STONE SOUP MUSINGS

Talk about throwing people under a bus

2010-05-18T11:24:00.003-04:00

Let me rephrase that title: Talk about throwing people under a wheelchair. This comes from an interview with Tea Party favorite Rand Paul in Lexington over the weekend. Paul is running for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky.

Paul was asked whether he supports the Americans with Disabilities Act, the landmark 1990 legislation that established a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability. Paul said he advocates local governments to decide whether disabled individuals deserve rights. Requiring businesses to provide access to disabled people, Paul argued, isn’t “fair to the business owner.”

Nope, it's not fair. Business owners should spend their money on political candidates like Paul instead of disabled people just trying to make a living.

Even more bizarrely, Paul believes his suggestion is nothing more than common sense:

PAUL: You know a lot of things on employment ought to be done locally. You know, people finding out right or wrong locally. You know, some of the things, for example we can come up with common sense solutions — like for example if you have a three story building and you have someone apply for a job, you get them a job on the first floor if they’re in a wheelchair as supposed to making the person who owns the business put an elevator in, you know what I mean? So things like that aren’t fair to the business owner. [...]

So, in Paul's opinion, it makes more sense to physically isolate someone in a wheelchair from his/her coworkers on the third floor. He should have been honest and said what he really meant - their desks should be placed in the boiler room or a corner of the janitor's closet where they'll be out of sight of "normal" people.

Honestly, this is one of the more despicable things I've heard from conservatives/teabaggers lately, and there's been a lot of terrible stuff said about immigrants, gays, Muslims, blacks, etc. One would almost think they want to achieve some sort of racial purity.

Update: This article from Bloomberg Businessweek highlights why the disabled need the ADA:

A federal report castigated a Texas company for abusing and underpaying several mentally disabled men who were housed in a ramshackle building while working at an Iowa turkey processing plant.

The report from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Henry's Turkey Service underpaid the men at least $1 million over three years, verbally and physically abused them, and committed several major violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, The Des Moines Register reported Friday.

It all boiled down to greed.

The report found that West Liberty Foods paid Henry's Turkey Service as much as $11,000 per week for the disabled men's labor. Henry's Turkey Service then paid the men a combined total of between $340 and $500 per week, or about 41 cents an hour, The Des Moines Register reported.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

McCotter's Slanted Newsletter On Health Care Costs

2010-05-05T14:38:00.002-04:00

From Thad McCotter's latest newsletter comes this ominous news:

On April 22, 2010, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a new analysis of President Obama’s government health care plan, confirming our nation’s health care costs will increase rather than decrease and violating a pledge the President made to the nation on September 10, 2009.

McCotter then went on to list many of CMS's negative conclusions without noting the positives, and he also neglected to provide analysis explaining the difference between the CBO's earlier estimate and this one. Fortunately, Ezra Klein provided the facts:

The Congressional Budget Office's estimates look at the deficit. CMS is looking at total national health expenditures. This often confuses people into thinking that there's conflict between the two sets of numbers when there isn't: CBO says that federal spending is going to go up to pay for the coverage expansion, but that savings and revenue will go up by even more, leading to a net reduction in the federal deficit.

CMS is looking only at the spending side. And here's what it finds: In 2019, implementation of the Affordable Care Act will reduce the ranks of the uninsured by 34 million people and increase nation health expenditures by 1 percent.

One percent.

And that 1 percent is actually 1 percent and falling: When the legislation is fully implemented in 2016, the spending increase will be 2 percent. But cost controls kick in over those years and bring it down to 1 percent. Assuming the trend holds, the second decade will see national health expenditures fall below what spending would've been if the bill hadn't passed.

Or, to put it in dollars and cents (emphasis added):

Third Way, the centrist policy outfit, sent over its own analysis of the data. "The fact is that by 2019, national health spending per insured person will be $15,132 compared to $16,812 without the new law," they write. "That’s 10 percent less spending per insured person than it would have been, according to the actuary’s report."

That study suddenly doesn't look so bad. We'll be insuring 34 million people and spending less money than we would have been if nothing had been done. That sounds like a good deal to me.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

Give me your tired, Your poor...

2010-04-27T15:42:00.002-04:00

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Something tells me Republicans can't keep a straight face when they read those words on the Statue of Liberty. The GOP could care less about the less fortunate among us, and just the thought of having to help the "wretched" must send chills up their spines. As evidence, consider their recent track record: NO to health care reform. YES to protecting Wall Street. And perhaps the most egregious example is Arizona, where they recently passed an immigration bill that makes them look more like a police state than a democracy.

And don't forget the Tea Party. Republicans have gone out of their way to promote and defend these people because they're primarily white, wealthy men - a.k.a. their base.

The GOP may claim they don't have a double-standard when it comes to race in this country, but Alternet asks us to imagine this: What If the Tea Party Were Black?

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters — the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protesters — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? ...

Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.

You get the picture. Republicans have a double-standard, and so do tea party members. How else to explain their silence about Arizona's immigration law? I'd like to hear them answer this question that someone asked over at Washington Monthly:

Shouldn't the tea party crowd be having a cow over this new immigration bill that Arizona just passed? Doesn't that sound like big government tyranny to them? Giving the police the power to demand "papers" from someone just on their own suspicion?

I somehow doubt we'll see them marching in the street in defense of their Hispanic brothers and sisters. They only care about their own sorry, white butts. This is what "white privilege is all about" (as anyone who lived through the civil rights era knows only too well):

The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be...

Recent events - and votes - tell us who Republicans really represent: White America, the wealthier the better.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

A Recipe for Scrambled Eggs - Republican Style

2010-04-23T14:30:00.002-04:00

When I read Eclectablog's post about ousted Congressman Walberg's town hall meetings focused on repealing the recently passed health care bill, I couldn't help but wonder if Walberg liked Sue Lowden's "chickens for checkups" idea too. After all, Walberg thinks it's perfectly acceptable for the uninsured to get their health care by walking into an emergency room. Yep, that's a cost effective way to provide health care to people - not. Even Mitch McConnell admits it's a bad idea:

It's not the most efficient way to provide it. As we know, the doctors in the hospitals are sworn to provide health care. We all agree it is not the most efficient way to provide health care to find somebody only in the emergency room and then pass those costs on to those who are paying for insurance.

Okay, so we all know Walberg's idea is lame, but what about this "chicken for checkups" idea? Could it work? Personally, I live in a condo and I doubt the association board would approve a chicken coop outside my door, but even assuming they agreed, would my doctor take a chicken in lieu of cash? Are there even enough chickens in the world to cover health care expenses? According to TPM, absolutely not. "There aren't enough chickens in the world -- let alone the United States -- to cover the costs of health care in this country alone."

They crunched the numbers so we wouldn't have to:

Total U.S. health care costs in 2008: $2.3 trillion
US population: About 300 million
Average cost of health care per person: $7,681
Average weight of a chicken: 5.9 lbs
Market price per pound: 85 cents
Average spot price per chicken: $5.02
Average number of chickens per resident needed to cover health care costs: 1,530 chickens
Total number of chickens needed to cover United States health care costs: 459 billion chickens
Estimated worldwide chicken population: 16 billion chickens
Current worldwide chicken shortage to cover U.S. health care: 443 billion cluckers

Cluck, cluck. It looks like Lowden and Walberg are both peddling a bunch of chicken poop when it comes to health care reform.

A Valentine Story: Republicans + Teabaggers

2010-02-03T13:13:00.001-05:00

I've always felt that teabagger candidates and protesters were out of touch with mainstream Americans, but now we have a poll showing just how far off the cliff they've fallen. Or, as this HuffPo article put it, this DKos/Research 2000 poll of more than 2,000 self-identified Republican voters illustrates the incredible paranoia enveloping the party. Some results:

39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.

36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.

31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.

24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.

23 percent of Republicans believe that their state should secede from the United States, 19 percent aren't sure, 58 percent said no.

53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.

Talk about being disconnected from reality. The media really needs to start getting tough with this group and their enablers. When high profile Republicans are quoted in newspapers saying they don't know "whether President Obama is a citizen of the United States or not," and candidates for office devote their time speaking to tea party crowds, they validate this kind of irrational, paranoid thinking, and by extension make themselves look irrational too.

Good News/Bad News On The Environmental Front

2010-01-27T11:30:00.002-05:00

First, from the NYT, comes the bad news.

A new ranking of the world’s nations by environmental performance puts some of the globe’s largest economies far down the list, with the United States sinking to 61st and China to 121st.

In the previous version of the Environmental Performance Index, compiled every two years by Yale and Columbia University researchers, the United States ranked 39th, and China 105th.

The top performer was Iceland, which gets nearly all of its power from renewable sources, followed closely by Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Finland.

“Countries that take seriously the environment as a policy challenge do improve, and those that don’t deteriorate,” said Daniel C. Esty, director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, who oversees the index project.

The paper does note that because most of the data is from 2007 and 2008, "the index does not fully reflect new efforts by the Obama administration" to improve environmental performance. It also notes that the U.S. scores well in forestry and safe drinking water, but our ranking is abysmal because we score low in areas like heat-trapping emissions and urban air pollutants.

Increasing renewable energy would help decrease our emissions. The good news is that we're advancing quickly in one area - wind power.

Despite a crippling recession and tight credit markets, the American wind power industry grew at a rapid pace in 2009, adding 39 percent more capacity. The country is close to the point where 2 percent of its electricity will come from wind turbines.

According to the NYT, that's up from virtually nothing a few years ago, and they reported that the American Wind Association said "the amount of capacity added last year, 9,900 megawatts, was the largest on record, and was 18 percent above the capacity added in 2008, also a banner year."

The nation’s wind turbines generate enough electricity to power the equivalent of 9.7 million homes, according to the report. Last year, Texas consolidated its lead as the nation’s top wind producer, with a total capacity of 9,410 megawatts, about three times more than the second-largest producer, Iowa. They were followed by California, Washington and Minnesota.

And guess what the AWEA credits for the growth of wind power? “The U.S. wind industry shattered all installation records in 2009, and this was directly attributable to the lifeline that was provided by the stimulus package,” said Denise Bode, the trade association’s chief executive.

However, as extraordinary as growth has been in this area, they also point out that it would be better if Congress would pass a a federal mandate requiring that a certain percentage of power come from renewable sources. Mandates already exist throughout the European Union and in China, and in the U.S. 29 states have adopted a renewable power standard, including Michigan, which set a standard of 10% of electricity from renewable resources by 2015.

“The wind manufacturing sector has the potential to employ many more Americans in green jobs, but without a renewable electricity standard to provide a long-term market, the sector will be slow to grow,” the trade group said in its report.

I'm so tired of the U.S. falling behind in everything but the strength of our military. The U.S. should be leading the way in this area instead of falling further behind. And although we're fortunate to have Gov. Granholm and other Democrats with foresight and vision pushing for higher standards, we're still stuck with obstructionist Republicans who would rather help their fossil fuel cronies than our environment. Just imagine how much better our country could be if Republicans didn't always stand in the way.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Supreme Court Overturns Corporate Campaign Spending Limits

2010-01-21T11:49:00.001-05:00

The Supreme Court just struck down a key campaign-finance restriction that bars corporations from pouring money into political ads, and the ruling divided the court along ideological lines with the newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, joining the liberal wing in dissent.

The ruling is a victory for Washington-based Citizens United, the corporation that created “Hillary: The Movie.” The 90-minute film, which creators sought to air on a video-on- demand channel during Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, features interviews with a number of prominent critics of the New York senator, including Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich.

Guess who helped fund Citizens United? Wealthy sources, like the Betsy & Dick DeVos Foundation.

So, what's at stake? This is what a constitutional law expert had to say.

"American citizens have repeatedly amended the Constitution to defend democracy when the Supreme Court acts in collusion with democracy's enemies, whether they are slavemasters, states imposing poll taxes on voters, or the opponents of woman suffrage. Today, the Court has enthroned corporations, permitting them not only all kinds of special economic rights but now, amazingly, moving to grant them the same political rights as the people. This is a moment of high danger for democracy so we must act quickly to spell out in the Constitution what the people have always understood: that corporations do not enjoy the political and free speech rights that belong to the people of the United States." [emphasis added]

Voter Action, Public Citizen, The Center for Corporate Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance have started an organization - Free Speech for People - in an effort to correct the damage the Supreme Court has done to the First Amendment, and the only way that's possible is to pass a constitutional amendment of our own that puts people ahead of corporations.

Please read their resolution and sign your name in support. What the Supreme Court did today dramatically dilutes the vote and the voice of every American who does not control a large corporate treasury. And the decision unleashes billions of dollars in corporate money to dominate legislatures and elections. The problem actually goes beyond money in politics and elections, "The courts have used the fabrication of the First Amendment corporate rights doctrine to strike down a range of democratic enactments in recent years, from those concerning clean and fair elections; to environmental protection and energy; to tobacco, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, and health care; to consumer protection, lottery, and gambling; to race relations, and much more."

Free speech is for people — not corporations. Please join their campaign and protect our democracy.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Broadband Suffers From Lack Of Big Government

2010-01-19T10:48:00.001-05:00

Yet another area where the U.S. trails the rest of the world. Via Paul Waldman at TAPPED:

But a new report on global broadband shows that the country that invented the Internet, the microchip, and most of what makes our global digital village possible ranks a pathetic 18th in broadband speeds. The top spot is taken, as usual, by South Korea, where their smoking fast connections give them an average speed over three times as fast as what our pokey little modems give us. We also don't score too well when it comes to broadband penetration (the proportion of households that have broadband, as opposed to the actual speed people are getting). Our slow broadband is also really expensive. So that's nice.

We trail countries like Romania, Sweden and the Czech Republic. And on a year-to-year basis, all the countries in the top 10 saw a boost in speed. Ireland topped the list with a 73 percent gain. What about the United States? We were hit by a 2.4 percent decline in speed.

Waldman says they are multiple reasons we lag so far behind, but "the most important one is probably that we don't have enough big government. With a combination of public infrastructure investments and regulations forcing ISPs to share lines, other countries have driven down prices and driven up speeds."

Republicans have been too busy giving tax breaks to the rich and taking care of their corporate cronies over the past couple of decades to care about our public infrastructure. Thankfully, the stimulus bill President Obama signed in February provides $7.2 billion for projects that will increase the spread of broadband. He also instructed the FCC to come up with a plan to achieve universal high-speed access.

Those are good first steps, but something also needs to be done about bringing the price down or making it available for free to low income individuals. Voters depend on the media for information about our democracy and that information shouldn't be limited only to those who can afford to buy it.

National Tea Party Convention Embraces Right-Wing Media

2010-01-14T13:33:00.003-05:00

The teabaggers appear to be playing by the George Bush/Republican playbook. Via Think Progress:

Having previously announced that the National Tea Party Convention would be closed to the press, organizers announced yesterday that they would reverse course. However, the Nashville Post reports that only five media organizations will receive credentials for the entire convention, and they all conveniently happen to be right-wing outlets:

The five approved outlets are: Fox News, Breitbart.com, Townhall.com, World Net Daily and The Wall Street Journal. All five are widely considered to be Right-leaning organizations.

The press release explains that the requests for credentials have been overwhelming and that to preserve the nature of the event they are limiting press availability.

They also used the excuse that as "we have set expectations that this is a working convention, we have tried not to make it a media event.”

Right...because Fox News is always so circumspect and diplomatic when it reports the news and they would never turn any event into a media circus.

A media event is exactly what the teabaggers wanted, and by inviting only these right-leaning organizations their message will be tightly controlled and scripted. Ironically, their website currently claims they believe in "Free Speech." I think they should change that to reflect what they really mean - "Free Speech as told by right-wing media outlets."

Salaries Could Be Squeezed For Some Time To Come

2010-01-08T11:48:00.002-05:00

A new CBS MoneyWatch article confirms what Muskegon Critic pointed out the other day: Increased productivity does not translate into prosperity for average Americans.

In fact, MoneyWatch warns that a "combination of short-term factors and long-range changes may conspire to squeeze salaries for some time to come," and annual raises "could be in jeopardy."

So how did we get to this point? It turns out real wages have actually been flat for years.

Looking back, it turns out a decade’s worth of easy credit and faux real estate wealth obscured the fact that incomes for the majority of workers weren’t keeping up. After healthy salary growth of roughly 1.8 percent annually from 1995 to 2000, for example, inflation-adjusted, or real, wages for the median worker remained essentially flat from 2000 until 2007 when the recession started, according to government data (average wages increased roughly 2 percent, but that number is skewed by huge gains at the top). In fact, after the recovery in 2002, notes Shierholz, no real wage growth occurred at all for the median worker — despite an increase in productivity of 11 percent over the seven-year time frame. [emphasis added].

In other words, we've been working our tails off and have little to show for it. So who reaped the productivity gains?

Typically, companies and their shareholders.

And what do experts point to as the reason for our declining prosperity?

Shierholz and other economists attribute the disconnect between wages and output to declining unionization and the need to keep prices low in a competitive global environment.

The "kill the unions" and "outsource everything" crowd accomplished what they set out to do - drive wages down for average Americans. And the scenario for new jobs created doesn't look any rosier.

A 2009 analysis of figures from the U.S. Department of Labor showed that sectors that expanded through this decade have paid an average annual compensation of $55,300, compared with $65,100 for industries that are shrinking. This is partly because many of the newly-created positions are in service industries, which tend to be less organized and have less bargaining power. Think home healthcare and “green” jobs versus auto manufacturing and heavy industry.

In fact, six of the top 10 fastest-growing jobs are low wage.

There are steps Washington can take to start improving living standards for average Americans, but as long as people keep voting for anti-union, globalization embracing politicians, I don't see things changing.

Hoekstra Is A Danger To Your Health And Well-Being

2009-12-30T11:41:00.002-05:00

While Hoekstra runs around trying to profit from the attempted bombing over Detroit and score points with teabagger Republicans, it's important to put this incident into perspective. Via Blue Texan at FDL (see his chart below):

Terrorism Still Less Deadly in US Than Lack of Health Insurance, Salmonella

If you count the Ft. Hoot shooting as a terrorist attack, which even the likes of Pantload doesn’t, 16 people have died in the United States as a result of terrorism in 2009. The other three deaths include the Little Rock military recruiting office shooting (1), the Holocaust Museum shooting (1), and Dr. George Tiller’s assassination (1), the last two coming at the hands of right-wing extremists.

On the other hand, 45,000 Americans died because they didn’t have health insurance and 600 died from salmonella poisoning.

Clearly, lack of health insurance is more of a threat to Americans than a terrorist attack, yet Hoekstra voted NO on health care. He's clearly in no position to be shooting off his mouth and calling on the president to "lead in the fight to keep Americans safe" after that vote.

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-24T00:01:00.003-05:00

Here's a Christmas card for all my blogging friends from man's best friend (no, not Joe Lieberman) - and me!

May all your Christmas wishes come true.

Senate Health Bill Provides Enormous Help To Poor

2009-12-23T16:16:00.002-05:00

Everyone seems to be trashing the Senate's health reform bill. That's fine, dissent is good, but I don't think we should let it blind us to the positives, such as the enormous good the bill will do for the poor and middle class. (Via Jonathan Cohn at TNR.)

This bill would mean Medicaid coverage for an additional 15 million people a year, all of them living below or just above the poverty line. For a sense of scale, that's more than double the entire population now covered by the state Children's Health Insurance Program.

This bill would also subsidize coverage in the exchanges for (roughly) another 15 million people a year, the majority of whom would also qualify as low-income by any reasonable standard.

"Do the math," he says, and we'll see that this bill is "arguably, the single most progressive initiative in a generation."

And if you don't believe Cohn, he asks you to consider what his colleague Harold Pollack at the Huffington Post had to say [emphasis mine]:

Fully implemented, the bill would provide about $200 billion per year down the income scale in subsidies to poor, near-poor, and working Americans.

$200 billion is a big number. It exceeds the combined total of federal spending on Food Stamps and all nutrition assistance programs, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Head Start, TANF cash payments to single mothers and their children, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the National Institutes of Health.

That money won't be allocated to wars or tax cuts for the rich, it's going to help the poor and middle class.

Trash the bill if you want, but don't let yourself lose sight of the good it will do.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Bottled Water Tax: "The People Deserve To Get Something In Return"

2009-12-21T12:33:00.002-05:00

LG John Cherry has an op-ed in the Detroit News today that talks about his plan to restore the Michigan Promise Scholarship with a water bottle tax. Go read it, but here's the best part (emphasis mine):

Right now, bottlers across the state remove water from our wells essentially for free, and we lack the necessary funding to safeguard this precious resource. In other words, we're losing one resource -- our talented work force -- while giving away another resource, our water, for free.

You don't need a Ph.D. in mathematics to solve this terrible equation. It's time for the bottlers to pay their water bill, just like you and I do. We can use the proceeds from that water bill to fund the education that our young people need to compete, as well as protecting the water resources that Michigan desperately needs.

By conservative estimates, a charge of 10 cents per bottle, paid by bottling companies that operate in Michigan, would raise $118 million per year. The cost of the Michigan Promise Scholarship, on the other hand, is about $100 million per year. Not only would this modest charge on each bottle of water that leaves Michigan raise enough funds to pay for the entire Michigan Promise program, we'd still have $18 million a year to spend on wetlands regulation and other conservation initiatives. [...]

This is the people's water, and the people deserve to get something in return.

Ironically, employers like to point out they need an educated workforce to be successful and profitable, and Nestle, the parent company of Ice Mountain, is no exception.

Like every Michigan employer, we rely on an educated workforce.

Yet Nestle is complaining that Cherry's proposal penalizes Michigan employers, risks jobs, and that bottlers may resort to supplying products from outside the state in order to remain competitive on the price consumers pay for bottled water products.

A Nestle Water Company spokesman also claimed that the tax would nearly double the price consumers paid for a case of water.

"Let's look at the math," said Flaherty. "Most bottled water is purchased in cases of 24 bottles of .5 liter size, for about or less than $4.00 per case -- putting the price per bottle at about 16 cents. A 10-cent per bottle tax on Michigan manufactured products nearly doubles the price for consumers, and would be unsustainable in the highly competitive beverage marketplace.

"Consumers are very savvy, and rarely could be convinced to pay nearly double for Michigan-produced bottle water when lesser-priced options exist," said Flaherty. "I challenge you to ask consumers if they'd pay $6.50 for a case when they can pay less than $4 for the same product made elsewhere."

True, consumers are savvy, but we also care about educating our children. I have a suggestion for Nestle. You pay the 10 cent tax per bottle on the water you currently get for free without passing it on to consumers and in return you'll get an educated workforce, an improved "corporate neighbor" image and the gratitude of citizens who just might go out of their way to buy your product. I'd say that's a win-win for everyone involved. After all, your company admitted that bottled water profits were down in part because of public criticism. Why would you want to anger us even more?

Don't Give Up On Health Care Now

2009-12-16T16:36:00.000-05:00

I am extremely disillusioned with the shape the healthcare bill has taken, but I'm not willing to say it shouldn't pass and/or we should start over. I'll let Kevin Drum speak for me. He makes a compelling argument for seeing this bill through.

With the public option now out of the healthcare bill, is it still worth passing? Regular readers will be unsurprised that I think the answer is pretty firmly yes—and that liberals who now want to pick up their toys and hand reform its sixth defeat in the past century need to wake up and smell the decaf. Politics sucks. It always has. But the bill in front of us—messy, incomplete, and replete with bribes to every interest group imaginable—is still well worth passing.

Six defeats. Think about that. More from Kevin:

When big legislative efforts go down in flames, they almost never spring back onto the calendar anytime soon — and that's especially true when big healthcare bills fail. It didn't happen in 1936, it didn't happen in 1949, it didn't happen in 1974, and it didn't happen in 1995. What makes anyone think it will happen in 2010?

Drum also makes the point that if healthcare reform dies this year, it dies for a good long time, and Republicans know it. And even though it's not the bill we wanted, it's a good start. Via Ezra Klein:

"This is a good bill," Sen. Sherrod Brown said on Countdown last night. "Not a great bill, but a good bill." That's about right. But the other piece to remember is that more than it's a good bill, it's a good start. With $900 billion in subsidies already in place, it's easier to add another hundred billion later, if we need it, than it would be to pass $1 trillion in subsidies in 2011. With the exchanges built and private insurers unable to hold down costs, it's easier to argue for adding a strong public option to the market than it was before we'd tried regulation and a new competitive structure. With 95 percent of the country covered, it's easier to go the final 5 percent. And with a health-care reform bill actually passed, it's easier to convince legislators that passing such bills is possible.

Here's some other things we'll be getting:

Insurers have to take all comers. They can't turn you down for a preexisting condition or cut you off after you get sick.

Community rating. Within a few broad classes, everyone gets charged the same amount for insurance.

Individual mandate. I know a lot of liberals hate this, but how is it different from a tax? And its purpose is sound: it keeps the insurance pool broad and insurance rates down.

A significant expansion of Medicaid.

Subsidies for low and middle income workers that keeps premium costs under 10% of income.

Limits on ER charges to low-income uninsured emergency patients.

Caps on out-of-pocket expenses.

A broad range of cost-containment measures.

A dedicated revenue stream to support all this.

Drum is right. This is still a huge achievement, one that will benefit tens of millions of people in very concrete ways and will do it without expanding our long-term deficit. And he also points out "this is more than Bill Clinton ever did, more than Teddy Kennedy did, more than LBJ did, more than Truman did, and more than FDR did."

Don't throw in the towel now.

Poll: Let The Wealthy Pay Higher Taxes

2009-12-10T12:14:00.001-05:00

A new Bloomberg poll shows Americans want the government to do something about the economy.

Americans want their government to create jobs through spending on public works, investments in alternative energy or skills training for the jobless.

They also want the deficit to come down. And most are ready to hand the bill to the wealthy.

A Bloomberg National Poll conducted Dec. 3-7 shows two- thirds of Americans favor taxing the rich to reduce the deficit.

Raising taxes on the rich was popular across party lines too: About half of Republicans back the idea and it is more popular among Democrats and Independents.

Steve Benen summarized the polls results best:

In other words, here's a poll showing widespread support for the Democratic economic agenda.

That's because mainstream America is rational, unlike those teabagger Republicans whose only answer for every problem is cut taxes, cut taxes...

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Who's More Popular Than Traditional Republicans?

2009-12-08T10:30:00.001-05:00

Teabagger Republicans. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, Republicans have fallen to third place in terms of popularity.

In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.

So are Republicans worried? Nope. Greg Sargent asked for the GOP's leadership view of the poll and this was one senior GOP aide's reply:

This proves one of the major points that Democrats have tried hard to deny: the Tea Party movement is not some fringe group of ultra-conservatives, it is most popular among independents, many of whom believed President Obama’s campaign promises about doing things differently in Washington, and feel burned by the fact that he has governed in a relentlessly partisan fashion.

Partisan? Did he really say partisan? Three words: Health care reform. Obama reached out to Republicans and they said NO.

I think GOP leadership has to spin this in a favorable light. After all, several Glenn Beck inspired Tea Party candidates are causing problems for a number of GOP lawmakers, including John McCain. They're caught between a rock and a hard place. They can't afford to ignore the teabaggers, and they can't afford to embrace them at the risk of losing their moderate members.

And I don't take too seriously the GOP spokesperson's comment that "the Tea Party movement is not some fringe group." Again, really? What else would you call a group that invited Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman to speak at their national convention next year. And don't forget about Joe the Plumber.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that any independents with a smidgen of commonsense will embrace the teabaggers, the same group that shows up at rallies with guns and posters comparing health care reform to pictures of dead bodies at the Dachau concentration camp. These people are not mainstream Americans, they're extremists.

And when a fake party "that doesn't have organized candidates or organized fundraising is more highly thought of than one of the two traditionally dominant political parties," that's a sign that Republicans are in big trouble, no matter how much they spin this poll.

All I Want For Xmas Is...

2009-12-03T15:07:00.001-05:00

(Via Fox News Detroit)

A man in Riverview has an unusual Christmas display on his lawn and the neighbors aren't too happy about it. His signs support national health insurance, but the mom next door is upset because her kids are asking questions. "I just don't think Christmas is the time to make a political statement," she said.

Fox asks what you think. I say that young man probably speaks for millions of people who would love to wake up to health insurance under their tree on December 25th.

Holiday Shopping Tips for Progressives

2009-11-25T20:00:00.001-05:00

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I wanted to pass along a few shopping tips before heading out to spend the holiday with family and friends.

If you're picking up a bottle of wine for your host or guests, consider buying Wine Spectator’s 2009 Wine of the Year: Columbia Crest’s Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley Reserve 2005. According to FDL, members of the United Farm Workers helped pick the grapes. If you don't like red wine, check out these other labels that use UFW members (as well as other products like strawberries, dates, and almonds).

Moving beyond Thanksgiving to Black Friday, you can show your support for union workers by clicking here and checking out the box in the left upper corner to find union made products and services.

Or maybe you want to avoid naughty companies that force their employees to labor long hours under dangerous working conditions for poverty wages? Then Working in These Times advises you to read the "Shop With a Conscience Consumer Guide" from Sweat Free Communities, as well as this Sweatshop Hall of Shame 2010 report that highlights some of the big apparel and textile companies that use sweatshops in their global production. (Ikea, Abercrombie and Fitch, Wal-Mart, Hanes, L.L. Bean, and Kohl's among others.)

And from Michael Whitney at FDL comes this reminder about shipping your packages:

UPS is almost entirely union employees (Teamsters), with impressive wages, benefits and treatment for workers. FedEx, on the other hand, doesn’t even consider their employees to be employees, with meager pay, no benefits, no vacation days, and no respect. Check out this handy chart to see the stark difference between how UPS and FedEx treat their employees.

Finally, before heading out the door, you might want to check out Gizmodo, because no matter where it's made and who makes it, some "deals" really aren't deals at all!

(I'm so thankful my family likes gift certificates and cash. It makes life much simpler.)

Sen. Carl Levin is The Real Deal

2009-11-23T15:22:00.001-05:00

The Republican Party is staking its future on people like Sarah Palin for commonsense solutions to our nation's problems. Meanwhile, Democrats don't have to look any further than Sen. Carl Levin. This is his commonsense approach to paying for the war in Afghanistan.

Higher-income Americans should be taxed to pay for more troops sent to Afghanistan and NATO should provide half of the new soldiers, said Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

An “additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000” a year, could fund more troops...

White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added.

That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can” instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.

"Incredibly well" is an understatement. The Bush tax cuts cost almost $2.5 trillion over the decade after they were first enacted and 52.5 percent of the benefits are going to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers. And, of course, we can't forget the war profiteers ~~cronies~~ who made a killing off Iraq, i.e., Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR, etc.

Had the Bush administration showed some commonsense and opposed tax cuts to pay for increased defense spending, he wouldn't have squandered Clinton's surplus and left office with a record budget deficit of more than $1 trillion.

Traditionally during wartime, taxes have been raised to pay the costs of war, but Bush and the GOP had some grandiose idea that Iraq's oil would pay for the war. So, they drummed up a lie to get things started and proceeded to cut taxes for their rich cronies, leaving our country in economic shambles.

So kudos to Sen. Levin and his commonsense approach to paying for the Afghanistan War. Besides, if rich Republicans have to dig into their trust funds to pay for war, it's a pretty sure bet they won't be so quick to support it.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

The Stock Market is Up, I'd Rather Have a Job

2009-11-19T13:49:00.002-05:00

Robert Reich has an article on the disconnect between stocks and jobs that asks a great question: How can the stock market hit new highs at the same time unemployment is hitting new highs?

Simple. The market is up because corporate earnings are up. Corporate earnings are up because companies are cutting costs. And the biggest single cost they’re cutting is their payrolls. So they let people go and, presto, their balance sheets look better and their stock prices rise.

Reich points to Caterpillar as an example. They earned $404 million in the third quarter, or 64 cents a share, yet analysts had only expected 5 cents. So how did Caterpillar manage to drive their stock up 165 percent since March? They cut 37,000 jobs.

Or consider this example from Too Much:

The latest case in point: the just-announced $4.5 billion merger deal that will fold the 99-year-old Black & Decker tool-making powerhouse — the folks who brought us the world’s first pistol-grip power drill — into its chief tool-making rival, Connecticut's Stanley Works.

“It’s a match made in heaven,” Stanley flack Tim Perra told reporters last week.

Heaven for who? Not consumers. The new “Stanley Black & Decker” may soon have enough marketplace dominance, says Morningstar business analyst Anthony Dayrit, “to raise prices” on do-it-yourself gizmos that range from power tools to window locks.

And workers won’t find much heaven in the merger either. Black & Decker and Stanley together currently employ a workforce just over 40,000. The merger the two companies announced last week will eventually cost an estimated 10 percent of those workers their jobs, starting with staff at the Black & Decker headquarters just outside Baltimore.

And here's yet another example from economically depressed Las Vegas:

Last February, Las Vegas kingpin Steve Wynn announced an across-the-board wage and hour cutback for all employees at his resort empire. The total savings for Wynn Resorts: between $75 and $100 million. Last week Wynn Resorts announced a special $4-per-share dividend. Total cost of the dividend payout to Wynn Resorts: $492 million. Total dividend check that will go to Steve Wynn: $88.6 million.

The Great Recession has been a boon for corporations and CEO's. As Reich points out, "They’re using this sharp downturn to cut payrolls even below where they were when times were good. Outsourcing abroad, setting up shop in China and elsewhere, contracting out, replacing people with software and automated machines – they're doing whatever it takes to get payrolls down so earnings bounce up."

Higher earnings may be good for Wall Street, but not so much for Main Street. More from Reich: "Yes, the economy is growing again, but the surge in productivity is a mirage. Worker output per hour is skyrocketing because companies are generating almost as much output with fewer workers and fewer hours." The bottom line: Higher productivity doesn't put money in the average worker's pocket. Since 1980, productivity has grown 70 percent, but wages only increased 5 percent.

But, but, but... I can hear the Jim Kramer's of the world already. Higher stock prices=higher fund balances for all Americans. That's true. But what good does a 5 or 10 percent increase do me if I'm out of work and have to live off of that money? It buys me short-term security today but leaves me financially insecure when I retire. Instead of worrying about stock market profits, we need policies that put people back to work at decent wages and keeps them working.

Health Care Reform: Keep It Separate From Religion

2009-11-17T16:34:00.003-05:00

Thank you for respecting a woman's right to choose, Congressman Schauer, and for also having the courage to say what many women think - "The government doesn't belong in the room when these very personal, private decisions are being made." And neither does the religious right, Council of Catholic Bishops and Bart Stupak. They certainly don't speak for all people of faith.

From the United Church of Christ:

UCC Minister and Co-Team Leader for the Cleveland-based Team, the Rev. Loey Powell, reiterated the UCC's 40-year history of support for reproductive health care and said of the amendment, "We join [partner faith] groups in expressing our disappointment that the House bowed to pressure exerted at the last minute from anti-abortion lobbyists ... Once again women's health and well-being have been compromised in the halls of Congress."

United Methodist Church:

The United Methodist Church’s official positions on abortion and immigration stand in opposition, however, to restrictions placed in the bill that limit coverage for all of God’s children living in the United States. H.R. 3962 excludes immigrants and women whose circumstances indicate need for an abortion. These restrictions even include persons who now have such insurance.

The bill establishes a two-tiered system of health delivery. It essentially penalizes women and immigrants with fewer economic resources.

National Council of Jewish Women:

"This Stupak-Pitts amendment is an egregious assault on the rights of women and an enormous step backward for those who believe in the separation of religion and state. It enshrines one religious view of abortion into law and enlists the federal government to enforce it.

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:

We call on the Senate to ensure that health care reform is freed of religious ideology and restrictions that will prevent women from making their own reproductive health care choices.

Ideally, I think our leaders should heed JFK's words:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote. . . . That is the kind of America in which I believe. . . . Whatever issue may come before me as president - on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject - I will make my decision in accordance with . . . what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates.

Along with 40 other Democrats, Stupak is threatening there will be hell to pay if his amendment is removed, and the Council of Catholic Bishops is threatening to withdraw their support for reform too. Their religion may condone turning their backs on the uninsured, but mine believes health care is a matter of social justice.

There are hundreds of religions in this world and we'll never find common ground acceptable to everyone. However, as this blogger so eloquently put it...

Freedom of religion in our nation means, first and foremost, the right of individuals to live their lives in accord with their most cherished religious beliefs, and free of government interference. [...]

At the same time, though, the reciprocal of that freedom is an equally fundamental responsibility. This is the responsibility not to use the authority of the government to compel individuals to live their lives in accord with our "religious dictates" that they do not share. Muslims have the right not to consume pork, but they should not use the power of the government to forbid others to eat pork. Jews have the right not to work on Saturday, but they should not use the power of the government to prohibit others from working on Saturday. And Catholics have the right not to marry people of the same sex, but they should not use the power of the government to forbid others from marrying the person they love.

And religion should not use the power of government to block health care reform.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Health Care and Gay Rights Helped by Yesterday's Election

2009-11-04T16:21:00.002-05:00

Regardless of Republican gloating, I'm not reading too much into yesterday's election. They picked up a couple of governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, but Democrats picked up two seats in Congress, and those two seats might just make the difference in getting health care reform passed.

Via Brian Beutler at TPM:

The NY-23 seat abdicated by Republican John McHugh (who resigned to become Secretary of the Army) went to Democrat Bill Owens--the first Democrat to hold the seat in over a century. And the CA-10 seat abdicated by Democrat Ellen Tauscher (who resigned to become Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs) went to Democrat John Garamendi.

That creates some simple arithmetic. Yesterday, Democrats had 256 voting members in the House. By week's end, they'll have 258. Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could afford to lose no more than 38 Democratic votes on a landmark health care reform bill. Next week, after Owens and Garamendi are sworn in, she can lose up to 40. For legislation this historic and far-reaching, she'll need every vote she can get--and both seem likely to support reform.

I'll give up two governorships in return for getting health care reform passed.

And this news will be music to the ears of gay rights activists: "As gay marriage was being voted down in Maine, several openly gay candidates in the South scored victories."

In the south!! So go ahead and gloat, Republicans. It doesn't matter, because mainstream America is not red. (Are you paying attention, Dems?)

Health Care Bill is a Pro-Life Issue Too

2009-11-03T12:09:00.002-05:00

In this FDL Action Health Care Update, I read that Bart Stupak is threatening to block the House health care bill from passing over the issue of tax dollars for abortion. He wants to vote his conscience and strip abortion-related provisions out of the House bill, in spite of the fact the bill already contains restrictions to prevent federal funding of abortions.

Okay, I can respect that, but isn't health care for the uninsured a moral issue too? And how does Stupak square his concern for fetuses with the lack of respect he shows this group of people?

In his letter to Secretary of the Army John McHugh, Stupak expressed concern over reports that terrorist suspects would have priority over United States citizens waiting for the vaccine.

Apparently "suspected" terrorists are less worthy.

It might only be 229 more vaccines but I would rather see 229 vaccines go to pregnant women of young children to be protected from H1N1 not to a group of people who are beheld as suspected terrorist against our country.

I'm not trying to beat up on Stupak. I think his heart is in the right place, and he votes with Democrats more than 90% of the time, but I'm tired of the way this argument always gets framed. We should respect all life, including the lives of terrorists and the uninsured, not just the lives of fetuses.

The good news is that Stupak does support health care reform and still plans to support it.

If everything I want [is] in the final bill, I like everything in the bill except you have public funding for abortion, and we had a chance to run our amendment and we lost. OK, I voted my conscience, stayed true to my principles, stayed true to the beliefs of this district, could I vote for healthcare? Yes I still could.

I hope the other 39 House Democrats aligned with Stupak vote Yes. Health care for the uninsured deserves their respect and support too.

Good Corp, Bad Corp

2009-10-29T14:54:00.002-04:00

Kudos to the Country Fresh Dairy in Grand Rapids for respecting the hard work of their employees.

On October 3, Local 386 members employed at Country Fresh Dairy in Grand Rapids, Michigan, ratified a new contract. The new agreement increases wages and pension benefits, while protecting health care coverage and increases sickness and accident and life insurance coverage. [...]

The five-year contract contains wage increases totaling 11 percent over the course of the agreement, and the company’s contributions to the employees’ RWDSU pension will increase by $2 per week each year. By the last year of the contract, the company will be contributing $80 per week to the plan.

I've always liked and bought Country Fresh products, and now I have another reason to remain a loyal customer. Not only do I help the company's profits, but I help the 156 employees who overwhelmingly voted to ratify the contract.

The polar opposite of Country Fresh is Boeing. The company decided to put a new assembly line for the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina. Boeing claims they chose right-to-work South Carolina in part "because of frustration with labor strife in Seattle, where four strikes in the past 20 years by the machinists union delayed deliveries." However, according to the Seattle PI, the union offered a 10-year, no-strike contract and was willing to discuss a longer agreement to get Boeing to commit to locating the second 787 line in Everett, Washington.

And this little tidbit from the same article is infuriating:

Boeing already took billions in tax credits and handouts... Now, the company is taking the jobs promised by the 787 program and leaving Washington workers and taxpayers high and dry.

What's the company getting from South Carolina? A package that eliminates income and other taxes for a decade and the state will provide low-interest construction bonds.

The problem with all these incentives according to this journalist is that they're a downward spiral on our race to the bottom.

Of course the problem isn't a lack of "commitment" to the aerospace industry in a region where generations of workers have devoted their lives to making Boeing planes. The problem is that people in Washington just don't come as cheap. We have this bad habit of paying people a decent wage, and providing good unemployment pay and benefits for people who are injured on the job--all things that apparently must change if we're to be competitive.

But then, if you consult the advocacy groups trying to insure the "competitiveness" of South Carolina, they say the same thing. "South Carolina's workers' compensation costs are the highest in the Southeast for small business" frets the South Carolina Civil Justice Coalition, a group that works to improve the business climate in Boeing's new home. They won't be satisfied until South Carolina's "climate" has been made as cheap as Georgia's, Tennessee's, and Virginia's.

And on down it spirals. It's not a winnable game, not if we want to keep any allegiance to our own values. In a few years, Boeing will be playing S.C. off Mississippi.

Boeing could learn a few things about values from Country Fresh.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Opting In, Opting Out, Why The Next Election Is Vitally Important

2009-10-27T12:26:00.001-04:00

As Cordelia Lear pointed out at Blogging for MI yesterday, the opt-out choice that allows states to withdraw from the public option is no panacea. Read what she says about Mike Bishop and Andy Dillon to understand why opt-out is a bad idea, but it's basically because the public option choice will literally be in the hands of lawmakers who don't care about us.

I originally figured I could live with the opt-out plan because it's loosely modeled on Medicaid, "which originally allowed states to “opt-out” of the program and today enjoys the participation of all 50 states." And, as TPM pointed out, there was good reason to believe that the public option would have been a lot scarier as a GOP straw man than it would as a real world option for people who can't get private coverage.

And if the public option is available in North Carolina, just to pick a hypothetical, and not South Carolina, after a while, people in the South Carolina might start to wonder what the logic was of denying them a lower cost health insurance option. And if that's true, presumably, pressure will build in the opt-out states to opt-in. So even if a substantial number of people aren't covered at the start, there's good reason to believe that will change over time.

There's just one tiny problem with the "presumably, pressure will build to opt-in" scenario. We're dealing with politicians who often put party ideology ahead of people. If pressuring our leaders worked, we would have had health care a long time ago.

And, as Cordelia mentioned, it's not exactly clear who gets to do the opting-out. Will governors be able to unilaterally make that decision or will it take action by both houses of the state legislature? As Jon Walker at FDL pointed out, depending on how the opt-out is written, millions of people in states controlled by Republicans could find themselves disenfranchised.

If a Republican becomes Michigan's next governor, or they manage to pick up any seats, we can kiss opting-in goodbye. Seriously. That makes the next election extremely important because there's just one thing standing between national health care and the 1.13 million uninsured adults in our state - Republicans (and DINO's like Dillon).

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Mainstream America Is Not Red

2009-10-20T09:00:00.000-04:00

The Democracy Corps released a survey last week about conservative Republicans that highlights how they're a world apart from most of us. I know, shocking!

These voters identify themselves as part of a ‘mocked’ minority with a set of shared beliefs and knowledge, and commitment to oppose Obama that sets them apart from the majority in the country. They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a ‘secret agenda’ to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism.

They also believe they possess a level of knowledge and understanding when it comes to politics and current events, one gained from a rejection of the mainstream media and an embrace of conservative media and pundits such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

There was one area where we shared common ground though: "These voters had virtually nothing positive to say about the Republican Party. They see their own party as weak, old, and out of touch."

It's what the survey showed about independents that I found most interesting though:

The independent voters ... share the conservative Republicans’ disdain for the current Republican Party, but their critique is not that the party has abandoned its conservative principles but instead that it advances the interests of the rich and big businesses at the expense of the middle class. They worry about the Democratic Party’s proclivity to spend tax dollars and provide ‘freebies’ to those who do not do their fair share, but they appreciate the Democrats’ focus on ‘the little people’ (among which they included themselves) and the fact that ‘it’s not all about the money.’

It appears the GOP's single-minded focus on corporate America and tax breaks for the rich is a failure in terms of increasing market share - a.k.a. voters.

In late January, a USA Today/Gallup poll recorded 27 percent of respondents saying they identified with the Republican Party, 36 percent with Democrats and 25 percent as unaffiliated or independent. Now in mid-October, the average data compiled from dozens of surveys over more than a year shows Republican ID at 22.5 percent, Democratic ID at 33.7 percent and Independent ID at 35 percent.

Mainstream America is represented by nearly 70% of the electorate consisting of Democrats and Independents, a group that cares about the common good, the "little people." It is not represented by the 22% of Republicans that to a large degree are defined by voters who embrace Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

If only we could get our lawmakers in Lansing and Washington to remember that.

Mike Rogers Defends Wasting $700 Billion Annually

2009-10-12T14:39:00.003-04:00

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) receives a lot of money from the pharmaceutical, health and insurance industries, which probably explains why he's pushing false information about health care reform. While speaking at the Michigan Business and Legislative Forum last week, where he repeatedly bragged that he had read all 1000+ pages of the House health care bill, he argued that the House reform legislation would allow the federal government to use the results of comparative effectiveness research to ration costly treatments.

Rogers is wrong (he would have known that if he had read page 524 of the legislation). Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact.com says this claim is false:

But in this case, there actually are provisions in the bill about comparative research to make sure it is not used for rationing. Language in the House version of the health bill specifically states: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer."

And let's be clear, comparative effectiveness research has been done by the government for years and years. The Obama administration wants to greatly expand the amount of research. The economic stimulus package also included more funding for comparative effectiveness research. And the bill included a similar disclaimer that it would not mandate insurers to cover or reimburse one treatment or medication over another.

FactCheck.org also says this claim is false, and so does the AARP:

"It boggles the mind" said AARP spokesman Jim Dau, how comparative effectiveness research has been portrayed by opponents of the health care plan as government rationing of care.

"It's just good common sense," Dau said of the research. "It's giving individuals and doctors better evidence-based research so that they can make better decisions."

What exactly is comparative effectiveness research? The Center for American Progress explains that "it evaluates different drugs, medical devices, and clinical procedures for the same illness against each other. In contrast, the bulk of research done today examines whether a specific treatment works compared to doing nothing, but comparative effectiveness research evaluates which therapy works best among a range of possibilities for the same illness or condition." This research is important because it can save money.

It’s estimated that one-third of procedures and treatments administered in the United States have no proven benefit and account for up to $700 billion annually in current spending. Moreover, some of these treatments can have harmful side effects, produce worse health outcomes, and then, as a result, add to the soaring costs of medical care.

I don't know about Mike Rogers, but I don't like paying $50 dollars for a pill that's not anymore effective than one costing a buck, and the media is full of articles questioning whether cholesterol drugs do any good or if angioplasty is advisable in all patients. My favorite story is from last fall when the NY Times published an article about one of the biggest medical trials ever organized by the federal government. It showed that generic diuretics (water pills) costing only pennies a day, and in use for high blood pressure since the 1950s, worked better than newer drugs that were 20 times as expensive. Not only that, the research revealed that the pricier drugs increased the risk of heart failure and stroke.

As CAP points out, "There is no incentive for the companies to fund research that compares their treatment to another since it is not in their best interest to determine if another treatment works as well or better than theirs. Because of this the federal government must invest in this research."

It just doesn't make sense for Rogers to criticize comparative effectiveness research unless he's hoping to protect his big donor's profits. Republicans want us to take charge of our health and spending on health care dollars, yet they seek to limit information about over-priced or hazardous medications or treatments. Not only can that be harmful to our health or downright deadly, it's a waste of money - as much as $700 billion annually.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

The Bible Has a Liberal Bias

2009-10-06T14:30:00.000-04:00

Just when I thought conservatives couldn't get any crazier, I read about some men who think the Bible needs editing, not just for accuracy, but because it's too liberal. They're the inspiration behind the Conservative Bible Project:

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. [...] Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.

Here's an example of the liberal bias they find problematic:

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.

For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.

Social justice=socialism? No wonder this Catholic writer said about their project: "Right wing dementia marches on apace." And conservative BeliefNet writer Rod Dreher had this opinion:

More seriously, the insane hubris of this really staggers the mind. These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it's wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don't worship God. They worship ideology.

Sorry, Conservapedia guys, but Jesus was the ultimate liberal progressive revolutionary of all history. You can't change that - no matter how hard you try to rewrite the Bible into your own image.

The White House Fact Checks Glenn Beck

2009-10-01T16:46:00.002-04:00

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce's keynote speaker lied in an attempt to discredit President Obama's efforts to bring the 2016 Olympics to our country and the White House called him and Fox News on it. As they point out, "hosting the Olympics has been a source of pride and unity for the country, but once again Fox News' Glenn Beck program has shown that nothing is worthy of respect if it can be used as part of a partisan attack to boost ratings."

Lie #1:

RHETORIC: BECK SAID VANCOUVER LOST $1 BILLION WHEN IT "HAD THE OLYMPICS." Glenn Beck said, "Vancouver lost, how much was it? they lost a billion dollars when they had the Olympics." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]

REALITY: VANCOUVER'S OLYMPICS WILL NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL 2010. Vancouver will host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games from February 12 – 28, 2010 and March 12-21, 2010, respectively. [Vancouver2010.com, accessed 9/29/09]

Lie #2:

RHETORIC: CHICAGO IS CLOSING THE GOVERNMENT SEVERAL DAYS A WEEK BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO BE OPEN. Beck's guest Caddell said, "Chicago is closing the government several days a week because they cannot afford to be open. They are going to go and reward -- this is the biggest scandal." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]

REALITY: CHICAGO HAS HAD ONE REDUCED-SERVICE DAY IN 2009, AND WILL HAVE TWO MORE ON THE FRIDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING AND ON CHRISTMAS EVE. [...]

Lie #3:

RHETORIC: VALERIE JARRETT [who is accompanying Obama to Copenhagen] WILL BENEFIT FINANCIALLY. Beck asked, "Is it possible that she is going to benefit if the Olympics come to Chicago?" Caddell responded, "Well, that’s the word. She has certainly had a lot of dealings going on in real estate." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]

REALITY: UPON ENTERING GOVERNMENT, VALERIE JARRETT DIVESTED ALL HER REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT HOLDINGS EXCEPT FOR A SINGLE INVESTMENT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OLYMPIC BID. Valerie Jarrett divested all her investment real estate holdings upon entering government except for a single real estate holding that she was unable to sell. This single real estate investment has been determined by White House Counsel and the independent Office of Government Ethics to present no conflict of interest in performing her duties as a White House advisor. It has nothing to do with the Olympic bid.

Our country is the throes of the Great Recession and the Olympics could generate $22.5 billion in economic activity and create 315,000 new full-time jobs. It makes me wonder why Glenn Beck hates America, and why business chambers embrace a liar like him.

(There's more on the White House blog.)

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

We Should All Stand Up For Insurance Companies

2009-09-24T11:24:00.000-04:00

After all, Michigan Rep. Dave Camp is standing up for insurance companies and, along with fellow Republicans, has "mounted a ferocious defense of the market's right to continue burning through taxpayer dollars."

Camp is also standing up for the pharmaceutical/health products/health professionals industries that donated money to his campaign committee for 2009-2010 and 2007-2008.

If Camp is standing up for insurance companies, we should too. As this PSA relates, insurance company CEOs have the right to their American dream just like the rest of us. They've looked out for our best interests for so long and now we should look out for theirs.

Besides, what's so American about competition?

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Right-Wing Extremist Shapes Glenn Beck's Worldview

2009-09-17T14:48:00.002-04:00

I wonder if the MI Chamber of Commerce knows this. According to TPM, a right-wing extremist heavily influences Glenn Beck. They point to a fascinating article in Salon which "reveals that a book by a Mormon "historian" deemed too extreme even by the modern conservative movement -- which argues that the U.S. constitution is based primarily on natural law -- has played a major role in Beck's "thinking.""

For several years, Beck has actively promoted "The 5000 Year Leap," by the late Cleon Skousen, on his radio and TV shows, and he recently wrote the foreword for a newly-released edition of the book, which was first published in 1981.

The Salon article describes Skousen as the man who changed Glenn Beck's life. They also described him as too extreme even for the conservative activists of the Goldwater era.

Who is Skousen? From the Salon article:

W. Cleon Skousen was not a historian so much as a player in the history of the American far right; less a scholar of the republic than a threat to it. At least, that was the judgment of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, which maintained a file on Skousen for years that eventually totaled some 2,000 pages. Before he died in 2006 at the age of 92, Skousen's own Mormon church publicly distanced itself from the foundation that Skousen founded and that has published previous editions of "The 5,000 Year Leap."

Skousen was admired by leaders of the John Birch Society and spoke at their events. He also authored "more than a dozen books and pamphlets on the Red Menace, New World Order conspiracy, Christian child rearing, and Mormon end-times prophecy."

It is a body of work that does much to explain Glenn Beck's bizarre conspiratorial mash-up of recent months, which decries a new darkness at noon and finds strange symbols carefully coded in the retired lobby art of Rockefeller Center. It also suggests that the modern base of the Republican Party is headed to a very strange place.

TPM added one other interesting note about Cleon Skousen: "As reader J.S. notes, Beck isn't the only conservative leader with a taste for Skousen. In 2007, then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney expressed his affinity for his fellow Mormon."

Republicans and organizations like the MICOC may want to reconsider their courting of these extremists and the people who promote them. They just may come to the same decision conservatives did in 1963, when they decided Skousen's extremism was too much. "No conservative organization with any mainstream credibility wanted anything to do with him."

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Our Nation's Lost Decade

2009-09-17T11:51:00.001-04:00

If you feel like a hamster on a wheel getting nowhere fast, there's an explanation for it according to this NYT's op-ed columnist.

For average Americans, the last 10 years were a lost decade. At the end of President George W. Bush’s eight years in office, American households had less money and less economic security, and fewer of them were covered by health care than 10 years earlier, the Census Bureau reported in its annual survey.

The poverty rate in 2008 rose to 13.2 percent, the highest in 11 years, while median household income fell to $50,303. Ten years earlier, adjusted for inflation, it was $51,295.

In fact, income for the median American household fell for the first time in four decades. The Great Recession gets some of the blame, but the decline started well before the housing and financial sectors collapsed.

Harvard economist Lawrence Katz explains what happened: "We had a plutocratic boom. Then we have egalitarian recessions. Taken together, only the top ends up growing, on average." And the top did very well indeed: "During the same period, the average income of the richest tenth of a percent increased by about $2 million, or about 35%." They can thank President Bush for his $1.3 trillion tax cuts.

How did average Americans fare? People in their prime earning years (age 45 to 54) took "the biggest hit in the last years of the Bush Administration, their median income fell by $5,000. And the region that suffered most — the South."

Income went down for all races, but "Hispanics experienced some of the biggest losses. Income declined 5.6 percent for Hispanic households, 4.4 percent for Asians, 2.8 percent for African American families and 2.6 percent for non-Hispanic whites. Hispanics and Asians also showed the biggest increases in poverty rates."

Poverty really hit children according to the EPI:

A Sept. 10 report from the Census Bureau shows that the child poverty rate rose to 19.0% in 2008, from 18% in 2007. That translates to 14.1 million children living in poverty in the richest nation on earth.

In 2008, more than one in three - 35.3% - of all people living in poverty were children. EPI projects that with the continuing deterioration in the labor market, by 2009 a quarter of all children in this country will be living in poverty and by 2010 the child poverty rate will be 26.6%.

This would represent an increase of 10.4 percentage points from 2000 to 2010 – truly a lost decade.

Speaking of the labor market, the Bush administration failed miserably on job creation according to Market Watch:

...the private sector didn't just lose jobs over the last month or the last year -- it's lost jobs over the last decade.

Yes, the very segment of the economy that was supposed to thrive under the Bush administration ended up with a net loss of 223,000 jobs since August 1999, according to the latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Meanwhile, the nation's population has grown by 33.5 million people.

That's the worst job-creating performance by the private sector since, you guessed it, the Great Depression.

On top of that, the government created 2.1 million jobs. Wait, you say -- isn't that a positive? Well, no, because it's the worst performance by the government over a 10-year period since the last major recession of the early 1990s.

And something bad happened to young workers over the past decade too:

Since 1999, more of them now have lower-paying jobs, if they can get a job at all; health care is a rare luxury and retirement security is something for their parents, not them. In fact, many—younger than 35—still live at home with their parents because they can’t afford to be on their own.

Heckuva job, President Bush. Heckuva job, Republicans. You get credit for our "lost decade" and we get to live with the results. Some deal.

Max Baucus Delivers - For the Insurance Industry

2009-09-16T15:30:00.001-04:00

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus finally released his health care plan after months of haggling. I'm not too impressed, especially on the matter of affordability.

It would extend benefits to millions of people who are uninsured by broadly expanding Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poor, and by offering subsidies to individuals and families with modest incomes to help them buy insurance.

The proposal would also set limits on out-of-pocket health care expenses. It would cap at 13 percent of household income — not including cost-sharing such as co-payments and deductibles — the cost of insurance premiums for middle-class Americans who just miss qualifying for the new government subsidies.

Starting in 2013, it would require nearly all Americans to obtain coverage or face a penalty of up to $3,800 a year for families.

Did the committee see this item in yesterday's USA Today?

An average family health insurance policy now costs more than some compact cars, and four in 10 companies will likely pass more of that expense on to workers, according to a closely watched survey of businesses released Tuesday.

The average cost of a family policy offered by employers was $13,375 this year, up 5% from 2008, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust survey found. By comparison, wages rose 3% over that period, the study said.

Or this information from Kaiser?

Let's do some very simple arithmetic. Start with a fairly conservative assumption: If we assume that premium increases over the next ten years will average what they did over the last five (about 6.1% per year), the average premium for a family policy in 2019 will be $24,180. That's a big number. On the other hand, if we assume increases revert to the average of the last ten years—an average annual increase of about 8.7% and a very plausible scenario—premiums in 2019 will average a whopping $30,803, a very scary number.

If my employer doesn't provide health insurance, I'd be better off paying the $3,800 penalty. No wonder Democrats and Republicans have raised all kinds of objections. In fact, Democrat Jay Rockefeller expressed very strong opposition to various features of the bill, including affordability, and he was supported by Yale Professor Jacob Hacker.

Have To Ensure That Coverage Is Affordable: Hacker pointed out a public option would save approximately $150 billion over 10 years and allow the government to invest those savings into better and stronger subsidies.

Hacker is the person widely credited with coming up with the idea for a public option. Did I mention Baucus's plan doesn't include one?

The Baucus plan calls for the creation of private, nonprofit health insurance cooperatives to compete with private insurers, a compromise aimed at bridging the gap between Democrats who want a government-run insurance plan and Republicans who adamantly oppose that idea.

As insurers, the cooperatives could offer their coverage plans on the exchanges.

And in a nod to the stiff Republican opposition, the proposal does not include a trigger calling for the creation of a public plan if the legislation fails to make affordable health insurance widely available, a compromise step that Mr. Obama has indicated he could accept.

No trigger. No public option. Unrealistic subsidies. This isn't reform. It's a handout to the insurance industry. That's not to say the public option is dead in the water.

Instead, Mr. Baucus seems to have left the public option to the alternate health care legislation developing in the House, where more liberal Democrats strongly support the idea and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has called it crucial to getting a bill adopted in her chamber.

We really need Pelosi to deliver on the public option. The bottom line on affordability according to Ezra Klein is that the premium subsidies aren't where they need to be, but are pretty good, particularly for folks making up to 300 percent of the poverty line. However, ...

The question is what happens when you get sick. And the answer is pretty much that people making more than 200 percent of the poverty line will be less ruined than they'd be under current law, but still facing tens of thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses a year.

Medical bankruptcy, in other words, isn't going away. One fairly dramatic way to think about this is that health-care costs are so high in this country that we can talk about spending almost $900 billion helping low-income Americans afford coverage and still be left with a situation where coverage is unaffordable and illness rips through a family's savings.

So after months of wrangling and innumerable compromises meant to attract Republican ~~never existed~~ support, this is what we get from the Finance Committee. Baucus isn't crying though. In fact, he's laughing all the way to the bank where he's depositing the $3 million he got from the insurance industry.

Protest Racism, Glenn Beck and the MI Chamber of Commerce

2009-09-15T10:16:00.003-04:00

Today, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce is hosting keynote speaker Glenn Beck at their 2009 "Future Forum" even though 62 companies have withdrawn their ads from his show, and he's now lost over 50 percent of his ad dollars. Major corporations dropped Beck because his extremist views don't align with their values or corporate culture. Beck called our president a racist with a "deep-seated hatred of white people." (The president is working hard to provide health care to all Americans, regardless of color. What's so racist about that?)

I've been writing about Beck and the Chamber for several weeks now and it wasn't until today that the media reported on it. Kathy Barks Hoffman reported that the MSU College Democrats and other groups would be protesting at the East Lansing event tonight, and she quoted Progress Michigan as saying the visit "brings shame" to the state. Chamber President Rich Studley sees it differently.

Chamber President Rich Studley says his group has a tradition of inviting speakers from across the political and ideological spectrum.

State Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer spoke last year, and Democratic strategist James Carville has spoken in the past.

Studley says the dinner is all about "ideas and healthy debate."

I'm pretty sure Brewer and Carville have never called a president or Supreme Court Justice a racist, or prayed for a politician to burst into flames. Beck said all of those "healthy" things and then some.

The Chamber chose a keynote speaker known for his inflammatory, over-the-top, racist rhetoric to speak at a forum sponsored by businesses. Racism is unhealthy and businesses should be sending that message loud and clear, not promoting it by choosing a keynote speaker known for those sentiments.

Healthy is standing up to racism. Healthy is being strongly committed to diversity. This is what AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka said earlier this week at the AFL-CIO National Summit on Diversity in Pittsburgh:

The union movement is becoming more diverse and the new leadership of the AFL-CIO is committed to working harder to reach out to young workers, people of color, women and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers...

And this is what voices across the union movement said:

...we as a union movement need to look out for justice and fairness for every worker—on the job, in the community and in the union structure itself.

That includes not just race and gender, but also national origin, ability, sexual orientation, age and gender identity. And it doesn’t just mean talking with workers from various backgrounds—it means making sure that the leadership and the decision makers in unions reflect the members they represent.

By inviting Glenn Beck to speak to Michigan's business community, the Chamber leadership sends the message that they don't have a problem with racism. That's wrong, and it's not healthy for our state.

The MSU Dems are asking people to join them in protesting Beck's appearance night. You can RSVP on their Facebook page or contact Mitchell Rivard, President of the MSU College Democrats, at (989) 450-2534 or president@msudems.org. Please consider joining them.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

More Advertisers Drop Glenn Beck; The MI Chamber of Commerce Stands by Their Man

2009-09-10T12:01:00.002-04:00

Six new advertisers have pledged not to run ads on Glenn Beck's show, bringing the total to 62.

ColorOfChange.org today confirmed that six new companies whose ads aired recently during Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck program have pledged to not to run ads on the show going forward. The additions -- Aegon, Ashley Furniture, Humana, Luxottica Retail (retail parent of LensCrafters and Pearle Vision), United States Postal Service and Wyeth Consumer Healthcare -- bring the number of companies boycotting Glenn Beck to 62. ColorofChange.org launched its campaign against Beck last month after the Fox News Channel host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" during an appearance on Fox & Friends.

Advertisers may be withdrawing their support, but Glenn Beck's racist rants and fear-mongering haven't dissuaded the Michigan Chamber of Commerce from hosting him as their keynote speaker at the Chamber's annual "Future Forum," scheduled for Tuesday, September 15 at Michigan State University's Kellogg Center.

We've heard quite a bit from the MCoC in recent days - they've argued against Michigan tax increases and given their ideas on budget reform - but not a single word about Glenn's racist comments. Kraft Foods spoke out, and so did General Mills and Mercedes-Benz. His extremist views don't align with their values or corporate culture.

Beck's racist views shouldn't align with the MCoC's either. African-Americans comprise 14.2 percent of our state's population, and minorities represent nearly 20 percent overall. They deserve a business community that has their best interests in mind too, not just those of white people.

Michigan deserves a Chamber that doesn't alienate minorities either. We're trying to attract new businesses and jobs to the state, not chase them away, but that's essentially the message being sent across the country. Thinking of relocating to Michigan? Minorities not welcome.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

What About Tort Reform?

2009-09-02T15:00:00.000-04:00

Tort reform is getting lots of attention. It was brought up at Gary Peters' and Pete Hoekstra's town hall meetings yesterday. I don't know what either gentleman said in response, but I hope they pointed out that in 2004 the Congressional Budget Office pegged the costs of malpractice lawsuits at less than 2 percent. They also noted that “even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.”

Small savings add up and shouldn't be discounted, but if a doctor mistakenly amputates your wrong leg that's life changing. How do you put a price tag on something so horrific? And don't believe the hype about frivolous lawsuits. Health Beat reports the following facts from a study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health and published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The great majority of patients who sustain a medical injury as a result of negligence do not sue.” Indeed, the New York Times reports, although “recent studies have found that one of every 100 hospital patients suffers negligent treatment, and that as many as 98,000 die each year as a result . . . only a small fraction of injured patients — perhaps 2 percent—press legal claims.

And it appears that doctors are paying high malpractice insurance rates in part because of a few bad apples:

“Just 1.1 percent of all doctors accounted for 30 percent of all malpractice payments made between 1990 and 2002, while only 5.2 percent of doctors were responsible for 55 percent of all payouts.” A very small group of doctors are losing or settling malpractice lawsuits, but they are losing big.

“Eighty percent of claims involved injuries that caused significant or major disability (39 percent and 15 percent, respectively) or death (26 percent).”

According to the Washington Independent, tort reform is unlikely to cut health care costs since studies show malpractice awards are not the big driver of skyrocketing costs, and Bloomberg reported that malpractice lawsuits are a red herring.

...annual jury awards and legal settlements involving doctors amounts to “a drop in the bucket” in a country that spends $2.3 trillion annually on health care, said Amitabh Chandra, a Harvard University economist. Chandra estimated the cost at $12 per person in the U.S.

Besides, as Barbara O'Brien of Mahablog blog points out, most tort laws are state laws, and tort reform is primarily a state-level issue; a great many of the "tort reforms" conservatives insist are necessary to bring down health care costs already have been enacted in most states, and in many states, malpractice suits have been significantly reduced; and the fact is, in recent years malpractice claims have dropped significantly, but health care costs continue to rise.

So why all the talk about tort reform? I suspect O'Brien hit on the real reason:

In the 1980s Karl Rove identified tort reform as a strategic wedge issue for Republicans, for two reasons. First, trial lawyers tend to be Democratic voters, and demonizing trial lawyers could help smear the Dems by association. Second, the industries pushing tort reform had a whole lot of money to give to campaigns.

Just once I wish Republicans would do what's best for people, not themselves or special interests. Tort reform may need to be tweaked at some point in the future, but our immediate need is to get people high-quality, affordable care while reforming the insurance industry. Enough with the misleading talk; it's time to take action.

No Word Of Thanks From Foreign Automakers For Cash For Clunkers Program

2009-08-31T15:38:00.001-04:00

Cash for Clunkers was a real bonanza for foreign automakers. Toyota's market share was 19.4 percent, Honda's was 13 percent, Nissan's was nearly 9 percent and Hyundai's was 7 percent. (Ford sales topped 14 percent, GM reported 17 percent and Chrysler's share was 6.6 percent.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the intent of Cash for Clunkers to stimulate domestic auto manufacturing by increasing sales (along with taking old gas-guzzlers off the road)? Oh, that's right, I forgot that when Democrat Betty Sutton proposed restricting the cash coupons to cars made in the U.S., foreign manufacturers threw a fit.

"The (Sutton) bill as written is unfairly protectionist," said a spokesman for Mazda North America.

"Any program must treat all manufacturers equally, regardless of where their corporate headquarters is located," said a spokesman for Volkswagen in the United States.

Foreign automakers got their way and it paid off handsomely, particularly for Toyota, which sold nearly 1 out of every 5 cars that were purchased. A "Thank You" would have been nice, along with a vow to treat workers "equally" with their domestic counterparts. Instead, this is how Toyota returned the favor for its uptick in U.S. market share.

Toyota said it would close its New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. plant in Fremont, Calif., in 2010, after General Motors decided to pull out of the 25-year-old joint venture as part of its broad reorganization plan. The NUMMI plant employs 4,500 UAW-represented autoworkers and an estimated 35,000 supplier and other spin-off jobs are expected to be indirectly impacted.

The NUMMI plant is also their only UAW facility in the country, which probably played a roll in their decision, especially considering the now-infamous memo from several years ago where Toyota's brass expressed their concern that "workers’ wages are growing faster than the company's profits." To rectify this situation, Toyota announced their newest plants would pay workers based on "local manufacturing wages" – not UAW scale. That's doublespeak for low wages in right-to-work states.

It doesn't appear Toyota bargained in good faith with the UAW either. As far back as 2007, the UAW started making nice with management, offering proposals for the increased use of temporary employees and other cost-cutting measures. And, according to this NUMMI employee, "'there’s plenty of blame to go around' and the union knows that they aren’t wanted. However, "the union has generally been willing to do their part to support the company. Toyota just hasn’t negotiated anything with the union. Our contract ended last month."

I've resigned myself to the fact that globalization is here to stay and people are free to spend their money where they want, but as Peter De Lorenzo wrote in The United States of Toyota...

Toyota earned a $13.2 billion profit in 2006. And where, exactly, did those profits go? It seems there's one very big thing that isn't American about Toyota, and that is where those profits go at the end of the day. To me, that makes Toyota a Japanese company, plain and simple. A company that is now inexorably woven into the fabric of this country, but a Japanese company nonetheless.

The profits earned by Honda, Mazda, Hyundai and other foreign manufacturers go back to their respective countries too. It infuriates me that these companies are given free access to the U.S. auto market, yet their home countries aren't as open, imposing higher tariffs and restrictions on the number of imported vehicles allowed. And, adding insult to injury, they intentionally strive to drive down the wages of American workers by locating in low wage, right-to-work states where they usually receive large tax subsidies to build their plants. I don't know about you, but I don't allow guests to dictate how I run my household, and I don't find myself inclined to buy these companies cars because I know that it comes with a price to my fellow Americans.

In Toyota's case, their lack of respect for American workers and families may be coming back to haunt them. According to Freep columnist Sarah Webster, the automaker is facing a lawsuit that could be a public relations nightmare, and "a former Toyota attorney is accusing the automaker of illegally withholding evidence in hundreds of rollover death and injury cases, in a "ruthless conspiracy" to hide evidence of "its vehicles' structural shortcomings."

Americans have opened their wallets to Toyota and other foreign automakers for decades, but maybe it's time for people to ask just what we've gained in return. I just don't see the benefits.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

The "Real Death Panels"

2009-08-27T11:22:00.002-04:00

Americans United for Change takes on the "death panel" myth conservatives continue to push by pointing to the real culprits. Hint: It's not the government.

Americans United for Change unveiled a new television ad today called “Real Death Panels” that turns the table on the thoroughly debunked myth advanced by conservative politicians and pundits -- that ‘death panels’ are part of President Obama’s proposal for health insurance reform – by spotlighting the real death panels that exist in America today: private insurance companies that routinely deny claims made by policy holders or refuse to issue policies altogether, citing “pre-existing conditions,” with sometimes deadly consequences.

In a press release from Jeremy Funk, Press Secretary of Americans United for Change, he points out that “Conservative politicians and pundits will do anything to keep the “death panels” fantasy alive as part of an unscrupulous and concerted effort to kill health insurance reform. But where’s the hysteria from these same conservatives over the real death panels that exist right now in America with the big insurance companies denying millions of claims made by policy holders or refusing to issue policies altogether, citing “pre-existing’’ conditions?"

Some related info:

From HealthReform.gov: Coverage Denied: How the Current Health Insurance System Leaves Millions Behind. “Pre-Existing Conditions” Affect Millions of Americans

In an op-ed from NYT's columnist Nicholas Kristof: Health Care Fit for Animals

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Republicans Using Seniors for Partisan Purposes

2009-08-24T14:36:00.002-04:00

Sen. Grassley is making up excuses as he goes along. He's the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee and his group recently decided to exclude end-of-life counseling from the House bill because, in Grassley's words, "We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma."

However, yesterday, on Face the Nation, Grassley admitted that the House bill would not "pull the plug on grandma." He lied and got called on it, so now Grassley is using the cost to justify dumping the counseling provision.

SCHIEFFER: Well, that’s what I was trying to get from you this morning. You’re not saying that this legislation would pull the plug on grandma, you’re just saying there are a lot of people out there who think that it would. Or do you want to say this morning that that is not true, that it won’t do that?

GRASSLEY: It won’t do that, but I wanted to explain why my constituents are concerned about it, and I also want to say that there is an $8 billion cost with that issue, and if you’re trying to save money and you put an $8 billion of doctors giving you some advice at the end of life, doctors are going to take advantage of earning that $8 billion and constituents see that as an opportunity to save some money. [emphasis added]

Grassley is being penny wise and pound foolish. Counseling may cost $8 billion, but according to the Urban Institute, the government could save $90.8 billion over 10 years by better managing end-of-life care.

Also, according to Harvard Science, "in the Archives of Internal Medicine, investigators... found that patients who reported having an EOL conversation had an estimated average of $1,876 in health care expenses during their final week of life, compared with $2,917 for those who didn't, a difference of $1,041, or 36 percent."

Savings aside, a new study offering end-of-life counseling to dying cancer patients found that it improved their mood and quality of life, and the patients who got counseling also lived an average of 5 months longer. Death is scary for most of us, but if counseling improves our mood and helps us enjoy what time we have remaining on earth, that's a good thing.

Besides, Republicans like Grassley (and McCotter) are simply grasping at straws in their opposition because end-of-life counseling is already included in Medicare, and has been since 2005 when Republicans championed the plan.

People aged 65 are entitled to a "Welcome to Medicare" exam that includes a physical and mental assessment, counseling on how Medicare works and what it covers, tips on how to prevent falls at home and the now-controversial counseling. The government would pay for this up to one year after Medicare enrollment. [emphasis added]

The proposed health care legislation that Grassley's Senate Finance Committee dumped would have paid for end-of-life discussions every five years instead of the one time, and it was "milder than legislation sponsored by Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., that would have required Medicare patients to have a living will."

Republicans are shameful. They've thrown our senior citizens under the bus for partisan purposes, along with our democracy. Or, as Joe Klein said, "How can you sustain a democracy if one of the two major political parties has been overrun by nihilists?

(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

Health Care and Personal Responsibility

2009-08-20T13:05:00.002-04:00

Free Press columnist Brian Dickerson asked a provocative question in his column today: Do we all have the same right to health care?

What about these men he saw last weekend at the Woodward Dream Cruise?

...a trio of well-fed spectators wedged into identical lawn chairs on the public right-of-way. [...] Each held a beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other, and all three sported pendulous bellies that spilled over their beltlines and glistened in the midday sun."

Why shouldn't those men be entitled to health care? Obesity and obesity related-conditions like hypertension have been blamed for our rising health care costs, but other major factors include spending on prescription drugs and new medical technologies, longer life spans, a greater prevalence of chronic illnesses, an aging population, and high administrative costs. Poverty, stress, air pollution and environmental hazards affect our health too.

And healthy habits do not necessarily translate into lower costs (via Economix blog/NYT).

Vermonters have the healthiest behaviors, including less smoking and more exercise, according to the latest Gallup-Healthways Healthy Behavior Sub-Index numbers. [...]

The states with the unhealthiest behaviors were primarily located in the Midwest and the South; the worst were Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia and Indiana.

How do these healthy behaviors factor into health spending in each state? Not a whole lot, or so it appears on its face. ...

The Western states showed both healthy behavior and lower health costs, but the Northeastern states spent a lot per capita on health care despite their relatively healthy habits. Vermont, for example, spent $6,069 per person on health care in 2004, the ninth-highest level out of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Dickerson believes everyone should enjoy access to some minimum level of preventative and acute care, but he wants to add stipulations, i.e. "reimbursement for the cost of treating many chronic health problems should depend, at least to some extent, on what steps the patient has taken to avoid them."

I'm in favor of personal responsibility too, although I'm not sure how possible it is to accurately measure a person's efforts. And in the case of drinking, smoking and overeating, there are often underlying emotional and psychological problems that make quitting extremely difficult. Is it fair to penalize them for falling off the wagon?

Fortunately, helping people live healthier lives is being addressed by President Obama whose principles for health reform include prevention and wellness initiatives. They're also included in the Senate HELP Committee and House Tri-Committee plans. (See a side-by-side comparison of all plans here.)

We need to get health care reform passed and make available to Americans the tools and information they need to live healthier lives today. Nitpicking about personal responsibility and unhealthy habits only serves to slow down or sink reform.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Just Say No to DNC Donations

2009-08-18T12:00:00.001-04:00

The Democratic National Committee called me this morning and asked if I could contribute $100 dollars to help move the Democratic agenda forward. This was my not too lady-like response:

I will not contribute another dime to Democrats until they get their shit together on passing health care reform that includes a public option.

What is the matter with Democrats? Voters handed them a mandate for change and they're wimping out on us. Quit listening to the teabaggers, deathers, Blue Dogs, and people like Grassley, Betsy McCaughey and Dick Armey and his Freedom Works. They don't represent the majority of Americans who say we should have the option of government-run health insurance.

They don't represent the majority of Americans who took this CNN poll. (Results as of 9:30 a.m. this morning.)

And they don't represent the one in four Americans who now call health care the nation's most important problem - up from 16% a month ago and 6% a year ago.

Consider this tough love, Dems. I can't show my displeasure at the ballot box until next year, but I can - and I will - stop enabling your bad behavior. When you're ready to start talking about public health insurance again, I'll consider making a donation, but until then you're on your own.

Health Care Debate Takes Compassionate Turn

2009-08-12T12:40:00.002-04:00

What two words have been missing from the health care debate on the right? Compassion and religion. The party of compassionate conservatism has always been quick to use religion when it served their purpose in the past, but curiously, neither word has been mentioned often in relation to health care reform. There have been a few exceptions though. While conducting a town hall in Lebanon, PA, Sen. Arlen Specter was threatened with God's wrath by one protester.

"One day, God's gonna stand before you," he said. "And he's gonna judge you and the rest of your damn cronies up on the Hill, and then you can get your just desserts."

I wonder if that person was referring to the lies being told by some critics? As Jim Wallis of Sojourners recently said, "one important moral principle for the health-care debate is truth-telling."

The religious right may be keeping quiet about this issue, but a coalition of interfaith religious groups is backing health care reform. They've launched a 40 day campaign targeting 100 member of Congress and they'll participate in a telephone call-in event with President Obama on Aug 19.

Members of the group said Monday that they intend to fight back against what they say are lies being told about health reform.

“All of God’s children [have] got to be covered now,” said Rev. Jim Wallis, the CEO of Sojourners. “This is not a partisan political move. You are going to hear the moral drumbeat throughout this debate.”

The campaign is sponsored and organized by PICO National Network, Faith in Public Life, Faithful America, Sojourners and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

Catholics in Alliance believe "health care is a basic human right, not a privilege," and Faithful America is letting Congress know people of faith support health care reform in a national TV ad.

Christians aren't alone in this effort. The coalition also includes Jewish and Muslim leaders. In fact, the National Democratic Jewish Council launched a "Rabbis for Health Insurance Reform" webpage urging Congress to get legislation passed for "Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Muslims, and Jews."

"Our tradition teaches us to pursue justice," the site reads. "Yet it is not a just society when families are forced to choose between paying their mortgages or paying for prescription drugs. It is not a just society when small businesses must choose between being profitable or providing coverage to their employees. It is not a just society when people are denied health insurance because they have a pre-existing condition for which they need medical care. Equal access to safe and affordable health care is an essential social justice issue of our time.

If ever there was a time to bring religion and compassion into the discussion, this is it. As one Indianapolis pastor who is part of the coalition said, this "effort addresses the suffering parishioners they [clergy] see each week who can’t afford treatments until their ailments reach emergency room levels. ... This is as much a crisis of faith as it is a crisis of health care.”

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Reverse the Bush-era Tax Cuts

2009-08-10T11:25:00.001-04:00

A group of rich people, who call themselves Wealth for the Common Good, have started a campaign calling for an immediate rollback of President Bush's tax cuts. I can already hear the cries of protest from people like Mitch Albom, Mike Bishop and other defenders of the rich.

The group believes that "Obama’s election demonstrates broad public support, even among the wealthy, for the idea that the wealthiest Americans should pay more. As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama pledged to raise taxes on households with incomes over $250,000 by reversing the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. A majority of these high-income individuals, 52 percent, still voted for him."

Here's their statement:

Our country is facing the worst economic challenge since the Great Depression and an urgent need to make a long overdue investment in bringing jobs and stability back to our communities. This investment should be paid for, in part, by repealing the Bush-era tax cuts our country cannot afford.

Those of us with taxable incomes over $235,000 benefited from the upside of the economy during the last decade and profited for eight years from a 2001 tax cut. Now is the time to give back.

We would see a minimal tax increase—from 35% to 39.6%, a rate still far lower than the one under President Reagan—but the increased revenue would raise an estimated $43 billion per year. This would affect a very small fraction of U.S. taxpayers—about 2.5 percent.

Let the weeping and gnashing of teeth from defenders of the rich begin.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

Michigan Highest Ranked State in Cash for Clunker Voucher Requests

2009-08-05T09:46:00.002-04:00

Jalopnik reports that domestic car-producing states who have a large stake in the industry are where most Cash for Clunker vouchers are being requested, and Michigan leads the pack.

According to data from the NHTSA, Michigan is the highest-ranked state in terms of spending with $34,420,500 in voucher requests through Monday afternoon. This far outpaces Ohio, which is in second with $29,274,000 in requested vouchers. California is the most populous state in the nation, but is in third with $26,433,000, followed closely by Minnesota with $26,168,000 in requests.

The area with the least number of trades was Washington, DC, where not a single person took advantage of the program.

Jalopnik concluded that Cash for Clunkers appears to be popular across the map, but the highest concentration is in areas where people are concerned with the performance of the Not-So-Big Three (their words, not mine). That makes sense. The trickle down effect from these car sales won't just help our automakers, but Michigan stands to gain in terms of tax revenue and our local communities benefit when salespeople start spending their commissions at stores, restaurants, etc.

These were the ten most purchased cars according to Jalopnik (approximately 47% of the sales are vehicles from the Big-3).

1. Ford Focus
2. Toyota Corolla
3. Honda Civic
4. Toyota Prius
5. Toyota Camry
6. Ford Escape FWD
7. Hyundai Elantra
8. Dodge Caliber
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevrolet Cobalt

Jalopnik theorizes that foreign cars took 6 of the 10 slots because domestic automakers don't have the most fuel efficient vehicle choices on the road. I have to agree. The Big-3 were warned, but they ignored fuel efficiency because they were making tons of money on SUVs and trucks. Better late than never I guess. And, as Jalopnik points out, "the news is still slightly better for them that they're able to keep pace with their foreign competition."

(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

The Time for a National Manufacturing Policy was Yesterday

2009-08-04T13:11:00.002-04:00

Employees of the Lordstown General Motors plant in Ohio are banking on the Chevy Cruze to keep them working. We should be cheering them on too. Why? Because Lordstown's story is being told in auto communities across the nation.

"The last eight months have been so chaotic," said Lordstown Mayor Michael Chaffee. "We went from the top of the world in August (2008), to treading water and praying in April."

But the Cruze gives Lordstown residents hope their plant will stay open. GM also hopes the smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle will carry the smaller, more efficient car company through the next century.

Keeping the plant is one thing, but in an area that American industry has been leaving for 30 years, the loss of jobs from the last major manufacturing employer is huge.

Twenty miles from Lordstown is Youngstown, Ohio, a once-booming manufacturing and industrial community that relied on steel mills to sustain its middle class. When the mills downsized or closed beginning in the late 1970s, residents left to seek work elsewhere, and the standard of living declined for those who remained.

Unlike previous decades, when industry left the area for other parts of the nation, companies are now moving out of the country entirely, permanently erasing thousands of jobs. And it's not just the jobs that are fading, but also health care, pensions and other benefits that built the working middle class.

John Russo, co-director for working class studies at Youngstown State University, has been studying this erosion for years and said he finds the push for cheaper U.S. labor depressing.

"We seem to be willing to create jobs for a working people where the wages and benefits cannot support paying their basic bills," Russo said. "So, it seems to me, Youngstown's story, now Lordstown's story, is a part of America's story as we begin this next century."

President Obama believes “The fight for American manufacturing is the fight for America’s future,” yet he hasn't come up with a formal plan to address the decline. Granted, he has a lot on his plate, but maybe he could find a few minutes to share a beer with Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown who is proposing a a national manufacturing policy that aligns federal actions with the goal of strengthening our manufacturing sector.

These are the five areas Brown believes our country should focus on (click the link to read the details): Innovation, Supply Chains, Skills, Coordination, and Fair Trade.

Fact: The United States now ranks behind every industrial nation except France in the percentage of overall economic activity devoted to manufacturing. Since 2007, we've lost two million manufacturing jobs and more than five million since 2000, but even in its weakened state, manufacturing is still an essential pillar of our economy.

Manufacturing accounts for $1.6 trillion -- nearly 12 percent -- of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It accounts for nearly three-fourths of the nation’s industrial research and development (R&D) -- with four manufacturing industries alone (computers and electronics, chemicals, aerospace, and autos) accounting for 56 percent of private sector R&D. The industry also accounts for 35 percent of value added in world high technology product production.

Jobs in the manufacturing industry pay 20 percent more on average than service jobs. Each manufacturing job supports 4-5 other jobs throughout the U.S. economy. While employment in manufacturing has steadily declined, one in six private sector jobs is still directly or indirectly tied to manufacturing.

Stabilizing and boosting manufacturing would help our economy, put people back to work, and rebuild the middle class. Obama has been saying all the right things, but he's been sending mixed messages about manufacturing's future.

While Obama felt it necessary to distance himself from the “buy America” provisions put in the stimulus bill, China has no such compunctions. As the Times reports, “when China authorized its first solar power plant this spring, it required that at least 80 percent of the equipment be made in China. When the Chinese government took bids this spring for 25 large contracts to supply wind turbines, every contract was won by one of seven domestic companies. All six multinationals that submitted bids were disqualified on various technical grounds, like not providing sufficiently detailed data.”...

China is intent on dominating the new energy markets of the future. If its past practices are any indication, it will subsidize exports, manipulate its currency, buy China at home, force multinationals to transfer technology and partner with Chinese companies, and engage in industrial piracy to make its way.

And China is not alone: Other countries continue to erect barriers to block American goods and mercantilism and subsidies still reign supreme.

Other countries protect their manufacturing. We shouldn't expect any less from the U.S.

Health care reform would help consumers too

2009-07-29T15:14:00.002-04:00

Health care reform is about more than helping the uninsured. President Obama is on the road today talking about reform and how it will help consumers. These are the highlights:

No Denials for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurers would be banned from refusing coverage based on medical history.

No Huge Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurers would be bound by annual caps on charges for out-of-pocket expenses

Preventive Care: Insurers would be required to cover checkups and tests like mammograms or diabetes screenings.

No Drops in Coverage for Major Illnesses: Companies would be barred dropping or diluting coverage for those who become seriously ill.

No Gender Disparities: Companies could not charge differently based on gender.

No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage.

Expanded Coverage for Young Adults: Family plans would cover people through age 26.

Renewal Guarantees: If premiums are paid, policies have to be renewed even if new illnesses emerge.

Obama calls these "health insurance consumer protections to make sure that those who have insurance are treated fairly and insurance companies are held accountable."

In my case, "no denials for pre-existing conditions" hits a nerve. My husband works in the auto industry and his employment is tenuous, along with his health insurance. If he loses that, it's scary to think we might not be able to get new coverage, particularly at our ages. We're too young for Medicare, but old enough that problems like high blood pressure and arthritis are starting to pop up.

Reform can't happen soon enough in my opinion.

Mitch Albom defends the richest 1 percent

2009-07-29T12:22:00.001-04:00

Did you catch Mitch Albom's column in the Free Press defending rich people from having to pay more in taxes in order to fund health care reform? Prepare yourself to gag:

In explaining why it was OK to sock a new 5.4% tax on the highest earners in this country — to pay for health care reform — President Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said this:

“The president believes that the richest 1% of this country has had a pretty good run of it for many, many, many years.”

Ah. So that’s it. The old “You’ve had it good enough for long enough” policy. That’s why a family earning a million dollars a year should now cough up $54,000 of that — in addition to all the other taxes it pays...

It is not that the rich should not pay fair taxes. They should.

But to justify a grossly overweighted tax by saying “You people have had it good long enough” is to engage in the worst and most destructive form of politics: class warfare.

"Grossly overweighted tax" is not only incorrect (which I'll get to later), but Mitch seems to forget who his target audience is: Poor slobs like me who bought his books and helped make him rich. I won't make that mistake again.

Speaking of his books, David Sirota notes that Albom has "made millions of dollars writing books about sick people and death." He also assumed "that because his writing comes into contact with the most gut-wrenching parts of health care system, and because he portrays himself as a shining beacon of compassion and selflessness, that he is, in fact, a somewhat compassionate human being."

However, after reading Albom's column in what Sirota calls "quite literally the most economically devastated city in the United States," he changed his opinion of him. "Albom is a run-of-the-mill royalist and right-wing psychopath."

And yet, Albom -- the guy who has made his pile by trumpeting his alleged compassion for the plight of the sick and dying -- is spending the most crucial week in the health care debate insisting that the superwealthy pay too much in taxes and never avoid paying what they owe. And more importantly, Albom spends this week insisting the major problem facing America is a "class warfare" that would ask a Goldman Sachs executive making $1 million a year to devote just 9-tenths of one percent more of his taxpayer-subsidized income to a universal health care program. And he's doing all this in the flagship paper of the city that has been most devastated by the economy.

Not only is Albom not compassionate, he's also a fool when it comes to that "grossly overweighted tax" he mentioned. His math is not only wrong, it's considerably off, by a factor of six according to A Tiny Revolution.

Someone making $1,000,000 per year wouldn't pay $54,000 more in taxes under this bill. They'd pay $9,000.

That's because the 5.4% surcharge would only apply to someone's income over $1,000,000. Your tax bill wouldn't suddenly go up by $54,000 if one year you made $1,000,000 instead of $999,999.

Albom writes at a third grade reading level and isn't a tax accountant (he has a degree in journalism from Columbia University plus an MBA from Columbia's Graduate School of Business), but that doesn't justify passing along false information as the truth. Or could it be, as A Tiny Revolution points out, that it's just acceptable practice in his line of work.

"There really is no field but right-wing punditry where you can make these kind of catastrophic errors and keep your job. You can't graduate from Columbia Medical School and become a surgeon if you believe human beings have six spleens, and you can't stay an anesthesiologist if you give someone six times too much Sevoflurane. But as long as your horrifying incompetence serves a right-wing agenda, there will always be a cozy home for you in journalism."

It's too bad Mitch didn't take to heart Morrie's words:

"So many people walk around with a meaningless life. They seem half-asleep, even when they're busy doing things they think are important. This is because they're chasing the wrong things. The way you get meaning into your life is to devote yourself to loving others, devote yourself to your community around you, and devote yourself to creating something that gives you purpose and meaning."

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Racial profiling or not, the Cambridge police were wrong

2009-07-23T12:36:00.002-04:00

It's probably safe to say President Obama could have been more tactful last night.

"The Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody [Skip Gates] when there was already proof that they were in their own home."

Tactful or not, police officers are no different from the rest of us - some of them do a good job and some of them don't. (See here, here and here.) In this case, I agree with the president that the police acted stupidly (and unprofessionally).

It should have been handled differently according to this former policeman.

I was an auxiliary police officer for 20 years, 11 in Michigan where a wise chief told us never, under any circumstances, were we to arrest someone for disorderly conduct. He said that if we couldn't find a more serious charge it was up to us to calm the person down. Otherwise he told us that using this charge was just an easy way to end a situation with a disruptive citizen without using the skill we were supposed to have to de-escalate. ...

As far as I'm concerned the police should have used their skills to de-escalate. This is part of their training.

It's possible Skip Gates blew up and got confrontational, but that doesn't justify arresting the man for breaking into his own house. As the president also said, "I think it's fair to say...any of us would be pretty angry." That seems like a reasonable assumption.

I actually have experience with "profiling" and can identify with Gates. Not too many people know this, but I have a disability that limits my walking distance so I use a wheelchair in public. About 15 years ago, while shopping at Lechters Housewares with my then 14-year-old daughter, I noticed that a salesclerk kept following behind us as we moved through the store. (My daughter was pushing me.) I assumed she was waiting to see if we needed any help so I turned around, told her we'd be fine and that she didn't need to wait on us. Her answer? I have orders to follow customers in wheelchairs to make sure they don't shoplift. I was flabbergasted. Had I been standing up, I probably would have fallen over!

Was I angry? You betcha, but I'm the type of person who busts into tears when I get angry. The yelling comes later. Anyway, the clerk took one look at my face and felt compelled to defend management's policy. She explained that disabled people in wheelchairs are a higher security risk because we can hide kitchen gadgets down by our sides or sit on stuff in order to smuggle it out.

Needless to say, I wasn't too pleased that she treated me like a criminal. I left the store and took my business elsewhere. Lechters went out of business in 2001, proving there is cosmic karma!

I don't know if racial profiling was the motivation behind Gate's arrest or not, but I can understand how a black man might feel in a situation like that because of my experience. Trust me. It's not a good feeling.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Americans continue to lose health care

2009-07-22T13:32:00.001-04:00

Americans can't afford to wait another year, another month or another day for health care reform. According to Families USA:

With each passing week that meaningful health care reform is not enacted, more families in every state are losing health coverage... Families USA based its state numbers on national estimates published in the peer-reviewed policy journal Health Affairs in May 2009. These estimates project that 6.9 million more Americans, primarily people in working families, will lose health coverage by the end of 2010. [emphasis added]

Their report breaks down the number of people who may lose health coverage between the beginning of 2008 (the period immediately after the last Census Bureau report on the number of uninsured) and the end of 2010 (the close of the current 111th Congress) and it shows a total of 162,100 Michiganders losing coverage during that period. That's 1,040 people per week, 4,500 per month and 54,030 per year.

The clock is ticking. Each week another 44,230 Americans lose their health coverage. Please, call 1-800-828-0498, ask to be connected to your member of Congress, and tell him/her to pass health care reform NOW.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

McCotter Makes Fun of Dems Health Plan

2009-07-16T13:59:00.000-04:00

Republicans think the Democrats' health care plan is a Faustian web of Washington bureaucracy. To make their case they're doing exactly what they did in 1994, when President Clinton unveiled his plan, they're circulating a chart with lots of pretty colors, boxes, lines and acronyms. It's meant to confuse people and make light of the Democrats' plan.

Thaddeus McCotter had this to say about it:

It might make for a lovely board game but it makes for horrible health care system.

McCotter obviously never had to deal with HMO's, referrals, denial of claims, etc. Or, as Jonathan Cohn put it:

But these charts--and, more important, the Republicans who use them as propoganda--tend to ignore one inconvenient fact: American health care is already complex. Ridiculously complex. Thanks to decades of haphazard, disorganized growth, it's evolved into a mind-numbing web of institutions, agencies, businesses, and individual actors. And while that may be self-evident to anybody who's ever had to deal with, say, a billing dispute between an insurer and hospital, it's easy to lose sight of that when the discussion is all about what reform might do--rather than what health care would be like without it.

TNR developed their own chart (with the help of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation) illustrating just how byzantine our system has become. McCotter should check out.

Actually, if bureaucracy is a problem for Republicans, they might want to get on board with single-payer.

Single payer reform... would eliminate the bewildering patchwork of private insurance plans with their exorbitant overhead and profits, as well as the costly paperwork burdens they impose on providers. These savings on bureaucracy - nearly $400 billion annually – are sufficient to cover all of the uninsured and to provide first dollar coverage for all Americans.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

Dave Camp Needs a Fact Checker

2009-07-15T11:00:00.003-04:00

(h/t Wonk Room)

Dave Camp (MI-R) should get his facts straight before opening his mouth on national television. He appeared on CNBC yesterday to discuss the House Democrats health care legislation that proposes a surtax on wealthy individuals in order to finance a portion of the $1.5 trillion cost of health reform. The surtax rates would be 5.4 percent for couples earning more than $1 million, 1.5 percent on couples with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million, and 1 percent on incomes over $350,000. ($280,000 a year for individuals.)

When asked about the surtax, this is what Camp said:

This is going to be a massive tax increase, half of which will be paid by small business. We expect that as many as 2 out of 3 manufacturers could pay significantly higher taxes under this.

Camp is so wildly off the mark he makes Sarah Palin look like a genius. According to the Wonk Room's Igor Volsky, "the overwhelming majority of small business owners earn far less than $350,000, and thus will not be affected by the tax. Of people who earn most of their income from their own business, 98 percent make less than $250,000, while “more than half have income below $30,000 and 80 percent make less than $100,000.”

That's a far cry from the figures used by Camp. Citizens for Tax Justice also ran the numbers and found that about 5 percent of actual small businesses would be affected by the surtax.

And what percent of Michigan taxpayers did CTJ find would pay a graduated surcharge? 0.7%

And before Dave Camp jumps in to defend those 0.7%, here's another fact from CTJ: "Under this proposal, the richest 1.3 percent of U.S. taxpayers would have an estimated total tax increase of $550 billion over ten years, which is considerably less than the total tax cuts this group received over the 2001-2010 period."

The millions of uninsured people in this country deserve better than wild exaggerations from politicians like Dave Camp. They deserve health care.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

Fear is not having health insurance

2009-07-08T13:29:00.000-04:00

Did you catch the ABC News story about security breaches at 10 randomly tested federal buildings today? Sen. Lieberman called it "stunning" and "shocking." He also said:

"If a terrorist group just did that in two or three federal buildings, it would not only really hurt some people; it would create a real crisis of confidence here in the United States about our homeland security."

No, Joe, the real crisis of confidence revolves around our lousy health care system. We all want to be safe from terrorists, but roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths occur in the U.S. each year because people lack health insurance. That's equivalent to six 9-11's.

It's time to start looking at public health care from another angle: Security.

It's what ought to be at the center of this debate, and it's the one thing private insurance companies will never offer.

The single-payer and hybrid systems in place in every other country in the developed world have many admirable features: lower costs, universal coverage, and better health outcomes. But what ought to make us most envious is their security -- it's what they have and we desperately need. If you live in Canada or Germany or France or Japan, there are some things you need never fear. You need never fear that your insurance company will tell you it won't cover treatment for your asthma because you had asthma before they signed you up. You need never fear that you will bankrupt your family because of expensive treatments for a serious illness. You need never fear that you will find yourself without coverage after your insurer dropped you or you lost your job. You might fear getting sick, but you won't fear that your life will be destroyed by not being able to pay for getting sick.

We spend huge sums of money protecting Americans from terrorists, criminals, drugs and other threats to our security; our lack of health care should be given the same priority.

Increase the Train Fund, Give the Work to Detroit

2009-06-19T13:38:00.003-04:00

A journalist writing in The Atlantic argues that the relative chump change being thrown at high speed rail (AIG and Citibank got 55 times as much, roughly $460 billion vs $8 billion) could become diluted across so many states that no one "will end up with a top-of-the-line system that could provide thousands of new jobs and an envy-inducing model for America." He offers a better alternative that benefits Michigan.

Instead of scattering nickels and dimes across dozens of states, a better idea would be to increase the train fund at least tenfold so America can have at least one legitimate high-speed rail line like Spain’s Madrid-to-Seville train, which runs at 186 mph (Amtrak averages only 79 nationwide). And let this man-on-the-moon project start in Detroit.

Yes, Detroit. The city that was once part of FDR’s “Arsenal of Democracy,” for its part in retooling auto plants to make World War II tanks and bombers, has easily a dozen empty auto plants that could be making train engines and train cars.

We also have the trained workforce. According to UAW Local 651 President Art Reyes, he has “a workforce of 900 that’s been downsized from 9,000, but every one of them is computer-literate and ready for cutting-edge, green-technology stuff, whether it’s wind turbines, next-generation auto batteries, or rail."

Increasing the train fund tenfold is a nice dream, but I doubt there's the political will, especially on the right. That's too bad, because - once again - we lag behind the rest of the world in progress. This is China's plan.

China, as part of their two-year stimulus plan, is poised to spend 3% of their GDP a year on public investments in renewable energy, low-carbon vehicles, high-speed rail, an advanced electric grid, efficiency improvements, and other water-treatment and pollution controls. This is about $12.6 million every hour. In the United States, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act invests about half as much as China on comparable priorities. This represents less than half of one percent of our 2008 gross domestic product.

There is good news though. The Midwest appears to be a frontrunner in the race for $8 billion in funds because we're part of the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission, along with seven other states, and federal guidelines give an edge to states that have banded together. It's a start.

Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

Who Do Americans Trust On Health Care Reform?

2009-06-17T13:23:00.004-04:00

Gallup asked Americans who they trust to make the right recommendations on health care reform. Guess who came in last. Republicans. Behind insurance companies!

Why don't Americans trust Republicans? Possibly because they continue to peddle lies and scare stories (socialism, socialism!).

Or because the Medicare Advantage program they rammed through during Bush's first term will give insurance companies "an estimated $177 billion in excess payments over 10 years to compete with Medicare - subsidies that Obama would sensibly cut to help pay for health care reform."

Or because Republicans blocked Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices, blocked importing drugs from Canada or Mexico, and argued that competition would lower prices. How did that work out?

Today, seniors pay 60% more for the same drugs than the price charged veterans because the Veteran's Administration does negotiate lower prices.

Republicans just aren't credible. They had an opportunity to do something good for seniors and they blew it, choosing instead to side with powerful pharmaceutical lobbyists.

The GOP's One Unforgivable Sin

2009-06-17T12:00:00.000-04:00

Sen. John Ensign's confession that he had an extramarital affair with a member of his campaign staff is a good news/bad news story. It's good news for Romney, Gingrich, Palin and other Republicans hoping to unseat Obama, but it's bad news for a party that continues to lose voters.

This is their problem, according to The Las Vegas Sun.

The Republican Party didn’t make a deal with the devil.

It made a deal with God, or at least people who said they were God’s representatives — a certain class of very political and ideological preachers.

The deal, engineered by Republican operatives such as Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, went like this: Be against gays and abortion and for prayer in the schools, and in return, those preachers would proclaim the GOP the party of God and deliver millions of suburban and rural voters — enough to win elections for three decades.

But the deal carried a risk: Any behavior by Republican officeholders or public figures that seemed at odds with a certain kind of Old Testament morality — a tryst in an airport bathroom, a painkiller addiction, a sexual harassment lawsuit — and voters might feel betrayed and manipulated.

And the deal would collapse.

The last couple of elections show that the deal has been collapsing for sometime, and it's not just among Bible believing Republicans. As the LVS points out, voters are leaving the party because of their one unforgivable sin: Hypocrisy.

People are disgusted with Republicans. Instead of attacking other people's patriotism, morals, marriages, work ethics, etc., the GOP needs to get their own house in order. Calling for Ensign to resign is a good first step. After all, it was Ensign who called for Bill Clinton to resign, and it would certainly go a long way toward fulfilling the Senator's vision of "people who are in office who will hold themselves to a little higher standard."

Or do higher standards only apply to other people?

A.M.A. Opposes Public Health Care Plan - Again

2009-06-11T13:05:00.001-04:00

Joining Big Pharma and the insurance industry, the AMA announced it is opposed to public health insurance.

"The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs," read an organizational statement to the Senate Finance Committee. "The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans."

Aside from the fact that public plans do not restrict patient choice, this isn't the first time the AMA (which ranks second only to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the last ten years in the amount it has spent to influence Congress) has spoken out against public health insurance.

Forty years ago, the AMA declared its opposition to creating a public health insurance option people over age 65, complete with dire predictions of the destruction of American medicine.

Going back further, the "AMA has fought almost every major effort at health care reform of the past 70 years."

The group's reputation on this matter is so notorious that historians pinpoint it with creating the ominous sounding phrase "socialized medicine" in the early decades of the 1900s.

"The AMA used it to mean any kind of proposal that involved an increased role for the government in the health care system," Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at the University of North Carolina, told NPR in a 2007 interview. "They also used it to mean things in the private system that they didn't like. So, at one point, HMOs were a form of socialized medicine."

Their latest opposition is based on the belief that without private insurers in the market, "the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers." Critics disagree:

Indeed, in mid-February, the Commonwealth Fund put out a report on the most cost-effective ways to revamp the health care industry. The public plan, it concluded, "plays a central role in harnessing markets for positive change" by lowering premiums for many Americans by, potentially, $1,000 a year. In addition, the Commonwealth Fund added, a public plan would help decrease the number of uninsured in the country from "an estimated 48 million in 2009 (16 percent of the U.S. population) to 4 million by 2012."

Will the AMA's opposition carry any weight with Obama or Congress? This doctor says the AMA is no longer the force in American medicine that it was in the past.

In the 1960's, at the height of opposition to Medicare, the AMA claimed at least 70 percent of American doctors as members. Today, the AMA represents only a third of American doctors, most of them elderly. Almost 90 percent of doctors over age of 70 are members, but fewer than 35 percent of those aged 30 to 49 belong to the AMA.

They're also out-of-step with more than half of the of U.S. doctors who now favor switching to a national health care plan, as well the 67 percent of Americans who support creating a government-administered public health insurance option similar to Medicare to compete with private plans.

Don't cave to special interest groups like the AMA, Washington. Instead, take to heart the words of Dr. Marcia Angell who spoke before the House HELP Committee earlier this week.

I want to mention one final and very important reason for enacting a nonprofit single-payer health program. We live in a country that tolerates enormous and growing disparities in income, material possessions, and social privilege. That may be an inevitable consequence of a free market economy. But those disparities should not extend to denying some of our citizens certain essential services because of their income or social status.

One of those services is health care. Others are education, clean water and air, equal justice, and protection from crime, all of which we already acknowledge are public responsibilities. We need to acknowledge the same thing for health care. Providing these essential services to all Americans, regardless of who they are, marks a decent and cohesive society. It says that when it comes to vital needs, we are one nation, not 300 million individuals competing with one another.

The special interests opposing public health insurance are motivated by money and profits. There are some things more important in life than money, and health care is one of them.

Auto Industry Problems Prolong Nation's Misery

2009-06-10T15:48:00.001-04:00

The NY Times has an article about our state's efforts to remake ourselves without "King Auto" that touches on things most of know - film incentives, green jobs, battery production, and worker retraining. It also touched on the fact that our problems are impacting the country as a whole.

On a broader level, the troubles of the auto industry are having a profound impact on the overall United States economy. The industry — with Michigan as its center — now accounts for only 1.5 percent of the nation’s economic output, down from 3 percent in 2007 and 5 percent at its peak in the 1950s.

The automakers have historically played a big part in ending recessions. Car companies, in the past, would increase production and add workers to satisfy pent-up consumer demand after a downturn. But now, the industry’s troubles may be prolonging the misery.

“If not for the problems in the auto industry, this recession would have been much milder,” said Ben Herzon, an economist at Macroeconomic Advisors, in St. Louis. [emphasis added]

Okay, that's something most of us know too, but I pointed it out for all the Limbaugh and Hewitt trolls that might be reading this. Hoping that GM or Chrysler fails is not in the best interest of the country. When we lose jobs, we lose money, and in turn we stop spending. When we stop spending, businesses lose money and they're forced to layoff people or cut wages. Unless you're independently wealthy, the pain will eventually trickle down to you too. Understand?

Follow G.M. Restructing on the Web

2009-06-01T15:49:00.002-04:00

I'm still recharging my batteries and taking a break from blogging, but I thought I'd pass along a few links regarding GM that I thought you might find useful.

You can follow the GM bankruptcy proceedings online at GM Reinvention.com. The website answers questions about their restructuring and will post updates as they become available.

Want instant updates? Turn to Twitter.com/GMBlogs.

Finally, you can also check out FastLane Blog where Fritz Henderson had this to say:

We’re committed to open communications and I am personally putting a high priority on transparency. One way we’ll do this is by launching a series of live web chats on this website. I’ll kick things off later this week for one hour on Thursday, June 4 at 3 p.m. EDT. Following me, a steady stream of GM leaders from throughout the company will host additional chats, about two a week, on whatever topics are of most concern to you.

The weekly chats are a great idea and so is the high priority on transparency. It sounds like G.M. learned something from the Obama administration.

Taking a break

2009-05-19T09:27:00.003-04:00

William Wordsworth's sonnet, "The world is too much with us," reflects his longing for a much simpler time. I long for that simpler time too.

As many of you know, I lost my mother in February, welcomed a new granddaughter into the world in April, and have been living with uncertainty about my husband's job for what seems forever (he works for General Motors). And next week, we will finally put my mother to rest in the Keweenaw Peninsula, which is at the very top of Michigan. We had to wait for the 282 inches of snow they received this winter to melt before the cemetery could bury her.

All of this stress, excitement and uncertainty have taken a toll on me and I need a break from the world. That means no blogging or other unnecessary "stuff" for the time being. Keep up the good fight while I'm gone.

A High Stakes Game of Chicken

2009-05-15T08:42:00.000-04:00

Remind me never to play poker with President Obama. I have a feeling he's good.

After receiving $25 billion in taxpayer-funded TARP funds, greedy J.P. Morgan Chase decided to play hardball with the auto task force when it came time to negotiate over debt recovery before and during the Chrysler bankruptcy. According to the WSJ:

President Barack Obama's auto task force heard a blunt message early this spring from J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., the largest lender to Chrysler LLC. In any deal to remake the troubled auto maker, Chrysler would have to repay its lenders all $6.9 billion it owed.

"And not a penny less," said James B. Lee Jr., vice chairman at the bank, in a call to auto task-force boss Steven Rattner on March 29.

The next day, Mr. Obama called the banker's bluff. The president stepped before a podium to announce that Chrysler could face a disorderly bankruptcy or even liquidation. His meaning was clear: If that happened, the lenders would get nowhere near $6.9 billion.

A few hours later, Mr. Lee called Mr. Rattner back. "We need to talk," he said.

The banker's about-face was a vivid example of the government's tightening grip on a humbled financial industry. Pulling a trick from the hedge-fund playbook, the government used its leverage as the sole willing lender to Chrysler, either in bankruptcy court or out, to extract deep concessions from some of the country's biggest banks.

h/t to Epicurean Dealmaker who explains that the WSJ made it appear that almost all the lenders involved understood exactly what type of game they were playing:

Many of the lenders believed the administration wouldn't let Chrysler file for bankruptcy. "The plan was to call the government's bluff. The game was to game the government," said a manager of a distressed-debt fund.

Gaming the government is essentially the same as gaming the taxpayers. The good news according to E.D. is that the system worked exactly as it should.

The government simply did what any hedge fund driven by fiduciary duty and self interest would have done if it held the reins: it dictated the terms it wanted to see, and it told the creditors to pound sand if they didn't like it. The creditors, on the other hand, seemed to sally forth onto the field of battle without fully considering who was supplying their reinforcements (the Treasury), where they were fighting (in the forum of public opinion, as well as the arena of commerce), and the outside chance that their primary opponent might be smarter than a bag of hammers (and therefore realize and exploit its advantages). In return, they got schooled, but good.

Oh, yeah, he also had a comment for the whiners complaining about the government's involvement in economic affairs:

Deal with it. Buck up, and move on. Find a less lopsided game to play in.

Because I can guarantee you the government and 95% of the people who elected it to power don't give a rat's ass that you're going to lose money on your Chrysler bonds.

Yeah!

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

The Crime No One Talks About - Wage Theft

2009-05-14T11:10:00.001-04:00

I haven't had much time to read lately, but Kim Bobo's book, Wage Theft in America: Why Millions of Working Americans Are Not Getting Paid - And What We Can Do About It, will be the next one I pick up. Bobo is the Executive Director of Interfaith Worker Justice.

Here's a short synopsis from Joe's Union Review:

Bobo says wage theft in America is the crime wave no one talks about, and she is right. Billions of dollars' worth of wages are stolen from millions of workers in the United States every year. The scope of these abuses is as staggering as it is wrong - paying workers far less than the legal minimum wage, purposefully misclassifying employees as independent contractors, and illegally denying workers overtime pay. But now people are starting to take notice -- and it is my hope that they do so starting with this very good book.

Chapter 5: Organizing to Stop Wage Theft: Why Unions Matter, starts with a story of 39 year-old Mercedes Herrerra. She came to this country from Mexico, lives in Houston since 1994 and works as a janitor for staffing agencies cleaning buildings and sports facilities. Bobo says she was never paid for overtime!

Her employers would tell her, "There is no overtime. After 40 hours you work for someone else." (This is not legal).

The story continues that after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the worker was hired by a cleaning firm contracted to clean the Reliance Center. She was in charge of keeping the bathrooms clean. Her staffing agency charged her $100 per week for her shoes, gloves, masks, cleaning supplies, and shuttle rides to the Center. She wasn't told when she was hired that such charges would be taken from her paycheck. As a result, her hourly wage fell significantly below minimum wage. (This is not legal).

The lower paid workers in our country are treated like crap. Union activists have been saying this for a long time. Some claim we blow it out of proportion or distort the reality -- for Herrerra, according to Bobo, worse than the wages stolen was her ill treatment. Managers would scream at her and her colleagues. Some would tell workers they were old and worthless.

You can read more here and here. Ted Kennedy has said the book offers "bold, practical, and progressive solutions for how policymakers and advocates can end the growing crisis of wage theft in America."

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Buy It Here; Build It Here

2009-05-13T10:47:00.002-04:00

USW President Leo Gerard is a soft-spoken man, but he has some blunt words about General Motors restructuring plans:

The proposition General Motors has presented to the United Auto Workers and American taxpayers in its latest restructuring plan is simple: You must pay for your own execution.

GM, which already took $15.4 billion in bailout money, wants another $11.6 billion and is offering in return this deal: It will close 16 of its American manufacturing plants, terminate 21,000 of its factory workers and double the cars it builds in low-wage Mexico, China and South Korea and ships back to the U.S. to sell.

There it is: GM is demanding that Americans pay to send their own jobs overseas.

In the world where corporate executives live, the one in which boards of directors grant CEOs multi-million dollar bonuses even after companies tank, maybe that’s not a perverse proposition.

But in the world where real Americans live, we’ve had enough of this crap. Decades of foolish tax and other federal policies that encouraged American manufacturing firms to throw Americans out of work and expatriate were bad enough. To expect American taxpayers to bankroll GM’s plans to layoff American workers and move their jobs overseas goes too far.

Gerard goes on to point out that this isn't just about the UAW or GM. This is about American manufacturing and the millions of people in good-paying jobs who depend on the auto industry - steelworkers, rubber workers, glass workers, healthcare, education, retail - a total of more than 7 million people.

What will we be left with if manufacturing dies? "America is in danger of attempting to subsist on an economy based on nothing more than amorphous derivatives, credit default swaps and Ponzi schemes." Manufacturing jobs helped millions of people achieve the American Dream and that dream is now under assault.

In just the past eight months of this recession, caused in huge part by recklessness on Wall Street, this country has lost 1.2 million manufacturing jobs, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. GM cannot take tax dollars to slash more. Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich agrees. Here’s what he told the Washington Post, “. . . it raises fundamental questions about the purpose of bailing out these big companies. If GM is going to do more of its production overseas, then why exactly are we saving GM?”

Gerard says, "We have no intention of buying our own noose. We intend to win this fight." He's being joined in that fight by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, actor Danny Glover and Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, as well as the USW, the Alliance for American Manufacturing, and the Mayors and Municipalities Automotive Coalition, among others. They're conducting an 11-state, 32-city protest bus tour: “Keep it Made in America.” The idea is simple. If we buy it here, we should build it here, which Gerard points out is not impossible for a U.S. auto company to do.

Ford Motor Co., which is not taking any bailout money, is investing $500 million in retooling its Michigan Truck plant outside Detroit so that it can make small cars that it will sell worldwide, including its next-generation, battery-electric Focus. And Chrysler, which is getting bailout money, has made a deal with Fiat under which the Italian car company will manufacture a small car in one of Chrysler’s U.S. assembly facilities, which, along with other long-term commitments, will eventually create 4,000 U.S. jobs.

At each stop along the tour, people are being asked to sign their petition supporting "Buy it here; build it here." Please click over and add your name too. They'll present the petitions at a teach-in conference in Washington, D.C. on May 19 when they'll explain to elected officials why GM’s plan fails America and why they must require GM to submit a new plan supporting American jobs.

Michigan Has Become a Buyer-Beware State

2009-05-12T12:25:00.000-04:00

Michigan has a dirty little secret and it's driving people out of our state.

Lindsay Duneske said she discovered how weak Michigan's Consumer Protection Act has become after the company that built her new home in Milan kept putting off needed repairs.

She said she and her husband bought the house in 2007 for $306,000, after receiving assurances that the builder would fix buckling roof shingles and vinyl siding, leaky windows and other problems.

After the builder reneged, Duneske said, she couldn't find a lawyer to help her because home builders are no longer covered by the Consumer Protection Act.

She said the builder eventually went out of business and its lawyer got a court order to stop her from pestering him.

"We have been totally and completely cheated," Duneske said, adding that she feels betrayed by state officials. "We are looking to move, and it will be anywhere but Michigan." [emphasis mine]

Builders aren't the only ones exempted from the law. Banks, mortgage brokers, debt collectors, finance companies, home improvement contractors, new and used car dealers, auto repair shops, funeral homes, and plumbers and electricians are included. And according to a State Bar of Michigan Consumer Law Section study, consumers are at risk:

The study, titled "Consumers at Risk: Are Most of Michigan's Worst Business Practices Exempt from Our Consumer Protection Act?", examined businesses on the state Attorney General's list of top 10 consumer complaints for 2008. It found that 72 percent of businesses generating the most complaints are exempt from the state's Consumer Protection Act due to Michigan Supreme Court decisions. [emphasis added] That includes nearly all the businesses in the top three complaint categories – credit and finance; gasoline, fuel and energy; and telecommunications, satellite and cable TV.

Michigan Supreme Court decisions (a Republican Supreme Court majority installed by former Gov. John Engler) in 1999 and 2007 turned the law into mush according to former State Attorney General Frank Kelley, leaving people in the lurch. Frank says he's "sick about what happened," and he added that, in his judgment, the court's interpretations have "been against the public."

A decade ago we had some of the nation's best consumer protection laws on the books, now we're ranked with Rhode Island as "the Terrible Two" by the National Consumer Law Center.

"While these two states have UDAP statutes that appear strong on paper, they provide almost no actual protection to consumers," the Boston-based advocacy group said. Such statutes are known in the consumer protection community as Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) laws.

"In fact, the UDAP statutes in these states are worse than ineffective, as they give the appearance of providing protection for consumers while actually providing nothing."

Where has AG Mike Cox been this whole time? He's been busy keeping his name in the papers and doing seminars on worthy projects which might just propel him to be the governor someday. And attempts to fix the law have gone nowhere because business groups and the MICOC oppose any changes.

"The Chamber of Commerce has a long-standing policy in opposition to expanding the Consumer Protection Act," said its Lansing lobbyist, Wendy Block, who spoke out against a 2007 measure to restore the act. She said the legislation would open the flood gates to needless lawsuits.

Because of their opposition, consumers are left holding the bag when unscrupulous companies take advantage of them.

State Rep. Robert Jones (D-Kalamazoo) introduced corrective measures to protect consumers, but these groups opposed the plan and it died. The Democratic House plans to reintroduce the measure soon, not just to protect consumers, but also honest businesses that Jones says, "often can't compete with fly-by-night operations whose promises – although deceptive – sound better than the offers of honest merchants."

The Free Press says it's time to pass the legislation. They also have some questions for Mike Cox, Mike Bishop and their Republican colleagues:

Is it really their intent to exempt three-quarters of Michigan businesses from the ethical rules laid down in the MCPA? Or did the justices who defanged the state's consumer protection overreach?

My money is on exempting three-quarters of Michigan businesses. When did Republicans ever do anything for consumers?

Passing the Healthy Families Act is Sensible

2009-05-06T09:20:00.000-04:00

The swine flu (aka H1N1) appears to be milder than experts initially anticipated, but what if it had turned out to be much worse? What if people felt early symptoms coming on and had to chose between staying home from work or going in and exposing their coworkers? That could be problematic.

...millions of Americans can’t just stay home because they’re under the weather. When EPI looked at corporate sick leave policies in 2007 it found that some 43% of all private-industry workers have no paid sick days. Rather than the common sense precaution the President advices, these workers have a more difficult choice of going to work sick or staying home without pay and risk losing their jobs. In this current climate of high unemployment and even higher job insecurity, workers without any formal sick leave are even less likely to risk taking a day off.

Even more problematic, access to time off for health reasons is especially rare in low-paying jobs. In a 2006 compensation survey, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 79% of those earning more than $29.47 per hour had sick time, but only 16% of those earning less than $7.38 an hour had the same benefit.

The EPI also points out what a challenge it is for working parents if their children get sick.

The Huffington Post, citing data from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, notes that fewer than one in three U.S. workers who do have sick leave are allowed to use that time to stay home and care for a sick child.

The Institute argues that "workers who lack paid sick time are more likely to go to work with a communicable illness, and parents who cannot stay home with a sick child are more likely to send them to school or day care." That just spreads germs around even more.

In Michigan, 1,725,000 residents — 48 percent of Michigan workers — are not able to take a paid sick day when they are ill.

It's time to revisit "the Healthy Families Act, which Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) plan to reintroduce in Congress next month. The bill would “guarantee workers up to seven paid sick days a year to recover from an illness or care for a sick family member.”

There is also an economic advantage to passing the legislation.

According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, “when sick workers are on the job, it costs our national economy $180 billion annually in lost productivity. For employers, this costs an average of $255 per employee per year and exceeds the cost of absenteeism and medical and disability benefits.”

At least 139 other countries already provide some paid sick leave to workers as a matter of national law, and four out of five Americans think paid sick days should be a basic labor standard, so passing the legislation should be a no-brainer. This is clearly one of those "changes" Americans voted for last November.

Washington Has Public Health Care, So Should We

2009-05-05T09:20:00.002-04:00

Forty-eight million Americans now lack health insurance and 73% of voters want a choice of a private or public health plan. Support for that choice is bipartisan too - Democrats 77%, Independents 79%, and Republicans 63%.

With that kind of consensus, you'd think health care reform would be a slam dunk, right? Think again. There are lots of rotten apples in the bushel (insurance, big Pharma and for-profit corporations) trying to sink public health care and their rot is spreading to Republicans and Democrats.

Convert Arlen Specter is one example. He recently told David Gregory that he would not support a public plan. (News flash, Arlen. You're not really a Democrat, you're an opportunist.)

Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana said he is “agnostic” about having a public plan as part of health care reform, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana said that he believes health care reform can be accomplished “without” a public option. Ha-ha. Baucus is a real comedian. Private health insurers have been cherry-picking patients, denying claims and refusing to insure people for years, and their costs are higher than public plans like Medicare. In fact, when Republicans opened Medicare to private insurers in the name of competition, it ended up costing the federal government 12 percent more. That's not reform.

Private insurers don't want to see their gravy train end and they're spending big money trying to keep public health care from expanding, just ask Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. His biggest campaign donor is the insurance industry. According to Open Secrets, Nelson received $608,709 from the insurance industry in 2007-2008. That money won him over. Nelson said he's not interested in a public option. HuffPost explains why:

Nelson’s problem, he told CQ, is that the public plan would be too attractive and would hurt the private insurance plans. “At the end of the day, the public plan wins the game,” Nelson said. Including a public option in a health plan, he said, was a “deal breaker.”

So let me get this straight. Our politicians have the best public health care plan taxpayer money can buy, yet they're essentially saying we can't have it because they want to protect private insurers. What hypocrites. Americans voted Republicans out of power because they kowtowed to corporate greed and now we have Democrats doing the same thing. It looks like we need to do some housecleaning and throw some more rotten apples out of office.

Greedy Hedge Funds Stomp Feet and Pout

2009-04-30T11:21:00.002-04:00

Wizardkitten asked if hedge funds were trying to force Chrysler into bankruptcy and Jonathan Tasini answered: American Car Industry Held Hostage by Greedy Hedge Funds

...in a blazingly short amount of time, the Administration has forged a deal that could save thousands of jobs at Chrysler--the major banks are on board, the UAW has made more significant concessions. But all that may come crashing to a halt because of a few hedge funds who are holding the entire car industry hostage because, boo-hoo, they aren't getting enough out of the deal. What a spectacle.

Spectacle? Yeah, in a Bonnie & Clyde or Godfather sort of way.

As Tasini points out, the president lived up to his pledge, the UAW accepted concessions...

On top of concessions already given in 2005, 2007 and 2008, the UAW members have agreed to accept cuts in pay and benefits.

And even the major debt holders were on board.

Led by J.P. Morgan, the banks holding 70 percent of Chrysler's debt agreed to a deal that would effectively mean they would have to write-off a health chunk of change.

Everyone sacrificed and the administration even tossed more cash on the table and it still wasn't enough for the greedy hold outs.

Three of the bank-debt holders on the bank-steering committee, Oppenheimer Funds, Perella Weinberg Partners' Xerion Capital Fund and Stairway Cap Management, told J.P. Morgan and the other large lenders on a bank call Tuesday that they wouldn't support the deal and would advise other lenders not to support it.

I'm not a financial expert, but I think that's just dumb. Tasini thinks it's dumb too.

Even if the hold-out hedge funds refuse to make a deal by midnight tonight, forcing Chrysler to file for bankruptcy, they are unlikely to do any better in the swift bankruptcy proceedings envisioned. Do the geniuses at Perella et al. think that a bankruptcy judge, looking at a deal that has the blessing of the U.S. Treasury, the banks holding 70 percent of the debt, and the the union representing tens of thousands of workers (not to mention Fiat, which is waiting in the wings to scoop up Chrysler) will dramatically alter the outlines of the deal? No.

But, here we are: American workers, the Administration and the public generally is being held hostage by a few deal makers who run the very kind of financial firms that evaporated trillions of dollars in wealth. [emphasis mine]

And they wonder why a majority of the public believes corporate America (and particularly the financial industry) needs a new moral direction.

Health care reform still important to majority of Americans

2009-04-28T12:42:00.002-04:00

A majority of Americans continue to say they would pay higher taxes if it meant health insurance for everyone, and health care is second only to the economy as a major domestic concern, so it makes perfect sense that a conservative group is launching a $1 million ad buy designed to scare people about a government-run health care system. If Americans want it, are willing to pay for it, and badly need it (45 million uninsured and rising at this point), rich conservatives will fight to prevent us from having it.

In this case, the group is Conservatives for Patients' Rights, headed by Richard Scott. The organization plans to spend at least $20 million on the effort and Scott is willing to throw in at least $5 million of his own money.

Who Is Richard Scott— and Why Is He Saying These Things about Health Care Reform? Scott is the former CEO of Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., a for-profit hospital chain that was the offspring of a merger between Columbia Healthcare and Hospital Corporation of America. His goal wasn't to improve health care and make it more accessible to people. As a hospital executive, "Scott limited “choice” and “competition” by buying up “hospitals by the bucketful” and routinely placed profits ahead of “accountability” or quality of care. During Scott’s tenure at Columbia/HCA, his cost cutting methods threatened patient care and safety."

His methods also got him in trouble with the law.

In Scott’s case, that happened a short three years after he became CEO of Columbia/HCA. In July of 1997, the FBI swooped down on HCA hospitals in five states. Within weeks, three executives were indicted on charges of Medicare fraud, and the board had ousted Scott.

The investigation revealed that the hospital chain had been bilking Medicare while simultaneously handing over kickbacks and perks to physicians who steered patients to its hospitals. One can only wonder how many of those patients really needed to be hospitalized—and how many were harmed.

The company did not fight the charges. In 2000, HCA (which by then had expunged “Columbia” from its name) pleaded guilty to no fewer than 14 felonies. Over the next two years, it would pay a total of $1.7 billion in criminal and civil fines.

Did I mention hospital bonuses?

Internal hospital records would later show that hospital executives were paid enormous bonuses, not for reducing infections or lowering mortality rates, but for meeting financial targets such as “growth in admissions and surgery cases.” In 1995 one-fourth of Columbia’s administrators won bonuses equaling 80 percent of their salaries—or more. When bonuses become that large, some critics charge, they no longer function simply as incentives. They invite fraud. Scott also did his best to avoid needy patients, questioning whether hospitals should throw their doors open to one and all. “Do we have an obligation to provide health care for everybody? Where do we draw the line? Is any fast-food restaurant obliged to feed everyone who shows up?

GoozNews has the best take on Scott and CPR:

His group shouldn't be called Conservatives for Patients Rights. It should be called Hospital Moguls for Bilking and Bankrupting America.

By the way, guess who Scott and Conservatives for Patients’ Rights hired as their public relations firm. CRC. The same group known for their work with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. That pretty much tells you how they plan to run their attack campaign against health care reform. Lies. Baseless attacks. Fear. Socialism. Blah, blah, blah...

You can read more about the ongoing fight to provide public health care to all Americans here, but when you hear these ads from CPR and Rick Scott remember one thing, they have health insurance. They're not worried about you. They're only worried about protecting corporate profits.

Republicans Turn to Newt for Salvation

2009-04-22T12:59:00.003-04:00

Michigan Republicans are stuck in the past, Saul Anuzis is stuck in the past, and so is Saul's new boss - Newt Gingrich. I'll let Matt Yglesias explain:

Somehow or other the conservative movement has gotten so intellectually bankrupt that the lunatics running the asylum think that Newt Gingrich is an intelligent and canny man. Consequently, he’s snagged himself a situation where he’s in the news constantly offering aperçus like “The Democratic Party has been the active instrument of breaking down traditional marriage.”

Far be it from me to say that Newt Gingrich’s 1981 decision to ask his first wife for a divorce while she was in the hospital recuperating from cancer should bar him from commenting on the value of traditional marriage. But six months after the divorce was finalized, he married a new woman, Marianne Ginther, which suggests there was some infidelity involved. Then in 2000 he divorced Ginther and married a third woman with whom it turns out he’d been having an affair. That, I think, is a bit much. Then after that, he became a Catholic!

Seriously, does Newt really want to go down that road? Several high-profile Republicans have histories of being maritally challenged. Talk about hypocrisy.

As for Newt's recent conversion to Catholicism:

At a moment when the role of religious fundamentalism in the party is a central question for reformers, Gingrich, rather than making any kind of case for a new enlightenment, has in fact gone to great lengths to placate Christian conservatives. The family-values crowd has never completely embraced Newt, probably because he has been married three times, most recently to a former Hill staff member, Callista Bisek.

The religious right didn't embrace Newt, so now he'll try to kiss up to Catholics. He recently tweeted, "It is sad to see notre dame invite president obama to give the commencement address Since his policies are so anti catholic values."

He was also recently interviewed by Christianity Today magazine. Their article started off by saying, "As the Republican Party searches for a future leader, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich pops up on the short lists."

Newt can't manage to stir up controversy with the religious right anymore, so he's aligning himself with right-wing Catholics.

But the growing movement to stop Obama's visit isn't your ho-hum sort of Catholic League media dust-up, where Bill Donohue harumphs on television and then goes away. It's part of a well-funded lobbying effort by a group of right-wing Catholics to run liberal Catholics, and dissenting doctrine, out of the church, and to recruit the remainder of the faithful for the GOP.

Newt's alliances may be new, but the tactics are the same and still out of touch with mainstream Americans. Someone should tell him and other old school Republicans that 59 percent of Catholics still think Obama is doing a good job, and a recent Gallup poll finds Catholics are actually more liberal than other Americans on the so-called moral issues.

Pay attention, Republicans!

Hate Crime Legislation Vote Later This Week

2009-04-20T15:09:00.003-04:00

I don't keep up with gay rights as much as I should, so I was surprised to read that Deb Price now writes the first nationally syndicated column on gay issues. Good for her. I only know her work in the Detroit News. (Does anyone else find it ironic that she writes for them?)

Anyway, outside of reading quite a bit about gay marriage in recent months, I didn't realize the Obama administration has been reaching out to the gay community in so many ways. Here are some highlights from Price's recent column, including a mention about the hate crimes legislation that lawmakers will be voting on later this week.

The Obama White House invited gay leaders to the health care and fiscal responsibility summits, the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the executive order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls, and an online town hall. Gay parents were encouraged to bring their kids to the Easter egg roll. [...]

The White House outreach has included Mara Keisling of the National Center for Transgender Equality and Rebecca Fox of the National Coalition for LGBT Health. [...]

And Obama is salting gay talent through his administration. Most noteworthy is John Berry, confirmed by the Senate as director of the Office of Personnel Management. That puts a gay man in charge of the 1.9 million federal employees, including overseeing their benefits.

Other appointees include Emily Hewitt, an ordained Episcopal priest, as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. A peek at Hewitt's biography on her official court site shows the comfort Obama's gay choices feel: "Chief Judge Hewitt is married to Eleanor Dean Acheson."

Obama tapped Fred Hochberg to chair the U.S. Export-Import Bank, Harry Knox to serve on the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and Nancy Sutley to chair the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Price also reports that Obama told two leaders of the Human Rights Campaign that he intends to sign the hates crimes legislation when it reaches his desk, and he supports the need for a federal ban on job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Hate Crime Legislation (H.R. 1913) was introduced by John Conyers and has 42 sponsors. The House Judiciary Committee is set to vote on the bill this Wednesday. Language in the bill includes “sexual orientation," which has some "family groups" going bonkers. The Traditional Values Coalition released this statement:

“The so-called hate crimes bill will be used to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, business owners, Bible teachers, Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, Christian counselors, religious broadcasters and anyone else whose actions are based upon and reflect the truths found in the Bible.”

Not surprisingly, their position is inaccurate and irrational. The bill does not restrict free speech. In fact, the ACLU's support for this bill was contingent upon a provision that is the strongest protection for free speech in the entire federal criminal code.

It'll be interesting to see how Republicans vote. Will they pander to extremists or vote to send the message that violent hate crimes have no place in our country?

One Corporations Way of Stimulating the Economy

2009-04-16T12:35:00.001-04:00

They're putting more money in their employees paychecks.

Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. announced wage increases effective immediately for all full-time, hourly workers earning up to $13 an hour. For some employees, the pay hike can mean more than a $2 an hour raise.

The company also said it was raising its minimum pay to $10 per hour for full-time, hourly workers, up from whatever the minimum wage is in a state. In Michigan, it is $7.40.

Nationwide, the chain has more than 400 arts and crafts stores, with 15 in Michigan, and the increase will boost the pay of more than 6,900 employees, some by nearly $600 month. In Michigan, 75 percent of their employees are full-timers.

This is a great way to help stimulate the economy and build employee morale at the same time.

It's also nice to hear a CEO say this about his employees:

"Our employees are the backbone of our company, and we believe that giving them the opportunity to share in our success is the right thing to do," David Green, CEO and founder of Hobby Lobby, said in a statement.

"This is part of our continuing efforts to reward our employees for their hard work and integrate them into the growth of our company."

A store spokesperson said they took the action because “they have had a profitable year and want to pass that on to their employees.”

Hobby Lobby has a history of caring about their employees. When the the price of gasoline skyrocketed last year, they gave employees a permanent 25 cent per hour raise to help offset cost of living increases.

Kudos to Hobby Lobby!

Stabenow and Peters Talk Bankruptcy on "The Ed Show"

2009-04-15T08:39:00.001-04:00

Sen. Debbie Stabenow was on the Ed Show Monday night and Rep. Gary Peters was on last night. They discussed a possible GM bankruptcy, which could jeopardize the pensions of 670,000 retires, with 335,000 seeing benefit cuts.

Both lawmakers agreed that bankruptcy should be a last resort, but Ed characterized Obama's Auto Task Force as throwing workers under the bus when it comes to their pensions. Stabenow had a different perspective:

SCHULTZ: But what about those retirees—senator, I have to ask you, what about these retirees. They didn‘t vote to have their benefits cut. These are your constituents in Michigan.

STABENOW: No question. If you‘re asking me, do I think bankruptcy is a good idea? The answer is absolutely not. I don‘t support bankruptcy as an option. And the reality is that taxpayers shouldn‘t either, because we‘re talking about 670,000 people with pensions with General Motors alone that would become potentially a federal responsibility. [...]

SCHULTZ: -- that if it goes to the Pension Guarantee Corporation, and people have to take a cut, I don‘t know how they are going to be motivated to come back and vote for the Democrats.

STABENOW: Well, first of all, people took a pay cut to get that pension, and they should not be cut in their pensions, period. People took pay cut after pay cut to keep their health care and to keep their pensions. And so there is a way to do this, even going into a bankruptcy.

Northwest Airlines, based out of Detroit substantially, went into bankruptcy, kept their pension obligations. We worked with them to help protect their pensions. They came out of bankruptcy. They kept their pension commitments. So it is possible to do that. And I am strongly urging the administration, whatever happens, to keep those pensions intact, because people have worked hard all of their lives for those.

Bloomberg reports that GM’s plan is in relatively better shape than others, because it’s about 87 percent-funded, but they also point out that as many as half of GM’s 670,000 pension-plan participants could see their benefits trimmed if the PBGC takes over the plan. Jack Dickinson, president of an advocacy group called Over the Hill Car People says, “Nobody really knows” what would happen with GM pensions in a bankruptcy." (The DetNews has more on how bankruptcy could affect workers' pensions.)

One thing struck me in the interview above. Schultz wondered why people would be motivated to vote for Democrats if General Motors files bankruptcy. Is Ed serious? As the Free Press recently pointed out...

Moreover, the government's track record setting policy that affects the auto industry is atrocious. Car companies have been flogged for not producing enough small, efficient vehicles, but the government eschews a national gas tax that would keep demand for such vehicles high. The companies have been derided for exorbitant labor costs, but in too many instances, government trade policy doesn't help them by holding other countries to decent labor standards.

Democrats and Republicans are responsible for that track record, but Republicans have been in control of the White House for the past 8 years and in control of Congress for almost 20 years. They were the ones actively pushing their free trade, anti-tax, kill the unions, drill, baby, drill rhetoric all that time. And when the chips were down last fall and the auto industry needed help, it was Republicans who pulled the plug on the industry and voted no.

If McCain had won the election, I have no doubt GM and Chrysler would be history already and the Republicans and their US Chamber of Commerce cronies would be giving one another high-fives.

And I won't soon forget how Republicans voted on minimum wage, SCHIP, equal pay, etc. They don't even feel we should have universal health care.

A vote for any member of the GOP is a vote against the middle-class, and General Motors filing for bankruptcy won't change how I feel about them. The lawmaker who does the most for the middle-class gets my vote, and the majority of the time that's a Democrat.

Job Creation: Green Investment vs. Defense Spending

2009-04-14T12:33:00.002-04:00

Republicans believe government spending does nothing to create jobs, unless we're spending money on defense. Actually, we're better off spending money on green investments according to Robert Pollin, professor of economics.

In fact, the green-investment agenda is a highly effective engine of job creation, much more so, for example, than two favored Republican forms of spending, military outlay and the oil industry.

Thus, for a given billion dollars of spending, the Obama green-investment program will generate about 17,000 jobs. Spending the same amount on the military will produce only 8,500 jobs, 50 percent less than green investments. Spending an additional $1 billion on the oil industry -- the "drill, baby, drill" agenda advanced by the McCain/Palin campaign -- will produce only 4,500, about one-fourth the total created by green investments.

Pollin says three factors are at play to explain why investment spending devoted to the green economy creates more jobs than military or oil spending.

Relative labor intensity. This means more spending on people and less on machines, buildings, supplies, and energy. In weatherizing a home, the machinery and supplies needed are relatively low, while the demand for construction workers is high. Drilling for oil requires huge amounts of sophisticated machinery and relatively few people to operate that equipment. A military base employs lots of people. But it also involves heavy equipment purchases and consumes lots of energy.

Domestic production versus imports and spending abroad. With Obama's green-investment agenda, well over 90 percent of total spending will occur within the U.S. economy. Energy-efficiency measures, such as building retrofits, public transportation, and upgrading the electrical grid, can only occur on-site. Weatherization projects for buildings in North Dakota can only be done in North Dakota. The New York City subway system must be upgraded in New York. By contrast, the U.S. now imports about 50 percent of all the oil it consumes, and about 20 percent of total spending within the oil industry occurs abroad. The proportion of the military budget spent abroad is even higher.

Differences in pay levels. The average annual pay for employees associated with the green investment, including both wages and benefits, is about $52,000. This is roughly 20 percent below the $65,000 average for both the military and oil industries. This means that a given amount of spending for workers in the green-investment areas yields more job creation at lower average wages -- stretching out a given sum of wage and benefit payments.

That last point about lower average wages isn't actually a bad thing according to Pollin, because many more jobs overall are being created and more money is going into more workers' pockets.

All told, the green-investment agenda still creates far more jobs paying over $16 an hour than either the military or the oil industry does -- 75 percent more than the military and three times more than the oil industry.

And in the green economy, even many of the relatively low-paying jobs in construction and manufacturing offer decent job ladders for entry-level workers. There are fewer such prospects for advancement in even lower low-paying service-sector jobs, such as those of janitors, waiters, and health-care assistants.

President Obama's economic stimulus program includes between $50 billion and $140 billion in clean-energy spending. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the $1339 billion the world spent on the military in 2007, of which we're responsible for 45 per cent of that total, distantly followed by the UK, China, France, and Japan each with 4 to 5 per cent of the world share. Instead of increasing defense spending by 8 percent next year, the President should take the $40 billion or so difference and put it toward green investment. It'll create new industries and put more people to work, and we'll still be a superpower.

Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind

2009-04-09T12:33:00.001-04:00

My apologies to Bob Marley for stealing a line from his song for my title, but it so perfectly fits how I feel. Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and now Ed Schultz. They're like sunshine breaking through the fog. We've been fed misinformation from an industry dominated by conservative voices for far too long, and I feel like the dark clouds are finally starting to lift.

In case you're not familiar with him, Schultz has one of the top-rated progressive shows on radio, “The Ed Schultz Show,” which airs live weekdays from noon to 3 p.m. with a weekly audience of more than 3 million listeners on 100 stations across the country. He's an avid voice for the middle class and Ed is now on MSNBC. “The Ed Show” airs Monday through Friday from 6-7 p.m.

Yesterday, Schultz featured SEIU's Stephen Lerner to talk about the importance of employee free choice and Ed didn't hold back. He said he has an issue with centrist Democrats who aren't going to bat for the middle class. Me too.

Here's video from last night's show to give you a sense of Ed's tenacious style.

Save American Jobs: Boycott Chase Bank

2009-04-08T13:41:00.002-04:00

This is cross-posted from Emptywheel. Marcy Wheeler is asking everyone to help save American jobs by boycotting Chase Bank.

JP Morgan Chase wants to push Chrysler into bankruptcy so it can jump the line ahead of retirees and US taxpayers to get paid back.

If JP Morgan Chase does that, 300,000 people will lose their jobs.

That's sorry thanks we get from a company that has gotten $25 billion in TARP funds from American taxpayers--plus billions more in other benefits from the Wall Street bailout.

My husband and I decided the only way to pressure JP Morgan Chase to negotiate in good faith with Chrysler was to close our Chase accounts. We want our money to go to a bank that is investing in rebuilding Michigan--not bankrupting it.

Now, FDL and Progress Michigan are calling on others to join our Chase boycott.

Sign the petition

Join the FaceBook group

Find your Michigan Chase branch and close your account

Explain why you're closing your account

Michigan resident and progressive radio host Nancy Skinner is joining the boycott and closing her accounts. She'll have Jane Hamsher on her show today, at 3PM ET, to talk about this action. You can listen in here.

One other thing: PASS THIS ALONG and ask your friends and family to take action.

(If you're reading this and don't live in Michigan, it doesn't matter. These job losses won't be confined to Michigan alone, so find your branch, close your account and/or sign the petition.)

Unions Can't be Blamed for Job Losses

2009-04-07T09:38:00.001-04:00

How do the right-to-work cheerleaders explain this? Using the February numbers, five of the 10 states with the biggest growth in unemployment are in the South.

State and percent increase in jobless rate since recession began (with current unemployment rate in parentheses)

1. North Carolina: +6 (10.7% -- 4th highest in country)
2. Oregon: +5.4 (10.8%)
3. Rhode Island: +5.3 (10.5%)
4. Nevada: +4.9 (10.1%)
4. Indiana: +4.9 (9.4%)
4. Florida: +4.9 (9.4%)
7. South Carolina: +4.8 (11% -- 2nd highest in country)
7. Georgia: +4.8 (9.3%)
9. Alabama: +4.7 (8.4%)
10. Michigan: +4.6 (12%)

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, via Wall Street Journal

The Institute for Southern Studies says unions can't be blamed for these losses.

One interesting point about those high unemployment numbers in the South: They certainly appear to disprove the argument, put forward by opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act, that unions cause higher unemployment.

The Carolinas -- which have among the lowest union density rates in the country -- have also seen some of the largest growth in joblessness.

This suggests that, as many other studies have found, unemployment rises and falls due to a vast array of changes in the economy -- and can't be pinned on unions.

So much for the idea that right-to-work (for less) laws give states a competitive edge.

Finally, Something That George Bush Did Right

2009-04-06T10:45:00.001-04:00

By running our economy into the ground, he inadvertently reduced traffic fatalities.

Less money in the pockets of Americans means fewer highway deaths. As the economy slid deeper into recession and gas prices reached $4 a gallon last year, the number of people killed in auto accidents hit its lowest level in five decades.

Preliminary government figures show that 37,313 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes last year, which is 9.1 percent lower than the year before, and the fewest since 1961, when there were 36,285 deaths. Final numbers are expected later this year.

Experts also "cited record-high seat-belt use, tighter enforcement of drunken driving laws and the work of advocacy groups that encourage safer driving habits." That's amazing considering that Bush repeatedly cut funding for law enforcement, so maybe I should reconsider giving him any credit.

Nationally, seat belt use climbed to a record 83 percent last year. Michigan had the highest compliance rate in the country with 97.2 percent and Massachusetts had the lowest rate at 66.8 percent.

Enforcing tougher seat belt laws through programs like "Click It or Ticket" isn't popular with everyone though. Some wingnuts believe that requiring one to wear a seat belt against their will is a violation of their civil rights.

In a free society, each person owns himself. As such he has the broad discretion to make his own choices regardless of what others think of the wisdom of his choices. He has the right to take chances with his own health and safety.

And society ends up paying for that person's expenses when he sustains a closed-head injury and spends the next 20 years in a nursing home. The next thing you know, people will be advocating that we eliminate traffic signals and stop signs too. Sigh...

Made in Michigan

2009-04-03T09:00:00.001-04:00

My daughter and son-in-law wanted to do something to help stimulate our economy and this is what they came up with:

Meet their little stimulus package - Alexis Michelle (a.k.a. Lexie). She was born in a Michigan hospital on April 2, 2009 and weighs 6 pounds, 14 ounces and is 20 inches long. That picture was taken just seconds after she entered the world.

Her impact on the economy was immediate. Grandpa dashed to a local florist to buy flowers for Lexie's mom and Grandma made plans to hit the mall over the weekend.

Lexie is expected to have the biggest impact on local Michigan products. We all know kids have voracious appetites, and Lexie is expected to consume copious amounts of Kellogg's cereal, Cole's garlic bread, Faygo pop, Jiffy Mix muffins and pancakes, Koegel's hotdogs, Little Caesar's pizza and Better Made potato chips over the course of her lifetime.

And looking really far into the future, Lexie will definitely drive a G.M., Ford or Chrysler vehicle!

(Mother and child are doing well and are expected to come home today. Grandma is still on cloud nine, but expect her to share some more pictures soon!)

More on that "surgical" bankruptcy

2009-04-01T10:32:00.001-04:00

An auto bankruptcy could cost one-third of the three million people employed in the industry and shave four percentage points from our GDP according to a Deutsche Bank analyst. I guess that's why Obama called it a "surgical bankruptcy" in his address on Monday. Losing that many people would be like losing a limb in order to save your life. That's the bad news.

There is some good news though, at least for GM. An article in the NY Times reports the "government may seek to ease General Motors into what it calls a “controlled” bankruptcy, somewhere between a prepackaged bankruptcy and court chaos, by persuading at least some creditors to agree to a plan that would cleave the company into two pieces."

This is how it would work:

Under a plan being worked out by the administration, G.M. would file for prearranged bankruptcy, according to these people. It would then use a sale authorized under Section 363 of the bankruptcy code to quickly sell off the desirable assets to a new company financed by the government. These good pieces might include Cadillac and Chevrolet, as well as assets the company needs to run the business.

Less desirable assets, brands like Hummer and underperforming factories, would be left in the old company. Proceeds from the sales, including stock in the new company, would be given to the old G.M., helping to settle claims.

I mentioned Section 363 bankruptcy the other day. The goal the administration seeks is to create a new, healthier, competitive G.M. by leaving behind its liabilities and less valuable assets, which is also similar to the way the government handled Lehman Brothers last year.

The administration would also have to win support from some of G.M.’s creditors, "notably the United Automobile Workers, which would be forced to pare its health care benefits and whose pension obligations would probably remain in the old company." That's bad news, but...

There will be pressure to keep plants open, to keep employment in communities high, he said, “because typically G.M. or Ford or Chrysler are very substantial contributors to the local tax receipt flow.”

They're telling us something we already know all too well. Experts are also saying history offers almost no precedent for a G.M. bankruptcy simply because no other company ever matched their size and interconnectedness.

The news for Chrysler isn't as good. Obama is prepared to let Chrysler go bankrupt and be sold off piecemeal if they can’t form an alliance with Fiat.

Bankruptcy is only at a possibility at this point, but it's looking likelier by the day - or at least within 30-60 days, and there's no doubt Michigan will suffer more pain if it happens. All we can do is trust Obama. He said he would direct a comprehensive effort to lift the hardest hit areas "by using the unprecedented levels of funding available in our Recovery Act and throughout our government to create new manufacturing jobs and new businesses where they are needed most – in your communities." He also said he would fight for us and help put us back on our feet. Things look bleak now, but not hopeless. With Obama helping us, we can come through this and be made whole again.

Maybe it's time to talk about the "B" word

2009-03-31T09:25:00.002-04:00

Like DJ, I'm feeling a combination of anger and fear about our auto industry's future, but I also feel a sense of resignation. How much longer can we continue this way? We're dying slowly, one excruciating job loss at a time, and it's like torture. I'm beginning to think maybe it's time to call in the triage team, or in this case the restructuring team.

Michigan native Jonathan Cohn expands on the "surgical bankruptcy" Obama mentioned this morning. He believes the administration is serious about that possibility, and he also notes that people involved in the debate see Section 363 of the bankruptcy code as a way for the company to continue operating without the burden of their huge debts. ((Fritz Henderson was quoted yesterday as saying a "strategic" bankruptcy supported with government money would be less risky than traditional Chapter 11 protection too.) Cohn provided a link to Harvard Law Professor Mark Roe that basically explains it like this...

GM files for chapter 11. The company puts together the automotive operations, and leaves behind the legacy obligations to retired workers and the bond obligations. It takes the auto operations and sells them intact. Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for these kinds of sales. This would leave behind restructuring the bond debt and the legacy claims. Whatever GM gets from the automotive sale will go to pay off the bonds and pay off the legacy claims. That part is in some ways straightforward. If it can be completed, consumers would be looking at a viable GM that has exited bankruptcy. Then the claims–the legacy claims and the like–will be resolved.

Is Section 363 what Obama has in mind? It does have some benefits. GM would continue operating without the burden of their legacy debts, or what we call pensions and lifetime health care benefits. That would help free up cash and strengthen the company, which could end up protecting jobs that would be lost if they were allowed to completely fail. But what about the thousands of retired employees? Does that mean the PBGC would assume GM's pensions and people would lose their health care? Maybe someone familiar with bankruptcy laws could fill us in and help alleviate our fears.

As dark as it seems right now, there is reason to be hopeful about Obama's plans if history is any guide. According to an article in Washington Monthly, "any honest reading of history suggests that the federal government has quite an impressive record of rescuing institutions considered too big to fail." From banks to Lockheed, Chrysler, airlines and Penn Central Railway [Nixon came to the conclusion help was necessary - it's known as Conrail today], government help turned out better than anyone hoped and the companies returned to profitability. Those successes also left a good checklist for the Obama administration to follow:

...leave your ideology at the door, pay more attention to the engineers and managers on the ground than to the financiers in the corner offices, and remember that social returns, not profits, are the ultimate measure of success.

Our future is still uncertain, but I'm confident that if Bush and the Republicans were still in control, we'd be writing an obituary for GM and Chrysler today. I trust President Obama to remember those social returns and do his best to turn things around for us. I just hope he can fight off the Republicans and Wall Street types who'd prefer to just pull the plug and let us die.

And remember, Obama didn't say he's letting us die. He said he'd fight for us and that he's sending us help, which is like sending us to rehab. That's where patients go to have their quality of life restored. It's where they go to become whole again. We need that. We need to be whole again.

G.M. Worker Loses Job, Writes Song

2009-03-25T13:46:00.004-04:00

This is a bittersweet story from the Flint Journal. Greg Miles worked for General Motors' Grand Blanc Weld Tool Center for three decades, and then a few weeks ago he learned that his job had been outsourced to a foreign country. What did he do? He wrote a song, "Didn't Quit My Day Job, It Quit Me."

The lyrics came to him in a rush one Sunday afternoon.

In an hour, he scribbled the song on a yellow notepad. He spent a few weeks recording the song in the basement of his Waterford home.

The title comes from realizing that his job, designing tools for assembly lines, was outsourced to foreign countries. The job didn't go away; it just wasn't being done by U.S. workers anymore. [...]

Sitting next to the Irish flag hung on the basement wall, Miles sang in his warbly voice, strummed his Fender acoustic guitar and played his harmonica.

The song combines folk, rock and country.

"It's kind of like a country song, but it's not real twangy," Miles said.

The song has become something of an Internet sensation, and he's already been contacted by several local media outlets and asked to sing at a concert.

"I've never had more fun losing a job in my whole life," Miles said, laughing.

At least they didn't take away his sense of humor, and his talent for strumming that guitar. He's pretty darn good.

Check out this excerpt from his song, along with the YouTube video.

"Need to figure out what I am going to be
Might be a rock star or a pirate at sea
All I know is that this job is history"

"It started very slowly, our work shifted overseas
Began to pick up speed, it spread like some disease
Didn't know why they did this, they don't buy our cars over there"

"Need to figure out what I am going to be
A Wal-Mart greeter or pizza delivery
Do you want fries with that or super-size it please
I'll park that car sir, just give me your keys
All I know is that this job is history"

For his sake - and everyone else in the same situation - I hope the future brings him something better than a Wal-Mart greeter or pizza delivery job. You can't live the American Dream on those wages. Good luck, Greg.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

FedEx Blackmails Congress

2009-03-24T13:40:00.005-04:00

This smacks of corporate terrorism. (h/t TPM)

FedEx could cancel contracts for $10 billion in American-made planes if Congress makes it easier for unions to organize the delivery giant's workers.

In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the Memphis-based company disclosed that purchases of Boeing 777s are contingent on FedEx Express' continued coverage by the National Railway Labor Act.

The disclosure serves as a warning shot to lawmakers seeking to put FedEx Express workers under the National Labor Relations Act, a move seen as helping the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

"It's FedEx political hardball at its finest," said analyst Donald Broughton with Avondale Partners. In a research note Monday, he wrote: "We see FedEx's action as a deft political move that aligns the interests of Boeing and GE with FedEx, and pits the interests of the Teamsters against the interests of the machinist and several other trade unions."

FedEx is threatening to buy French-made Airbuses to upgrade its fleet instead. Why does corporate America hate our country and its workers?

UPDATE: FedEx isn't the only corporation that likes to play hardball. Via Washington Monthly comes information about a recent WSJ article. It basically says banks sent the following message to President Obama after Congress moved to tax their bonuses:

When administration officials began calling them to talk about the next phase of the bailout, the bankers turned the tables. They used the calls to lobby against the antibonus legislation, Wall Street executives say. Several big firms called Treasury and White House officials to urge a more reasonable approach, both sides say. The banks' message: If you want our help to get credit flowing again to consumers and businesses, stop the rush to penalize our bonuses.

Real patriotic, huh? These bankers ruined our economy, put people out of work and literally on the street, and they still want to call the shots. And they wonder why Main Street is so outraged.

UPDATE 2: I should clarify that I interpreted FedEx as threatening to buy Airbuses because of something I read on Wikipedia:

FedEx Express was to have been the launch airline for the Airbus A380 freighter, having ordered ten for delivery between 2008 and 2011 with options on ten more. The company had planned to introduce the first aircraft into service in August 2008 for use on routes between hubs in the United States and Asia. Faced with A380 delays of more than two years, FedEx canceled these orders[20] and replaced them with an order for fifteen Boeing 777 freighters with an option for fifteen more, to be delivered from 2009 through 2011. FedEx has said that Airbus will allow it to transfer its nonrefundable deposits to purchases of future aircraft, and has stated it may consider the A380F when the A380 program is less affected by construction delays. In December 2008, FedEx posponed delivery of some of the 777s: four will be delivered in 2010 as previously agreed, but 2011 deliveries will be only four, rather than the 10 originally planned. Five more will arrive in 2012, and two in 2013.[21] In January 2009, FedEx exercised its options to buy 15 more 777 freighters and acquired options for a further 15.[22]

What better way to wiggle out of their contract, slam the unions and get those planes they previously wanted from Airbus?

Tweet Responsibly

2009-03-24T09:21:00.005-04:00

In keeping with Blogging for Michigan's Twitter Tuesday theme, I thought I'd remind everyone to tweet responsibly, or risk having this happen to you.

A recent tweet by one would-be Cisco employee proves that when it comes to placing a permanent black mark on your resume via the Internet, Twitter is now the tool of choice. To illustrate, here’s the tweet the now Web-infamous "theconnor" shared with the world:

"Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty paycheck against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work.”

It wasn’t long before Tim Levad, a "channel partner advocate" for Cisco Alert, shared this open response:

"Who is the hiring manager. I’m sure they would love to know that you will hate the work. We here at Cisco are versed in the web."

"Theconnor" immediately set his Twitter account to private and deleted all information from his home page, but the damage was already done. He story spread like wildfire across Twitter, web sleuths discovered his true identity, and thanks to Google Cache, his homepage resurfaced on a web site erected in his honor - CiscoFatty.com.

It still hasn't been determined if "theconnor" was allowed to keep his job. Hopefully, Cisco gave him the benefit of the doubt, like our country did when Pete Hoekstra compromised security by tweeting this back in February.

"Moved into green zone by helicopter Iraqi flag now over palace. Headed to new US embassy Appears calmer less chaotic than previous here."

Pete kept his job, but you might not be so lucky, so stick to tweeting about twits like Sen. Shelby and leave your comments about your employer off the Web.

Americans View the Rich With Rising Skepticism

2009-03-19T13:25:00.001-04:00

F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote, "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me."

That segue leads me to an article I read in the LA Times about Americans attitudes toward the wealthy. For decades they've been held up as examples of what we can achieve through hard work and determination, but recent events have people looking at them in a different light, and the belief that the wealthy are worthy is waning.

Thanks in part to AIG, BOA and men like Bernie Madoff, Americans are beginning to realize that the rich have added little value to our economy, and in the case of corporate executives, their huge salaries weren't even based on performance. They made millions even when they failed at their jobs.

And they made millions even when they didn't work. Dumb luck explains their wealth in many cases.

By my count, roughly one-quarter of the names on the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans got there by inheritance (and by no means have all of them enhanced the family fortune with their own toil or brainpower). A few years ago, it was common to think of the rich as a special breed. We may soon come around to George Orwell's view that the only difference between rich and poor is income -- "The average millionaire," as he put it, "is only the average dishwasher dressed in a new suit."

Except, the average millionaire can still afford health care, a roof over his head and the cost of a college education, while the rest of us struggle to keep our homes, fund retirement accounts, etc. Meanwhile, inequality is now at levels not seen since the Great Depression.

It's no surprise that a recent CNN poll shows that Americans are losing confidence in their ability to keep their current standard of living. People need jobs, good paying jobs, and that means we'll probably need a second stimulus plan, along with progressive tax increases on the wealthy.

But, but, higher taxes make it harder for the wealthy to invest and create jobs, right? Wrong.

It's proper to note that years of study have unearthed no consistent evidence that taxation causes the rich to alter their investing behavior much, at least not until their tax burden reaches a point vastly higher than what Obama contemplates.

"The real rich -- the top 1% -- work very hard for reasons other than money," Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, a tax historian at the University of Michigan, told me this week. The quest for prestige, political power and self-esteem, the ability to control things and people, are all factors in their behavior.

Actually, the original case for a progressive income tax was directed at the real wealthy. Our Founding Fathers sought to break up concentrations of wealth, inherited or otherwise, because they considered these to be undemocratic -- markers of "an aristocratic society, not a free and virtuous republic."

IMHO, it all boils down to two things. Morality: Taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor is a moral issue. And it's also a religious issue: If God provides abundantly it is only for the purpose of you in turn giving to those in need.

Gallup: Majority Support Employee Free Choice Act

2009-03-17T09:15:00.000-04:00

The latest Gallup Poll shows that 53 percent of respondents favor a new law that would "make it easier for labor unions to organize workers" versus 39 percent of respondents who oppose such a law. This is amazing support considering the efforts big business is taking to fight it.

Citibank, BOA, Wal-Mart, Burger King, and a couple hundred other U.S. Chamber of Commerce companies are prepared to spend $200 million on advertising and lobbying to block the Employee Free Choice Act. They're also saying some pretty strange things in the process, according to economist Dean Baker.

Recently, they have sought to promote the argument that unions lead to higher unemployment. To help push this case they have been circulating a study that examines differences in unionization rates and unemployment among Canadian provinces. This study purports to find that a 3 percentage point increase in unionization rates leads to a 1 percentage point increase in unemployment. Based on this study, the opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act argue that any resulting increase in unionization will cost millions of jobs.

This propaganda is actually being pushed by "something called the Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs" — an alliance that happens to include that bastion of "Main Street," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce."

Baker questions their reasoning:

Of course the immediate response might be to ask, if this study's findings are accurate, why Canada's unemployment rate isn't 7 percentage points higher than the U.S. rate? Canada's unionization rate is about 20 percentage points higher than in the U.S., yet its unemployment rate is somewhat lower.

He also goes on to point out that there's a large body of research on this topic, and the most recent research finds no link between unemployment and unionization rates.

In 2006, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) did an exhaustive analysis of the research on this topic and concluded that there was no link between unionization rates and unemployment. It is easy to find examples of countries with very high unionization rates and low levels of unemployment. For example Norway and Denmark have unionization rates near 80 percent. Before the current crisis their unemployment rate was under 3.0 percent.

Of course we don't have to go overseas to prove the case that unions don't lead to unemployment. If we go back 40 years, the unionization rate was over 30 percent. Presently, it is just over 12 percent. In the 60s, the unemployment rate fell as low as 3.0 percent and was below 5.0 percent for most of the decade.

Unions don't lead to higher unemployment, but the act of unionizing can lead to firings. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, "our estimates suggest that almost one-in-five union organizers or activists can expect to be fired as a result of their activities in a union election campaign. Since 2000, illegal firings have marred over one-in-four NLRB-sponsored union elections, reaching 30 percent of elections in 2007."

That's why we need to pass the EFCA. It would strengthen penalties for companies that coerce or intimidate employees when they try to form a union, but more importantly, it would help revive America's middle class. And that's what scares corporate America. They want all the profits for themselves.

(To learn more about the EFCA, read Citizen K's excellent post on the subject. His money quote: "Passing EFCA is not only an important step for unions and employees who want to unionize, it's an important step for anyone with a job.")

Airplane Foreclosures Skyrocket

2009-03-14T10:49:00.002-04:00

How dare these people take out risky loans they knew they couldn't afford?

Mr. Hill is an airplane repo man, one of the best and busiest in the business. With the economy sinking and the general aviation industry suffering, Mr. Hill is working flat out as he makes his way from one airport to another...

Mr. Hill, who lives in Santa Barbara, Calif., said he typically repossessed about 30 planes a year, ranging from propeller-powered Piper trainers to twin-engine Gulfstream business jets. Last year, he brought in 50 aircraft. This year, “it could be 100,” he said.

Republicans can't blame this on poor people.

(h/t NYT)

Obama on education and chewing gum

2009-03-10T14:50:00.002-04:00

President Obama delivered a speech before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce this morning that accomplished two things at once. First, he answered Republican critics who think he isn't focusing on the economy enough.

I know there are some who believe we can only handle one challenge at a time. They forget that Lincoln helped lay down the transcontinental railroad, passed the Homestead Act, and created the National Academy of Sciences in the midst of Civil War. Likewise, President Roosevelt didn’t have the luxury of choosing between ending a depression and fighting a war. President Kennedy didn’t have the luxury of choosing between civil rights and sending us to the moon. And we don’t have the luxury of choosing between getting our economy moving now and rebuilding it over the long term.

I guess Republicans never heard of multi-tasking. Unlike GWB, Obama can chew gum and walk at the same time.

The president also spoke about his education agenda.

America will not remain true to its highest ideals – and America’s place as a global economic leader will be put at risk – unless we not only bring down the crushing cost of health care and transform the way we use energy, but also do a far better job than we have been doing of educating our sons and daughters; unless we give them the knowledge and skills they need in this new and changing world.

Obama explained why we can't afford to wait on education: "By 2016, four out of every ten new jobs will require at least some advanced education or training." He also pointed out that workers without four-year degrees have borne the brunt of recent layoffs, and what is at stake is nothing less than the American dream.

Read the lengthy speech to learn more, but these are the four areas of reform he outlined:

Investing in early childhood initiatives like Head Start.

Encouraging better standards and assessments by focusing on testing itineraries that better fit our kids and the world they live in.

Recruiting, preparing, and rewarding outstanding teachers by giving incentives for a new generation of teachers and for new levels of excellence from all of our teachers.

Promoting innovation and excellence in America’s schools" by supporting charter schools, reforming the school calendar and the structure of the school day.

On additional money to teachers, Politico reports that Obama proposes spending cash in up to 150 additional school districts, which apparently once earned him boos from the National Education Association. However, TAPPED reports that Obama is talking about developing "performance pay" plans, something unions are on board with.

The language here is key. "Performance pay" is supported by teachers' unions, and awards salary bonuses to teachers based on a variety of factors, including classroom observations, teaching in hard-to-staff subjects and schools, and improving student achievement. "Merit pay," on the other hand, is understood as directly aligning teacher salaries to student test scores.

Disclaimer, my sister is a teacher, my son is a teacher and so are several friends, and I've heard them all say they favor "performance pay" because it would help school districts retain good teachers. In my son's case, one of his friends was a crackerjack math teacher who left teaching to take a better paying job in business. He had $50,000 dollars in student loans and felt he didn't have much choice. (Obama wants extra pay for Americans who teach math and science.)

Performance pay would also help hard-to-staff schools attract top teachers. One reason districts like Detroit, Saginaw, Flint and other poor areas keep under-performing teachers is because they have trouble recruiting new teachers, and a bad teacher is better than no teacher at all. As a result, students suffer.

Eric Hanushek, an economist at Stanford, estimates that the students of a very bad teacher will learn, on average, half a year’s worth of material in one school year. The students in the class of a very good teacher will learn a year and a half’s worth of material. That difference amounts to a year’s worth of learning in a single year.

Excellence doesn't come cheap, but excellence in education shouldn't be something only rich parents can buy for their children. Businesses pay top dollars to attract the best talent, our schools shouldn't be any different.

And Republican critics should just shush up. Preparing our children for the future shouldn't wait for anything - not even the mini-depression we inherited from them.

(Cross-posted at BFM.)

Republican CEO Says "Yes" To Socialism

2009-03-06T10:00:00.000-05:00

Limbaugh won't be happy when he hears this. The CEO of a construction company awarded the first recovery project from the stimulus package is a big Republican donor. (h/t HuffPo and ProPublica)

The selection of the company, American Infrastructure, was announced by Obama at a news conference highlighting how stimulus money was helping transportation projects. The $2.1 million road resurfacing project in Silver Spring, Md., will support 60 jobs and be completed by late fall, Gov. Martin O'Malley's office said.

In 2008, the company's chief executive, A. Ross Myers, gave $25,000 to McCain Victory 2008 and $20,400 to the Republican National Committee, according to Federal Election Commission records. He has donated thousands of dollars each to Rudolph Giuliani's presidential campaign, RNC chairman Michael Steele's Senate campaign and Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa., who sits on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Myers was one of the top donors to Lynn Swann, a Republican who unsuccessfully tried to unseat Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, according to Pennsylvania campaign finance records. Democrat Rendell was often mentioned as a potential Obama pick for transportation secretary, and his deputy chief of staff was appointed undersecretary for transportation policy this week.

But, but...I thought Republicans didn't want any part of this ~~socialism~~ stimulus package?

It is all about the jobs, and this money will allow the company to call 60 employees back to work (they've had to lay off 350 people), but I love how they rant against spending money while putting their hands out to grab it. What hypocrites.

One more thing, I hope someone keeps an eye on American Infrastructure to make sure every last cent gets spent on employees wages and material. I don't want Myers donating any taxpayer dollars from the stimulus package to Republicans - and I especially don't want him pocketing any of the money.

Takin' It To The Streets

2009-03-05T10:14:00.001-05:00

This goes out to DJ, who's angry with conservative ideology that favors the rich over the poor and middle-class, and to Bruce Fealk, who wonders why Republicans "want to be so unpatriotic as to think Americans shouldn't earn good wages, have access to health care and a decent pension to live on during their golden years."

Bruce also asks, "When do we take to the streets en mass and call these idiots out? When do we say, ENOUGH!"

That day may be coming soon if Europe is any indication. Large demonstrations sparked by the economic crisis broke out recently in France, Greece, Iceland and Russia, and only a couple of weeks ago thousands of people marched in Dublin.

MORE than 120,000 workers surrounded the Dail, or Irish Parliament, to protest against bail-outs for wealthy bankers, soaring unemployment and the Fianna Fail government's attempts to force public-sector workers to take a pay cut. [...]

"There is anger, because everybody knows that this crisis is not our fault, that a business elite has destroyed our economy and has as yet to be made accountable for it," Mr Begg told the huge rally at Merrion Square in the heart of Dublin.

Workers are angry because the government plans on docking 7 percent from the paychecks of 350,000 Irish workers "amid revelations of shady dealings and irresponsible lending at banks now getting taxpayer's help." Sound familiar?

The Irish Times labeled it "a case of the bankers’ billions versus the worker’s mite."

The General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, David Begg, said "those involved in what he called corruption had done huge damage to Ireland and described their actions as economic treason." Addressing the rally, Begg also added that "there is anger, because everybody knows that this crisis is not our fault, that a business elite has destroyed our economy and has as yet to be made accountable for it."

And Patricia McKeown, president of the ICTU, decried the "casino capitalism that has brought this country to its knees."

"An economy cannot be built on shady financial deals, privatisation of public services and the ever insatiable greed of the very, very wealthy," she insisted.

"But we face a government which wants the workers who built the economy to now sacrifice while it protects and bankrolls those who wrecked it. We are not prepared to live in that type of society," Ms McKeown declared.

Ironically, John McCain bragged about Ireland's economy on the campaign trail last year, pointing to their low business taxes as an example of what they can do for a country. Just like DeVos missed indications that Michigan wasn't the only state showing signs of economic stress, McCain missed signs that Ireland was having problems too.

The roots of Ireland’s fall date to more than 20 years ago, when a clutch of economists, politicians and civil servants put their heads together in this very pub and planted the philosophical seeds for the Irish economic miracle. ....

Known widely as the “Doheny & Nesbitt School of Economics,” these beery musings soon became government policy that chopped taxes in half, sharply reduced import duties and embraced foreign investment...

So how is Ireland's economic miracle working out? Their housing prices have fallen by as much as 50 percent, bank shares have plummeted by more than 90 percent, and unemployment is approaching 10 percent. No wonder one of London's senior police officers is warning that law-abiding middle-class individuals who would never have considered joining demonstrations may now seek to vent their anger through protests this year.

The public's rage with the banks and the Government is growing by the day. Thousands are losing their jobs through no fault of their own ... Homes are being repossessed across the country, but not the penthouse flats and country piles of bank bosses who thought nothing of taking home vast seven-figure bonuses, and consider £1 million a year a modest income.

The innocent are being punished while the guilty continue to lead affluent lives.

British police are preparing for a "summer of rage" as people protest the growing economic crisis. Europeans have had enough. Americans have had enough too, and as David Sirota says, "It is only going to get worse if genuine change doesn't happen in short order."

(Cross-posted at BFM.)

I'm Thankful for Socialism

2009-03-04T10:00:00.003-05:00

Republicans can't whip people into a frenzy over Iraq, terrorism, gay rights or abortion anymore, so they've settled on a new target - socialism. For some reason, they're under the impression that Americans are just genetically opposed to it. That's because Republicans sit on their high horses, out of touch with average Americans like me. I'm thankful for socialism, in particular social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and I'm not alone.

In the past 5 weeks, I've attended 4 funerals, including my mother's, and I've learned that most families are very thankful that their loved ones had Medicare to cover medical bills and Social Security to cover part of their daily living expenses.

I also learned that young people wish they had something like Medicare to fall back on. They're worrying themselves sick because they don't have health care, and they're more than willing to pay extra taxes in return for coverage.

In my mother's case, she also received Medicaid, which enabled us to put her in a nursing home 2 years ago. She was 86-years-old at the time, had outlived her money a long time ago, and was in the end stages of Alzheimer's. We couldn't emotionally and financially care for her at home anymore and Medicaid was a godsend. My mother had round-the-clock nursing care, and for the last 6 months she even had hospice, which meant she was kept pain free up till the end.

Incidentally, don't buy into the Republican myth that socialized medicine prevents you from choosing your doctor. My mother had physicians from the best hospitals in the area to choose from. Ditto nursing homes. We visited several places before deciding on the one we liked. (I guess Republicans haven't heard of choice limiting HMOs or PPOs.)

My mom was a blessing to us, just like all of your loved ones are blessings, and it makes me angry when I hear people like Mike Huckabee say, "Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff," or other Republicans who throw around terms like "Comrade," as though socialism is dirty and disgusting, and by extension so are the beneficiaries of it. How dare they insult people like my mother. She did the best she could in life to work hard and pay her fair share in taxes. And even if she hadn't worked a day in her life, she deserved health care and a death with dignity because she was one of us.

It's not socialism to provide health care or a roof over a person's head, it's the right thing to do. It's the Christian thing to do.

Thank you America for looking after my mother. Your tax dollars made her last few years here on earth more comfortable. God bless you all.

Goodbye Mom

2009-02-24T05:13:00.003-05:00

My mother died today after a long struggle with Alzheimer's, the disease they refer to as the "long goodbye" because the person leaves this world mentally long before their body passes on.

“Sisu” is the perfect word to describe my mom. Roughly translated from Finnish, sisu means perseverance and determination. That was my mom. She taught me to keep going even when I felt like giving up. She also taught me that it was more important to love than to be loved. All of my best qualities are because of her. She was a wonderful mother, role model, and best friend.

I'm confident that heaven welcomed her with open arms.

Creating jobs in America is the whole point

2009-02-19T13:25:00.000-05:00

Following up on my earlier post about the "Buy American" provisions in the stimulus package - provisions designed to stop the bleeding of jobs and to create new jobs here in America - is a post from Robert Reich that admonishes us not to "confuse American companies with American jobs."

The new stimulus bill, for example, requires that the money be used for production in the United States. Foreign governments, along with large U.S. multinationals concerned about possible foreign retaliation, charge this favors American-based companies. That's not quite true. Foreign companies are eligible to receive stimulus money for things they make here (as long as the nations where they're headquartered have signed the WTO procurement agreement). [...]

I'm not defending the "buy American" provisions of the stimulus bill. I'm just saying they're not the same as "buy from American companies." And although these provisions skate close to protectionism and risk foreign retaliation, at least a case can be made that if American taxpayers are footing the bill in order to create American jobs, the jobs should be created, well, here in America.

I added that emphasis because it's an important distinction. If we buy steel slabs produced in Canada or China, jobs will be created or maintained over there and fewer jobs will be created here, which defeats the whole purpose of the stimulus plan.

Reich also applied this line of reasoning to the auto bailout:

I’m not arguing against an auto bailout. But it ought to be focused on helping American auto workers rather than helping global auto companies headquartered in America. [And he points out that the Big Three themselves are global.] Why pay the Big Three billions of taxpayer dollars to stay afloat when, even after being bailed out, they cut tens of thousands of American jobs, slash wages, and shrink their American operations into small fractions of what they used to be?

That’s backwards. The auto bailout should help American autoworkers keep their jobs or get new ones that pay almost as well.

We're between a rock and a hard place place in this country. I agree with E.J. Dionne's opinion that "there are no good solutions for fixing the auto industry," but I also agree with USW President Leo Gerard who said...

Saving the domestic auto industry is crucial to the economic renewal of the U.S. The steel, glass, auto parts, tires, and paper industries produce products for this industry and employ a quarter million of our members alone.

Our livelihoods are all interconnected, and as Reich concluded, "Whether it’s stimulus or bailout, policy makers must remember that American companies aren’t the same as American workers – and our first responsibility is to the latter."

Absolutely. That's why spending money from the stimulus bill on products created here is so important. It keeps Americans working, helps restore our economy and may save our domestic auto industry. Isn't that the whole point?

Republicans Say No to Largest Tax Cut in History

2009-02-18T12:13:00.002-05:00

Republicans not only voted against creating jobs when they voted no on the stimulus plan, they also voted against one of the biggest tax cuts in history. Robert Schlesinger at US News gives us the lowdown.

Steven Waldman, a former U.S. News editor (well before I wandered these halls), makes an interesting case that the coming tax cut will indeed be the biggest ever.
The compromise stimulus plan includes $282 billion in tax cuts over two years.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Bush's first two years of tax cuts amounted to $174 billion. A second batch in 2004 and 2005 cost $231. And those were thought to be bigger than the tax cuts offered by Reagan, Kennedy, or others.

But wait, you say, wasn't Bush's 2001 tax cut, at $1.35 trillion (funny how the GOP didn't mind draining one trillion dollars from the government coffers then), the largest in history?
Yes, over the full 10 years of its existence. But over the first two years, as Waldman points out above, the price tag was much smaller. So the Obama stimulus tax cut would be the biggest ever for the first two years.

It's common knowledge that Republicans love tax cuts, so what motivated them to vote against these? I think Steve Benen nails it with this remark:

George W. Bush's tax cuts were long-term income-tax rate cuts, which amounted to a generous break for those at the top, since the wealthy pay most income taxes. Obama's tax cuts, meanwhile, are short-term refunds paid directly to working and middle class families (some of which Republicans have denounced as "welfare").

We can't have money trickling down to the masses. That would ruin their plans to redistribute even more money up to the already wealthy.

By the way, with this stimulus bill, Obama kept his campaign promise to deliver tax cuts, and he's only been in office one month. Meanwhile, we're still waiting for Republicans to deliver on some of that compassionate conservatism they said we'd be seeing.

Buy American, Buy Local

2009-02-16T13:57:00.003-05:00

In spite of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's opposition to the "Buy American" provisions in the stimulus bill, the progressive movement (i.e. unions, consumer groups, the blogosphere) won according to David Sirota.

First, the Buy America provisions survived the conference committee and remain in the stimulus package. These provisions, which were vehemently opposed by multinational corporate lobbyists, encourage government agencies to purchase American-made goods in spending the stimulus money, so as to make sure the money creates as big an economic multiplier effect for our economy as possible.

Second, I'm told by Capitol Hill sources that the Sanders-Grassley amendment prohibiting bailed-out banks from using taxpayer money to outsource jobs remains in the final bill. The amendment followed the Associated Press's report that many banks were using the cash in conjunction with their ongoing efforts to abuse the H-1B program and outsource information sector jobs.

Of course, you won't hear the Mackinac Center, Republicans, or conservative mouthpieces like Lesley Stahl singing the praises of Buy American. They argue we're being protectionists and other countries will look upon these provisions as hostile. That's garbage according to this CEO who told 60 Minutes...

"The whole purpose of your stimulus package, and it's the right purpose, is to stop the bleeding of jobs and to create new jobs here in America, not overseas, not in China, not in Europe," Dan DiMicco, the CEO of Nucor ...

DiMicco said that the counter argument - trade retaliation by other countries - is not true. "It's all garbage," he told Stahl. "People can say what they want. What we have around the world, all right, is a trade war against the United States that we have not showed up for."

DiMicco denied he is a protectionist. "I am a person who says there's no such thing as free trade. Free trade is an academic luxury the real world doesn't enjoy. If you want to study it at Harvard, study it at Harvard. It doesn't work in the real world. It has no application."

The EPI agrees: "These companies are self-interested, simply wanting unlimited access to imports, many of which are illegally subsidized and unfairly traded."

Our economy is badly crippled and people are hurting. Taxpayer money should be used to help Americans and put our own house in order first, and that means the government has to make sure the money isn't used to widen the trade deficit, not if it wants to create and preserve jobs.

Suppose the government spends, say, $100 billion on bridges and buildings, and that $500 million of that is used to buy steel. If it is used to buy imported steel, and if that $500 million doesn't come back to the United States in the form of demand for its exports, then you can subtract $500 million from the stimulus. And you can be pretty sure--given our current trade deficit--that something like that would happen. So, without a requirement that these government projects use domestic steel (with mills currently running at 43 percent capacity!), there is a very great possibility that the government would be throwing away money rather than doing anything about the problem. [emphasis added]

Republicans are hoping Obama fails. What better way to make sure that happens than to push to use the stimulus money to buy materials from foreign countries?

How do most Americans feel about the "Buy American" provisions? A national poll found that 84 percent favor the requirements and only 4 percent strongly oppose them. The overwhelming support was consistent regardless of gender, age, income level, education, or region, proving once again that Republicans are out of touch with mainstream America.

Republicans are out of touch with local Michigan communities too. A group in Genesee County says it's important to think about the American economy, and they're going even further with a campaign to buy local. A series of business leaders in Grand Blanc, Swartz Creek, Flint and other communities recorded a series of messages that play regularly on four radio stations that are part of the local Cumulus Radio Group.

Jet Kilmer, President of the Grand Blanc Chamber of Commerce, recorded one message that explains how 83% of money spent with a local merchant stays in the community vs. 43% spent outside. The message urges people to consider buying local, or to hire local contractors to do needed work.

And according to Crain's Detroit, "the state Agriculture Department projected that if Michigan households earmarked $10 a week in their grocery purchases to made-in-Michigan food products, it would generate $30 million a week in economic impact."

What's good for big business isn't always good for Americans. If we don't have jobs and decent wages, we won't be able to buy what they're selling no matter how much they mark it down. That's why we need to keep the stimulus money in this country. Americans should come first. Period.

Americans want inquiry into "war on terror" tactics

2009-02-12T14:03:00.002-05:00

Our attention may be focused on the economic meltdown swirling around us, but we aren't suffering from amnesia and we're not ready to let the Bush administration off the hook. A new USA TODAY - Gallup Poll finds most of us favor investigating whether the Bush administration broke the law in its tactics in the "war on terror."

Close to two-thirds of those surveyed said there should be investigations into allegations that the Bush team used torture to interrogate terrorism suspects and its program of wiretapping U.S. citizens without getting warrants. Almost four in 10 favor criminal investigations and about a quarter want investigations without criminal charges. One-third said they want nothing to be done.

Even more people want action on alleged attempts by the Bush team to use the Justice Department for political purposes. Four in 10 favored a criminal probe, three in 10 an independent panel, and 25% neither.

Groups like the ACLU are pressing for inquires into whether the Bush administration violated U.S. and international bans on torture and the constitutional rights to privacy, and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers has called for a panel to gather facts and make recommendations, which could possibly lead to prosecutions.

Senator Patrick Leahy has also proposed a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate abuses, including the use of torture, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, and executive overrides. According to Leahy...

Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened. The best way to move forward is getting to the truth, finding out what happened, so we can make sure it does not happen again.

Thousands of Americans lives were lost in Iraq, along with billions of dollars and our country's moral authority. We can't turn our back on that page in history as though it never happened. We deserve answers.

Click here to sign Leahy's online petition urging Congress to consider establishing a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate the Bush-Cheney Administration's abuses.

Gallup says, "At this point, it is unclear whether investigations into possible Bush-era wrongdoing will in fact take place," but when asked about Leahy's plan, President Obama said he would look at it.

Sign the petition and send the message that letting the Bush administration off the hook is wrong.

(Cross posted at Blogging for MI.)

Americans approve of Obama's handling of the stimulus bill

2009-02-09T08:48:00.005-05:00

Republicans are feeling pretty smug about their Taliban-like disruptive tactics in opposing the president's stimulus package, but it turns out a majority of Americans see things differently. h/t Gallup

The American public gives President Barack Obama a strong 67% approval rating for the way in which he is handling the government's efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill, while the Democrats and, in particular, the Republicans in Congress receive much lower approval ratings of 48% and 31%, respectively.

Americans understand the seriousness of this situation because they're living with the results of eight years of Republican trickle down economics. The bottom line:

President Obama would appear to have the upper hand in the current focus on Congress' efforts to pass a major economic stimulus bill. Not only does Obama get much higher approval ratings for the way in which he is handling the stimulus issue than do either the Democrats or, in particular, the Republicans in Congress, but a majority of Americans agree with him that passing such a bill is critically important for improving the nation's economy.

Critical is the key word. Americans want action, Republicans want to play games with our lives.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Wanna scare a Republican?

2009-02-06T11:23:00.001-05:00

Show him/her this op-ed - Please Raise My Taxes - written by Reed Hastings, CEO and founder of the highly successful Netflix:

This week, President Obama proposed imposing a $500,000 compensation cap on companies seeking a bailout. It’s a terrible idea. We all want the taxpayers’ money returned, and capping compensation at bailout recipients will just make it that much harder for those boards to hire and hold on to the executives who can lead their companies to compete and thrive.

Perhaps a starting place for “tax, not shame” would be creating a top federal marginal tax rate of 50 percent on all income above $1 million per year. Some will tell you that would reduce the incentive to earn but I don’t see that as likely. Besides, half of a giant compensation package is still pretty huge, and most of our motivation is the sheer challenge of the job anyway.

Instead of trying to shame companies and executives, the president should take advantage of our success by using our outsized earnings to pay for the needs of our nation.

Not only will higher taxes on the rich pay for the needs of our nation according to Hastings, but they'll also "finance opportunity for the next generation of Americans."

Makes sense to me, but somehow I don't see Republicans lining up to vote "yea" on that proposal.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

We have inherited a deep and dire economic crisis

2009-02-05T10:16:00.001-05:00

The bad news just keeps on coming. The Labor Department reported today that the number of laid-off workers seeking jobless benefits rose to 626,000, from last week's figure of 591,000.

As President Obama put it in an editorial in today's WaPo:

By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression.

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

At some point we may not be able to reverse the crisis. Do the Republicans bent on obstructing the stimulus package understand the seriousness of our situation? It doesn't appear they do, or why else would they keep pushing tax cuts that major economists have already discredited? They're playing Russian roulette with our country and hoping Obama fails so they can score political points. Are the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans that inconsequential to them?

And it's not just Republicans putting our country in danger. The media shares a lot of the blame too. They promote Republican talking points as the truth and focus on stories that seem rather inconsequential compared to what's going on around us.

As John Cole put it:

Our media is simply failing us. Why have they not asked the Republicans how tax cuts are going to provide jobs? Why are they not laughing openly when the Republicans bring up capital gains tax cuts as part of a stimulus package. Why are they not asking the Republicans to explain how infrastructure spending is not stimulus? Why are they pretending this woman’s minor tax oversight is on par with outing a CIA agent or letting tens of thousands of people soak for a week in New Orleans. Why are they gleefully reporting about Joe the Plumber giving economic advice to the House republicans while their colleagues are writing about the Republicans being unified in opposition to the stimulus and putting two and two together and realizing that the opposition to the stimulus from Republicans is based on the deep thoughts of a drug addled radio host and a guy who installs toilets?

And why is the media not reminding people that President Obama voted against the war in Iraq, a war that likely will cost us $3 trillion dollars? He had the intelligence to look at the facts and do the right thing then, so we should be trusting him to do the right thing now.

Time is of the essence. Asking the right questions and doing the right thing might not be popular or sell many television ads, but it just might save our country from a crisis we may not be able to reverse. Is that a chance the media and Republicans are willing to take?

We supported their war, tell them to support us

2009-02-04T10:37:00.004-05:00

Conservatives are busy calling Congress trying to block Obama's stimulus plan. The word on the street is that calls are running 100 to 1 against the plan. We know Michigan Senators Levin and Stabenow support creating jobs for Americans and setting our country on the road to economic recovery, but they still need to hear from you. As someone commented on another blog yesterday, "Repubs are calling into our "safe" states also, we need to make our voices heard."

Please call 1-866-544-7573 (toll-free) and ask as many senators as you can reach to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Be prepared to try several times. The lines are busy.

If you don't have to worry about using a toll-free number, you might have better success getting through with these:

Sen. Carl Levin at (202) 224-6221
Sen. Debbie Stabenow at (202) 224-4822
Via the Senate Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 (for people in other states)

What's at stake? Under the Senate version of the stimulus plan, this is what Michigan stands to gain:

Total - $19,975,801,863
School Modernization - $642,876,538
Higher Educ. Repair and Modernization - $125,670,301
Home Investments Partnership Program - $64,794,416
Highway Infrastructure Investment - $790,185,174
Mass Transit - $170,947,191
Public Housing Capital Funds - $53,135,372
Neighborhood Stabilization Program - $151,279,933
Homeless Prevention Fund - $55,062,292
Clean Water State Revolving Fund - $171,560,760
Drinking Water Revolving Fund - $69,200,000
State Fiscal Stabilization - $2,145,703,599
Title I Grants - $522,337,187
IDEA, Part B State Grants - $461,265,518
Pell Grants - $472,621,650
Training and Employment Services - $200,786,089
Weatherization Assistance Program - $148,292,700
State Energy Program - $13,775,009

And don't forget the thousands of jobs this spending will create in Michigan (and across the country).

We supported Republican's spending on their unnecessary and ill-begotten war in Iraq. Tell them to support economic recovery and jobs for Americans.

Denying the New Deal contributions

2009-02-03T12:15:00.002-05:00

Andrew Leonard at Salon has an interesting article criticizing the WSJ for their "increasingly shrill declarations that the New Deal absolutely, positively did not work," and he took particular exception with economists, Harold L. Cole and Lee. E. Ohanian, who made the following claim.

The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn't restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office.

Leonard questioned how they could make this claim since unemployment, which reached 25 percent in the Great Depression, fell steadily until World War II. The answer: They didn't count as employed those people in temporary jobs in emergency programs via the Works Progress Administration (WPA) or Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), or any other of Roosevelt's popular New Deal workfare programs.

Three and a half million people were employed through these programs, which helped them buy food, pay for shelter and maintain some self-respect. My grandfather was one of those people, as I commented here earlier, and a stretch of pine trees he helped plant along US-41 between Houghton and Calumet (in Michigan) still stands today.

These workers made phenomenal contributions to our country. (h/t economist Marshall Auerback via James Galbraith)

The government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York's Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.

It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country's entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.

Not too shabby for a bunch of unemployed people who didn't count, eh?