LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Don't Like Borosage

We really like your paper, better than most of the publications we read. We look forward to it and happily read every word. Your columnists are great--every one, erudite, informative good reading. Except Borosage.

Since 1992, Borosage has been a perennial sycophant of Bill Clinton providing volumes of analyses in support of the Clinton administration's agenda, and Clinton's scraps thrown to the public. He portrays Clinton as acting in the best interest of the Democratic Party and providing the country with a brighter future.

Listen to his current piece: "He represented the 1960's culture. He is the Civil Rights movement, the women's movement, the anti-war movement incarnate. He is pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, and sympathetic to gays."

How blind can he be? And, how stupid? Does he think the rest of us are so dumb that we don't know the detailed history of Bill Clinton in Arkansas; covered with Tyson chicken shit and Wal-mart dollars, and manipulating the legislators with corporate money?

Borosage consistently subverts the pro-business, pro-capitalist (the working class be damned) priorities of Clinton's actions. His is a love-note to the Democratic Party while all along Clinton has captured the Republican-Right's agenda and goals. Clinton is a Machiavellian Manipulator, a Flim-Flam man of the worst kind. The best Republican President we ever had. Clinton sold out to the Multinational corporations and the "Free Trade Uber Alles" crowd from the start. That is how he got elected, and he owed them and has done everything to pay back. He is a felonious fraud in the White House. (Sam Smith)

I can think of lots of people I'd rather spend my time reading.

Sincerely

CLARA & BERNARD MASLOW
Concord, Massachusetts

Editor replies: Borosage files a dissent from Clinton's "State of the Union" on page 8.

We Need Borders

The piece by Gonzales and Rodriguez "The Age of 'Borderless Borders'" (12/98 PP) mixes astronomy, business and economics in an irrational blend to support the proposition that there should be no political borders for the United States. It is apparent that they argue for unlimited immigration. While Gonzales and Rodriguez are certainly entitled to their views, there is a concern that is shared by many which must be considered and that concern is population. At the risk of being labeled racist and of being accused of "the greening of hate", I believe that the impacts of uncontrolled immigration on the United States need to be called-out before we buy into the "borderless borders" concept.

The number of legal immigrants for 1997 was estimated to be 1,000,000 with another 300,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants entering the United States each year. At the present rate of immigration, the U. S. population will increase by up to 200 million persons in the next 50 to 60 years. The suggestion has been made that the U. S. needs the supply of cheap, hard-working immigrants to insure future prosperity. If this is so then 70 to 80 percent of our population growth during the next century will come from our immigration policy and it will be just a matter of time before the U.S. population surpasses that of India and China. The U. S. population is already growing at the fastest rate among the industrialized nations.

Is such rampant, out-of-control population growth really what we want? Will we be able to protect our environment with such growth? Will our cities still be livable and will we still be a truly a United States? I don't think so.

Why is it that The Progressive Populist will print an article supporting "borderless borders", but has never printed an article opposing such views? Is it because it has become a "feel good", liberal axiom which can no longer be questioned? If The Progressive Populist is interested in printing an opposing view to "borderless borders", this writer will be pleased to suggest the names of any number of experts on the subject of immigration.

Sincerely,

HOWARD A. PELLETT
Anacortes, Washington
Email cpellett@cnw.com

Libertarians vs. Populists

I like everything that I have read so far of your articles on the web except that I do not share Mr. Cullen's praise of Jesse Ventura. How does he reconcile Libertarianism with Populism? Libertarians are anti-government anti-tax laissez faire right-wingers just to the left of the anarchists. They want to deregulate big business so Corporations can "have their way" (to put it politely) with us workers and consumers. Ventura wants to cut-off government funding to public radio and television which certainly is an insignificant fraction of 1% of the government budget. Most of the money for these services come from private donations. Public radio/TV is a welcome escape from the corporate propaganda, commercials and content censored programming of the commercial stations. The Right extremists want smaller government; translation: They want to eliminate regulatory agencies and social programs and deny us common citizens access to legal recourse when we are injured or killed from dangerous "deregulated" working conditions or products or uninspected food or poor medical care. At the same time they want to increase military spending so we can bully more countries around the world and make the way safe for the invasion of American capitalist imperialism and find new sources of near slave labor.

We don't need "big government" but we need a strong people-orientated government. Get the big money both private and Corporate out of the election process and the legislature. The FCC is "supposed" to have authority over both wire and airwave communication. If they had any teeth (not to mention other parts of the anatomy) they would tell broadcasters to give free time to political candidates during the pre-election season as their public service duty if they would like their license renewed.

RICHARD SHOAL
Kalispell, Montana
Email reshoal@webtv.net

Editor replies: Libertarianism is not incompatible with populism. Not all libertarians are stereotypical anti-government, anti-tax laissez-faire right wingers. Many of them are rightly concerned with the intrusion of government into everyday affairs. At The Progressive Populist we try to encourage a healthy disrespect for corporations as well as governments, but recognize that we need government to rein in corporations, ensure liberty and provide opportunity for the common good.

'Corporate Assassins' on the Mark

The article "Corporate Assassins" by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman (1/99 PP) was excellent. It should be required reading in high schools and colleges.

Over the past 20 years I have watched our government go from providing a check to keep a balance between the private and public sectors, to a government of, by and for the corporation. The sad and dangerous part is our "feel good" corporatized citizenry don't even realize it while losing the ability to think and reason.

It is now clearly evident that we have been slowly but surely moving toward an ignorant and permanent debtor society under corporate rule. Unfortunately there is no corporate constitution or Bill of Rights.

TOM SWAVELY
Miami Springs, Florida

Stand Up for Partisanship

President Clinton's support of bipartisanship has resulted, among other bad legislation, in NAFTA, GATT agreements that threaten certain agricultural, small business and consumer interests.

He has also endorsed some of a Republican plan to give stock market operators a crack at some social security funds.

The stock market reminds me of a gambling casino--the house never loses in the long run.

"Bipartisanship" hasn't resolved the nightmare of a health care system that ignores over 40 million men, women and children.

Even in death, the funeral industry has a deadly grip on fixed costs to the families of the deceased!

Our two-party system, financed as it is by well-heeled corporate and financial interests, thrives at the expense of the general population.

They figure a small cut at a time in social services won't be noticed until it is too late.

We need a Partisan Party to protect and defend our people and country from its real enemies!

Sincerely,

LOU ROTHMAN
Tallahassee, Fla.

Clinton And Constitution

During these impeachment proceedings, we hear our elected representatives shouting in their loudest voice that they must uphold the Constitution.

My question is this: Do they mean what they say? Or do they share Clinton's stated views of the Constitution.

Remember what President Bill Clinton said on MTV's show "Enough is Enough", 3/22/1994. He made this statement and I quote: "When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ..."

"And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapons sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities."

Yet he lays his hand on the BIBLE and swears to defend and uphold the Constitution, when he takes the oath of office. Our elected Representatives also take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution.

Now in his "State of The Union' speech. Clinton already states his intention to violate the Constitution, and once again seek "Fast Track Trade Authority". The Constitution does not give him this right. And he has been defeated in the last two sessions of Congress.

So my question to my elected Representatives is this: Do you believe in the Constitution and its guidance when you take your oath of office? Or do you share Bill Clinton's view that it is a radical document? Perhaps you too should ask your elected representatives what their view is concerning the Constitution.

C.W. MILLER, Reform Party
Fort Madison Iowa

Reclaim Broadcast 'Airways'

This is about the "Public Airways" being used for free by commercial radio and television stations.

I am opposed to this. Why? Because the $$ corporate interests are getting a free ride! Presently this is the case but the question is why does the public policy permit it? After all, we citizens own the airways.

"For, By and Of the People" should make the for-profit corporate interests "PAY" instead of the present no-charge free use. The money obtained could then be used for public stations and programs of all kinds "without" commercial advertising. The program trash we now have to see or listen to makes the point!

When 30 seconds of advertising (brainwashing) on a "Bowl Game" Sunday show costs $1,000,000, something is rotten in Denmark, as we in the U.S.A.

The corporate money makers who are in control of our public airways in this way do so without cost for the use of the airways. The Congress was paid off.

In my opinion, the time has come to change the rules of the present "no charge" policy.

Readers, why not write your Congress members and senators. After all, do the corporations own the country or "We the People"?

PATRICIA GENTILE
Ripon, Wisconsin

Judge Not, GOP

How could the Republican House Judiciary members like Henry John Hyde of Illinois and Bob Barr of Georgia, who had adulterous affairs, sit in judgment on President Clinton. Hyde had a "youthful indiscretion" at 41 years [of age] over a 5-year period with his amour--Cherie Snodgrass. Her husband later got a divorce. Hyde's affair has been broadcast to all the ships at sea, from coast to coast and is well known in Canada. How can Hyde serve as a judge in the case?

Bob Barr is almost as well known. He barely escaped political defeat in November over an unknown and poorly financed opponent. Barr has been married three times and recently has been cited for an extra affair.

Of course there is Congressman Bob Livingston of the Southern Mafia, Helen Chenoweth of Idaho and Cong. Dan Burton of Indiana. This is the party of "Family Values and Moral Standards." No wonder the approval rating of GOP/Christian Coalition Party is at only 37%

Truly,

RAYMOND MOSTEK
Lombard, Illinois

The Real Deal

Other mags I've read cater to severely compartmentalized audiences. I've seen papers for caterwauling psycho-anti-sex Maoists, guilt-ridden anemic liberals and vicious preppies in Brooks Brothers mufti.

Never have I read a paper which caters to my liberation theology, left-populist leanings. Class war is being waged upon working America, U.S. taxpayer-financed brutality is being rained upon every corner of the globe, yet most journals of the left want to bicker about trivialities.

Yours is the real deal to the left as the [Wall Street Journal] is to the oligarchs and plutocrats. Again, thank you. God Bless,

MICHAEL JOHN HERZBERG
St. Louis, Missouri

Independent Counsel Reform

There is a need to reform the Independent Counsel Act because major problems exist. Because of partisan politics from both sides, and conflicts of interest, the need to reform will prevent the Independent Counsel from having strayed away from their original investigations.

One might ask how and why did Starr's mission mutate from an investigation of a 20-year-old land deal in Arkansas, to producing a tabloid story of the President's sex life? Also, the three-judge panel, which chose Starr, shows how this important judicial tool has been corrupted by partisan politics. This is why rewriting this important Counsel Act will stop giving the Independent Counsel or anyone else a form of a blank check to act as the sole overseer of the Executive Branch. Currently this creates a gang of prosecutors, almost like a fourth or fifth branch of Government.

Reform rather than scrap this important law. Non-partisan judges should be appointed to oversee the Independent Counsel. This important reform would prevent manipulation and "Stacking the Deck," [and] also see that the original investigation doesn't veer off course.

RICHARD DIXON

Dublin, Pennsylvania

Editor's Note: The judges already are supposed to be non-partisan.

Send your letters to:
Letters to the Editor
PO Box 150517
Austin, TX 78715-0517
Or email populist@usa.net
Please keep them brief.