Posts Tagged ‘Nader’

Ralph Nader Letter to President Obama Re: The State of the Union Address

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

Posted by Ralph Nader at Nader.org:


Dear President Obama:

As you prepare your State of the Union address, please be advised that those who support you are very cognizant of what you do not mention in such annual presentations to the Nation. For example, last year, environmentalists were shocked that global warming-climate change received no attention. Nor did raising the minimum wage, as you promised in 2008 to .50 by 2011.

Enclosed is my recent column titled “Congress Needs to Get to Work” that reminds and recommends what you and the Congressional Democrats should be advancing this year. They are not only needed legislative actions, but they are both significant and popular.

Try to avoid being drawn into corrosive conflicts with the Congressional Republicans on matters you could have avoided by learning how to bargain for more when you give up much. An example is your concessions on the Bush tax cuts in late 2010 for which you should have demanded concurrence for raising the debt limit. Think of the time that struggle absorbed in 2011,

To call a reduction of the employee side of the payroll tax a “tax cut” for 160 million Americans is beyond disingenuous. You know who pays for this maneuver once this can is kicked down the road.

The many organizations in this country striving to stem the rising poverty in this country have wondered why you never mention “the poor” in your speeches. They are aware of the Clintonesque code that only referred to “the middle class,” and never to “the poor” or “to low income people” who now number nearly 100 million Americans. They did not expect that Barack Obama also would have employed this language of avoidance.

You do not want them to feel they are being taken for granted.

Sincerely yours,

Ralph Nader

The column Nader mentions, also posted separately at Nader.org:

The editor of The Hill, a newspaper exclusively covering Congress, said that Congress was not going to do very much in 2012, except for “the big bill” which is extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment compensation, which expire in late February. That two month extension will likely reignite the fight between Democrats and Republicans that flared last month.

In 2012, Congress, the editor implied, would be busy electioneering. That is, the Senators and Representatives will be busy raising money from commercial interests so they can keep their jobs. There won’t be much time to change anything about misallocated public budgets, unfair tax rules, undeclared costly wars, and job-depleting trade policies that, if fixed, would increase employment and public investment.

So this year, Congress will spend well over billion on its own expenses to do nothing of significance other than shift more debt to individual taxpayers by depleting the social security payroll tax by over 0 billion so both parties can say they enacted a tax cut! That is what the Democrats in Congress and the President call a significant accomplishment.

Will someone call a psychiatrist? This is a Congress that is beyond dysfunctional. It is an obstacle to progress in America, a graveyard for both democracy and justice. No wonder a new Washington Post-ABC news poll found an all time high of 84 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing.

Both Republicans and Democrats say they want to reduce the deficit. But they are avoiding, in varying degrees, doing this in any way that would discomfort the rich and powerful. One would think that, especially in an election year, the following legislative agenda would be very popular with the voters.

First, restore the taxes on the rich that George W. Bush cut ten years ago which expanded the deficit. So clueless are the Democrats that they have not learned to use the word “restore” instead of the Republican word “increase” when talking about taxes that were previously cut for the millionaires and billionaires.

Second, collect unpaid taxes. The IRS estimates that 5 billion of tax revenues are not collected yearly. If the IRS budget increased and more people were hired, every dollar it spent would return 0 from tax evaders, including corporations and the wealthy. When taxes are not collected, the large majority of honest taxpayers are left with the unfair consequences. Imagine that money being applied to jobs that repair our crumbling public works.

Third, end the outrageous corporate loopholes that allow profitable large corporations to pay just half of the statutory tax rate of thirty-five percent. More than a few pay less than five percent and many pay zero on major profits. During a recent three year period, according to the Citizens for Tax Justice, a dozen major corporations such as Verizon and Honeywell paid no taxes on many billions of profits, and the legendary tax escapee, General Electric, managed to pay zero and even receive billions in benefits from the U.S. Treasury.

Fourth, do what most U.S. soldiers in the field have believed should have been done years ago–get out of Afghanistan and Iraq and nearby countries like Kuwait where thousands of U.S. soldiers based in Iraq have moved.

Fifth, to increase consumer demand, which creates jobs, raise the federal minimum wage from the present level of .25–which is .75 less than it was way back in 1968, adjusted for inflation–to per hour. Businesses who keep raising prices and executive salaries (eg. Walmart and McDonalds) since 1968 should be reminded of their windfall in that period.

In addition, President Obama can urge mutual and pension funds and individual shareholders to demand higher dividends from companies like EMC, Google, Apple, Cisco, Oracle and others firms hoarding two trillion dollars in cash as if this money was the corporate bosses’, not the owner-shareholders. More dividends, more consumer demand, more jobs.

Want to know why Congress doesn’t make such popular and prudent decisions for the American people? Because the people are not objecting to all the power that their Congressional representatives and their corporate allies have sucked away from them. Because the people are not putting teeth and time into the “sovereignty of the people” expressed in the preamble to our Constitution which begins with “We the people,” not “We the corporation.”

So citizens, it’s your choice. If you don’t demand a say day after day, you’ll continue to pay day after day.

By the way, the Congressional switchboard number is 202-224-3121.

Ralph Nader ran for President as an independent in 2008 and 2004, and as a Green in 2000 and 1996. Other alternative parties will no doubt be responding to Obama and the Republicans’ speeches tonight, but I have yet to see their plans for doing so, other than the Green Party and Jill Stein, the leading candidate for the Green Party presidential nomination.

Blogger PostDiggDeliciousEmailFacebookFarkFriendFeedGoogle BookmarksGoogle GmailLinkedInRedditStumbleUponSlashdotShare

Independent Political Report

Hill article on Jill Stein includes supportive comments from Ralph Nader

Tuesday, November 29th, 2011

In a rather lengthy piece on Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and the Occupy Wall Street movement, reporter Kris Kitto obtains this nugget from Ralph Nader on Stein’s candidacy:

Former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader says signature collection alone can consume a third-party campaign’s resources.

“By the time you finish, it’s Labor Day, and you’re exhausted, and you don’t have any money,” says Nader, adding that he sees promise in Stein. “She’s an M.D., which is a good advantage, since healthcare is a big issue … She has a good head on her shoulders.”

Nader’s comments certainly cannot be construed as an endorsement of Stein. Nevertheless, they are noteworthy given Nader’s history with the Green Party and its Presidential candidates. After serving as Green Party presidential nominee in 1996 and 2000 — and receiving 2.74% of the national popular vote in 2000 — Nader famously broke with the Green Party in 2004 and refused to seek its endorsement. The GP retaliated by nominating David Cobb for President rather than endorsing Nader’s independent ticket. The presence of an independent Nader candidacy on most state ballots in 2004 and 2008 significantly depressed Green Party presidential vote totals in those elections. Nader previously stated he would not be running again in 2012, but would instead be working to secure Democratic primary challengers for President Obama. However, little came of that effort. Nader’s positive comments about Stein in the Hill article may be his first positive comments about a Green Party presidential candidate since 2004.

Also of note in the article is Stein’s explanation of the origins of her campaign team:

After losing the 2002 race, she mounted losing campaigns in 2004, for the Massachusetts House of Representatives; in 2006, for Massachusetts Commonwealth secretary; and in 2010, again for the governorship. She won races for Lexington Town Meeting representative in 2005 and 2008.

“To my mind, low vote counts are not a reflection of a failed campaign,” she says.

What’s come out of her serial candidacy, Stein says, is an organization that will help her attack the monumental task that third-party candidates confront every presidential cycle: obtaining enough signatures to appear on the ballot.

In other words, Stein’s campaign team is not freshly created for this race; large portions of it have been with her through several campaigns since 2002.

Stein’s opponent for the Green Party nomination is Kent Mesplay. The party will choose its presidential nominee July 13-15, 2012, at its Baltimore convention.

Blogger PostDiggDeliciousEmailFacebookFarkFriendFeedGoogle BookmarksGoogle GmailLinkedInRedditStumbleUponSlashdotShare

Independent Political Report

Nader Comments on: Tar Sands Arrests, Obama, Environmentalists, Green Party, etc.

Thursday, September 1st, 2011

Ralph Nader has run for President of the United States with the Green Party, and more recently, as an independent candidate. Nader recently posted an excellent piece of commentary on the Tar Sands Arrests at The White House…

Tar Sands Arrests on Obama’s Doorstep
by Ralph Nader, Reader Supported News / August 30, 2011

 

his is the second week of protests, led by Bill McKibben, in front of the White House demanding that President Barack Obama reject a proposed 1700 mile pipeline transporting the dirtiest oil from Alberta, Canada through fragile ecologies down to the Gulf Coast refineries. One thousand people will be arrested there from all fifty states before their demonstration is over [including, actress Daryl Hannah, on Tuesday, August 30th]. The vast majority voted for Obama and they are plenty angry with his brittleness on environmental issues in general…

Were Obama to look out his White House window and see the arrested and handcuffed demonstrators against this billion Keystone XL pipeline, he might think: “This will upset my environmental supporters, but heck, where can they go in November 2012?”

He is right. No matter what Mr. Obama does to surrender environmental health and safety to corporatist demands, they will vote for him. They certainly won’t vote for the Republican corporate mascots. They wouldn’t vote for a Green Party candidate either. This is not only the environmentalists’ dilemma, it is the liberal/progressive/labor union dilemma as well. They have no bargaining power with Obama…

Above article via FOCUS: Tar Sands Arrests on Obama’s Doorstep.

Another opinion piece on The Tar Sands at theenergycollective.com: here.

Independent Political Report

Ralph Nader: Revitalizing the AFL-CIO

Tuesday, May 31st, 2011

When Harry Kelber, the 96 year old relentless labor advocate and editor of The Labor Educator speaks, the leadership of the AFL-CIO should listen. A vigorous champion for the rights of rank-and-file workers vis-a-vis their corporate employers and their labor union leaders, Kelber has recently completed a series of five articles titled
The reaction: Silence from [...]
Green Party Watch

Ralph Nader: Impeach Obama for war crimes

Sunday, March 20th, 2011

Nader says. “Why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts? That the Obama administration is committing war crimes. And if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached.”
Taken from a transcript at Democracy Now!

Green Party Watch

Nader still addressing 2004 ballot access injustice: Update on lawsuit in Maine

Thursday, February 17th, 2011

from Ballot Access News
Briefing Schedule Set in Nader Lawsuit Against Democratic National Committee for 2004 Behavior

February 16th, 2011

The Maine Supreme Court has set a briefing schedule in Nader v Maine Democratic Party, et al, case no. washington-county-10-678. This is the tort lawsuit filed in 2009 in which Nader argues that the Democratic National Committee and its allies, in 2004, filed meritless challenges to his ballot access petitions, and engaged in dirty tricks against his circulators. Nader’s brief is due on April 8; the response is due May 27; and the rebuttal is due June 10. The central issue now is whether the lower court should have conducted a trial.

Background in a previous story from Ballot Access News: here

Independent Political Report

Ralph Nader testifies before Congress on the subject of Wikileaks

Friday, December 17th, 2010

From the Talk Radio News Service:

Famed consumer advocate and ex-presidential candidate Ralph Nader (I) was part of a panel that testified on Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee to weigh in on the release of leaked classified U.S. military documents by the website WikiLeaks…

“What’s fascinating about this WikiLeaks controversy,” Nader said, “is that we have to avoid it becoming a vast distraction, [instead] focusing on these so-called leaks instead of focusing on the abysmal lack of security safeguards by the executive branch of the U..S government and making those who set up this poor system, or allow it to be penetrated, accountable.”

From PCMag.com:

Former presidential candidate and consumer advocate Ralph Nader argued that WikiLeaks has become a “vast distraction” from the real problems – the “abysmal lack of security safeguards” within the government and the lack of accountability among those who suppress data.

“The suppression of information has led to far more loss of life, jeopardization of American security, and all the other consequences now being attributed to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange,” Nader continued, pointing to the lead up to the Iraq War.

Independent Political Report

Ralph Nader: Democrats Squander the Swing Vote

Friday, August 14th, 2009

by Ralph Nader at Nader.org:

The mid-term 2010 Congressional elections are over and the exaggerations are front and center. “A tidal wave,” “an earthquake,” “a tsunami,” cried the Republican victors and their media acolytes.

Wait a minute! No more than 7 percent of the actual voters switched sides to create a 14 point spread. This amounts to about 3 percent of all the eligible voters who produced this “tidal wave.” That is what happens in our winner-take-all system. So when it is said that “the people have spoken,” chalk it up to 7 percent or so switcheroos. The rest voted the way they did in the previous Presidential and Congressional election (and about 28 million voters stayed home.)

Such sweeping descriptions gave incoming House Speaker, John Boehner, even more leeway than usual to play with words when he declared, without further elaboration, that “the peoples priorities and agenda are our priorities.” Mr. Boehner is the consummate corporate logo-man masquerading as a Congressman. If someone drew the logos of all the big companies that have marinated his career and put them on his suit coat, they would run into each other.

How then did the Democrats lose against the most craven Republican party in modern history—a Party that opposes again and again the fair rights of workers, consumers, investors, savers and patients.

Regarding patients, Boehner’s oft-repeated view of the modest, non-single-payer health insurance changes by Congress and Obama—“it will kill jobs, destroy the best health care system in the world and bankrupt our country.” Reporters listen to Mr. Boehner say this repeatedly and do not ask him to explain his wild rhetoric.

So, in listing some of the ways the Democrats failed to defend the country against such Republicans, put near the top not rebutting the crisp lies and abstract assertions that Republican candidates uttered while campaigning or “debating” their Democratic opponents. Listening to debate after debate on C-Span radio, I was amazed at how infrequently the Democrats demanded examples from their Republican opponents each time the words “cut spending,” “cut taxes,” “reduce the deficit,” “deregulate” and “create jobs,” were uttered.

In elections, one side is on the offensive and the other is on the defensive. The offense creates momentum unless it is countered and driven back. Since the Democrats are furiously dialing for the same corporate campaign dollars, it is difficult for them to stand for the people. That is why the Democrats are wishy-washy, reticent and reluctant to put major subjects of abusive power on the table.

Rarely did one hear Democrats state their position on corporate crime law enforcement, huge fraud on the taxpayer (Medicare), anti-collective-bargaining laws for labor, the bloated military budgets, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the flood of corporate subsidies, handouts, giveaways and bailouts, or the grotesque tax escapes for the multinational corporations and the super-wealthy.

They did not want to talk about consumer rip-offs, or the hundreds of thousands of unprotected Americans who lose their lives every year from un-regulated workplace-related diseases/traumas, medical malpractice, air, water and food contamination, or having no health insurance.

Too many Democrats are cowering candidates. Speaker Nancy Pelosi told incumbent Democrats that they could criticize her if necessary to get elected and preserve their majority in the House. Since Republicans made a practice of assailing Pelosi in almost every debate or on every occasion, many Democrats did not rebut their Republican opponents. Some Democrats stated they would not vote for Pelosi as Speaker in 2012. Unrebutted political attacks often influence voters who wonder at mixed messages from members of a Party.

A key Democratic failure was not to keep on Howard Dean, as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Between 2005 and 2009, Dr. Dean, with his 50 state strategy, energized both the DNC and state Democratic Committees. He knew what it took to go on the offensive against Republicans. He produced victories in 2006 and 2008 before his bête noire, Obama’s Rahm Emmanuel, pushed him out.

Dr. Dean would have challenged the Tea Party and slowed its momentum. When the Democrats saw this self-styled conservative/libertarian rebellion receive the first of its vast mass media coverage (especially by Fox News and Fox Cable) in August, 2009 when Tea Partiers loudly showed up at town meetings of incumbent Congresspersons, there should have been a Democratic response. A “Coffee Party” of progressives and deprived workers rebelling against the corporate control that 75 percent of Americans believe is excessive might have caught on.

Instead, the Tea Partiers, in all their disparate strands and wealthy right-wingers trying to take them over, became the daily feature and news of the 2010 campaign year.

Obama came out of his 2008 victory with 13 million names of donors and supporters, along with great enthusiasm from young voters. The Democrats squandered this support. This astonishing blunder happened, in no small part, because Obama turned his back on his supporters and denied their leaders White House access that he so often afforded corporate CEOs—eg. from the health insurance giants, drug companies, and banking behemoths. That’s one reason so many of his 2008 supporters stayed home in 2010 and did not vote. They felt betrayed.

With 23 Democratic Senators up in 2012, as compared with 10 Republican Senators, the Democrats may lose both Houses of Congress. Voters shouldn’t only have the barren choice of voting for the least worst of the Two Parties. Here we go again. Or as F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote: “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Independent Political Report