Comments on: Prospectus for PBPAC ( First Draft )

By: John Tehan

John Tehan — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:10:22 +0000

Carol, thanks for your insightful post – I’ll bring it up at our next steering committee meeting, I’m sure we can add that to our prospectus. One thing I’ve thought through the years is that we should redirect a portion of our military budget into clean water in the developing world – nuclear power can desalinate a LOT of water, and how many nuclear subs do we have? Parking a sub off the coast of a poor country and filling reservoirs with potable water would be easy to do, and an action like that would go a much longer way towards protecting our interests than our current posture.

Again, thanks for your post – please consider sending an email blast to your network about our efforts here. The more members we have, the more successful we will be. Take care, and have a great Friday!

By: Carol Coakley

Carol Coakley — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:01:52 +0000

clarification – We instruct Congress that we do not want their “defense” jobs

By: Carol Coakley

Carol Coakley — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:58:17 +0000

John,
Very excited to see another progressive group. One issue I would recommend: Our foreign policy has been based on what is good for America, as if that is something different than what is good for all countries, assuming everyone wants peace, self-determination, sustainable economies, freedom and equality and a healthy environment. Our ‘diplomacy’ has been aimed at obtaining resources, cheap labor markets, customers for our products, governments that cooperate with our greedy corporations. Additionally we have been relying on our military as a major tool of foreign policy. The state department and international aide have been gutted financially.

Add to this an overblown military budget burdened with mission creep since the cold war ended and we have 58% of our discretionary spending going to the military and nuclear weapons. (Does not include Veterans Administration). Our military budget is larger than that of the next 14 countries. And more people fear and resent us around the world. Our large military budget does not make us safer; it encourages endless war and high profits for defense contractors.

We are suggesting as a beginning that the military budget be cut by 25% – unneeded weapons systems, unnecessary bases around the world, and expensive contractors fighting our wars…We instruct Congress that we do not want their jobs and tell them we want investments in life enhancing industries that will actually employ more people than those now in defense. (see PERI report from UMass Amherst) We are hoping for a strong budget resolution asking Appropriation Committees to remember that for every dollar spent on defense, a child goes unclothes, unfed and uneducated…(per Ike) and that money be directed to international conflict resolution, human needs and domestic spending.

Thanks for the work you are doing and I hope you’ll consider a statement on our defense expenditures vs human needs.

By: John Tehan

John Tehan — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:11:20 +0000

Here’s the mission statement from a week ago:

“Our mission is to empower middle class Americans by organizing small dollar donations into big clout, putting them on a more equal footing with corporate interests seeking to influence our elections.”

By: pistolSO

pistolSO — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:09:57 +0000

I like the first draft a lot.

I certainly think it’s OK to say that we support equal access to all medically necessary procedures, and having access to contraception is an important women’s right. I know we discussed it before, but my instincts say that the abortion issue is an issue that some people put above all else. Some people will vote for the pro-life pols before they’ll vote for a pro-choice one that is also best on jobs, pro-environment and wants Medicare–For-All. I suggest we poll our members before putting women’s reproductive health rights as an item since it infers our support for on-demand abortion(which I think you, I and Jesse all support and agree on). So I’d like what to see how our members feel about an unequivocal statement in support of reproductive rights just so I don’t feel we’re going to alienate potential supporters.

And yes, we should always emphasize that we go as our membership wants us to go.

By: John Tehan

John Tehan — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:38:00 +0000

Great first cut, MoT, thanks! Here’s a couple of things I see, in no particular order:

I think it says PBPAC in a few too many places – we can use a few more pronouns in a couple of spots.

We should incorporate the mission statement into it, or at least some of the phrases from it – empowering middle class Americans, for example.

I think we should add women’s reproductive health rights in item 5.

We should mention right up front that the PAC is a small-d democratically controlled organization.