We need to beat swords into plowshares.

We need to beat swords into plowshares.

Friday, December 24, 2010

Breaking towards political independence from the Democratic Party

Luisa, I agree with "thinking bigger than who is on the Democratic ticket;" I agree we need a labor-based people's party. A party that reflects the liberal/progressive/left forces bringing forward a progressive agenda for real change with peace, jobs, health care, child care, a real living minimum wage and enforcement of affirmative action the main planks of the platform.

BUT; I also think in order to strengthen the probability of breaking free from the Democratic Party we need to advance this same agenda inside the Democratic Party as part of an attempt to Primary Obama. We need to do this for two main reasons:

1. To get rid of Obama so he isn't a factor and if we do this uniting people around the agenda I describe (I make the agenda suggestion as an example I would prefer while realizing others may want to include other things) because then we have forward movement based on issues making sure liberals, progressives and the left are headed towards common goals inside and outside of the Democratic Party so no matter if we do or don't get rid of Obama and if we do Primary Obama it gives us greater "issue based" clout with who ever replaces him... in other words, it provides momentum for pushing our agenda front and center in a way these issues, problems and their solutions bases on people before profit can be solved. This also gives us more clout with the wimps in Congress like Kucinich who are always for something progressive until their hands get held by the Wall Streeters like Obama without even having to have their arms twisted never mind being water-boarded.

2. It creates a new kind of politics to go along with breaking free from the Democratic Party where we aren't "looking for candidates" but where the leaders of the struggles for our progressive agenda become real people's politicians.

If you want to see how this works out in real life, not just being hypothetical here on FaceBook, there is an example here in Minnesota where this is being played out in real life with the "Warriors for Justice," a new political party initiated by working class Native American activists who have been engaged in struggles around environmental issues and fighting to get affirmative action and non-discrimination in employment, health care and education and to include Native American Indians in the political process beyond voting to include seats in the Minnesota state legislature and Congress.

I would also add that the name for the new party was derived after this group of people who had been heavily involved inside the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party read a book, "Getting America Back To Work" by Richard Levins (a middle class university professor) and Stuart Acuff (an AFL-CIO union official) where they wrote: "Though some of us may have been dived in the past, we no longer have the luxury of division. All of us-workers, trade unionists, advocates and organizers for the poor and immigrants, environmentalists, feminists, gay rights activists. clergy, and people of faith, community leaders, seekers of peace and warriors for justice-share a common challenge and a common destiny." Well, after being actively opposed in their struggles for basic reforms to gain a voice in and through the Democratic Party including efforts to run for public office as Democrats, this group of people held a series of meeting about their concerns and found more and more people calling for building a political movement and structure outside of the Democratic Party and through their efforts they became an important factor inside and outside of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party which included: first forcing one of the candidates out of 11 in the field running to become the Democratic Party's nominee to run for governor, to negotiate with them in return for his support and at the very state convention where they announced they would break free from the Democratic Party while still working with like-minded Democrats (warriors for justice) they used their prestige and influence based upon their struggles to nominate the very liberal Mark Dayton who has a few progressive thoughts and some left leanings in opposition to the business supported candidate who actually received the endorsement of the MNDFL leadership at the convention while because of the work the "Warriors for Justice" did Dayton ended up defeating this worthless big-business supported Democrat Margaret Anderson-Kelliher who everyone (accept for the grassroots activists led by the "Warriors for Justice and a few rank-and-file led union locals and a third of the MNDFL State Convention delegates) were sure that she was going to win. Well, Dayton went on to not only win a very close Democratic primary election but the General Election.

You can check out Dayton's views concerning the central theme of his campaign which was very left-wing: "Tax the rich." Dayton was also a U.S. Senator who opposed the wars. He has stated unequivocally that he will not make public employees scape-goats for economic problems Minnesota is experiencing--- a position that stands in complete contrast to those like Jerry Brown and Obama:

http://www.allvoices.com/people/Mark_Dayton/video/64068391

Here are a few links from the leaders of the "Warriors for Justice"

I also have written extensively on my own blog:

http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Greg Paquin

http://nativeamericanindianlaborunion12.blogspot.com/

Nicole Beaulieu

http://anishinaabecandidate.blogspot.com/

So, I ask you--- Lisa and everyone--- is this the kind of political independence from the Democratic Party you can live with and organize for?

In my opinion, and I don't mean to insult anyone here; but, there seems to be this idea that at some magical moment and point people are just going to heed a call to break free from the Democratic Party rather than realizing many of our liberal, progressive and left friends are still working inside of the Democratic Party and that there will probably be many different ways people will express themselves as they struggle to free themselves from the two-party trap.

But, for all of us that have worked around issue based activities inside the Democratic Party for many years--- in my own situation mainly around labor, peace, civil rights and health care--- we have noticed something a lot of people don't want to acknowledge because it demonstrates their own incorrect positions toward working with Democrats (notice I say working WITH Democrats; not working to build the Democratic Party)--- but, what we have noticed is that in any given area, almost anyone getting involved in any of the peace, social and economic justice issues will gravitate towards working in the Democratic Party when they feel the time to fight for political solutions is required, and part of our observations are that the majority of these people will get very frustrated very quickly as they come up against the big-money interests who manipulate and control the Democratic Party who first enthusiastically welcome these newcomers into the fold of the Democratic Party as they pressure them ever so subtly and then with a progressive meanness and nastiness which includes badgering and bullying to try to force them into a fold of where trying to solve their problems becomes irrelevant.

I can assure you that pedagogic intellectual lectures about the need to free ourselves from the Democratic Party without understanding and patience for people and their problems and concerns who CHOSE to continue working inside the Democratic Party on the very same issues we want to build something new--- a labor-based people's party--- will not happen unless we find a way to all work together on issue-related, issued-based campaigns.

Someone else's turn...

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Primary Obama with Hillary Clinton


I have received a lot of responses to my suggestion that we should use Hillary Clinton to get rid of Barack Obama. I can understand these concerns completely. Here is my response...


    • Alan L. Maki 
      Let me make clear. My response is not predicated on the same kind of opportunist "pragmatism" the supporters of Obama share with him--- a "pragmatism" that is the ideology of imperialism used to push forward Wall Street's agenda of war abroad and austerity at home.

      My suggestion is based on finding a PRACTICAL way to defeat Obama. "Practical" as in finding a tactical way as part of a strategy to defeat Obama and his Wall Street agenda; complete separate and distinct from the rank opportunism of Obama and these "PRAGMATISTS" for whom "pragmatism" is an ideology.

      Here is my response to those who have challenged my suggestion that we primary Obama with Hillary.

      Unlike the "pragmatists" supporting Obama; I will never engage in a campaign of insults and lies nor will I try in any way to suppress the views of others--- I will, however, respond with my views and opinions based upon my working class analysis which welcomes the most vigorous dialog, discussion and debate with ALL viewpoints welcome. I invite the supporters of Obama to comment to their heart's content here on my "FaceBook Wall" or in the communities and places where people work and go to school because this is what democracy is all about:

      Friends;

      I share your "lack of enthusiasm" for Hillary--- HOWEVER, I think by pushing a Hillary/Sanders ticket in front of the people we raise the ante by providing people the chance to get rid of Obama.

      If a primary challenge doesn't get rid of Obama it cripples him for the general election.

      In my opinion the left is being very irresponsible in not putting together a ticket to fill the vacuum that has now been created.

      We need to serve notice on the left activists in this country that if the left is not going to be the catalyst for responsible change by bringing forward a ticket that liberals, progressives and the left can support that people are going to do exactly what they say they are against happening--- grassroots activists continuing to work in the Democratic Party simply because there is no place else for them to go.

      I had asked these people who put out the "Letter to the Left Establishment" to take into consideration two things:

      1. That they should not suggest that people not work in the Democratic Party unless they were prepared to help organize an alternative; and

      2. To use that letter to suggest a national conference be convened with an open invitation to liberals, progressives and the left opposed to Obama for the purpose of bringing forward a national ticket that would appeal to these three important components which must be united for us to make any headway.

      They chose not to consider this; instead, launching into an attack without providing specific suggestions for an alternative. Big mistake in my opinion but what is done is done and the corrections can quite easily be made... it's not like having contributed to dividing and fracturing the left in the service of Wall Street which was required to elect Barack Obama; plus, the letter with its many problems has done a great service to the people's movements for peace, social and economic justice by serving as a catalyst for a real discussion, finally.

      For crying out loud; people have to have a political voice; if the left is not going to be the catalyst for initiating this discussion it is unrealistic to think that people will not try to do what they can in the Democratic Party to try to defend their livelihoods and try to end these wars.

      It appears to me that the only Democrat preparing to challenge Obama is Hillary Clinton even though she claims otherwise; but, both Paul Krugman and Robert Reich are Hillary's frontmen--- obviously they have gone on an attack against Obama that they are not going to be able to retreat from without making themselves look like complete fools.

      As a result, I am grasping the only straw out there--- Hillary Clinton and trying to make a point by suggesting Bernie Sanders as her running mate... that socialism has to be on the ballot if we are going to challenge Wall Street.

      If people want to create an alternative to the two-party trap I will be the first to jump in--- but, I am not going to leave the political process to the sole machinations of a creep like Barack Obama and his Wall Street crowd along with his gaggle of phony liberals, progressives and leftists whose two primary leaders--- tom Hayden and Carl Davidson, the former a poster boy for the Israeli killing machine for four decades and the latter who gloated with glee and approval over the killing fields of the murderous butcher Pol Pot, another phony "leftist" posing as some kind of "revolutionary"--- if I can raise my voice in the least little way... I know of no other way to force a discussion on this issue... anyone who wants to attack me for supporting Hillary as the way to terminate Obama's career is going to have to bring forward another idea.

      Besides, when compared to this rotten creep Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton with Paul Krugman and Robert Reich at her side, she doesn't look bad at all.

      I have circulated this around a little.

      Looking forward to your response.

      Yours in the struggle and in solidarity,

      Alan

      Alan L. Maki
      Director of Organizing,
      Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

      58891 County Road 13
      Warroad, Minnesota 56763

      Phone: 218-386-2432
      Cell Phone: 651-587-5541

      E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

      Check out my Blog:
      http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

About the word progressive; from a FaceBook discussion...

...you have a different meaning of the word "progressive" than what most people do.

The income tax is progressive; you are definitely correct about that. And it should become so progressive that we tax the hell out of the rich to pay for the many universal social programs we need to lift everyone out of poverty... from public health care to public child care to programs like WPA and CCC putting people back to work with the government becoming the employer of first choice. Ending these dirty wars to pay for what society needs is what is progressive, too.

We have reached the point where the people being "elected" to the United States Congress and their hacks who write articles like the one I posted above are so far removed from the life most people experience daily which has become a crisis of everyday living for tens of millions of working class families in the wealthiest country in the world that they don't care about us and what we think.

There were massive demonstrations by the American people from all walks of life speaking out that they didn't want Bush to go to war. The number of members of the House and Senate voting against going to war was shameful and pathetic given the massive opposition from the American people. We are going to have to replace these very arrogant representatives of Wall Street getting richer off of war who get elected with our votes but who understand they are accountable to their Wall Street campaign contributors.

The United States Senate has just one solitary socialist in it.

Is it coincidental that this one socialist is the only one who stood up for the welfare of working people?

Look at all the other governments in the world. Take Canada our neighbor to the north. Their governments are filled with socialists from the local to provincial and federal levels. The Canadian Province of Manitoba has been dominated by the socialist New Democratic Party for years; they have been the governing party for much of the last 50 years in Manitoba.

We are missing something here.

If Bernie Sanders is the one and only United States Senator we can count on to reflect and represent our views shouldn't this tell us something? Something like we need more socialists in the House and Senate; not more Democrats.

There are 435 members of the House; 100 members in the United States Senate. There is one socialist.

What does this mean?

It means "we the people" are outnumbered 534 to ONE. Wall Street has 534 members in Congress; working people have ONE.

These members of Congress can talk all they want about war or anything else. When all is said and done Wall Street is going to win every single time. This is what "we the people" have to change.

Never mind the fact that most Americans don't know that Manitoba has a government just as socialist as little Cuba; most Americans don't even know that Minnesota has had two socialist governors, Floyd Olson and Elmer Benson; and in more recent years a governor whose politics were so socialist oriented that they called him "Red" Rudy Perpich--- his own Democratic Party dumped him for advocating a huge increase in the "taconite tax" for the iron ore industry and a huge increase in "stumpage fees" for the forestry industry to begin to do away with the regressive property tax to pay for public education by placing taxes where they belong: on the rich and the corporations.

Minnesota also sent a Communist, John Bernard, to Congress when electing a socialist governor.

This idea that somehow socialism is a foreign concept to American politics is an outright big lie. In fact, Minnesota's first socialist governor, Floyd Olson had intended to take the socialist Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party national and he was going to run against Franklin Roosevelt because Roosevelt wasn't implementing reforms quickly enough to alleviate the suffering of the people.

Minnesota had a socialist majority in its House and almost in the Senate with hundreds of socialists elected to public office on lower levels. We also had a socialist in the United States Senate elected on the same Minnesota Farmer-Labor ticket.

We have to "level the playing field" if we want to see peace, social and economic issues addressed in Congress. The only way to "level the playing field" with Wall Street our opposition is to send more socialists to Congress to join Bernie Sanders so the old guy doesn't have to stand up for over eight hours straight defending our rights--- talking to a completely empty Senate Chamber which proves there isn't one other member of the United States Senate whose interests go beyond what is good for Wall Street.

Not only is Mother Earth at her tipping point with global warming with capitalism already splattered and on the skids to oblivion taking us all down a dangerous, dark, bumpy, twisty, treacherous road to oblivion with no stops in purgatory--- we are headed straight to hell; but, our democracy, fragile as it has been since the initiation of the dark days of what we call "McCarthyism" which began in 1938 with the Dies Committee; our democracy of "we the people" is at the tipping point, too; and I would suggest that the only way to save democracy is by electing a whole slew of socialists of one kind or another to Congress... we simply can't rely on one old man, Bernie Sanders, to stand up against all the tremendous power that Wall Street's wealth can purchase.

As for who we Primary Obama with; anyone from Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders is just fine with me. And it doesn't make any difference to me if we elect socialists to the House and Senate on the Democratic Party ticket, as independents like Bernie Sanders or as part of a new party like the old Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party or something along the lines of Canada's New Democratic Party.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

"High hopes"

As we get closer to primary times I think a lot of people who still have faith in Obama are going to be very rudely awakened when they understand that Obama has lost all support from his most important voter base and all the money in the world probably can't buy the guy another election unless he switches parties and runs as the Republican he really is.

The guy is a loser. The people remaining with these "high hopes" pinned to Obama might just be better off bending forward, putting their head between their legs and kissing their butts good-bye if they are going to stubbornly stick to Obama. Maybe Obama sent Rahm Emmnuel to Chicago to rig the election for him by bringing a bunch of dead people out to vote because that is the only chance he has of winning with the "shellacking" he has meted out to the working class with every single piece of of his legislation.

We have to remember; people voted for Obama to exterminate the Republicans; not to make these kinds of deals with them.

Why should the left be concerned about the 2012 Democratic Primary after Obama's lies and betrayals?

My point is that if we are going to get rid of Obama he is going to have to be Primaried out. At the most, we have three months to field a slate of progressive candidates to run independently of the Democrats. Obviously Hillary Clinton is intending to get in the Primary because she has her two main attack dogs after Obama--- Paul Krugman and Robert Reich... from the left we should be pouring fuel on the fire they have started... if it means electing Hillary Clinton to get rid of Obama so be it. As someone who has run on a minor party left-wing ticket before I am all for anyone taking up this challenge; but, let us not kid ourselves, the Democratic Party is probably the only game in town for anyone seeking real change--- not that any Democrats or the Democratic Party is going to be the locomotive for change--- or even the caboose; but, this is still where most grassroots and rank and file activists are at and we just might be able to elect a couple more Bernie Sanders to the Senate and the House. Maybe even a few independent of the Democrats here or there. But, the real movement is going to have to take place in the streets with people turning this country upside down in order to win any real reforms. It is unfortunate that these outfits like "Progressives for Obama," the Progressive Democrats of America, the Center for American Progress and the Campaign for America's Future have been able to sow such deep divisions along with so much confusion in our movements by making people think and believe that Obama is something that he is not--- any change in this is going to have to come from a left that has the patience to continue working alongside those involved at the grassroots and rank and file levels in the Democratic Party--- not to build up the Democratic Party but to advance an issue oriented campaign with real and specific solutions to our problems.

The majority of the working class is liberal, progressive and left--- it would be irresponsible, and very dangerous, for the left to abandon progressives and liberals in the working class who are still in the Democratic Party.

I get the feeling there are those leftists who think that somehow we can bully, badger and intimidate their liberal and progressive sisters and brothers to move left and abandon the Democratic Party the way Obama and his entourage of labor fakers and their "think tanks" have tried to bully, badger and intimidate the left to support Obama or remain silent--- this doesn't work, as we know, it only creates resentment.

No matter who it is that steps forward--- Hillary or whoever--- to try and Primary out Barack Obama the left his going to have to be strong enough to make some offers that candidate cannot refuse. We have to go with votes in our pockets; not with empty hands and we are going to get something out of the deal--- but, only if we are well organized.

There is no reason why we should not be able to use this Primary election to force an end to these wars.

Monday, December 20, 2010

working class action censored by facebook


Sunday, December 19, 2010

Carl Davidson 
It's not in my power to 'make' you 'believe me', Sally. All I can do is present my views, and you can assess them, and do what you will. You're responsible for your own choices. I have a fairly public track record, locally and nationally, over many years, as does Hayden. That Maki chooses to reduce this to 'Pol Pot lover' and' Zionist Murderer of Palestinians' ought to tell you something about him and his way on doing politics, more so than myself and Hayden, who are neither of these things. In any case, Obama is not running against Hilary. My guess is that it will be against McCrytal-Palin, or some other Afghan war general pared with her. But who knows? We'll wait and see, and assess our choices as it gets closer. In the meantime, fight against war and austerity.







This is a most interesting response as Davidson did in fact support Pol Pot. Oh, well, forget that; Pol Pot was then, the new killer now is Obama--- but, again, excuses, very similar excuses, are made for Obama as what were created and fabricated by Davidson to justify his support for Pol Pot.





Then he goes on to ridicule--- very cleverly without denying the truth--- that Tom Hayden was a poster boy for the Israeli killing machine in return for getting support from the AIPAC lobbyists to become a state legislator in California.





Davidson then goes on to say that neither him nor Hayden are either of these things; maybe yesterday for which they should be forgiven--- but not now. In six years they will then proclaim "we are not for Obama."





The fact is, both Davidson and Hayden have been misleading people for years pretending to be of the left.





After they screw everyone over they find a "new" gimmick to lure people away from real struggles for peace and social justice.





The Israeli's need a "peace activist" to provide them with cover for their atrocities against the Palestinian people--- for four decades Tom Hayden provided this cover for the Israeli killing machine which also divided the anti-war movement; now, just in time, he re-invents himself as a peace activist just in time to provide cover for another warmonger: Barack Obama. Again dividing the people's movements for peace and social justice. Coincidental? You bet; just like a fixed race at the track. Again he brings along his old buddy Carl Davidson to intimidate, bully and badger, and sucks in a bunch of people who want to make money selling books and articles about why progressives should be for Obama.





In January 2009, John Nichols, who is a member of the Progressive Democrats of America--- which claims a national membership of over 75,000 people active in the Democratic Party, wrote an article in The Progressive magazine entitled: "How To Push Obama." One does not have to be any kind of brainiac to figure out that an organization of 75,000 members has tremendous "pushing power." But, no matter how many member an organization has to be set up in a way to "push." Has anyone seen a 75,000 strong PDA  pushing Obama to do anything? Here in Minnesota, the biggest mobilization PDA had was a vicious red-baiting campaign against me to undermine support for the resolution I wrote supporting single-payer universal health care; a resolution that passed with opposition from PDA. PDA Minnesota and the National PDA are now pushing a phony piece of legislation called the Minnesota Health Act--- just like they undermined support for single-payer at the National Democratic Party Convention.





PDA has an interesting way of "pushing Obama;" apparently helping to "push Obama" into the arms of Wall Street because that is the only direction PDA has pushed Obama. 





According to Carl Davidson this is all part of a plan to work together with "high-road" capitalists who he refuses to name out of fear people will accuse him of working with "low-road" capitalists... you know, the kind of capitalists that push wars and austerity.





When will Carl Davidson, Tom Hayden and Tim Carpenter bring the 75,000 strong PDA into the struggles against war and austerity to "push Obama?"




Yes; Carl Davidson, Tom Hayden and Tim Carpenter bring the 75,000 strong PDA will continue to "wait and see as it gets closer." The, all over again, we will hear, "Our only choice is Barack Obama." And we are all supposed to shiver and shake and quake in fear that these Republicans might start a war and try to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 100 plus years like the Philippines or Puerto Rico. Or 60 years like South Korea. No doubt we will even be told the Republicans will initiate austerity measures.


I find it most interesting that Barack Obama has apparently divided the left into two camps: one good; the other bad. Carl Davidson and Tom Hayden are very patient with Obama and his wars; then you have the bad left that demands peace--- of all things, peace now.
  • Alan Russell Carter Alan Maki, you never did answer the question I posed a couple of weeks back. How much does the GOP pay you to ask your inane shit on liberal threads? It's not enough.
    11 minutes ago ·  · 
  • Alan L. Maki Alan Russell Carter... just as I asked you to do before, call me to prove that you are not just another name concocted by some worthless Democratic Party hack using dozens of identities to attack in this vicious manner intending to intimidate people through name-calling and slander.. here is my number: 218-386-2432.

I recently made two very controversial posts on FaceBook generating quite a bit of discussion...

Here are those posts and how I sum up my responses to people:

You know what? I think we should be encouraging a winning ticket capable of knocking Obama out in the Primary. We have to get rid of this guy--- all we are getting is more and more Wall Street domination over our lives and more war. Let's run Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in the Primary... a good ticket; Hillary studied under a real community organizer, socialist Saul Alinsky.


Then I ran this:



This raises an important question: Why don't we ditch the Democratic Party and elect socialists to the House and Senate? Shouldn't we be discussing this question since Bernie Sanders is the only one on the correct path? Liberals, progressives and the left seem very comfortable with socialist Bernie Sanders.






A comment typical of most comments I received "on-line," by phone and people I have been coming across in the grocery store and hardware store is this:

As an independent voter, my choices in '08 were null. I bought into some of Obama's rhetoric, but now I know it was just that. When I heard him say "I'd rather be a one termer rather.....I knew we were in trouble. Unfortunately I don't think Hillary is going to run...what now?

My response:

I made the posts to create discussion on just the questions that have been raised because "what now?" is exactly the corner we are trapped in without an answer; at least an answer we all agree on as liberals, progressives and the left.

A lot of people have messaged and called me asking why I keep harping on "liberals, progressives and the left" because they are among one group or the other and want nothing to do with working with the other two and the irony is that a lot of these people all have different ideas about what it means to be "liberal," "progressive," or "left" and my opinion is usually different than everyone's... I should maybe just say, "LOL!!!" and leave it at that. But, as we start talking we realize that no matter what we call ourselves from these three political groupings we have some very important points in common that really do bring us together: even if we can't agree on "who" we want to carry forward our position against Obama.

Almost every single person who has contacted me says they like the idea I bring forward that we should be looking at creating large numbers of jobs through government programs putting people to work solving the problems of people and society paid for by ending the wars and militarism and taxing the rich. Everyone agrees establishing national public health care and child care systems are so important that it is just common sense we start here and by re-activating WPA and CCC. Everyone also agrees that Affirmative Action (Executive Order #11246) should be vigorously enforced.

In fact, even those among the "Progressives for Obama" who call me a "crank" and all kinds of other "nice" things because I oppose Obama, and the leftists who call me a "sell-out" because I supported Hillary and the liberals who say I give "liberalism" a bad name because I'm a Marxist, all agree with the solutions for jobs paid for through peace--- none of which is "my ideas" but the ideas from people like Frances Perkins who insisted just such a health care program be part of the New Deal and "the peace movement" which has been demanding a "peace dividend" or call it what you will "turning swords into plowshares." And, of course, WPA and CCC were the ideas articulated by a certain Communist Party U.S.A. leader who for some reason people are afraid to mention his name--- ideas taken up by Harry Hopkins another of FDR's appointments... kind of a Robert Reich type fellow but with a little more urgency towards solving the problems of working people.

In my opinion, our task now is to vigorously push this kind of agenda in front of the American public for dialog, discussion and debate. Out of a national dialog on what we as "liberals, progressives and the left" want will emerge a candidate we can all support.

If we can't initiate a dialog on OUR very basic agenda that is the one and only way to begin turning this country around and taking power away from Wall Street and placing the power where it belongs in line with very basic and fundamental Constitutional requirements in the hands of "we the people" we are in for more wars abroad as Wall Street wages a war against "we the people" through its enforced "austerity."

Some people talk about a "new New Deal" while saying our hopes and aspirations are tied to the "success" of Barack Obama--- and they, too, are calling themselves "liberals, progressives and leftists." Well they have defined their ideas by their continued support for Barack Obama who is waging wars that are killing jobs along with people while plunging us into massive debt that is making us as a people and a Nation poor with this debt being Wall Street bankers' profits.

We must separate and distinguish ourselves from the reactionary ideas of Obama's Wall Street agenda as a way to create a political space--- at present a huge vacuum--- that can be filled for a ticket to emerge reflecting "liberal, progressive left" thinking which mirrors the demands of those participating in weekly peace vigils and those demonstrating at the White House and getting arrested the other day who were a very ideologically mixed bag of people who I am sure would classify themselves as either "liberal," "progressive," or "left." Out of these 130 people or so arrested that must be someone we could run for president and the rest could run for Senate and House seats along with their supporters--- US.

Look at the tremendous support Bernie Sanders, a socialist has received from the American people in standing up to Wall Street. I'm not so sure Bernie Sanders is really an "independent" any more since he has kind of melded into the Democratic Party which isn't necessarily a good thing or a bad thing but it demonstrates a political reality--- we need to be pushing our agenda inside and outside the Democratic Party in a way we all feel comfortable we are working towards the same goals and objectives of very specific solutions to our problems. In my opinion, this will bring us all outside the Democratic Party at some point--- hopefully sooner rather than later.

Why shouldn't we agree to challenge Obama in the Democratic Party with the objective of getting rid of the guy while at the same time preparing to run candidates outside of the Democratic Party in case someone not to our liking who won't support our people's agenda (there, I didn't use the terms "liberal, "progressive," or "left") wins the Democratic Party nomination but defeats Obama? If we go into this thinking "program first" candidates second we should come out of this mess pretty strong as a real people's movement and isn't this what we all want no matter if we call ourselves "liberal," "progressive" or "left?"

I made this post raising the need to elect many more people who see, like socialist Bernie Sanders does, that Wall Street is our enemy. I made another post suggesting we support Hillary Clinton to "Primary" Obama because as long as Paul Krugman and Robert Reich are articulating the agenda she will run on--- and make no mistake they are Hillary's "front-men"... we can't go terribly wrong if we think first Primary Obama while being prepared to run a ticket outside of the Democratic Party--- at the worst we run these candidates for Senate or House seats along with others in all 50 states.

I do think there is a big difference between Hillary and Bill--- and, I also think Hillary is shaping a new agenda now being very well articulated by Paul Krugman and Robert Reich.

Here in Minnesota, it was liberals, progressives and the left--- especially the left--- that made the difference in liberal Mark Dayton being elected our new governor. Mark Dayton would not be our new governor today had he not reached out to the left as his campaign was sinking into oblivion just like this rotten capitalist system is. I am pretty sure Hillary is now prepared to make the same kind of deal... in Minnesota we made Mark Dayton publicly state the deal he made with us and we aren't going to let him off the hook no matter how much pressure in placed on him by the "Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party's "Business Caucus" so "affectionately" known as the  "Summit Hill Club;" the area where the rich live and plan their schemes against working people.

There is no political force in this country more powerful than liberals, progressives and the left when united around SPECIFIC solutions to problems because these are the ideas of the majority of the powerful working class.


I hope people will give some thought and discuss all of this with one another as we gather with friends and family over this Holiday period because if we want to bring our ideas into the 2012 electoral arena we don't have much time.


Yours in struggle.


Alan L. Maki

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Obama supporter Carl Davidson who supports Pol Pot says he doesn't think I am "playing with a full deck."

  • 15 hours ago · 
  • Sally Robbins 
    Why not provide examples for each of your accusations? Can you explain the controversy over having Obama speak at that particular peace demonstration? I can't find one single other peace demonstration he spoke at leading me to believe he was posing, and being posed. Posed by who? Posed for what? Were you in any way involved in getting Obama to speak at that peace demonstration? If not who was? I am trying to find his speech at that particular peace demonstration on the web and can't locate it. Do you have a link or a copy?

    Does anyone else besides you consider Alan Maki an "ultraleft Browderite?" If so who? What water does he carry for the Tea Party?

    A lot of people in Minnesota are getting a good chuckle out of you calling Alan Maki an ultraleftist because all the Trotskyist and ultraleft organizations attack him all the time. His views are often published in union newspapers and newsletters. He backed Gore, Kerry and Clinton but admits he voted for Cynthia McKinney. After being accused of being a communist he was elected to the Democratic Party state central committee. Mark Dayton begged for his support for governor and it was all on television. Alan Maki spoke at several forums advising people to support Hillary Clinton. I now wish I had taken his advice to vote for Hillary instead of your advice to vote for Obama.

    I'm not sure that being called a Browderite is as demeaning as you make it out to be. You have made a name for yourself advocating for a new New Left when the old New Left failed without accomplishing anything near what Browder led Communists did. Have you forgotten the New Deal?
    5 hours ago · 
  • Carl Davidson 
    There was no controversy over Obama speaking Oct 2, 2002. He was largely unknown then, and we were looking for a backup speaker in case Jesse Jackson didn't show. I knew him, as I had worked on his first campaign when the New Party endorsed him. I knew he opposed going into Iraq, and that's what he did that day. Next year after the war began, we had him speak again at another rally, and he still opposed the war. His stand changed after he was elected to the US Senate and then visited Iraq. My position then was to drop him and back Kucinich, then Richardson, until they dropped out. Then Obama came out to the left of Hilary on Iraq, and clearly to the left of McCain, even though he was still not for 'out now'. We said to vote for him over McCain-Palin as a lesser evil, which was the proper thing to do.

    I have zero interest in wasting time with Maki, although I do discuss and debate extensively with others. Maki is what we call a troll and a crank, and not to be taken seriously. No rational person will debate him. He may sucker someone now and then, but I doubt he gets anyone to debate him a second time. Frankly, I don't think he's playing with a full deck.

Friday, December 17, 2010

Why does Ken Martin refuse to answer these questions if he wants to be the next MNDFL Chair:

Please circulate widely. If a candidate refuses to answer questions don't vote for them. These are very simple questions.

      Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:42:07 -0500
      From: "Alan L. Maki"
      Reply-To: "Alan L. Maki"
      Subject: Questions about your positions
      To: ken@kenmartin.org

Mr. Ken Martincandidate for Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party State Chair;

1. Do you support divestment from Israel?

2. What is your position regarding the 41,000 Minnesotans being forced to work in smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages without any rights under state or federal labor laws?

3. Do you support Mark Dayton's call for a state owned and operated casino to compete with the Indian Gaming Industry?

4. What do you intend to do to make sure Affirmative Action (as distinct from non-discrimination) is enforced in Minnesota?

5. Do you support socialized health care?

6. Are you for the repeal of "at-will hiring; at-will firing" legislation?

7. What specific steps would you take as the State Chair of the MNDFL to make sure Native American Indians are elected to the state legislature and become part of Minnesota's congressional delegation?

8. Could you provide me a copy of the redistricting plan you support for Minnesota?

Thanks,


Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell Phone: 651-587-5541


Check out my Blog:

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

A FaceBook discussion about health care reform


www.stateline.org
Vermont is pondering implementation of an exclusive government-run health care program within its own borders. If it goes ahead, the whole country will be watching.

[Note: there has been a lot of discussion on this facebook post by Margaret Flowers. I am publishing some of my comments made here.]


Alan L. Maki 
Tommy Douglas started implementing socialized health care in Saskatchewan. The federal government got afraid and agreed to a single-payer system because they didn't want people demanding socialized health care. Shortly before Tommy Douglasdied in one of his very last speeches he reminded Canadians that only socialized health care would fully provide for their health care needs.

I seriously doubt what is being considered in Vermont is along the lines of Canada's single-payer system judging from the people they brought in to offer advice.

My question: If they really wanted single-payer why wouldn't they bring in the Canadians to teach them how to set up a system like the one in Canada?

Here in Minnesota a phony single-payer piece of legislation has been developed that will cost people over $700.00 a month. People here in Minnesota have stated very clearly at every opportunity they prefer socialized health care but will settle for a health care system like the Canadians have.

It was the intent of Frances Perkins to include a socialized healthcare system financed like Social Security as part of the New Deal. This is what we should be looking at not these phony schemes like in Vermont or the scheme being proposed here in Minnesota. But, as a first step towards socialized health care we should e looking at nothing less than what the Canadians have.

Perhaps more important than anything in Canada was that a thoroughly reactionary and corrupt federal government--- not unlike what we have in our country today--- was deathly afraid of the rising prestige and popularity of Tommy Douglas and his socialists and they made the decision that they would take away from Tommy Douglas the issue he had--- socialized health care--- that was possibly bring socialism to Canada.

This issue brought forward by a new socialist oriented party here in the United States at a time like this where we have wars raging, a crumbling capitalist economy with massive unemployment and poverty with a population insisting on real health care reform should be telling us now is the time to launch efforts to establish a party similar to Canada's socialist New Democratic Party.

If a National Public Health Care System is brought before the American people as the way to "kill two birds with one stone"--- ending these dirty wars to pay for public health care which would create around ten-million jobs providing the American people free health care I think this government is going to do just what the federal government in Canada did... they begged Tommy Douglas to accept single payer. Canadians still love Tommy Douglas.

The former New Democratic Party Premier of Manitoba, Howard Pawley, has a new book coming out... Howard Pawley expanded the single-payer system by putting a dental office in every single elementary school providing completely free dental care to children... Pawley also created a Provincially owned and managed auto insurance program--- the private for profit insurance companies literally wanted to kill the man... he required around he clock armed protection in a province that is traditionally so friendly the offices of provincial politicians are open to everyone.

Today, thanks to the socialist New Democratic Party, Manitoba's health care system is well on its way--- step by step--- to becoming a socialized health care system.

I don't understand why we aren't bringing NDP provincial legislators and its Minister of Health to the United States to explain to the American people how Canadians get quality health care for less that what we pay into Social Security.









Mike; how can we support an unknown? This is what continues to happen... people get desperate and they support things without looking into things. Other than the name "single-payer health care" what do you see so far that would lead you to support anything about what is only being proposed for discussion here? This is the way we got saddled with Obama... he was portrayed the way people wanted to hear; did people get what they thought they were voting for? Far from it. Not only that, how will people in Vermont have input into this? Does anyone know what these two fellas have done in other places? Where they are coming from as far as what they believe health care reform to be? I don't see any of these facts here.

I still can't understand why no one has drafted a good solid piece of legislation that can be taken to congress and state legislators. Te Canada Health Act is online and fully explained in a way just about anyone can comprehend what the legislation consists of; nothing complicated or complex. Is there a reason we can't use this as a template for legislation here?

HR 676 is dead; now is the time to bring people together to discuss what "we the people" want to see as far as real health care reform. We need to develop the kind of movement now that can go to politicians and say "this is what the American people want."

We have played games with these politicians for so long they aren't taking us seriously any more.

If all possible options are placed before people they will choose "VA for all" every single time. VA is the very best socialized health care in the world when it is adequately funded according to mandate. The Indian Health Service is right up there with VA but much more "people friendly" except it is severely underfunded, understaffed with too few adequate community health centers. Why are we refusing to consider these systems to take to the American people? I will tell you why. The leadership of the health care reform movement has been far too interested in pleasing the politicians not wanting to alienate them. This has been a losing strategy. In Canada the federal government was forced by a large and growing movement to come to Tommy Douglas for a deal.

Here in the United States we are a far wealthier country than Canada; we should have an even better health care system than what the Canadians have.

Tommy Douglas never to his ideas for health care to the politicians; he took his ideas to the people of Saskatchewan who in turn took the ideas to friends and relatives all over Canada. An aware people fully conscious of what they specifically want in the way of health care reform will let the politicians know in no uncertain terms what they want.




Mike, we have been trying. You will notice that the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party (MNDFL) has the most advanced resolution in support of single-payer universal health care of any political party or organization in the United States. I wrote the resolution that was passed by 72% of the delegates of the state convention after a very prolonged fight to get it passed.

HOWEVER, ever since this resolution passed it has been under constant attack by the corporate dominated leadership of the MNDFL and not one single one of the organizations you list will defend this resolution which became part of the MNDFL Action Agenda. Instead, PDA and PNHP have given their support to the thoroughly right-wing and reactionary Minnesota Health Plan authored by MN State Senator John Marty which would require Minnesotans to pay premiums upwards of $700.00 a month. PDA and PNHP say that I am wrong in the costs; however, neither they nor John Marty nor anyone else will publicly state the monthly premium cost to Minnesotans. Now, for some well-heeled, middle class intellectuals and doctors $700.00 may not be a lot of money and it is probably much less than they are paying now, and there is no doubt the coverage provided is excellent--- I mean the coverage can't be beat; it provides more than the Canada Health Act. But, is this affordable to working class families? Families who are now losing their homes and farms to foreclosures and evictions, the growing numbers of unemployed, people who are still struggling to pay last year's heating bills; working people who already are forced to work two or three poverty wage jobs? Native American Indians would not even be covered even though they are continually being denied the health care services Congress requires because the same United States Congress that demands and mandates a certain level of services be provided will not allocate the funding for those services and in some cases people are being forced to drive hundreds of miles to get the care mandated by Congress and the Minnesota Health Act will not allow for Native Americans Indians to avail themselves of the local health care all other Minnesotans would get.

I personally requested that both PDA and PNHP "certify" in writing what their spokespersons are stating verbally and in their e-mails and web site postings that the proposed Minnesota Health Act is the kind of single-payer universal health care they would find acceptable for everyone in the United States. Both PDA and PNHP REFUSE to certify the Minnesota Health Act as such.

There is no reason, living in the wealthiest--- and most technologically advanced--- country in the world, Minnesotans or anyone else should have to pay one single penny for health care of any kind when the country is fighting very costly, murderous wars in three countries that are illegal, immoral and unconstitutional that the vast majority of the people are opposed to while this undemocratic and corrupt Wall Street  street serving government maintains over 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil to protect a bunch of two-bit half-assed fascist dictators serving Wall Street's interests which are limited to exploiting labor and raping and plundering Mother Nature.

Why should we lower the bar of the kind of health care reform we need--- and are entitled to--- to try to accommodate politicians  who view MN State Senator John Marty's Minnesota Health Act and Obama's "Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry Bailout and Profit Maximization Act of 2010" as their idea of "health care reform" while the Wall Street Journal reports that doctors have been given free reign to set the fees paid to them through Medicare?

Now, you ask me what my idea is of health care reform and that I should "lead by example." Well, Mike; the union I work for (without any help or support--- in fact opposition from PDA and PNHP--- put me on the road at great expense visiting all 87 counties in Minnesota to recruit people to run as delegates to the Minnesota DFL State Convention... we were successful in passing our resolution after over 200 precinct caucuses supported this resolution--- actually around 160 passed resolutions calling for a "comprehensive, all-inclusive, no-fee/no-premium, publicly funded, publicly administered and publicly delivered health care system." We agreed, as a compromise, to go with "single-payer universal health care" like the Canadians have. Within seconds of this resolution passing, Amy Klobuchar stormed from the convention floor in a fit of anger and went to the media red-baiting me and attacking the resolution declaring that she would never run for the United States Senate on such a "radical, left-wing platform undermining a free-market health care system." Klobuchar and the majority of the DFL politicians in Minnesota will support nothing other than "affordable universal health care for all;" in other words Senator John Marty's Minnesota Health Act--- which is not single payer in any way shape or form even though he went around the state calling it such in order to gain support.

Now, in order to accommodate Minnesota's DFL politicians, the majority of whom are from the "Business Caucus;" the MNDFL Progressive Caucus, affiliated through membership with PDA with members from PNHP, turned around and stabbed us in the back attaching a resolution to our single-payer resolution that includes "affordable."

Now, when John Marty set out to use a series of public forums to promote his Minnesota Health Act as "affordable single-payer" as part of his campaign for governor, I publicly announced that I was going to be present at the last half of these forums asking Senator--- wannabe governor--- John Marty how much his plan was going to cost Minnesotans... and, lo and behold, the good senator cancelled the rest of his forums.

This is the kind of treachery we are up against in the struggle for real health care reform and that is not going to change unless we do just as Tommy Douglas did in Canada--- he set the Canadian people loose in demanding real health care reform--- socialized health care.

Now, the argument--- more like a feeble and pathetic excuse for not leaving a comfort zone--- is that the American the American people will never support socialized health care. This is an outright lie because I don't see or hear one single politician or one single-Tea Bagger calling for the VA to be abolished nor do I see anyone rejecting its services. Ditto for the Indian Health Service and the National Public Health Service which so many people involved in the single-payer movement seem to want to not mention we have; why? Because it is doctors and nurses working on a salary for the government--- socialism! Not to mention the growing number of free health care clinics.

I was being dragged out of U.S. Senate Committee hearings along with my fellow trade union activists way back in 1972 by Federal Marshalls upon the orders of Senator Edward Kennedy during hearings on health care reform so I don't need to be lectured about how I should lead the way by example.

Mike, I do not want to see more "Obama-care" in the form of phony single-payer.

Have you forgotten already that PDA and the "Progressives for Obama" helped sell Obama on the basis that he was for single-payer universal health care? Just like they sold us on the idea he was for peace?

I am not insulting you by suggesting that we--- everyone involved in the struggles for health care reform--- is entitled to see what is in the Vermont plan and all these other plans before jumping in supporting something just because someone calls it "single-payer;" just like a lot of people and politicians call themselves liberals, progressive or left to get elected and then they rule from the Wall Street right.

Mike, you and the PNHP and Progressives for Obama and the Progressive Democrats of America can download the Canada Health Act just as easily as I can living three miles south of the Canadian border--- Obama has not yet restricted your ability to do that under the guise of "net neutrality" but he may; so download it today and distribute it widely.

I also have a suggested form of legislation that should guide the development of health care on my blog on the Organizing for America website... check it out.


Alan L. Maki 
I forgot to post the link to my blog on Organizing for America:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alanmaki/gGxbJM

This was created on the basis of my discussions and conversations with people all across Minnesota. I spent an entire spring, summer and fall meeting with Minnesotans in their homes, in union halls, in church basements, community centers and even at picnics in public parks and on beaches; here is the introduction; I also "tabled," leafleted and petitioned as I traveled Minnesota... I am not boasting when I say that I know most Minnesotans want this. In fact, many Republicans came up to me after reading the material I was distributing and said things like, "You must be some kind of socialist or communist; I don't support either one--- except when it comes to health care." Of course Minnesota has had two socialist governors and a third who was nicknamed "Red" Rudy Perpich... and let me assure you the "red" was not in reference to the color of his hair... but, then again, Vermont does at the present time have an avowed socialist as a United States Senator in Bernie Sanders so I would think it would be appropriate to expose the people of Vermont to some ideas like this about health care reform so that ALL options have been discussed prior to making any decisions on health care reform. Remember, this is posted on Obama's own website:

Health Care Reform... a real proposal for change

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alanmaki/gGxbJM

By Alan L. Maki - Jan 5, 2009 

Minnesota’s politicians have reneged on their repeated pre-election promises for health care reform for the last 60 years.

Quite frankly, we are fed up with this foot-dragging amid all kinds of phony schemes they have concocted in the name of reform which seek to put the burden of health care costs on the backs of the working class instead of where the primary burden belongs--- on those who profit from the labor of working people.

We thought we would help guide Minnesota politicians along in their efforts to achieve health care reform.

Health care is a human right.

Introducing a real solution to the present health care mess created by a profit driven system which places profits before the health care needs of people.

People before profits.

A proposal for real health care reform legislation from the working people of Minnesota.

Introducing the:

Roger Jourdain – Rudy Perpich – Floyd B. Olson – Elmer A. Benson Memorial Public Health Care System Act

read on: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alanmaki/gGxbJM





Mike Hersh 
Alan to clarify--I am not lecturing you. You have said that only your way is worthy, and others' efforts are "phony" or otherwise suspect. This is not about who is trying. We're all trying. No one is saying you're not trying.

I am asking you to show us a concrete accomplishment, some evidence of success, anything that's made a real difference. Everyone is "trying." All the organizations I've listed table, appear at events, protest, rally etc. PNHP doctors and their allies were also "dragged out of U.S. Senate Committee hearings," just as you were. PDA challenges elected officials and party officials, just as you have.

Unless and until you can demonstrate success, what is your basis for saying your approach is worthy, but PDA's, PNHP's and others' efforts are not? If your approach disavows efforts to work with elected officials, who do you expect will legislate to make your goals into law?





Mike; I take it you set the bar at the same height for yourself to jump over?

You say:

"Unless and until you can demonstrate success, what is your basis for saying your approach is worthy, but PDA's, PNHP's and others' efforts are not? If your approach disavows efforts to work with elected officials, who do you expect will legislate to make your goals into law?"

First of all I never said no one else's efforts are not worthy. I have taken issue with a couple very specific concerns I have which you have chosen not to respond to.

I have always promoted single-payer universal health care (like they have in Canada) as a first step towards socialized health care--- there might be dozens of steps over many years before this is achieved in this country.

However; I will say this in defense of my pushing for a National Public Health Care System at this particular time. I think the time is right because of the massive unemployment we have in this country at this time which NOT ONE SINGLE ONE of those organizations you have noted have not considered. Single-payer would create about three-million new jobs; unemployment is around 14-million to 20-million depending on what figures are used. Well, a National Public Health Care System would require around 800 major health care facilities serving around 30,000 community health care centers. This would mean around ten-million new jobs putting people to work providing people with health care they require based upon need completely free of charge.

(By-the-way, a little off topic; but a similar National Public Child Care System would create 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 new jobs)

The real question is this: an a National Public Health Care System be packaged and framed in such a way that the American people will be so enthusiastic about it that they will make it impossible for members of Congress not to go along with this?

I am suggesting nothing new. What I am suggesting is the exact same thing that Frances Perkins recommended when she was FDR's Secretary of Labor. The AMA accused Perkins of Bolshevism. The AMA told Perkins she was working from the pages of the Communist Manifesto. To these charges and accusations Perkins stood her ground and responded: I would rather see these programs helping people and providing people what they need instead of remaining words on the pages of some old pamphlet.

Now, I would suggest that progressives of today act with the same kind of courage that this heroic liberal displayed back in 1934.

What I am saying to you, Mike; and everyone else struggling in one way or another for health care reform is that it is not honest to not place all solutions to this health care mess before the American people.

The real problem here is not that anyone is "wrong;" the problem is the dishonesty of depriving the American people with an option they are entitled to hear and have access to.

Until a National Public Health Care System is placed before the American people we simply can't say what way we need to be moving on health care reform.

You then go on to ask me to prove that what I am suggesting works.

Well, Mike, I don't have to offer you or anyone else proof that what I am saying works or that the American people will rally to a call for a National Public Health Care System. You are obviously intentionally ignoring the facts I have very clearly stated.

We have the VA, Indian Health Service and the National Public Health Service not to mention the thousands of county health services, the hundreds of "free clinics" and the many union health care clinics and centers all of which work very well--- none of which are based upon "single-payer universal health care" but are based upon exactly what I am suggesting we are all entitled to--- a National Public Health Care System.

Mike, it is up to you to prove to us that your single-payer system will work better than VA, the Indian Health Service, the National Public Health Service or any of the other health services I have mentioned--- all of which work just fine and not one single politician or anyone using these fine health care services is saying they should be dismantled.

I have demonstrated success to you, Mike. Can you now demonstrate similar success to me?

I challenge anyone to step forward and dispute me--- or Frances Perkins.

The major sticking point that always comes up is: How are we going to finance and fund such a system?

We can end these stupid dirty wars to pay for it and still have money left over for child care.

We can close down the more than 800 U.S. military bases around the globe.

We can tax the hell out of the rich.

We can tax all Wall Street transactions.

As a last resort or in combination with the other suggestions, we can pay for the entire thing with a payroll tax just like Social Security.

Have I demonstrated the "success" of my approach to health care to your satisfaction, Mike?

You know, if we had a foreign policy based upon peace without thinking we have to fight the entire world which keeps us in a perpetual state of wars... we could probably just about convert the VA into taking care of all of our health care needs... just thought I would put a little something more on your plate to mull over.

For Wall Street peace may not yield the kind of dividends that war does; but, when it comes to things like health care and child care their are huge peace dividends to be had.