wage of the typical native worker by 3.4 percent.” (Borjas and Katz, 2006) This includes all Mexican immigrants; not just undocumented ones. Theirs is one of the most cited, objective, and contemporary scholarly research articles on the subject. Those on the left and right of the immigration debate utilize it. Indeed, anti-immigrant CNN anchor Lou Dobbs cites it, as does liberal economist Paul Krugman.
Numerous studies concur with the findings. The 1997 study by the National Research Council found basically the same. The growth of the immigrant community “reduced the wages of all competing native-born workers by about 1 or 2 percent.” (Smith and Edmontson, 1997). The economic consequences of this “surplus population” are as real today as they were when Karl Marx scrutinized the system in 1867 concluding, “the general movements of wages are exclusively regulated by the expansion and contraction of the industrial reserve army.” But while Marx attacked the system, we often blame the workers.
TAXES AND SOCIAL SERVICES
There is a concern that undocumented workers are a drain on native taxpayers who foot the bill for food stamps, emergency medical care, schools, etc. Polls show that this is an area of resentment for many citizens. Depending on how the question is worded, 87% are, “very or somewhat concerned about illegal immigrants overburdening government programs and services.” (Teixeira, 2006) The National Research Council cited earlier found that in California, “immigrant households received an average net fiscal transfer of $3463… which amounted to an average fiscal burden on native households of $1178.” While services and taxes vary from state to state, Economist Gordon Hanson asserted, “The continuing increase in the immigrant population suggests that these transfers are likely to grow over time, raising the potential for political opposition to immigration from native taxpayers.” (2005) Even those who recognize the tax contributions of undocumented workers admit that immigrant families have more children than natives and thereby demand more resources from local schools. Pro-immigrant, liberal economist Paul Krugman admits, “Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don’t pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.” (2006) It’s important to note that Krugman didn’t specify the legal status of the immigrants in his estimate. So if legal immigrants don’t pay their fair share in taxes, what does this suggest for the undocumented workers who might escape federal taxes?
MORE TO CONSIDER
The issue is far from settled, as there are many other variables to consider. Even the notion that immigrants are solely to blame for wage decline is disputed. For example, figures from high immigration states like California found a 17% decrease in wages presumably from immigration. Economist Eduardo Porter cautions readers to look closer, “Ohio remains mostly free of illegal immigrants. And what happened to the wages of Ohio’s high school dropouts from 1980 to 2004? They fell 31 percent.” (Porter, 2006) Restructuring of the economy away from manufacturing and toward the service sector probably had far more to do with the drop in wages according to many economists.
Borjas does not stray from his assertion about falling wages, but he does admit an economic reimbursement from immigrants, “These wage changes also appear to have benefited U.S. consumers by reducing the prices of nontraded goods and services that intensively employ less-skilled immigrants.” This leads to a $5 billion boon to all consumers in the United States. Borjas believes that immigrants do use $1.1 billion more in social services than they contribute in taxes, nevertheless, “Subtracting this… from the $5 billion annual increase in national income, the United States benefits from immigration…” (2006)
Many critics fail to recognize that immigrants, regardless of legal status, do pay taxes. Property and sales taxes are paid by anyone who pays rent or buys anything in the formal economy. This means that the equitable contribution even from undocumented workers to fund local schools is being paid. One of the other major perceived tax drains is the use of Medicaid and Food Stamps. It is important to note that only citizens and some legal residents can receive these benefits. Undocumented workers need not apply. Still, the argument can be made that undocumented parents of children born in this country indirectly benefit from these programs as they are able to redirect resources away from those needs.
But we should take a closer look at the federal tax contributions of undocumented workers. Stephen Goss, chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, admitted that most undocumented workers pay income taxes using fake or stolen social security numbers during the employment process, “Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes.” This $7 billion per year surplus ends up in the “earnings suspense file.” This means that ¾ of undocumented workers are paying federal income taxes and will not receive refunds. (Porter, 2005) What’s more, since 1996, the IRS offered Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN) allowing undocumented workers to pay their share of federal taxes. Roughly a million and a half undocumented workers filed this way in 2006. (Toness, 2007)
We should also look at the allocation of tax revenues. Compared to the total defense budget, social programs make up a small portion of the federal budget. This is an important distinction because as economist C. Fred Bergsten states, “At the federal level, immigrants make a positive net fiscal contribution. Adding taxpayers through immigration lowers the effective amount the federal government must charge native taxpayers to cover defense outlays.” (2005)
The effect on wages requires further analysis and perhaps a solution involving economic restructuring. It is clear that immigrants do pay taxes and assist native consumers by lowering prices. So it is worth asking, do natives subsidize immigrants or is it the other way round?
SOME CONTEXT
One of the questions rarely asked is, why are all these people coming to the United States? Many think the United States is innocently exceptional and subsequently burdened by the envy of the world. But we seldom take the time to really investigate the push factors that cause people to leave their communities, homes, and families behind. We need to look at that picture, and the part we may have played.
Mexicans have been encouraged to come and work in the United States on multiple occasions. This happened during both world wars as millions of working age men were drafted to go overseas and fight. History professor and coordinator of Latin American Studies at Salem State College, Aviva Chomsky, explains another historical factor,
The United States took Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898 as part of the Spanish-American War and ruled it as a colony until 1952. Globally, this kind of long-standing relationship is an important one to look at in understanding migration. People from India and Pakistan go to England; people from Senegal and Algeria go to France; people from Morocco go to Spain; people from Mexico and Puerto Rico come to the United States. Colonization sets the stage for later migration. (2007)
Many believe that economic colonization is still going on to this day.
Critics saw the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as a blatant continuation of neocolonialism. Historians Benjamin Keen and Keith Haynes observed, “By eliminating tariff restrictions and restrictions on investment, [NAFTA] ensured that Mexico would become a cheap-labor preserve for U.S. industry, with a loss of better paying jobs in the United States.” They go on to point out, “Mexican workers’ wages fell by 29 percent since 1994. As a result of NAFTA, poverty rates in Mexico in 1999 rose to 60 percent from an annual average of 34 percent between 1984 and 1994.” (2004) As the economic situation in Mexico deteriorated (as expected), the rate of immigration north skyrocketed (as expected).
President George W. Bush is a vocal supporter of immigration, but his proposed guest worker programs, many of which are already in place, have been staunchly condemned by the Southern Poverty Law Center as being “Close to Slavery.” As there 2007 report states, “guest workers are routinely cheated out of wages, held virtually captive by employers or labor brokers who seize their documents, forced to live in squalid conditions, and denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries.” (2007) The implications suggest a repeat of the historic exploitation of labor in this country. While slavery and child labor have been eliminated, the struggle for workers’ rights goes on. Andrew Barlow, author of Between Fear and Hope; Globalization and Race in the United States, offers this scathing analysis, “the… status of ‘illegal aliens’ meant that Mexicans could be compelled to accept low wages and horrendous work conditions, and lacked the legal and political means to do anything about it.” (2003) Surprisingly, this is the basic analysis of the more moderate George Borjas, “Immigration policy is just another redistribution program. In the short run, it transfers wealth from one group (workers) to another (employers).” (2006) The reserve army of labor, lacking basic rights, helps to keep wages and prices low while profits remain.
SOME SOLUTIONS
The economic difficulties surrounding the so-called immigration crisis can be worked out. We should first challenge our ingrained understanding of the way our economy works. We should question the very assumption that there will always be some class of people, high-school dropouts or immigrants for example, who will do the unwanted work of society and receive very little pay for it. As Aviva Chomsky put it,
Do immigrants compete with low-skilled workers for low-paying jobs? Yes. But the reason that this competition exists is because too many people are deprived of rights… The answer to the low-wage problem is not to restrict the rights of people at the bottom even more (through deportations, criminalizations, etc.) but to challenge the accord between business and government that promotes the low-wage, high-profit model. (2007)
We should welcome all workers into our ranks allowing them an equal say in the society they live in. The AFL-CIO, long opposed to immigration, has finally come around noting, “Immigrants are not the cause of our nation’s problems.” Their 1993 resolution encouraged the development “of programs to address the special needs of immigrant members” and cooperation with “immigrant advocacy groups and service organizations.” (quoted in Chomsky, 2007)
Minimum wage laws should be enforced for everyone, including the traditionally barred domestic and seasonal farm workers, and should be accurately adjusted for inflation. Had the minimum wage kept up with inflation, it would be around $9 per hour. U.S. companies doing business in Mexico should be forced to comply with whichever labor and environmental standards are strictest. People would argue that such restrictions would put a burden on business that would raise prices. The same argument was used to deter the abolition of slavery. If consumer prices and a “healthy economy” are the most important factors when determining labor standards, then perhaps slavery should be reinstated starting with our brown skinned neighbors to the south.
I feel like blushing even discussing the possibility of rising prices due to equitable minimum wage laws. CEO salaries have seen a 400% increase over the past 30 years while workers’ wages have dropped below or have barely kept up with inflation. Where is the discussion about the upward pressure on prices caused by Exxon Mobile CEO, Lee Raymond’s $405 million pension? We exert too much energy on discussing the threat of raising the wages of the lowest paid workers and too little considering the possibility of paying everyone a just wage. As Warren Buffet, the second richest man on the planet, admitted, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
Adam Smith, “the father of capitalism,” offered advise to those reviewing the economic policies advanced by the elites of the world,
The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.
On that note, we should dismantle NAFTA and question our economic policies in general. Here is a great irony in the debate; millions of our tax dollars go to subsidize multi-million dollar agribusiness firms whose products are sent south which then undercut Mexican farmers in turn pushing them north of the border. These Mexicans accept low wages in U.S. companies due to their legal status and then we complain about the economic costs associated with all these immigrants. If we want fewer immigrants entering the country, legally or otherwise, we should first dismantle the economic institutions instigating that migration.
POSSIBILITIES
But there are other benefits that don’t fit into the usual model. Polling attitudes of newly arrived Latin American immigrants show a consistent dissent concerning U.S. military policy. Latin America has a special understanding of U.S. military incursions and has repeatedly opposed U.S. invasions of Middle Eastern countries. When we talk about costs to whom we should consider the Iraqi and Afghan lives lost over the past five years. A 2006 Johns Hopkins study found that nearly one million Iraqis had died since the U.S invasion in 2003. What were these lives worth? To who? They seemed to be worth little to American pundits, nevertheless, these fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters were considered priceless by someone. Had recent Latin American immigrants been given a stronger voice in those foreign policy decisions, that awful toll might not have been paid.
The success of the immigrant rights movement could be another step in bringing about a more just world. The Abolitionist Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Rights Movement, and the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement were all efforts by disaffected minorities and their supporters to raise the bar of justice. These efforts changed the norms of acceptable behavior in significant ways. As the saying goes, “Liberty isn’t given, it’s taken.” As Sociologist Charles Gallagher rightly contends in Hispanics in a Multicultural Society: A New Dilemma?,
The challenge is for Hispanics to muster a unified response, drawing on all their resources and capabilities, and become an integral part of the movement to uncover complex forces intensifying inequality, poverty, political passivity, exploitation, and social isolation, not only within their own ranks but in the United States as a whole. This means reaching out and grasping every opportunity to share in the scholarly debate, policy assessment, and organized movement to restore priority to human rights objectives, despite the limitations under which all such initiatives now operate.” (2004).
There are indications that this is indeed happening. The largest mass protest in U.S. history took place on April 10, 2006 over the xenophobic immigration bill being discussed in congress at the time. If that demonstration is any indication of the immigrant community’s potential then perhaps a more inclusive nation is on the horizon.
*Membership in white nationalist groups has increased 600% over the past two years. (Mapping the New Nativism, 2007)
WORKS CITED
Barlow, Andrew L., Between Fear and Hope, Globalization and Race in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., Oxford, 2003.
Bergsten, C. Fred. The United States and the World Economy: Foreign Economic Policy for the Next Decade. Peterson Institute, New York, 2005.
Borjas, George. For a Few Dollars Less. Wall Street Journal. April 18, 2006.
Borjas, George and Lawrence Katz. The Evolution of the Mexican-born Workforce in the United States. Harvard University, March, 2006. http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/katz/files/mex_immig_nber_wp.pdf
Chomsky, Aviva. “They Take Our Jobs!” and 20 other myths about immigration. Beacon Press, Boston, 2007.
Close to Slavery, Guestworker Programs in the United States. Southern Poverty Law Center. 2007. http://www.splcenter.org/legal/guestreport/index.jsp
Democracy Now!, Fact-Checking Dobbs: CNN Anchor Lou Dobbs Challenged on Immigration Issues. December 4, 2007, http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/4/fact_checking_dobbs_cnn_anchor_lou
Gallagher, Charles A. Hispanics in a Multicultural Society: A New Dilemma? Rethinking the Color Line, Readings in Race and Ethnicity, Second Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, 2004.
Haerens, Margaret. Opposing Viewpoints, Illegal Immigration. Greenhaven Press, Detroit, 2006.
Hanson, Gordon H. Why Does Immigration Divide America? Public Finance and Political Opposition to Open Borders, Institute for International Economics, Massechusetts, 2005.
Krugman, Paul. North of the Border. New York Times, March 27, 2006.
Mapping the New Nativism, Center for New Community, January 11, 2007, http://www.buildingdemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_jmr_fmas&id=1&Itemid=91
Mock, Brentin. Immigration Backlash: Violence Engulfs Latinos, Southern Poverty Law Center, Intelligence Project. 2007. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?site_area=1&aid=292
Modes of Entry for Unauthorized Migrant Population, Pew Hispanic Center. May 22, 2006. http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf
Porter, Eduardo. Cost of Illegal Immigration May Be Less Than Meets the Eye. New York Times. April 16, 2006.
Porter, Eduardo. Illigal Immigrants are Bolstering Social Security With Billions, New York Times, April 5, 2005.
Smith, James P., and Barry Edmontson, The New Americans-Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. National Research Council, 1997. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309063566
Teixeira, Ruy. What the Public Really Wants on Immigration. Center for American Progress, June 27, 2006. http://www.tcf.org/Publications/MediaPolitics/teixeira6-28-06.pdf
Toness, Bianca Vazquez. U.S. Tax Program for Illegal Immigrants Under Fire. All Things Considered, National Public Radio. March 5, 2007.
see
Fox News: Dennis Kucinich and immigrants (video)
Indymedia US NewsReal December 2007 (video)
Bones to Pick on Ron Paul by Guinea: The 1930’s Smut Peddler
Fact-Checking Dobbs: CNN Anchor Lou Dobbs Challenged on Immigration Issues (link)
December 29, 2007
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) answers question on Iraq from Keene Sentinel Opinion Page Editor Guy R. MacMillin in an editorial board interview December 28, 2007. The full 58 minute interview available by noon on Monday, 12/31/07 at http://www.SentinelSource.com and http://www.NHElects.com as recorded by http://www.EventVideoTeam.com
Rep. Dennis Kucinich on trade
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) answers questions about trade from Keene Sentinel Editor Jim Rousmaniere in an editorial board interview December 28, 2007.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich on subprime mortgages and economy
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) answers questions about subprime mortgages and the economy from Keene Sentinel reporter Sarah Palermo in an editorial board interview December 28, 2007.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich on nuclear power
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) answers questions about nuclear power from Keene Sentinel Opinion Page Editor Guy R. MacMillin in an editorial board interview December 28, 2007.
h/t: Kucinich2008 (ORIGINAL UNOFFICIAL MySpace Profile)
see
by Guadamour
Dandelion Salad
featured writer
Guadamour’s blog post
Dec. 27, 2007
In the 1980s Mexico started a major road construction program, turning many of their major highways into divided controlled access interstate like roads. This sounds like a great idea because Mexico was in desperate need of more transportation infrastructure.
However, there were a number of sizable problems with this.
The Mexican constitution states the all people have the right of access to the highways and roads without cost. or tolls.
In the 1980’s Mexico auctioned off parts of roads to be built to private corporations. The corporations build and maintain the roads and collect tolls. This is irregardless of the fact that the roads being built were being built on public land and there was generally no way to get between point A and point B without taking a toll road.
Needless to say, the Mexican public has paid billions in tolls since the 1980s.
When Colonel Eisenhower returned from World War I he took a large number of troops from Long Island. California to Washington, DC. Such were the roads in the US of A at that time, it took him 62 days to make the trip.
Eisenhower vowed to himself at that time that if he was ever in a position to do something about that he would. That is how and why the United States started the Interstate system in the 1950s.
The Interstate System was slipped in under the Department of Defense because it was originally designed for troop movements.
It is hard to image traveling across the US of A by ground at this time without the Interstate Highway System.
The Interstate Highway System we know today was built by the Federal government in conjunction with the states it passes through. It is a highway system that is in the most part open to all . These are public roads purchased with public money outright or though eminent domain and maintained by state and Federal tax dollars.
These roads are funded by taxes that are included in the sale of each gallon of gasoline or diesel sold in the country. The tax is now something like 19 cents a gallon.
This represents a huge amount of money, and this money is alleged solely for transportation use.
Needless to say, only a small fraction of the money is used for transportation.
It is a great slush fund which almost all politicians dip into.
Any time that public money is used to build and maintain a highway or road in the USA, the public is suppose to have unfettered access. This is generally the case accept in the Northeast and some places in the Midwest.
Anyone who has driven cross country on I-50 will come to a toll booth. This is on a highway funded by the Federal and State governments and built on public land. This is patently illegal; nevertheless, it exists. Fortunately it doesn’t exist to any great extent in the USA.
That may soon change. The US of Corporate A is promoting and exploring a privatization of parts of the Interstate Highway System.
Under NAFTA (“free trade” corporate welfare) a highway stem linking Mexico , the US and Canada is being built. It is largely being built with public funds and on public land; however, it is to be privatized (read more corporate welfare), and anyone using the roads, even when there is not another way around (this includes the military) will have to pay a toll.
This is exactly what happened and continues to happen in Mexico—the corporations collect billions and the public is screwed.
This must be stopped before it too far along to undo the further erosion of the rights of the public of the USA. This will allow the government to severely restrict travel within the country, even if it is on public land.
Dandelion Salad 