It goes without saying that the rich and powerful and the wanna-be rich and powerful would like to give the Kuch the boot.
That the PD would turn on a pork rind is no surprise.
For there are few like Congressman Kucinich who will watch and speak straight on the greedy grabbing Congress aids and abets.
That his populist principles and calls for international equality, coming from the left as some might so label, are ignored in the pragmatics of a right-wing Congress committed to corporations is no indictment of Congressman Kucinich.
Where do Mr. Batdoff, Mr. Call or Ms. Ferris diverge on any of these substantive, principled statements made by Congressman Kucinich?
He's right on Student Loans, Pensions, Social Security, Pharma, Mercury Food Labeling.
Read what he says.
Tell us where you diverge, where your candidate diverges.
Fact One
Students Pay for Tax Cuts for the Rich
Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House
Link to this entry in the Congressional Record
Feb 1, 2006
Speaking during debate on H.Res. 653, providing for concurrence with Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006, Congressman Kucinich said:
"Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today cuts approximately $12 billion from the federal student programs. Under this bill, the tax cuts for the super-rich are placed on the backs of students and their families. Under this bill, student borrowers -- already saddled with $17,500 in debt -- will be forced to pay even more for his or her college loans.
"The bill raises student loan interest rate caps and raises student loan taxes and fees. It places billions of dollars in student aid at risk by cutting $2.2 billion in critical funds used to carry out and administer the student aid programs.
"Some of the excessive subsidies to large lending institutions are finally cut but no protections are put in place to ensure that students will not have those costs passed on to to them as well. Rather than reinvesting those dollars into low-interest loans and additional grants, this bill uses the money for alleged deficit reduction.
"This bill is a travesty. It masquerades as a budget reconciliation, but is truly a tax cut for the wealthy paid for by students. The Higher Education Act was intended to help provide all Americans, regardless of their income-level, with greater educational opportunities. The Act recognizes the shared benefits, by both society and the individual, of a higher education. But instead of working to further those goals, the changes to student loan programs that we are faced with today undermine the goal of HEA.
"We must make it clear that we place students above tax cuts for the wealthy and defeat this bill. I urge my colleagues to stand with me and oppose H.Res. 653."
[Ed. note: H.Res. 653 was agreed to by recorded vote: 216 - 214 (Roll No. 4).]
Fact Two
Health Care
Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House
Link to this entry in the Congressional Record
Feb 15, 2006
"Mr. Speaker, we are always glad to have the President of the United States in Ohio, but his health care policies miss an important fact, and that is that $1 out of every $4 for health care in the United States goes to the for-profit sector. $1.6 trillion is spent every year on health care in the United States, but over $400 billion goes for corporate profits, advertising, marketing, the cost of paperwork, up to 30 percent for the cost of paperwork.
"We have over 46 million Americans who lack health insurance, who lack access to quality health care. H.R. 676, the Conyers-Kucinich-Kaptur bill, presents Americans with an alternative, universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care, Medicare for all.
"There is no reason why anyone in this country should be lacking health care when America has the resources right now. It would not cost much more than what we are paying right now. As a matter of fact, Americans are paying for a universal standard of care. They are just not getting it because it is all about corporations making a profit. It is not about people. Support Medicare for all."
Fact Three
Protect Workers' Pensions
Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House
Link to this entry in the Congressional Record
Apr 6, 2006
Speaking during debate on Congressman George Miller's (D-CA) motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection Act of 2005, Congressman Kucinich said:
"Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Miller motion to instruct conferees. This motion to instruct supports the bipartisan Senate compromise language that will protect older workers.
"Now, H.R. 2830 does a great disservice to older workers by denying the reality that conversions from traditional defined benefit plans to cash balance plans harm older workers. A report released in early November by the GAO found that a majority of older workers experienced deep cuts in their pension when converted from a traditional plan to a cash balance plan without transition protections. This is not only unfair, it is wrong.
Providing transition protections for older workers should not be a choice for employers. It should be a requirement. Any change in plans must protect the accrued benefits of employees, and the conference report should reflect that reality.
"It is a myth to believe that cash balance plans are innocuous. For older workers especially, these plans are hazardous. A pension plan is worth nothing if it does not provide security for employees, and these plans translate into increased vulnerability for workers as they retire.
"Hard working employees should not be rewarded for their service with a denial of pension benefits. I urge my colleagues to help ensure that workers' pensions are protected by supporting the Miller motion to instruct conferees. Let's stand up for people who work a lifetime and were told at the beginning of their work experience the money was going to be there to enjoy their golden years. Support the Miller amendment and put some teeth behind that guarantee."
[Ed. note: The Miller motion to instruct was agreed to by recorded vote: 248 - 178 in (Roll No. 93).]
Fact Four
The Delphi Myth
Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House
Link to this entry in the Congressional Record
Apr 5, 2006
"Mr. Speaker, a number of Members of Congress from the Democratic side have come together in a process known as an e-hearing where we have solicited from people across the country their concerns in particular about the auto industry, trade law, labor law and Delphi Corporation filing for bankruptcy.
"This evening, a number of us will come before this House to make a presentation on behalf of people who participated in the e-hearing and to make clear the direction this country must go in with respect to our trade law, labor law and with respect to the Delphi case.
"I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) who is the ranking member on our committee for his work in helping to organize this hearing, and hopefully he will be here himself to participate, but you will be hearing shortly from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) as well as other Members with respect to the results of our e-hearing.
"Much of the talk surrounding the current crisis facing U.S. automakers revolves around the toll that wages, health insurance and pensions place on companies. A loss of these benefits would be a devastating blow for workers and their families. Consider what my constituent, Betty Payer of Parma, Ohio, said during our committee's recent e-hearing.
"She said, 'The way the auto industry is going affects us in so many different ways. If my husband was to lose his job, we would not be able to raise our children properly. I don't even know how we would be able to give them the proper education. We can barely afford to buy them clothes and get them the things they truly need the way it is. My oldest son is getting ready to turn 3 and he needs speech therapy and physical therapy the way it is. Without insurance, we would not be able to take him to those because we cannot afford to pay for them. He has to go once a week until they see an improvement in him.'
"That is from Betty Payer of Parma, Ohio.
"But the discussion about the auto industry is not served when certain individuals mischaracterize the actual labor costs. There is a myth put forward by the CEO of Delphi about the overpaid auto workers. He is claiming that $65 per hour is a typical wage Delphi pays for blue color labor. The problem is Delphi doesn't pay $65 an hour. Rather, this figure is a creation of Delphi's media consultants and it lumps together all of Delphi's labor costs and payments to unemployed and retired workers, but falsely allocates them only to Delphi's much smaller workforce. That inflates the average labor cost.
Actual average wage for current Delphi workers is about $23 per hour. So whatever Delphi's financial problems, one thing that is not a cause is workers earning $65 per hour. And it is misleading of Delphi's CEO to say otherwise.
"But bad faith characterizes the Delphi CEO. It was bad faith that he filed motions in bankruptcy court to break his labor contracts. Negotiations with the union had not reached an impasse. Rather, the opposite was true. GM and Delphi had just reached an agreement with the union on a Special Attrition Program. Don't you think that one agreement could lead to another?
"If Delphi's CEO is notorious for his drive to beat down the wages and benefits workers have won through their unions and impose a wage scale that is more in line with that of China, then he has been greatly helped by the official policy of the United States, both in terms of trade law and labor law.
"We have a trade policy that actually permits foreign based companies to export an infinite number of goods and services to the United States, with no expectation that goods and services made in the United States will find buyers overseas. So companies locate in low wage countries, such as China, and export without limit to the U.S. Predictably, the U.S. is, in turn, suffering from a record-sized widening trade deficit with China and the world. Our trade deficit is approaching $750 billion. Workers are threatened by plant closures, and plant owners can plausibly threaten they are going to move to Mexico where they can find lower wages, lower legal standards, and export to the U.S. what they used to manufacture in the U.S. What is needed is balance. There should be some kind of a balance between our imports and our exports. What we import from China, for example, should be roughly in line with the value of what we export to China. Our trade policies should be guided by what you could call a principle of reciprocity.
"We also have a labor policy that enables foreign-owned companies to threaten and intimidate American workers when they try to organize themselves into unions. The leading foreign automakers have plants in the U.S., but they are all non union, thanks to the anti worker slant of U.S. law. That gives them an unfair advantage over the unionized American auto companies. Why do we tolerate giving Honda and Toyota such an advantage in our own country? If workers were allowed join unions, as they do in Canada, when a majority signed cards attesting that that is their wish, foreign auto companies would be less able to squash an organizing effort. Then GM and Toyota would be on a level playing field as far as labor costs were concerned.
"Here in Congress, we cannot compel automakers to design cars people want to buy. We hope that they can find the people to design such vehicles. Clearly, the American automakers have made serious errors. Auto workers didn't make the errors because they are told what cars to make.
"But we can make sure that the playing field is level so there is fair competition in the auto industry.
"Our trade policy, Mr. Speaker, and I am speaking of NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, for starters, has had a consistent effect. Know what that effect has been? To deindustrialize the United States. We are losing our industry, not because of the laws of nature or the invisible hand, but due to trade policy established here in Congress.
"Our labor law is also responsible. American-owned companies are losing market share to foreign-owned transplants because of the viciously anti-worker environment this Congress has unfortunately established.
"Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing my other colleagues about what we can do to protect American industry and American auto workers."
Fact Five
Social Security
Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House
Link to this entry in the Congressional Record
May 17, 2005
"Mr. Speaker, this evening, as American families settle in, and many workers have turned in, the American people will go to bed hoping that this Congress has the intention and the fortitude to stand up and to protect the people's right to a secure retirement. There is a great skepticism across this land about the plans to privatize Social Security.
"Social Security, when it was created in 1934, was created as an insurance program. It was not an investment program; it was an insurance program which would ensure against people being too old to work, an insurance program which would ensure against being injured on the job and not being able to work again, an insurance program which would ensure that if a family lost a bread winner to a tragedy, that the family would still have an ability to survive and that the children would have benefits covered until their late teens.
"Social Security has been the most successful social program that this country has ever seen.
"Now, why was it created? We have to go back to the time of the Depression, a time when this country saw the New York Stock Exchange lose over 80 percent of its value in a period of about 4 years. That people lost their homes, they lost their farms, factories were closed, people lost their jobs, they lost their pensions. People were basically stripped bear with the curse of nothingness. One out of four Americans was without a job. There were hundreds of thousands of children who did not have a place.
"From the ashes of the Great Depression arose a leader who recognized that the function and purpose of a democratic society is to make sure that people have economic security, the security of a job, the security of a home, and the security of a solid retirement. When Franklin Roosevelt brought forward this proposal to create Social Security, it was brought forward not to give to people some kind of a welfare program, and I do not object to welfare, but it was not created as a welfare program. It was always based on what people paid in. And so Social Security became a new hope. It helped lift generations of elderly out of poverty. Do my colleagues know that today, 50 percent of the elderly would be living below the poverty line if it were not for Social Security. Social Security was created as a means to make sure that when people got into their later ages that they would have the ability to support themselves.
"Mr. Speaker, we heard the mythology when we were growing up of old folks homes, of poor houses, of people who when they became elderly were destitute and had no opportunities. Well, Social Security was what transformed the American economic landscape, helped lift people up out of poverty, helped guarantee that the sense of interdependencies, which is essential to the creation of the United States, was reflected in this social program that had a powerful economic component, retirement security.
"The very words, the United States, which we celebrate here in this Chamber were not simply about the unity of 13 geographical territories nor are they today simply about the unity of 50 geographical territories, they are about human unity.
"They are about our responsibility for each other. They are about each of us being our brother and our sister's keeper. Social Security brought that philosophy right into the government of the United States. And in doing that, that elevated the purpose of government of the people. That is the power and the beauty of what Social Security has represented.
"And so when there is an attempt to try to change Social Security's nature or create a privatization program that will divert Social Security resources to set up private accounts, it is absolutely essential that we look back to history for the reason why Social Security was itself created.
"Today, workers, 6.2 percent of their income goes to Social Security. Employers put in 6.2 percent, a total of 12.4 percent. Those financial resources which come from workers today, 88 percent of the money that we put into Social Security goes directly to the workers, and 12 percent goes into the trust fund.
"Social Security is dependent on that financial structure to be able to remain solvent. Now, what happens if you divert 4 percent to create private accounts? Well, if you take 4 percent away from Social Security, you are left with only 8 percent total funding or a little more than 8 percent, and it makes it absolutely impossible to be able to meet the needs of Social Security. So what does that mean?
"That means that you end up with people experiencing a cut in benefits. So any privatization of Social Security will result in benefit cuts. Now, the administration has talked about a 4 percent cash out. But what they have not told the American people is by carving out 4 percent you are taking money out of Social Security.
"Now, the administration wants to borrow $2 billion to set up private accounts. That money is going to have to be paid back. Is not our national debt already high enough? Why in the world would we want to add another $2 trillion to it, but yet the plan to privatize Social Security would do just that. We would be borrowing money so people could invest in the stock market.
"Imagine if any of us went to our neighborhood bank and we said we wanted to take out a loan. And they said why? Because we want to invest in the stock market. Well, that is what our government would have the American people do, to borrow $2 trillion so we could invest in the stock market.
"If you carve 4 percent out of Social Security, it creates a condition where Social Security will not have enough money to pay benefits. Now, we have all heard this story about Social Security is broke. That is not true; that Social Security is going bankrupt. That is not true. Let me tell you why it is not true. It was just over a month ago that the Social Security Administration's own actuaries issued a report which shows that the Social Security Trust Fund has about $1.7 trillion in assets right now. The Social Security Trust Fund has those resources.
"Those assets will grow to over $6 trillion by the year 2028. That is hardly a fund that is broke. The Social Security Administration's own actuaries, in their report, indicate that Social Security will be rock solid through the year 2041 without any changes whatever.
"The Congressional Budget Office, which is a bipartisan budget office, has said that Social Security will be rock solid through the year 2052 without any changes whatsoever. No need to create private accounts. This is not a non solution, it creates a problem.
"And the difference between the two projections of when Social Security will be able to pay a hundred percent are strictly differences that are due to underlying economic assumptions.
"The Social Security actuaries are predicting that over a period of 75 years the American economy will only grow by 1.3 percent. Think about that. If it grows only by 1.3 percent, is that consistent with investing in the stock market? Of course not.
"Everyone understands that Social Security is insurance, but investments are inherently risky. If you want to invest, fine. But people have to remember the market goes up, the market goes down. People must remember that the market is not a sure thing. The market has had periods of advance and decline. Sometimes the benefits that people would get in a high market might be 6 times what they might get when the market is low.
"So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to begin to introduce this discussion tonight about Social Security and speak out about the problems of privatization and why the American people ought to be very concerned that Social Security not be privatized."
Fact Six
Leave Mercury Labeling Laws Alone
Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House
Link to this entry in the Congressional Record
Mar 8, 2006
Speaking in support of the Wasserman Schultz amendment to H.R. 4167, National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005, Congressman Kucinich said:
"Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Wasserman Schultz amendment.
"It is widely known that mercury is a highly toxic chemical, especially to our children. It causes entire clusters of cells in the developing brain to die. It causes loss of fine motor skills, learning disabilities, and seizures. Later in life, it can translate into kidney diseases, and immune system disorders.
"One of the primary ways children are exposed to mercury is through consumption of fish -- either they eat it or their mother does. At the same time, eating fish that is not contaminated has been shown to be important to childrens' health.
"The best way to deal with the problem is to stop mercury from getting into our environment in the first place. Of course, this administration and Congress have repeatedly refused to take substantive action to require coal burning power plants to take responsibility for their toxic mercury releases that end up in our fish. But because mercury pollution is allowed to persist, people are forced to take on the coal plants' responsibility by trying to avoid fish that are contaminated.
"In recognition of this, some States are considering laws that will label fish that are high in mercury. It is a critical consumer empowerment tool that is the last line of defense for those who do not want their children or themselves to be exposed to this toxic substance.
"But the Food Uniformity Act would undercut States' ability to even provide that basic level of protection through labeling. So not only does the bill undercut States rights, but it also undercuts personal responsibility.
"The Wasserman Shultz amendment makes an exemption for labeling laws that apply to mercury and fish and shellfish. It is a commonsense amendment. Please join me in supporting it."
Fact Seven
Liability Immunity for Big Pharma
Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House
Link to this entry in the Congressional Record
Dec 17, 2005
"Wake up, America. In addition to giving away the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to the oil companies, the Defense appropriations bill is rumored to contain a massive holiday gift to the pharmaceutical industry in the form of liability immunity for pandemic vaccines. The liability is not the reason for vaccine shortages, especially in the case of avian flu.
"This giveaway will not result in increased vaccine production. Why does Big Pharma want these liability exemptions? Because there is reason to doubt the safety of at least one of these vaccines. Chiron, the same company which allowed contamination of half of last year's flu vaccine supply, is hoping to use MF59 in an avian flu vaccine. MF59 is a compound that contains squalene, which is on the short list of potential causes for the chronic debilitating illnesses experienced by our veterans of the first Persian Gulf war.
"At a minimum, this issue must be debated in front of the American people, not slipped in behind closed doors into this large bill. I urge my colleagues to reject this liability immunity."
Fact Seven
Military Recruiters Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House
Link to this entry in the Congressional Record
Mar 14, 2006
Speaking in opposition to H. Con. Res. 354, Expressing Support of Congress Regarding Access of Military Recruiters to Institutions of Higher Education, Congressman Kucinich said:
"Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman [D.K. Butterfield, D-NC] for the recognition to speak so that I can make my remarks with the proper perspective.
"My father, Frank Kucinich, was a World War II Marine Corps veteran.
"My brother Frank Kucinich, Jr., was a Vietnam veteran in the Marines. My brother Gary Kucinich was a Marine Corps veteran, 1968 to 1972. My sister Beth Ann Kucinich served in the United States Army. I would have served as well except that I was not able to get in as I have a heart murmur.
"We have a tradition of service in my family. My nephew Gary Kucinich, my brother Gary's son, is in Iraq right now. But having said all that, I want to say that while I believe it is honorable to serve our country and we should praise those who do serve, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 354 and in support of the necessity and importance of nondiscrimination policies.
"The military's misguided Don't Ask, Don't Tell ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual servicemembers is clearly not compatible with university policies that prohibit campus recruiting by employers who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
"There is no lack of 'equal' access for any employer that seeks to recruit on America's college campuses, assuming those employers do not discriminate. But granting access to an employer, whether military, private sector or otherwise, that fails to meet a school's nondiscrimination policy is not equal access, but special access. It is a unique right to discriminate, granted only to the military.
"This Congress should be leading the way in the fight against discrimination, not supporting policies that allow the military to sidestep nondiscrimination policies. We should ensure that all men and women who wish to serve in the Armed Forces are allowed to do so by repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
"Requiring schools to suspend their nondiscrimination policies for military recruiters and their openly discriminatory policies is a step backwards. Rather than condone and supporting these discriminatory policies, this Congress should work diligently to eliminate the need for nondiscrimination policies. I urge my colleagues to take the lead in the fight against discrimination. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill."
[Ed. note: H. Con. Res. 354 was agreed to by recorded vote: 347 - 65 in
Source:
http://www.kucinich.us/
==================
Those are plenty of facts revelant to our interests, and to our principles.
Engage them. Tell us where you diverge.
Kenneth Warren
