...and Republicans drink bourbon. Did you know that? If you were a Republican campaign strategist, you would. And if you want to be a Democratic strategist, you should too.
According to this LA Times article, the Republican Party is light years ahead of their Democratic counterparts at targeting its core voters and tailoring its message to them. The Republicans are efficient. They don’t waste a lot of time, effort or money going after voters to whom they are never going to appeal. And despite the “Big Tent” crap, they don’t usually put their expensive ad campaigns and Get Out the Vote efforts into New York’s inner cities or Beverly Hills’ gated communities.
Back to the gin and bourbon. It makes perfect sense. Bourbon is more popular in the South – think Jack Daniels and George Dickel. And the South, demographically, is more receptive to the Republican Party’s message. Gin, on the other hand, is traditionally favored by urban blue collar voters, the Democrats’ core constituency. Marketers know this. So should Democratic political operatives. They should also know the other buying and consuming habits of their core Democratic voters, the better to target them and tailor their message to them.
Republicans, for instance, know that Republicans-leaning voters are more apt to buy Fords while Democrats purchase Volvos. People interested in military history tend to be more socially conservative.
All this information on marketing habits is there for the taking. Republicans have just utilized that knowledge more effectively than Democrats have in identifying their core voters and getting out their message to them.
But, according to this article, we are finally catching up.
And here’s another positive sign that Democrats may be getting serious about winning elections.
According to this story in yesterday's Washington Post, a group of wealthy liberal Democrats have agreed to contribute $80 million over a five-year period to fund some new liberal think tanks. These wealthy liberals are pledging their own money and also promising to get their friends to donate so they can set up a web of new policy shops to compete with older, more established conservative groups, such as The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, and The Hoover Foundation, which have been funneling ideas and policies to the Republican Party for decades.
This is not only good news; it's long overdue!
For at least several decades, the Republicans have been reaming Democrats with a plethora of policies and ideas while Democrats have struggled from campaign cycle to campaign cycle just to define themselves. And the one thing we hear constantly from voters, despite our efforts, is that they don’t know where our candidates stand on issues.
Whether it’s actually true or not, these voters perceive Republicans, such as George Bush, as strong minded candidates who stand up for what they believe. In last year’s presidential race, the public viewed Bush not as stubborn or arrogant, but as honest and principled. On the other hand, they saw John Kerry as wishy-washy and weak. And worse, they thought that he’d say anything to get elected. And voters claimed they didn't know where he stood on the major issues.
Part of this, of course, was due to the poor campaign run by his managers who were not quick enough to end attacks against their candidate. The Republican Party and their conservative allies spent a lot of money to paint an untrue picture of Kerry’s character. But Shrum, Devine and Cahill certainly made the Republicans' job easier by not answering those attack ads rapidly enough.
But Democrats have got to face the truth that they are better at telling the public what they oppose than they are at saying what it is they stand for. And that does make them look negative and whiny.
A more effective strategy would be to state what it is they oppose in the Republicans' platform and then to follow that with statements of what they would do instead if they were elected.These contrast and compare ads are more effective than totally negative attack ads because they criticize the Republican opponent and also give voters a reason to vote for the Democratic candidate instead.
A well done contrast and compare ad that attacks one’s opponent and offers a better position on the issues, or a better candidate, is a very effective campaign strategy. And having surrogate groups to do your negative attacks also is effective, as the Republicans have proven.
However, strategy with no new ideas won’t win elections. It’s like any other ad campaign that depends on style with no substance. People eventually catch on and stop buying your product no matter how clever your ad campaign. Products like Alka-Seltzer, which tanked even though their ads consistently won awards for originality, prove that even the best ad campaign a marketer can come up with is no substitute for a quality product when it comes to actually selling your goods to the public.
Although creating think tanks, encouraging scholars to come up with great policy statements, and finding fresh ideas are all part of the solution, Democrats also have to know how to market their message.
To compete effectively in elections we’ve got to have fresh ideas, sound policy, a coherent and consistent message and the means to get it out to an audience that we have effectively targeted as receptive to our ideas.
And we have got to get competitive with Republicans so that voters have a real choice and real Americans, once again, have a chance to realize the American Dream that has been slowly slipping away from us under the Bush Administration.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Saturday, August 06, 2005
There's Good News, and Bad News
So, which do you want first?
The New York Times has a great editorial on the most recent employment report from the U.S. Department of Labor. First, the good news.
According to the latest economic report on job growth, released Friday, the government is reporting that 200,000 new jobs have been created for July and the unemployment rate is now a relatively low 5 percent.
But as The New York Times points out - and this is the bad news - in previous economic recoveries job creation has averaged 250,000 a month, which makes this recovery still anemic for workers. As The Times acknowledges, any time job growth picks up, it's a positive development. And the increase in job creation is welcome for those who have managed to get some of those positions, including groups that are tradtionally the last to benefit from an improved employment picture, such as black and Hispanic youth.
However, there has not been much job growth in the manufacturing sector, once a source of well paying jobs. And wages are barely keeping up with inflation, so though more people are working, they're still not earning good enough salaries to benefit from the economic recovery in the same way that investors and corporations have benefitted from it. While companies are making large profits and investors also are increasing their earnings in this roaring economy, most ordinary employees have yet to see any of those gains trickle down to their paychecks.
And no economy stays hot forever. Just as the economy of the nineties hit a recession, many factors could prove to be a headwind that slows down the latest growth. And unlike in the nineties, when workers experienced real growth, a hot job market, and healthy wage gains, when the economy slows down again - as it must, at some point - workers will have been passed by during the good times.
And that's the real bad news.
The New York Times has a great editorial on the most recent employment report from the U.S. Department of Labor. First, the good news.
According to the latest economic report on job growth, released Friday, the government is reporting that 200,000 new jobs have been created for July and the unemployment rate is now a relatively low 5 percent.
But as The New York Times points out - and this is the bad news - in previous economic recoveries job creation has averaged 250,000 a month, which makes this recovery still anemic for workers. As The Times acknowledges, any time job growth picks up, it's a positive development. And the increase in job creation is welcome for those who have managed to get some of those positions, including groups that are tradtionally the last to benefit from an improved employment picture, such as black and Hispanic youth.
However, there has not been much job growth in the manufacturing sector, once a source of well paying jobs. And wages are barely keeping up with inflation, so though more people are working, they're still not earning good enough salaries to benefit from the economic recovery in the same way that investors and corporations have benefitted from it. While companies are making large profits and investors also are increasing their earnings in this roaring economy, most ordinary employees have yet to see any of those gains trickle down to their paychecks.
And no economy stays hot forever. Just as the economy of the nineties hit a recession, many factors could prove to be a headwind that slows down the latest growth. And unlike in the nineties, when workers experienced real growth, a hot job market, and healthy wage gains, when the economy slows down again - as it must, at some point - workers will have been passed by during the good times.
And that's the real bad news.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Penny Wise and Pound Foolish Economics
In this op-ed piece in The New York Times, today, Pankaj Ghemaway, a Harvard professor of business administration, and Ken A. Mark, a Toronto-based business consultant, offer a novel defense of Wal-Mart's avaricious tactics. According to them, Wal-Mart has contributed to the overall productivity of the nation and provided a real value to consumers because of its low prices, regardless of the fact that the only way it can continue to offer such deep discounts is by paying its employees the miniumum wage and denying them adequate health and pension benefits.
But these two business apologists make a flawed argument.
Since most of Wal-Mart's customers are poor - especially the rural poor - their benefit from sharply discounted prices comes at a huge expense to themselves and their families because in order to keep prices so low while also maintaining profitability, Wal-Mart drives out competition, which includes other stores that actually pay higher wages. Wal-Mart also guts communities, leaving formerly thriving downtowns bereft of their retail centers. In the place of once prosperous stores are loan shark operations and bail bondsmen. Thus, the towns where the rural poor used to seek economic opportunity have become destabilized high crime centers.
Here's the money quote:
Wal-Mart can only offer poor people its low prices because it pays its employees, who are often the very same people who are its customers, such low wages. And because it stints on health benefits and pension plans, many of Wal-Mart employees are also on Medicaid and they put a huge strain on other taxpayers in their communities.
There's also domino effect at play here.
In order for Wal-Mart to sell cheap and also make a profit it buys deeply discounted products from suppliers. Most suppliers, in fact, hate to do business with Wal-Mart because the company plays such hard ball on prices. But because Wal-Mart is the 500 pound gorilla in the retail sector, the suppliers have no choice but to sell to Wal-Mart.
And in order for those suppliers to keep their own prices so low and still maintain their profitability - you guessed it - they too have to pay cutthroat low wages to their workers. In fact, most of the products that Wal-Mart stocks comes from overseas, usually from low wage countries like China.
So while in the short run Wal-Mart's cheap prices are good for the rural poor, in the long run those cheap prices are exactly what keeps them poor. It's a vicious circle. And, yes it's also a race to the bottom of the barrel.
Frankly, I couldn't care less about Wal-Mart and what its greedy investors would stand for in the way of profit if the workers got a two dollar raise at the expense of their mutual funds and pension plans.
Although the authors are implying that those mutual funds and pension plans also benefit ordinary middle class workers, the truth is most middle class workers would improve their own lives with better job security and higher wages. They're losing good pension plans and with low wages they will be able to afford neither mutual funds nor savings accounts, anyway.
The middle-class is desparately losing ground as good jobs disappear. And the poor have less of a chance to reach middle-class status precisely because of Wal-Mart and its tactics.
In the past, the only thing that turned factory workers from being impoverished, living in steaming tenements and toiling in sweatshops into middle class suburbanites was a strong union movement that fought against robber barons and greedy factory owners and forced them to share the wealth that they and their investors were making off the sweat equity of workers in the first place.
And that's what it will take to expand the middle class again. Poor people don't need dirt cheap, shoddy products produced by those who are even worse off than they are. They need decent jobs, a living wage, and health and pension benefits. I'm sure that given a chance, most of Wal-Marts' employees would be delighted to be able to afford to pay a higher price for a better quality good. No worker needs a vicious cycle where they can only buy cheap goods because their own wages keep going down.
To suggest otherwise is indeed to be penny wise and pound foolish.
But these two business apologists make a flawed argument.
Since most of Wal-Mart's customers are poor - especially the rural poor - their benefit from sharply discounted prices comes at a huge expense to themselves and their families because in order to keep prices so low while also maintaining profitability, Wal-Mart drives out competition, which includes other stores that actually pay higher wages. Wal-Mart also guts communities, leaving formerly thriving downtowns bereft of their retail centers. In the place of once prosperous stores are loan shark operations and bail bondsmen. Thus, the towns where the rural poor used to seek economic opportunity have become destabilized high crime centers.
Here's the money quote:
"These kinds of savings to customers far exceed the costs that Wal-Mart supposedly imposes on society by securing subsidies, destroying jobs in competing stores, driving employees toward public welfare systems and creating surban sprawl. Even if these offenses could all be ascribed to Wal-Mart their costs wouldn't add up to anything like $16 billion." Note: $16 billion is the amount these authors claim Wal-Mart saves consumers every year.Mr. Ghemawat and Mr. Mark are two business people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Similarly, the savings to customers also exceed the total surplus the company generates for its shareholders - a surplus that would be wiped out if Wal-Mart's million-plus employees were to receive a $2 per hour pay increase, modest though that sounds. Such a possibility would unacceptable to Wal-Mart's shareholders, who include not only Sam Walton's heirs but also the millions of Americans who invest in mutal funds and pension plans. Instead, the more than 100 million Americans who shop at Wal-Mart would most likely just end up paying higher prices."
Wal-Mart can only offer poor people its low prices because it pays its employees, who are often the very same people who are its customers, such low wages. And because it stints on health benefits and pension plans, many of Wal-Mart employees are also on Medicaid and they put a huge strain on other taxpayers in their communities.
There's also domino effect at play here.
In order for Wal-Mart to sell cheap and also make a profit it buys deeply discounted products from suppliers. Most suppliers, in fact, hate to do business with Wal-Mart because the company plays such hard ball on prices. But because Wal-Mart is the 500 pound gorilla in the retail sector, the suppliers have no choice but to sell to Wal-Mart.
And in order for those suppliers to keep their own prices so low and still maintain their profitability - you guessed it - they too have to pay cutthroat low wages to their workers. In fact, most of the products that Wal-Mart stocks comes from overseas, usually from low wage countries like China.
So while in the short run Wal-Mart's cheap prices are good for the rural poor, in the long run those cheap prices are exactly what keeps them poor. It's a vicious circle. And, yes it's also a race to the bottom of the barrel.
Frankly, I couldn't care less about Wal-Mart and what its greedy investors would stand for in the way of profit if the workers got a two dollar raise at the expense of their mutual funds and pension plans.
Although the authors are implying that those mutual funds and pension plans also benefit ordinary middle class workers, the truth is most middle class workers would improve their own lives with better job security and higher wages. They're losing good pension plans and with low wages they will be able to afford neither mutual funds nor savings accounts, anyway.
The middle-class is desparately losing ground as good jobs disappear. And the poor have less of a chance to reach middle-class status precisely because of Wal-Mart and its tactics.
In the past, the only thing that turned factory workers from being impoverished, living in steaming tenements and toiling in sweatshops into middle class suburbanites was a strong union movement that fought against robber barons and greedy factory owners and forced them to share the wealth that they and their investors were making off the sweat equity of workers in the first place.
And that's what it will take to expand the middle class again. Poor people don't need dirt cheap, shoddy products produced by those who are even worse off than they are. They need decent jobs, a living wage, and health and pension benefits. I'm sure that given a chance, most of Wal-Marts' employees would be delighted to be able to afford to pay a higher price for a better quality good. No worker needs a vicious cycle where they can only buy cheap goods because their own wages keep going down.
To suggest otherwise is indeed to be penny wise and pound foolish.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
With Friends Like These
It's true, you don't really need enemies with radical Islamist Muslims like these as friends. Nicholas Kristoff, in The New York Times, has done a masterful job of exposing the problems facing women in most of the Third World. In the past, he has written movingly about teenage prostitutes in Southern Asian countries, and here he documents the very real oppression of female victims of rape in a Muslim society.
As Kristoff writes, rape victims are usually expected to kill themselves to preserve their honor while their assailants go free. Indeed, the perpertrators are often celebrated for their acts of rape. And if a woman isn't willing to commit suicide (which, by the way, Muslims claim is against the law in the Koran - I guess except where brutalized women are concerned) her family is often more than willing to commit an "honor killing."
Except, this time, in Pakistan, they picked on the wrong woman.
Dr. Shazia Khalid is a well-educated physician, as well as a devout Muslim. But when she was sexually molested, she did not crawl into a hole, commit suicide, or just go away. And her husband, rather than go along with an honor killing, actually is supporting her.
After her vicious attack, she was devastated. He was the one who convinced her that she had done nothing wrong and encouraged her to go to the authorities and to confront her attacker. He stood beside her in her insistence on real justice.
But that's not what Pakistan wants. Just as its not what Saudi Arabia wants.
The sad truth is that the very worst part of our misadventure in Iraq is that we went after the wrong villains.
I won't defend Saddam Hussein, who was a brutal dictator - no question about that. But if we're going to be honest, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The sanctions and the UN investigations were working there. The U.S. villified the chief UN inspector, Hans Blitzer, but he was vindicated in the end.
Not only were there no WMDs, but nobody has been able to link Hussein to Al Qeda.
But I could have told you that. It's not because I know anything about intelligence. I just know a rudimentary amount about Islam. You can learn it too, if you're willing to hang around Beliefnet and other religiously oriented websites and read a few books - it's really not that hard to learn about religion, including Islam.
Immediately after 9-11, Beliefnet ran an article explaining Wahabbiism, which is the form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. It's an extremely puritancal and fundamentalist sect that would like to see the old Caliphate restored to political power. In that respect, the nearest Western equivalent to it would be Fundamentalist Christian Dominionism, which seeks to establish a nation based on Biblical law. Dominionism would abolish church-state separation and politically would set up a society that would be ruled by Old Testament Biblical morality.
Wahabiism is also expansionist. Since it looks back to the good old days of the Caliphate, it's followers are dedicated to the spread of Islam, and an Islamic empire, by the sword, just like in the twelfth century.
Saddam Hussein for all his many faults was never a follower of Wahabiism. Nor was he an Islamist. Hussein was an old-fashioned, garden variety, secular dictator. He was vicious in his use and abuse of power. This is a man who executed his own sons-in-law - nobody was truly safe around him. But he was also a secularist who was not willing to die for his cause. He wasn't looking for 72 virgins in heaven, just a good glass of Chardonay here on earth (that's important because Islam forbids the use of any alcohol - something even moderate Muslims observe - and it means Hussein was really not all that into religion, let alone religious fanaticism).
I can't say Hussein wasn't an enemy. Only that he wasn't the most dangerous enemy we had. With limited resources and fanatics really dedicated to destroying us, he's not the one I'd have picked to launch a major war against. We've squandered our precious resources and the even more precious lives of Americans, both the military and civilian contractors, to defeat the least of our threats in an increasingly dangerous world.
So, who should we have actually gone after?
Need you ask. Osama bin Laden would have made a nice start. If we had used even half the resources we squandered in Iraq to mount a serious campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we would have him in custody now, rather than the rather worthless (to us) Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, to really stop the threat of radical Islam you have to go to the heart and soul of Wahabiism. And that's Saudi Arabia.
It's not an accident that most of the terrorists, thus far, are Saudi citizens, including bin Laden. The Saudis also are the major fundraisers for the Islamist revolution through their money laundering to suspect charities. And it's mainly fiery Saudi clerics in worldwide madrassas who fuel the ideology and rhetoric of this incendiary brew of Islam.
It's very important to mention that not all Muslims are part of the Wahabbi sect. But most right now are intimidated by it.
Invading Iraq as a reaction to Wahabbi terrorists is a lot like attacking New Jersey rather than Russia or China, during the Cold War, to fight communists. It's the wrong target and the wrong place.
The one person who knew this and tried to warn us was former Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida) when he was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. At that time, much of the material which implicated the Saudis in al-Qeda was classified. So, Sen. Graham did not name the names. But he was extemely upset at the way the Bush Administration was conducting the war on terrorism, which is a misnomer. As somebody pointed out, terror is the means of the enemy, not the enemy itself. What we're really engaged in is a war on radical Wahabbi Islamists terrorists.
When it looked like Graham would not make it through the Democratic primaries, he dropped out and the Democrats dropped the ball on the most important criticism of the Bush White House. Which was that they had badly bungled the War on Islamist Terrorists. Nobody else truly picked up on it and challenged Bush.
The war in Iraq did not make us safe from terrorists and it never will for simple reason that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, except for the terror that Hussein wreaked on his own countrymen.
If you want to strike at the heart of terrorism, you must strike at the heart of Wahabbiism, and that's in Saudi Arabia. And also in Pakistan, which still harbors and coddles radical Islamists while failing to protect its own women citizens.
But these folks are also still Bush's allies and friends.
As Kristoff writes, rape victims are usually expected to kill themselves to preserve their honor while their assailants go free. Indeed, the perpertrators are often celebrated for their acts of rape. And if a woman isn't willing to commit suicide (which, by the way, Muslims claim is against the law in the Koran - I guess except where brutalized women are concerned) her family is often more than willing to commit an "honor killing."
Except, this time, in Pakistan, they picked on the wrong woman.
Dr. Shazia Khalid is a well-educated physician, as well as a devout Muslim. But when she was sexually molested, she did not crawl into a hole, commit suicide, or just go away. And her husband, rather than go along with an honor killing, actually is supporting her.
After her vicious attack, she was devastated. He was the one who convinced her that she had done nothing wrong and encouraged her to go to the authorities and to confront her attacker. He stood beside her in her insistence on real justice.
But that's not what Pakistan wants. Just as its not what Saudi Arabia wants.
The sad truth is that the very worst part of our misadventure in Iraq is that we went after the wrong villains.
I won't defend Saddam Hussein, who was a brutal dictator - no question about that. But if we're going to be honest, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The sanctions and the UN investigations were working there. The U.S. villified the chief UN inspector, Hans Blitzer, but he was vindicated in the end.
Not only were there no WMDs, but nobody has been able to link Hussein to Al Qeda.
But I could have told you that. It's not because I know anything about intelligence. I just know a rudimentary amount about Islam. You can learn it too, if you're willing to hang around Beliefnet and other religiously oriented websites and read a few books - it's really not that hard to learn about religion, including Islam.
Immediately after 9-11, Beliefnet ran an article explaining Wahabbiism, which is the form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. It's an extremely puritancal and fundamentalist sect that would like to see the old Caliphate restored to political power. In that respect, the nearest Western equivalent to it would be Fundamentalist Christian Dominionism, which seeks to establish a nation based on Biblical law. Dominionism would abolish church-state separation and politically would set up a society that would be ruled by Old Testament Biblical morality.
Wahabiism is also expansionist. Since it looks back to the good old days of the Caliphate, it's followers are dedicated to the spread of Islam, and an Islamic empire, by the sword, just like in the twelfth century.
Saddam Hussein for all his many faults was never a follower of Wahabiism. Nor was he an Islamist. Hussein was an old-fashioned, garden variety, secular dictator. He was vicious in his use and abuse of power. This is a man who executed his own sons-in-law - nobody was truly safe around him. But he was also a secularist who was not willing to die for his cause. He wasn't looking for 72 virgins in heaven, just a good glass of Chardonay here on earth (that's important because Islam forbids the use of any alcohol - something even moderate Muslims observe - and it means Hussein was really not all that into religion, let alone religious fanaticism).
I can't say Hussein wasn't an enemy. Only that he wasn't the most dangerous enemy we had. With limited resources and fanatics really dedicated to destroying us, he's not the one I'd have picked to launch a major war against. We've squandered our precious resources and the even more precious lives of Americans, both the military and civilian contractors, to defeat the least of our threats in an increasingly dangerous world.
So, who should we have actually gone after?
Need you ask. Osama bin Laden would have made a nice start. If we had used even half the resources we squandered in Iraq to mount a serious campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we would have him in custody now, rather than the rather worthless (to us) Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, to really stop the threat of radical Islam you have to go to the heart and soul of Wahabiism. And that's Saudi Arabia.
It's not an accident that most of the terrorists, thus far, are Saudi citizens, including bin Laden. The Saudis also are the major fundraisers for the Islamist revolution through their money laundering to suspect charities. And it's mainly fiery Saudi clerics in worldwide madrassas who fuel the ideology and rhetoric of this incendiary brew of Islam.
It's very important to mention that not all Muslims are part of the Wahabbi sect. But most right now are intimidated by it.
Invading Iraq as a reaction to Wahabbi terrorists is a lot like attacking New Jersey rather than Russia or China, during the Cold War, to fight communists. It's the wrong target and the wrong place.
The one person who knew this and tried to warn us was former Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida) when he was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. At that time, much of the material which implicated the Saudis in al-Qeda was classified. So, Sen. Graham did not name the names. But he was extemely upset at the way the Bush Administration was conducting the war on terrorism, which is a misnomer. As somebody pointed out, terror is the means of the enemy, not the enemy itself. What we're really engaged in is a war on radical Wahabbi Islamists terrorists.
When it looked like Graham would not make it through the Democratic primaries, he dropped out and the Democrats dropped the ball on the most important criticism of the Bush White House. Which was that they had badly bungled the War on Islamist Terrorists. Nobody else truly picked up on it and challenged Bush.
The war in Iraq did not make us safe from terrorists and it never will for simple reason that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, except for the terror that Hussein wreaked on his own countrymen.
If you want to strike at the heart of terrorism, you must strike at the heart of Wahabbiism, and that's in Saudi Arabia. And also in Pakistan, which still harbors and coddles radical Islamists while failing to protect its own women citizens.
But these folks are also still Bush's allies and friends.
Friday, July 29, 2005
He's A Well Respected Man About Town Doing the Best Things So Conservatively
Sorry, I just couldn't resist The Rolling Stones reference.
I think Daily Kos has the right of it. All the newspapers and news magazines just fell all over themselves last week to write glowing reports that Justice John Roberts was not a rightwing ideologue. They were oh so careful to point out that while he was indeed a conservative, it was definitely a small "c" conservative out of the tradition of genteel "country club" conservatisim, served up with a generous helping of moderation, politeness, and civility. Right of center, with the emphasis definitely on center, at least as far as his temperament went.
The major national papers, such as The Washington Post and The New York Times, dragged out references from Robert's liberal colleagues at his current law firm to attest to his polite non-ideological manner. A host of liberal lawyers who knew him personally were apparently willing to vouch for the fact that although they knew he was "probably conservative, probably Republican," they actually didn't know what he thought because he was so reticent to impose his views on them, which they took to be a sign of Roberts' much vaunted temperate personality.
Look, that was in the workplace. Do you go around sticking your face into your colleagues' business and haranguing them on politics and religion in your workplace?
I certainly don't. And not because I don't have strong opinions (I mean I blog, for cripes sake, of course I have strong opinions). Sure, I might get involved in a political discussion around the water cooler, especially if it's at election time or if something is prominent in the newspaper and everybody else is talking about it. But I'm polite and I watch what I say and how I say it. It's the workplace, for heaven's sake.
So, yes a liberal lawyer could have worked alongside Roberts for years and not known the extent of Roberts' beliefs or just how much of a true beliver he was.
And it's emerging that he was quite a true believer in conservative circles. He was one of the Young Turks in the Reagan White House, often weighing in with more conservative opinions than the older members of the Administration. More conservative than even Theodore Olson - yikes!
And he also was pretty snarky at times. The recently released documents, which contain his legal opinions and writings, reveal a witty, sometimes cocky mind. He was young, self-confident, even arrogant at times.
Yes, he might appear more humble now. Growing up does that to you. Being alive a long time is a humbling experience that tends to moderate your views and mellow your personality.
Certainly two of the things living a long time teaches you is discretion and circumspection. It appears less likely, though, that John Roberts has modified his opinions or his ideology so much as he's learned to package himself better to the general public, including his liberal Washington, DC colleagues.
The early reports that he is a non-ideological conservative now look more like a Bush Administration "charm offensive," carefully calculated to disarm the public and press, as well as to hide just how truly rightwing Justice Roberts really is.
But with the release of his papers, the real John Roberts is out of the bag, just like the proverbial cat.
As both The Washington Post and The New York Times show, Roberts' views on a host of issues, including busing, civil rights, sex discrimination, affirmative action, presidential war powers, prayer in public schools, separation of church and state issues, First Amendment rights, and the power and role of the courts have showed him to be out of the mainstream and in support of views that are harmful to both individuals and our nation. His views, in short, would put this country on a backwards, reactionary and regressive trajectory that would make us lose years of real gains for women, blacks, workers, and those in minority religious faiths. His decisions would impact women struggling to have a workplace free of harassment; blacks striving for a fair deal in employment and educational opportunities; and Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and even liberal Christians who don't wish to have rightwing Christianist views pushed on them. It would affect the middle class at every turn as they too struggle to keep a decent standard of living.
I think, given this record, it would be a huge mistake for Democrats and liberal interest groups to allow Robert's confirmation hearings to boil down to simply a discussion of his views on Roe v. Wade and abortion rights. As important as the pro-choice position is to many liberals, I think they need to launch a more broad based opposition that demonstrates to the general public that this nomination is about more than just an abstract "culture war" which won't affect them personally. Rather, the public needs to be convinced that the Bush Administration's judicial nominations, like this one, are detrimental to their interests too.
Therefore, it's best for us not to focus on any one issue, but to show that across the board, Roberts has shown neither circumspection nor mainstream judgments on anything.
And while we're opposing his nomination, it would be good to also articulate what we would propose as an alternate vision. It's not enough to simply say what we don't like. Critics are right that focusing only on what we oppose, simply sounds negative and whining.
On the other hand, the hallmark of a charismatic leader is one who can come out with a stirring vision of what he or she would do differently. So Democrats, don't be afraid to propose an alternate vision of where we want to lead this country. And especially, don't be afraid to think and act boldly.
As I've said before, this isn't so much about defeating John Roberts' nomination as it is about setting out an alternative to the Republicans' vision so that voters truly have a choice next time. Let's face it, we don't have the votes to win. And I don't think we should try to fillibuster or do anything that might be perceived as obstructionist. I say, let's grill Roberts, make him express his true views and mount as much oppositional rhetoric as possible so that voters know what we stand for. And every Democrat should feel free to vote against Roberts' confirmation. But let it be an up or down vote. The point isn't to stop the nomination, it's to oppose it in a way that makes it clear to people what it is we're opposing and what it is we stand for instead of Roberts and Bush. Fight the good fight. The victory, at this point, is getting our vision across to voters.
Democrats, this is important. Please don't blow it this time.
I think Daily Kos has the right of it. All the newspapers and news magazines just fell all over themselves last week to write glowing reports that Justice John Roberts was not a rightwing ideologue. They were oh so careful to point out that while he was indeed a conservative, it was definitely a small "c" conservative out of the tradition of genteel "country club" conservatisim, served up with a generous helping of moderation, politeness, and civility. Right of center, with the emphasis definitely on center, at least as far as his temperament went.
The major national papers, such as The Washington Post and The New York Times, dragged out references from Robert's liberal colleagues at his current law firm to attest to his polite non-ideological manner. A host of liberal lawyers who knew him personally were apparently willing to vouch for the fact that although they knew he was "probably conservative, probably Republican," they actually didn't know what he thought because he was so reticent to impose his views on them, which they took to be a sign of Roberts' much vaunted temperate personality.
Look, that was in the workplace. Do you go around sticking your face into your colleagues' business and haranguing them on politics and religion in your workplace?
I certainly don't. And not because I don't have strong opinions (I mean I blog, for cripes sake, of course I have strong opinions). Sure, I might get involved in a political discussion around the water cooler, especially if it's at election time or if something is prominent in the newspaper and everybody else is talking about it. But I'm polite and I watch what I say and how I say it. It's the workplace, for heaven's sake.
So, yes a liberal lawyer could have worked alongside Roberts for years and not known the extent of Roberts' beliefs or just how much of a true beliver he was.
And it's emerging that he was quite a true believer in conservative circles. He was one of the Young Turks in the Reagan White House, often weighing in with more conservative opinions than the older members of the Administration. More conservative than even Theodore Olson - yikes!
And he also was pretty snarky at times. The recently released documents, which contain his legal opinions and writings, reveal a witty, sometimes cocky mind. He was young, self-confident, even arrogant at times.
Yes, he might appear more humble now. Growing up does that to you. Being alive a long time is a humbling experience that tends to moderate your views and mellow your personality.
Certainly two of the things living a long time teaches you is discretion and circumspection. It appears less likely, though, that John Roberts has modified his opinions or his ideology so much as he's learned to package himself better to the general public, including his liberal Washington, DC colleagues.
The early reports that he is a non-ideological conservative now look more like a Bush Administration "charm offensive," carefully calculated to disarm the public and press, as well as to hide just how truly rightwing Justice Roberts really is.
But with the release of his papers, the real John Roberts is out of the bag, just like the proverbial cat.
As both The Washington Post and The New York Times show, Roberts' views on a host of issues, including busing, civil rights, sex discrimination, affirmative action, presidential war powers, prayer in public schools, separation of church and state issues, First Amendment rights, and the power and role of the courts have showed him to be out of the mainstream and in support of views that are harmful to both individuals and our nation. His views, in short, would put this country on a backwards, reactionary and regressive trajectory that would make us lose years of real gains for women, blacks, workers, and those in minority religious faiths. His decisions would impact women struggling to have a workplace free of harassment; blacks striving for a fair deal in employment and educational opportunities; and Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and even liberal Christians who don't wish to have rightwing Christianist views pushed on them. It would affect the middle class at every turn as they too struggle to keep a decent standard of living.
I think, given this record, it would be a huge mistake for Democrats and liberal interest groups to allow Robert's confirmation hearings to boil down to simply a discussion of his views on Roe v. Wade and abortion rights. As important as the pro-choice position is to many liberals, I think they need to launch a more broad based opposition that demonstrates to the general public that this nomination is about more than just an abstract "culture war" which won't affect them personally. Rather, the public needs to be convinced that the Bush Administration's judicial nominations, like this one, are detrimental to their interests too.
Therefore, it's best for us not to focus on any one issue, but to show that across the board, Roberts has shown neither circumspection nor mainstream judgments on anything.
And while we're opposing his nomination, it would be good to also articulate what we would propose as an alternate vision. It's not enough to simply say what we don't like. Critics are right that focusing only on what we oppose, simply sounds negative and whining.
On the other hand, the hallmark of a charismatic leader is one who can come out with a stirring vision of what he or she would do differently. So Democrats, don't be afraid to propose an alternate vision of where we want to lead this country. And especially, don't be afraid to think and act boldly.
As I've said before, this isn't so much about defeating John Roberts' nomination as it is about setting out an alternative to the Republicans' vision so that voters truly have a choice next time. Let's face it, we don't have the votes to win. And I don't think we should try to fillibuster or do anything that might be perceived as obstructionist. I say, let's grill Roberts, make him express his true views and mount as much oppositional rhetoric as possible so that voters know what we stand for. And every Democrat should feel free to vote against Roberts' confirmation. But let it be an up or down vote. The point isn't to stop the nomination, it's to oppose it in a way that makes it clear to people what it is we're opposing and what it is we stand for instead of Roberts and Bush. Fight the good fight. The victory, at this point, is getting our vision across to voters.
Democrats, this is important. Please don't blow it this time.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Roberts Is Not The Worst of Them
Oh come on, did you really expect a liberal?
Even a centrist pick for the Supreme Court vacancy was a pipe dream. The last time Bush masqueraded as a moderate or a centrist was back in 2000, before the Supremes gave him a gift wrapped election victory.
However, this time I don't think anybody really doubted how conservative he truly is. In the 2004 election it was all about the base. And he did win it fair and square this time. Although, I question whether the base had that much to do with his victory. Given a very close election, yes, that disciplined one quarter of the population voting in lock step did provide the swing he needed for a narrow victory. But Bush also increased his popularity with Hispanics, gaining about 44 percent of their vote, and he even got a slightly higher percentage of the Jewish vote this time out.
I think his victory was as much attributable to the security issues as it was to his Christianist base. And in the middle of a war - even one that people had doubts about - voters were reluctant to change course. And yes, Kerry ran an abysmal campaign too.
But Bush won. And to the victor go the spoils. And so he gets to pick a nominee to the Supreme Court. It gives me no joy to announce this obvious fact. But there it is.
However, the bigger question is how do liberals and Democrats (not always the same - but close enough) react to the nomination of John Roberts?
Firstly, I really do agree that he was the best of the worst choices. It could've been Priscilla Owens or Frances Brown. The best thing about Roberts is that nobody actually knows anything about him. There's at least the slimmest of hopes that he'll turn into another Justice Souter, or Day O'Connor. Not likely, but there's just enough uncertainty to make the Falwells and Dobsons a tad nervous.
For some good discussion on this, Daily Kos has a lot of reaction. If you'll scroll about half way down, Steven M. makes the excellent point that even if the Democrats lose the battle, they ought to fight the confirmation. Sometimes, there is no shame in defeat. Sometimes, fighting the good fight and doing it honorably is what matters more.
This is a time to lay out our alternative vision rather than a 40 point campaign program that nobody reads. If we can communicate that vision with passion and clarity in simple and compelling language which engages people both emotionally and intellectually then we will have claimed a victory.
We won't stop Roberts.
But too many American, in the last election, admitted that they didn't know what Kerry and the Democrats stood for. This is our opportunity to tell them that we stand with workers whose jobs have been outsourced, employees who have lost their pension plans while their corporate bosses give themselves exorbitant bonuses and golden parachutes. That we stand with women who must make the agonizing decision of whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy that may have been caused by rape, incest, abuse or that might be endangering her health. We stand with all those on the outside who have their noses pressed against the window because they still don't have a place at the table on the inside. We stand with those for whom the American Dream is still an unbroken promise and we stand for those who want to protect our environment from pollution and keep our streams and our air clean.
All of these are issues that the Supreme Court's decisions impact. This is not about an abstract culture war for us. It's about living, flesh and blood people.
And if we stick to that narrative and can convey that story and that vision to voters, then we will have won this battle. And if we really believe those things, ourselves, then this is one battle in a war worth fighting.
Even a centrist pick for the Supreme Court vacancy was a pipe dream. The last time Bush masqueraded as a moderate or a centrist was back in 2000, before the Supremes gave him a gift wrapped election victory.
However, this time I don't think anybody really doubted how conservative he truly is. In the 2004 election it was all about the base. And he did win it fair and square this time. Although, I question whether the base had that much to do with his victory. Given a very close election, yes, that disciplined one quarter of the population voting in lock step did provide the swing he needed for a narrow victory. But Bush also increased his popularity with Hispanics, gaining about 44 percent of their vote, and he even got a slightly higher percentage of the Jewish vote this time out.
I think his victory was as much attributable to the security issues as it was to his Christianist base. And in the middle of a war - even one that people had doubts about - voters were reluctant to change course. And yes, Kerry ran an abysmal campaign too.
But Bush won. And to the victor go the spoils. And so he gets to pick a nominee to the Supreme Court. It gives me no joy to announce this obvious fact. But there it is.
However, the bigger question is how do liberals and Democrats (not always the same - but close enough) react to the nomination of John Roberts?
Firstly, I really do agree that he was the best of the worst choices. It could've been Priscilla Owens or Frances Brown. The best thing about Roberts is that nobody actually knows anything about him. There's at least the slimmest of hopes that he'll turn into another Justice Souter, or Day O'Connor. Not likely, but there's just enough uncertainty to make the Falwells and Dobsons a tad nervous.
For some good discussion on this, Daily Kos has a lot of reaction. If you'll scroll about half way down, Steven M. makes the excellent point that even if the Democrats lose the battle, they ought to fight the confirmation. Sometimes, there is no shame in defeat. Sometimes, fighting the good fight and doing it honorably is what matters more.
This is a time to lay out our alternative vision rather than a 40 point campaign program that nobody reads. If we can communicate that vision with passion and clarity in simple and compelling language which engages people both emotionally and intellectually then we will have claimed a victory.
We won't stop Roberts.
But too many American, in the last election, admitted that they didn't know what Kerry and the Democrats stood for. This is our opportunity to tell them that we stand with workers whose jobs have been outsourced, employees who have lost their pension plans while their corporate bosses give themselves exorbitant bonuses and golden parachutes. That we stand with women who must make the agonizing decision of whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy that may have been caused by rape, incest, abuse or that might be endangering her health. We stand with all those on the outside who have their noses pressed against the window because they still don't have a place at the table on the inside. We stand with those for whom the American Dream is still an unbroken promise and we stand for those who want to protect our environment from pollution and keep our streams and our air clean.
All of these are issues that the Supreme Court's decisions impact. This is not about an abstract culture war for us. It's about living, flesh and blood people.
And if we stick to that narrative and can convey that story and that vision to voters, then we will have won this battle. And if we really believe those things, ourselves, then this is one battle in a war worth fighting.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Karl Rove and The Limits of Legality
I have not addressed the Valerie Plame-Karl Rove situation on my website – except for some comments about journalist Judith Miller, who still languishes in an Alexandria jail - for a reason.
I am not a journalist and especially not an investigative reporter, so I have no new facts to contribute to this ever-evolving story. And I probably won’t either. Like most of the other amateurs in the blogosphere, all I have are opinions about the unfolding facts (there are exceptions, of course; there are professional writers who do have sources and the time and resources to conduct investigative reporting of the highest quality – but I’m not one of them).
Right now, too much is still being revealed for me to form an opinion. I prefer to wait until more information is out there. In other words, I’m pleading lack of opinion about Karl Rove’s actions due to insufficient data. Whatever I say can, at any moment, be subject to change.
Is he guilty of a crime? Right now, I’d guess not because he may have covered any tracks very cleverly. It could come down to exactly the same legalisms that most conservatives used to hate when Bill Clinton employed them. What is the definition of “sex?” What is the definition of “is?” What is the definition of outing a covert agent?
“I didn’t inhale.”
“I didn’t tell anybody her name, only to whom she was married.”
One thing, however, I do know about this situation is that whether Karl Rove is guilty of a crime or not may be beside the point.
You see, federal government workers are usually held to a higher standard of conduct than just mere legalisms. As a one-time fed, myself, I know two things about the rules of conduct and the standards of ethics to which government employees are held.
One is that they are all required to take an oath to defend the nation against its enemies and uphold the constitution. Every one of them, not just the president and his senior staff, takes that very same oath. Indeed, once when I was a personnel clerk, I administered that oath to other employees on their first day of federal employment. With hands held high, secretaries, clerks, lawyers, janitors, supervisors – anybody who was coming into the federal service – took the same oath. So did I.
And so did Karl Rove. Somehow, I don’t think outing a CIA employee could ever be considered defending our nation or upholding its constitution. To make serving our country more dangerous for federal workers in the intelligence service is, if not an outright act of treason, certainly an action that strengthens our enemies’ hand and weakens our ability to defend ourselves. It makes it more likely that good agents will decide that their government doesn’t back their sacrifices and will leave the intelligence services at the very time that we need more, not less of them.
I also know that government ethics require more than merely not breaking the law. Whether it’s refraining from accepting a gift or benefit or attending an event, federal workers must do more than simply stay within the limits of legality. They must also avoid the appearance of wrongdoing. The language used in their ethics manuals and by their general counsels, is that they must avoid situations where a reasonable person could conclude that there is even the appearance of wrongdoing.
In Karl Rove’s case, this standard has very obviously not been met. Reasonable people all over the political spectrum, not just the usual band of partisan hacks, are having trouble deciding whether his actions rise to the level of illegality.
When a fed is in such a situation, the question isn’t did he break the law. Rather, it’s did he give the appearance of wrongdoing, regardless of whether an actual law was broken. Would reasonable people have trouble concluding that everything was above board? Those are the standards that every single federal worker is held to. And if he or she can’t meet that standard, whether the law was broken or not, that fed should face consequences in the workplace.
If Karl Rove did not break the law, of course, he shouldn’t go to jail. Just as he isn’t above the law, he also isn’t below the law. He deserves the same protection and due process as every citizen. But he is a fed too. And so he should be held to the very same standard that every other fed is held to. Not just the legal, but also the appearance of wrongdoing standard.
Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Karl Rove has top-secret clearance? That gives him even more responsibility to act wisely and to observe a standard far higher than simply observing the letter of the law and legalisms such as the definition of “is.”
Because of his status as a federal employee with a top-secret clearance, Karl Rove should be handing in his letter of resignation right now and President Bush should be accepting it, regardless of whether he broke the law. He certainly broke his oath to defend this nation and he violated the trust of his top-secret clearance. And whether a law was actually broken, a very reasonable appearance of wrongdoing and unethical behavior is certainly present. And that’s the real standard by which he should be measured, especially in an administration that is more and more insisting upon greater accountability and higher performance standards for other feds.
I am not a journalist and especially not an investigative reporter, so I have no new facts to contribute to this ever-evolving story. And I probably won’t either. Like most of the other amateurs in the blogosphere, all I have are opinions about the unfolding facts (there are exceptions, of course; there are professional writers who do have sources and the time and resources to conduct investigative reporting of the highest quality – but I’m not one of them).
Right now, too much is still being revealed for me to form an opinion. I prefer to wait until more information is out there. In other words, I’m pleading lack of opinion about Karl Rove’s actions due to insufficient data. Whatever I say can, at any moment, be subject to change.
Is he guilty of a crime? Right now, I’d guess not because he may have covered any tracks very cleverly. It could come down to exactly the same legalisms that most conservatives used to hate when Bill Clinton employed them. What is the definition of “sex?” What is the definition of “is?” What is the definition of outing a covert agent?
“I didn’t inhale.”
“I didn’t tell anybody her name, only to whom she was married.”
One thing, however, I do know about this situation is that whether Karl Rove is guilty of a crime or not may be beside the point.
You see, federal government workers are usually held to a higher standard of conduct than just mere legalisms. As a one-time fed, myself, I know two things about the rules of conduct and the standards of ethics to which government employees are held.
One is that they are all required to take an oath to defend the nation against its enemies and uphold the constitution. Every one of them, not just the president and his senior staff, takes that very same oath. Indeed, once when I was a personnel clerk, I administered that oath to other employees on their first day of federal employment. With hands held high, secretaries, clerks, lawyers, janitors, supervisors – anybody who was coming into the federal service – took the same oath. So did I.
And so did Karl Rove. Somehow, I don’t think outing a CIA employee could ever be considered defending our nation or upholding its constitution. To make serving our country more dangerous for federal workers in the intelligence service is, if not an outright act of treason, certainly an action that strengthens our enemies’ hand and weakens our ability to defend ourselves. It makes it more likely that good agents will decide that their government doesn’t back their sacrifices and will leave the intelligence services at the very time that we need more, not less of them.
I also know that government ethics require more than merely not breaking the law. Whether it’s refraining from accepting a gift or benefit or attending an event, federal workers must do more than simply stay within the limits of legality. They must also avoid the appearance of wrongdoing. The language used in their ethics manuals and by their general counsels, is that they must avoid situations where a reasonable person could conclude that there is even the appearance of wrongdoing.
In Karl Rove’s case, this standard has very obviously not been met. Reasonable people all over the political spectrum, not just the usual band of partisan hacks, are having trouble deciding whether his actions rise to the level of illegality.
When a fed is in such a situation, the question isn’t did he break the law. Rather, it’s did he give the appearance of wrongdoing, regardless of whether an actual law was broken. Would reasonable people have trouble concluding that everything was above board? Those are the standards that every single federal worker is held to. And if he or she can’t meet that standard, whether the law was broken or not, that fed should face consequences in the workplace.
If Karl Rove did not break the law, of course, he shouldn’t go to jail. Just as he isn’t above the law, he also isn’t below the law. He deserves the same protection and due process as every citizen. But he is a fed too. And so he should be held to the very same standard that every other fed is held to. Not just the legal, but also the appearance of wrongdoing standard.
Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Karl Rove has top-secret clearance? That gives him even more responsibility to act wisely and to observe a standard far higher than simply observing the letter of the law and legalisms such as the definition of “is.”
Because of his status as a federal employee with a top-secret clearance, Karl Rove should be handing in his letter of resignation right now and President Bush should be accepting it, regardless of whether he broke the law. He certainly broke his oath to defend this nation and he violated the trust of his top-secret clearance. And whether a law was actually broken, a very reasonable appearance of wrongdoing and unethical behavior is certainly present. And that’s the real standard by which he should be measured, especially in an administration that is more and more insisting upon greater accountability and higher performance standards for other feds.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Yes, It's Still the Economy Stupid!
I know, I know. I've harped on this so many times. But, as Karl Rove and other Republicans have proved, if you say it often enough, people will believe it. Of course, what they keep repeating, on message to the end, is usually a pack of lies.
But what if you used their same tactic, only what you kept repeating often enough was actually the truth? What if you stayed on message with rigorous discipline, as they do, only you told only truth and spoke it without rancor or viciousness? If you did that, could you win an election, improve economic and political conditions, change the world for the better, and make a real difference?
I don't know, but I suspect it's worth a try. So, I'm going to resolutely stay on message, even if it means repeating myself, about the things I think matter.
Here's another article on the appalling gap between worker productivity, which is very high, and workers' wages, which are stagnant. The author, Jonathan Tasini, on yesterday's Tom Paine website, discusses the inverse link between productivity and salaries.
He mentions that among the reasons for the large disparity is that many corporate CEOs have been taking obscenely high salaries, bonuses, severance packages and retirement benefits that have left their companies profit-challenged despite the high productivity and high revenues. In other words, the elite few at the top are draining the rewards of labor and siphoning it all off to themselves at the expense of the those who actually earned it for them.
However, that's only part of the equation. I still maintain that they can only do this because the laborer's productivity is now working against him or her. The more efficient each worker is, the less employees a company needs. Worker productivity, plus automation, has shrunk the demand for additional workers. Another factor that has reduced the demand for more workers in the marketplace is outsourcing. Corporations can get their products produced much cheaper in China and India than they can here because of the much lower standard of living in those countries. American workers simply can't compete with the Chinese and Indians.
Indeed, with the housing boom (or bubble), it's just not possible to work for the kind of wages they pay in the Far East and keep a decent roof over your family's head, let alone put food on the table. An Indian computer programmer who works for half of what an American would make, would still be living in palatial splendor in Bangalore, whereas over here, he'd be eking out a living in squalor. Stuff costs more here, especially housing.
Some have slyly pointed out that CEOs also cost less over there, so perhaps these overpriced corporate executives should have their jobs outsourced too. That would actually save investors a bundle.
Anyway, the major factor driving wages lower is the combination of productivity and outsourcing because both of those conditions lead to a lower demand for American workers. If one worker can work 12 hours a day and produce 30 widgets and you can import 40 more sub widgets from China, you just don't need to hire anybody to produce more widgets. And what is fueling the stagnant wages is an even more stagnant job market. It's the old law of Supply and Demand. There is an over-supply of unneeded workers and little demand for them.
One thing that could correct it is to go back to stricter overtime rules. Make companies adhere to an 8 hour day and make it more costly for workers to do overtime by ensuring that they are paid a fair wage for it. And start penalizing companies that outsource by taxing them for it. When they try to bring their goods back into the country, treat them like foreign corporations and impose duties and tariffs on the goods.
We use tax incentives and tax breaks all the time to encourage behaviors that we think are beneficial. What can be more beneficial to our economy, in the long run, than encouraging companies to stay here and share the wealth by paying a decent wage and providing good jobs right at home?
But what if you used their same tactic, only what you kept repeating often enough was actually the truth? What if you stayed on message with rigorous discipline, as they do, only you told only truth and spoke it without rancor or viciousness? If you did that, could you win an election, improve economic and political conditions, change the world for the better, and make a real difference?
I don't know, but I suspect it's worth a try. So, I'm going to resolutely stay on message, even if it means repeating myself, about the things I think matter.
Here's another article on the appalling gap between worker productivity, which is very high, and workers' wages, which are stagnant. The author, Jonathan Tasini, on yesterday's Tom Paine website, discusses the inverse link between productivity and salaries.
He mentions that among the reasons for the large disparity is that many corporate CEOs have been taking obscenely high salaries, bonuses, severance packages and retirement benefits that have left their companies profit-challenged despite the high productivity and high revenues. In other words, the elite few at the top are draining the rewards of labor and siphoning it all off to themselves at the expense of the those who actually earned it for them.
However, that's only part of the equation. I still maintain that they can only do this because the laborer's productivity is now working against him or her. The more efficient each worker is, the less employees a company needs. Worker productivity, plus automation, has shrunk the demand for additional workers. Another factor that has reduced the demand for more workers in the marketplace is outsourcing. Corporations can get their products produced much cheaper in China and India than they can here because of the much lower standard of living in those countries. American workers simply can't compete with the Chinese and Indians.
Indeed, with the housing boom (or bubble), it's just not possible to work for the kind of wages they pay in the Far East and keep a decent roof over your family's head, let alone put food on the table. An Indian computer programmer who works for half of what an American would make, would still be living in palatial splendor in Bangalore, whereas over here, he'd be eking out a living in squalor. Stuff costs more here, especially housing.
Some have slyly pointed out that CEOs also cost less over there, so perhaps these overpriced corporate executives should have their jobs outsourced too. That would actually save investors a bundle.
Anyway, the major factor driving wages lower is the combination of productivity and outsourcing because both of those conditions lead to a lower demand for American workers. If one worker can work 12 hours a day and produce 30 widgets and you can import 40 more sub widgets from China, you just don't need to hire anybody to produce more widgets. And what is fueling the stagnant wages is an even more stagnant job market. It's the old law of Supply and Demand. There is an over-supply of unneeded workers and little demand for them.
One thing that could correct it is to go back to stricter overtime rules. Make companies adhere to an 8 hour day and make it more costly for workers to do overtime by ensuring that they are paid a fair wage for it. And start penalizing companies that outsource by taxing them for it. When they try to bring their goods back into the country, treat them like foreign corporations and impose duties and tariffs on the goods.
We use tax incentives and tax breaks all the time to encourage behaviors that we think are beneficial. What can be more beneficial to our economy, in the long run, than encouraging companies to stay here and share the wealth by paying a decent wage and providing good jobs right at home?
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
It's About the Greed
I received the following as part of an e-newsletter from an AFL-CIO source. I don't usually publish things like this on my blog because I prefer to give you my own personal opinion and to put original writing - my own - on my site; but I consider this important enough to make an exception.
I should also let you know that I am not personally anti-Wal-Mart, per se. I know many people on limited or fixed incomes who don't have the luxury of boycotting a company that provides them with great bargain prices. But somehow there has got to be a way to give these folks low cost goods while not exploiting children, women, and immigrants - society's most vulnerable members - in order to rake in big buck profits while doing it.
Wal-Mart has proven that it's no friend to small businesses or even larger businesses in competition with them. It's also no friend to its own suppliers who it squeezes unmercifully with hardball tactics. And it's certainly no friend to the many communities which it has destroyed by driving citizens from the centers of towns to suburban strip malls to shop. My husband comes from one such small Tennessee town where the main street is now composed of pawn shops and shuttered store fronts.
Wal-Mart uses hardball tactics on friend and foe alike. So read below and if you can lend a hand, please do so.
I should also let you know that I am not personally anti-Wal-Mart, per se. I know many people on limited or fixed incomes who don't have the luxury of boycotting a company that provides them with great bargain prices. But somehow there has got to be a way to give these folks low cost goods while not exploiting children, women, and immigrants - society's most vulnerable members - in order to rake in big buck profits while doing it.
Wal-Mart has proven that it's no friend to small businesses or even larger businesses in competition with them. It's also no friend to its own suppliers who it squeezes unmercifully with hardball tactics. And it's certainly no friend to the many communities which it has destroyed by driving citizens from the centers of towns to suburban strip malls to shop. My husband comes from one such small Tennessee town where the main street is now composed of pawn shops and shuttered store fronts.
Wal-Mart uses hardball tactics on friend and foe alike. So read below and if you can lend a hand, please do so.
"Dear Working Families e-Activist,
Let Wal-Mart Hear It from Children
Help your child send a message to Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott to let him know your family won’t be buying any back-to-school
supplies from
Wal-Mart this year.
Mail your child’s
letter by Aug. 1 to:
Lee Scott
C/O Wal-Mart Campaign
AFL-CIO
815 16th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006
We'll see that Scott
gets the message—
loud and clear.
Connecticut just fined Wal-Mart for child labor law violations. And in January, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $134,540 after being cited for child labor violations in Connecticut, Arkansas and New Hampshire.
Really—that’s not the kind of place we want to shop for our children’s back-to-school supplies, is it?
This is a great opportunity to send a strong message to Wal-Mart and start the children in your life on the way to activism. Help them write letters by Aug. 1 to Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott telling him why their families won’t buy school supplies from Wal-Mart this year. Here are some unpleasant facts about Wal-Mart they can use as they write their letters:
Wal-Mart has racked up huge fines for child labor law violations. The rich company reportedly makes children younger than 18 work through their meal breaks, work very late and even work during school hours. Several states have found Wal-Mart workers younger than 18 operating dangerous equipment, such as chain saws, and working in dangerous areas like trash compactors. (The New York Times, 1/13/04; The Associated Press, 2/18/05; The Hartford Courant, 6/18/05)
Wal-Mart pays poverty-level wages and fails to provide affordable health insurance to more than 600,000 employees. That means Wal-Mart workers and their families have a hard time paying the bills and getting the health care they need. (Wal-Mart annual reports; BusinessWeek, 10/2/03)
Wal-Mart has a shameful record of paying women less than men—discriminating against moms. Wal-Mart paid full-time male employees $5,000 more than women on average in 2001. Some 1.6 million women are eligible to join a class-action lawsuit charging Wal-Mart with discrimination. (Richard Drogin, Ph.D., 2/03; Los Angeles Times, 12/30/04)
Wal-Mart sells products made by young people in other countries who work in horrible conditions over long hours for little money doing dangerous jobs. In Africa, workers who make clothing for Wal-Mart are forced to put in too many hours, are yelled at by their bosses, are not paid enough to take care of their families and can’t even take breaks to use the bathroom. Wal-Mart refused to investigate stories that shoes and jeans from Asia were being made by workers in forced labor camps. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 11/14/04; China Labor Watch, the National Labor Committee and Clean Clothes Campaign reports)
Wal-Mart can afford to do better. Wal-Mart—America's largest private employer—raked in $10 billion in profits last year. CEO Lee Scott landed nearly $23 million in total compensation last year alone. Wal-Mart has no excuse for its behavior.
Help your children write letters telling Scott his company is hurting families, communities and children here and around the world—and that’s why your family won’t be shopping for back-to-school supplies at Wal-Mart this year. Please send the letters to:
Lee Scott
C/O Wal-Mart Campaign
AFL-CIO
815 16th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
We'll see that Scott gets the message—loud and clear.
Thank you for working to stop the Wal-Marting of America’s jobs and for getting the children involved.
To learn more about how Wal-Mart affects your community, go to:
http://www.walmartcostsyou.com
Thanks for all that you do for working families.
In solidarity,
Working Families e-Activist Network, AFL-CIO
July 12, 2005
P.S. Help us get thousands of letters from children to Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott. Please forward this e-mail to parents you know who also want to stop the Wal-Marting of America’s jobs. Thanks!"
Monday, July 11, 2005
It Really Matters
This is why it matters who is on the Supreme Court. Sometimes judges are the only ones standing between life and death in an ambiguous case. This particular murder case has made some of the strangest bedfellows, including the NAACP, the conservative Rutherford Foundation, religious leaders on the anti-death penalty left, and former right wing Special Prosecutor Ken Starr, who defended the defendant in one of his appeals.
As Donna St. George, The Washington Post reporter who covered this story, points out, the unusual twist is that a clerk destroyed the DNA evidence that might either have cleared or proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, Robin Lovitt, was the killer.
Virginia has one of the worst execution records, second only to Texas for the amount of people put to death. In more than one case, there was reasonable doubt as to the condemned's innocence.
Given that context, it seems incredible that this execution could have continued after the DNA evidence was destroyed before the appeals process had run its legal course.
Although the state of Virginia claims that the clerk who destroyed this crucial evidence did so due to an honest and well-intentioned mistake, I find that hard to believe. Especially since one of his employees begged him not to do it. How well-intentioned could this employee have been, or how incompetent to have done such a thing in a capital case where a man's life was at stake?
And shame on Governor Mark Warner that he did not step in to prevent what could be an egregious miscarriage of justice and possible execution of an innocent man.
The truth is we will never know for sure whether Lovitt is innocent because a state employee took it upon himself to destroy the evidence that could have told us for certain whether he was innocent or guilty. But surely, when in doubt, it's better to err on the side of caution and to keep Lovitt in prison rather than take his life.
If it turns out that Lovitt's attorneys could ever prove innocence, it would be far harder to make amends to a dead man. And if he's guilty as originally charged, well, he's not going anywhere. Virginia prisons are punishment, not country clubs. I certainly wouldn't want to be in one for life. And nobody is proposing to release Lovitt without evidence that exonerates him. All anybody, even his lawyers, are requesting is to proceed with caution.
I think that's a great idea in this case. And it's also another reminder of why it's important who sits on that Supreme Court, or any court. Ambitious politicans who have visions of their future career in the White House dancing in their heads, like sugarplums, certainly can't be expected to actually take a stand, lead by conscience, or do the right thing (they'll do the "political thing" every time instead). All that stands between life or death in ambiguous cases like this is a good judge who cares about the law. Fortunately, Robin Lovitt found one.
As Donna St. George, The Washington Post reporter who covered this story, points out, the unusual twist is that a clerk destroyed the DNA evidence that might either have cleared or proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, Robin Lovitt, was the killer.
Virginia has one of the worst execution records, second only to Texas for the amount of people put to death. In more than one case, there was reasonable doubt as to the condemned's innocence.
Given that context, it seems incredible that this execution could have continued after the DNA evidence was destroyed before the appeals process had run its legal course.
Although the state of Virginia claims that the clerk who destroyed this crucial evidence did so due to an honest and well-intentioned mistake, I find that hard to believe. Especially since one of his employees begged him not to do it. How well-intentioned could this employee have been, or how incompetent to have done such a thing in a capital case where a man's life was at stake?
And shame on Governor Mark Warner that he did not step in to prevent what could be an egregious miscarriage of justice and possible execution of an innocent man.
The truth is we will never know for sure whether Lovitt is innocent because a state employee took it upon himself to destroy the evidence that could have told us for certain whether he was innocent or guilty. But surely, when in doubt, it's better to err on the side of caution and to keep Lovitt in prison rather than take his life.
If it turns out that Lovitt's attorneys could ever prove innocence, it would be far harder to make amends to a dead man. And if he's guilty as originally charged, well, he's not going anywhere. Virginia prisons are punishment, not country clubs. I certainly wouldn't want to be in one for life. And nobody is proposing to release Lovitt without evidence that exonerates him. All anybody, even his lawyers, are requesting is to proceed with caution.
I think that's a great idea in this case. And it's also another reminder of why it's important who sits on that Supreme Court, or any court. Ambitious politicans who have visions of their future career in the White House dancing in their heads, like sugarplums, certainly can't be expected to actually take a stand, lead by conscience, or do the right thing (they'll do the "political thing" every time instead). All that stands between life or death in ambiguous cases like this is a good judge who cares about the law. Fortunately, Robin Lovitt found one.
And I'm Even More Confused Now
I don't think reporter Matt Cooper acquitted himself very well. It's obvious he was scared to go to jail. It appears he didn't exactly personally check with his source before cooperating with Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. He took a very broad and general statement from Karl Rove's lawyer to be a blanket release from his vow to protect his confidential source, who it turns out, to nobody's surprise, is Rove himself.
In truth, I don't know that I'd be much braver if I was facing serious jail time. I was when I was much younger (and yes, I actually once did face the possibility, as a reporter, but that was before I was middle aged and comfortable and not very physically fit).
However, Judith Miller is going to come out of this as the only true heroe for standing up for her convictions - convictions about the right to confidential sources, which is so important to all journalists.
However, this, from The Washington Post, claims the source at the center of the whole thing is indeed Karl Rove. And the Post calls him Clintonesque in the hairsplitting over whether he broke the law in outing Valerie Plame. It boils down to whether he actually mentioned her name. Shades of the definition of "is."
Anyway, I'm still confused about why nobody seems to be asking Robert Novak about the source. After all, when all is said and done, he's the one who wrote the original column outing Plame. He's also the conservative with the insider buddies in this White House.
It's not that I particularly dislike Novak or wish him ill. Far from it. He has, in fact, always publicly defended the right of both Cooper and Miller to keep their sources confidential. But it just strikes me as weird that Novak isn't also on the hot spot given that it's his column that started this whole mess.
So, what gives?
In truth, I don't know that I'd be much braver if I was facing serious jail time. I was when I was much younger (and yes, I actually once did face the possibility, as a reporter, but that was before I was middle aged and comfortable and not very physically fit).
However, Judith Miller is going to come out of this as the only true heroe for standing up for her convictions - convictions about the right to confidential sources, which is so important to all journalists.
However, this, from The Washington Post, claims the source at the center of the whole thing is indeed Karl Rove. And the Post calls him Clintonesque in the hairsplitting over whether he broke the law in outing Valerie Plame. It boils down to whether he actually mentioned her name. Shades of the definition of "is."
Anyway, I'm still confused about why nobody seems to be asking Robert Novak about the source. After all, when all is said and done, he's the one who wrote the original column outing Plame. He's also the conservative with the insider buddies in this White House.
It's not that I particularly dislike Novak or wish him ill. Far from it. He has, in fact, always publicly defended the right of both Cooper and Miller to keep their sources confidential. But it just strikes me as weird that Novak isn't also on the hot spot given that it's his column that started this whole mess.
So, what gives?
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Ok, I Just Don't Get It
Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, assigned to discover, and possibly prosecute, the government official who outed CIA covert agent Valerie Plame is going after a New York Times reporter with a vengeance despite the fact that she never wrote an article about Agent Plame.
Many believe that a highly placed official in the Bush Administration gave the information about Ms. Plame's work as a CIA agent to columnist Robert Novak as revenge for her husband Joseph Q. Wilson's criticism of Bush's foreign policy in Iraq. It is, of course, a felony to reveal the identity of covert CIA operatives.
What I don't get is why Fitzgerald has been going after NYT reporter Judith Miller or Time Magazine writer Matthew Cooper when they are not the ones who actually wrote the article that sparked this whole investigation into who revealed her identity.
I suspect that it's because Fitzgerald, a Republican-appointed special prosecutor, is less interested in actually solving the case than in challenging the right of journalists to protect anonymous sources. After all, just think how convenient it would actually be for the Bush Administration, or for that matter, any political administration, Republican or Democratic, and national or local, to be able to bully and intimidate sources and reporters.
If whistleblowers couldn't be guaranteed anonymity how many corrupt administrations would flourish? How many Boss Tweeds would go undiscovered? How many nuclear accidents, oil spills, and other disasters would occur because those in a position to blow the whistle to prevent the dangerous, careless, or just plain greedy and unsafe actions of power plants, shipping companies and large corporations would simply remain silent?
That's the freezing effect on both democracy and public safety that Mr. Fitzgerald actions would have.
I don't, however, believe that Mr. Fitzgerald is as interested in catching the official who illegally revealed Valerie Plame's identity as he is in intimidating reporters and asserting his own power as an inquisitor to bully anybody he pleases. This is a personal, ideological mission for him. He doesn't believe that reporters should have right to protect their sources, even if that is the lifeblood of their work and even if doing so ensures a free press, which is the lifeblood of our democracy. Not only that, he doesn't believe anybody in America has the right to a client-professional privilege, even if it's a client-attorney privilege or a patient-doctor right to privacy.
Here's the money quote:
Actually, though, Mr. Fitzgerald is dead wrong. There is one group of professionals who have an absolute and uncontested right to promise complete confidentiality, here and in most civilized nations of the world. They are priests.
Some overzealous prosecutors have tried, in the past, to get this broken, one even going so far, years ago, as to tape a confessional that occurred in a jail. But it was thrown out of court and the prosecutor, a Protestant in a Western state, was widely and publicly castigated for his failure to respect the privileged communication between a priest and his parishoner
So, despite Mr. Fitzpatrick's unique definition of the law, there are people in American who can give a promise of complete confidentiality. Fortunately, priests, doctors and attorneys can do so. And journalists should be able to also, for just the reasons that I stated above.
And regardless of what Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald thinks of her, Judith Miller is a hero and probably will become a patron saint to all beleagered journalist who feel morally compelled and honor bound to protect their confidential sources. And also to all citizens who understand just how important this issue is.
Meanwhile, according to this Washington Post article, Miller is now headed to jail. U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan has remanded her to an Arlington, Virginia jail. Her request for house arrest or to be sent to a less harsh detention center was denied. Her fellow journalist Cooper is currently free. Firstly, his magazine had already cooperated with the prosecutor in providing Cooper's notes and the names of his sources over his protests.
Yet although Time Magazine argued that since they had already given Prosecutor Fitzpatrick the information he demanded, without Cooper's cooperation, their reporter should be let off the hook, even if he was still personally refusing to cooperate, Fitzgerald was hesitant to release Cooper from custody.
Even having the information that he sought was not good enough for this arrogant prosecutor. Until Cooper agreed to personally cooperate, Fitzgerald was stubbornly demanding that even he be sent to jail despite already having Cooper's sources from his employer.Then, Cooper was explicitly released from his agreement by his source. With this release, it put his cooperation today in an entirely different moral light than Miller's. And he was freed.
Judith Miller has received no such release from her source and her publication declined to cooperate with prosecutors. Like their very brave reporter, The New York Times remained absolutely committed to protecting her anonymous sources, as all good newspapers and news magazines should. (Although Matthew Cooper is blameless and waited until his source gave him release to cooperate, his publication broke a professional trust with that source).
As Daniel Shore pointed out on National Public Radio without the ability to protect an anonymous source, Woodward and Bernstein couldn't have broken the Watergate story and prevented genuine malfeasance at the highest levels of government. Without a shield law for journalists, some of the most eggregious examples of government corruption in countless municipalities would go unreported much to the detriment of citizens and their communities. Indeed, we would be much closer to being a corruption laden, dictatorial banana republic without a free press. And democracy, capitalism, and public morality would all suffer for it.
But none of that is as important as arrogant Peter Fitzgerald making his case. And asserting his authority as a prosecutor. And, of course, intimidating sources and reporters.
And you know what? It's easy to tell this is about intimidation and not about truly getting the facts. You know how to tell?
Easy.
If all he really wanted to know was who the source was who outed Valerie Plame, why wouldn't he simply ask the one person who actually did the outing in his nationally syndicated column, Robert Novak?
What am I missing here?
Many believe that a highly placed official in the Bush Administration gave the information about Ms. Plame's work as a CIA agent to columnist Robert Novak as revenge for her husband Joseph Q. Wilson's criticism of Bush's foreign policy in Iraq. It is, of course, a felony to reveal the identity of covert CIA operatives.
What I don't get is why Fitzgerald has been going after NYT reporter Judith Miller or Time Magazine writer Matthew Cooper when they are not the ones who actually wrote the article that sparked this whole investigation into who revealed her identity.
I suspect that it's because Fitzgerald, a Republican-appointed special prosecutor, is less interested in actually solving the case than in challenging the right of journalists to protect anonymous sources. After all, just think how convenient it would actually be for the Bush Administration, or for that matter, any political administration, Republican or Democratic, and national or local, to be able to bully and intimidate sources and reporters.
If whistleblowers couldn't be guaranteed anonymity how many corrupt administrations would flourish? How many Boss Tweeds would go undiscovered? How many nuclear accidents, oil spills, and other disasters would occur because those in a position to blow the whistle to prevent the dangerous, careless, or just plain greedy and unsafe actions of power plants, shipping companies and large corporations would simply remain silent?
That's the freezing effect on both democracy and public safety that Mr. Fitzgerald actions would have.
I don't, however, believe that Mr. Fitzgerald is as interested in catching the official who illegally revealed Valerie Plame's identity as he is in intimidating reporters and asserting his own power as an inquisitor to bully anybody he pleases. This is a personal, ideological mission for him. He doesn't believe that reporters should have right to protect their sources, even if that is the lifeblood of their work and even if doing so ensures a free press, which is the lifeblood of our democracy. Not only that, he doesn't believe anybody in America has the right to a client-professional privilege, even if it's a client-attorney privilege or a patient-doctor right to privacy.
Here's the money quote:
"In one of his filings yesterday, Fitzgerald argued that "journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality -- no one in America is."
Actually, though, Mr. Fitzgerald is dead wrong. There is one group of professionals who have an absolute and uncontested right to promise complete confidentiality, here and in most civilized nations of the world. They are priests.
Some overzealous prosecutors have tried, in the past, to get this broken, one even going so far, years ago, as to tape a confessional that occurred in a jail. But it was thrown out of court and the prosecutor, a Protestant in a Western state, was widely and publicly castigated for his failure to respect the privileged communication between a priest and his parishoner
So, despite Mr. Fitzpatrick's unique definition of the law, there are people in American who can give a promise of complete confidentiality. Fortunately, priests, doctors and attorneys can do so. And journalists should be able to also, for just the reasons that I stated above.
And regardless of what Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald thinks of her, Judith Miller is a hero and probably will become a patron saint to all beleagered journalist who feel morally compelled and honor bound to protect their confidential sources. And also to all citizens who understand just how important this issue is.
Meanwhile, according to this Washington Post article, Miller is now headed to jail. U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan has remanded her to an Arlington, Virginia jail. Her request for house arrest or to be sent to a less harsh detention center was denied. Her fellow journalist Cooper is currently free. Firstly, his magazine had already cooperated with the prosecutor in providing Cooper's notes and the names of his sources over his protests.
Yet although Time Magazine argued that since they had already given Prosecutor Fitzpatrick the information he demanded, without Cooper's cooperation, their reporter should be let off the hook, even if he was still personally refusing to cooperate, Fitzgerald was hesitant to release Cooper from custody.
Even having the information that he sought was not good enough for this arrogant prosecutor. Until Cooper agreed to personally cooperate, Fitzgerald was stubbornly demanding that even he be sent to jail despite already having Cooper's sources from his employer.Then, Cooper was explicitly released from his agreement by his source. With this release, it put his cooperation today in an entirely different moral light than Miller's. And he was freed.
Judith Miller has received no such release from her source and her publication declined to cooperate with prosecutors. Like their very brave reporter, The New York Times remained absolutely committed to protecting her anonymous sources, as all good newspapers and news magazines should. (Although Matthew Cooper is blameless and waited until his source gave him release to cooperate, his publication broke a professional trust with that source).
As Daniel Shore pointed out on National Public Radio without the ability to protect an anonymous source, Woodward and Bernstein couldn't have broken the Watergate story and prevented genuine malfeasance at the highest levels of government. Without a shield law for journalists, some of the most eggregious examples of government corruption in countless municipalities would go unreported much to the detriment of citizens and their communities. Indeed, we would be much closer to being a corruption laden, dictatorial banana republic without a free press. And democracy, capitalism, and public morality would all suffer for it.
But none of that is as important as arrogant Peter Fitzgerald making his case. And asserting his authority as a prosecutor. And, of course, intimidating sources and reporters.
And you know what? It's easy to tell this is about intimidation and not about truly getting the facts. You know how to tell?
Easy.
If all he really wanted to know was who the source was who outed Valerie Plame, why wouldn't he simply ask the one person who actually did the outing in his nationally syndicated column, Robert Novak?
What am I missing here?
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Happy Birthday, Wagner Act
Here's another link I'm posting for those interested in worker justice. And who isn't, if you are not self-employed?
The Wagner Act is also known as the National Labor Relations Act and it guaranteed workers certain rights including the right to organize and to form unions. It included provisions that organizing efforts could not be blocked by corporations by firing workers who choose to join unions and companies couldn't threaten to lock employees out or to close their shops if their workers voted to join unions. Most of these provisions are routinely violated today.
At the same time, workers have lost ground on the right to overtime pay, wages are flat while companies and CEOs are reaping huge profits and bonuses. The middle class is being eroded by outsourcing, automation and a general race to the bottom of the barrel as skilled workers are being forced to compete with those in foreign countries who are willing to work for poverty level wages.
America once had a strong economy, a stable political system, and a high standard of living for average people because we had a strong labor movement that fought for decent wages. During the fifties, sixties and seventies, Americans took their standard of living and the stability and security of the middle class for granted.
You never know what you've lost until it's gone. But this time, let's not wait until it's too late to defend our economic and political rights.
Please go to the site, read it over, and if you agree, sign the petition.
Thanks.
The Wagner Act is also known as the National Labor Relations Act and it guaranteed workers certain rights including the right to organize and to form unions. It included provisions that organizing efforts could not be blocked by corporations by firing workers who choose to join unions and companies couldn't threaten to lock employees out or to close their shops if their workers voted to join unions. Most of these provisions are routinely violated today.
At the same time, workers have lost ground on the right to overtime pay, wages are flat while companies and CEOs are reaping huge profits and bonuses. The middle class is being eroded by outsourcing, automation and a general race to the bottom of the barrel as skilled workers are being forced to compete with those in foreign countries who are willing to work for poverty level wages.
America once had a strong economy, a stable political system, and a high standard of living for average people because we had a strong labor movement that fought for decent wages. During the fifties, sixties and seventies, Americans took their standard of living and the stability and security of the middle class for granted.
You never know what you've lost until it's gone. But this time, let's not wait until it's too late to defend our economic and political rights.
Please go to the site, read it over, and if you agree, sign the petition.
Thanks.
Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself
Below is an email I received from WesPAC, General Wesley Clark's PAC. He was my first choice in the last Presidential Primaries. Although I also thought John Kerry had a lot of positives and could have won if he'd run a better campaign, it was my opinion that General Clark had less negatives. Kerry simply had too long a voting record. Anybody who had been in the Senate for as long as he was would have had far too many opportunities to change his mind and even his votes for very valid reasons. That is, anybody with a modicum of intelligence and integrity. After all, there's always new information that wasn't available at the time of an original vote. Conditions that might have changed since that time, etc. That is the plight of any long term successful senator, including a John McCain whose generally known for his integrity and his independence. Scratch a thoughtful person and you will find somebody who has changed and grown.
Nevertheless, in the hands of ambitious and unscrupulous campaign operatives willing to bend the truth, misrepresent somebody's actual record, and outright lie about them, those qualities could be disastrous. And they were for Kerry.
There would have been far less information available with which to smear Wes Clark. And I think not having Bob Shrum, Tad Devine, and Mary Beth Cahill as his campaign team (as Kerry did) would have been an enormous plus for him.
Despite his loss, however, Wes Clark has proved himself to be actively engaged in the issues that first drove him to seek the presidential nomination. And he has stayed active as a Democrat, using his PAC to raise funds for other candidates. Although some of the party regulars (or party hacks, depending on how you look at it) questioned his bona fides as a Democrat, when he first ran in the primaries, I think he's proved his loyalty to the party. He didn't pick up his marbles and walk away when he didn't get his way. He stayed and is learning how the political game is played. General Clark is now reviving his PAC specifically to aid candidates in the upcoming '06 midterm elections for Congress.
Not only does his fundraising help any future efforts he might make, his consistent and on target criticism of this Administration gives lots of ammunition to all Democrats, especially his thoughts on America's true national security, national defense, and the real war on terrorism. So, read below, and if you are as impressed as I am, follow the link to his site.
Nevertheless, in the hands of ambitious and unscrupulous campaign operatives willing to bend the truth, misrepresent somebody's actual record, and outright lie about them, those qualities could be disastrous. And they were for Kerry.
There would have been far less information available with which to smear Wes Clark. And I think not having Bob Shrum, Tad Devine, and Mary Beth Cahill as his campaign team (as Kerry did) would have been an enormous plus for him.
Despite his loss, however, Wes Clark has proved himself to be actively engaged in the issues that first drove him to seek the presidential nomination. And he has stayed active as a Democrat, using his PAC to raise funds for other candidates. Although some of the party regulars (or party hacks, depending on how you look at it) questioned his bona fides as a Democrat, when he first ran in the primaries, I think he's proved his loyalty to the party. He didn't pick up his marbles and walk away when he didn't get his way. He stayed and is learning how the political game is played. General Clark is now reviving his PAC specifically to aid candidates in the upcoming '06 midterm elections for Congress.
Not only does his fundraising help any future efforts he might make, his consistent and on target criticism of this Administration gives lots of ammunition to all Democrats, especially his thoughts on America's true national security, national defense, and the real war on terrorism. So, read below, and if you are as impressed as I am, follow the link to his site.
"Dear Friend,
The time has come to investigate the Bush Administration's role in the prisoner abuse and humiliation that has motivated our enemies in the war on terror and endangers the well-being of our fighting forces.
Today, the reports of abuse and humiliation at detainment facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba are distracting the world from focusing on winning the war on terror. Although the military chain of command seems to have properly investigated the role of its personnel and held accountable those in the wrong, the civilian leadership in this country has failed to do the same.
For generations, the United States has been a powerful voice of moral authority in the world. After World War II, we led the world in creating the Geneva Conventions and prosecuting war criminals at Nuremberg, and later became one of the first nations to ratify the Convention Against Torture. Even today, Slobodan Milosevic is being tried for war crimes thanks to a U.S.-led NATO air strike against his brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has squandered our legacy of moral leadership.
I need your help to protect the honor of our men and women in uniform and to set us on the right course to win the war on terror. Although the President has said the United States is "committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example," the Administration's actions don't match his words. In his infamous memo, Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush to ignore the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war – a treaty that protects our soldiers captured abroad – to give the president more "flexibility." This so-called "flexibility" along with other Administration policies and statements may have ultimately contributed to the environment in which the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan have occurred.
Among the disturbing practices identified so far: the rendition of prisoners to countries where they can be tortured, failing to register "ghost prisoners" to deny them visits by the Red Cross, employing civilian contract agents to conduct interrogations outside military rules, and the reported prolonged degrading treatment of some detainees in U.S. custody. All of these deserve further investigation.
With the right leadership and accountability, couldn't the Administration have prevented the embarrassment of Abu Ghraib and the controversy at Guantanamo Bay? While some are blaming individual soldiers, doesn't at least some of the responsibility rest with the civilian leadership of our government? Don't the American people deserve the truth? Shouldn't Congress lead an investigation?
How can we win the war on terrorism, a fight for democracy and freedom in America and around the world, if we forsake the very principles and institutions for which we are fighting?
The laws of war are designed to regulate combat and to protect non-combatants from the violence and degradation of war. The conduct of this Administration may ultimately lead to a green-light for our enemies to torture our soldiers when captured -- we owe it to our men and women in uniform and their families to investigate.
American soldiers deserve better than to see our allies pointing their fingers at Guantanamo Bay and calling it an "American problem." We are doing their work too – defeating terror is a global priority.
People of good conscience cannot afford to stay silent.
Sincerely,Wes Clark
Invite your friends and family to join WesPAC -- Securing America's Future!If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for WesPAC"
Monday, June 27, 2005
Corporate Welfare for the Rich, As Usual
Yes, at the risk of sounding tiresome, AnonymousIsAWoman is going on yet another rant about the the corporate class and their promotion of corporate welfare for the rich and class warfare against their own employees. The reason it's not more readily apparent is because the same newspapers that report on the perk-laden compensation packages of CEOs on their business page and the benefits cuts and givebacks of ordinary workers on the front page seldom connect these two phenomenon in the same article. Nor do they connect the business news to the political page despite the fact that the high rollers of both parties, but especially of the Republican Party, are often the same corporate moguls and captains of industry that you read about on the business page.
Most people are familiar with the plight of workers in the airline industry who have had wages cut practically in half and lost pension plans they were counting on for retirement due to the business problems of their industry. But rarely do those articles mention how much the various airline CEOs have made in wages, benefits and extra perks on top of the benefit packages, even while their own investors were losing money.
Some of those additional perks include corporate box seats at expensive sporting events (I've been in some of those party rooms and they are luxurious), use of corporate jets, corporate cars with drivers, expensive apartments and homes, maid service, etc. Of course, most of these CEOs, and even other top officers in companies, can well afford to buy these services with the stunning salaries they make. But they feel entitled to letting their companies foot the bill instead because this has become the industry standard, even in companies that are losing money.
And these perks add up to big bucks too. So when you look at the sky high salaries that CEOs and other top executives make, you have to also factor in all the standard retirement benefits, generous pension plans, golden parachutes (yes, they're still around) and also these additional perks.
Today's Washington Post has an article describing some of these perks and explaining why most Fortune 500 companies' top executives get them, even when their companies' stocks are plunging downward and investors are losing money. Although the article doesn't include the salaries and benefits of the CEOs of some of the most notorious failures, those in the airline industry, the Post does name other names in other companies that have failed to be profitable.
At the same time, it's useful to remember that wages for ordinary workers, including middle management, have remained flat in virtually all industries. Many of the same companies that are rewarding their top management for basically not performing well in the market are cutting jobs on the front line. In addition, they are cutting salaries and benefits for those who remain employed.
When so many jobs are either being eliminated due to automation or being shipped overseas to sweatshops, it's hard to object to these cuts, even though you know your top boss certainly isn't sharing the pain.
Which raises several questions.
The first is what happened to leading by example? When a company is losing business, losing profit and losing market share, most sensible people would be willing to sacrifice to turn around the business losses. Back in the old days, company loyalty would be a strong motivator to do this. So would rational self-interest. Nobody benefits when a company goes belly up.
However, when a company starts to improve, why is it that only upper management reaps the rewards and is so unwilling to share them with their fellow employees?
When did we as a society decide it's okay for the top one percent to be so greedy that they grab all the perks without acknowledging that they - or any company - would be successful without all of their employees performing at a peak level.
When a company has a profitable year, it's a given that its upper management will get the largest share of the resulting bonuses. And nobody begrudges it to them. But just as their efforts contributed to the success of an enterprise, so did every other worker who showed up on time every day and did their job effectively. Success should be seen as a joint endeavor where everybody gets rewarded for his or her contribution. Yes, even the janitor who keeps the plant or office clean so other employees have better morale and safe and sanitary working conditions.
Obviously, the CEO, the Vice President, etc., will get a more generous reward than a janitor or factory worker. Most Americans are remarkably free of resentment and are okay with this. As long as they have decent health benefits and make enough money to afford comfortable homes, food, clothing and an education for their children and have some money left over for modest entertainment, most people don't resent it when others have more or fancier items.
In other words, if our needs are met and we are comfortable, we are happy to work and to contribute to the success of our bosses and see nothing wrong with their having more. We accept the reason for such inequity, which is that theirs is a proportionally greater contribution to the overall success, or that they are subject to a greater risk. We understand the greater monetary risks of investment so we don't resent its greater rewards
But when the economy goes bad, when companies are not performing successfully, and when workers are losing their livelihoods, the formula goes awry. If the average working person is asked to sacrifice in hard economic times, they should be invited to share the rewards in the good times. And surely, in hard times, the top executives should share some of the sacrifices. That's what is known as leading by example.
It's also known as accepting personal responsibility for the consequences of one's actions, something the rest of us are frequently urged to do by both business and political leaders. After all, if the reason that executives get such generous benefits and perks is because of their contribution to the success of a business, then surely when that same business fails to thrive, the same executives should bear the biggest burden of responsibility for that failure.
You really, really can't have it two ways. If you are a CEO and you are the major reason why your company succeeded, so you get the most perks, then you are also the major reason when it doesn't thrive and so should give back the most perks. But that's not done.
In fact, even as US Airways recently was forcing more and more cutbacks from its employees, it's CEO went into the very same bankruptcy court that extracted those givebacks from the workers and successfully defended his right to retain his contract for millions of dollars of compensation, benefits and perks. Why?
Because he had a legally binding contract. So did the union workers, but somehow the courts thought the CEOs contract was more binding than the contract of the employees, which the court abrogated to save the airline from bankruptcy.
Yet, a more responsible, more decent CEO could have given back a few mil in perks and benefits and maybe ameliorated some of the harshness of the cuts his employees were enduring. He might have led by example and shown that he too understood the spirit of sacrifice that was required. Instead, he chose to create lasting bitterness by defending his contract and his millions of bucks at others' expense.
By the way, need I mention that this is as much what the continuing judicial battles are about as the so-called culture wars? It's easy for Republicans to misdirect average citizens with battles over abortion and gay rights. But many of the same judges they are fighting so hard to put on the federal bench are dangerous for reasons other than their views on individual liberties. They also hold views that are inimical to workers, such as the right to collective bargaining and to organize and join a union, the right to overtime pay, and other worker justice issues. And as we have seen in the bankruptcy courts, they will take away pension plans from workers while upholding obscenely extravagant perks for top management every time.
Big business probably doesn't care whether a gay couple lives together. But they care very much if they have to pay overtime or honor pension commitments that they made and then underfunded. And that's why they've invested in the Republican Party and the judicial process.
Once again, I am sorry to be tiresome but I have to say, as I always do, it's not the culture wars, it's the class wars you gotta watch to know what's really going on and how to vote.
Most people are familiar with the plight of workers in the airline industry who have had wages cut practically in half and lost pension plans they were counting on for retirement due to the business problems of their industry. But rarely do those articles mention how much the various airline CEOs have made in wages, benefits and extra perks on top of the benefit packages, even while their own investors were losing money.
Some of those additional perks include corporate box seats at expensive sporting events (I've been in some of those party rooms and they are luxurious), use of corporate jets, corporate cars with drivers, expensive apartments and homes, maid service, etc. Of course, most of these CEOs, and even other top officers in companies, can well afford to buy these services with the stunning salaries they make. But they feel entitled to letting their companies foot the bill instead because this has become the industry standard, even in companies that are losing money.
And these perks add up to big bucks too. So when you look at the sky high salaries that CEOs and other top executives make, you have to also factor in all the standard retirement benefits, generous pension plans, golden parachutes (yes, they're still around) and also these additional perks.
Today's Washington Post has an article describing some of these perks and explaining why most Fortune 500 companies' top executives get them, even when their companies' stocks are plunging downward and investors are losing money. Although the article doesn't include the salaries and benefits of the CEOs of some of the most notorious failures, those in the airline industry, the Post does name other names in other companies that have failed to be profitable.
At the same time, it's useful to remember that wages for ordinary workers, including middle management, have remained flat in virtually all industries. Many of the same companies that are rewarding their top management for basically not performing well in the market are cutting jobs on the front line. In addition, they are cutting salaries and benefits for those who remain employed.
When so many jobs are either being eliminated due to automation or being shipped overseas to sweatshops, it's hard to object to these cuts, even though you know your top boss certainly isn't sharing the pain.
Which raises several questions.
The first is what happened to leading by example? When a company is losing business, losing profit and losing market share, most sensible people would be willing to sacrifice to turn around the business losses. Back in the old days, company loyalty would be a strong motivator to do this. So would rational self-interest. Nobody benefits when a company goes belly up.
However, when a company starts to improve, why is it that only upper management reaps the rewards and is so unwilling to share them with their fellow employees?
When did we as a society decide it's okay for the top one percent to be so greedy that they grab all the perks without acknowledging that they - or any company - would be successful without all of their employees performing at a peak level.
When a company has a profitable year, it's a given that its upper management will get the largest share of the resulting bonuses. And nobody begrudges it to them. But just as their efforts contributed to the success of an enterprise, so did every other worker who showed up on time every day and did their job effectively. Success should be seen as a joint endeavor where everybody gets rewarded for his or her contribution. Yes, even the janitor who keeps the plant or office clean so other employees have better morale and safe and sanitary working conditions.
Obviously, the CEO, the Vice President, etc., will get a more generous reward than a janitor or factory worker. Most Americans are remarkably free of resentment and are okay with this. As long as they have decent health benefits and make enough money to afford comfortable homes, food, clothing and an education for their children and have some money left over for modest entertainment, most people don't resent it when others have more or fancier items.
In other words, if our needs are met and we are comfortable, we are happy to work and to contribute to the success of our bosses and see nothing wrong with their having more. We accept the reason for such inequity, which is that theirs is a proportionally greater contribution to the overall success, or that they are subject to a greater risk. We understand the greater monetary risks of investment so we don't resent its greater rewards
But when the economy goes bad, when companies are not performing successfully, and when workers are losing their livelihoods, the formula goes awry. If the average working person is asked to sacrifice in hard economic times, they should be invited to share the rewards in the good times. And surely, in hard times, the top executives should share some of the sacrifices. That's what is known as leading by example.
It's also known as accepting personal responsibility for the consequences of one's actions, something the rest of us are frequently urged to do by both business and political leaders. After all, if the reason that executives get such generous benefits and perks is because of their contribution to the success of a business, then surely when that same business fails to thrive, the same executives should bear the biggest burden of responsibility for that failure.
You really, really can't have it two ways. If you are a CEO and you are the major reason why your company succeeded, so you get the most perks, then you are also the major reason when it doesn't thrive and so should give back the most perks. But that's not done.
In fact, even as US Airways recently was forcing more and more cutbacks from its employees, it's CEO went into the very same bankruptcy court that extracted those givebacks from the workers and successfully defended his right to retain his contract for millions of dollars of compensation, benefits and perks. Why?
Because he had a legally binding contract. So did the union workers, but somehow the courts thought the CEOs contract was more binding than the contract of the employees, which the court abrogated to save the airline from bankruptcy.
Yet, a more responsible, more decent CEO could have given back a few mil in perks and benefits and maybe ameliorated some of the harshness of the cuts his employees were enduring. He might have led by example and shown that he too understood the spirit of sacrifice that was required. Instead, he chose to create lasting bitterness by defending his contract and his millions of bucks at others' expense.
By the way, need I mention that this is as much what the continuing judicial battles are about as the so-called culture wars? It's easy for Republicans to misdirect average citizens with battles over abortion and gay rights. But many of the same judges they are fighting so hard to put on the federal bench are dangerous for reasons other than their views on individual liberties. They also hold views that are inimical to workers, such as the right to collective bargaining and to organize and join a union, the right to overtime pay, and other worker justice issues. And as we have seen in the bankruptcy courts, they will take away pension plans from workers while upholding obscenely extravagant perks for top management every time.
Big business probably doesn't care whether a gay couple lives together. But they care very much if they have to pay overtime or honor pension commitments that they made and then underfunded. And that's why they've invested in the Republican Party and the judicial process.
Once again, I am sorry to be tiresome but I have to say, as I always do, it's not the culture wars, it's the class wars you gotta watch to know what's really going on and how to vote.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Yeah, The Adams Principle Indeed
John Tierney has an interesting op ed piece in The New York Times today. It seems he already wrote an essay previously, where he suggested that the retirement age be raised as one way to cut Social Security benefits by simply delaying the payment of benefits for a few years. I'm not sure of the dollar amount, but most experts who write about saving Social Security, even some liberals, cite raising the retirement age as a way to save money for the system.
In fact, John Tierney points out that, except in the case of blue collar workers whose physical labor would legimately qualify them for retirement by 65, most workers today use brain power and skills that don't require hard physical labor. He points out that John Quincy Adams, when he retired from the presidency at 63, went on to serve as a senator until he was in his 80s. That's why Tierney called today's op ed piece The Adams Principle.
Well, Tierney may be right but he got an interesting response to his first article, which is what led to his writing this new essay. Many seniors wrote him to say they would be willing to work but no employer will hire them. Age discrimination is very real and it actually starts at about age 50.
As Tierney recognizes, in this article, why would an employer hire somebody older who is more expensive than an inexperienced and younger employee. And if a 35 year old proves to be incompetent, he could be fired much more easily than an older worker who might try to sue for age discrimination. It's much harder to prove age discrimination at time of hiring than when an employer tries to fire a worker. So employers tend to avoid the whole problem by bypassing the older job applicant in the first place.
I've personally witnessed age discrimination with several of my older friends who are out looking for jobs. So, I can vouch for its existence.
However, there's another reason I don't agree with Tierney.
I think that many pro-businesess writers who are suggesting raising the retirement age, whether it's deliberate or not, are shilling for businesses who want to glut the job market. Right now, because of record productivity and outsourcing, the job market has been sluggish. Wages have remained flat even as profits in some industries are soaring.
As long as there are workers out there who need jobs, wages will remain low no matter how high profits go. In the past, productivity ultimately benefitted both worker and employer because as the business became more profitable, it grew and added more workers. Hence, the demand for labor grew and pushed wages up. But that dynamic no longer seems to operate. Record profits and record growth have not produced greater demand for American labor.
Instead, skyrocketing growth has created greater demand to move overseas to hire cheaper labor or to replace labor altogether with machines. The aim seems to be to keep driving the cost of labor down and squeezing expenses lower to drive profits still higher.
Many forward looking businesses, however, are worried about the looming retirement of the baby boomers. It's not just because payroll taxes may go up and there may be a strain on the Social Security system as all those baby boomers begin to cash in on their retirement benefits. Businesses are also very worried that all these retirees will, for the first time in years, create a genuine worker shortage.
If that happens, labor will indeed become more expensive. Companies that got by on the cheap will actually have to begin handing out raises to loyal employees. They will have to start once again offering benefits including health insurance, competitive pension plans and even perks like child care and gyms, which were so popular in the 90s, the last time there was a labor shortage.
The ramifications of such a situation will be felt across corporate America. Greedy CEOs and top executives who have been routinely bleeding their companies by voting themselves huge bonuses and extravagant contracts will have to once again begin sharing the wealth and profits with those on the front line who actually earned the profits for them. Investors, too, will have to learn to share and play nice with those who made their investments pay off so handsomely, that is the workers whose toil built the company.
But if the retirement age can be raised, it could keep the labor glut going and lower the demand for workers just enough to keep all employees scared of losing their jobs. In a scarce job market, people are grateful to have employment, any employment, even a job cleaning bathrooms at Wal Mart.
But if corporate America loses the baby boomers as a captive workforce, they might have to pay the rest of us what we're really worth. It's called the law of supply and demand.
That's also a principle worth considering. I think the law of supply and demand trumps the Adams Principle every time.
In fact, John Tierney points out that, except in the case of blue collar workers whose physical labor would legimately qualify them for retirement by 65, most workers today use brain power and skills that don't require hard physical labor. He points out that John Quincy Adams, when he retired from the presidency at 63, went on to serve as a senator until he was in his 80s. That's why Tierney called today's op ed piece The Adams Principle.
Well, Tierney may be right but he got an interesting response to his first article, which is what led to his writing this new essay. Many seniors wrote him to say they would be willing to work but no employer will hire them. Age discrimination is very real and it actually starts at about age 50.
As Tierney recognizes, in this article, why would an employer hire somebody older who is more expensive than an inexperienced and younger employee. And if a 35 year old proves to be incompetent, he could be fired much more easily than an older worker who might try to sue for age discrimination. It's much harder to prove age discrimination at time of hiring than when an employer tries to fire a worker. So employers tend to avoid the whole problem by bypassing the older job applicant in the first place.
I've personally witnessed age discrimination with several of my older friends who are out looking for jobs. So, I can vouch for its existence.
However, there's another reason I don't agree with Tierney.
I think that many pro-businesess writers who are suggesting raising the retirement age, whether it's deliberate or not, are shilling for businesses who want to glut the job market. Right now, because of record productivity and outsourcing, the job market has been sluggish. Wages have remained flat even as profits in some industries are soaring.
As long as there are workers out there who need jobs, wages will remain low no matter how high profits go. In the past, productivity ultimately benefitted both worker and employer because as the business became more profitable, it grew and added more workers. Hence, the demand for labor grew and pushed wages up. But that dynamic no longer seems to operate. Record profits and record growth have not produced greater demand for American labor.
Instead, skyrocketing growth has created greater demand to move overseas to hire cheaper labor or to replace labor altogether with machines. The aim seems to be to keep driving the cost of labor down and squeezing expenses lower to drive profits still higher.
Many forward looking businesses, however, are worried about the looming retirement of the baby boomers. It's not just because payroll taxes may go up and there may be a strain on the Social Security system as all those baby boomers begin to cash in on their retirement benefits. Businesses are also very worried that all these retirees will, for the first time in years, create a genuine worker shortage.
If that happens, labor will indeed become more expensive. Companies that got by on the cheap will actually have to begin handing out raises to loyal employees. They will have to start once again offering benefits including health insurance, competitive pension plans and even perks like child care and gyms, which were so popular in the 90s, the last time there was a labor shortage.
The ramifications of such a situation will be felt across corporate America. Greedy CEOs and top executives who have been routinely bleeding their companies by voting themselves huge bonuses and extravagant contracts will have to once again begin sharing the wealth and profits with those on the front line who actually earned the profits for them. Investors, too, will have to learn to share and play nice with those who made their investments pay off so handsomely, that is the workers whose toil built the company.
But if the retirement age can be raised, it could keep the labor glut going and lower the demand for workers just enough to keep all employees scared of losing their jobs. In a scarce job market, people are grateful to have employment, any employment, even a job cleaning bathrooms at Wal Mart.
But if corporate America loses the baby boomers as a captive workforce, they might have to pay the rest of us what we're really worth. It's called the law of supply and demand.
That's also a principle worth considering. I think the law of supply and demand trumps the Adams Principle every time.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Maybe It's Something They Put In The Water
Back in the mid-1980s, Florida adopted the following slogan as part of a successful ad campaign: "The rules are different here."
Of course, what they were trying to illustrate was that in places like Miami Beach and Fort Lauderdale the lifestyle was so laid back that you didn't have to dress up to go to a fancy restaurant. You didn't need to wear a tie, attend business meetings, get uptight about status, etc. You could lie on a beach, relax, and enjoy. It was sort of like the current "what happens here stays here" ad that Las Vegas is using to attract tourists.
However, given that South Florida, at that time, was the cocaine capital of the world and that the cigarette boat, shaped like a Marijuanna joint, and used for drug smuggling, was practically the state's official symbol, the ad campaign was greeted with much hilarity by South Florida residents. We thought it was not exactly the message we should be sending to the rest of the country.
Unfortunately, the rules are still different in Florida, but for a much different reason. In this Republican-controlled state that has flipped to red, with its influx of Evangelicals, the rules of common decency no longer apply.
Jeb Bush, not content to have overstepped all bounds of common sense and common decency when he interferred in a family's personal tragedy, is now calling for still another investigation of Terri Schiavo's death. The New York Times carried this article.
According to the story, Bush wants a district attorney to investigate an apparent discrepancy in Michael Schiavo's account of when he called 911 the night Terri collapsed. At various times, Michael Schiavo has said that he found Terri at 4:30 in the morning, or at 5:00 in the morning. According to the official record, the 911 call was made at 5:40 a.m.
Schiavo has also admitted that he is not very good at remembering dates and times. However, he has always insisted that he called 911 immediately after discovering Terri's lifeless body.
I have to interject a personal note here. Terri's heart stopped and she collapsed sometime in the very early morning hours. Actually, many people would consider it still the middle of the night. My own mother had her stroke at 3 a.m. Or so my father thinks. The truth is that if he had to make a sworn statement as to when exactly my mother collapsed and what he did first and when he actually called 911, he'd be no more accurate. The thing about emergencies is that you don't look at your watch to determine the exact time that you did what.
I can't even tell you the exact time I woke up this morning because it's the weekend. And in the shock and confusion of discovering a loved one collapsed in the middle of the night it would be absurd to expect them to remember things like the time or sequence of events clearly.
Bush seems to think Michael Schiavo should have exactly that kind of total recall because such an incident is "so memorable." Well, I'm happy for Jeb Bush that he's never experienced so traumatic a crisis or he'd know that while it is indeed memorable, it's also shocking and confusing.
Jeb Bush also made the implication that because the autopsy has not adequately explained why the heart of a healthy 26 year old stopped suddenly, there is still suspicion of foul play. In fact, throughout the whole 15 year period, the Schindlers and their supporters have accused Michael of abusing Terri. The autopsy flatly disputed that. And while it's true that the reason that Terri's heart stopped is not known, it's also true that it may never be known. Unfortunately, healthy people, even young ones, do occasionally experience untimely heart attacks. A good friend of mine keeled over and collapsed several years ago. With no previous history of heart problems, his heart stopped suddenly. Unlike Terri Schiavo, his heart attack was fatal and the doctors never discovered the cause. Life just happens and so does death. Medical science sometimes just doesn't know the reason why. There are, after all, medical mysteries that are unsolvable. Any doctor will admit as much.
But I don't think that matters to Jeb Bush. I think the real reason that Bush is doing this is to regain credibility with his right wing base, which criticized him for failing to seize Terri's body when the feeding tube was removed. To have done so would have been a flagrant violation of a court order and it would have created a true constitutional crisis. But that's not why Jeb failed to act as his base wished he would. It wasn't that he respected the U.S. Constitution. It wasn't moderation. It certainly wasn't respect for the law.
It was cowardice. Like so many bullies, when confronted with the power of an authority stronger than himself, he caved. But as governor of Florida, he does have the legal authority to initiate a state investigation. However, in this case he is abusing his power. And worse, at a time when his state is in fiscal crisis and is cutting social services for the mentally ill and the disabled, he is wasting the taxpayers' money on a witch hunt.
The simple and frustrating (for the Religious Right) truth is that absolutely none of the claims of the the Right to Lifers or of Terri's parents have been borne out. The autopsy proved beyond doubt that Terri could not see them, despite the eye movements that were shown on the now infamous videotape. She was blind. Her brain had shrunk to half the size of a normal brain, so she could not be relating to her family, as her parents claimed. There was no hope of her recovering. And there was no proof that Michael had ever abused her, which became a popular claim by the wacky Right.
They lied. They lied through their teeth, every one of them. They've been caught red-handed in their lies. The only way they can deflect it is by starting still another investigation that casts more doubts on Michael Schiavo. They are using misdirection to put suspicion on him so that people won't focus on their own false claims which have been exposed by this autopsy.
Indeed, when the autopsy first was released, the media went after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who is also a heart surgeon, for offering a diagnose that Terri Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state, based on the video tape. How convenient that now the spotlight is on what Michael Schiavo did or did not do while in a state of confusion and panic in the middle of the night and not on the professionally unbecoming behavior of a licensed physician. This is the medical equivalent of the Swift Boat slurs and falsehoods against John Kerry during the presidential elections. When their own falsehoods are discovered, these are the type people who attack and sling mud and vicious lies every time. It's simply their modus operandi
So, in Jeb Bush's Florida, unfortunately, the rules are still different. However, in the rest of the country, the rules of common decency still apply. And Jeb Bush and his right wing Evangelical supporters have violated every one of them.
Of course, what they were trying to illustrate was that in places like Miami Beach and Fort Lauderdale the lifestyle was so laid back that you didn't have to dress up to go to a fancy restaurant. You didn't need to wear a tie, attend business meetings, get uptight about status, etc. You could lie on a beach, relax, and enjoy. It was sort of like the current "what happens here stays here" ad that Las Vegas is using to attract tourists.
However, given that South Florida, at that time, was the cocaine capital of the world and that the cigarette boat, shaped like a Marijuanna joint, and used for drug smuggling, was practically the state's official symbol, the ad campaign was greeted with much hilarity by South Florida residents. We thought it was not exactly the message we should be sending to the rest of the country.
Unfortunately, the rules are still different in Florida, but for a much different reason. In this Republican-controlled state that has flipped to red, with its influx of Evangelicals, the rules of common decency no longer apply.
Jeb Bush, not content to have overstepped all bounds of common sense and common decency when he interferred in a family's personal tragedy, is now calling for still another investigation of Terri Schiavo's death. The New York Times carried this article.
According to the story, Bush wants a district attorney to investigate an apparent discrepancy in Michael Schiavo's account of when he called 911 the night Terri collapsed. At various times, Michael Schiavo has said that he found Terri at 4:30 in the morning, or at 5:00 in the morning. According to the official record, the 911 call was made at 5:40 a.m.
Schiavo has also admitted that he is not very good at remembering dates and times. However, he has always insisted that he called 911 immediately after discovering Terri's lifeless body.
I have to interject a personal note here. Terri's heart stopped and she collapsed sometime in the very early morning hours. Actually, many people would consider it still the middle of the night. My own mother had her stroke at 3 a.m. Or so my father thinks. The truth is that if he had to make a sworn statement as to when exactly my mother collapsed and what he did first and when he actually called 911, he'd be no more accurate. The thing about emergencies is that you don't look at your watch to determine the exact time that you did what.
I can't even tell you the exact time I woke up this morning because it's the weekend. And in the shock and confusion of discovering a loved one collapsed in the middle of the night it would be absurd to expect them to remember things like the time or sequence of events clearly.
Bush seems to think Michael Schiavo should have exactly that kind of total recall because such an incident is "so memorable." Well, I'm happy for Jeb Bush that he's never experienced so traumatic a crisis or he'd know that while it is indeed memorable, it's also shocking and confusing.
Jeb Bush also made the implication that because the autopsy has not adequately explained why the heart of a healthy 26 year old stopped suddenly, there is still suspicion of foul play. In fact, throughout the whole 15 year period, the Schindlers and their supporters have accused Michael of abusing Terri. The autopsy flatly disputed that. And while it's true that the reason that Terri's heart stopped is not known, it's also true that it may never be known. Unfortunately, healthy people, even young ones, do occasionally experience untimely heart attacks. A good friend of mine keeled over and collapsed several years ago. With no previous history of heart problems, his heart stopped suddenly. Unlike Terri Schiavo, his heart attack was fatal and the doctors never discovered the cause. Life just happens and so does death. Medical science sometimes just doesn't know the reason why. There are, after all, medical mysteries that are unsolvable. Any doctor will admit as much.
But I don't think that matters to Jeb Bush. I think the real reason that Bush is doing this is to regain credibility with his right wing base, which criticized him for failing to seize Terri's body when the feeding tube was removed. To have done so would have been a flagrant violation of a court order and it would have created a true constitutional crisis. But that's not why Jeb failed to act as his base wished he would. It wasn't that he respected the U.S. Constitution. It wasn't moderation. It certainly wasn't respect for the law.
It was cowardice. Like so many bullies, when confronted with the power of an authority stronger than himself, he caved. But as governor of Florida, he does have the legal authority to initiate a state investigation. However, in this case he is abusing his power. And worse, at a time when his state is in fiscal crisis and is cutting social services for the mentally ill and the disabled, he is wasting the taxpayers' money on a witch hunt.
The simple and frustrating (for the Religious Right) truth is that absolutely none of the claims of the the Right to Lifers or of Terri's parents have been borne out. The autopsy proved beyond doubt that Terri could not see them, despite the eye movements that were shown on the now infamous videotape. She was blind. Her brain had shrunk to half the size of a normal brain, so she could not be relating to her family, as her parents claimed. There was no hope of her recovering. And there was no proof that Michael had ever abused her, which became a popular claim by the wacky Right.
They lied. They lied through their teeth, every one of them. They've been caught red-handed in their lies. The only way they can deflect it is by starting still another investigation that casts more doubts on Michael Schiavo. They are using misdirection to put suspicion on him so that people won't focus on their own false claims which have been exposed by this autopsy.
Indeed, when the autopsy first was released, the media went after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who is also a heart surgeon, for offering a diagnose that Terri Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state, based on the video tape. How convenient that now the spotlight is on what Michael Schiavo did or did not do while in a state of confusion and panic in the middle of the night and not on the professionally unbecoming behavior of a licensed physician. This is the medical equivalent of the Swift Boat slurs and falsehoods against John Kerry during the presidential elections. When their own falsehoods are discovered, these are the type people who attack and sling mud and vicious lies every time. It's simply their modus operandi
So, in Jeb Bush's Florida, unfortunately, the rules are still different. However, in the rest of the country, the rules of common decency still apply. And Jeb Bush and his right wing Evangelical supporters have violated every one of them.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Religious Warriors on the Left
Here's an interesting article from Beliefnet that analyzes the demographics of religious voters and their role in the last Presidential election. Beliefnet's surprising conclusion is that the Religious Left was almost as active and decisive a force as the Religious Right. According to their statistics, both groups are roughly 15 to 17 percent of the populace (for exact figures, just surf on over to the article).
The Religious Right was a slightly larger group, but not by that much. Where Bush really gained strength was with a group that the article called "The Heartland Cultural Warriors." These are traditional, Mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics who voted for Bush based on the abortion and gay marriage issues. Although they are not Evangelicals, they consider cultural issues the most important ones and voted accordingly.
However, the Democrats have a good block of Religious Leftists, which includes Latinos, Black Protestants, and non-Christian members of minority religions such as Judaism, Islam, Hindusism, and Buddhism. Probably more work could be done to mobilize this base.
There are also Mainline Protestants, Liberal Catholics, and even a small percentage of Evangelical Protestants who voted Democratic. They identified the economy or foreign policy as their most important issues.
I would guess that in the next election, the Democrats could peel off a portion of the Heartlanders by avoiding some of the culture war baggage and, even more importantly, stressing the economy not just as an issue of self-interest, but by framing it in moral terms. It isn't, after all, just about the individual voters economic well-being, it is also a social justice issue.
Democrats need to compete for religious voters in the morality and values arena by stressing the social justice and environmental stewardship themes. The truth is the Democrats are never, never going to get that segment of the Religious Right that identifies abortion and gay marriage as their most important issues. They shouldn't even try. Some groups just arent' our consituency.
But that does not mean Democrats should turn their back on all people of faith. There is a Religious Left and it is alive and well and waiting for a political party to stand for social justice, world peace, respect for diversity, care of the environment, and compassionate family values that include help for working mothers, support for families of gay people, and assistance to end poverty and HIV/AIDS.
There are people out there waiting for the Democrats to frame their platform in the moral language of faith. And I am one of them.
The Religious Right was a slightly larger group, but not by that much. Where Bush really gained strength was with a group that the article called "The Heartland Cultural Warriors." These are traditional, Mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics who voted for Bush based on the abortion and gay marriage issues. Although they are not Evangelicals, they consider cultural issues the most important ones and voted accordingly.
However, the Democrats have a good block of Religious Leftists, which includes Latinos, Black Protestants, and non-Christian members of minority religions such as Judaism, Islam, Hindusism, and Buddhism. Probably more work could be done to mobilize this base.
There are also Mainline Protestants, Liberal Catholics, and even a small percentage of Evangelical Protestants who voted Democratic. They identified the economy or foreign policy as their most important issues.
I would guess that in the next election, the Democrats could peel off a portion of the Heartlanders by avoiding some of the culture war baggage and, even more importantly, stressing the economy not just as an issue of self-interest, but by framing it in moral terms. It isn't, after all, just about the individual voters economic well-being, it is also a social justice issue.
Democrats need to compete for religious voters in the morality and values arena by stressing the social justice and environmental stewardship themes. The truth is the Democrats are never, never going to get that segment of the Religious Right that identifies abortion and gay marriage as their most important issues. They shouldn't even try. Some groups just arent' our consituency.
But that does not mean Democrats should turn their back on all people of faith. There is a Religious Left and it is alive and well and waiting for a political party to stand for social justice, world peace, respect for diversity, care of the environment, and compassionate family values that include help for working mothers, support for families of gay people, and assistance to end poverty and HIV/AIDS.
There are people out there waiting for the Democrats to frame their platform in the moral language of faith. And I am one of them.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maximus Culpa for Sloppy Blogging
A thousand apologies for the sloppy post the other day, and for not even putting up a link to the second article, the one in USA Today about Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Although high speed Internet access and complimentary use of the computer at the Hampton Inn is a great perk, it did, unfortunately, have its limits. And the fact that they ask you to keep your usage to only 15 minutes is that limit.
I thought it was more important to get the thoughts out about the greed that is overtaking corporate America and how that is hurting their own employees, than it was to have a perfect post.
But I did double back to put up the link to the entire USA Today article and to clean up some of the sloppy grammar and to make the writing more clear. But I didn't do a major overhaul because it is in the past. I don't think I need to belabor the point.
Tomorrow and the next day, I'll probably be busy. Virginia has one of its interminable elections. We have a major election every year and a scattering of special elections in the summer when nobody is around to vote. And then the powers that be wonder why our election turn out is always so abysmal. It's called voter fatigue, people. Get a clue.
Anyway, I'm a political junkie, so I'll be voting. And I'll probably be at a victory party somewhere tomorrow night. Since it's a primary, some Democrat, whom I support, somewhere, will win at least one of the spots up for grabs, so I'm assured of celebrating an actual victory at one the parties, even if it's at the governor's spot - Tim Kaine is running unopposed so he has to win his election and, yes, I actually will feel like celebrating his victory because he's an exceedingly good guy. I will be writing more about him as Virginia's elections heat up in the coming months.
Although high speed Internet access and complimentary use of the computer at the Hampton Inn is a great perk, it did, unfortunately, have its limits. And the fact that they ask you to keep your usage to only 15 minutes is that limit.
I thought it was more important to get the thoughts out about the greed that is overtaking corporate America and how that is hurting their own employees, than it was to have a perfect post.
But I did double back to put up the link to the entire USA Today article and to clean up some of the sloppy grammar and to make the writing more clear. But I didn't do a major overhaul because it is in the past. I don't think I need to belabor the point.
Tomorrow and the next day, I'll probably be busy. Virginia has one of its interminable elections. We have a major election every year and a scattering of special elections in the summer when nobody is around to vote. And then the powers that be wonder why our election turn out is always so abysmal. It's called voter fatigue, people. Get a clue.
Anyway, I'm a political junkie, so I'll be voting. And I'll probably be at a victory party somewhere tomorrow night. Since it's a primary, some Democrat, whom I support, somewhere, will win at least one of the spots up for grabs, so I'm assured of celebrating an actual victory at one the parties, even if it's at the governor's spot - Tim Kaine is running unopposed so he has to win his election and, yes, I actually will feel like celebrating his victory because he's an exceedingly good guy. I will be writing more about him as Virginia's elections heat up in the coming months.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself
I am blogging on the run. Hint to reader: if you ever need a reasonably priced motel while on the road, choose Hampton Inns. No, I'm not being paid for this plug. But their rooms are clean, roomy and comfortable, they give a complimentary breakfast buffet, and - best of all, if you're a computer nerd like me who has to check their email and gets withdrawal from not blogging - they've got high speed internet, and they provide the computer in their lobby.
Their breakfast bar is mostly simple cold foods like cereal and bagels - no omlets made to request or anything. And you only get 15 minutes on the computer. But it's all free.
Anyway, 15 minutes is about all I have since I'm here to visit my parents. My mother is doing very well for a month after a stroke and my father is handling it beautifully. I am so proud of them both.
Anyway, with only 15 minutes, let me get started:
Here's an article from Paul Krugman, in The New York Times. His basic point is that while the wealthy special interests groups have benefitted immeasurably from Republican policies, not just under the present Bush Administration, but under nearly all the recent Republican presidents (Bush I and Reagan), the ordinary working person has been in a free fall out of the middle class. The same policies that have favored the very wealthy one percent have also destroyed pensions, job security, and flattened wages. And, as Krugman also demonstrates, to point out this simple fact brings accusations of class warfare from the very entrenched special interests who have indeed manipulated this country's economic and political system in their favor.
Krugman also mentions that one of the factors that used to keep the middle class secure and that contributed to a more egalitarian society where the wealth and success of the business class was shared by the workers was a strong labor movement.
There is another article, which I ran across in USA Today the other day. It's about about California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenneger, who is making war against labor unions.
Currently, he is also getting ready to have a special election in California to make an end run around the legislature to get his legislation passed. It's basically bills that would favor the special interests that have given, and keep giving, to his campaign or the Republican Party. It's the usual litany of Republican favorites: tax breaks and more tax breaks for the wealthy.
At the same time, as I mentioned above, Schwarzenneger has declared virtual war on the state's unions. He wants to cut the pension programs of first responders such as fire fighters and police officers, and make it harder for teachers to get tenure. He blames all of California's economic woes on the unions because they dare to fight for decent wages, job security, and a decent retirement for their members. Somehow, in Republican world, millionaires must have tax breaks to buy bigger, fancier and lots more mansions while ordinary middle class workers are greedy for wanting to keep up with inflation and provide a decent life for their families.
But the key point is that Schwarzennegger is going after the unions because if he can bust the municipal unions, he will have broken the back of the entire union movement. In private industry, unions are incredibly weak. So, if he succeeds in destroying the municipal workers' unions, there will be nobody left to stand up for workers' rights anywhere.
The Republican Administration in Washington, DC has already gone after workers' rights, chipping away at the 8 hour day, overtime pay, the minimum wage, and other laws that protect working people.
What's going on in California is about whether there will be a middle class or a tiny class of the very wealthy and a very large group of serfs who do their bidding. This is not true capitalism. It is crony capitalism, which is the very wealthy stacking the deck in their own favor to the disadvantage of everybody else. And it's done because true competition and truly independent workers with the right to sit down at a bargaining table robs these greedy people of some of the profits of their companies. These profits, however, could not be earned without the valuable contribution of their employees.
Believe it or not, angry as I am at the crony capitalists, I don't want to take away their wealth. I don't want them to have one less mansion or one less great killing on the stock market. Far from it. I want them to prosper, to invest more in the market, make more money and build more large and small businesses. That's the way to prosperity for everybody in the country. Socialism, unfortunately, for all it's good intentions doesn't produce wealth. Only capitalism does.
But, but there's no reason why employees should not be recognized and rewarded for their role in the production of prosperity just as the CEO, the Board of Directors and the investors are. When a CEO gets a bonus and a corporate board of investors, and their stockholders get the dividends and reap the profits, the worker who toiled to produce the success should get a raise in pay and better benefits too. That's the way it used to work. Everybody shared in the same success and had the same goals. That was Krugman's point in his article.
Now, rampant greed has taken over. Some people - specifically, the business class - are doing very well. High end stores, such as Niemen Marcus, have posted great profits this year, while the low end discount stores, including even the mighty Wal-Mart, have experienced declines in profit and flat sales. That's because while the investor class has benefitted enormously from the recent economic growth in the U.S., ordinary working people have not shared in the general prosperity. In fact, they've seen their lifestyle, their wages, and their security decline.
And that's plain wrong. Just as it's wrong that Governor Schwarzenegger is leading the vanguard in the fight to destroy unions and the middle class way of life that they protect.
California, please curb your governor.
Their breakfast bar is mostly simple cold foods like cereal and bagels - no omlets made to request or anything. And you only get 15 minutes on the computer. But it's all free.
Anyway, 15 minutes is about all I have since I'm here to visit my parents. My mother is doing very well for a month after a stroke and my father is handling it beautifully. I am so proud of them both.
Anyway, with only 15 minutes, let me get started:
Here's an article from Paul Krugman, in The New York Times. His basic point is that while the wealthy special interests groups have benefitted immeasurably from Republican policies, not just under the present Bush Administration, but under nearly all the recent Republican presidents (Bush I and Reagan), the ordinary working person has been in a free fall out of the middle class. The same policies that have favored the very wealthy one percent have also destroyed pensions, job security, and flattened wages. And, as Krugman also demonstrates, to point out this simple fact brings accusations of class warfare from the very entrenched special interests who have indeed manipulated this country's economic and political system in their favor.
Krugman also mentions that one of the factors that used to keep the middle class secure and that contributed to a more egalitarian society where the wealth and success of the business class was shared by the workers was a strong labor movement.
There is another article, which I ran across in USA Today the other day. It's about about California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenneger, who is making war against labor unions.
Currently, he is also getting ready to have a special election in California to make an end run around the legislature to get his legislation passed. It's basically bills that would favor the special interests that have given, and keep giving, to his campaign or the Republican Party. It's the usual litany of Republican favorites: tax breaks and more tax breaks for the wealthy.
At the same time, as I mentioned above, Schwarzenneger has declared virtual war on the state's unions. He wants to cut the pension programs of first responders such as fire fighters and police officers, and make it harder for teachers to get tenure. He blames all of California's economic woes on the unions because they dare to fight for decent wages, job security, and a decent retirement for their members. Somehow, in Republican world, millionaires must have tax breaks to buy bigger, fancier and lots more mansions while ordinary middle class workers are greedy for wanting to keep up with inflation and provide a decent life for their families.
But the key point is that Schwarzennegger is going after the unions because if he can bust the municipal unions, he will have broken the back of the entire union movement. In private industry, unions are incredibly weak. So, if he succeeds in destroying the municipal workers' unions, there will be nobody left to stand up for workers' rights anywhere.
The Republican Administration in Washington, DC has already gone after workers' rights, chipping away at the 8 hour day, overtime pay, the minimum wage, and other laws that protect working people.
What's going on in California is about whether there will be a middle class or a tiny class of the very wealthy and a very large group of serfs who do their bidding. This is not true capitalism. It is crony capitalism, which is the very wealthy stacking the deck in their own favor to the disadvantage of everybody else. And it's done because true competition and truly independent workers with the right to sit down at a bargaining table robs these greedy people of some of the profits of their companies. These profits, however, could not be earned without the valuable contribution of their employees.
Believe it or not, angry as I am at the crony capitalists, I don't want to take away their wealth. I don't want them to have one less mansion or one less great killing on the stock market. Far from it. I want them to prosper, to invest more in the market, make more money and build more large and small businesses. That's the way to prosperity for everybody in the country. Socialism, unfortunately, for all it's good intentions doesn't produce wealth. Only capitalism does.
But, but there's no reason why employees should not be recognized and rewarded for their role in the production of prosperity just as the CEO, the Board of Directors and the investors are. When a CEO gets a bonus and a corporate board of investors, and their stockholders get the dividends and reap the profits, the worker who toiled to produce the success should get a raise in pay and better benefits too. That's the way it used to work. Everybody shared in the same success and had the same goals. That was Krugman's point in his article.
Now, rampant greed has taken over. Some people - specifically, the business class - are doing very well. High end stores, such as Niemen Marcus, have posted great profits this year, while the low end discount stores, including even the mighty Wal-Mart, have experienced declines in profit and flat sales. That's because while the investor class has benefitted enormously from the recent economic growth in the U.S., ordinary working people have not shared in the general prosperity. In fact, they've seen their lifestyle, their wages, and their security decline.
And that's plain wrong. Just as it's wrong that Governor Schwarzenegger is leading the vanguard in the fight to destroy unions and the middle class way of life that they protect.
California, please curb your governor.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Going Away Again
I will be away for a few days as I head back down to Florida to check on my mother and father. My mother is doing well after her stroke. She's back home and I want to make sure that both she and my father are settled into a routine that they can handle and that they have adequate care and assistance.
I hear that a storm is brewing there, the first tropical storm of the season. Not a hurricane, yet; but a reminder of why I was so happy to leave "the Sunshine State," where there's sometimes more annual rainfall than Seattle. And it's stormier and nastier - hey it's really a tropical rainforest down there.
Ok, it's sunny and beautiful lots of times. And no, I don't complain about the gorgeous Florida weather when I make my semi-annual escape there in February. It's preferable to icy Washington, DC then. But winter isn't their rainy season. Now is. June 1 begins hurricane season in Florida And as Miami Herald writer and novelist Carl Hiassen once pointed out, in the novel Stormy Weather, "hurricanes are God's eviction notice."
Like many who care about Florida's fragile environment, I agree with Hiassen that it would be better if a few others decided they had enough of the storms, heeded the eviction notice and left the overcrowded and resource-challenged penninsula. Hey, I did my part.
Except for now. I do have to head back to see my folks, who went there long before the natural resources got so strained. I think they're entitled to stay, and I pray they'll be safe for as long as they do.
See you all soon.
I hear that a storm is brewing there, the first tropical storm of the season. Not a hurricane, yet; but a reminder of why I was so happy to leave "the Sunshine State," where there's sometimes more annual rainfall than Seattle. And it's stormier and nastier - hey it's really a tropical rainforest down there.
Ok, it's sunny and beautiful lots of times. And no, I don't complain about the gorgeous Florida weather when I make my semi-annual escape there in February. It's preferable to icy Washington, DC then. But winter isn't their rainy season. Now is. June 1 begins hurricane season in Florida And as Miami Herald writer and novelist Carl Hiassen once pointed out, in the novel Stormy Weather, "hurricanes are God's eviction notice."
Like many who care about Florida's fragile environment, I agree with Hiassen that it would be better if a few others decided they had enough of the storms, heeded the eviction notice and left the overcrowded and resource-challenged penninsula. Hey, I did my part.
Except for now. I do have to head back to see my folks, who went there long before the natural resources got so strained. I think they're entitled to stay, and I pray they'll be safe for as long as they do.
See you all soon.
Here's To You Anna Louisa Italiano
Of course, the public knew her as Anne Bancroft and she died of uternine cancer the other day. She was born Anna Louisa Italiano in 1931 in the Bronx. Her parents were working class Italian immigrants. She traveled a long way from the streets of the Bronx. And yet ended up only a few miles away, with a home in Manhattan. She passed away in New York's Mount Sinai Hospital
Tonight, the lights on Broadway have been dimmed in memory of this magnficent actress. Her memorable roles include Annie Sullivan, the beloved teacher of Helen Keller, in both the Broadway play and the movie, The Miracle Worker, for which both she and Patty Duke won Oscars. The role of Gittel Mosca, in the Broadway play Two For The Seesaw, for which she won her first Tony. She also won a Tony for The Miracle Worker. And, of course, her iconic role of Mrs. Robinson in The Graduate.
As she matured, she went on to play a mother superior in Agnes of God and a former ballerina who gave up her career for motherhood in The Turning Point.
She played so many challenging and wonderful roles. And equally important, she had that one extemely rare extra that few in Hollwyood or Broadway managed to achieve, a happy marriage of 40 years to comic genius Mel Brooks.
I once wanted to be an actress and Anne Bancroft served as a role model and inspiration to me because of her talent, genius, and dedication to the art and craft of acting.
Rest in Peace Anna Louisa.
Tonight, the lights on Broadway have been dimmed in memory of this magnficent actress. Her memorable roles include Annie Sullivan, the beloved teacher of Helen Keller, in both the Broadway play and the movie, The Miracle Worker, for which both she and Patty Duke won Oscars. The role of Gittel Mosca, in the Broadway play Two For The Seesaw, for which she won her first Tony. She also won a Tony for The Miracle Worker. And, of course, her iconic role of Mrs. Robinson in The Graduate.
As she matured, she went on to play a mother superior in Agnes of God and a former ballerina who gave up her career for motherhood in The Turning Point.
She played so many challenging and wonderful roles. And equally important, she had that one extemely rare extra that few in Hollwyood or Broadway managed to achieve, a happy marriage of 40 years to comic genius Mel Brooks.
I once wanted to be an actress and Anne Bancroft served as a role model and inspiration to me because of her talent, genius, and dedication to the art and craft of acting.
Rest in Peace Anna Louisa.
Monday, June 06, 2005
Class Warfare for Capitalists
Although I don't have much time to post lately, here is a beautiful piece by New York Times columnist Bob Hebert. So many people are so afraid to call it what it is, but, as I've maintained for a long time, we in America are already in a class war and the middle class is losing. That's because the very rich have always known it's war. And the rest of us have been cowed into thinking that it makes us Marxists to point it out.
Not so. I am a capitalist. But not a crony capitalist. For an excellent critique of the greed of the priveleged classes and how it's endangering real capitalism and meritocracy, an excellent author to read is Kevin Phillips who used to be a Republican White House strategist.
As a one-time traditional conservative Republican - now reviled as a "country club Republican - by the new breed of Evangelicals, Phillips is not shy about taking George Bush and his greedy buddies to task for killing the American Dream for millions of ordinary people. And Phillips freely admits that he was one of the inventors of Nixon's Southern Strategy back in the 70s.
So, read Hebert's insightful article, linked to above. And if you can, try to find any of Phillips's books, especially American Dynasty, The Politics of Rich and Poor, and Wealth and Democracy. They're well worth perusing.
Not so. I am a capitalist. But not a crony capitalist. For an excellent critique of the greed of the priveleged classes and how it's endangering real capitalism and meritocracy, an excellent author to read is Kevin Phillips who used to be a Republican White House strategist.
As a one-time traditional conservative Republican - now reviled as a "country club Republican - by the new breed of Evangelicals, Phillips is not shy about taking George Bush and his greedy buddies to task for killing the American Dream for millions of ordinary people. And Phillips freely admits that he was one of the inventors of Nixon's Southern Strategy back in the 70s.
So, read Hebert's insightful article, linked to above. And if you can, try to find any of Phillips's books, especially American Dynasty, The Politics of Rich and Poor, and Wealth and Democracy. They're well worth perusing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)