Letter to Franken Regarding Votes on Free Trade Agreements

To Senator Al Franken (D-MN):

Thank you so much for voting no on the Panamanian and Columbian Free Trade Agreements.

I'm not sure why you would vote yes on the South Korean FTA. As I understand it, the deal would allow South Korean firms to sell their goods here tariff-free. However, over 47,000 North Korean laborers are currently performing work for over 120 South Korean firms doing business in North Korea, and this FTA does nothing to curb abuses of those workers.

Basically, we are encouraging the importation of goods into this country that are made by workers being paid 35 cents an hour, with those workers laboring in the Kaesong Industrial Complex in North Korea under conditions which are among the worst in the world, according to the AFL-CIO.

It is bad enough that manufacturing in this country has been decimated by corporations relocating overseas (or closing because of unfair competition). Must we encourage abuses of laborers in other countries, too?

Reply to Social Security Doubter

Comment: I've been paying into the Social Security System for over 20 years...I don't expect to see a dime of it when I retire. Leave it to the government to be fiscally irresponsi­ble. No one can even explain how the system is even sustainabl­e with the amount of retirees vs. people still working.

Reply to Comment: The system is sustainable because there's such a big surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund; it was anticipated years ago that there would be an increase in benefits paid out when Baby Boomers retired. Social Security running a deficit does not mean the program is insolvent. It means that it is drawing down from its 2.6 trillion trust fund (a fund which finances part of the national debt through the purchase of special Treasury Bonds).

Social Security can pay out every dime owed for the next 26 years with no changes to payroll taxes, retirement ages or benefits; after that, it can still pay out four-fifths of obligations. The only thing needed to "fix" Social Security is an increase in the salary cap at which payroll taxes cease to be collected. That cap is fixed at $106,800. (That means that people who make a million dollars pay an effective payroll tax almost 10 times less than people making $100,000.) Raising that cap to adjust for inflation would finance Social Security 100% through at least 2084.

So if you want and can afford to invest in a 401(K) or a Roth IRA or some other company pension plan, go right ahead. Social Security will still be there for you, even when the stock market tanks, you or your company goes bankrupt, or your financial adviser runs off with your retirement funds. Just don't screw with the most successful program ever that keeps millions out of poverty (look up poorhouses).

Obama's New Trade Deal Negotiations Favoring Profits Over People

I have just read about current trade negotiations with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) seeking more restrictive intellectual property laws in Vietnam and seven other Pacific nations. This, of course, will drive up medicine costs by giving companies long-term monopolies overseas. It will also "de-incentivize" drug companies from developing newer drugs.

The negotiations seek to export the American patent regime, long maligned as fueling the highest drug prices of any nation (along with the no-negotiation law that Medicare Part D suffers under).

This "junk patent" scheme will not only cause many deaths in those third-world countries, but will increase substantially the cost of foreign aid spent on medicines for relief programs for people lucky enough to get assistance.

Why is a Democratic president aiding in this scheme to maximize corporate profits at the expense of poor people and American taxpayers? Isn't 30 years of favoring large corporations and the wealthy over the middle class and the poor enough? Is there no point at which the president will take a stand against regressive and oppressive Republican policies?

I would suggest that Obama take a serious look at his chief-of-staff (former board member of one of the big drug companies), his economic team (an alarming number of whom are former officials of Goldman-Sachs), his negotiators with the Office of U.S. Trade Representative (who previously advocated corporate interests over those of consumers and taxpayers), and any others that he is responsible for hiring.

This is not just another capitulation; this is cronyism and hypocracy. We invested so much getting Obama into office to change things, and betrayals like this are heart-breaking.