Clark criticizes front-runner Dean's business proposal

[Rose Siding]

BROOKLINE, Mass. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark criticized rival Howard Dean on Wednesday, arguing that the front-runner's business proposal is a throwback to failed Republican policies and abandons the success of former President Clinton.
The retired Army general, in the harshest assessment of a rival to date, said Dean's plan to re-regulate U.S. businesses is a major departure from Clinton, who strongly backed deregulation of energy and telecommunications markets.

"The results in the '90s spoke for themselves," Clark said at a brief news conference in which he referred to Clinton by name six times. "Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again."

Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom.

Responding to Clark's criticism, Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright said Wednesday, "Under the Bush administration, the balance of power has shifted against the American people and toward greedy pharmaceutical companies, powerful energy corporations and media monopolies. If Democrats are not concerned with protecting consumers, workers and the average American, then they are truly out of touch."
more....................

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-11-19-clark-dean_x.htm

[Khephra]

1. Strike two!

The Flag Burning stance was strike one. This is strike two for me.

Please, Clark, don't let there be a strike three. You're in the anti-IW camp. I'll vote for you, if it comes to that. But you are totally wrong on both those issues.

[MidwestTransplant]

28. There's only one thing to save this economy and it's PRIVATIZATION

of the administration, that is! Privatize Bush!

[RetroLounge]

90. You got that right!

Send bush back to crawford, as a private (Citizen)

[Atman]

74. Have to agree with you on this one...

This is my strike two, too!

Actually, the flag burning issue was 2.5 of the 3. This may just set it over the top. Clark really is turning out to be just another repubican. The trouble is, Bush is so far extreme right that Clark seems centrist by comparison. But he is not.

We are being lulled into complacency by the republican "Plan B." I feel it in my gut.

Clark is just the stealth candidate to keep the republicans in control should they lose control. It would all make so much sense, if it weren't for the fact that he keeps saying such stupid, republican things. How is going to fool us like that?

[Voltaire99]

88. Agreed. The Liberal Bombardier is smelling worse and worse

Clarks' twilight discovery that he is a closet liberal was always hard to buy.

The waving of liberal credentials early on can now be interpreted as suppressive fire; this was to keep liberals pinned down - distracted from thinking about his reprehensible NATO performance, in particular, and more generally from asking why in the midst of a sickening illegal war we'd want to surrender our republic to a general anyway.

But having gained little ground with his affirmative action and abortion positions, Clark's seen he can't dislodge Dean. That leaves few options short of pandering to the right and center-right. And how eagerly the Liberal Bombardier does so!

[Closer]

2. And Trippi Responds!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 19, 2003

Contact: Dean for America Press Office [phone]

Campaign Manager Joe Trippi Responds to Clark, Lieberman Attacks

BURLINGTON - "Under the Bush Administration, the balance of power has
shifted away from the American people and toward the special interests
and large multinational corporations. When energy corporations write our
laws in the Vice President's office and media monopolies run roughshod
over consumers, not only do people suffer, but so does the innovative
spirit which has made our economy the envy of the world.

"Governor Dean has traveled the country and has heard time and again a
mistrust and concern about the power of large corporations over our
democracy and our markets. He believes we need a public dialogue to
ensure that our system works for consumers, workers and investors - not
simply to line the pockets of the special interests.

"If Dean's democratic opponents aren't concerned with protecting
consumers, investors, workers and the average American, then they are truly
out of touch."

[xultar]

5. That doesn't mean that regulation is the answer :kick: out the * Admin n/t

[quaker bill]

77. Regulation is the only answer short of nationalization

Utilities were invented as private companies. Regulation was invented later to stop the organized manipulation of supplies to increase prices by corrupt private enterprise. Deregulate electricity and what do you get? ENRON.

Right out of the box, free market speculators jumped in to artificially manipulate supplies and jack up prices. Regulation did not arise from some philosophical approach to governance, it was invented to curb the natural excesses of free enterprise in it's unregulated state. It was the only practical solution that fell short of outright nationalization.

Deregulation of telecom yeilds Worldcom.

Relaxing standards for companies to go public yeilds dot bombs.

Relaxing enforcement of accounting standards yeilds corporate malfeasance.

Re-regulation is the only answer.

[ozone_man]

38. Dean is right on here.

Multinational corporations are stealing our jobs and our country blind. So many jobs going to China and India. Enron economics. Wall Street shysters (SEC useless), multimedia companies running rampant, the list seems to go on endlessly.

Clark is wrong on this issue.

Strike 1: wrapped himself in the flag (no thanks we already have Bush)
Strike 2: supports deregulation of multinational corporations (no thanks we already have enron)
...

Dean learned alot while governor of VT, as did the American public about enron economics. He ventured into utility deregulation and was rebuffed IIRC by either the PSB or legislature. He has learned his lesson in the mid 90's.

Clinton lucked out by presiding over the largest bull market run in history. Whatever policies he had in deregulation merely set the stage for Bush II, to take it to the next level. Naturally, when the economy turned sour (not Bush's fault), the $#%@ hit the fan and enron economics was revealed. I mean really, 100:1 PE ratios or even 200:1 PE ratios of internet stocks. This was under Clinton, not Bush.

We are headed down, probably for a decade, in pretty much the same way as the late 20's led to the 30's. This time, we don't want the corporations to leave the rest of us holding the bag.

On edit: Bush's fault is to not recognize the threat established by Clinton, and has made it much worse in the past 3 years, regarding the economy, but also foreign affairs.

[CWebster]

43. Strike one would be

claims to oppose the war on tactical basis, cheerleads for Bush and Blair, and doesn't beome decisively anti-invasion until he declares himself a Democrat.

[ozone_man]

57. Of course, you're right,

but that's sort of like wrapping himself in the flag, my number 1, which he seems to do on a regular basis.

I'm following Kephra's lead with my own called strikes.

[JackSwift]

3. Criticizing the proposal and not the candidate? How

amazingly civil! I find Dean more appealing than the rest, but Clark sure has class.

[xultar]

7. That's my guy! Clark gets it, it's not personal. Dean is a great guy

but regulation is not the way. Don't dis Dean Dis his idea. All Dean should realy do is ASK RUSSIA. Cuz their gov ran shit into the ground and now they aint got nuttin'.

[Khephra]

32. And I highly respect him for that

Hats off to him.

He's one of the four people I'll vote for in a second without a moments hesitation.

[Khephra]

37. Now this makes me curious

Do you want to explain your feelings/thoughts on this issue?

[CWebster]

47. this is a joke on a progressive website

considering how the spirit of deregulation has gouged and looted our country. Your blind idol worship prevents you from even acknowledging a betrayal of everything Progressives oppose. You would rather overlook the essential meaning of what Clark is conveying and search for a reason to compliment Clark while distracting the focus.

[Myra]

58. Uh, that's what I was gonna say.

But not as well as JackSwift.

General Clark is stating why he'd take a different stance
from Governor Dean. He's not attacking Dean the person,
saying his nose looks like a banana or something.

I've criticized Clark when he's taken a stance I dislike
(the flag burning ammendment for example). I've written to
him and told him so. But I don't see where he said the
slightest thing wrong here.

The Democratic candidates do have to deliniate their positions
kephra. Are you seriously expecting them to refrain from
ever pointing out when their views differ on important issues?

[Pastiche423]

59. Do you

like your candidate, support de-regulation?

[Myra]

62. Pastiche423, you jump into every Clark thread to criticize him

And it's totally off topic here.

If you want to discuss deregulation
and give a reliable source for your
vague claim, then please do so.

Meanwhile I'll just stay on topic in this
thread.

[CWebster]

67. Wow, talk about complete and utter denial

how sad.

[Myra]

71. What are you referring to CWebster?

The request for a source for the Clark basher's
vague claim, or the request for a separate thread
for the topic?

[Pastiche423]

76. What is off topic about regulation/de-regulation?

It's the part of Dean's plan that clark criticized.

[Myra]

86. Oh sorry Pastiche423, total brain cramp

I was thinking this thread was about whether Clark was out of line
to criticize Dean's policy, based on the quote I saw here.
Regulation/De-regulation is the other big point here.

Tell you what. People, like me, who are on the West Coast
haven't even been able to watch the interview yet.
It's frustrating being so out of synch.
So I'll watch at 8pm PT and see what I think of Clark's comments
in context.

'Cause there's no doubt in my mind that de-regulation has legalized
corruption in many industries, and is part of the GOP evil
master plan.

[Khephra]

60. I do want to re-compliment Clark here

I DO NOT agree with him here...but he is showing class about how he is doing it.

[CWebster]

68. ?

Yes, I suppose there were very polite and gracious slave owners, and I understand that Hitler was fond of pets. what does Hitler's kindness to animals have to do with that elephant in the room?

[Khephra]

110. In answer to your question

"Are you seriously expecting them to refrain from
ever pointing out when their views differ on important issues?"

Not at all. He's just flat out wrong on this stance. I'm glad he pointed out his differences. That allows us to choose our primary pick.

[xultar]

4. The problem is that the BUSH administration allowed their friends

to get GREEDY. Everything was FINE when CLINTON was in office. Everyone was makin DOUGH!

[Skwmom]

31. Yes, if FERC and other oversight bodies would have done their

job the state of California would not have been ripped off by Enron. So you re-regulate. Under a crooked administration all they have to do is make sure that the body that overseas regulation is bought and paid for. That hardly solves the problem.

[Lorien]

55. "Everything" was not fine

I didn't give a damn about Monica, but Clintons actions re: NAFTA and the telecommunications act of 1996 really pissed me off and DIDN'T do anything for the American people. I voted for Clinton twice, I respect the man and think he did a great job overall, but I'm not blindly loyal. He screwed up there and the damage needs to be undone.

[Classical_Liberal]

113. The congress and Clinton allowed this greed to start

at that time. We just didn't know about it until Bush was elected, because frankly Bush was the result of all that deregulation, particularly in the media.

[xultar]

6. So Dean supporters are saying that what Clinton did was bad?

I'm tryin to understand... Please help me understand

[Pastiche423]

8. Do you believe that

de-regulation has been good for our country? And if so, how?

[xultar]

10. I just remember how I was doing during the early 90's under Clinton

When shrubs people took over they took all of the money for themselves.

I was makin a whole lot more $$$ under Clinton

[Khephra]

24. You ever think it was because we were at peace?

and the technology boom was happening? Deregulation didn't have a thing to do with those two aspects of our national situation.

[Khephra]

39. And an additonal question

What were you doing to make money during those years?

[Eloriel]

98. Whoooboy

Didit ever occur to you that some of what happened in the 90s -- the parts that you weren't even remotely aware of, apparently -- could have set up conditions that led to things like Enron, Worldcomm, and a bunch of other stuff like pensions all over the place being severely underfunded, not to mention all those individuals who don't have much left of their once hefty 401K plans?

Yeah, the 90s were good. No, they WEREN'T perfect, and a lot of what went on during those years we're paying for now.

Eloriel

[Khephra]

12. Not everything every Democrat does is good for the country

Clinton is no exception. Sometimes the greater public good has to come before the economy.

Anyone who thinks utilities and the media don't need to be re-regulated has been sleeping though the past 6 or so years, at least.

[xultar]

14. So in this case then Dean could be wrong...when he wins and reregulates

down the road we'll find out that re-regulation didn't work.

[Khephra]

22. We've already seen that utility and media deregulation has

major problems. MAJOR problems. It already doesn't work.

Do you like the media now? Do you think ownership rules are fine? Do you like the utility situation where is stands now?

Stop attacking and try to answer some of these issues. I LIKE Clark, but he's DEAD WRONG on this issue.

[Khephra]

41. Also you are arguing that Dean will fail

without seeing him fail?

Should I call you Casandra or Nostradomis? I sure can't read the future...I don't even try. I'm glad you know what will happen. It sounds like we get a Dean Presidency. WHOHA! :toast:

[Classical_Liberal]

114. Clinton's deregulation of the media in 1996

set the stage for both Monica and Bush. The party needs to move past Clinton.

[Spazito]

9. Hmmm, I am not sure I agree with Clark on this one...

depending on what REAL teeth he would give the SEC to enforce existing regulations. One of the reasons for the expansion of corporate greed is the lack of enforcement.

[xultar]

11. That's the key enforcing the CURRENT REGULATIONS instead

of letting SHRUBS friends take all the dough!

[Khephra]

13. I hate to tell you this

But the Bushies have been further deregulating things since they stole office. To even get it back to the Clinton years level of regulation would take...RE-Regulation.


Just kicking the Bushies out wouldn't be enough. At the very minimum, the old clinton standards would have to be applied. And that won't happen without more regulation.

[Spazito]

15. Good point!

It doesn't make much sense to me for Clark not to say he would go back to the regulations that were in place when Clinton was in power seeing as he states that it worked well during Clinton's time.

[xultar]

16. DeRegulation - A good Story - BELL SOUTH...

Used to be I was forced to have BELL SOUTH they had the south locked down. Now they have been forced to allow other compeitors in. Things have been great. Prices have lowered and I have a CHOICE instead of being forced to take substandard service from a company I HATE

[Eloriel]

99. Uh, my experience is completely different

And I live in the South too.

Service has gone to hell -- customer service isn't even polite anymore, let alone helpful. Every time it rains my connection speed gets cut in half (BellSouth owns the lines), and prices are ridiculous.

I'd GLADLY have re-regulation where the prices are kept in line. For some reason BellSouth had plenty of time, and the inclination, to deliver great service.

Eloriel

[w4rma]

102. That's not an example of deregulation

That's an example of trust busting.

[Khephra]

33. Also, let me add...

What current regulations do you think need enforced? I'm curious.

[Khephra]

17. I don't remember if this passed...but here is an press release

on the effects that one of Clinton's de-regulation plans would have.

(Can someone tell me if this passed or not?)

Just because Clinton did it, that doesn't make it OK.

................

INITIAL RESPONSE OF THE
UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
TO THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S
COMPREHENSIVE ELECTRICITY COMPETITION PLAN



On March 25, 1998, the U.S. Department of Energy released the Clinton
Administration's long-anticipated electricity deregulation plan, called the
Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan. This plan has been touted as pro-
consumer and pro-environment. In fact, it is neither. The plan benefits only
large industrial companies, the larger electric utility companies and the
power marketers. The majority of the country's population: residential consumers,
workers, seniors, small businesses, the poor, the disabled, the rural consumers and the
environment will be harmed under this plan, despite subsidizing the benefits
to big business. Its flaws confirm our deep-seated belief that federal
legislation on deregulation should not be considered or enacted.
Here are our specific concerns about the Plan:

1. The only consumers who will benefit from deregulation are large industrial
and commercial businesses-not residential consumers.
The Clinton Plan is premised on the big hidden lie in deregulation-that all
consumers are equal. Legitimate studies of electrical deregulation show that
industrial and large commercial customers will fare significantly better with
competition than residential and small business customers. This plan ignores
those studies and operates on the assumption that all consumers have the same
needs and will benefit from the same structure. Obviously, this makes no
sense. Bulk power users, such as major corporations with lots of resources
and backup, mainly care about price, while residential consumers want
assurance that the lights will go on when they flick the switch.

2. The suggested rate reductions are merely speculative, not guaranteed.
While the plan suggests that all consumers will get a reduction in their
electric bills, there is no support for this assertion in either the plan or
the government's own study, which actually show that prices may rise for
residential consumers under deregulation.

Even the proposed savings in the plan are speculative. Less than half of the
very modest yearly savings projected represents a real reduction in the
electric bill. The rest is supposed to be realized indirectly: lower prices
of consumer goods and services passed through by large industrial and
commercial users who get the huge rate reductions. This theory, "trickle-down
Reaganomics," simply doesn't work. Past experience demonstrates that the
money saved by big corporations will not be passed through to consumers or
workers by more or better jobs, price reductions of consumer goods or other
benefits. The savings will go straight to upper management and the
stockholders.


3. There is no protection for workers in this plan.
The plan does not mention employees or workers or recognize the dramatic,
negative effect deregulation will have on employees of electric utilities
companies. It does not appear that the Administration has even acknowledged
that the lives of utility company employees may be irrevocably disrupted.

There is no incentive in the plan for utility companies or regulatory agencies
to remedy the anticipated hardships that many utility employees will face
under deregulation. The three-million-dollar Public Benefit Fund (PBF) which
will be established does not provide matching funds for costs related to
insuring minimal economic disruption to employees of electric utility
companies.

4. Stranded cost recovery should include stranded human investment.
The plan endorses the principle that utility companies should be able to
recover "prudently incurred, legitimate and verifiable retail stranded costs
that cannot be reasonably mitigated." These must include stranded human
investment. The utility companies are only likely to provide employee
benefits if their costs are recoverable as part of their stranded cost
recovery.


5. Although the plan calls itself a flexible mandate for retail competition,
it is in actuality a firm, difficult-to-disengage-from mandate.
The plan forces every state to deregulate under the specific guidelines
established unless the state affirmatively opts out. This is very unlikely to
occur. First, the state has to make a showing that an alternative plan would
better serve consumers. Second, the big corporate interests will spend
massive amounts of money to keep every state in. Finally, it is always hard
for a state to take legislative action to refuse to participate in a
federally-mandated program.

6. Too much power-over retail transmission, mergers, market power and other
critical aspects of deregulation-is centralized at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Although the plan superficially continues oversight within the states of
numerous issues likely to arise in competition, the plan actually consolidates
the power of FERC over many aspects of competition:
* Remedy wholesale market power,
* Remedy market power in retail markets, upon petition of state,
* Establish a stranded cost recovery mechanism if a state lacks such
authority,
* Repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) and provide FERC with
additional access to the books and records of holding companies,
* Jurisdiction over the merger or consolidation of electricity utility holding
companies and generation-only companies,
* Approve formation of and oversee a utility-run organization to address
mandatory reliability standards,
* Authority to require transmitting utilities to turn over operational control
of transmission facilities to an independent system operator, and
* Consolidate FERC authority over retail transmission, reinforce authority to
promulgate Order 888 and apply open access rules to municipal utility
cooperatives.

While some of these concepts may sound appealing, we are concerned too much
authority is being consolidated in one agency and that all decisions on every
state's energy system will be made by the five FERC Commissioners in
Washington, DC.

7. The plan's concept of monopoly market power looks at individual geographic
areas instead of the whole energy market.
The Administration's plan worries about market monopolies of specific
locations rather than the real concern that a few companies will own and
control the entire energy market. Has the Administration forgotten that the
Public Utility Holding Company Act, which it now wants repealed, was enacted
to stop a handful of companies from controlling the entire energy delivery
system in the country?

Instead of stripping mostly unionized, community based, regulated local
utilities companies of all functions except transmission and distribution, the
Administration should halt the on-going wave of giant utility mergers and the
likely consolidation of the market in ten to fifteen mega companies. The
concentration of power in just a few companies will result in little choice
for consumers, low paying, low skilled jobs, and poor service and reliability.

8. The Plan recognizes that reliability and reserve capacity are in jeopardy
under competition but does not legislate that they be mandated and enforced by
public regulatory agencies.
The Clinton Administration appreciates that there will likely be serious
reliability and reserve capacity concerns in a deregulated market. Instead of
allowing states to legislate or regulate reliability standards, it proposes
only a "private self-regulatory organization that prescribes and enforces
mandatory reliability standards." The plan makes no provision for reserve
capacity to ensure adequate supply during peak loads.

The UWUA is very reluctant to rely on the companies looking to maximize profit
to privately self-structure the reliability of the nation's electric delivery
system and maintain sufficient reserve capacity. The UWUA believes that
continued public oversight is essential to the reliability, availability and
safety of our electric delivery system.

9. There is no real protection for rural consumers-the plan does not
acknowledge that a rural safety net is essential.
Despite the accepted wisdom that competition will have an adverse impact on
many, if not most, rural consumers, the plan only pays lip service to this
concern. Instead of guaranteeing protections for rural customers, it only
recommends that a rural safety net be established.

10. There are no protections for local communities drastically impacted by
lost tax revenues that may result from deregulation.
The proposal makes no provisions for the potential tax disasters that local
communities may experience when local tax laws are amended to conform to a
deregulated market. These tax losses to municipalities could endanger
schools, fire and police protection as well as the services provided by
thousands of other employees in the public sector.

11. The environmental protections are lukewarm.
The environmental groups are largely dissatisfied with the limited
environmental protections advanced in the plan. They do not believe they are
sufficient considering the major dismantling of the system that will occur in
order to obtain even these minimal environmental benefits.

12. This proposal is still only a plan and not a formal bill before Congress.
So far the Administration has only outlined its plan but not written specific
language in a bill to present to Congress. This suggests that it is not going
to be immediately considered for passage. However, there is concern that the
Department of Energy is working on legislative language or may attempt to
amend an existing bill to include certain aspects of this plan. Although it
is not expected, it is possible that this plan will be submitted to Congress
and considered sooner than predicted.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, this is a plan which will negatively impact numerous sectors of
our society, including workers and consumers. It does not meet the eleven
criteria that the UWUA set forth in our Position Paper as essential for a
valid, supportable deregulation plan. The proposed plan does not alter the
UWUA's position that federal legislation is ill-advised.

It is unfortunate that the Administration did not pay more attention to our
concerns and comments which were shared during a number of meetings with high
Administration Officials and the UWUA, the AFL-CIO and our friends in the
consumer and environmental movements.

The Administration's Plan should not be used as a springboard to rev up the
push to deregulate in the states, particularly those that have independently
concluded that deregulation is a bad idea for its citizens. In general, the
deregulation drive is dramatically losing steam in the states. This plan
cannot be utilized to reverse that trend.

We must be certain that it does not move forward towards enactment,
particularly since it does not recognize any concerns of our members or
consumers. In order to be certain that we will be protected, we must remain
active, vigilant and educated, and continue to build organized and vocal
public and union support for our position.

http://www.msuwc.org/uwuacecp.html

---

Even if this didn't pass (I can't remember), this should show you that not every de-regulation plan offered by Clinton was good for the People.

Clinton was human...damn human...and he made a lot of mistakes, no matter how good he was on other issues.

[xultar]

18. So the problems with the economy are Clinton's fault? and not *

So the downturn in the economy was going to happen even if GORE won cuz Clinton's policies were already too far.

[Rose Siding]

19. De-reg of the communications industry

was bad, regardless of who did it and I'll bet Gore would agree.

*I didn't read all about the elec de-reg post

[Khephra]

20. ???

I support Clark in his run, even though I'm a Deanie. He's just wrong on this one.

How in the hell you thought up that response, based on my post, is beyond me.

All I'm saying is that deregulation brought with it a host of unforseen problems.

And, as I said above, to get back to the "Clinton model of deregulation" would take re-regulation, since Bush has further deregulated it.

Or haven't you been paying attention these past three years?

[xultar]

21. nope, I've been to busy trying to keep my job to pay alot of attention

[Khephra]

29. So...you're willing to go after people who have been paying attention?

I'll tell you what issues Dean is wrong on anyday. That's the part of being a healthy supporter of a candidate. You have to weigh the good vs the bad. There is no perfect, right 100% of the time, politician.

I wish there were, but even JFK took two years before he could support the civil rights movement....and he was forced into doing it by others.

I'm curious...what is your job?

[xultar]

65. I implement business systems

[Khephra]

75. Can you be more vague?

what do you do daily for your job?

What in the hell is "business systems"?

[xultar]

83. Systems for Businesses, Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, servers

computers, that sort of thing. Business Systems security I guess how most of you guys get a pay check the systems I implement pay you.

[Khephra]

97. I do much the same thing

I make sure people get their pay check.

[OrAnarch]

34. hrm..

Your essential supporting a democratic candidate who is opting for "let it be" capitalism (almost a contradiction in terms). Im utterly confused how anyone besides libertarians and republicans can think Clark's points are relatively valid. Laissez-Faire is an unproven, truly untested theory which remains magically taoistic in nature, and any attempts at some level of implementation have led to complete ruin throughout human history. No matter how good the garbage sounds, its still garbage...the underlying fact contradicting this whole movement is simple: Humans are Stupid. If it could possibly ever work, Ken Lay would fuck it up.


Such theories provide all the incentive for every company to cut costs, maximize profits, and catapult their profits and riches, making our jobless economy boom (for them). But such theories provide ZERO incentive for the lower 98% of the people to, simply put, passively follow the rules and bend over daily. Such practices will surely lead to a phase of coorporate wealth, followed by, if not suppressed, a phase of social revolt. It is the classic battle of Liberalism vs Pure Capitalism (Totalitarianism). And whenever the "poor" collectively reach a point they can no longer accept their share of the GNP and standard of living they afford, you have trouble on your hands.


You must regulate, because if not, it will throw our society in polarized extremes leading to either a miserable existance in supperssion, or social revolt. Simply, existence will become, as history proves, less pleasurable. Our task is to find a balance to provide both incentive to profit (and an evironment to do so), and incentive for those who do not own coorporations to live under the "social contract". You must ensure everyone at the table is getting what they consider a fair deal, and as of now, with the current level of deregulation, there is only fairness to the companies who are expanding their profit margins daily by cutting corners (at our expense) or monopolizing markets.


Clark is wrong. His social and economic theories are dead wrong. This has truly made me reevalute my thoughts on him. Big time. I could never support a candidate who doesn't recognize the human condition, the social contract, and the system of liberalism, as it has stood in some form or another to progress the human race for thousands of years.

[CWebster]

49. You got it!,

Stick around and do not let this essential expose on who Clark really is beneath all the slick, manufactured persona, slip under the radar. It reveals something that he, and his handlers usually takes pains to gloss over.

[Eloriel]

100. Except, of course, when they're trying to

appeal to their corporate masters (and contributors!!)

Eloriel

[w13rd0]

27. unforseen problems...

...yeah, just look into how HMOs came about...


good ideas are often subverted by interests that go unchecked...

[w13rd0]

23. Maybe you missed it...

...but Gore would likely have done a bit of his own re-regulating. He's talked about what deregulation has done to the media. Many of the moves Clinton made were due to compromising with a hostile congress. We can grow without letting cancer of corruption go unchecked...regulation is required. We're not talking about going nuts and turning everything over to state control, we're talking about ensuring that business and government serve the interests of the people, and not the other way around...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

45. Simple.

we're talking about ensuring that business and government serve the interests of the people, and not the other way around...

I've got nothing against business, just unchecked and unmonitored business. That's all regulation is. Making sure people aren't getting gouged.

[Zhade]

107. Gore DID win. All progressives understand this.

NT!

[jbutsz]

25. The "Miracle" of the Economy during Clinton's admin

De-regulation, NAFTA, etc. was only a "success" because it let a boom loose in a free-reign market and everyone had a job because of the capital being pumped in, but with de-regulation comes over-speculation and hypervaluation of stocks. At least that's my understanding of it.

The Dot-Com bust is a perfect example. Our economy has to purge those excesses, which was now obviously not sustainable and not a true success.

Advocating the success of de-regulation when it's failure and harmful effects are now obvious is a bad move.

Perpetuating de-regulation may keep the economy from depressing, but there will be no return of market confidence without regulation and correction, and therefore no real recovery. We're pretty much screwed either way.

[xultar]

26. Borrowed from Stephen4Clark in another thread

Clark didn't criticize Dean, the person. He criticized the proposal.

The point is - re-regulation is essentially creating a duplication of existing laws. Investment companies ran amuck because the regulations in place weren't being ENFORCED. Regulation is there - there are bylaws and commissions in place to enforce those rules. The problem is that those charged with enforcement compromised their duties.

Re-regulation is essentially putting another band-aid over the existing one.

Clark said he would increase efforts to hold corporate America responsible for misconduct and indicated that in some instances, would go beyond the Clinton administration.

There are 2 ways to approach that: 1) create more rules and regulations or 2) build in incentives that discourage illegal and unethical practices. Clark is choosing the latter - which will not only prove in the end to be less costly to the companies who do make a good faith effort to abide by the law, but will also promote a more transparent business environment by having market participants who actively grow their businesses through good business practices, which in turn will provide and attract better employees and favorable publicity. In other words, market rewards for ethical behavior.

Don't intentionally misconstrue.

[Khephra]

30. Right there that's wrong

You keep assuming things are the same as they were under Clinton.

THEY'RE NOT.

BUSH has further deregulated everything, from the millitary to minimum wage workers.

To get back to the Clinton years would take reregulation.

Can't you get that through your head? Things are not the same as they were during Clinton. I could live under Clinton's deregulation, beacause, I feel, many of them were trying to help out the public.

Examine what's happened SINCE Clinton. We need to re-regulate just to get back to 1999.

[Cha]

35. Party_line was not misconstuing, "intentional" or

otherwise! The title was "Clark criticizes front-runner Dean's business proposal"

[cavebat2000]

36. Since when does Deregulation MEAN a better economy?

Someone prove that other than saying "clinton did". Thats not proof.

[quaker bill]

82. It doesn't

so don't count on any good answers. The source of growth in the 90's was productivity improvement through adoption of new technology, combined with an increase in minimum wage and low interest rates that drove demand.

The results of deregulation are the crap we have been trying to shake out of the economy since 2001.

[CWebster]

40. So he takes his marching orders from Clinton.

Clinton and his telecommunications act that deregulated the media and helped weaken the integrity and ethical standards of our press--turning it into a mouthpiece for corporate greed over public interests. Energy deregulation...not necessary to say more.

"Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again."

We know who his masters will be. What a disgrace!

What else does he have to say to convince anyone that he is not an asset or a wise choice to remedy the structural weaknesses that create our greatest problems. No way. This should be the failed test, for me it is the reaffirmation of what was already a suspicion. However you feel about Dean, his answer is the right one.

This article is bookmarked.

[Khephra]

44. Anyone know if Clark own any stock in any of these

industries that he feels shouldn't be re-regulated?

[54anickel]

42. I think Clark is mistaken on this, and I don't like the way he's touting

Clinton. The 90's were based on a LOT of different things, one was the huge gains in the Tech sector, PCs, laptops, CPUs, LANs, advances in electronics such as CD, DVD, TV, cable and satellite, NASA, etc. The tech sector created good paying jobs and increased discretionary income so housing, entertainment, restaurants, etc boomed as well.

Sure, Clinton had some good policies, but he also happened to be in the right place at the right time.

De-regulation really got some steam going under Raygun. I was in the banking industry in the 80s, one of the first big de-regulations. There was no interstate banking back then. I thought de-regulation of the banks was a bad idea then and still do, but it's not one of those things you want to go back and undo. Look how expensive banking has become, they charge for just about everything unless you keep a huge balance that pays crap for interest.

Regulations have their problems but throwing them out completely as Raygun on down have been doing was the wrong answer. Re-regulation and relaxing some regs would have been much better.

De-regulation of power utilities have also ended in a nightmare, with companies pocketing much more money than they put back into the infastructure.

Corporations by law and charter exist to make a profit for their shareholders. They need not be ethical or socially responsible. Thus self-regulation is seldom the correct answer.

[CWebster]

50. Don't forget the savings and loans

BAILOUT!

[54anickel]

52. HA Thanks, I did forget. I have a board game based on monolpy that

my boss at an investment firm put out called the Resolution Trust! It's a hoot, I'll have to dig that out. Lot's of quotes and priceless get out of jail cards.

[Rose Siding]

54. re: your point about energy dereg

and the failure to reinvest in infrastructure-

That doesn't just mean building new plants.

Ask a lineman how they feel about deregulation. In CA, they cut training time in half- for jobs where a slip up will melt the change in your pocket while you fry. In half!

[54anickel]

56. Yep, the poor maintenance of the power grid was also pointed to

during that huge power outage we recently had. Privatization had a role in that along with self-regulation.

[xultar]

69. So you're saying if the government was running the grid it would

be in better shape. PUHLEEZ.

Remember we thought the TSA would be better cuz we didn't want ShAniqua working at the airport security checkpoint.

Well I have news for you...ShAniqua is still there and weapons are still getting through.

[quaker bill]

81. It was in better shape when it was regulated

Puhleez. Deregulation is the source of nearly all the recent corporate malfeasance. ENRON, WorldCom, Global Crossing, the failure of the S&L's are just some of the tangible products. The list goes on and on.

Thing required to serve the long term public interest are not always profitable next quarter. If these investments show no immediate return, corporations will always be tempted to take a pass on them. Reregulation is the only answer.

[Toby109]

46. As far as I'm concerned that's part of the government's

damn job. There has to be a referee to oversee injustices in the system or "the People" will get screwed every time. This is not a government of , by and for the corporation. Sheesh...

[StephNW4Clark]

48. Deregulation: A look at how to do it properly vs. improperly

Given the debate concerning de-regulation, I would like to offer the following as-objective-as-I-can-be analysis.

I thought I would briefly summarize these points because it's often very easy for people to catch the buzz words and miss the nuances.

An often cited example decrying deregulation is the energy crisis in California. But is this a completely 100% fair assessment?

I'd say no. Not because there isn't ample evidence of consumer fraud and violations of public trust. The charge of deregulation doesn't really account for everything that happened.

California's energy crisis occurred during a period of deregulation, but was caused by the MISAPPLICATION of deregulation. Just with anything else, there is a RIGHT way and a WRONG way to approach an objective.

What failed in California were price controls on retail electric rates and an overly restricted wholesale market. Californians reduced the price rate by 10% and then froze those prices for 6 years. What occurred then was the DISINCENTIVE to conserve energy. Also, potential new suppliers were not attracted to investment in California because of those price restrictions which led to lack of competition in the energy markets.

One of the most serious mistakes made during the California years of deregulation was the decision to NOT allow utilities to enter long-term contracts. Why was this a mistake? Because it subjected the public to the price spikes that occurred seasonally. Instead of having stabilized prices, the public suffered because public utilities couldn't hedge against price spikes in the spot market.

Because of all these factors, CA residents ended up paying 8x as much. The misapplication of deregulation allowed for a ballooning energy crisis that gave Enron traders an opportunity to milk the desperate CA government for all they were worth and then some.

So it's not deregulation - it's the misapplication of deregulation.

In contrast you can look at Pennsylvania's deregulation of the energy industry. Maybe it's not perfect, but it's fairly successful.

The PA program has attracted over 100 power suppliers, including green power. 36,000 jobs have been created in PA, consumers saved an estimated $3 billion over the past 3 years, and capacity is on pace to increase by over 50%.

My point with all this is - deregulation in and of itself is not a bad thing, if it is done properly and planned for to secure the greatest good for the public. Deregulation is essentially a move towards free markets where consumers have the ultimate say by leveraging their power of demand. Consumers are not only motivated by price but also by good will - just look at the proper outrage against NIKE for its unethical treatment of workers. Consumers punished it and drew attention and continue to do so with other companies that follow similar tactics.

I think that is Clark's point.

[CWebster]

51. Garbage

My electic bill has TRIPLED since deregulation in PA. How much did Kucinich ultimately save by not kneeling under and selling the local public utility in Cleveland?

Frontline exposed the intentional fraud that produced the California energy crisis, any doubling back with revisionist views is little more than rationalization.

[Eloriel]

103. One wee small point that you're missing here, bud

The CA "deregulation" was built by Repugs and Enron (and possibly others). They knew exactly what they were doing -- they gamed the system.

There was absolutely no reason for CA to suffer ANY of what it did -- it was all the doing of deregulated, govt of, by and for the corporations.

Eloriel

[thinkahead]

53. Enron. Halliburton. AOL/TimeWarner. Worldcom. Qwest.

Energy. Media. Telecommunications.

We need re-regulation, BIG TIME.

[Khephra]

61. What I find as being funny is this

Where is the DU Clark Squad?

We are only hearing from 2 or 4 people in this thread that totally support Clark.

Where are the die-hard Clark supporters on this issue?

[xultar]

63. I'm sure they don't want to get beat up on.

There are lots of Clark supporters out there. I know there are. But they've noticed much like I have the tough environment here for Clark supporters.

If any one thinks differently they are automatically a repug. That's why we'll never win big like we used to. We refuse to listen to each other and try to understand.

I was so angy tonight I actually had to turn my PC off.

[lostnfound]

115. I'm listening. And trying to understand.

I'm not against Clark. In fact, he has made some headway with me in his recent comments about the military-industrial complex.

In reading the title of this thread, I thought: 'hmm, if it's Clark criticizing Dean for being too pro-corporate, I am going to have to shift my preferences and put Clark before Dean..' I was actually a bit disappointed not to have to do that. Because I think it would be great to have the two front-runners moving the goalposts on the corporate issues.

C'est la vie. Clark is a smart guy & I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination.

[CWebster]

64. Waiting it out

hoping that it will be yesterday's news.

[xultar]

66. No I'm sure they avoid threads where they see that you've joined

[CWebster]

70. lol

:pout:

[xultar]

72. So, when are we going to meet?

[Khephra]

78. Well...that means a heck of a lot

since we are only talking about the effects of deregulation.

I don't think I've seen a single negative statement about Clark in this entire thread. It's only been about the issues for once.


And, I'm sorry, but if you think that the media and utility companies shouldn't be re-regulated...then you're on you own.

[goforit]

73. The pendulum swings side to side.....and deregulation has over swung

Kenny Lay's deregulation was only a bennefit to the
"ROBBER BARONS"

Clinton was good but the corporate hackers went toooooo far
and their greed has runneth over.

It is time to swing it back at least 1/4 of the way!!!

[sendero]

79. Tough one...

... I'm a Dean supporter but I'm also very impressed with Clark. No, I did not like the flag-burning bit, but then truth be known I could give a hoot about it, it just isn't that important to me either way.

The problem with this exchange is "define regulate". There is no question in my mind that regulation and *oversight* of many industries has become way too lax.

On the other hand, I would not roll back the clock completely, because deregulation has also brought benefits. The internet as we know it would simply not be here without the deregulation of the telephone industry.

So, IMHO this is a very nuanced situation and they may not be as far apart as it might sound.

[OneBlueSky]

80. well, now . . . this isn't what I want to hear from our candidates . . .

I've like Clark, but if he really believes that big business doesn't need to be regulated, he's lost me . . . Dean's looking better, and Clark more problemmatic, imo . . .

[ajacobson]

87. Clark's Economic Plan (excerpt)

http://clark04.com/issues/economicvision/

Unleashing the power and ingenuity of America's entrepreneurial spirit. President Bush has coddled industry instead of harnessing the power of markets to spur growth, create jobs, protect the environment, and defend the homeland. I would correct his irresponsible policies by:

*Opening foreign markets to U.S. exports. I would order a 120-day review of all existing trade agreements - not to protect U.S. markets, but to make sure that our trade partners are living up to their end of the bargain.

*Promoting pro-consumer and pro-environment regulatory structures.
I would implement regulatory reforms that promote market incentives while protecting the environment and consumers against market abuses.

*Encouraging investor confidence. I would undertake a sustained effort to undertake reforms that will restore the trust that makes our markets the best place in the world to trade and invest.
Reforming the tax system. We must make the tax system simpler, fairer, more progressive, and more pro-growth. This is not only fair for America's workers, but smart for the economy.

********************

[Fleshdancer]

84. Do I need a history refresher?

Okay I'm lost. How is regulation a "throwback to failed Republican policies"? I didn't think regulation was a republican policy, is it?

Either way, I think we can all agree on the fact that there are some industries that are more easily abused for personal profit than others. I think all Democrats can agree we need to do what we can to make sure Enron doesn't happen again.

I didn't take Dean's economic speech to mean re-regulation all across the board, I took it to meant we need to desperately fix what is broken.

[xultar]

89. Did clark say he was for deregulation across the board? n/t

[Fleshdancer]

94. I didn't hear Clark make the statements.

For now, all I have to go on is the article posted above. But when he doesn't agree with re-regulation of certain industries that have proven to be abused, then I have to wonder what Clark does and doesn't want deregulated.

So you tell me, does Clark want deregulation across the board? And if not, what does he want to see regulated and how does that differ with the industries Dean wants to see regulated?

[xultar]

96. So you tell me Dean isn't for regulation across the board then what

is he willing to deregulate?

[Fleshdancer]

101. Do you always talk in circles when you don't know the answer?

Dean discussed re-regulation of utility and media companies...not to be confused with "regulation across the board". I'm pretty sure that's why Dean actually used the term re-regulate as opposed to regulate. Just a thought. If you want, I can give you the link again to the same story posted above since the information was right there in the article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-11-19-clark-dean_x.htm

So what exactly does Clark propose to do to stop further abuse of these sectors?

[Shakespeare]

85. I'm not a Clark supporter (yet), but I like him--I DON'T like this, though

I sent a letter to his campaign this afternoon voicing my displeasure, and asking for an explanation.

On its face, I don't like what he's said here, because I do think we need to regulate certain businesses (especially those involving vital services). His statement seems a little vague, however, so before just completely dismissing Clark based on this one (vague) statement, I'll give him a little time to clarify.

I suspect my opinion won't satisfy the pro OR anti-Clark crowds, but that's what it is.

[CWebster]

91. He generally is vague. Polite, but studiously

vague.

[Shakespeare]

93. I disagree.

I haven't found that to be the case--to the contrary, I've found Clark to be fond of long, complex, expositive answers.

You've made it quite clear how you feel about the man, though, so your position doesn't surprise me.

I don't come down on the side of either extreme, and so don't wish to be preached to by either side.

[RetroLounge]

92. If deregulation of the telecommunications markets

were such a great thing, then DU would not be here. The dereg led to the Right owning the airwaves, remember? Combine Re-regulation with the return of the fairness Doctrine, and then you have a good start.

(I disagree with Clark completely, but I admire the way he stated his beliefs. Maybe Kerry and Edwards should take a cue from him.)

[Upfront]

95. Clark Should Talk About What he Knows, Attack ******

Any more of this crap and we won't let him be VP.

[Rose Siding]

104. Um...new Clark quote

"This is an area where the differences between the choices Howard Dean and I would make for the country are clear," Clark said. But exactly what those differences are was not clear. Clark said he, too, favors clamping down on media ownership and imposing new regulations. "I agree that we need far stronger protections for workers, consumers and our environment going beyond where the Clinton administration went in several respects, as times and circumstances have changed, too."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63424-2003Nov19.html

Is he backing off? He seems to be on *both* sides of the issue.

[KittyWampus]

105. Not A "New Quote" But One More Bit From The Original Comment?

Article begins by saying Clark & Lieberman's statements on Wednesday.

This whole thread is odd!

We don't even have Clark's entire statement to read... just what mangled bits AP and Washington Post give us.

I looked on Clark's page for an official statement and couldn't find it.

How about having the pertinent information before reaching any conclusions?

[Rose Siding]

106. new to the thread, the topic and me. New

Even in this paragraph, there appears to be a contradiction in what he says. I hope he makes a statement and clarifies his position.

Quotes are pertinent, imo. If they are inaccurate, Clark should demand a correction.

[slinkerwink]

108. there DOES appear to be a contridiction....

Clark better not go the way of John Kerry in talking both sides out of his mouth....

[SahaleArm]

109. Any plans to come back?

Real discussion is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=741477

:evilgrin:

[Dr Fate]

111. I'm prone to support Clark- but I agree with Dean on this one...

...and I am making that note to myself...

[newsjunkie]

112. I support Dean

and all my money i can scrape up goes to him...but like Clark too. I like the way he is a gentleman and attacks the ideas,not the person. I hate the way Kerry does that to Dean all the time with that snotty attitude he has. :eyes: