Supreme Court Overturns Corporate Campaign Spending Limits

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

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.

Salaries Could Be Squeezed For Some Time To Come

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.

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

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?

Holiday Shopping Tips for Progressives

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.)

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

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.

Good Corp, Bad Corp

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.)

Mainstream America Is Not Red

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.

Greedy Hedge Funds Stomp Feet and Pout

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.

One Corporations Way of Stimulating the Economy

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"

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.

Save American Jobs: Boycott Chase Bank

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

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.

FedEx Blackmails Congress

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?

Gallup: Majority Support Employee Free Choice Act

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

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)

Republican CEO Says "Yes" To Socialism

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.

Buy American, Buy Local

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.

Lobbyists and corporations love McCain

This is McCain's idea of putting the middle-class first.

The non-partisan group Campaign Money Watch has come up with another startling figure for those who follow the presidential money chase.

According to an analysis performed by the group, McCain's top fundraisers and aides have collected nearly $1 billion in fees from U.S. companies in the past decade -- specifically, $930,949,819. Using numbers provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, the group also found that officials of those very same companies have given nearly $12 million to McCain's presidential campaign, so far.

"The McCain campaign relies on big money lobbyists, and they'll rely on him," said David Donnelly, director of Campaign Money Watch. "In the 'you-scratch-my-back, I'll-scratch-yours' world of Washington, $931 million gets the special interests the best government money can buy. But just think of the payday these lobbyists might expect in a McCain Administration."

That's good news for lobbyists, not so much for the rest of us. To add insult to injury, McCain wants to cut taxes on corporations, in spite of the fact most corporations, including a large majority of foreign companies doing business in the United States, pay no income taxes.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that two-thirds of both American and foreign companies doing business here end up avoiding all income tax obligations to the federal government, despite corporate sales totaling $2.5 trillion.

According to the GAO, each year from 1998 to 2005, an average of 68 percent of the foreign companies operating in the United States paid zero federal income taxes. During the same period, 66 percent of U.S. domestic corporations paid no federal income taxes to the government.

The only thing the middle-class can expect from McCain is crumbs.

McCain relies on "experts" for economic advice

You've probably heard that John McCain is considering Carly Fiorina for vice-president and that Phil Gramm is his main economics guru. This shows that McCain really is "Vintage Bush." (Thanks michmark.) He doesn't have to know anything, he just needs to consult with the not so right people.

Let me start with Carly Fiorina, who will be addressing the Detroit Regional Chamber's Mackinac Policy Conference today. As you might recall, Fiorina was ousted from her position as CEO at HP for mismanagement and failing to produce the returns and corporate profits expected. Her position didn't work out too well for workers either. Fiorina executed a merger between HP and Compaq and thousands of employees were laid off as a result. Don't feel too sorry for Fiorna though. She walked away with a $21 million dollar severance package, which was 2.5 times her base annual salary.

Fiorna's employment with HP was a lose-lose proposition all the way around, but that doesn't seem to matter to McCain, possibly because Carly is all for cutting taxes. The Michigan Business Review interviewed her and these quotes pretty much set the tone:

So we've got to get our climate for business better. We have to lower the tax rates at both a federal and a state level. We have to get useless paperwork, bureaucracy and regulation out of the way. We have to motivate businesses to invest.[...]

But Michigan needs to think very long and hard about the tax climate it has compared to the other states.

She was also asked about Hewlett-Packard possibly acquiring EDS and what kind of impact she thought it would have on this state.

And frankly I just don't know enough about it to know what the specific impact on Michigan will be.

But what I can tell you, having done a massive merger myself and executed it successfully, one of the first questions that a chief executive is faced with is, when you are consolidating two businesses, where will the jobs go?

In HP's case, those jobs went overseas to China and Russia because, as Carly said, "there is no job that is America's God-given right anymore."

Not all vice-presidents play an active role in influencing policy, so Fiorina may be benign in that area, but not so Phil Gramm. McCain has made it clear that Gramm is his main economic guru, or as David Corn calls him, Foreclosure Phil.

Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure.

Tax cuts, free trade, deregulation. McCain is pushing the same agenda that's worked well for the rich at the expense of average Americans, and he aided and abetted by people like Gramm and Fiorina. McCain is simply more of the same from a party that has nothing to offer average Americans.


(Cross-posted at BFM.)