The Former Confederacy & Modern American Politics, Part Twenty-Three

In what became a decisive and disastrous move, President Bill Clinton commissioned the putting together of a well intended plan, headed by First Lady Hillary Clinton, to expand the country's health care coverage. When released, the large and complex plan was highly popular for about a week or two, as Republicans and insurance companies picked the plan apart and successfully scared the hell out of Americans with a barrage of negative ads. The attacks on the plan were given a great deal of coverage by the media, which only fed into the narrative of the plan's opponents that there was just no consensus about reforming such a large sector of the American economy, which caused further erosion in support. The whole matter brought intense scrutiny to Hillary Clinton. Polls showed the plan's popularity fell like a rock, and eventually it couldn't make it through Congress, even though Democrats had majorities in both the House and Senate. The whole issue gave Republicans a boost in morale and energy going into the midterm election of 1994, whereas dispirited Democrats faced the coming election with mounting concern.  

Then came the North American Free Trade Agreement, better known by its initials, NAFTA, an idea for a free trade zone among North American countries, which was first given note by Ronald Reagan in his 1980 campaign for president. The agreement was highly complex, but it essentially made a trade bloc of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico by eliminating trade and investment barriers between those countries. On this issue, Clinton and all the living former presidents supported passage,* but the bill terribly divided Democrats, and it took free trade Republicans to provide the votes in Congress to pass it. It also brought Ross Perot to the fore again, as the former presidential candidate opposed the agreement. In a highly touted television debate with Vice President Al Gore, watched by millions of Americans, Perot made points, but he had difficulty explaining many things, especially where money was coming from to oppose the agreement and in refuting the charge by Gore that Perot stood to make financial gain from the defeat of the agreement. A congressional vote came in November 1993, and here is how members of the House of Representatives in former Confederate states voted, with the measure passing in the overall House vote by 234 to 200: Alabama: 2 Republicans for, 1 Republican against, 4 Democrats against; Arkansas: 2 Republicans for, 2 Democrats against; Florida: 7 Republicans for, 6 Democrats for, 6 Republicans against, 4 Democrats against; Georgia: 2 Republicans for, 4 Democrats for, 2 Republicans against, 3 Democrats against; Louisiana: 3 Republicans for, 2 Democrats for, 2 Democrats against; Mississippi: 3 Democrats for, 2 Democrats against; North Carolina: 3 Republicans for, 5 Democrats for, 1 Republican against, 3 Democrats against; South Carolina: 1 Democrat for, 3 Republicans against, 2 Democrats against; Tennessee: 3 Republicans for, 6 Democrats for; Texas: 9 Republicans for, 15 Democrats for, 6 Democrats against; Virginia: 4 Republicans for, 3 Democrats for, 4 Democrats against. In the Senate the overall vote was 61 for and 38 against, and in the former Confederate states the vote was: Alabama: 2 Democrats against; Arkansas: 2 Democrats for; Florida: 1 Republican for, 1 Democrat for; Georgia: 1 Republican for, 1 Democrat for; Louisiana: 2 Democrats for; Mississippi: 2 Republicans for; North Carolina: 2 Republicans against; South Carolina: 1 Republican against, 1 Democrat against; Tennessee: 1 Democrat for, 1 Democrat against; Texas: 2 Republicans for; Virginia: 1 Republican for, 1 Democrat for.   

A contentious social issue also heated up. President Clinton supported allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve in the military, provided they kept their sexual orientation secret, but the military could not ask about their orientation either. Clinton's stand satisfied few, but especially on the political right, where any attempt to allow gay people to legally serve in the military was opposed. The provisions came to be known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

* The living former presidents in 1993 were: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush (Sr.).

WORD HISTORY:
Ask-This common word goes back to Indo European "ayesh," which had the notion "to search for, to seek." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "aiskojan," which meant "to ask for, demand, request," all with the notion of "seeking something by asking." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "ascian" (to ask for, inquire) and the variant "acsian" (to this day, some English speakers say "I want to aks ("ax") you something," so this basic pronunciation goes way back in English). "Ascian" then became "asken," before the modern version. The other Germanic languages have: German "heischen" (once also spelled without the "h," a word not highly common, but still in use for, "to ask for, request, demand"); West Frisan "easkje" ("demand"); Dutch "eisen" ("ask, demand"). Swedish "äska" ("demand, request") and Danish, "æske," seem to have been borrowed from Low German, which once had, "eschen," but no longer uses it. Apparently forms of the word generally endured only in West Germanic (English, German, Dutch, Frisian), as the North Germanic languages use other words to express this meaning.

"It's About Coalitions, Not Purity" Part Forty-Four

"The Chickens Come Home To Roost-George W. Bush's Second Term"

George W. Bush's second term began with the failure of his Social Security privatization plan to get anywhere. In Iraq, a civil war had broken out between Iraqi Sunni and Shia Muslims. Caught in the middle were American, British, and other coalition forces or their assistance groups, as well as a number of private security contractors. Bombings and killings were common, and the whole situation was a mess, as coalition forces also tried to oust al Qaeda units. On top of this, reports and photos had surfaced of various torture techniques used by Americans against prisoners in Iraq. This brought condemnation from many within the U.S., as well as from international sources. This part of the war in Iraq continued to grow in media coverage as time went on.     

On the domestic front, oil/gasoline prices surged to new highs, tapping the pocketbooks of already financially strapped Americans. The number of housing foreclosures were rising ominously, as the further movement of jobs to overseas production facilities, and the subsequent reduction in wages in some parts of the American economy, hung like a dark cloud over the country, bringing a queasy feeling about the storm that was coming. During the campaign, a story broke regarding Republican Mark Foley, a congressman from Florida. The story indicated that Foley had sent sexy messages to teenage boys who worked, or had worked, as congressional pages. Foley resigned about 5 weeks from the election, but the whole matter brought into question how much the Republican House leadership knew about Foley's activities. * Also brewing at that time were separate, but related scandals involving lobbyist and Republican contributor Jack Abramoff (and others), including deals about a casino boat company in Florida, a deal about minimum wage in the Mariana Islands (a U.S. Territory in the Pacific), Native American gambling casinos and campaign contributions. All of these matters are highly complex, but they touched several Republicans in Congress and government, as well as Republican supporters outside of government. Their complexity makes them far beyond this article, but there are many online sources, and also check your local library for books and articles. 

The 2006 midterm elections saw a major win for Democrats, as President Bush's popularity plunged, dragging down many Republicans with it, and the Republican coalition fractured to a degree. Democrats gained 31 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, 6 seats in the U.S. Senate. These Democratic victories often came at the expense of Republican incumbents, and in the Senate, Democrats took seats from Republicans in Ohio, Montana, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Rhode Island. Democrats also gained 6 governorships, as well as numerous state legislative seats, and state and local offices. Nancy Pelosi of California became the first ever woman Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

* Republicans, by this point in time, almost all of the conservative bent, had made anti-gay rhetoric a major part of their political party. Here was a Republican directly involved in gay sexual activities. At that time, Dennis Hastert was the Republican Speaker of the House. In the spring of 2016, Hastert admitted that he had molested teenage boys when he was a high school wrestling coach. He was given a prison sentence and a fine.

WORD HISTORY:
Torture-This word, distantly related to "thwart," goes back to Indo European "twork/terkw," which had the notion of "turn, twist." This gave Latin the verb, "torquere," which meant, "to twist, to bend," and its participle form, "tortus," gave Latin the noun, "tortura," which meant, "writhing, pain brought on by injury inflicted to get information or to get agreement to something." This passed into French as "torture," with the same meaning. English borrowed the word circa 1500 from French, but likely with the reinforcement of Latin itself. 

Just Who Is Trump Running Against?

Recently billionaire Donald Trump announced a bid for the Republican nomination for the presidency. He said a lot of things, some basically true, some "iffy," some absolute nonsense, in my opinion, but one of the things that caught my attention was how he seems to have taken up the mantle of Ross Perot, who ran for president as an independent (at first), in 1992, when there was an incumbent Republican president, George H.W. Bush, who I usually refer to as "Bush, Sr." When Perot, actually a Republican, ran, we had had nearly twelve years of Republican presidential rule; eight years under Ronald Reagan, and going on four years under Bush, Sr. Perot clearly touched a nerve in the country, as for a time, he led in many of the polls taken in the spring and summer of 1992. One of Perot's most potent issues was his opposition to trade agreements that would send many American jobs, especially in manufacturing, out of the country. The thing was, while the two major political parties of that time were somewhat different from what they are today, Republican support for such agreements was strong, while Democratic support was far less, with a good many Democrats fervently against such agreements. It was during Reagan's time as president that the U.S. began experiencing balance-of-trade deficits with China.* So was Perot admitting he had made a mistake supporting Reagan and then Bush? Is Trump, who preached about China's economic power, admitting he made a mistake supporting Republicans who generally favored free trade laws?

Perot also touched another nerve over the national debt, a number which had soared on the Reagan and Bush watch. He made fun of "voodoo economics," an expression used by Bush, Sr. to describe Ronald Reagan's economic plan, when the two ran against each other in the 1980 Republican primaries. Reagan's plan essentially called for huge tax cuts, big increases in military spending, and (mostly) unspecified budget cuts, but that the tax cuts would "pay for themselves," by stimulating the economy, and they would not cause deficits. While most segments of the taxpaying public saw some money from the tax cuts, the biggest beneficiaries were the wealthy. The economy boomed, but so did deficits. Perot mentioned the "voodoo economics," followed by "we're now in deep voodoo," a play on "doo doo," for those unaware.** So was Perot admitting he had made a mistake supporting Reagan and Bush?

Anyway, Trump emphasized he would bring back American jobs from overseas, but he didn't say exactly how he would do so. Many politicians have railed against the loss of jobs to other countries, but there really hasn't been anyone, Republican or Democrat, who really has presented a firm plan, that has public support, to do so. Since I do a lot about words, let me do some translation here. American businesses often moved plants and jobs overseas for one reason, and only one reason .... to make MONEY! Capitalism is about one thing and only one thing ... making MONEY! It is NOT about you or your family, or educating your children, or providing you with affordable medical care, or providing for you in your old age, or providing for you in your younger age, for that matter. No, it is about investors making money! Big business and its investors saw foreign labor markets where workers made a fraction of what American workers made, and they made the conscious decision to move work to other countries, especially once American tariffs were reduced or abolished, thus making it cheaper to send the produced goods from these low wage nations to this country. The so called "free traders," often more from the conservative side of the political spectrum, didn't scream about patriotism or traitorous behavior or any such other things. This was about making MONEY!

So does Donald Trump propose to make American wages and benefits even lower to bring back jobs from overseas? Does he propose to raise taxes on companies who send jobs overseas? Just what does he propose to do? Over time, wages in some countries have risen, making some American companies consider moving some jobs back to America, and from what I understand, that has been actually happening to some degree, but I'm not exactly sure how much of this has been happening.

Trump also talked about workers who can't get jobs, and he more or less promised to see that everyone has a job, because that will make those people have more self respect, although I just forget his exact words. The thing is, if wages and benefits are reduced enough, just about anyone could have a job, BUT will they be able to live on the pay? Will they be able to save for their future? Will they be able to raise a family? Will they be able to get good educations for their children? Will they be able to afford health care for themselves and their families? Or will they be worked for long hours for little pay and few if any benefits, just to make sure people like Donald Trump make billions? What is your answer to that question, Donald Trump? And just which party are you actually running against?***

* See: http://www.iie.com/content/?ID=27

** "Doo doo" is a nice way of saying "shit," and Perot played on the expression, "We're in deep shit."

*** Trump also told supporters how the U.S. has spent two trillion dollars in Iraq, with the implication being that it was wrong to do so, but the funny thing is, it was the Republican Bush-Cheney administration that sent the troops there in the first place. So is this an admission by Trump that he supported the wrong political party?
       
WORD HISTORY:
Weave-This word, related to "web," goes back to Indo European "webh," which meant "to weave." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "weban(an)," with the same meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wefan," also with the same meaning, and this then became "weven/weaven," before the modern version. The noun was derived from the verb. The other Germanic languages have: German "weben," ^ Low German and Dutch "weven," West Frisian "weve" (little used?), Danish "væve," Icelandic "vefa," Norwegian "veve," and Swedish "väva."

^ The common German name "Weber" is simply "Weaver" in English.

Paying The Piper-Part 8/2-An Unpleasant Ticket To The Past

A couple of weeks ago on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," host, former conservative Republican congressman Joe Scarborough, stated that the "free trade" policy that has shipped so many jobs overseas, along with investment, has become difficult to change because it has become "a religion."* I think Joe has hit the nail on the head. It is much the same with the "free market" ideology, and I believe you can more or less lump the two together; "free trade/free markets." The interesting thing is, the "super patriots" of the American Right talked about no unilateral disarmament in our relationship with the former Soviet Union. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but many of these same people, or their more recent clones, are always touting "free trade" that is often unilateral. We needn't dig up Einstein to ask him why so many American jobs have gone overseas. Forget about patriotism, American business people will go to where one of their highest expenses, labor, is cheapest. Costs are always important. If you had a lemonade stand when you were a kid, you probably didn't buy lemons at the most expensive place in the neighborhood. Americans basically understand all of this; it is a part of our society. The American labor movement understands it, too. What concerns many in American labor is that the basic trade system with many countries is not fair to start with. Workers in many of the "new" economies of the world make a fraction of what many American workers make, or should I say, what many American workers MADE. Be careful of the code phrase oft stated by executives, "Our production costs are too high." With the system that is now in place, essentially what America's powerful interests are saying with this phrase is, "American workers make too much!" Of course, they don't say that executives or wealthy investors make too much, although the incomes of the wealthiest Americans are really the only incomes that have grown much in the last thirty years, under the prevailing economic philosophy of modern American conservatism (if it can be called "conservatism"). Pat Buchanan, a frequent participant on "Morning Joe," and noted conservative commentator, also recently stated how all of this "free trade" policy has damaged the country. Okay Pat, then why are you pushing for more conservative Republican victories? It's like saying, "My party is destroying the American economy. Let's elect more people from my party!"** You can't have this both ways, unless you're willing to pay the price; the ultimate demise of the country. Until this mentality changes, woe to America.

(A Word History is below the notes)

* I really like Joe Scarborough. I don't always agree with him; in fact, at times, I very much disagree with him, but he is one conservative who seems to have learned some lessons from the economic mistakes of the last few decades, and Joe is willing to say so. This seems to run contrary to many other conservatives who act as if they did absolutely NOTHING WRONG to bring on the current economic problems of the country, and in fact, seem to advocate their policies even more strongly. When the Bush Administration proposed the "bank bailout" bill in September of 2008, many conservative lawmakers said that banks that made bad decisions should just be allowed to fail. That all sounds good until you see what happened when just one bank failed, Lehman Brothers. The whole WORLD financial structure shook, with world stock markets tumbling by huge amounts. Where would we be now if virtually ALL banks had been left to fail? This is the very same philosophy that says, "Look, if you're sick and you don't have insurance, the HELL WITH YOU! I've got mine!" Don't be confused by any of this, folks! If this kind of thinking had prevailed throughout history, humans would still live in trees. "Hey you birds! What ya doin' buildin' that nest in my tree?"

** I don't agree much with Pat Buchanan, but when he's right on policy, he's right. In fairness to his position, he did try to get Republicans to abandon or modify these trade policies, especially in his presidential run in the primaries of 1996. He was HIGHLY CRITICAL of the Republican position. He seemed to have drawn a lot of former Ross Perot supporters to his banner, but the problem has been, after Buchanan's run, who did these types, including Buchanan, eventually vote for? More Republicans with the same ideology they claimed to be against.

WORD HISTORY:
Morel-The ultimate origin of this word for a type of mushroom is uncertain. One source notes that it goes back to Indo European "mork," which meant "root, tuber," but I can't find "mork" in any Indo European words. So how Germanic got the word, I can't say, although the one source could be correct. Old Proto Germanic had "murhon," which indeed meant "edible root." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "more" (the ending "e" was pronounced back then as "eh/ah"), which meant "carrot," which included parsnips, back then. It seems the Germanic dialects of those times did not distinguish between carrots and parsnips, because the "orange" carrot either hadn't yet been cultivated, or was unavailable to our ancestors at that time. "More" (then also spelled "moore") remained the English word for "carrot" until the 1500s! Gradually English usage of the borrowed word "carrot" developed, replacing the native word. I'll probably get around to covering "carrot's" history in the near future. The Old Germanic word also gave Frankish, another Germanic dialect, the form "morhila," which meant "mushroom" in that dialect. This then was absorbed into French, a Latin-based language, but with a good number of Germanic words, as "morille." The French term was borrowed into English in the 1670s as "morel." The Germanic word also gave Old High German "morhilo," which has since become modern German "Morchel," which is their term for the type of mushroom. The same Old Germanic word that gave Old English "more," also gave German "Möhre," still one of their words for "carrot" (they also use "Karotte," which they too borrowed).

Paying The Piper-Part Five-Trade With "China"

First, I am skipping ahead to "Part Five," but I will be backtracking to more about President Obama in Part Four.

This bill, H.R. 4444, established "normal" trade relations with China (mainland). It was sometimes referred to as the "China Trade Bill:"

Vote in House Of Representatives, May 24, 2000:
Yes: 237 (73 Democrats- 163 Republicans) No: 197 (135 Democrats- 59 Republicans-1 Independent) Not Voting: 1 (Republican)

Vote in Senate, September 19, 2000:
Yes: 83 (32 Democrats- 40 Republicans) No: 15 (7 Democrats- 7 Republicans-1 Independent) Not Voting: 2 (Democrats)

Signed into law by President Bill Clinton, October 10, 2000.

WORD HISTORY:
Vote-I found a reference to a possible Indo European base, but I found no other source supporting that base, so I'll leave that part open. "Vote" goes back to the Latin participle form of "vovere," which was "votus," and this gave Latin the noun form "votom/votum." The meaning of the Latin terms were "vow, promise, wish." In the mid 1500s, English borrowed the terms, but with the still prevalent meanings of modern English: "a wish for a desired candidate or issue" (noun) and the verb form, "to express a desire for a candidate or issue."

Paying The Piper-Part Two-Dominican Republic-Central America-US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

This agreement was approved and passed the US House of Representatives on July 28, 2005. The vote was:
217 YES (202 Republicans-15 Democrats) vs. 215 NO (187 Democrats-27 Republicans-1 Independent)-2 Not Voting (both Republicans).

The vote in the US Senate, also on July 28, 2005:
55 YES (43 Republicans-11 Democrats-1 Independent) vs. 45 NO (34 Democrats-11 Republicans).

Signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 2, 2005.

WORD HISTORY:
Yes-This goes back to Old English "gese," which is assumed by many linguists to be a compound of "gea," the ancestor of "Yea," and "se/si," which was the third person subjunctive or imperative (I found differing info), which was a form of "be" in Old English; thus giving us the idea of "yea, may it be so," or "yea, so be it." "Yea" goes back to Indo European "ye," which then gave Old Germanic "ja." "Yea" and "yes" are closely related to the affirmative words in other Germanic languages: German has "ja" (pronounced "ya," with the "j" pronounced as "y," and the "a" as the "a" in father), Icelandic has "já," Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish all have "ja."

Paying The Piper, Part One-"NAFTA"

I'm going to be doing a number of articles relevant to the middle class in America. For those who may have missed it, this is a VERY important article, and it will give you a basis to see what's been happening to this country:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/07/down-goes-middle-class.html

First, as the statistics in the linked article relate, our middle class is in serious trouble. Folks, voting is important, VERY IMPORTANT! The politicians who have caused so much damage didn't do it out of any conspiracy, and I'm sure they meant no harm. On the contrary, they meant well, and if you voted for any of them, it doesn't make you a bad person, BUT seeing the mistakes that have been made, you do need to reassess your voting patterns, in my opinion, or then you DO become part of the problem. Again, this isn't a conspiracy, unless perceived self-interest is a conspiracy. The businesses and high income people who pushed for the kinds of things I'm going to be writing about didn't conspire, I'm pretty certain, to divert the attention of Americans, but they benefit when Americans' minds are elsewhere. Wars, abortion, race, you name it, when we focus on these things, they benefit, because we aren't focused on what THEY'RE doing. I'm certain, if a decade ago, you had asked Americans how important they thought Wall Street was to the overall American economy, a solid majority would have answered that it was not that big of a deal, although their own retirement money may have been invested in stocks and bonds (often in a 401 K). Well, we didn't pay attention to all of the shenanigans, and now do you see where we are?

I know I beat up on Republicans a lot, and that's because they deserve it, but I also have problems with Democrats, and I have stated such many times here, and on occasion, I agree with the Republicans. The problem I have with Republicans is, their basic philosophy took over the country three decades ago. They became the majority party, in sentiment, if not always in numbers. They can't now step back and act as if they didn't have anything to do with America's decline, or with the overall terrible economic mess we're in, not to mention the endless wars which have cost us so many of our brave military people, and also billions and billions of bucks. Democrats aren't blameless, but they have somewhat less blame, although NOT ALWAYS! When I see these congressional votes in the last year and a half, so often with NO Republicans supporting Democratic-sponsored legislation, this tells me that the rightwing fanaticism that has taken over the Republican Party will do anything to bring down this president, including leaving the country go to hell. It is especially troubling to hear Republicans say they want something put into a bill, and then it is inserted, and still they vote "NO." Something wrong here folks! Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told the Republican senators from the very start that he wanted them to vote "NO" on just about everything. Folks, this isn't a party trying to help govern the country. We have a basic two-party system, and I don't expect, nor do I want, everybody in both parties to always support the same things, but this situation is just not good. If you're a Republican, take back your party!!! As it stands now, Ronald Reagan was too liberal for some of these nutcases.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, better known to most Americans as "NAFTA," created essentially a free trade bloc between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. I'm not quite sure how important NAFTA really is now, compared to the first decade or so of its being in effect, as China and even India, as well as other countries, pose a far greater threat to the U.S. now (and to Mexico, too), and I'll be dealing with that in a future article. I'm not anti-Mexican, in fact, far from it, but the whole problem with the agreement centered around Mexico's involvement. Why? Well, Canada and the United States have similar societies, and I don't mean ethnically or linguistically, which is totally unimportant to me, and I hope is unimportant to you, too. What I mean is, both countries had government regulations to protect workers and their wages and their benefits, and to protect the public from from potentially dangerous products. Mexico has been a relatively poor country, without many of these same regulations, and certainly with much, much lower wages and worker benefits. This wasn't a tough one folks. If you're a business person who could open a plant in Mexico for far, far less money, where would you go? For Americans, in my opinion, this began to put the hurt on many workers without more developed skills. We all can't be Einsteins, or rocket scientists, or search for a cure for cancer. Many American workers who had joined the middle class, or who had been born into the middle class because of their parents working in manufacturing, became vulnerable. During the build-up to the vote, all living former presidents expressed public support for NAFTA; they were: Nixon (Republican), Ford (Republican), Carter (Democrat), Reagan (Republican), Bush, Sr. (Republican). Here is the vote on implementing "NAFTA":

November 17, 1993, House of Representatives: 234 YES (102 Democrats-132 Republicans)
200 NO (156 Democrats-43 Republicans-1 Independent)

November 20, 1993, U.S. Senate: 61 YES (27 Democrats-34 Republicans) 38 NO (28 Democrats-10 Republicans-1 Democrat not voting)

Signed by President Bill Clinton, Democrat, December 8, 1993.

WORD HISTORY:
Trade-I was unable to establish a link to an Indo European root, although that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one, but sources mention that forms of the word are only found in the Germanic languages. "Trade" started as a noun, and it goes back to the Old Germanic base "tred/trad," which had the idea of "path, course, track, way" (it is closely related to "tread," and its past form, "trod," by the way). In times of old, getting around wasn't as easy as today. "The well-trod path" worn by people exchanging goods came to give Low German the noun "trade," which meant just that, "a well-trod, or trodden, path, or track." This suggests that the word is of West Germanic origin (English is West Germanic, as are German, Dutch and Frisian). The term came to English in the 1300s, undoubtedly due to...ah...trade with the Germans of northwestern Europe. Further, since a person who worked at a particular profession followed their same or regular path for work, it came to be associated with "trade," usually in the sense of skilled workers (in the 1800s, English developed the term "trade unions" from this idea), and then also even in business, as those who exchanged goods or goods for money, was their "trade."

Down Goes The Middle Class

This article is too important not to post it. I've been preaching this for years. Time to wake up America. Forget the slick attack ads against anyone who dares challenge the existing order. Sorry, no "Word History" with this.



http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/the-u.s.-middle-class-is-being-wiped-out-here%27s-the-stats-to-prove-it-520657.html?tickers=^DJI,^GSPC,SPY,MCD,WMT,XRT,DIA

The Free Market Chant

A couple of weeks ago, I saw Karen Hughes, a former close aide and continued friend of President George W. Bush, on television. I believe it was on NBC’s “Meet The Press.” When it was mentioned that the economy had not only stopped falling, but that it had actually shown slight growth (the show was on prior to the most recent economic data announced the week of February 1), Hughes quickly awarded credit for the positive developments to the Bush Administration. Not only that, it was noted how the Obama Administration had continued many of the same Bush initiatives on the economy. Now, is this claim true? Yes, to some extent, but……

Hughes claimed credit, but she also left out the part about responsibility for the near collapse. This kind of reminded me of a person who stabs you in the gut, but then goes to the hospital and gives blood for your transfusion, and then takes credit for having saved your life. Of course you wouldn’t have been in the hospital on the brink of death had it not been for this same person’s sharp knife. Throughout the Bush years we heard about “free markets” and that government had no place in business affairs. When oil and gasoline prices soared on the whims of greedy investors, beating down many an American family, the Bush folks kept up the chant of “free markets, can’t do anything about it.” When millions of Americans were losing their homes, or threatened with such, the chant continued, “free markets, can’t do anything about it.” When trade deals took American jobs overseas, or resulted in decreased wages/benefits for American workers, we not only got the same answer of “free markets, can’t do anything about it,” but we got more trade deals! *

When the cumulative effects hit home, something neither the administration nor the Federal Reserve seem to have anticipated (DUH!), the “free market” chant stopped, and Americans were told that “Uncle Sam,” long the belittled, or even hated, relative of the free marketers, was needed to prop up “free market” businesses. The “free market” idea of “sink or swim” was turned on its head as, “swim, but if you can’t, Uncle Sam will jump in and save your behind.” So, Karen Hughes needs to retool her message. “If you want to take credit for the sunshine, you’ve got to take the blame for the rain.” ** And it hasn’t stopped raining on millions of Americans. (A word history is after the notes)

* George W. Bush did give protection to the American steel industry during his first term, but this seems to have been purely a political move in preparation for the 2004 reelection bid, as steel producing states were seen as critical for the election. Gradually the protections were removed, and within about 18 months, they were gone. Two points: this is not to only smack Bush for the political move on steel protections, as politicians in BOTH parties have made, and continue to make moves based purely on politics all of the time, but then again, that is our system. I said the protections were “gradually” removed. In my opinion, if the trade deals had been put in place the same way, GRADUALLY, there may not have been the same pain for American workers. Unleashing foreign goods produced by people who make only a fraction of the wages/benefits of American workers was not in our interest. Later, during the financial meltdown, the poor negotiating by the administration reared its head again, as banks and insurance companies were given hundreds of billions in bailouts, but with few if any strings. This led to billions in bonuses paid to executives within these industries, thus infuriating the beleaguered American public.

** The same standard applies to the Obama Administration.

WORD HISTORY:
Heft/Hefty/Heavy-All of these words are from the same Old Germanic base that gave English "heave" (see previous "Word Histories"), which meant "to lift," with the idea of "throwing" coming a bit later. Old Germanic "khabiz" was a noun that meant "weight," and which spawned the adjective "khabigaz," or "weighty," if you will. This was passed down to Old English as "hefig" (the "k" sound obviously was not prominent, and died out), and later as "heavy." Dutch, a close relative of English still has "hevig," but the other Germanic languages, all once having had a form related to the English word, have found other words to express "heavy." The Dutch word took the more figurative meaning "intense," but let's not forget our extended meaning of "heavy" as something that is "heavy or weighs" on our minds; and the notion of "intensity" is certainly present. Heft developed in English during the 1400s (one source says 1600s) and meant "heaviness/weight," and hefty came from it during the 1800s. The form "heft" seems to have developed from the examples of "weave" and "weft" (seldom used anymore) and "thieve" and "theft," and the past participle of "heave" was "heft."

The Candidates and China

First, I thought I'd post this link to an article about how McCain and Obama feel about issues the U.S. has with the world's most populous country, China. America runs a large trade deficit with China, and in more recent months, we've seen that Chinese products do not always meet U.S. standards as to safety, for example, when lead was found to have been used in numerous, but certainly not all, toys made by the Chinese. There seems to be no question that America has lost jobs to China, with many American workers having been displaced, particularly in the manufacturing area, where decent wages and benefits had helped propel American workers into the middle class. How many of these jobs have been lost is still open to debate. To me, it isn't just how many jobs have been lost, but also the "tone" that the situation of "free trade" in general has created, as wages and benefits for American workers have been under pressure with the growing number of trade deals, not only with China, but with other countries too. Free traders say that cheaper Chinese products have helped save Americans money, while also providing a wider variety of products available to American consumers.

There are also a variety of issues on the foreign policy front, where in recent years the U.S. has relied upon China to help pressure North Korea in the nuclear weapons debate. Tibet and Taiwan are also among other issues confronting the next president. Anyway, here's the link to the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25288252/

Jobs to China

In an article published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on 7/30/08, which cited a study by the Economic Policy Institute of Washington D.C., the United States lost 2.3 million industrial jobs between 2001 and 2007, as a result of trade with China. The study, "The China Trade Toll," authored by Robert Scott, notes that here in Ohio, 102,700 jobs were lost. California suffered the biggest overall loss, with 325,800 lost jobs.

The Checks and Balances Of Two Parties

In the last couple of days, the Cleveland area has been rocked by a Federal raid on two prominent Cuyahoga County officials, Jimmy Dimora, a county commissioner and head of the county Democratic Party, and Frank Russo, the county auditor. There were a number of other people listed in the warrants, most either family members or employees of the two named above. I have a link below, if you are interested in more details.

Now, don't be shocked by what I'm about to say, but what we lack in the Cleveland area is a viable Republican Party. For quite some time now, Republicans have had a dismal record of being elected to county offices. I can't tell you the name of the county Republican chairman, and I pay a good deal of attention to politics. Republicans do hold some local offices as city council members or mayors in some suburbs, but by operating out of such small bases, they have trouble moving to the bigger, county level. The Cleveland area is staunchly Democratic, with the exceptions of suburban Lake County on the Eastside, and suburban Medina County to the southwest. Cuyahoga County itself is overwhelmingly Democratic in voter sentiment.

A number of years ago, however, the Republicans had a man named Bob Hughes as county chairman. Hughes was great at developing candidates to compete on the county level for the Republican Party, and several, including George Voinovich, moved up the ladder to hold or compete for statewide offices. Since his death a number of years ago, the Republicans have been a mess, and they have essentially ceded the county elections to Democrats, with VERY few exceptions. Things have gotten so bad, that Republicans have trouble recruiting credible candidates for many positions. Folks, this is NOT a good situation for the public. We need both parties to be vibrant and on guard against abuses by the other party and to force the other party's candidates to have solid, well thought-out positions on issues important to us all. In more recent times, if a candidate can get the Democratic nomination, that's the same as winning the office, as the general election is a mere formality. Under these kinds of circumstances, recruiting viable candidates to face Democrats is tough for the Republicans to do, as their candidates have less chance against the Dems than General Custer did against the Indians at the Little Bighorn.

Now, there's been some speculation that with this Democratic scandal (if the charges are proven true), Republicans might be able to rebound somewhat. To be quite honest, I seriously doubt it. Many Republicans have openly supported free trade agreements that have devastated this region. Many people have lost jobs, as their work was shipped overseas. Many others have suffered wage and benefit cuts. The economic situation here is pretty dismal. The medical industry is in good shape here, and there is a blossoming tech sector, but overall, the region is depressed. Further, Republicans are identified with George W. Bush, and he's about as popular in these parts as poison ivy at a picnic. The Republicans have lots of work to do to rebuild their party in Ohio in general, and the Cleveland area especially. They certainly need to get back into politics right in the City of Cleveland, too.

http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/iscri/1217406633291130.xml&coll=2