at least that is how I read this. Apparently we are not supposed to be hostile to that concept. And I am not very fond of the idea, so I guess he is talking about me.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/fab9e1f2-c4d0-11da-b7c1-0000779e2340.html"Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and most influential Democratic economic adviser, launched an initiative on Wednesday aimed at influencing the economic policy debate and charting a course “diametrically opposed to the current policy regime”."
Okay, that part is all right. Then the part about our being hostile, which is confusing to me, as he then goes on to merit pay for teachers and vouchers for summer school....which is a non sequitor in my mind.
"Although the board, which includes Wall Street executives and academics, is dominated by Democrats, Mr Rubin denied that the project was driven by purely partisan motivations.
The initiative defended open competition and trade at a time when some Democrats have become more hostile to the foreign ownership of US assets, but it called for a stronger government role in helping those affected by globalisation. Mr Altman said more inclusive economic growth could “blunt the political
Yes, I do find myself a little hostile to the idea of foreign countries owning our assets. And I don't see anything wrong with feeling that way.
I don't see how this part really fits, though. Why mention vouchers and teacher merit pay.
And to be quite frank, if I read these paragraphs correctly...it sounds like they are on board with Bush and personal accounts for Social Security. The Hamilton Project, which will be based at the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, will be run by Peter Orszag, an economist and senior fellow at Brookings. Policy papers unveiled yesterday proposed vouchers for summer schools and giving teachers tenure based on standards for effectiveness. “That is not consistent with certain orthodoxies we are familiar with. I think that’s a fairly controversial proposal. I wouldn’t say that’s a yawner,” said Mr Altman.
The white paper also called for entitlement reform but acknowledged the political constraints that helped stall Mr Bush’s drive to reform Social Security. “The principal problem is one of political choice and will and what is most needed is a bipartisan approach for deciding among the options,” it said.
Barack Obama, a Democrat senator from Illinois, welcomed the initiative as a way of transcending “tired ideologies”.
I was pretty much thought wrong for posting something yesterday about even the thought of privatizing, personal accounts, whatever they want to call it...and also for the issue of teacher merit pay. One person was very upset with teachers passsing a child along when they were not up to par, but they probably don't realize that many counties set that promotion policy for teachers. No choice is given at times.
So I took grief, but I was fair in what I posted. I don't like what Bob Rubin is putting forth here. There are two reasons. It sounds like we are going to be just like the other party in praising foreign ownership, in turning Social Security into personal accounts
(which in turn will kill the program for those now in it because there won't be money coming in), and they are absolutely determined to make teachers have merit pay.
It that is what people want, if that is how it is going to go, then I am very concerned. I am concerned about Rubin's devotion to free trade above all, and I will quote two paragraphs from the 04 campaign.
This is from an article by William Greider
http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1126-13.htmThe governor has shown flashes of the same bluntness in his prime-time campaigning. Last summer, he told a revealing story on himself--a conversation with Robert Rubin, the former Treasury Secretary and Wall Street's main money guy for Democrats. Rubin had warned that unless Dean stopped attacking NAFTA and the multinationals for the migration of US jobs, he couldn't raise contributions for him from the financial sector. As Dean told it, "I said, 'Bob, tell me what your solution is.' He said, 'I'll have to get back to you.' I haven't heard from him." What I like so much about the story is that powerful, influential Bob Rubin pokes Dean in the chest, and he pokes him back. Then Dean discloses the exchange to the Washington Post.
In the higher realms of politics, this is not done. But he is not one of them. And this is no longer the era for "triangulation" between the business-financial money patrons and the party's main constituencies. That new spirit, more than any single issue, is what has drawn together Dean's vibrant and growing base, buoying his candidacy with millions in small contributions. Dean is opening the possibility of transforming politics--shaking up the tired, timid old order, inviting plain-wrapper citizens back into an active role--and that's why so many people, myself included, are for him. Full disclosure: I am among the throngs who have been invited to contribute "forward-looking ideas" to his campaign (I was flattered to be asked and pleased to oblige, with no naïve expectations).
I hope the Governor still wants to transform politics.
I guess we have to wait and see. So you will have to just fuss at me all over again today. My gut instinct tells me we are heading the way of one-party more each day. I guess I will try to keep speaking fairly, even when accused of making stuff up as I was yesterday....and I posted only truth.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
