Dear Comrades,
I am pitching for Ralph Nader. I would like to present arguments
for Nader and against Clinton/Dole for the upcoming presidential election
on Novermber 5th. I am hoping to convert some of you who have not decided
whether to vote for Clinton or stay home, and hopefully, those who are sold
for my argument might convert others so that we can have some decent
showing for someone who fought for so long for the consumer, and who is
genuinely an alternative to the Clinton/Dole ticket. In addition, a
discussion for whom we should vote is important because many of us still
tend to vote for the lesser of the two, three, or four evils.
Some of you might have been exposed to the arguments presented
below. I am submitting it for the benefit of those who have not been. . . .
I have compiled my arguments (most are direct quotes) from
following publications.
1. AGAINST THE CURRENT (September/October, 1996):
a) "A Letter from the Editors."
b) "Ralph Nader and the Greens," by Walt C. Sheasby.
2. THE NATION (October 14, 1996):
a) "The Case for Nader," by Marc Cooper and Micah L. Sifry.
3. E-MAIL from Janice Shields, Subject: "CEOs Want Balance Budget; Won't Give Up
Corporate Welfare," posted by D Shniad.
4. BUSINESS WEEK (October 14, 1996):
a) "Editorials."
5. THE ECONOMIST (October 19, 1996).
-------------------------------------------------------
THE CASE FOR NADER PRESIDENCY
We have to reject two-party Tweedledom. Instead we vote for
consumer advocate and Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, the only candidate
who stands for the principles we fight for.
Here are reasons why we should not vote for the Clinton/Dole
ticket. Think of what Clinton and Dole agree upon:
§ that cash assistance to poor children should no longer be a federal
guarantee, while $167 billion in corporate welfare should go untouched.
§ that Medicare and Medicaid should be cut while military spending is
increased.
§ that the private market is the only way to reform health care.
§ that the death penalty should be expanded and jails should continue
to fill with nonviolent drug offenders and those ensnared in "three
strikes, you're out " laws. Both also agree on the speedy imposition
of the death penalty under "omnibus anti-crime bill."
§ that civil liberties should be sacrificed to fight "terrorism."
§ that free trade should come before the interests of workers.
§ that gays should be denied spousal Social Security and pension
benefits, immigration rights, visitation rights, etc.
§ that it's fine to water down the Delaney Clause, which keeps
carcinogens out of our food; weaken the Endangered Species Act;
and let the timber industry ravage our forests.
§ that a $5.15 minimum wage is enough, although it fails to lift a
family of four above the federal poverty level.
§ that we should continue to spend $100 billion a year "defending"
Europe and East Asia.
§ that energy policy should be founded on military support for the
dictators of Saudi Arabia and the other oil kingdoms.
§ that the current system of financing elections works just fine.
§ that freedom for capital should replace unionized jobs with the
cheapest possible labor under the banner of "globalization,"
"competitiveness" and "free trade."
§ that an attack on immigrants and their children, including attempts
to deprive them of education and health care. Listen what Business Week
editorial said, STOP ATTACKING IMMIGRANTS:
Immigrant-baiting is as loathsome as race-baiting, and it is used
for the same ugly political purposes. Expelling children of immigrants
from public schools is self-defeating. So is denying federally funded
AIDS treatment for legal immigrants. The new welfare bill penalizes
legal immigrants by curbing access to Medicaid and food stamps.
Stigmatizing immigrants by pols playing the blame game cannot be
tolerated.
Truth is, the average education of incoming legal immigrants is higher
than the average education of the US work-force. Many have advanced
degrees in engineering, science, and math. Where would America's
high-tech industry be without immigrants? Immigration also boosts
the country's entrepreneurial energy. Immigrant entrepreneurs are
revitalizing neighborhoods in cities all over the country.
Aging boomers will need all the hard workers they can get to support
them in their retirement. Those workers won't be there in 10 or 15
years if the country relies solely on domestic population growth.
Educated working-age immigrants might reduce social tensions while
raising economic growth for the entire nation. That is something we
can discuss. Immigrant-baiting is something we cannot.
Eighty-two percent of people surveyed by a Harris Poll respond that
"the government works for the few and not for the majority of people." More
than 80% think the economy is "inherently unfair," 70% that business has
too much power over public life, and 95% that corporations should sacrifice
some profits for the benefit of their employees, communities, and
environment.
These are choices, however, that the US electorate cannot register
in the November 5 presidential election, except by voting for Green
candidate Ralph Nader. According to Harris, around half will throw their
votes away by staying home, while most of the rest waste theirs by voting
for the Clinton/Dole ticket. These two and their parties' candidates belong
to the top 1% of the wealthy elites, and their campaign money come from
millionaires whose interests they represent.
CEOs DEMAND BALANCED BUDGET BUT WON'T GIVE UP CORPORATE WELFARE.
CEOs of 91 companies signed a letter to President Clinton, Senate Majority
Leader Dole, House Speaker Gingrich and all members of Congress last
December, calling on the President and Congress to balance the budget.
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader responded by sending letters to all of the
signatories of the CEOs' letter, asking them to identify federal subsidies
and tax breaks that benefit their corporations and to select the subsidies
and tax expenditures that the CEOs would agree to begin to forego
immediately in order to help balance the budget. More than five months
later and after Ralph Nader's Corporate Welfare Project contacted a second
time the signatories to the balanced budget letter, none of the 91 CEOs
have identified even one federal subsidy or tax break that their companies
would give up to help balance the budget. "This is the ultimate form of
corporate hypocrisy," said Ralph Nader. "Wealthy CEOs demand a balanced
budget, but refuse to take their snouts out of the federal corporate
welfare trough," added Nader.
Nader pointed out in his letter to the CEOs that if Congress
abolished only five subsidies for corporations, $5.12 billion in federal
spending would be saved in fiscal year 1996. If only five tax breaks for
businesses were eliminated, $46.4 billion in additional federal revenue
would be collected in 1996. These ten subsidies and tax breaks will total
$51.52 billion in 1996. In its annual report, Aid for Dependent
Corporations (AFDC), the Corporate Welfare Project identified 153 examples
of 1995 federal corporate welfare totaling $167 billion.
Nader says, "Dole is not going to criticize corporate welfare.
Clinton is not going to criticize corporate welfare either." In 1995, Kodak
received tax breaks of $37 million, and Chevron deferred $4 billion in
taxes as of the end of its 1995 fiscal year through the scheme of
accelerated depreciation. Union Carbide received $200 million from OPIC (a
government agency) in 1995 for its investment in Kuwait. Allied Signal
received $1.2 million technology grant in 1995. The CEOs call for balancing
the federal budget, but won't give up their federal subsidies and tax
breaks. They just want balance budget on the backs of low and moderate
income families.
While Clinton's one high mark is for his defense of a woman's right
to choose, a President Dole would be unlikely to push legislation making
abortion illegal. At most, Dole would favor marginally deeper cuts in
social programs, which would probably be blocked by a revival of
grass-roots and Democratic opposition.
And if, by some unlikely event, Clinton is denied re-election by
Nader's vote in a few key states, something more important will have been
achieved. The Greens will have snapped the four-year cycle of promise,
betrayal and surrender that afflicts the voters, and would be on the way to
building an independent movement to be taken seriously.
Voting for Nader is not a waste as some might consider. Nader's
candidacy is about taking a first step, breaking from two-party "gridlock"
and joining the struggle to right the country's power imbalance.
Nader candidacy is on the ballot in 34 states with an electoral
college vote of 285. Since there are 538 electoral college votes, a
presidential candidate must garner a minimum of 270 to win the election.
Nader will have sufficient electoral college votes to win the presidency
for the third party. Nader candidacy will break the two-party duopoly and
open the ballot to more than two alternatives, which will encourage citizen
participation in the political process. His focus to End Corporate Welfare
by putting people before profits is an important first step in the right
direction.
Nader ran as a write in non-candidate--none of the above in 1992
election to break the DemRep taboos. Nader wants a civic rebellion in
Jefferson style. In his campaign in 1992, he said:
Without a reconstruction of our democracy in order to ensure
facilities for informed civic participation to all citizens,
no ambitious program of political and economic change will succeed.
Nor can worries about poverty, discrimination, joblessness, the
troubled conditions of education, environment, street and suite crime,
budget deficits, costly and inadequate health care, and energy
boondoggles be addressed in a constructive and enduring way.
The purpose of a populist crusade, he said in 1992, is "not just to
feed the hungry--who'll be needing another meal in six hours--or to shelter
the homeless--who'll be out on the street tomorrow--but to provide
opportunities for education, employment and low-cost housing that will free
these people from the cycle of poverty. The key is to go for systematic
change."
Nader's willingness, as a prominent advocate of consumer and worker
protection, to defy the two-party system is an important service to break
the political logjam. And his success with our votes is a great service to
the people who rescue the political process from corrupt professional
politicians and their wealthy backers.
VOTE FOR NADER AND DON'T VOTE FOR REPUBOCRAT.
Fikret
PS: I sent a copy of this piece to our local paper whose editor declined to
publish it on the ground that Nader is not on the ballot in North Dakota.
*+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
+Fikret Ceyhun voice: (701)777-3348 work +
+Dept. of Economics (701)772-5135 home +
+Univ. of North Dakota fax: (701)777-5099 +
+University Station, Box 8369 +
+Grand Forks, ND 58202/USA e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +
*+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
