Pass This Now? Yeah, Yeah... Sure, Sure

Treacherous Georgia John Bircher & alcoholic Paul Broun boycotted the President's speech last night

Early yesterday morning TV announcers were announcing that Obama was still fine-tuning his jobs proposal for his 7pm speech. Would it be $300 billion or $400 billion? Turned out to be faux-boldly 10% over $400 billion, mostly tax cuts, about $100 billion in straight up infrastructure, about a tenth of what would be judged to be a serious FDR-like proposal.

Last night we got a good look at what our president is made of: jellyfish bones. The speech was a weak and desperate call for Congress to get behind a mishmash of failed Republican policies. It was sad watching a Democrat pleading with Congress to save his ass by passing it. They won't. The nicest thing I heard anyone not on the Democratic payroll say about it was Paul Krugman who wrote it's better than nothing.

O.K., about the Obama plan: It calls for about $200 billion in new spending — much of it on things we need in any case, like school repair, transportation networks, and avoiding teacher layoffs — and $240 billion in tax cuts. That may sound like a lot, but it actually isn’t. The lingering effects of the housing bust and the overhang of household debt from the bubble years are creating a roughly $1 trillion per year hole in the U.S. economy, and this plan — which wouldn’t deliver all its benefits in the first year — would fill only part of that hole. And it’s unclear, in particular, how effective the tax cuts would be at boosting spending.

Still, the plan would be a lot better than nothing, and some of its measures, which are specifically aimed at providing incentives for hiring, might produce relatively a large employment bang for the buck. As I said, it’s much bolder and better than I expected. President Obama’s hair may not be on fire, but it’s definitely smoking; clearly and gratifyingly, he does grasp how desperate the jobs situation is.

But his plan isn’t likely to become law, thanks to Republican opposition. And it’s worth noting just how much that opposition has hardened over time, even as the plight of the unemployed has worsened.

A more typical analysis came from Nick Ruiz, the independent-minded progressive Democrat running for a Florida congressional seat held by demented teabagger Sandy Adams. Nick was less impressed than Krugman.

Obama is raiding the Social Security plan-- the cornerstone of the average American's retirement plan. By reducing the payroll tax even more-- it truly is a reductio ad absurdum. You want to cause Social Security to have problems-- Obama's plan is exactly how you do it. It's a giveaway to the hawks, wolves and sharks that call themselves "servants" of the people-- while they hold a dagger in their other hand.

Worse, what evidence is there that such a cut will do anything other than put pocket change in the hands of a severely beaten down populace? None. This part of the plan has one goal only: to deconstruct Social Security for the worse. Further, it's apparent Obama is still on board with cuts to Medicare/Medicaid, which is entirely unacceptable to Democrats worthy of that name.

There are aspects of the Obama plan that are desirable, like investment in schools, unemployment extensions, etc.-- but the net result is a poison pill. This package is not progressive, it's not New Deal philosophy, and it's a stretch to call it Democratic. It's just the kind of proposal Republicans from the 1990s would have been quite comfortable with-- and nothing that 21st century Democrats should endorse, without serious and extensive New Deal-style amendments, like legislation that requires that Wall St. pitch in to support the ailing economy they helped cripple, federal law that collects FICA tax all the way up the income scale, and federal income tax increases for the most fortunately wealthy of Americans. I agree with Obama in one sense-- yes, let's stop the political circus.

Even before he got up to speak, Ann McLane Kuster, New Hampshire activist and Democratic candidate for the House seat held by corporate shill Charlie Bass, sent out a letter with her perspective on what is needed to left the country out of the economic rut engineered by years of the pernicious corporate Republican economic agenda.

It is time-- in fact, it is way past time-- to make job-creation the single, critical priority of our entire nation.

Washington has spent plenty of time lately on other issues, from genuine crises like Libya to political distractions like the debt-ceiling debate and efforts to end Medicare. But we cannot afford to go another month without real solutions for getting more Americans back to work. 

I may sound like a broken record-- for the past two years, whenever I have been asked about the top three issues facing our country, my reply has been “Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs.” But the truth is, this Congress has done next to nothing to promote an economic recovery and get Americans back to work.

How do we do it? Education is how we grew an economy this strong in the first place, and it is where we have to start again. Innovation has been a powerful competitive advantage for America, and we can’t afford to lose our edge. And Rejuvenation-- of our bridges & roads, cities & towns, and economic networks (highways and broadband communications)-- that's the key to a country that is built to win the future.

There is room for smart cuts and streamlined regulation, but economists all agree that we can not build a stronger tomorrow simply through cuts alone. The time for political arguments and excuses is over. 

Doing nothing isn’t working. Let’s rebuild our country and win the future, again.

And if Obama wants to get a different perspective than the conservative, Wall Street-oriented one he gets from his abysmal economic team, Ann laid it all out for him in black and white, in bullet points that will neatly fit on the TelePrompter:

EDUCATION

• Education is how we grew an economy this strong in the first place, and it is where we have to start again.

• Moderate Republican David Brooks admitted the truth in the New York Times last week: We must “rebuild America’s human capital. The United States became the wealthiest nation on earth primarily because Americans were the best educated.” This means an investment in our schools and public higher education, including community colleges and vocational schools. We are in a global economy, and we must train our workforce to win on the global stage.

INNOVATION

• Innovation as been a powerful competitive advantage for America, and we can’t afford to lose our edge. We need fast-growing companies to hire those well-trained workers.

• In New Hampshire, more than half of all workers are employed by small business-- that’s been one of our strengths in weathering the recession-- and even in this tough climate we have some small and mid-sized businesses experiencing explosive growth, especially in technology and renewable energy. We need more of them. Congress should encourage entrepreneurs-- make small business lending easier and more available and fix the broken tax code so that we are rewarding R&D investment and startup growth, not subsidizing rich and powerful industries like oil and gas, agribusiness, and redundant defense contracts that we simply can no longer afford.

REJUVENATION

• Rejuvenation-- of our bridges and roads, cities & towns, and economic networks (highways and broadband communications)-- that's the key to a country that is built to win the future.

• Hurricane Irene reminded us of just how fragile our region’s backbone really is. Meanwhile, huge opportunities lay waiting for us to exploit: universal access to broadband communication to allow every resident of the state to compete at the global level, biomass and new energy technologies to bring down the cost of energy and make us less dependent upon foreign oil and high speed rail that would expand our economic markets and the range of opportunity for jobseekers. 

• And of course, these projects themselves create good jobs as they are built. In the mid-nineteenth century we built the railroads, and prospered. In the 1950s, we built the interstate highway system, and grew. In the 1980s and 1990s, we grew American technology, and reaped the rewards.

Obama's been so busy promoting right-wing talking points about deficit reduction and the heinous Austerity agenda demanded by his institutional campaign contributors that he has completely failed to address the problem that most Americans care most about-- jobs. Scott Paul, Executive Director of the nonpartisan Alliance for American Manufacturing hasn't been a fan of Obama's (and Bush's and Clinton's) corporate trade policies. Yesterday before the speech he pointed out that "The trade deficit with China is growing and shows no signs of abating. But the real question is, will Congress and the Administration do anything about it? The trade deficit is more than a statistic. It represents jobs, income, and know-how leaving America. And it is another bill our children will have to pay someday." He continued:

If China were out-competing America, I’d say we only need to focus on getting our own house in order. But the truth is, China’s gains come largely from its undervalued currency, state-owned enterprises, and heavy industrial subsidies. Shame on China for its mercantilism and protectionism, but the real shame is on us for not doing anything to stop it.

There are concrete steps the Administration and Congress could take right now to lower this trade deficit. Congress should immediately pass the bipartisan and wildly popular Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act (H.R. 639) to counter China’s currency manipulation. The Peterson Institute on International Economics estimates that the Yuan is more undervalued today (28.5 percent) than it was a year ago (24.2 percent), so the need is even more urgent today.

For its part, the Administration could convene a multilateral meeting to address global imbalances and in particular Chinese mercantilism. If China doesn't agree to participate, designate it a currency manipulator this October. The Obama Administration has had the opportunity to cite China for its currency peg five times, but has failed to do so each time, despite near unanimous agreement that Beijing deliberately undervalues its currency. A failure by the Administration to designate China a currency manipulator this year, given American job loss and our skyrocketing trade deficit, would be indefensible.

Given a level playing field, our manufacturers can successfully compete and create good jobs. But the field is still dramatically tilted away from us, and towards China.

Obama will be hard-pressed to win reelection. At best, the Republicans will nominate someone perceived as even worse than him and lose it. But for progressives to win congressional races-- to get Democrats and left-leaning independents to even bother to come out to vote-- they're going to have to distance themselves from Obama's conservative approach. He may not even mind-- he's been distancing himself from them since he was elected.

“If they don’t get it done, then we’ll be running against a Congress that’s not doing anything for the American people, and the choice will be very stark and will be very clear,” Obama said last month at Decorah, Iowa.

The Democratic senator from Iowa, Tom Harkin, isn’t too happy about that kind of rhetoric coming from the president.

“It’s not Congress’ fault,” he said sternly on Wednesday. “It’s the Republicans who were throwing up all these roadblocks, delaying things, objecting-- not Congress. If he wants to be forthright and
honest to the American people, he’s got to tell it like it is.”

The frustration has been percolating in Democratic circles for months. They argue that they carried the president’s agenda across the finish line for two years and now believe there’s greater urgency to shape public perception that Republicans are the ones blocking progress.

“I personally prefer for the president to create a bright line by defining who is opposing his policies to create jobs and move the country forward versus who is supporting him,” said Sen. Robert
Menendez (D-N.J.), who is up for reelection next year. “But when you just say ‘Congress,’ you draw the whole institution together, that means both Houses and both parties when in fact that isn’t necessarily the case.”

The White House’s relationship with Democrats has grown increasingly strained as of late, as Obama has tried to cut a sweeping budget deal with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and as the president’s reelection campaign has begun to suck up cash from deep-pocketed donors who are also being courted by Senate Democratic officials.

A reminder: Blue America has never contributed to Barack Obama and we have no intention of ever doing so. Recall a few days ago we ran the letter from House Democratic caucus chairmen asking for a meeting to talk with Obama before the speech. He refused. Blue America works to elect progressives, like Eric Griego (D-NM), who tweeted this morning, "Mr. President: We need a bold new Marshall Plan for American jobs to put millions back to work!" And Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), who wrote yesterday that “The size of the federal budget deficit is not keeping the American people up at night; they’re worried about how to pay for groceries. That’s what members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus found when we traveled across the country on a jobs tour this summer, listening to struggling Americans and seeking to elevate their voices over the misleading noise from Washington. Members regularly heard from families struggling to stay afloat, losing their homes, and emptying their savings just to pay the bills.”

John Waltz is running for the Michigan congressional seat currently held by corporate shill and hereditary plutocrat Fred Upton. He was cautiously hoping for more from Obama. He'll be the Blue America guest on September 24 but this is what he told me after the speech last night:

Obama seemed to put his campaign face on in his jobs speech, but he tamped that down by showing he wanted to offer programs that will appeal to both sides of the aisle. Somehow he must have missed the obvious message from Republicans, which is they will do anything to ensure he is defeated in 2012. 

Obama’s plan is a mix of tax cuts that have shown to be a failure in the past because what employers need is demand. That demand can be spurred by the investment in our ailing infrastructure, which puts folks back to work and in turn the workers will pump money into the economy. We can’t stop at just infrastructure we need much more. 

Obama touched on what we can do to compete with foreign countries, but it came up light on details. Here are some details that should have been put out and laid in stone... we need to immediately start creating jobs by scrapping current free trade agreements and start over again. We need free trade deals that will allow us to compete fairly with countries that we trade with. 

Obama spoke of the wealthy and corporations paying their fair share, but again came up short in details. Let us get down to brass tax on how we can stop coddling the superwealthy: End the Bush era tax cuts, restore tax brackets for the superwealthy with the Fairness in Taxation Act, tax Wall Street speculation and finally end the Paris Hilton giveaway by establishing a stronger estate tax via the Responsible Estate Tax Act.

Lastly, we need to invest in the future by injecting money into creating clean energy jobs, invest in public education, and the jobs that are created must pay living wages protected by collective bargaining. Talk is great, but what we need is real action. 

Real action? You can donate to John's campaign here. While you're getting out your credit card, take a look at Bernie Sanders' response to Obama's speech. And you can contribute to his campaign here.

People Like Jobs... The Rest Is Just Stuff For A Bunch Of Fascists

Other than his bitterest enemies, who have an agenda that seeks to destroy him and counts the rest of us as collateral damage, everyone told Obama to focus on job creation and leave deficit reduction for after the economy was into a firm rebound. But Obama chose his economic team straight from Wall Street, where captitalism-run-amuck has long since replaced religion, so has wound up with advisors who basically think the same way as Republicans. And how do they think? They think the way they were taught to think by gigantic propaganda efforts going back to the 1930s and set in motion by the unrepentent foremost fascist family in America, the DuPonts. From Glen Yeadon's The Nazi Hydra in America:

Wrapped up in an electioneering jingle and cloaked behind a false flag of patriotism, Lamont du Pont had concealed the very heart of fascism. Hidden behind this thin veil of false patriotism of free enterprise was the root of fascism, corporate rule. Thus began the most blatant fraud ever perpetrated against the American people; in effect, du Pont had dressed up fascism with a smiley face to appeal to the American people. To accomplish this horrific swindle of freedom and liberty, all resources were to be deployed. It would become a full-scaled assault on the rights of the American people for the remainder of the century. This was the forgotten third front of the war, the battle for the minds of the American citizen. Under the banner of this new feckless goddess of free enterprise, a multiprong attack was launched against our freedoms. One prong would question the patriotism of anyone not subscribing to unbridled corporatism, another prong would attack unionism and the third prong would be launched against socialism and communism.

This often forgotten event launched by one of the most notorious fascist of his time is imperative to the understanding of fascism in America following the war. It clearly marks the beginning of the adoption of the fascist ideology by the right-wing in the country. Before Eisenhower's troops ever started to march across North Africa and before the Marines ever started island hopping one bloody atoll after another toward the Japanese homeland a third front of the war was raging in the American homeland, for the control of the people. Tragically, the heroic efforts of the war against fascism were lost as quickly as the Third Reich crumbled into ashes. While our armies were victorious on the battlefields of Europe and the South Pacific, the battle for the homeland would be lost. The new goddess of free enterprise would replace democracy in America. The war against fascism would be lost. Instead of corporations serving the general interest of society, society would now be forced to serve the general interest of corporations.

The American lexicon was expanded in 1942, never before had the term free enterprise been used. There is no such right listed in the constitution nor does the constitution grant any rights to corporations. While the founding fathers believed in an economy based on capitalism, they were hardly the fools to allow trade to go on unregulated. With one-third of the populace at the time of the revolution being former indentured servants to British corporations, corporations were closely regulated as the chapter on corporate law detailed. However, unregulated corporationism was precisely what Du Pont envisioned in his call for free enterprise. The best summary of free enterprise as envision by Lammont du Pont comes from his speech before a secretive meeting of the resolution committee for the National Manufacturers Association (NAM) on September 17, 1942.

"The way to view the issue is this: Are there common denominators for winning the war and the peace? If there are, then, we should deal with both in 1943. What are they? We will win the war by reducing taxes on corporations, high income brackets, and increasing taxes on lower incomes, by removing unions from any power to tell industry how to produce, how to deal with their employees or anything else, by destroying any and all government agencies that stand in the way of free enterprise."

Du Pont's words are clearly treasonous as he calls for the destruction of any government agency that may stand in his way. It is the same agenda followed by Hitler on assuming power. In addition, as we enter the 21st Century it is the same agenda being put forward by the Republicans and the right-wingers.

The media immediately began extolling the virtues of free enterprise and singing its praises. No mention was ever made of the du Ponts funding of the pro-Nazi Liberty League or the Black Legion. No mention was made of the du Ponts involvement in the fascist plot against the White House a decade ago. This was a full-scale assault against the New Deal and responsible government. The timing of this campaign for free enterprise coincided with the upcoming election. The election would reduce the majority of Democrats considerably. In effect, it left Congress under the control of the Republicans and conservative "Dixiecrats."

Throughout the 1920s and into the 1930s the du Ponts and other munitions makers were embroiled in congressional investigations into war profiteering. Thus as the battle for Midway raged the du Ponts were already covering up their crimes of war profiteering and their dealings with the Nazis during the war. Once again, no mention of war profiteering was ever made in the media, nor was there any mention of the repressive nature of free enterprise as envisioned by du Pont.

Instead, the major media chains flaunted free enterprise as the new goddess to be worshipped.

A month before yesterday's dismal jobs report was released, Randall Forsyth of Barrons asked a crucial question, one that Obama's team should have been looking at all along-- but, clearly, weren't: How long will profits rise at labor's expense?

It has been the best of times for corporate profits, but rather less so for consumer incomes. Corporate earnings have soared 200% since 1990 while real median family incomes have increased by only 2%.

These data come from a recent article entitled, "High Profit Margins and Stagnant Real Incomes: Is Capitalism Working Properly?"

It didn't appear in The Nation but rather in The Bank Credit Analyst, the highly respected, long-time financial and economic research service that would never be thought of as some hotbed of populist fervor. And the author is not Michael Moore but Martin Barnes, the Bank Credit Analyst's long-time managing editor and self-described "dour Scot."

Moreover, rather than calling for a storming of the ramparts, Barnes poses questions of concern for the most self-interested of capitalists. Can the current high level of profit margins be maintained? Even more basically, can the corporate sector continue to prosper while the average consumer struggles?

...Profits from the domestic, non-financial sector have been merely good, not outstanding. Looking at operating cash flow (earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation, or Ebitd) shows a much stronger picture, however. The ratio of corporate selling prices and unit labor costs is a simple proxy for Ebitd margins; productivity gains boost the ratio, and vice versa.

Since the 1990s, the ratio rose because of the Fed's success in crushing inflation, helped by technology and global competition, which brought growth in unit labor costs down to just 1.4% annually from 5% in the prior two decades.

...Looking ahead, Barnes sees cause for concern. Companies have curbed growth in capital investment, and their gains from "aggressive labor shedding" can't be repeated. With continued limited pricing power, non-financial Ebitd margins are likely to be under pressure, but a severe squeeze won't happen until the next recession, which he says a couple of years away.

Bottom line, the main factors that have propelled corporate profits-- cost-cutting, financial profits and overseas earnings-- are waning. Even so, companies have done a far sight better than workers, as noted earlier. Since 2000, they've fallen even further behind; profits are up 70% while real median family incomes are down 2%.

Part of that has been because consumer prices have risen faster than corporate selling prices, which reflect costs of capital goods which have been held down by technology, Barnes notes. "However, it seems clear that labor has not received its fair share in recent years, even when using corporate prices," he adds, falling 4% short of what would be expected based on productivity gains.

"Ultimately, the health of the corporate sector depends on the financial health of its customers. Thus, the divergence between rising profits and weak growth in real consumer incomes will have to change," Barnes asserts.

Consumers had been able to maintain their spending in excess of their income gains in the 1990s and 2000s by going deeper into debt, running up their credit cards and tapping their home equity. "Those days clearly have ended and debt is now an ugly four-letter word in many households," he says.

More than getting raises, growth in real household incomes will depend on employment gains, Barnes contends. Given the weak growth in jobs, notably in the latest employment report showing a dismal 38,000 gain in non-farm payrolls, there is little reason for near-term optimism on that score.

At some point, the divergence between corporate and consumer earnings should shrink.

"The optimistic view is that the corporate sector's healthy financial position will eventually lead to stronger growth in employment and household sector incomes," Barnes writes. "The more negative view is that compares are more interested in expanding overseas operations than in boosting domestic hiring and investment."

The data give more support to the negative view. U.S. direct investment overseas in recent years has been equal to 20% of domestic, non-residential investment-- half again what it was from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, and more than three times as much as in the 1960s.

It's hard to see corporate profit margins moving higher from here, Barnes concludes, although the real pressure won't come as long as the economy continues to expand.

Equity prices should be able to rise in tandem with earnings, about 4% in the coming year. Not exciting, but a damned sight better than most American families can expect.

Yes... a damned sight better! Yesterday Obama forced himself into a mealy-mouthed Rose Garden statement that started off with him declaring that "Obviously, over the last couple of days, the debate here in Washington has been dominated by issues of debt limit, but what matters most to Americans, and what matters most to me as President, in the wake of the worst downturn in our lifetimes, is getting our economy on a sounder footing more broadly so the American people can have the security they deserve."

Obviously? Who is he kidding? This guy is seriously looking at prospects of an early retirement. He defined "security" as "getting back to a place where businesses consistently grow and are hiring, where new jobs and new opportunity are within reach, where middle-class families once again know the security and peace of mind they’ve felt slipping away for years now."

[T]oday’s job report confirms what most Americans already know: We still have a long way to go and a lot of work to do to give people the security and opportunity that they deserve. 
 
We’ve added more than 2 million new private sector jobs over the past 16 months, but the recession cost us more than 8 million. And that means that we still have a big hole to fill. Each new job that was created last month is good news for the people who are back at work, and for the families that they take care of, and for the communities that they’re a part of. But our economy as a whole just isn’t producing nearly enough jobs for everybody who’s looking.  
 
We’ve always known that we’d have ups and downs on our way back from this recession. And over the past few months, the economy has experienced some tough headwinds-- from natural disasters, to spikes in gas prices, to state and local budget cuts that have cost tens of thousands of cops and firefighters and teachers their jobs. The problems in Greece and in Europe, along with uncertainty over whether the debt limit here in the United States will be raised, have also made businesses hesitant to invest more aggressively. 
 
The economic challenges that we face weren’t created overnight, and they’re not going to be solved overnight. But the American people expect us to act on every single good idea that’s out there. I read letter after letter from folks hit hard by this economy. None of them ask for much. Some of them pour their guts out in these letters. And they want me to know that what they’re looking for is that we have done everything we can to make sure that they are rewarded when they’re living up to their responsibilities, when they’re doing right by their communities, when they’re playing by the rules. That’s what they’re looking for, and they feel like the rules have changed. They feel that leaders on Wall Street and in Washington–- and believe me, no party is exempt–- have let them down. And they wonder if their efforts will ever be reciprocated by their leaders.
 
They also make sure to point out how much pride and faith they have in this country; that as hard as things might be today, they are positive that things can get better. And I believe that we can make things better. How we respond is up to us. There are a few things that we can and should do, right now, to redouble our efforts on behalf of the American people.
 
Let me give you some examples. Right now, there are over a million construction workers out of work after the housing boom went bust, just as a lot of America needs rebuilding. We connect the two by investing in rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our railways and our infrastructure. And we could put back to work right now some of those construction workers that lost their jobs when the housing market went bust. Right now, we can give our entrepreneurs the chance to let their job-creating ideas move to market faster by streamlining our patent process. That’s pending before Congress right now. That should pass.

He then had the gall to make a pitch for more NAFTA-like job-killing trade bills he's promised Big Business to push through. It made me sick to listen to him giving a Republican pitch with a straight face, making the false claim that these miserable trade agreements will create more jobs. And-- sure enough-- he just couldn't help jumping right back into deficit-land... "[T]o put our economy on a stronger and sounder footing for the future, we’ve got to rein in our deficits and get the government to live within its means, while still making the investments that help put people to work right now and make us more competitive in the future. As I mentioned, we’ve had some good meetings.  We had a good meeting here yesterday with leaders of both parties in Congress. And while real differences remain, we agreed to work through the weekend and meet back here on Sunday." Blecchhh. This guy has lost it entirely. We need to know who to put our trust in from now on-- and it isn't phonies like Barack Obama. It's... these guys (the ones who made the video):

The Chinese Century?

Here in Asia, you can't help hearing questions about what happens when China overtakes the U.S. as the world's greatest economic superpower. No one here doubts that the 21st century is the Chinese Century. And they sure talk about it enough... all the time. The BBC did a series recently. Above is one episode. I watched another one yesterday that takes place in Brazil and Ohio.

Justin Rowlatt crosses Brazil and the United States on an epic journey as he continues to investigate the spread of Chinese influence around the planet. In Rio, local industries, including bikini factories, are threatened by cheap Chinese imports, and in the Amazon, Justin witnesses the phenomenal impact of the Chinese hunger for resources on the indigenous people and the environment. In the US, from California to the rust belt, Justin encounters the rising undercurrent of American fury over their own decline in the face of competition from China.

Rowlatt interviewed Ohio Democratic Congressman Tim Ryan, a leader in the lonely fight against China's relentless takeover of the American economy. Takeover? Sure... that's exactly what we're talking about. Every time you walk into a WalMart you're selling out your own country and the future of your offspring. It's easy enough to blame China's avarice for their increasing economic power. But that doesn't really make a lot of sense. China's just doing what American capitalists taught them to do. And blaming them? If you want to blame anyone, it's been our own elites that have sold us out.

Both party establishments, of course. Oh, not Tim Ryan, but the political leaders of both parties-- both the Bushes and Clinton, for example, have been hard at work undermining America and strengthening China for decades. Last year Ryan's Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, which would authorize the Commerce Department to levy tariffs on products imported from countries (China) that undervalue their currency passed 348-79. Ryan:

I've spent nearly six years pushing to get this bipartisan bill passed, and today's vote sends a strong signal to the U.S. manufacturing industry that Congress will NOT give up fighting on behalf of American jobs. If this risks upsetting the People's Republic of China, so be it. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative-- millions of good-paying jobs have been lost and hundreds of thousands of families across this country have suffered as a result of China's unlawful trade policies.

Three of Ryan's Ohio Democratic colleagues who voted for the bill-- John Boccieri, Kathy Dahlkemper and Charlie Wilson-- were all defeated last November. And they were defeated with campaign funds illegally injected into the electoral system from China by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. doesn't have the will or energy to defend itself economically or even to defend its own political system. Ryan's bill died in the Senate, where China financed the campaigns of several of its most notorious apologists (or, less charitably, agents), including Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI).