Look for the Union Label

A Must-Read Article of the Day...by William Rivers Pitt 

Governor Walker of Wisconsin got up on his hind legs on Monday and blasted public-sector unions for being wasteful.

He made it very clear that he intends to continue his push to abolish collective bargaining in his state, which basically means he intends to abolish unions in his state.

The polls are not with him, the people are not with him, and a number of Republicans in the legislature look to be going soft on the whole deal, but don't tell Walker that. He thinks he's going to get his way on this, so he can be the big conservative hero, the one who abolished unions, thus setting a trend to be followed in more than a dozen other states.

This is what I know about public-sector employees. This is what I know about unions.

In February of 1978, a snowstorm roared across New England, went out to sea, gained strength, turned back inland, and then stalled. It was for all intents and purposes a hurricane, complete with eye and sustained winds over 100 miles per hour. When it was all over, the Blizzard of '78 dumped several feet of snow, and paralyzed the region for a week. More than 50 people died. My mother worked for the city we lived in, and was put in charge of plowing out the streets and homes that had been buried. She and the plow guys disappeared into that maw for a week, got the snow cleared, and saved lives. Her work, and the work of the guys running the plows, made all the difference.

That's what public-sector employees do.

That's what unions do.

Four years ago, my wife and I arrived at a hospital to receive a diagnosis. My wife had been experiencing numbness and tremors in her right hand, and when the doctor told her she had Multiple Sclerosis, she collapsed into terrified tears. A nurse comforted her, and a social worker sat her down to talk things over. They told my wife about her options, about where she could go and what she could do to deal with this disease, and they were wonderful. Twenty minutes after finding out something horrifying and utterly life-changing, my wife was laughing through her tears and immensely comforted, thanks to the efforts of those two people.

That's what public-sector employees do.

That's what unions do.

When I was in public high school, I had the same English teacher two years in a row. His name was Brainerd Phillipson, and he was quite possibly out of his mind. He flew around the room like a dervish, and brought to life even the most brutally dull assignments we were required to read. Mr. Phillipson is solely responsible for the life-long love of reading I have enjoyed. He is the reason I became a teacher, and the reason I became a writer. Those two years in his classroom set the course of my life.

That's what public-sector employees do.

That's what unions do.

On a bright Tuesday morning nearly ten years ago, two commercial airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City. Thousands died. As people fled in terror from the fire and violence, police officers and firefighters and EMTs charged into the burning buildings to try and save as many as possible. When the Towers collapsed in fire and dust, those heroic rescuers were lost. At the time, I am certain that Gov. Walker had many fine things to say about those who gave their lives to save others.

That's what public-sector employees do, Governor.

That's what unions do.

In a perfect world, public-sector union employees would not be scapegoated for the ills of state budgets. They would not be called lazy or wasteful. They would not be asked to give up their rights after already having given up so much.

In a perfect world, the bankers and Wall Street wizards would be handed a bill for all the damage they have done, be required to pony up in order to salvage the economic calamity they created, and would spend some time in jail for the crimes they committed.

In a perfect world, the two disastrous wars George W. Bush and his cronies threw us into would never have happened. All those lives would never have been lost. The hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars spent to no avail would never have been so profligately wasted...and if those wars did happen, in a perfect world the perpetrators would also be billed, and jailed, for stealing from us all.

But, of course, this is not a perfect world. The bankers and Wall Streeters stole from us, the Bush administration and their "defense" industry friends stole from us, to the tune of trillions of dollars.

If you want to know why we are in this economic crisis, why state budgets are falling short all across the country, why millions are without work, look no further for the reason. To date, none of these people have been called to account for what they have done. Instead, we hear about the "wasteful" nature of public employment.

It isn't a perfect world, so Republican frauds like Walker get to blame everything on unions and public-sector employees instead of their own unutterably flawed and false policies. Trickle-down supply-side pro-war idiocy is to blame for our current condition. Period. End of file.

When you are in a car accident, or a fire, or are sick, or get robbed, or are buried in snow, or lost, or need help in any way, you won't have to look far to find the union label. It will be there to save you, to comfort you, to dig you out, to make you smile, and to save your life.

Remember that.

---

This aricle was written by William Rivers Pitt, a New York Times writer and internationally best-selling author of two books, The Greatest Sedition Is Silence, and War on Iraq:  What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know.  His newest book, House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation, is now available from PollPointPress.  The article was published on February 23, 2011 here:  http://www.truth-out.org/look-union-label67975

Wisconsn: It's About Political Power, But Not Just In Wisconsin

A Must-Read Article of the Day...by Harvey Wasserman

The escalating confrontations in Wisconsin and Ohio are ultimately about preventing the United States from becoming a full-on fascist state.


The stakes could not be higher---or more clear.


As defined by its inventor, Benito Mussolini, fascism is "corporate control of the state." There are ways to beat around the Bush---Paul Krugman has recently written about "oligarchy"---but it's time to end all illusions and call what we now confront by its true name.


The fights in Wisconsin, Ohio, and in numerous other states are about saving the last shreds of American democracy. They burn down to five basic realities:


1) The bulwark of modern democracy is the trade union. This has been true since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. All social programs can trace their roots to union activism, as can the protection of our civil liberties.


The first Germans Hitler put in concentration camps were neither Jews nor gypsies---they were trade unionists.


The attacks on state workers in Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere have nothing to do with balancing budgets. That could easily be done without destroying collective bargaining.


For the hard-right, this is about busting unions, the last organized force standing in the way of total corporate control of the United States by the rich and richer.


2) The material essence of fascism is the extreme separation of rich and poor, a massive transfer of wealth from those on the bottom to those on the top.


The unbalanced budgets in Ohio and Wisconsin are rooted in huge tax cuts given to the rich at the expense of the middle and lower classes.


Widespread poverty among those who might otherwise rebel is essential to fascist control of a government.


A largely ignored aspect of this fight is the hundreds of billions of dollars currently locked up in union, government and Social Security pension funds.


With unions destroyed, this huge cache of dollars will fall quickly into corporate hands.


The additional "benefit" for the financial elite will be tens of millions of impoverished elders desperate for low-wage jobs in virtual slave labor situations.


3) The crisis crippling states everywhere is directly related to the massive destruction of social resources by war.


Since the end of the New Deal and World War II, the American elite has engineered the biggest dump of material wealth by military means in human history.


The trillions of dollars of pure martial waste poured into the Cold War and those in Southeast Asia, central America, the Middle East, Southwest Asia and elsewhere could easily have clothed, housed, fed, educated, and provided otherwise decent lives for all human beings the world over.


Instead, poverty, desperation and stratification have been guaranteed.


The entire economic crisis now gripping the United States can be directly traced to the military budget, which exceeds the sum of what's being spent by all other nations combined.


In a brilliant recent column, Robert Greenwald points out that the entire alleged shortfall in Wisconsin could be covered by bringing just 180 troops home from Afghanistan.


But the purpose of that deployment is to undermine national security, not to protect it. A frightened, impoverished, insecure nation is one dependent on its fascist elite.


Democracy demands and protects true material security among the people as a whole. That's what's really at stake in the battle to cut the military budget. The fights in Ohio and Wisconsin are surface manifestations of that bigger battle.


4) Mussolini also made it clear that corporate control of the media is essential to fascist rule.


Whoever would seize power first took the radio stations, then the television stations. Now the internet is under attack. The free flow of information is fascism's ultimate enemy.


So the relentless Foxist portrayal of the battles in Wisconsin and Ohio as pitting "responsible, austerity-minded" governors versus "lazy, irresponsible state workers" is utterly predictable.


So is the appearance of the media-created Tea Party "movement" on the side of the corporations.


It's standard corporate procedure to invent a faux "grassroots" to fight unions and working people.


So finding phony corporate "populists" like Sarah Palin and New Jersey's Chris Christie in the right-wing media limelight is utterly predictable.


5) It is no accident that the "job loving" union-hating governors of Wisconsin and Ohio (along with Florida) have rejected billions in federal funds for re-building passenger rail service that would create thousands of jobs.


A corporate state relies on central control of "King CONG" energy---coal, oil, nukes and gas.


Rail service threatens the power of the oil and auto lobbies.


Renewable energy would replace centralized fossil/nuclear sources with decentralized Solartopian photovoltaic panels, bio-fuels, windmills, increased efficiency and the like.


The push for federal nuclear loan guarantees is central to the corporate state.


The anti-union governor of Ohio is strongly focused on killing not only train service but all incentives for renewable energy.


His energy plan is for extreme right-wing nuke-based monopolies like FirstEnergy to run the show.


Atomic power is the ultimate weapon against community control.


For decades the term "fascist" has been dismissed from use in this country, and perhaps rightly so. Corporations have been dominant in the US since the 1880s, but we have managed to maintain a modicum of democracy.


It's hard to see that happening if the remnants of the organized labor movement are crushed in Wisconsin and Ohio. Both states have long, important traditions of union activism.


In the wake of Citizens United, with the courts, media, Congress and presidency firmly in corporate control, we see no easy road to victory for working people.


"Vote the bastards out" has become a pipedream in the age of electronic voting machines. Especially in Ohio, a reliable electoral vote count is a thing of the past.


We also have a president who was elected with strong labor support and who is now genuflecting toward the unions. But US history is filled with Democrats who have betrayed their working-class backers, and this one may prove no exception.


So in the long run, we have only ourselves to rely on. The way to survival is not clear.


Ultimately, as Martin Luther King said, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
But from time to time, it does break. If these uprisings in Wisconsin and Ohio fail, there will---literally---be hell to pay.


Somehow, we must find a way to make sure they don't.

----

This article was written by Harvey Wasserman, a senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, and Bob Fitrakis, a Political Science Professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences department at Columbus State Community College. The article was published here http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/21-8

Wisconsin: It's About the Money, But Not the State Budget

A Must Read Article of the Day...   by David Michael Green

"People need to understand what Warren Buffett understands, that there has been a class war going on for three decades now, and that his team is winning.


It’s crucial to understand what the regressive initiative that our brothers and sisters in Wisconsin are right now fighting is really all about, and how that fits into the context of our era. 


This is just the latest, and nearly the last, in a succession of efforts in America over the last three decades to move money from the hands of non-elites to those of oligarchs. 


Make no mistake, that program constitutes essentially the sum total of American politics at its core over the last generation.  All else is a sideshow or, more likely and more ominously, an intentional diversion, just as a skilled magician is careful to give your eye something else to focus on as he moves the ball from under the cup.


That money-shifting effort has been relentless, and it has been fantastically successful.  We have witnessed the greatest transfer of wealth in human history over this period of time.


 More astonishing, here in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, is that it went the wrong way – from ordinary folk who need the money to wealthy elites, many of whom actually couldn’t even find ways to spend those enormous quantities flooding their accounts if they wanted to. 


Most astonishing of all is that this happened in a functioning democracy, where the votes of rip-offees vastly outnumber the votes of rip-offers.  If anyone you meet ever doubts the capacity of human stupidity, tell them this tale.  It’s an amazing story.  It’s also the most significant single fact of American politics in our time.  And we don’t even talk about it.


That’s because of the stunning success of the thieves in executing their heist.  As oft-noted, the perfect crime is one that is not even detected.  Welcome to America.


You gotta hand it to these guys.  They have been smart, thorough, ruthless, tenacious, patient and ruthless.  Did I mention ruthless?  They have attacked New Deal America – the set of policies that created a vast middle class for the first time and dramatically improved people’s quality of life en masse – in every way possible, and have managed to beat it into near submission.


They’ve been very clever about it, too.  They fabricated think tanks whose product at any other time would have seemed absurdly laughable. 


They created a whole new media for themselves, and intimidated the parts they didn’t outright own. 


They dumbed down education, making sure that any knowledge of history or civics or – god forbid – comparative politics was eliminated from the curriculum, thus producing nice, docile worker bees who know just enough to do their ill-paid jobs, but not enough to even know that they’re ill-paid. 


They allied with regressive forces like religious institutions, the military and the Republican Party. 


Then they bought the Democrats too, not least of which including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, whose economic policies are fundamentally indistinguishable from the GOP’s. 


They infiltrated the courts with corporate hacks so corrupt that they steal elections and sit on cases even when they’ve received contributions from litigants in the matter. 


They smashed labor unions at every opportunity. 


They drove the country deep into debt with the express purpose of making it then seem that any further social spending was no longer sustainable. 


They tore down even the thin veneer of campaign finance reform from the prior era. 


They shredded the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and have bullied any opponents with thuggish acts of verbal and other forms of personal assault. 


They made voting more difficult, wrongly purged masses of voters from the rolls, and used rigged machines to steal elections. 


They have poisoned the minds of Americans with diversionary bogeymen ranging from Saddam Hussein to marrying gays to the War on Christmas.


The purpose of all these efforts, however, was always the same, and typically had little to do with culture conflicts, endless Middle Eastern wars, or televised Hannity and Colmes style pissing matches.  It was always about the money.  Always.  It remains about the money today.


That’s why the malignant disease better known as Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker is now doing what he is doing. 


He claims that the state is broke and that he has no choice but to roll back public sector salaries and benefits.  Everything about that claim is a lie. 


The state is not nearly as far in the red as other states that are not doing what he is doing.  The state could increase taxes if it wanted to solve its problem, rather than exploiting workers.  In fact, the state just got done creating it’s the very deficit Walker claims to be the problem by slashing $177 million from its tax rolls.  State employees are underpaid compared to equivalent private sector workers, not overpaid as he claims.  And despite all this, the unions have nevertheless publicly agreed to negotiate givebacks with the Governor.  And so on."
----

This post is an excerpt from an article written by David Michael Green,  a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York.  The complete article is here:  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/21-3

Black History Month - What Do you Think?

A friend sent me an article titled "Man on the Street Video: Do You Think Black History Month is Still Relevant?    http://bl128w.blu128.mail.live.com/default.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0

Wanted to know what I thought.

Hmmmmm.

Good question.

Of course I think it is relevant.  As the article points out, anything that chronicles "our tremendous development out of a dark past" is relevant.  I am a firm believer in the proposition that history can be either the launching pad for a promising future, or the pit into which a doomed future returns.  If the lessons of history aren't learned, the path to the future is happenstance, at best.

But.

I have a problem with history in general, and Black History in particular, when it comes to the question of relevancy.

American history in general and Black history in particular are almost universally taught and learned from the point-of-view of the prevailing controllers of the status quo. 

In the case of Black History, that is why, for instance, that we celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday every year, not with honoring his life-long fight for social and economic justice through his many penetratingly critical speeches and organizing efforts against the staus quo; but with condensing it all into portraying him--reducing him, actually--to a dream. We are reminded ad nauseum every year that Dr. King is most prominent in American history for saying, "I have a dream."  He is reduced to an historical figure who simply "had a dream" that one day the status quo will be different.  

That exercise, practiced almost universally--in the larger society and within the Black community--subverts Dr. King's relevancy in the on-going fight for a more just future.  Thus, the status quo of an injust present prevails.

It is the same with the entire history of the contributions of the Black race to the struggle for social and economic justice in America.  It is the same with the entire history of the contributions of the labor movement to this struggle; of the contributions of the farm workers under Caesar Chavez and others to this struggle; of the contributions of the women's suffrage movement and women's equal rights movement; of the contributions of the gay rights movement to the fight for social and economic justice in American society.

In each case, the histories are, for the very most part, taught and learned in such ways that their relevancy to present-day efforts to change the status quo towards a more just future are subverted.

So, for me, the question that the article asks, "Is Black History Month still relevant?"  can be answered, "Yes.  If we as Black individuals, families, organizations, institutions, and communities take it upon ourselves to start making our history relevant to our present-day efforts to forge a more socially and economically just future for our country."

What do you think?

President Antes Up 15M New Jobs. GOP Folds.

"There's a risk that the budget battle descends into a race to the bottom to see which party can cut the most. But that is not an inevitability.

Especially because there is very clear contrast to be made on jobs.

Construction industry leaders estimate that the President's six-year infrastructure plan to invest in creating new high-speed rail systems, upgrading roads and bridges and launching an "infrastructure bank" to forge public-private partnerships would create 15.4 million jobs, with construction jobs only accounting for one-third of the total.

That's not the only component of the President's budget that would directly create jobs.

He also proposing hiring 100,000 more teachers over 10 years, expanding broadband and investing in clean energy technology.

But the wide-ranging infrastructure push would certainly be the biggest job creator.

Compare that to the job creation plans in the House Republican bill to set spending levels for the current fiscal year ... of which there are none.

The House Republicans cannot point to any proposal of theirs and claim it would directly create a single job. That is not a matter of debate. That is a literal truth.

They do have proposals that will directly destroy jobs.

As many as 65,000 teachers could lose jobs from the Republican education cuts. 

Cancelled infrastructure projects could lose 25,000 construction jobs.

States would not be able to hire as many police officers and firefighters.

Furthermore, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that the overall Republican cuts would reduce GDP by 0.7%, which amounts to a total loss of 700,000 jobs.

Is the President's plan the ideal on jobs? No.

While it is solid on longer-range investments, there could be more immediate stimulus to alleviate the current jobs crisis.

And of the course, our current infrastructure needs a whopping $2.2 trillion just to be in good repair, not even considering the need for modernization.

There's far more to do.

But the basic math is impossible to ignore. 15,000,000 jobs versus -700,000 jobs.

That's the difference between public investment and gutting government. That's the real debate before the American people.”




This article was written by Bill Scher, and was published by the Campaign for America's Future on February 15, 2011  http://www.ourfuture.org/

Obama and the GOP: United Against the Working Poor

A Must-Read Article of the Day...by David Cay Johnston     

Who says bipartisanship is dead?


On Capitol Hill, the Democrats and Republicans may no longer play cards and drink together, but that does not seem to stop them from working together to shift tax burdens down the income ladder even when it violates their promises on the campaign trail.


Grover Norquist calls bipartisanship the political equivalent of date rape. But there is one group that President Obama, many congressional Democrats, and all congressional Republicans ganged up on in December -- the working poor.


The tax compromise passed in December has been hailed everywhere as a payroll tax cut combined with an extension of the Bush tax cuts, despite the fact that it raised taxes on a third of Americans.


The killing of Obama's Making Work Pay tax credit, which the White House called the biggest middle-income tax cut ever, and the replacement of it with the Republicans' payroll tax cut raised taxes on single workers whose wages come to $20,000 or less and married couples with less than $40,000 in wages.
That's 51 million taxpayers, the Tax Policy Center estimated.


Among the poorest fifth of tax units, whose annual cash income is less than $17,878, two-thirds got hit with a tax increase. On average, their taxes went up $134, which is 1.3 percent of this group's total cash income.
Consider a single worker who makes $6,000. That was the average wage of the bottom third of workers in 2009, the Medicare tax database shows. Killing the Making Work Pay credit in favor of the payroll tax cut amounted to a tax increase of $252, or 4 percent of total income.


Looked at another way, some workers will labor for 23 days this year and next just to pay increased taxes.


The pattern of the Republican-Obama tax plan is a clear stepladder in which the more you make, the more you benefit, and the less you make, the more you pay. This is a form of socialism: upward redistribution to enrich those at the top.


While two-thirds of the poorest Americans -- the ones getting by on less than $1,500 a month -- face a tax increase, the share of people hit with tax increases falls off quickly as you move up the income stepladder.


In the next lowest quintile, taxpayers with cash incomes of under $35,000, 40 percent saw their taxes rise, while in the middle quintile (under $64,000), one in five got a tax increase. In the fourth quartile (under $104,600), one in eight got a tax hike, and in the top quartile, one in 20 did.


At the top, just 1.8 percent of the top 1 percent (more than $564,600) were hit with a tax increase. Just 1.3 percent among the top tenth of 1 percent (more than $2 million) got a tax hike. These best-off one in 1,000 Americans got a tax cut worth on average $45,000 each, all financed with borrowed money.


In raising taxes on the working poor (and the just plain poor), our supposedly socialist president proved himself at one with Ronald Reagan, the subject of all sorts of hagiography this month on what would have been his 100th birthday. Hardly any of the effusive praise points out that while Reagan polished his image as a tax cutter, he was in fact a tax raiser par excellence who presided over a massive expansion of government spending that primarily benefited the affluent and rich.


Reagan raised taxes in seven of the eight years he was governor of California, including when he abandoned his "taxes should hurt" rhetoric to impose withholding so he could expand state spending on the Highway Patrol and other policing. In Washington, Reagan presided over 11 increased levies.

The perpetually obsequious Washington press corps let his administration call these tax increases "revenue enhancers." The late Murray N. Rothbard, a hero to libertarians and self-proclaimed dean of the Austrian school of economics, called this Reaganism "a nice touch of creative Orwellian semantics."

This same pattern of focusing on tax cuts and ignoring tax increases continues. Ask anyone you know how much Obama cut their taxes in 2009 and 2010. Go ahead, try it. Expect perplexed looks and responses along the lines of "You mean tax increases, don't you?"


Last fall Michael Cooper of The New York Times asked North Carolinians at the Pig Pickin' and Politickin' rally about the Obama tax cuts. "Say what?" was the basic response, even though 97 percent of Americans got a tax break that averaged $1,200 over two years.


One survey found that fewer than 10 percent of Americans were aware of the Making Work Pay tax credit.


That so few Americans understood that Obama provided them with a tax cut is because of two forces.


One is the hostile coverage he gets, not just from Fox News and the increasingly politicized news pages of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, but from the press generally.


The other is the major reason that mainstream journalists treat Obama more harshly than his predecessor. The operation Obama put in place to respond to questions from reporters is run entirely by people with no press experience, many of whom act like they work for the candidate, not the office of the president.
The fact that the Making Work Pay tax credit came mostly as a reduction in withholding that put an extra $8 or $16 in weekly take-home pay also hurt. Many people saw their take-home pay increase, but had no idea why.


This pattern of benefits that grows along with income is what got us into this debt mess.


It began with Reagan, who turned perennial, insignificant deficits since President Johnson's last budget into buckets of red ink with little to show for it in terms of widespread economic benefit.


From 1980 through 1988, the average income of the bottom 90 percent rose just $369, or 1.2 percent, in 2008 dollars, ending three decades during which the average incomes of the bottom 90 percent grew faster than those at the top.


Under Reagan, those on the 95th to 99th rungs on the income ladder saw their average income rise by $23,681, or 16.9 percent. That's 14 times the rate of increase for the bottom 90 percent.


The bottom half of the top 1 percent enjoyed a 32 percent increase, those from 99.5 percent to 99.9 percent a 57.7 percent increase, and the top tenth of 1 percent a 105.6 percent gain.


So under Reagan, the wealthiest Americans saw their incomes grow at more than 100 times the rate of the vast majority. Of course, that was what was intended by cutting the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent and slashing capital gains taxes -- making it less costly to take money out of businesses to enhance the lifestyles of the owners, spawning a huge growth in the prices of unproductive assets, especially multiple mansions and objets d'art.


This pattern continued under President George W. Bush.


More than half the 10-year cost of the Bush tax cuts benefited the top 5 percent, and 72 percent of that went to the top 1 percent, while the middle fifth of taxpayers got just 7.4 percent of the tax relief, Citizens for Tax Justice calculated.


The cost of the Bush tax cuts cost for the first 10 years, including interest, was almost $2.5 trillion. That's two and a half times the cost of the healthcare law sponsored by Obama. Now ask yourself which spending plan -- the Bush tax cuts and their extension or a step toward universal and reliable health insurance -- most people think is responsible for our huge budget deficits and national debt?


In 2009 almost 62 million workers, 41 percent of everyone who had a job that year, made less than $20,000.


And 100.6 million workers, exactly two out of three people with jobs, made less than $40,000, the Medicare tax database shows.


The Obama-GOP tax increase applied to everyone with a job that paid under $20,000 ($40,000 for married heterosexual couples).


So while at least 90 percent of Americans are uninformed about this tax increase, you can now contribute to the factual basis of our national tax debate by pointing out to others that Obama and the GOP, along with a lot of congressional Democrats, enacted a bipartisan tax increase on the working poor in violation of their campaign pledges.


This article was written by David Cay Johnston, and posted on his blog, http://www.tax.com/  on February 14, 2011.

What Do You Think... About the Public-Sector Squeeze?

Here's what I think.

I think that there is indeed a “national campaign that is fully launched to make local, public-sector employees pick up a major share of the costs of the economic crisis.”

I think that this economic crisis, expressing itself in the rising spending and falling revenue of government at all levels, is indeed decimating state and local government budgets, not to mention the federal budget.

So, now there are major efforts under way in every single state, and every single city, in the country, to balance their budgets. And every single one of these efforts only consider cutting spending as the way to do so. None of them—not one—consider increasing revenues to balance their budgets. Why is that?

And that's how the national campaign to make public-sector employees pay for the budget shortfalls in their cities and states came to be: cut government spending on public-sector (government) wages, benefits, and jobs to balance the government budget.

Did the public-sector wages, benefits, and jobs cause the shortfalls in the budgets?

No.

Will cutting public-sector wages, benefits and jobs solve the budget shortfalls?

No.

They didn't cause the shortfalls. Reduced tax revenues caused the shortfalls.

What caused the reduced tax revenues? (1) High unemployment; (2) reduced production; (3) lower investment; and (4) the housing collapse.

You might call them the four horsemen of the (public-sector employees') apocalypse.

Even if public sector wages, benefits, and jobs didn't cause the budget shortfalls, cutting their wages, benefits, and jobs will not solve the shortfalls.

Without going into detail here, I simply submit that cutting public-sector wages, benefits, and jobs are offset, in their budget effects, by higher costs in other areas of the economy, and in the social sphere of American society (health, safety, education, infrastructure); and therefore, in the budget.

The demonstration of that is a subject on its own rights; and although it can certainly be demonstrated, it will not be in this space.

So, I argue that cutting public sector wages, benefits, and jobs will not solve the budget shortfalls in state, county, and municipal budgets. Not really. Not over any sustained period of time.

But even if the cuts were drastic enough to balance the budget for a given year--that would only be a fix, not a cure, for the shortfalls after that year. Or after those two years, if the cuts can accomplish that.

The real solution, I think, was partially put forth by the federal government--the only level of government that can effectively solve the present-day state and city budget shortfalls--in 2009 when it put forth the stimulus concept.

That was an economically analytic solution, based on the Keynesian axioms of economics. Anyone interested in delving into the specifics, can read any of the many articles in the New York Times, written over the past two years by Paul Krugman, the Pulitzer economist who has been consistently making the argument.

But after correctly putting forth the concept, the federal government miserably failed in two respects.

First, because of political posturing by both parties, the stimulus was too small to accomplish its mission, particularly given the size of the non-stimulating elements in the bill that were politically-driven rather than economically-driven.

Second, and this is even more egregious in its sabotage of the mission; the federal government gave a big portion of the (borrowed) stimulus money to big businesses, investors, and the rich. It gave pitifully little to any of the areas of the economy that would actually address any of the four horsemen.

I think that the focus on cutting public-sector wages, benefits and jobs is just part of the national campaign to make all middle- and lower-income Americans pay for the economic crisis facing America.

So, I agree with the authors: the facts don't support the attacks on public employees.

Also, based on the authors' able argument that a disproportionately high number of state and local workers are likely to be of color, in unions, older, and/or veterans; that those groups, in particular, should be mounting strong push-backs against the national campaign to cut public-sector wages, benefits, and jobs.

Furthermore, because cutting public-sector wages, benefits, and jobs is not a sound economic solution to the state, county, and municipal budget shortfalls, I think that all of us should stand up against them.

What do you think?

The Public Sector Squeeze

A Must-Read Article of the Day ...by Max Fraad Wolff and Richard D. Wolff.


No discussion about real and serious budget adjustments should proceed from ignorance about                
                            what public-sector workers do,
                            who they are and
                            what they are paid.




A national campaign is now fully launched to make local, public-sector employees pick up a major share of the costs of the economic crisis.


Years of rising spending and falling revenue have carved a path of destruction through federal, state and local budgets. Deficits and debts have mounted.


In response to deep economic pains in middle-class communities, major efforts are under way, from California to Maine, to balance budgets through major cuts in services, wages, benefits and employment.


Federal, state and local governments are staggering from reduced tax revenues because of unemployment, reduced production, lower investment and the housing collapse.


Washington borrowed huge sums from foreign investors, domestic big business and the rich.


These funds went to bail out select businesses and to help (partially and temporarily) broken state and local government budgets.


Because Democrats and Republicans agreed last December to not increase income, estate and capital gains taxes, broken state and local budgets face declining federal support.


This is driving governors, mayors and state legislatures to raise taxes and/or to slash payrolls and programs.


Of course, some cutting and tax increases are required. The real social decisions involve what to cut, how much, for whom and whose taxes to increase.


The pressure is on to shift the heavy costs of economic crisis onto the middle- and low-income communities already stung by unemployment, foreclosures, reduced job benefits and rising job insecurity.


The campaign to make the middle- and lower-income Americans pay, now
focuses on public employees - especially their numbers, incomes and benefits.


Battles loom over which state and local job holders get fired, whose pensions/benefits will be reduced and which public services
will stop being available.


Politicians will keep silent on the key alternative to deep cuts - precisely
because it would otherwise be on most citizens' agendas.


That alternative would be to raise the tax share paid by leading firms and the
wealthiest 5-10 percent of citizens.


In most cases, this means returning to the levels of taxation in the 1980s.


Whatever may be needed in the way of reasonable rationalizations and savings in government budget outlays, we will not exit the continuing economic
crisis by massive reductions in public service provision and employment.


Those only further depress the economic conditions and well-being of
middle- and lower-income communities.


This would be a more and more cruel version of the track we have been on
for decades. Sadly, this approach is neither new nor likely to work.


The facts don't support the attacks on public employees.


Last year, total state and local employment declined by 407,000 jobs.


Figure 1 shows what has happened to public employment in our states and
localities over the last half-century.


Figure 1: State and Local Employment Bureau of Labor Statistics CES

Figure 1 shows that there are about 20 million state and local workers in America today: 14.3 million local and 5.2 million state employees.


Until the last decade, the numbers of public employees grew steadily as did the US population.


Unemployment levels in our communities would have been much higher had those workers not found public jobs.


State and local government would have provided far fewer and/or poorer public
services had state and local employment not grown.


Of course, there are stories of waste and corruption. Nonetheless, we all need
and benefit from many state and local services.


Figure 2 shows that, over the last decade, state and local employment did not
grow very rapidly.


As the US economy moved toward crisis, state and local governments did not
notably expand their payrolls.


Their economics did not spin out of control as did our financial industry
and other parts of the private sector.


Some states and localities even trimmed their tax rates.


Assumptions were made about a lasting housing and equity market boom.
These proved false.


In many cases, the pain emerges slowly as properties are reappraised,
sales tax revenues fail to rise amid record unemployment and huge
numbers of citizens do without health care coverage.


Figure 2: BLS Data State and Local Government Employment 2000-2010 (Thousands)

Some now paint public employees as "fat cats."


In 2009 (the latest available data), the average state employee earned $23.67 per hour or $49,240 per year.


The average local government employee earned $21.68 per hour or $45,090 per year.


These are averages. There are considerable differences among individual public employee earnings depending on her/his location, age and job type.


There are huge ranges in pay by locality and union membership as well.
.
By comparison, the national average earning per hour for all employed Americans in December of 2009 was $22.38 or $44,760 for a 2,000 hour year.


In other words, state and local government employees earned about the national average in 2009 and 2010.


Figure 3 below lists the most common jobs and salaries for state and local employees according to the "BLS Career Guide to Industries," 2010-2011 Edition.


State and local government employees' earnings were close to the national averages in most occupations.


Labeling all public employees "fat cats" is an attempt to make mostly middle-class earners and all social service consumers pay for what the economic crisis did to state and local budgets.


Figure 3: Most Common State and Local Government Occupations and Mean Hourly Compensation

Another part of the campaign against state and local workers is aimed at their unions.


But here, too, the facts offer a more honest picture.


State and local government employees are more unionized than private-sector workers.


Approximately 12.3 percent (or 14.7 million people) of the total US labor force is represented by unions.


That includes a 612,000 member decline in 2010.


About 36 percent of public-sector workers were unionized in 2010 as compared to 6.9 percent of private-sector workers.


Figure 4 shows that local public employees (teachers, police and fire personnel, and others closest to the communities they serve) were the most unionized.


Figure 4 also shows that the majority of state and local public employees are not unionized, just like the vast majority of private-sector workers.


Portraying public employees or their unions as the primary problem is not supported by the facts.


Figure 4. BLS Data Percent of Workers Unionized by Employer Type

In conclusion, consider exactly who public employees are.


Equal Opportunity Employment Committee data from 2007 suggest that 18 percent of full-time, state employees are African-American, while that number for local employees is 19 percent.


Public employment has reduced African-American unemployment, reaping social benefits for everyone.


Because African-Americans have a higher than average union membership, attacking state and local union jobs targets them especially.


Veterans are also significantly overrepresented in public sector employment, at both the state and local level.


In 2009, nearly 13 percent of all employed veterans worked for state and local government.


Also, public sector employees tend to stay at jobs longer and tend to be older than private-sector workers.


Our at-risk state and local workers are disproportionately likely to be of color, in unions, older and veterans.


Most importantly, state and local employees provide vital services to all.


Our education, transport, protection, courts and civic participation rely on public-sector workers.


Over 85 percent of Americans are educated in public institutions, from first grade through university.


Our police, fire, courts, social workers and clerks keep all of us and our property secure.


Our roads, bridges, tunnels, ports, trains, buses and security are public-sector work.


Our diversity and our veterans are well represented among our public-sector workers.


Cutting the public sector will worsen the economic crisis while deepening many social problems.

No discussion about real and serious budget adjustments should proceed from ignorance about what public-sector workers do, who they are and what they are paid.

No society moves wisely without acknowledging and factoring the real lives at stake and the real effects of budget decisions."

-------------------

This article was written by Max Fraad Wolff abd Richard D. Wolff.  It appeared in the January 31, 2011 edition of



http://www.truth-out.org/public-sector-squeeze67314



Max Fraad Wolff teaches economics in the New School University Graduate Program in International Affairs. Richard D. Wolff is Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst and also a Visiting Professor at the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York.
He is the author of New Departures in Marxian Theory (Routledge, 2006) among many other publications.
Check out Richard D. Wolff’s documentary film on the current economic crisis, Capitalism Hits the Fan, at http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com.
Visit Wolff's Web site at HTTP;//www.rdwolff.com and order a copy of his new book Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do about It.

The Long Beach 2020 Project

This project plan -- The Long Beach 2020 Project—is a response to City Hall’s outreach for resident participation and input.

It is a multi-faceted project that focuses on the strengthening of the social and economic profiles of each of the ethnic communities comprising Long Beach’s ethnic diversity.

The project’s success is measured from decennial census to decennial census, but monitored throughout the ten-year period.

Whereas the City Hall’s Long Beach 2030 Plan focuses on the city’s future development as a city, the Long Beach 2020 Project focuses on the residents‘ future development as more productive and engaged citizens of the city—as a result of their development as more pride-filled and knowledgeable individuals.

Whereas the City Hall’s Long Beach 2030 Plan is developed by the city planners and managers, with participation and input from the residents; the Long Beach 2020 Project is developed from within each of the city’s ethnic populations, with cooperation from, and access to, the various resources of the city.

To repeat, while Long Beach 2030 sets about the business of building the city’s future, Long Beach 2020 sets about the business of building individual residents’ futures—thereby further strengthening the city’s future.

While Long Beach 2030 is a top-down plan, designed by city administrators with participation by residents; Long Beach 2020 is a bottom-up project, designed by residents, with cooperation from city administrators. Both are essential to Long Beach’s future development.

Why 2020?  Simple. The year 2000 marked the beginning of the 21^st century (and the beginning of a new millennium). The 2000 census thus provides a 21^st century starting profile of the city—a starting economic profile; as well as a starting social profile.

From those starting profiles, the city’s economic and social profiles can be charted from census to census, enabling studied focus on their past improvements/deteriorations, as well as on their future improvement. In this way, the weak links, as it were, in the city’s social and economic profiles, can be identified and then focused in on for their development.

In the tables below, the economic and social profiles of the residents of Long Beach are shown for each of the four major ethnic groupings of Long Beach residents. Other tables depicting other aspects of the economic and social profiles will be added, but for this presentation, the tables below will suffice.

At the time of this writing, the results of the recently completed 2010 census are not available; but when they are, they will update the 2000 census tables shown below. But they will not change, in any significant ways, the mission or objectives of the Long Beach 2020 Project: to significantly improve the social and economic profiles of Long Beach residents in the 2020 census—a 10-year objective.

Economic Profile –2000 Census

The Black and the Hispanic communities’ median household incomes are significantly below those of Long Beach’s White and Asian communities. Moreover, the percentages of Black and Hispanic individuals living below the poverty level are significantly higher than White and Asian individuals. For children living under the poverty level, the gaps between the ethnic groups are even more dramatic.

Another measure in an economic profile is home ownership. Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to own their homes than Whites and Asians. The following tables¹ quantify these profiles, as of 1999. No significant changes are anticipated in updated numbers from the upcoming 2010 census.

Long Beach Median Household Income: 1999 by Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White	$53,978
Asian/Pacific Islander	$47,656
Hispanic/Latino	$33,820
Non-Hispanic Black	$31,818

Definition Household income is the sum of wage or salary income; net self-employment income; interest, dividends, or net rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; social security or railroad retirement income; Supplemental Security Income; public assistance or welfare payments; retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and all other income for people age 15 and over in a household. This includes income from the householder and all other people age 15 or older in the household regardless of whether they are related to the householder.Notes Refers to income received over the calendar year 1999.Source 2000 Census Summary File 3

Long Beach Poverty Rate: 1999 by Race/Ethnicity
Black	24.7%
Hispanic	24.4%
Asian	13.2%
White	8.5%

Definition Proportion of population with income below the poverty level, among the population for whom poverty status is determinedSource 2000 Census Summary File 3

Long Beach Child Poverty Rate by Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic Black	33.5%
Hispanic	30.2%
Asian	15.5%
White	9.4%

Definition Share of Children Under Age 18 Who Are in PovertySource U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File 4

Home ownership rate: 2000 by Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White	58.3%
Asian	51.1%
Hispanic	37.7%
Non-Hispanic Black	36.9%

Definition The share of occupied housing units that are owner occupied.Source U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Summary File 2

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES: Gross Rent as A Share of Household Income by Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic Black	31.4%
Hispanic	28.7%
Asian	28.1%
Non-Hispanic White	26.7%

Definition Median gross rent as a share of household income.Notes Excludes those paying no cash rent. Value of "50" refers to "50% or more."Source U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File 4.

Source U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Summary File 2

What can be deduced from the above tables?

• Median Household Income: a 50% increase for Blacks and Hispanics is needed to close the gaps with Whites and Asians.
• Poverty Rate: a 50% decrease for Blacks and Hispanics is needed to close gaps with Whites and Asians.
• Child Poverty Rate: a 50% decrease for Blacks and Hispanics is needed to close gaps with Whites and Asians.
• Home Ownership Rate: a 50% increase for Blacks and Hispanics needed to close gaps with Whites and Asians.
• Gross Rents as a Share of Household Income: a 10% decrease for Blacks to close gaps with Whites, Asians, and Hispanics.

These objectives will be the focus of the Long Beach 2020 Project in the Black and Hispanic communities of Long Beach: to close the economic gaps between these two communities and the more economically developed White and Asian communities.

Social Profile

Births to Teenage Mothers by Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic Black	13.2%
Hispanic	13.0%
Non-Hispanic White	3.4%
Asian	2.3%

Definition The share of all births that are to teenage mothers.Source National Center for Health Statistics' Vital Statistics Natality Birth Data

HEALTH: Low birth weight births by Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic Black	9.9%
Asian	5.5%
Hispanic	5.0%
White	4.2%

Definition The share of births that are or low birth weight.Notes "Low birth weight" defined as weighing less than 2.5kg. Excludes metro areas with less than 100 births to mothers in the specified subgroup over the 2001-2002 time period. Excludes plural births and births which occurred abroad, in Puerto Rico, or in U.S. Territories. Metro area refers to the location of residence of the mother at the time of the birth. In New England, geography refers to the NECMA (New England County Metropolitan Area) which differs from the MSA or PMSA geography used in other indicators.Source National Center for Health Statistics' Vital Statistics Natality Birth Data.

HEALTH: Preterm births by Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic Black	14.0%
Hispanic	9.7%
Asian	8.5%
Non-Hispanic White	7.5%

Definition The share of births that were preterm.Notes "Preterm" defined as having a gestational age less than 37 weeks. Excludes metro areas with less than 100 births to mothers in the specified subgroup over the 2001-2002 time period. Excludes plural births and births which occurred abroad, in Puerto Rico, or in U.S. Territories. Metro area refers to the location of residence of the mother at the time of the birth. In New England, geography refers to the NECMA (New England County Metropolitan Area) which differs from the MSA or PMSA geography used in other indicators.Source National Center for Health Statistics' Vital Statistics Natality Birth Data

EDUCATION: Composition of Public School Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity
	Metro Area
Hispanic	61.7%
Non-Hispanic White	17.1%
Non-Hispanic Black	10.6%
Asian/Pacific Islander	10.3%
Definition This indicator provides the racial/ethnic composition of public school enrollment.Notes Includes charter schools. Excludes all metro areas totally or partially in Tennessee because racial data was unavailable. In New England, geography refers to the NECMA (New England County Metropolitan Area) which differs from the MSA or PMSA geography used in other indicators.Source National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data. Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey.

EDUCATION: Poverty Rate of School Where Average Primary School Student Attends by Race/Ethnicity
Hispanic			79.5%
Non-Hispanic Black			72.8%
Asian/Pacific Islander			49.8%
Non-Hispanic White 34.2% Definition This indicator provides the poverty rate in the primary school attended by the average student of the specified race/ethnicity.Notes Primary schools defined as those with lowest grade of "Pre-K" through 3 and highest grade of "Pre-K" through 8. Includes charter schools. Excludes all metro areas totally or partially in Tennessee because racial data was unavailable. Poverty rate defined as the share of children eligible for free or reduced lunch. Excludes metro areas in which less than 70 percent of schools report valid data on free and reduced lunch eligibility. In New England, geography refers to the NECMA (New England County Metropolitan Area) which differs from the MSA or PMSA geography used in other indicators.Source National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data. Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey.
POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS AND DIVERSITY: Percent Change in Population by Race/Ethnicity
	1990-2000	1980-1990
Hispanic	26.6%	62.2%
Non-Hispanic Black	1.9%	0.8%
Asian/Pacific Islander	34.4%	119.5%
Non-Hispanic White	-18.2%	-8.4%

Definition The percent change in the population.

Notes In 2000, non-Hispanic black and Asian/Pacific Islander groups include people who identified themselves as those races "alone" or those races "in combination with other races."

Source "Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000," U.S. Census Bureau, Series CENSR-3.

What can be deduced from the above tables?

• Births to Teenage Mothers: a 75% decrease for Blacks and Hispanics is needed to close the gaps with Whites and Asians. 
• Low Birth-Rate Births: a 50% decrease for Blacks and Hispanics is needed to close the gaps with Whites and Asians.
• Pre-Term Births: a 50% decrease for Blacks and Hispanics is needed to close the gaps with Whites and Asians.

These objectives will also be the focus of the Long Beach 2020 Project in the Black and Hispanic communities of Long Beach: to close the social gaps between these two communities and the more socially advanced White and Asian communities.

Specific programs for accomplishing the twin objectives of closing the social and the economic gaps will be designed and implemented from within each of the two targeted ethnic communities.

But the impetus for initiating any programs will be the promotion throughout each community of the gaps themselves. After all, “knowledge is power.” And “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” With these two imperatives:

• individual members of each of the targeted communities can marshal the motivation necessary to begin the work of transforming the social and economic profiles of their communities. Without this motivation on an individual level, the social and economic profiles will continue un-improved.

• the neighborhood organizations and community leaders can energize and hone their efforts to address the specifics of the social and economic profiles of their communities

• the city’s elected officials and administrators can more effectively provide access to the city’s resources that can facilitate the two communities’ efforts to raise the social and economic profiles of the two targeted communities.

With everyone thus focused on specific targets and working toward common objectives, success is assured.

The prize? By 2020, as measured in the census of that year, Long Beach can not only be cited as the most ethnically diverse city in America; but also, the city with the most improved social and economic profile. The beneficial ramifications of this to the city as a whole, and to the quality of life of its residents are incalculable.

The Long Beach 2020 Project was developed within the Black community of Long Beach. We are in the process of planning specific programs within the Black community in line with the two precepts presented in these pages: Knowledge is power. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

As the specific programs are implemented, we plan to share them with leaders and organizations in the Hispanic community as models for them to develop programs endemic to their community.