“To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support and I will work for it,” Bush said. “A new term is a new opportunity to reach out to others. We have one nation, one constitution that binds. When we come together, work together, there’s no limit to what we can do as a nation.”—Bush

The fact that “President Bush on Wednesday nominated five people as Appeals Court judges, including one whom Democrats have threatened to block with a filibuster” reveals his agenda for the remainder of the election season. But more importantly, it gives Bush’s an issue that can divert the negative attention of families falling behind, the lowering of the median income, the growing deficit, corruption, and the quagmire in Iraq.

Furthermore, the Associated Press article mentions how Bush is trying tell
“Frist, who appeared with Bush at the fund-raiser, and North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole, the leader of the Republican campaign committee for the Senate, that “that if they lose a single Senate seat for not exciting GOP supporters to the polls, the fault lies with them and not with the president’s team.”

As a President, the promise of unity has never been more than a rhetoric device disguised to win votes.

The AFL-CIO has launched a $40 million campaign that will be a voting drive targeting 21 swing states. The campaign is essentially to get out the union member vote and tip the scales on some tight races such as the race we at twostepsleft love to talk about: the Casey/Santorum Senate race. The effort will obviously help Democrats and a big region of focus is the Midwestern states, which many Democratic strategists argue is the part Democrats need to focus on the most to take back an extended majority.

The effort is directed at 21 Governor’s races, 15 Senate races, and over 50 House races. $40 million is a lot of money to put out and is the most the organization has ever put out for a Midterm election. But everyone knows if the Democrats are ever going to win big again, this is the year for it to happen. And, of course, the Democrats are America’s labor friendly party.

It is election time again and once again Democrats and Republicans alike look the other way while the President spends tax-payer money campaigning. And like real third party reform, real change never happens in Washington because Democrats and Republicans utilize these forms of party-power to win.

The debate series will kick off Sunday, September 3rd, with one of the most closely watched races this year — Pennsylvania. Tim Russert will moderate the live debate between Senator Rick Santorum (R) and State Treasurer Bob Casey (D).

The complete schedule is as follows:

September 3rd - PENNSYLVANIA Incumbent Senator Rick Santorum (R) vs. State Treasurer Bob Casey (D)

The program airs live at 9:00 am ET on most NBC affiliates across the country. Here are the specific airtimes in Pennsylvania.

* Altoona, PA
WJAC-TV, 9:00 am

* Erie-Meadville, PA
WICU-TV, 10:00 am

* Harrisburg, PA
WGAL-TV, 10:00 am

* Johnstown, PA
WJAC-TV, 9:00 AM

* Lancaster, PA
WGAL-TV, 10:00 am

* Philadelphia, PA
WCAU-TV, 10:30 am

* Pittsburgh, PA
WPXI-TV, 10:30 am

* Wilkes-Barre, PA
WBRE-TV, 10:00 am

Would you like to suggest a question?

Thanks to Tompaine.com

The Census Beaurea is reporting some interesting news: “The number of Americans without health insurance probably rose to a record in 2005 as medical costs increased three times as fast as wages, according to forecasts for a Census Bureau report today.”

And in fact, this coincides with the documentary that is going to play on PBS about Americans who are struggling to get by called Waging a Living:

If you work hard, you get ahead. That’s the American Dream in a nutshell — no matter what your race, color, creed or economic starting point, hard work will improve your life and increase your children’s opportunities. Yet, this widely held dream is out of reach for an increasing number of working Americans. Roger Weisberg’s alarming and heart-wrenching new documentary, “Waging a Living,” puts a human face on the growing economic squeeze that is forcing millions of workers into the ranks of the poor. Shot in the Northeast and California, the film profiles four very different Americans who work full-time but still can’t make ends meet. Despite their hard work and determination, these four find themselves, as one of them observes, “hustling backwards.” One in four American workers — more than 30 million people — are stuck in jobs that pay less than the federal poverty level for a family of four. (i) Housing costs, to name just one of several essential living expenses, have tripled since 1979, (ii) while real wages for male low-wage workers are actually less than they were 30 years ago. (iii) But the new face of the working poor is overwhelmingly that of a woman struggling to support her children. Only 37 percent of single mothers receive child support, and that support averages just $1,331 per year. (iv) Nearly a quarter of the country’s children now live below the poverty line. (v)

With Ford and GM suffering from a financial crunch, it is time for everyone to get innovative, and if Ford and GM are still going to represent what unions and good paying manufacturing jobs can do for workers, there needs to be some critical and innovative thinking. Beyond the fact that GM and Ford lost out big with gas-guzzlers, the Canadian union CAW has really stepped up to the plate to save good paying union jobs in Canada:

The Canadian Auto Workers union has given a proposal to Ford Motor Co. (F.N: Quote, Profile, Research) that could keep an Ontario plant open and have a nearby facility built to supply cars to the automaker, the union’s president said on Tuesday.

According to CAW President Buzz Hargrove, the blueprint would have Ford Canada keep its St. Thomas, Ontario, plant open, while auto parts maker Magna International (MGa.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) builds a facility close by and makes cars for Ford.

Ford, which is faced with rising costs on top of a shrinking market share, has said it would accelerate its turnaround plan, dubbed “Way Forward,” to respond to weakening demand for fuel-hungry trucks and SUVs amid high gasoline prices.

“The ‘Way Forward’ plan of Ford included a plan to build a new plant for low-cost, entry-level vehicles, so we put together a proposal that would put Canada in the running with the United States and Mexico,” Hargrove told Reuters.

“We didn’t want to wait. In today’s environment we have to be more more aggressive in terms of pursuing these kinds of opportunities.”

Earlier this year, Ford said jobs at the St. Thomas plant, which employs 2,578, would be cut as part of the automaker’s plan to slash 30,000 positions and shed more than a quarter of its production in North America.

The assembly plant in St. Thomas opened in 1967 and has produced the Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis since 1984.

Hargrove said he did not talk about specific support from the Ontario government but said they were “very keen and interested.” He also said Magna Chairman Frank Stronach also expressed an interest in the project.

Santorum’s comparison between WWII and Islamic Fascism is really a bad example of trying to compare a current situation with history. The largest difference, naturally, is that WWII we were fighting armies and not a mobile population within thousands of population centers. The War on Terrorism is really won by strategic intelligence. In fact, the days of large armies are over as stressed by recent military base closings. The point, however, is that Santorum’s comparison is weak. Furthermore, the idea that we are fighting something larger than us because they don’t like our stand on freedom contradicts the Washington Consensus. The way Santorum has kept on message for the Bush Administration demonstrates his lack of new ideas in how the US can win.

Maybe, Santorum should read the Washington Post in his suburban home outside Washington more often.

From the Washington Post:

President Bush launched an initiative this month to combat international kleptocracy, the sort of high-level corruption by foreign officials that he called “a grave and corrosive abuse of power” that “threatens our national interest and violates our values.” The plan, he said, would be “a critical component of our freedom agenda.”

Three weeks later, the White House is making arrangements to host the leader of Kazakhstan, an autocrat who runs a nation that is anything but free and who has been accused by U.S. prosecutors of pocketing the bulk of $78 million in bribes from an American businessman. Not only will President Nursultan Nazarbayev visit the White House, people involved say, but he also will travel to the Bush family compound in Maine.

In Pennsylvania there has been a very large and long criticism over the pay raise on the state level; however, Rick Santorum’s attack on Bob Casey, in regards to the signing the pay raise, (he is the state’s treasurer) is low.

This is because Casey was doing his job signing the checks, in contrast to Rendell who could have vetoed it. But even Rendell was in a very tough position since it was the Republican controlled congress that pushed and passed the legislation! Rendell would never have been able to get his agenda passed successfully without giving the Republicans their cherished pay raise.

Santorum is walking a very tight line between criticizing Casey for signing the pay raise and ignoring his party’s corruption.

Santorum is losing the election, and he has never been in the lead against Casey; however, it has been noted the election is getting closer. The candidates, however, both have a lot of defining to do before the election is over.

Santorum: He has been losing in the polls and was polled, not long ago, as one of the most unpopular senators in their state. He has to not only keep his base in line but be able to win over the hearts of swing voters. This may prove hard because of the current situation in Iraq, healthcare costs, and the Republican candidate not doing so well in the polls.

Casey: Has to define himself. He has never held a position that shows where he stands on many issues. One could argue he is also fighting an up hill battle with the mentality of anyone-but-Santorum

This race will really come down to advertisement, and how well the messages work.

You check out some of the media here: Santorum

Or here for Casey:

Ben Bernanke made a very strong point that made headlines last week when he talked about globalization, trade, and the balancing act that needs to be done to make sure it is fair; however, the conversation hasn’t stopped now that it is being reported wages in the United States are weak for middle class and poor.

From the New York Times:

In a speech on Friday, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, did not specifically discuss wages, but he warned that the unequal distribution of the economy’s spoils could derail the trade liberalization of recent decades. Because recent economic changes “threaten the livelihoods of some workers and the profits of some firms,” Mr. Bernanke said, policy makers must try “to ensure that the benefits of global economic integration are sufficiently widely shared.”

However, the NY Times article goes on and talks about the largest problem:

Economists offer various reasons for the stagnation of wages. Although the economy continues to add jobs, global trade, immigration, layoffs and technology — as well as the insecurity caused by them — appear to have eroded workers’ bargaining power.

Trade unions are much weaker than they once were, while the buying power of the minimum wage is at a 50-year low. And health care is far more expensive than it was a decade ago, causing companies to spend more on benefits at the expense of wages.

Conversely, the article also points to an economy that is doing great. So, what does this mean? Trying to stay away from the populist-two-Americas, what it means is that the economics on the world scale are really starting to change the way we traditionally do business and invest. If someone is able to invest in the stock market with the possibility of high returns, while also being able to invest in steady growth investments, they have it made hypothetically. But like the WTO and other international standards, universal health care standards and especially organizing standards need to be delivered as a watch-dog and distribution mechanism for the 21 century. We cannot have high efficiency standards in the world market with regressive undemocratic undertones.

Case in point: Central Americas’ immigration the United States. CAFTA like NAFTA is weak on organizing standards, and if CAFTA is passed migration would increase like it did with Mexico. The last thing the United States needs politically is a larger immigration problem.

In American Politics it is easy to forget about our neighbors to the north and their personal concerns. This is exactly the case right now in regards to Canada and Afghanistan, where the amount of Canadians being killed lately has started to raise some alarm bells in Canada. Canada’s troop’s levels in the Middle East are hardly that of the United States but could Afghanistan be the Iraq for Canada politically? In a Globe and Mail article, it seems this might be the case:

OTTAWA (CP) - Rising casualty rates, a seemingly resurgent Taliban and the tragic shooting death of a 10-year-old are pushing Afghanistan into the midst of Canadian politics.

When Parliament resumes next month, the military mission in Kandahar is likely to be a set feature of question period.

“Afghanistan is an issue amongst Canadians,” says Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic. “It was an issue during the spring, it will continue to be an issue.”

Dawn Black, the NDP defence critic, agreed:

“I think it will be front and centre when the House reconvenes.”

The opposition, however, will have to dodge government accusations that in questioning the mission, they’re undercutting the troops.

Recent public opinion polls have shown an almost even split between those who support the Afghani commitment and those who want out.

The casualty rates - eight soldiers killed this month alone - may be eroding support, analysts say.

As August wraps up, the politics in Pennsylvania are heating up. Advertisements are starting to pour from both campaigns, as well as rapid email responses about negative ads. Interestingly, Casey has come out with a new ad painting Santorum as someone who votes 98% with Bush. Santorum was the first to come out with personal attacks, including a website dedicated to Casey missing work. I will be interested now that Casey is responding to Santorum’s attacks how the polls in Pennsylvania will react. Of course, now that we have only two full months left the race may change in many ways depending on many factors including, how many debates are agreed on, advertisements, Bush’s approval rating, the Iraq war, and Swann’s polling. Based on Santorum’s hard-ball style, I argue that Casey will have to be able to respond clearly to everything Santorum throws his way.

The Democrats have been the minority party in Washington for long enough that the Republican’s ideas have become increasingly unpopular; And as polls have suggested, it is prime time that Democrats take advantage of this by creating an opposition that largely comes from Republican touted ideas, and converting them into positions that take a large segment of Republican moderates, independents, and moderate Democrats to the side of Democratic candidates. What you could argue Reagan did in the 80’s for the Republicans. This, however, does not need to be done in a DLC, pro-business, moderate fashion but rather with ideas that explore the very nature of how government works.

Interestingly, I think a recent report, I read on Associated Press, by the Democrats in the Reform Committee is exactly what needs to be done. A lot of the momentum and construction of the arguments come from a Bernie Sanders kind of government. Bernie Sanders, whose politics thy outside the Democratic Party, and are left-leaning, still largely resonate with moderates because he shows a populist caring attitude towards people and the way government works. In essence, Bernie Sanders is able to go beyond the labels of left and right simply because he works with people of his state on issues that show progress for citizens and communities.

 The article and reform mentioned in the report by Democrats is an issues that both left and right ideologies, for the most part, can agree on and that is homeland security is a job of the United States government; however, a recent partisan report out of the House of Representatives gives little room for Republicans to explain why, under their watch, there is so much government waste in regards to the Katrina tragedy. More specifically, the report that came out shows how a majority of contracts were hardly competitive and many could have been competed for without interfering with the efficiency of the clean up.

Standing in the depths of despair, in one the biggest crises ever to hit the United States FDR started the program known as the New Deal. It was an attempt to reenergize an economy and get people back to work. It was done by the reworking of government intervention in the economy, and it demanded unity, though this didn’t happen completely. The results of the New Deal were programs that created the prosperity and promise of retirement. Currently, President Bush is also in the depths of despair, in a war, that at times seems impossible to win. In a Washington Post article, it is noted that he has been less optimistic with his analysis and has cooled his rhetoric namely because he would look like an ass otherwise. Interestingly, he has been reaching out for advice, specifically at a Pentagon meeting with Middle East experts. One of the suggestions: a New-Deal style economic program. With 2 and half months left until mid-term elections, it is ironic that Bush is being proposed a program that, at the surface, is the exact thing he is destroying at home.

In the United States, I find it easy to forget or over look North American news. This is especially the case with the Mexican Election that took place; however, the September issue of The Progressive has an article by culture editor Elizabeth DiNovella about the Mexican election titled Mexico Divided. It is a very objective and is an insightful piece that connects the dots with an election that at times is reminiscent of the 2000 Florida recount.  It is currently unavailable on The Progressive’s website; however, I highly recommend picking up a copy or waiting until it becomes available on the website.