Vila Web: Naomi Klein- 'On Democracy vs Neoliberalism'

Source:Vila Web- Left-Wing author Naomi Klein, talking about neoliberalism (which is really liberal democracy) I believe in 2011.

"Naomi Klein on democracy and neoliberalism." Originally from Vila Web, but the video has since been deleted or blocked.

In 1989 or so a new Center-Left movement emerged in the Democratic Party. People who are called New Democrats who are Liberal and Progressive Democrats, who wanted to take the Democratic Party back from the social-democratic New-Left McGovernites who emerged in the party in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  Who saw the Democratic Party just loose three-straight presidential elections for the first time in like sixty years. 

There were a group of Progressive Democrats (the real Progressives) who were somewhat moderate, led by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Gary Hart, Dick Gephardt to a certain extent, Bob Kerry, Joe Lieberman, etc. Who in the 1990s would get dubbed as New Democrats. Who saw their party get hammered in election after election and decided it's time they fought back. They concluded that the Democratic Party was still a viable party, but that it started to move out of the political mainstream of American politics.

The Democrats became unelectable as a party on the national level, because they were seen as tax and spenders, soft on crime, soft on defense, soft on welfare, soft on corruption, etc. You can go down the line perhaps you've heard these terms before. And decided to put organizations together to promote their new way of thinking and their policy's and recruit political candidates who think like they do. 

Organizations like the Progressive Policy Institute that's still in business (notice that word progressive) that's still business today thats not a social democratic institute (as that name might indicate) but a Center-Left institute. As well as the New Democrat Coalition and they wanted to promote a new way of thinking to deal with the issues that the country was facing. And then recruit the political candidates to run on these policy's and try to put them in place once they are elected. That wasn't government-centered and focusing on creating new Federal social insurance programs. But that was people centered focusing on empowering people to handle their own problems. The 1996 Welfare to Work Law is a perfect example of this.

Center-Left Democrats (the real Progressives)  wanted to promote a new agenda that wasn't government- centered, but still hold true to the progressive values of the Democratic Party. Using government to help people in need help themselves and move past the days of indefinite public assistance and empower people in need to get themselves on their feet. 

Welfare to Work wasn't the New Democrats (the real Progressives) only objective. Things like fiscal responsibility and government living within its means, the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act being a perfect example of this, that had a lot of budget cuts in it as well as tax hikes on the wealthy. Getting rid of the soft on crime image that killed the Democratic Party in 1968, 72, 80, 84, 88 by getting tough, but smart on crime, by having violent offenders serve out their sentences and serving long sentences for serious crimes. But also measures to prevent crime and addressing at risk youth with after school programs so they could be constructive after school. 

The New Democrats (the real Progressives)  well as free but smart trade so we can sell our products oversees at low tariff rates: NAFTA and GAT in 1993. And national security, so we can still be strong, but be intelligent in how we send our troops. And not send them everywhere.

The Democratic Socialist-Left in the Democratic Party saw this movement and saw New Democrats take over the Democratic Party and saw their power and influence diminish. Because New Democrats were getting elected governor and to the Senate and not Democratic Socialists. Where most of them are still in the House representing House districts and not being able to get elected statewide (for the most part) and especially not nationally. 

The last Democratic Socialist that won the Democratic nomination for President, was Senator George McGovern back in 1972. How the Democratic Party has changed and for the better for my perspective as a Democrat. So what Democratic Socialists like Naomi Klein and others, when they are critiquing neoliberalism, they are talking about New Democrats who are not socialist enough for their point of view.

Jan Shakowsky: 'Announces Bill to Create 2.2 Million Jobs'

Source:U.S. Representative Jan Shakowsky (Democrat, Illinois) talking about her jobs plan.

"Representative Jan Schakowsky talks about her new Jobs Bill which will hire two million Americans to address our jobs crisis." 

From Jan Shakowski 

The so-called House Progressive Caucus (Democratic Socialists of America, in actuality) developed a similar plan back in the April during the official House debate on the budget. That got around forty votes in a 435 Member House, which should give you a pretty good idea of how many people voted against it. Not all of the forty-five members or so of the so-called Progressive Caucus in the House voted for it, they weren't even united behind their own plan. 

The CPC plan back in April also had a tax hike of over 1T$ in it including on the middle class when they can least afford it in this bad economy. Where they are struggling just to pay their current bills, so a new tax bill doesn't make that any easier. 

I'll give Representative Jan Shakowski credit for not putting in a middle class tax hike in her latest plan. But her jobs plan is essentially centered around creating new Federal Government jobs, creating all of these new Federal agencies to go out and hire all of these new people to do these public works. And have very little if anything to create jobs in the private sector thats hurting right now, people who actually have to meet payrolls and live within budgets or risk going out of business. 

The private sector is not like the Federal Government that controls the national currency and can just borrow and spend to pay for its operations, because they can print money. Had Representative Schakowski's (great name by the way especially for someone from Chicago, but thats a different story) had her plan been centered around fixing and expanding infrastructure in America, then I would have a lot more respect for it. 

And then we also need tax cuts to encourage consumer spending which is where the real weakness in our economy economic growth (or the lack of it) because not enough people in America are spending enough money for us to have enough economic growth to create enough jobs to bring down our unemployment rate. 

The debt and deficit are big issues in the economy today as well because they relate to the weakness of our dollar with all the money we owe other nations, but without a strong economy, we'll never be able to bring down our debt and deficit to the point where we can manage it in a healthy way.

A solid economic plan to me is in the neighborhood of around 1-2T$ over five years thats centered around infrastructure, like a National Infrastructure Bank that I've mentioned and pushed before that I'll being doing again in the future. That repairs and builds roads, bridges, airports, waterways, schools, etc. With kids going back to school in the next few weeks, now would be a perfect time to spend 50B$ or so right now on fixing and building new schools.

A NIB could finance all of these projects through the private sector and then hire private companies to do the work and then they would hire the workers to do the work. As well as focusing on our consumer spending (or the lack of it) with tax cuts for the middle class to do that, like a payroll tax cut or a consumer tax credit, a tax credit that people would have to spend automatically and make it big enough to make a difference. 

And then passing the Central America, Columbia and Korea trade deals that are stuck in Congress, so we can start exporting again. But then pay for this entire plan and not put it on the national debt card.

What we need right now as a country more than anything else and we need a lot, is job growth where we are creating around 200K jobs a month again. And the only way to do this is through economic growth of around 4-5%. And to do this we need start building and exporting things again. And as people we need to start spending money again, not expanding the Federal Government.

Russia Today: Kristine Frazao- 'Presidential hopeful Gary Johnson: Eliminate the IRS'

Source:Russia Today- Governor Gary Johnson (Republican, New Mexico) 2012 presidential candidate, talking to President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Lately the GOP presidential hopefuls have put on a media circus. And the US' economic issues have been a hot topic for debate. Many of the candidates have expressed their solutions on how to get America out of the economic rut and Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, shares with Kristine Frazao what he'll do as president of the US." 

From Russia Today

I love Gary Johnson's idea of cutting the Federal Government by 43% not because I'm a (pardon the term) a cheap bastard (not that I'm denying that) who wants to throw poor people on the street and senior citizens out of senior citizen homes, but to reform our Federal Government in a way to make it as effective as possible, which by itself would bring the costs of the Federal Government down, because they wouldn't be doing as much. And the safety net is a great place to start when it comes to government reform. 

But we also need to cut back our defense Budget not to make us weaker but so we have less responsibility and demand that these developed nations play the lead role in their own national security. As well as agriculture welfare and corporate welfare: we shouldn't be subsidizing at taxpayer expense company's and individuals for doing well. But tax them at a rate that encourages them to do well in the future, big difference. 

What I would like to do is reform our Federal Government in a way that it's doing much less in the future without hurting anyone who depends on these public services in the future. But do it in a way that makes these public services more cost-effective as well as more efficient in the future. But having others play a bigger role in providing these public services and bring down the costs of them in the future. Which keeps taxes down on everyone in the future and makes these public services more beneficial for everyone who depends on them now and into the future. 

And then reforming our tax code in the short-term and long-term. In the short-term to help bring down our debt and deficit and in the long-term after the Federal Government is reformed, to provide the necessary tax revenue to fund the new and improved (pardon the expression) Federal Government. A tax system that based on consumption and paying for the public services that people consume, rather than taxing people by what they make which discourages making and investing money. 

When it comes to government reform, to start with defense cut the defense budget by 200B$ a year which might sound real high, but in a defense budget of 700B$, is very doable, do this by ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and have NATO and the Arab League play a bigger role in developing these nations. I was for the no fly zone in Libya from the beginning, but with President Obama's latest position on the War Powers Act, where he essentially believes he doesn't need approval from anyone to commit American troops, it's time for us to bring those folks home. (Assuming Congress doesn't get off their cans and do their jobs)

And with out other troops oversees, bring them home and demand that these developed nations play a bigger role in their own nationals security:  Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea, and transform NATO into the European Defense Alliance (or something) that would work with us, Canada, Scandinavia, the Slavic republics, Turkey in partnership, but that where Europe defends Europe not America And everyone else defends themselves. 

And then get the safety net off of the Federal and state Budgets all together and convert them into semi- private, non-profit community services for the less-fortunate. They would all be self-financed and run independently and regulated to the extent that they would have to serve anyone eligible who applies. 

As far as tax reform, I would eliminate all tax loopholes including corporate welfare in the short-term and then lower tax rates, to help bring down the debt and deficit but in the long term. 

I would throw out the tax code and replace it with a combination of payroll taxes and consumption taxes. A payroll tax to fund the new Defense Department and then force the Defense Department to live within the National Security Tax and not be able to collect from other revenue. Thats one example. 

Tax reform really should be another post, but another example would be a border fee to enter or exit America to fund the Border Patrol. And then consumption taxes that would cover everything with low- income people still being able to receive the Earned Income Tax Credit. And make it progressive as well, more expensive goods would be taxed higher the cheaper goods. Luxury Cars taxed higher than grocery's. (To use as an example)

The idea of tax reform is great if its done correctly and doesn't result in a net tax increase especially in this bad economy. But tax reform doesn't make much sense without government reform to make the Federal Government as cost-effective and as efficient as possible. And then you can figure out how much revenue you need to fund the new government. 

FORA-TV: Brian Doherty- 'Conservatism vs Libertarianism (2007)'

Source:FORA-TV- Reason Magazine's Senior Editor Brian Doherty, in Berkeley, California, talking about his book about conservatism and libertarianism.

"Reason Magazine Senior Editor Brian Doherty discusses the differences between libertarianism and traditional conservative ideologies. 

Brian Doherty considers "Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement."

This illuminating, lively history of a political movement on the rise - told through the life stories of its standard bearers - casts new light on the intellectual and political history of post-WWII America. Doherty traces the evolution of libertarianism through the unconventional stories of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman, and their personal battles, character flaws, love affairs, and historical events that altered its course. In so doing, he provides a fascinating new perspective on American history, from the New Deal through the culture wars of the 1060s to today's divisiveness.

In February, the Wall Street Journal noted, "With 'Radicals for Capitalism', Brian Doherty finally gives libertarianism its due...Mr. Doherty has rescued libertarianism from its own obscurity, eloquently capturing the appeal of the 'pure idea', its origins in great minds and the feistiness of its many current champions." - Cody's Books

Brian Doherty is a senior editor of Reason, the libertarian monthly named one of "The 50 Best Magazines" three out of the past four years by the Chicago Tribune. Established in 1968 and a four-time finalist for National Magazine Awards, Reason has a print circulation of 40,000 and won the 2005 Western Publications Association "MAGGIE" Award for best political magazine." 

From FORA-TV

When I look at political ideology's as a political junky and as a blogger, as a Liberal myself, I have more respect for the political ideology's that respect individual freedom and the U.S. Constitution. And I'm not just talking about economic freedom but personal freedom as well, the ability not just for people to make their own economic choices in life. But also how they live their own lives as a whole, who they can marry, what they can do with their money, what they can do to their bodies, make their own health care choices, etc. And that brings me to liberalism, obviously. 

In this post I'm going to focus on the differences between classical conservatism, the Barry Goldwater's, Ron Reagan's, Bill Buckley's, and libertarianism, the Ron Paul's, Peter Schiff's of the world. Libertarianism and classical conservatism also being political ideology's based on individual freedom and the U.S. Constitution where they both believe which is were Americans get their freedom from. And that people essentially have the right to be stupid and let birds fly to chart their own course in life. And that they shouldn't get bailed out for their bad decisions either. 

I got this idea for this post from a friend of mine on Facebook and they know who they are and I'm dedicating this post to that person. 

First, what do Classical Conservatives the Rand Paul's of the world today have in common with Libertarians, the Peter Schiff's of the world today? Respect for the U.S. Constitution and individual freedom, the idea that our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) who were made up of Conservatives and Liberals when they wrote the U.S. Constitution pretty much got most of it right when they wrote it. 

Our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) wrote one hell of a document and that constitutional amendments that have been written since improved the Constitution. But that it's a great document for anyone who believes in liberal democracy and that (excuse the expression) that we shouldn't dick around with it and try to limit people's freedom. Like constitutional amendments to ban homosexuals from getting married or taking the power away from the people to decide who we can for vote for to represent us in Congress. 

Or big government law laws that are unconstitutional like the Patriot Act that violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (as far as I'm concern) that what the Federal Government can do is already laid out for them in the U.S. Constitution and that Congress can't pass any law that they want even if it might be popular, if it violates the U.S. Constitution, which is what separates Classical Conservatives and Libertarians from Democratic Socialists. 

Socialists who I believe see the U.S. Constitution as more of an advisory document than anything else and have a collectivist approach to politics rather than an individualist approach. And the Constitution is basically an individualist document centered around Individual Freedom (that locks Socialists out of it, perhaps intentionally) to begin with and this gets in the way of their politics. 

The differences between classical conservatism and libertarianism has to do with the economy and foreign policy. Classical Conservatives prefer a private market (what they call a free market) and decentralization approach to our safety net opening up these social insurance programs to the private market. Giving the people a choice in how they consume these programs, Social Security and Medicare being perfect examples of this. And letting the states take over the rest of our social insurance programs: Welfare Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, and Medicaid being perfect examples of this. 

Where Libertarians want government out of the economy all together and see all of these social insurance programs as unconstitutional. 

When it comes to foreign policy, Classical Conservatives aren't Neoconservatives (obviously) and see our foreign policy as having to do with protecting our national interests around the world. And not getting involved with other countries conflicts like civil wars or promoting our form of government around the world either. 

Where Libertarians tend to be isolationists on foreign policy and only want us to use military action when we are directly under attacked. 

Classical conservatism and libertarianism are both similar political ideology's because they are both based on individual freedom and the U.S, Constitution. But they are also different in a sense because libertarianism is borderline anti-government and perhaps just a couple steps away from anarchism. 

Where Classical Conservatives want government there to protect innocent people from the harm of others. So innocent people's freedom isn't compromised.  

The main differences between Conservatives (lets say) and Libertarians, is that Conservatives aren't anti-government, just anti-big government. So they are against both socialism (democratic and otherwise) as well as religious fascism and fascism in general. Whereas Libertarians at least these days don't seem to have a role for government to do anything, really. At least at the Federal level. 

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Dominionism: Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry Share Radical Religion Ties'

Source:The Daily Beast- Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, being captured by religious fundamentalists.

"A Daily Beast piece explains how 2012 Republican presidential candidates and Tea Party favorites Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry share ties to a radical fundamentalist Christian movement known as Dominionism. Cenk Uygur, Richard Eskow and Brian Unger discuss on The Young Turks." 

From The Young Turks 

"With Tim Pawlenty out of the presidential race, it is now fairly clear that the GOP candidate will either be Mitt Romney or someone who makes George W. Bush look like Tom Paine. Of the three most plausible candidates for the Republican nomination, two are deeply associated with a theocratic strain of Christian fundamentalism known as Dominionism. If you want to understand Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, understanding Dominionism isn’t optional." 

From The Daily Beast

As a Liberal Democrat with a strong belief in liberal democracy, who believes free people in a free society should be able to live freely, without government interfering in how free people should live their own lives as long as we are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. 

I get worried every time I here Big Government Democrats or Republicans (Socialists on the Far-Left and Christian-Fundamentalists on the Far-Right) come out in favor of policy's that restrict our freedom, whether its economic or personal freedom. And thats exactly what you get from Republican (in name only) presidential candidates Michele Bachmann an Rick Perry, two candidates who both believe the fastest route to the Republican nomination for President is with the Christian-Right and getting their support. 

In Michele Bachmann's case at least she truly believes in the Christian-Right agenda. And with Rick Perry, I just don't know enough about him to decide if he's playing politics or if he truly believes in this agenda. But with Representative Bachmann's case you have a long record going back to 2004 when she was in the Minnesota Senate coming out against equal rights for homosexuals (to use as an example) and then in I believe July signing that pledge from a Far-Right religious group coming out for laws banning pornography and a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. What happened to states rights in this case, they've always regulated marriage straight and gay. 

Every time I hear Michele Bachmann say she's a "Constitutional Conservative" I feel like flushing the toilet, literally. (Or believe she should be required to say that under oath) Constitutional conservatism is not about amending the Constitution but living within it (especially government) and not trying to get around it. At best Michele Bachmann is a Christian-Conservative (more like fundamentalists or even a theocrat) replacing the Constitution with an interpretation of the Bible to govern the country. 

While Rick Perry has decided he's going to be a Christian-Conservative at least for this presidential campaign. As well as a fiscal Conservative on economic policy, even though his fiscal record as Governor of Texas suggests otherwise with pile of debt Texas piled on. As well as all the Texas Government jobs he created. (If you need a job in Texas, talk to Governor Rick Perry) 

Every time you hear a so-called Christian-Conservative say they are anti-big Government and a Constitutional Conservative (check to see if it's currently snowing in Las Vegas in July) please do yourself a favor and take that with a mountain. (Actually, take it with Salt Mountain) As well as look to see how many constitutional amendments that would restrict our freedom that they are in favor of. 

People who are called Christian-Conservatives in America believe that our problems as a country have to do with some as former serial political candidate and loser Alan Keyes said: "Our moral crisis" and that our problems have to do with our moral character. 

As Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has said this, Rick Santorum is in favor of empowering the Federal Government to regulate marriage in America. He's in favor of one marriage law for the whole country regulated by the Federal Government. As well as a constitutional amendment to make this happen. 

The Far-Right in America (just to be completely accurate) believe that we have too much personal freedom in America and that the Federal Government should restrict it and even pass constitutional amendments to make that happen. 

So when you hear presidential candidates come out against Big Government, don't take the word at face Value if you are not very familiar with them. And take the time to look into their record especially as it gets to what they've said in the past. Because you remember they are politicians or aspiring politicians. And are politicians unfortunately are prone to say what they believe we want to hear. 

Thom Hartmann: Peter Ferrara- 'Is Shared Sacrifice Socialism?'

Source:Thom Hartmann- talking about socialism.

"Thom Hartmann speaks with Peter Ferrara, Senior Fellow for Entitlement and Budget Policy-The Heartland Institute / Author-"America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb", about whether shared sacrifice is socialism. If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

From Thom Hartmann

To answer the question that Thom Hartmann asked Peter Ferrara, is shared sacrifice socialism: the answer is yes. Shared sacrifice is a form of collectivism to fund the government that our Congress and Administration decided that we should have. 

I'll give you another one: a progressive tax system (that America still technically has) is another form of socialism as well, but my point is so what and I'm a Liberal and I believe that free people in a free society (which is what America is) has the right to go out and earn as much money as their skills and production will allow, but pay taxes based on what they earn. With the wealthy paying the most and go down from there. But that are tax rates should still be low enough to encourage the making of wealth in America. So everyone can benefit from it. 

MSNBC anchor Lawrence O'Donnell (who I call Larry because I'm not a preppy snob that he apparently is) said (and by the way I agree with Larry O'Donnell as often as I drink a dry glass of water) but he's dead right here. There's good capitalism and there's bad capitalism and there's good socialism and bad socialism. 

It's not often as far as I'm concern that Socialists get anything right at least not in America, Europeans can speak for themselves. But shared sacrifice is a form of good socialism, because it demands and let's be honest here, it's rare if ever that government asks people to do anything, they always demand it and with shared sacrifice they demand that people contribute to the financing of government based on their ability to pay for it. But not to the point that it discourages people from earning a good living. 

Shared sacrifice is also very important when we are as we are now talking about debt and deficit reduction, because when we need to cut back as we are doing now, we have to do it in a way that hurts the least and doesn't hurt anyone in a way that devastates them. And that includes the people who've benefited most from America and our system, Constitution, economic freedom, and everything else. Shared sacrifice is about everyone contributing to pay their fair share but not in a way that devastates anyone.

So again to answer the question, shared sacrifice is a form of socialism, but a good form of it. Not the form that try's to nationalize industries or limit peoples economic freedom or any other freedom. Or tax people to the point that there's not enough incentive in the economy for people to work hard, be productive and be successful. Which would be a form of bad socialism.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur- 'Prisoners: America's New Cheap Labor (ALEC Exposed)'

Source:The Young Turks- I believe a California prison, but don't quote me on that.

"ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) is exploiting private prison labor for profit and lobbying for harsh crime and pro drug-war legislation to create more cheap workers for corporate America. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss." 

From The Young Turks

The modern version of slave labor is a bit extreme. (Coming from TYT) Prison inmates are technically compensated and actually do get paid. Wages that you might see in, I don't Haiti (to use as an example,) 20 cents an hour. But they do get free room and board, food, health care, laundry, recreation, etc. Fine, I can go along with that. 

The fact is their living conditions wouldn't be tolerated perhaps anywhere else in the developed free world. And we can do much better than this to the point that would help the inmates, the prisons, society, and our governments budgets, by giving our prison inmates real jobs and compensate them based on what they produce and have them do jobs that they are educated, trained, and qualified to do. Jobs that just keep the prison running and then prisons wouldn't have to bring in private companies to do the work. 

Jobs like the mess hall like maybe turning mess halls into real cafeteria's (instead of mess halls, where they eat a lot of mess, pun intended) with real food and making inmates pay for their food. 

Laundry. make the inmates do the laundry and then charge the inmates for their laundry and clothing. 

Jobs in construction, have the inmates to the work when it comes to renovation of prisons or prison expansion. Jobs like real wood shops and factories that would build the furniture for the prisons, but also the furniture in other government offices and have these agency's pay for the work and then compensate the inmates for their work. 

Jobs like auto mechanics like with the prison buses and other automobiles as well as bring in private automobiles for repairs as well as police cars. 

Barbershops, you could also have inmates working in jobs on the street, well-supervised, of course like street repair and other things, but pay them for what their work is worth. And not the 20 cents an hour that they get, but what a free person would be making for that work. 

If we just had a corrections system that brought back real prison industries that didn't compete with private industries unfairly, our prisons could pay for themselves and wouldn't have to compete with education and infrastructure and other priorities for taxpayer funds, because these industries would make money and the inmates would make money do the jobs and could then pay for their room and board. 

Not all inmates are qualified for well-trained  jobs and some of them need to be in tight supervision until they are ready for general population. But our general population inmates should be working and working full time to pay for their room and board. And to keep the prisons running where they live and to make our corrections system less of a burden on our government budgets. 

Also, not all inmates are ready to work once they get there and it might not just be they can't function in general population. It's hard to find a group of people in society that has as low as an education level then prison inmates. Thats a main reason why they are in prison to begin with because they don't have the skills to make it legally on the outside. So these people first need to be educated in prison before they are ready to work but we can do this as well: high school and college that they could later pay for. 

America unfortunately already had a slave era and we certainly don't need to try to repeat that or come anywhere close. But our inmates need to work, for their good, for the good of the prisons and for the good of society once they get out of prison. But we need to do it in a way that benefits everyone involved and as humanly as possible.