According to UNICEF everyday 30,000 children around the world die of hunger related causes. How has our government helped to prevent this catastrophe?

In a post September 11th world have our priorities changed? George Bush pushed for the formation of a new government aid organization the Millenium Challenge Corporation. This has allowed the administration to apply business tools to promote aid to countries to allieviate poverty. On the other side John Kerry has spoken out in favor of debt relief measures.

Joining us to discuss this issue and the means to solve it are Ray Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America and Marc Miles, Ph.D, Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at the Heritage Foundation.

Posted by leboheme at 10:17 AM

The 9/11 Commission report was the all-consuming story just before the presidential campaign got under way this summer. But what was once a unanimous proposal has degenerated into partisan bickering on the eve of the election and one of the main stumbling blocks is immigration. The house version of the 9/11 commission bill is strict on deportation measures, while the senate version focuses on intelligence reform.
Conservatives say there’s no difference in the candidates’ stance on immigration, accusing Bush of supporting amnesty with his Guest Worker program. Pro-immigration groups say the Bush record shows he’s too harsh on immigrants in the post-9/11 measures like the registering of citizens from Arab countries.

Here’s what the two major party candidates say.

Please email feedback.

President Bush (in 3rd debate):
I see it as a serious problem. I see it as a security issue. I see it as an economic issue, and I see it as a human rights issue.

And so in order to take pressure off the border, in order to make the borders more secure, I believe there ought to be a temporary worker card that allows a willing worker and a willing employer to mate up, so long as there's not an American willing to do the job, to join up in order to be able to fulfill the employer's needs.

Senator Kerry (in 3rd debate):

With respect to immigration reform, the president broke his promise on immigration reform. He said he would reform it. Four years later he's now promising you another plan. Here's what I'll do. Number one, the borders are more leaking today than they were before 9/11. The fact is we haven't done what we need to do to toughen up our borders. And I will. Secondly, we need a guest-worker program. But if it's all we have it's not going to solve the problem. The second thing we need is to crack down on illegal hiring. It's against the law in the United States to hire people illegally. And we ought to be enforcing that law properly. And thirdly, we need an earned legalization program for people who've been here for a long time, stayed out of trouble, got a job, paid their taxes and their kids are American. We've got to start moving them towards full citizenship out of the shadows.

Posted by leboheme at 11:03 AM

Please, if the guy talking about limiting immigration thinks his grandparents (or whomever else afforded him the opportunity to be an American citizen now) were "aliens", i.e., people from outer space or another term for "THEM", rather than "US", he needs to change his words - these people are called "undocumented workers" or "immigrants", just like his relatives, not "aliens".
-ST

As someone patiently waiting for my green card, having applied legally, and legally gainfully employed under a temporary visa, I am greatly offended that those who are defying the laws would be given better treatment (amnesty & a green card), than myself. If you are going to give them green cards, then everyone legally waiting and qualified should also get them! It's not fair to those "playing ball".
-PK

Read more emails in response to our segment on immigration.

...and feel free to respond to the responses

I myself am an immigrant worker form New Zealand on an H1B visa - this is a temporary visa for skilled workers which lasts for three years. People seem terrified of immigrants ‘stealing jobs.’ This amounts to a misunderstanding of economics. Economic growth is not finite, nor are jobs. The economy is fuelled and sustained by productive workplaces, and by individuals earning, investing , spending and being taxed. Skilled immigrants are a huge asset in these terms as they are specifically employed in well-paying jobs. What you want to restrict is a sudden influx of low skilled workers for industries that are over-supplied. This country would be very well served by extending an H1B-type visa system to ensure a steady supply of young, enthusiastic, skilled workers who would be productive members of society here.
-TG

How can your guest from the Immigration Center recognize that there is work Americans won't do, but refuses to respect them as humans? Why is it that we don't ask why we have jobs that Americans will NOT do?!
-GK

Two things: first, when Mr. Krikorian said that the everyone in the world will be able to apply for jobs and makes reference to the clip you played, where President Bush says that under his work visa there will be a matching of willing employers with willing employees, if NO AMERICAN WANTS to take the job, he is forgetting to mention the last part. Yes, perhaps many people will come to America to work as Nurses and etc. but this is contingent to no Americans seeking a job, and as far as I know, that is no different than today's work permit visas. The second thing I wanted to ask you about: is if you could ask these two people what are the possibilities of the DREAM act to move forward?
-TD

Discuss the definition of "illegal immigration". It was not too long ago that Europeans were the true "illegals"! These definitions go to the core of the argument and understanding human rights. How can your guest from the Immigration Center recognize that there is work Americans won't do, but refuses to respect them as humans? Why is it that we don't ask why we have jobs that Americans will NOT do?!
-KG

Posted by leboheme at 11:00 AM

The right to life and the right to choice is perhaps one of the most controversial issues of the presidential race. George Bush and John Kerry stand on opposite ends of the spectrum politically.

Personally John Kerry believes that abortion is wrong, due to his Catholicism, however he has stated repeatedly that he does not allow his religious belief to dictate they way he votes.

George Bush's view is easier to understand, he believes in a "culture of life." He is against all abortions, except in the case of rape and incest or if the life of the mother was at risk.

But the issue of abortion is only a part of the equation, which should also include contraception, family planning and education.

To fill us in on the various parts of the whole equation will be Joan Malin, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood New York City and Dr. Pia de Solenni, Director of Life and Women’s Issues at the Family Research Council. Both women will discuss how both candidates will affect the reproductive lives of women here in the United States and abroad.

Posted by leboheme at 04:03 PM

Now here's a biggie you don't hear much about: the future of welfare.

In 1996, President Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress passed a major overhaul of welfare law, limiting benefits and requiring that recipients work. The law expired two years ago and has received several temporary extensions since then.

The 1996 law is viewed mostly as a success, so why hasn't it been renewed? Does it need tinkering? John Kerry has generally limited his talk of welfare to so-called "corporate welfare". Bush too has had little to say about the program, but he has signaled an interest in promoting marriage among welfare recipients and other poor citizens.

Our expert, Jason DeParle, has spent the past decade steeping himself in welfare policy and its effects on the people who receive it. His new book is American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare (Viking, 2004).

Your thoughts?

Posted by leboheme at 07:15 AM

the problems faced by welfare and former welfare families result from their poor choice of political tactics. They neglected to have their Political Action Committees funnel millions of dollars to the parties and their candidates.
-AJL

I heard your show this morning and found the segment with Jason DeParle very stimulating.

Too many fathers are not allowed substantial, healthy, and regular contact with the children they love. And they are deprived of a say in their childrens' lives and welfare. They are treated like second class citizens.
-MB

One way to reduce the welfare population is to change the name. Given the high percentage of African Americans on the welfare rolls due to the entrenched racism in this country and that poverty is a complex result of this racism, I propose we call the program Reparations. Woman should be allowed to take care of their children, have really decent living conditions, health care, and their children should be given a superb education as part of this reparation program. Hopefully this would take people out of poverty and it would be the right thing to do considering the suffering that African Americans have been subjected to.
-O

Posted by leboheme at 07:00 AM

The Kerry side says turning personal accounts spells disaster. The Bush side says Kerry’s guarantees mean nothing but higher taxes. The issues has been obfuscated in this campaign, but just whose plan is best for the future of social security? The President’s ownership society as laid out in his nomination acceptance speech, extends to this issue. As the Bush/Cheney campaign website site says, “These personal accounts would provide ownership, choice, and the opportunity for all workers to build a nest egg to help with their retirement and to pass on to their heirs.”
John Kerry lays out three pillars on his website: Grow the economy, Restore fiscal discipline, adopt a Bipartisan process.

Read on for more.

Meanwhile, please email us your thoughts (before and/or after the segment).

From Bush’s website:Strengthening Social Security

Members of Congress have responded to the President’s call for action. Since the report of the President’s Commission, at least six comprehensive proposals have been introduced in Congress that would establish personal accounts and permanently fix Social Security. Many of these proposals incorporate specific recommendations of the President’s Commission. Each of these proposals would allow seniors to leave the balance in these accounts to widows, children, and other heirs.

---
From John Kerry’s website

A Plan to Strengthen Social Security:

-Grow the economy. The Kerry-Edwards plan will jump-start growth today and invest in stronger long-run growth. A larger economy will be in a better position to pay for an increasing number of retirees.
-Restore fiscal discipline. Social Security is part of the broader fiscal challenge facing America. The Kerry-Edwards plan will cut the deficit in half and restore fiscal discipline to Washington.
-Bipartisan Process. Historically, successful reforms of Social Security and Medicare - like in 1983 and 1997 - have been accomplished on a bipartisan basis. As president, John Kerry will build on his strong record of working with Democrats and Republicans on fiscal issues to address Social Security's challenge.
-John Kerry Will Never Balance The Budget On The Backs Of America's Seniors. As president, John Kerry will not raise Social Security taxes, raise the retirement age, cut benefits for people that rely on Social Security, or privatize Social Security. He will consider making sure that high-income beneficiaries don't get more out than they pay in.

Posted by leboheme at 08:49 AM

I wish Kerry would stress that privatized Social Security accounts would be tantamount to a 401K plan; subject to the vagaries of the market and the human temptation to cash out whenever there’s a perceived crisis. This does not sound like security to me.
-EG

I am curious if it would be possible to have both the traditional program for benefits and an option for individuals to take part of their money and privately invest it? This might be too expensive and cumbersome, but I could see how some more savvy investors could take advantage of this while people who really appreciate the simplicity of the program as it exists today could continue to take advantage of the program.
-BT

read the rest

... and chime in yourself

The private accounts “sound” good, but as anyone with a 401k will tell you, they are not always dependable. The 20 year gain may be historically accurate up until now, but that’s not taking into consideration something like the dot.com crash. My 401k is worth 50% of what is was 4 years ago.
-EC

There is no “return” on the social security trust fund because the government is paying interest to itself! The Social Security trust fund is an accounting and legal fiction. Comparing it to private investments is silly.
-CW

Nobody seems to mention the point of social security. Isn't it to make sure seniors are not homeless or living without heat? Also, what kind of risk would these private savings plans expose the individual to? Giving every American an equities account would only fuel rampant speculation.
-MC

“If we let people invest privately and they fail, what can the government’s attitude be? ‘We are sorry you are broke, but we gave you the choice and you chose badly.’” Are we going to put these people in poor houses? Let them live on the street? Social Security is supposed to be a fail safe to protect Society from that.
-JL

Why not just raise the amount of wages subject to Social Security withholding. Currently, only income below $89,000 is subject to the tax. Why not just make it $100,000? Wouldn't that solve the problem?
-qm

I really appreciated your show today, it was very pleasant to hear both of your guests’ points of view without them interrupting each other and talking over each other. It made for an intelligent discussion of an important issue.
-BJ

In regards to private social security account. Win-win situation? Ask the Marsh employees who thought their investments were managed prudently? You think private management of social security won't be any different? Where there's money, there's corruption.
-RA

Posted by leboheme at 07:45 AM

How is religion playing into the presidential campaign? How does each candidate’s religious belief impact where he stands on the issues?

Both candidates spoke about their faith and politics during the third presidential debate. Sen. Kerry said, “I believe that I can’t legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith,” while President Bush said “My principles that I make decisions on are a part of me, and religion is a part of me.”

Today we have two guests to explain the candidates’ different views on religion and policy:
Bret Schundler is a Christian fundamentalist who is the former mayor of Jersey City and past and future gubernatorial candidate in New Jersey.
Randall Balmer is the chair of the Religion Department at Barnard College and a Democratic candidate for Connecticut’s 111th Assembly District. He has written on the history of the Evangelical Christian movement and on politics and religion and is taking part in a conference on secularism and belief in 2004 at NYU this weekend.

Let us know what you think.

Posted by leboheme at 11:58 AM

I think these two speakers are confusing personal faith with organized
religion. Everyone has personal faith and personal morals and values
regardless of their religion (or lack thereof). What we need to be on
the lookout for is "organized" religion imposing values and morals on
the people through the government. -C.D.

How can President Bush claim to be the "pro-life" President and still sanction the death penalty, accepting that under his leadership Texas led the
nation in executions? -R.M.

How is it that we support or give the benefits of a doubt to Bush's (or Carter's) making of the policies based on their religion, but won't allow Religious/Shiite government to be elected in Iraq - and bashed Iranian Islamic government for decades?- F.P.

Posted by leboheme at 08:21 AM

Last August, the President's US Climate Change Science Program released a report that indicated that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are in fact responsible for global warming. Coming from an administration that had thrown doubt on the science behind global warming, this seemed to signal a major policy shift.

You might say Bush came closer to the Kerry position, but if that was so, it wasn't apparent in the second presidential debate.

SEN. KERRY: They've pulled out of the Global Warming, declared it dead, didn't even accept the science.

I'm going to be a president who believes in science.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. President?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, had we joined the Kyoto Treaty -- which I guess he's referring to -- it would have cost America a lot of jobs. It's one of these deals where in order to be popular in the halls of Europe you sign a treaty. But I thought it would cost a lot of -- I think there's a better way to do it.

Bush-Cheney on global warming

Kerry-Edwards on global warming

Posted by leboheme at 04:15 PM

In 1973 enforced conscription was ended in the United States. But in recent weeks rumors have spread across the country that a military draft will be reinstituted. Both George Bush and John Kerry have stated that they are against a draft. But in the last two weeks John Kerry has been adding fuel to the flames on the campaign trail indicating that if Bush is re-elected the draft may well be brought back.

The fear over military conscription is not new, rumors spread during the 1992 Gulf War. But this year it is a little more tangible due to various issues such as troops are spread thinly across the globe and active combat in two countries, not to mention stop loss measures and the use of national guard and reservists.

Earlier this year Congressman Charles Rangel pushed a bill to the floor of the House proposing a renewal of the draft. His goal was to highlight the inequity of enrollment in the armed forces. The bill failed 402 to 2, Rangel didn’t even vote for the bill himself.

Rep. Charles Rangel will join us to discuss his bill. Discussing the pros of a all volunteer army will be Charles Peña, Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. And speaking for a larger conscription effort is economist Ed Lotterman.

Please email us your feedback.

Posted by leboheme at 09:37 AM

Our military is in need of manpower and the most
effective way to solve the problem is to require a draft. The fact
the the war was a mistake is an issue but we do need to solve the
manpower shortage. TJ

When President Bush said, "There will b no draft...period," John Kerry missed a great opportunity. He should have said, "Sounds like a, 'Read my lips moment to me.' KK

Posted by leboheme at 07:34 AM

Many of John Kerry’s ardent supporters use one point in their bid to sell their candidate to the undecided: the Supreme Court. Both candidates point out that the next President is likely to preside over at least one retirement on the country’s most influential bench. Conservatives caution against any form of “judicial activism” on the courts, but liberals feel Bush appointees would roll back judicial progress like Roe v Wade. And reform of the judicial nomination process is coming up as an issue. How would a Bush administration fare without filibusters? Would a Republican Senate majority make this irrelevant for Kerry? For answers, listen to this episode.

In the meantime, click through for what the candidates said at the recent debates:

Please email us your feedback.

President Bush at the second Presidential debate

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?
BUSH: I'm not telling.
(LAUGHTER)
I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.
(LAUGHTER)
I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.
Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.
I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.
That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.
And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

Senator Kerry at the second Presidential debate
A few years ago when he came to office, the president said -- these are his words -- "What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts."
And he said also that his two favorite justices are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.
So you get a pretty good sense of where he's heading if he were to appoint somebody.
Now, here's what I believe. I don't believe we need a good conservative judge, and I don't believe we need a good liberal judge. I don't believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on either side.
I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is that when you're reading their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you're reading a good judicial decision.
What I want to find, if I am privileged to have the opportunity to do it -- and the Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this race, ladies and gentlemen.
The future of things that matter to you -- in terms of civil rights, what kind of Justice Department you'll have, whether we'll enforce the law. Will we have equal opportunity? Will women's rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman's right to choose be protected?
These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.

Posted by leboheme at 12:04 PM

You asked one of your guests to give an example of "activism" from the bench from conservative judges. I submit to you that the Supreme Court handing the presidency to George W. Bush in 2001 is the supreme example of judicial activism from conservatives and irrevocably tainted the top judiciary in this country.
-MS

In a mature democracy, abortion just like most issues including the death penalty for example, is resolved through representative government i.e. laws and not by the interpretation of a 200 year old document…… this is insulting to the citizen male or female alike…..
-SS

Read more feedback

Keep the emails coming...

Speaking of activist judges, how about those like Justice Scalia who have written about Lawrence v. Texas and the Boy Scout cases as part of a culture war, and spout the same kind of slippery slope rhetoric used by conservative... activists? I might also note that Christian conservative groups draw in tremendous amounts of financial resources by targeting gay people and reproductive rights. Conflicts of interest cut both ways.
-BS

Was Judge Roy Moore an activist judge? Was William Pryor an activist when he defended him? How about Pickering? Was the Supreme Court being activist judges when they decided the 2000 election?
-DM

What's wrong with activist judges? Sometimes it has been necessary for the judiciary to move society forward because the legislature was unable to (think Brown v Board of Education). How long would it have taken to integrate schools if that decision was left to the Congress?
-NL

In the last debate Bush said that a judge who would oppose retention of the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance recited in schools is an "activist". It seems to me that a strict interpretation of the constitution would forbid the forced recitation of those words in public schools.
-CS

Your liberal guest's floundering in search of conservative judicial activists and your conservative guest's rather startling assertion that conservatives do not engage in judicial activism is quite puzzling. The Rehnquist Court has been in both liberal and conservative commentators' opinions the most activist court since (or even greater than) the Warren court. This is perhaps best seen in the court's New Federalism jurisprudence, where it has established an almost total sovereign immunity for the States, which finds only paltry and implied support in the Constitution and is wholly new, as well as striking down an unprecedented number of acts of Congress. Judicial Activism swings both ways, a point recently made by former (conservative) solicitor general Theodore Olsen in a talk he gave, and is really just a term applied to decisions that someone (regardless of party) does not like. I also refer you to the following article by Chicago Law Professor Cass Sunstein on the Rehnquist Court.
-MB

I wonder how many people these days think that "litmus test" is legal
terminology? Do you think that George Bush has any idea what a litmus
test really is?
-CS

Posted by leboheme at 11:14 AM

Housing, jobs, the war in Iraq. Minority voters care about the same issues as everyone else--and then some. While Bush is appealing en Español to Latino voters, Senator Kerry is counting on black voters to give him the winning margin.

Today three eminent thinkers on matters of concern to minority voters share their thoughts.

E.R. Shipp doesn't like the way the GOP is trying to appeal to blacks in churches.

Ruben Navarrette, Jr. says Bush and Kerry both are failing to make an effective appeal to Spanish-speaking voters.

Debra Dickerson believes that in this election, you can't separate black people's issues from the issues that concern Americans as a whole.

What do you think? Email us!

Posted by leboheme at 08:41 AM

Whether affirmative action is a "dead issue" among people of color is not the issue. Disennfranchisement, lack of empowerment, are issues that resonate among people of color which indeed are important to all Americans.

While two of your radio participants may feel that issues of "blackness" are no longer important, the Republicans tried to pay friends of mine to sit in the Republican Convention to show there were indeed black faces.
-JA

How can any minority voter support a president who chose the arch-segregationist John Ashcroft to enforce the laws of the land?
-AH

even today with the reports of the widening gaps in incomes between
racial groups i do not think that the candidates will touch this
issue...what are minority groups supposed to think when they see
"whites" recovering their economic advantage and their positon
worsening.
-MT

Please ask your guests about a "new school" phenomenom - the
nonidentity of minority interests. For example, the influx of hispanic
immigrants directly compete with American Blacks for jobs. Yet leaders
like your guests paper over these fundmental differences.
-NP

Posted by leboheme at 07:54 AM

George Bush’s website states that in “three years,” he’s achieved “three tax cuts.” That has become the cornerstone of his administration’s economic achievements. On the stump he promotes his hopes for his next term: the simplification of the tax code and having them become permanent. Will he be able to rewrite all those tax forms?

John Kerry believes part of the presidents tax cuts have been detrimental to the growth of the American economy, primarily the tax relief for the very wealthy. This has not stopped his detractors from calling him a “tax and spend Democrat.” But on October 8th during the second Presidential debate Kerry was requested to make an oath and look into the camera and promise not to raise taxes for the middle class. Will he be able to keep it?

On the following 30 Issues in 30 Days Paul Krugman from the New York Times and Stephen Moore, President of the Club for Growth, discuss the virtues and pitfalls of the candidates tax plans.

Send us your feedback

Posted by leboheme at 05:25 PM

I am a small businessman--a midtown store-owner--who, post-9/11, has made too little money to worry about taxes. I worry about whether NYC will ever get all the $20 Billion pledged for reconstruction if there's a second term for Bush. I need an employee but am waiting to see what happens Nov.2. Not that Kerry guarantees a better local economy, but when things are bad, change stimulates optimism. P.B.

How come you and everyone else says that if your gross income is $200,000, you are rich? Consider a single fellow living in NYC with a kid in college. First, Federal, New York State and NYC taxes substantially reduce available cash. Tuition and expenses of the kid take a lot of money. Sending some money to needy old parents takes more. Add an unexpected medical expense and the guy is broke. He either rents a studio or one bedroom apartment in Manhattan or owns or rents a modest apartment in a borough. He cannot afford anything that someone making $40,000 a year in Ohio can afford. S.R.

Posted by leboheme at 05:00 PM

In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act. Among other things, the law authorized $3.9 billion to the states to improve voting facilities and train workers, and provisional ballots for all would-be voter who poll workers do not believe to have shown proper ID.

Interestingly, New York's two senators were the only opponents of the bill in the Senate. They both said the bill's new ID requirements might harm some New Yorkers' ability to cast ballots. Here's the Gotham Gazette's take on this.

Setting aside HAVA's impact on the 2004 election and any associated litigation that might occur, the choice of our next President is important because he will will almost certainly have great influence over the future of electoral reform in the US.

from the Democratic platform: to guarantee the integrity of our elections and to increase voter confidence, we will seek action to ensure that voting systems are accessible, independently auditable, accurate, and secure. We will support the full funding of programs to realize this goal. Finally, it is the priority of the Democratic Party to fulfill the promise of election reform, reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and vigorously enforce all our voting rights laws.

from the Republican platform: Unfortunately, in November 2000, too many people believed they were denied the right to vote. Many African Americans, Hispanics, and others fear they may lose the right to vote because of inaccurate or insecure technology or because of a rolling back in the gains made by the passage of civil rights legislation. Our national commitment to a voting process that has integrity was underscored in 2002 when the Congress passed and the President signed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). We will continue to do all we can to ensure that every lawful vote counts for all Americans

Posted by leboheme at 04:56 PM

Isn't the right to vote a direct result of being a citizen?
Shouldn't those who have at least served their time be allowed to
excercise this right? And secondly, is it actually Constitutional to
have varying state laws that prohibit felons from voting? After all
isn't voting a right which should be protected by the federal
government? -M.C.

From my perspective it seems that many of the Republican Secretaries of States instead of finding ways within the law to have as many votes as possible counted are using their interpretations of the law to find reasons to exclude votes. I understand the politics of all this but is this really what a true democracy is all about?- R.C.

There are major concerns right now that there will not be enough voting machines for all of the people [in Ohio]. Cuyahoga county is where Cleveland is located and has a lot of minority voters.... whether this is a direct attempt by the Taft administration to make Ohio vote republican or not I have no idea but with as many electoral votes that Ohio holds I think that it is important. N.M

Posted by leboheme at 01:01 PM

Was he wearing a wire? Dave Lindorff of Salon.com thinks so and he'll explain on this evening's pre-debate special.

(salon.com)

Posted by leboheme at 12:54 PM

Distinctions over trade policy have been muted between the two presidential candidates, but outsourcing has loomed as an issue in this campaign. The Democrats seemed more to the left on the issue when they spoke poorly of free trade in the primary debates. And since the chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors argued in favor of outsourcing earlier this year, the Republicanshas strayed from the topic. This installment of the series looks at the merits of outsourcing and free trade and how each candidate will treat it should they be elected.

Read beyond for an excerpt of the candidate's positions.

In the meantime, send us your feedback

Here’s what the candidates say:

The Kerry campaign:
John Kerry and John Edwards will fight for American jobs - creating new ones and protecting existing ones by cutting taxes for companies that create jobs here at home and ending tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas; by cutting costs and taxes to make American businesses more competitive; and by investing in the good-paying jobs of tomorrow to make sure that people of every age learn the skills they need to be successful - today and in the future.
The Bush campaign – Advance economic agenda by:
Opening Markets Through Negotiating Multilateral, Regional, and Bilateral Trade Agreements - Opening foreign markets creates opportunities for U.S. workers and farmers to sell their goods and services abroad. In the last four years, the Bush Administration has completed free trade agreements with twelve countries and is actively negotiating with ten more. This Administration also launched and is working to successfully conclude negotiations at the World Trade Organization to open markets globally for American exports. Working closely with Congress, the President will also seek extension of Trade Promotion Authority so that we can continue to create economic opportunities for American workers, farmers, and ranchers.

Posted by leboheme at 05:53 PM

The Wall Street Journal broke down the ideas behind the Bush health care plan, highlighting the idea of ownership of one's health. To read the article please click here.

The LA Times also attempted to breakdown this very tough subject, and that can be read here.

Note both articles require registration.

Posted by leboheme at 11:29 AM

President Bush’s plan for housing is primarily governed by his “ownership society” philosophy, spelled out in last month's convention speech. Meanwhile, the Kerry plan emphasizes affordable rent. But how will either candidate implement their goals? This episode of the 30 Issues series examines the Bush and Kerry policies in housing and the fate of the section 8 program.

Read on for the Democrat’s and Republican’s view and tune in to hear former HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo discuss the Kerry plan while the Manhattan Insitute’s Howard Husock lays out the Bush plan.

In the meantime, please keep the emails coming.

From DNC Platform:
Strengthening our cities. We will invest in the businesses, schools, and hospitals that metropolitan areas need to thrive. We will support quality housing opportunities and a balanced housing policy for all Americans, defending good rental housing and extending the American Dream of homeownership to more families. At a time when so many families are losing their homes and life savings to unscrupulous lenders, we will rein in predatory lending and expand access to mainstream financial services for urban
families. And we will redouble our nation's commitment to closing the "digital divide."

From the GOP platform:
Homeownership is central to the American dream, and Republicans want to make
it a reality for everyone. That starts with access to capital for entrepreneurs and access to credit for consumers. Both have improved immensely in the past four years, resulting in record levels of homeownership. For the first time, more than half of all minorities own their home. We support the President’s goal of increasing the number of minority
homeowners by at least 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Since President
Bush announced his initiative in 2002, an additional 1.6 million minorities have become homeowners. The Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program helps low-income families purchase a home. The most significant barrier to homeownership is the down payment. We support efforts to reduce that barrier, like the American Dream Downpayment Act and Zero Downpayment Mortgages. The President and Congress have taken action to provide counseling and education to help first-time homebuyers navigate the process of buying a home. The Administration has also taken steps to alert people to the dangers of predatory lending, in an effort to help Americans maintain a positive credit history.
Affordable housing is in the national interest. That is why the mortgage interest deduction for primary residences was put into the federal tax code and why tax reform of any kind should continue to encourage homeownership. We support efforts to enact the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit. At the same time, a balanced national housing policy must recognize that decent housing includes apartments, and addresses the needs of all citizens, including renters. In many areas, housing prices are higher than they need to be because of regulations that drive up building costs. Some regulation is of course necessary, and so is sensible zoning. We urge states and localities to work with local builders and lenders to eliminate unnecessary burdens that price many families out of the market. We see no role for any federal regulation of homebuilding. We do foresee a larger role for state and local governments in controlling the federally assisted housing that has been so poorly managed from Washington. We also encourage the modification of restrictions that inhibit the rehabilitation of existing distressed properties.

Posted by leboheme at 03:40 PM

For years New Jersey has been considered a solid blue state, the state legislature is Democratic, the Governor is a Democrat and the two Senators are Democrats. But a funny thing happened a few months ago- George Bush was polling rather competitively in the Garden State. The Republicans feel strongly about Bush's chances in New Jersey that they sent Laura Bush to campaign there and today Dick Cheney makes a stop. Democrats have been forced to regroup and spend money and time in a place which had been a given for Democrats for years.

What are the two candidates talking about in New Jersey? The economy, healthcare or homeland security?

So what does George Bush have to offer to New Jersey? And what issues should Kerry bring up to turn this race around?

What's your view? Tell us!

Posted by leboheme at 09:15 AM

The most telling difference in the Pres candidates was drawn out by you: we have a President who passes a prescription drug benefit which is no real benefit at all except to Pharms who don't have do negotiate with the real payor (the government representing the taxpayer) but instead get to deal with smaller groups to negotiate the cost of drugs whose creation and development is subsidized by American taxpayers and drug takers when manufacture of those drugs is often outsourced to countries with cheaper manufacturing costs and those American drug takers/taxpayers in turn pay the highest prices for drugs in the world and are prevented from shopping for better prices and don't always have health insurance either and then their complaints against the pharmaceuticals are the object of the Administration who thinks that those Pharms will out of charity and kindness reduce the price to them some day. The medical establishment consumes almost 20% of the GNP. They have no incentive to control costs or lower costs but eventually the well runs dry. Ask the many who file bankruptcy to discharge medical bills for services they think they can't live without.
JC

Your pro-pharmaceutical company guest should be reminded of Dr. Marcia Angell's (former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine) book called The Truth About the Pharmaceutical Companys: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It. In it she shows how it is the US Government that has spearheaded new research not the pharma companies---they just reap the profits. Furthermore! Talk about price controls---Bush's requiring that Medicaire pay full retail for drugs is the worst example of that I can think of! How about a price control that benefits us for once?
TS

Posted by leboheme at 08:17 AM

Science is a campaign issue in 2004 in a way it hasn't been in years. Recently a group of scientists who are irate over Bush administration policy on stem cell research, climate change, and r & d funding, have banded together to form a 527 supporting the Kerry campaign, Scientists and Engineers for Change.

On the other side of things, Bush supporters argue that the President has struck a sensible balance between the need for scientific innovation and the values and traditions of our country, furthering research in areas like nanotechnology while striking a compromise on stem cell research. Visit the President's Office of Science and Technology.

What's your view? Tell us!

Posted by leboheme at 04:56 PM

Isn't there a difference between budgeting for R&D and budgeting for
other scientific research? What about fields of science where there
isn't product development going on?
-JLE

When you have a president who does not believe in evoloution, how can
you believe that he has any respect for science? Anyways, when you believe that global warming is a good thing, then what kind or worldview can you expect?
-JC

As a practicing scientist I have the following comments:
1) The administration is stacking the deck in science advisory
panels--removing scientists such as Elizabeth Blackburn who do not
agree with the administration's positions on issues like stem cell
research.

3) Funding levels in all NIH agencies have decreased from the 20
percentile in the late 90s to 12-15% today. This makes it exceedingly
difficult for young researchers like me to get funded. Signs are
pointing to continued difficulty.
-SD

The fact is that the present administration has persisted in gradually depleting the NIH funding for basic research in ALL fields except for bioterrorism. This has been most extreme for institutions such as the National Institute of Child Health and Development which sponsors most of the research into childhood disorders and birth defects.
-PC

Posted by leboheme at 04:21 PM

Today's topic is "humanitarian intervention." When is it acceptable to take up arms to save lives? Does the war in Iraq qualify? What should the U.S. do in Darfur?

Our guests today are Nancy Soderberg who served as a foreign policy official in the Clinton administration and Vance Serchuk from the American Enterprise Institute. Join the discussion and let us know what you think.

Here are some links to what the presidential candidates have to say:

Senator Kerry on Darfur

President Bush at the U.N.

and here's what Human Rights Watch had to say about the war in Iraq as a humanitarian intervention.

Posted by leboheme at 10:54 AM

When is it acceptable to invade another country to prevent an attack on your own? What level of threat is required to act? What kind of proof is needed for the action to achieve legitimacy?

Joining us to discuss this issue are David Phillips, Kerry advisor on foreign policy and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Richard Perle, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise who served as an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and as chairman of the Defense Policy Board under President George Bush.

read here for more for each major party candidate's position

Email us with your comments before or after the show. Let us know what you think.

In 2002, during the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration issued its "National Security Strategy of the United States of America” which outlined its philosophy of pre-emptive war.

From Section 5 of the document: The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

This was said by some commentators to represent a major shift in American foreign policy. John Kerry wouldn’t seem to agree with that assessment. As he said in last week’s debate, “The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive strike. . . No president through all of American history has ever ceded and nor would I the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.”

From there the two candidates seem to part company. Kerry’s next statement, “But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the test. That passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing. And you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons,” has been attacked by the Bush campaign as allowing other countries to veto U.S. military action and is the basis for a new anti-Kerry ad entitled “Global Test.”

Posted by leboheme at 05:18 PM

Iraq is better off only if Iraq achieves democracy, which has not happened. Looking at America's history at occupying countries, one would find far more incidents of the US backing dictators, such as Hussein, than converting them to democracies. Preemption should not be looked at without looking back to our failed history of past preemptions. It is just not very good at turning governments into democracies.

In 1990 the current president's father responded to Saddam Hussein's conquest of Kuwait with months of diplomacy that culminated in a near universal consensus and coalition to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait by military force. My understanding of Kerry's reference to the advisability of passing a global smell test before launching military action was the model created by President Bush I. Opinions obviously differ on how well Bush executed that war, and his decision to allow Hussein to stay in power, and to put down a popular uprising against him that had been encouraged by the US. However, there is near universal acclaim for Bush I's effectiveness in forging a coaltion that was supportive of the use of American military force. Why is the Bush I model inappropriate today?

Posted by leboheme at 05:00 PM

This time our 30 Issues series goes local as we ask the question, would New York be better off under a Kerry or a Bush administration? The biggest gripe among New York pols is that the state pays about $15 billion more in taxes than it gets back in federal spending. But would this really change with a change in the White House? Other issues include homeland security, mass transit, taxes, minimum wage and immigration. If there’s something you want on the agenda, let us know.

This segment will hear debate from Speaker of the New York City Council, Gifford Miller and The Manhattan Institute's E.J. McMahon

Please email us your comments, before or after the show

Here’s a sample from the two major party candidates:

Kerry's plan for an Urban Agenda:

- Create a $25 billion state tax relief and education fund to combat state budget crises and prevent education cuts and tuition increases.

- Raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7 by 2007.

- Revive funding for the New Markets Venture Capital Program, which aims to bring capital to low-income communities.

- Encourage small business by increasing the government's venture capital investments and loans.

- Extend the assault weapons ban and support community-based efforts to fight crime.

- Invest in infrastructure for transportation and homeland security.

- Protect voting rights by deploying election monitors and reauthorizing expiring provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

- Introduce an immigration reform bill in his first 100 days to allow immigrants to earn legal residency, encourage family reunification and strengthen border protections.

The GOP's platform on New York:

New York City evolved from a city plagued by crime, smothered by government, and void of opportunity, into one that attracts both families and young people looking to build careers and enjoy an urban lifestyle. New York’s turnaround is a testament to the great power of turning Republican ideals into policies and solutions. By focusing on economic growth and opportunity, business development, crime control, and the revitalization of urban eyesores, we can inject fresh energy and opportunity into America’s urban centers. Lower taxes, passed by the Republican Congress, are stimulating development and investment in cities around the country. New homeownership opportunities are
giving residents a stake in urban neighborhoods. Violent crime rates, including robberies and rapes, were down in 2003. The President’s commitment to cleaning up brownfields and making them ready for productive purposes is transforming once-crumbling communities.

Posted by leboheme at 04:38 PM

It may be the most important issue in this election, it's certainly one of the most emotional, whatever one's answer to the question. Last Thursday night President Bush and John Kerry spent the vast majority of what had been billed as the foreign policy-focused debate disagreeing about Iraq.

Kerry: "The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror. Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it."

Bush: "The biggest disaster that could happen is that we not succeed in Iraq. We will succeed. We've got a plan to do so. And the main reason we'll succeed is because the Iraqis want to be free."

[Washington Post: the transcript]
Today Max Boot and George A. Lopez face off on the question "has the Iraq war made us safer?"

Max Boot: Iraq could still go either way

George A. Lopez: containment helped destroy Saddam Hussein's war machine

Posted by leboheme at 10:16 AM

This morning (tonight?), we're broadcasting live from 1 to 3 AM. We'll welcome your calls on anything worthy of staying up this late.

We'll also play the famous jib jab animation song, in the meantime, visit it at Jib Jab

email us

Posted by leboheme at 01:08 AM

Based on an article in the New York Times on Monday, September 27, I think your blog site and your discussion today on guns err in stating that Kerry owns an assault rifle.

Instead, according to Meehan, Kerry owns a single-bolt-action military rifle that he got from a friend years ago--made in Russia more than a
hundred years ago and used by North Koreans and Vietcong. He keeps this as
a relic and has never fired it.
-MM

Posted by leboheme at 02:00 PM

On paper, President Bush and Senator Kerry both favor renewing the assault weapons ban. But the legislation to extend the ban has remained stalled in Congress, and Kerry says Bush isn’t doing enough to get it passed.

Both candidates are gun-owners, and Kerry has frequently made appeals to his fellow hunters.

In an Outdoor Life interview with Bush and Kerry, both were asked about their favorite firearms. Bush answered that it was his Weatherby 20 gauge. Interestingly, Kerry named a Chinese assault weapon, despite speaking up in favor of the assault weapons ban. [NYT: In Magazine Interview, Kerry Says He Owns Assault Rifle]

The ads:

National Rifle Association: "That Dog Don't Hunt"

StopTheNRA.com: "Four Presidents"

Have your say! We'll post your feedback after the show.

Posted by leboheme at 09:41 AM

A key difference between a Bush and Kerry administration would be their respective viewpoints on the nature of the Second Amendment.

Under a Kerry administration, we'd get a new Attorney General and Solicitor General, both of whom would share the traditional collective-right view of the Second Amendment. That's one very immediate change we could expect.
-EG

Last month for my business selling afghan war rugs, I went to some gun shows in PA. It was like a Bush campaign rally. Somene was handing out yard signs, stickers,etc. In addition, vendors displayed Bush materials like it was a condition of entrance.
-K

It seems like those who are so strongly against losing the "rights" to their guns are the same who feel fine giving up free speech and privacy rights in light of the Patriot act. it just seems like these conservative gun owners are picking and choosing which rights they are comfortable giving up.
-JF

Posted by leboheme at 09:00 AM