Jobless rolls climb, Republicans don't care

Unemployment rolls continue to soar.

The number of people remaining on the benefits roll after drawing an initial week of aid, or continued claims, rose 159,000 to a higher-than-forecast 4.776 million in the week ended January 17, the most recent week for which data is available.

The Labor Department said this was the highest reading since its records on this series began in 1967.

Jobs. People need jobs. Last Monday saw 77,000 layoffs in one day alone, and it seems as though no profession is safe:

IBM workers are shocked at job cuts straight after the company issued glowing fourth quarter financial results, says employee union Alliance@IBM.

The first cuts of an expected 16,000 layoffs have been made in the Software Group and Sales and Distribution in the US and Canada.

And four U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics analysts predict that recent telecommunications advances, especially the internet, could theoretically put more than 30 million U.S. jobs at risk of being exported overseas.

The 160 occupations considered capable of being performed in other countries account for some 30.3 million workers, one-fifth of total U.S. employment and cover a wide array of job functions, pay rates and educational levels.

More than half of the vulnerable jobs in the BLS study are professional and related occupations, including computer and mathematical science occupations and architecture and engineering jobs, and many office and administrative support occupations also are considered susceptible.

Whether blue-collar or white-collar, President Obama and Democrats understand the gravity of our situation and devised a plan that would save or create more than 3 million jobs. House Republicans voted unanimously against that plan. Will Senate Republicans vote against jobs too?

UPDATE: Following the Republican's unanimous no vote, economist Lawrence Mishel said it's time to rescind the wasteful business tax cuts from the stimulus package.

The Wednesday night vote in the House on the economic recovery package is astonishing in that no Republicans voted for the legislation. This, despite there being large scale, and wasteful, business tax cuts in the legislation that were seemingly included solely to attract Republican votes.

The lesson that might be drawn is to not water down your own program in the hopes of attracting a bi-partisan coalition. It only makes sense now to remove those tax cuts from any Senate legislation to make the recovery effort more effective. It could matter a lot. The amount of stimulus in this fiscal year and next (through the end of September 2010) is $525 billion and the Senate bill provides for $107 billion of business tax cuts with limited effectiveness, leaving only $418 billion of real stimulus over the next eighteen months.

Filling the space taken by the business tax cuts with infrastructure and other spending that will create jobs could make the effort 25% more effective. The best economic and political logic now seem aligned.

Congress doesn't think much of American workers

GM and UAW officials are holding meetings because, under terms of the bailout approved by the Bush administration, GM must bring its own hourly wage costs in line with those of Toyota and other Japanese automakers that operate nonunion factories in the United States. Aside from the fact that I find it outrageous foreign companies have been allowed to push our wages down in this country, I'm also outraged by Congress.

I'm not the only one. Check out this editorial from The Livingston Daily: FEDERAL PAY RAISES: Pay hikes show what Congress thinks of American workers

Remember, during the whole debate over a bridge loan for auto companies, how members of Congress kept saying autoworkers are overpaid? Some U.S. senators and representatives claimed United Auto Workers members were knocking down $73, even $75, per hour.

That led federal lawmakers, like U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., to call for a cut in pay for auto workers as a condition of the "bailout."

It turns out the figure was wildly wrong. You can only get to figures that high if you include all kinds of things not typically considered wages — health care, benefits, vacation time, pension costs, retirees' health care, etc.

The paper did the math and pointed out that full-time workers actually earn between $58,240 and $61,942 annually, which they point out is a decent living but won't make a person rich. Compare that to our lawmakers in Washington.

Still, it is a far cry from the $169,300 that U.S. senators and representatives were paid this year. If Congress members really work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks out of the year (and they don't), it is well over the $73 per hour rate they so objected to. It would in fact be more than $81 per hour, and that's not counting their benefits, their health care or their pension costs.

What's more, lawmakers are going to get a raise. Yup, that $81 an hour isn't good enough for them. They deserve more. Come January, U.S. senators and representatives get an additional $4,700 in their yearly paycheck, bringing their annual haul to $174,000. Assuming again, a 40-hour week for 52 weeks, that pay rate comes to a whopping $83.65 per hour.

They drew the following conclusion:

So let's make sure we have the logic correct — people who actually build things, in this case automobiles, deserve a pay cut from their $29.78 an hour ... it is lawmakers who deserve a boost in pay to $83.65 an hour ... for getting their facts wrong when they debate issues, like how much autoworkers get paid.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Lawmakers get raises when they make mistakes and spread lies. They even get them in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression. That's a sweet deal.

Hypocrisy aside, higher pay was supposed to translate into better government when Congress voted to raise their pay in 1989 from $89,500 to $135,000 annually. So much for that theory. We're fighting a war based on lies, inequality is at levels not seen since the Depression, our economy is in a deep recession, unemployment numbers could be 10% or higher by summer, millions of people have lost their homes to foreclosure, and millions more live in poverty and/or without health insurance.

In the real world, they'd be fired for such gross negligence.

Washington Should Protect U.S. Cars and U.S Jobs

Gettelfinger appeared before the Senate Banking Committee today in Washington and was asked a question that I can't recall now (I'll keep searching for the transcript), but I do remember he referred to the Level Field Institute when giving his answer. It's an interesting site with a wealth of information and statistics on quality, R&D, jobs, suppliers, etc. But more importantly, they have the facts you need if you want the car you buy to support jobs and investment in your community.

Here's some information I gathered from their pages.

Ford, GM and Chrysler sell about half the cars bought in the U.S., but they buy nearly 80% of the parts made here.

On average, Ford, GM and Chrysler cars use two and a half times more "domestic" parts.

GM and Toyota use approximately the same numbers of workers to build each car. The difference is, only 12% of Toyota's workforce is here. At GM, it's nearly 40%.

The bulk of Ford's engineering, design, financing and marketing are here, while Toyota conducts much of that work in Japan.

U.S. automakers invest more in R&D than any other industry - and Ford, GM and Chrysler invest approximately 80% of that spending here in the U.S.

Ford, GM and Chrysler spend nearly fifteen times more than the Energy Department spends on energy efficiency/alternative fuels programs.

Buying a Ford, GM or Chrysler supports about 6 times more U.S. jobs, on average, than buying a Hyundai - and 2.5 times more U.S. jobs, on average, than buying a Toyota. Does that mean the Big 3 are 6 times less efficient than Hyundai, or 2.5 times less efficient than Toyota? It's where the work gets done that matters most to U.S. jobs.

"Made in America" matters even more when you look at the men and women working for auto parts suppliers that serve automakers. These companies employ about twice as many Americans as the automakers themselves. And Ford, GM and Chrysler purchase nearly 80 percent of the parts these people make. Based on their market share, foreign automakers should be buying about twice what they are.

Tomorrow's jobs will depend, in part, on today's R&D, particularly in fuel efficiency and safety. The Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA), an association of 14 Japanese automakers doing business in America, notes that they collectively employ 3,600 R&D workers at 36 facilities nationwide. Honda operates 10 facilities employing 1,300 R&D professionals. Level Field welcomes these jobs, but more than 65,000 Americans (nearly 20 times JAMA's total) work in 215 automotive R&D facilities in Michigan alone.

Check out the Level Field Institute for yourself. I only touched on a few areas, but one thing is certain - the U.S. car industry is huge and allowing it to fail will kill jobs we'll never get back.

Gettelfinger touched on that today when he noted the following (I'm paraphrasing):

For every 2500 cars made in U.S. plants by the Big 3, approximately 78 people are employed to make them. If the domestic automakers fail and foreign makers in our country pick up their production, only 33 jobs will be created per 2500 cars. That's because the foreign automakers buy more of their parts from overseas. We'd still experience net job losses of about 45 jobs per 2500 cars produced.

Once those jobs go, they'll be gone forever, and foreign automakers will reap the profits. R&D will suffer too. Is that Washington's idea of putting America first?

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI)

A lot of money for death and destruction

How much have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost American taxpayers? Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz coauthored an article in the London Times yesterday that crunched some numbers.

As the fifth year of the war draws to a close, operating costs (spending on the war itself, what you might call “running expenses”) for 2008 are projected to exceed $12.5 billion a month for Iraq alone, up from $4.4 billion in 2003, and with Afghanistan the total is $16 billion a month. Sixteen billion dollars is equal to the annual budget of the United Nations, or of all but 13 of the US states. Even so, it does not include the $500 billion we already spend per year on the regular expenses of the Defence Department. Nor does it include other hidden expenditures, such as intelligence gathering, or funds mixed in with the budgets of other departments. [...]

From the unhealthy brew of emergency funding, multiple sets of books, and chronic underestimates of the resources required to prosecute the war, we have attempted to identify how much we have been spending - and how much we will, in the end, likely have to spend. The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. [emphasis added]

Three trillion dollars for death and destruction, and a majority of it was spent on the Bush administration's lies about Iraq. How different our country and the world would be today if leaders had followed Barack Obama's example and voted against the war. Instead of reading the intelligence for themselves, they took the President at his word. Their intellectual laziness cost thousands of people their lives and put future generations in debt for years to come. History will not only judge Bush harshly, but also our leaders who blindly followed him.

Bush Mentors Maliki

It appears Maliki's model of government is a clone of the Bush administration. From TPM Muckraker [all emphasis mine]:

President Bush might not require Congressional approval for the upcoming U.S.-Iraq security agreement. But [Iraq gov't spokesman] al-Dabbagh said the Maliki government will need to secure a blessing for the deal from the Iraqi parliament. And even though the deal will cover a U.S. military presence for years to come, Dabbagh doesn't expect any parliamentary turbulence -- let alone refusal.

"[The] U.S. people should have confidence that the Iraqi people are accepting this without any pressure," he said. "It is their choice to have a lasting agreement."

Huh? It's their choice? Not according to recent polls (also from TPM):

A September poll conducted by ABC News and the BBC found that 47 percent of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave Iraq immediately, up from 26 percent in November 2005 and 35 percent last winter. Polls in Iraq should be taken with a grain of salt, given the inherent problems of polling under violent conditions. But only seven percent said U.S. troops should "remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently, and zero said the U.S. should never leave."

What the people want apparently doesn't matter (that sounds familiar). Dabbagh doesn't expect the parliament to scotch the agreement. He even hinted that the Maliki government will make sure it doesn't.

Meanwhile, here at home, a majority of Americans still remain committed to bringing our troops home. Maybe Bush or Maliki could explain to us how "bring the troops home" translates into "never leave Iraq."

No more tax dollars for war

President Bush plans to ask Congress for up to $50 billion in additional funding for the war in Iraq. The cost of the war now exceeds $3 billion a week.

Enough is enough already. The Big Easy is still in trouble, the number of uninsured continues to grow, our infrastructure needs repairs and 36.5 million people are living in poverty. The war has wasted money that could have been used to help people here at home and abroad.

No wonder the rest of the world views us with such disgust. Our priorities are screwed up. We spend billions to destroy foreign countries and kill people, but we become miserly when it comes to using money for the common good.

What happened? When did we become a nation of sociopaths?

Republicans in the Twilight Zone

Following their vote yesterday to remain in Iraq indefinitely, the NY Times says Republicans are trapped in the twilight zone.

Twilight Zone Filibusters

Republicans have the right to filibuster under centuries-old rules that this page has long defended. It is the height of hypocrisy for this band of Republicans to use that power since only about two years ago they were ready to unilaterally ban filibusters to push through some of Mr. Bush’s most ideologically blinkered judicial nominees.

But beyond that, the Republicans are doing the public a real disservice and playing an increasingly risky hand by delaying sober consideration of the war. [...]

In postponing real action to September and beyond, Republicans laughed off the all-night debate as a “slumber party” of “twilight zone” theatrics by the Democrats. In fact, Bush loyalists seem trapped in the twilight zone, ducking their responsibility to represent constituents by applying credible pressure on the president to come up with an end to his sorry war.

While Republicans remain in the twilight zone, the rest of the country lives with the reality they've created, which explains these results from a poll taken yesterday by CBS/NYT:

61% Say Congress Shouldn't Fund War Without Timetable For Withdrawal

It's about time, Harry

From Bob Geiger: Reid To Force Senate Into All-Night Session Tuesday

Forcing his Republican colleagues to put up or shut up on the notion of an up-or-down vote, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) just moments ago announced that he will immediately file a cloture motion on the Reed-Levin troop redeployment bill and, if Republicans follow through with a filibuster, will place the Senate in a prolonged all-night session Tuesday to force a true continuation of debate.

In Reid's words:

““All Senators will be welcome to speak their mind. Those of us who are ready to end the war will make our case to the American people. Those who support the status quo are welcome to equal floor time to make their case. Let the American people hear the arguments. Let them see their elected representatives engaging in a full, open and honest debate. Let them hear why Republicans are obstructing us on this amendment.

I can't wait to hear members of the GOP stand there and explain why they want U.S. troops to keep dying for nothing.

You can't veto the truth

I don't care what explanation the president gives for his veto. I don't want to hear it. Enough is enough already.

Americans United for Change have an ad ready to run in response to President Bush's veto and it says everything anyone needs to know:

Mr. President. You can veto a bill, but you can’t veto the truth.

Still waiting on the moral majority to do the right thing

Here's where we stand on raising the minimum wage in case you're keeping score:

In January, the House passed a clean, no-strings-attached bill to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25. Then, in late January, the Senate Republican minority killed the clean bill and filibustered for a week until Democrats agreed to include $8.3 billion in business tax breaks as part of the package.

In spite of getting what they wanted, the bill still hasn't passed. Republicans refused to let the bill go to conference because they were afraid the tax giveaways wouldn't survive. Meanwhile, 13 million workers continue to work at poverty level wages, left behind by the so-called "moral majority."

There's a glimmer of hope that all is not lost though. From the AFL-CIO Blog:

There may have been a small step forward last week. Before leaving town for a two-week spring vacation, the Senate passed a supplemental spending bill for the war in Iraq that includes the $2.10 raise in the minimum wage. But the trade off for that $2.10 is more than $12 billion in tax breaks for business. That’s right, they tacked on another $3.9 billion in tax giveaways.

Minimum wage supporters hope the action might jump-start House and Senate negotiations on the tax break part of the minimum wage bill. The House has offered $1.3 billion in targeted tax breaks but that leaves a $10 billion gap to overcome.

I guess Republicans conveniently forgot that companies already received $300 billion in tax breaks since the last minimum wage increase. They should just pass the bill without any tax breaks. This is just a greedy grab for more.

In the end though, none of this will probably matter. President Bush said he will veto the overall bill because it calls for the beginning of a troop withdrawal from Iraq, and I have no doubt he'll follow through with his threat. As Cheney reminded us over the weekend, "the U.S. military answers to the president, not Congress."

That's correct, but I'd like to remind Cheney and Bush that they answer to the voters, and the voters have overwhelmingly said they want our troops home within a year.

The same goes for members of both houses. You answer to the voters, and the voters overwhelmingly favor increasing the minimum wage. What are you waiting for?

Just say NO to bailing out subprime lenders

The US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is holding hearings on the subprime mortgage market to determine the causes and consequences of the turmoil lenders have created. The cause is pretty obvious. From Bloomberg:

"Abusive'' lending and fraud helped fuel a surge in subprime mortgage defaults, the regulator of the biggest U.S. banks told senators probing federal agencies' response to trouble in the markets.

The consequences are obvious too. Experts predict up to two million people will lose their homes, stocks in financial services have taken a hit, and nearly 20 subprime lenders have gone out of business.

Those consequences will also have consequences that could affect the rest of us: U.S. states oppose bailout to subprime lenders

"I strongly encourage Congress to avoid using taxpayer funds to bail out the subprime lenders, brokers and investors that generated our current problem," Joseph Smith, the North Carolina Commissioner of Banks, said in remarks prepared for a Senate hearing. [emphasis mine]

Absolutely. I can't believe this idea is even being considered. Why should companies who practiced abusive lending and fraud get a taxpayer bailout when consumers with serious medical bills can't get relief through bankruptcy?

Remember the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005? Republicans said that would strengthen our economy, among other things:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Congress sent "a firm and resounding message" that the federal bankruptcy system "will no longer be a shelter for abuse." And Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., said the new law will change America's "when-in-doubt-bail-out" system of dealing with debts.

No double standards. If it's good for the consumer, then it's good for business too.

If anyone should get help, I think it should be the borrowers who were victims of these predatory lenders. Hillary Clinton is pushing for a federally mandated "foreclosure timeout" that would give homeowners more time to catch up on their payments, and she wants to curtail the prepayment penalties that make it hard for troubled borrowers to refinance. Those suggestions seem reasonable, as does the suggestion from the hearing that Congress require lenders to set a default loan for subprime borrowers at a 30-year fixed rate, and to modernize the FHA so that it can lend to some subprime borrowers.

There was one other suggestion from the hearing worth noting too:

Lawmakers should also take the step of requiring lenders to consider a borrower's ability to repay a loan before making one.

Well, of course, that's just common sense, and now the free market will have to live with the consequences of their failure to do the right thing - government intervention.

Dale Kildee on Troop Escalation?

Think Progress is keeping track of where every member of Congress stands on troop escalation. So, where does Dale Kildee (MI-D) stand? That's "unknown" at this point.

I called Kildee's office to ask his position, but the man who answered the phone said I would have to speak to Kildee's chief-of-staff. Unfortunately, the chief was in a meeting, so I would have to leave a message on his voice mail. I asked if he would get back to me today, but was told he had meetings scheduled the rest of the afternoon.

I then asked if he could just tell me what Rep. Kildee's position was on increasing the troops. I explained that I tried searching his website and the media without success and simply wanted to know where he stood. The nice man again said he couldn't help me, but I was welcome to call back later on. (If they have meetings scheduled all day, what was the point of calling back?)

Anyway, not to be deterred, I decided to write the Congressman and ask him to clarify his position (and I also let him know I oppose an escalation). If I get a response, I'll let you know.

I wish our elected officials would post this kind of information online. Why should the taxpayer have to call, write or Google? Kildee has a website, but it's extremely out-of-date. It's actually scrolling press releases from last October. Come on, Congressman, get with the times and update your website, okay? Inquiring constituents want to know your position on these issues.