Monday, January 31, 2011


The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape
nick baumann --motherjones--
Fri Jan. 28, 2011 3:00 AM PST

Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

Long Time Ago, Eek A Mouse

Sunday, January 30, 2011


It began with Saddam, say Iraqis Sunday,
30 January 2011 02:37
-thepeninsulaqatar--


BAGHDAD: Iraqis yesterday welcomed the revolt in Egypt that threatens to topple President Hosni Mubarak, with some claiming the tremors shaking Arab rulers had begun with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

“Saddam was their teacher, and all of these dictators are his little pupils,” declared Hussein Mohammed, taking a break from loading boxes of imported toys into a truck.

“The dictator (Mubarak) must leave — all dictators must go,” the 55-year-old added, noting that he stayed up until 4.00am listening to the radio for news from Cairo.

“From Morocco to Saudi Arabia, we Arabs want all dictators out.”

Other Iraqis remained glued to their television sets throughout the day, with electronics store owner Maher Minjal tuning four televisions to different Arabic news channels reporting events in Egypt.

“The fuse was lit by Iraq, because we became the first Arab country to achieve democracy and get an elected government,” said Minjal, 28, from his store in Baghdad’s commercial Karrada district.

“If the regime in Egypt falls, all other Arab regimes will fall, because Egypt is the biggest and most powerful country in the Arab world.” Anti-regime riots that raged yesterday for a fifth straight day in Egypt, inspired by the overthrow of Tunisian strongman Zine El Abidine Ben Ali earlier this month, have sent shockwaves across the region.

At least one Iraqi political analyst agreed with the assessment that Iraq had begun a process that seemed to be spreading across the Middle East.

“It is absolutely true that (former US president George W) Bush was right when he said that democracy in Iraq would sweep through the Arab world,” Baghdad-based analyst Ihsan
Al Shammari said.

“In fact, Iraq was the first democratic regime in the region, but we are different from Egypt and Tunisia in that we were changed by foreign forces (the US-led coalition) and they are being changed by popular uprisings.

Iraq’s Al Mashriq newspaper pejoratively referred to Mubarak as a “Pharaoh,” and said the day of reckoning had come for a leader who had been a friend to the enemies of Arabs, which it said were Israel and the United States. “The American ally and the friend of Israel has been ruling Egypt since 1981, but the ground is shaking beneath the feet of the Pharaoh,” the Arabic-language newspaper said in an editoria. AFP

A thing that is infinite and eternal hath no qualities, since it hath all qualities.

-- C.G. Jung, Seven Sermons of the Dead

Thursday, January 27, 2011


To target Fox News over 'Nazi' label, rabbis make use of Murdoch's other media

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 26, 2011; 11:40 PM



A coalition of rabbis wants Fox News chief Roger Ailes and conservative host Glenn Beck to cut out all their talk about Nazis and the Holocaust, and it's making its views known in an unusual place.

The rabbis have called on Fox News's owner, Rupert Murdoch, to sanction his two famous employees via a full-page ad in Thursday's editions of the Wall Street Journal - one of many other media properties controlled by Murdoch's News Corp.

The ad is signed by the heads of the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements as well as Orthodox rabbis.

"We share a belief that the Holocaust, of course, can and should be discussed appropriately in the media. But that is not what we have seen at Fox News," says the ad, signed by hundreds of rabbis and placed by the Jewish Funds for Justice, a nonprofit advocacy group. Earlier this month, the group organized a letter-writing campaign asking Murdoch to remove Beck from the air.

The rabbis were prompted by Beck's three-part program in November about liberal billionaire philanthropist George Soros, whom Beck described as a "Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps" during World War II.

Soros was a young teenager in Nazi-occupied Hungary during the war and hid with a Christian family to escape the Holocaust. He once described accompanying his surrogate father while he confiscated property from Jews deported by the Nazis.

The Jewish Funds group has received financial support from Soros's Open Society Foundations.

Ailes, in a November interview with the Daily Beast Web site, called NPR executives "Nazis" for their decision to fire Juan Williams, also a Fox commentator. He later apologized to the Anti-Defamation League, but not to NPR, saying, "I was of course ad-libbing and should not have chosen that word, but I was angry at the time because of NPR's willingness to censor Juan Williams for not being liberal enough."

But Ailes, in the same interview, defended Beck's frequent use of Nazi references to describe his political opponents by attributing outrage over such remarks to "left-wing rabbis who basically don't think that anybody can ever use the word 'Holocaust' on the air."

In the Journal ad, which is also appearing in the Jewish Daily Forward newspaper, the rabbis write that they are "deeply offended" by Ailes's dismissal of those who object to such language.

"It is not appropriate to accuse a 14-year-old Jew hiding with a Christian family in Nazi-occupied Hungary of sending his people to death camps," says the ad. "It is not appropriate to call executives of another news agency 'Nazis.' And it is not appropriate to make literally hundreds of on-air references to the Holocaust and Nazis when characterizing people with whom you disagree.

"We respectfully request that Glenn Beck be sanctioned by Fox News for his completely unacceptable attacks on a survivor of the Holocaust and that Roger Ailes apologize for his dismissive remarks about rabbis' sensitivity to how the Holocaust is used on the air."

Thursday is International Holocaust Remembrance Day, an observance established by the United Nations in 2005.

"This is not an issue for liberal or conservative rabbis, but an issue for all," said Mik Moore, chief strategic officer of Jewish Funds for Justice. "After all the calls for civility following the shootings in Arizona, we all think this is the wrong approach." Moore declined to specify the cost of the ad, saying only that it cost "six figures."

A Fox News spokesman did not return calls seeking comment.

Saturday, January 22, 2011


Violent Government Oppression Leads to Self-Immolation in Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Mauritia, and Algeria

--L.A.Times.com--


Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old, set himself on fire in the provincial town of Sidi Bouzid. The man had been selling fruits and vegetables from a stand without a license when state police stopped him and confiscated his produce.

Commentators argue Bouazizi's act sparked the inital rounds of rioting in Tunisia. Within a week, protests had spread the 125 miles to the capital of Tunis and soon after President Ben Ali, who had ruled the country for 23 years, was forced out of power.

Bouazizi’s self-immolation does not stand alone Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Mauritania all saw similar acts of martyrdom. Two Saudi Arabian men committed the same acts, one a 60 year old actually died.

Abdou Abdel-Monaam Hamadah, a 48-year-old owner of a small restaurant from Qantara, an area close to the Suez Canal city of Ismailia east of Cairo, set himself on fire outside the parliament building Monday to protest the government’s policy preventing restaurant owners from buying cheap subsidized bread to resell to their patrons. According to the Associated Press, “He escaped with only light burns on his neck, face and legs after policemen guarding the building and motorists driving by at the time used fire extinguishers to quickly put out the blaze engulfing him.”


Algeria Protests
1/21/11
By AOMAR OUALI

ALGIERS, Algeria — Helmeted riot police armed with batons and shields on Saturday clashed with rock- and chair-throwing protesters who tried to march in defiance of Algeria's ban on public gatherings.

At least 19 people were injured, the government said, but an opposition party official put the figure at more than 40.

Algeria has been among the many North African and Middle Eastern countries hit by shows of resistance against their autocratic leaders after a young Tunisian man set himself on fire last month, triggering a wave of protests that led Tunisia's longtime strongman to flee the country.

Protest organizers at the democratic opposition party RCD draped a Tunisian flag next to the Algerian flag on a balcony of party headquarters where the march was to begin in the capital, Algiers. (cont...)


Albanian Protests
International Community Expresses Concern Over Deadly Protests in Albania
--VOA--
Stefan Bos

The United States and the European Union are among those appealing for calm in Albania, after at least three people were killed and dozens were injured in anti-government protests in the capital Tirana. Albania's Prime Minister Sali Berisha says he will not allow a similar overthrow of his government as in Tunisia, but the opposition has vowed more demonstrations.

The Tirana diplomatic missions of the European Union, United States and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe say in a joint statement that they deeply regret the casualties in Friday's anti-government protests. (cont...)

Anti and Pro-Government Protests in Yemen
Saturday, January 22nd, 2011 at 6:20 pm
--VOA--

Hundreds of protesters in Yemen have called for an end to the decades-old rule of President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Students and other protesters gathered inside of Sana'a University Saturday where they chanted anti-government slogans.

The demonstrators were apparently inspired by the recent wave of protests in Tunisia that led to this month's ouster of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali earlier this month.

The French News Agency (AFP) says some Yemeni students carried a banner that read “learn from the Jasmine Revolution,” a reference to the Tunisian uprising. The news agency says other demonstrators rallied in support of the president, Saturday.

Thursday, January 20, 2011


Tea Party Republicans May Crack Party Discipline: Ralph Nader
By Ralph Nader - Jan 9, 2011 9:00 PM ET --Bloomberg--


Five conflicts on corporate policies that likely will divide Republicans are:

No. 1. Curbing the Federal Reserve. Here Ron Paul of Texas, the new chairman of the House subcommittee overseeing the Federal Reserve, is straining at the bit to lead the way. Last year he had more than 300 House members signed on to a bill to audit the central bank. Paul has far more ambitious goals as his book, “End the Fed,” outlines.

The central bankers are anxious about his growing influence. Paul has a demonstrated ability to articulate Fed issues. There is rising anger around the country against the central bank and its many secret bailouts. Moreover, there are a number of Democrats, including Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent, who have significant agreement with Paul’s determination to overhaul this giant regulator and debt juggernaut whose budget is funded not by Congress but by banks.

No. 2. Watch for heightened criticism of corporate welfare programs -- numbering in the hundreds -- that feed companies subsidies, handouts and special protections from markets. The huge corn ethanol subsidy will probably be among the first to be challenged.

No. 3. After many years, the swollen, waste-ridden military budget, with its over-reaching corporate contractors operating in two unpopular wars, will receive bipartisan examination (with the help of libertarian think tanks such as the Cato Institute). The coalition building around the alliance of Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Ron Paul will start exposing this taboo subject. Defense contractors are bracing for a new pushback on procurement deals.

No. 4. The World Trade Organization, the North American Free Trade Agreement and proposed bilateral extensions will receive Tea Party scrutiny, especially as China continues to de- industrialize America, all with the eager cooperation of American companies and their compromising of U.S. sovereignty.

No. 5. Whistleblower protection inside government and corporations strikes fear and consternation among both bureaucrats and corporate executives. Long-time Republican senatorial champions of expanding whistleblower rights against waste, fraud and abuse, led by Charles Grassley of Iowa, will have many new allies and support from progressive Democrats. The new financial reform law’s whistleblower recovery rights, expanding on the federal False Claims Act, will force this issue to the forefront, judging by the early mobilization of corporate lobbies to weaken or repeal that provision.

During the four-year domination of Congress by Democrats, Republicans were able to put party unity ahead of principle. With their ascension to the House majority and having within their ranks independent freshmen and Tea Party-backed incumbents in both Houses, the Republican caucuses may now have legislators putting principle above party discipline.

Little Weapon- Lupe Fiasco

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

US Placers, CRS ft. Thom Yorke





More than 20 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and political parties arranged a large demonstration in central Tel Aviv. Israeli President Shimon Peres is the latest political figure to weigh into the heated row over a parliamentary inquiry into non-governmental organisations.

He called on the Knesset to reject the plan, stating that such investigations should be left to "law enforcement authorities".

On Saturday, several thousand Israelis took to the streets of downtown Tel Aviv to show their opposition to the inquiry and a whole series of laws proposed by the governing right-wing coalition.

They blew whistles, beat drums and chanted pro-democracy slogans. Many waved the Israeli flag and a few carried Palestinian ones.

"We came to protest against the government's policies and the lack of democracy in our country," said Tal, a demonstrator in his twenties. "We're also showing that we support the peace process."

"I think that Israeli society is going to very dark places because of our foreign minister and prime minister," added a local woman, Karen.

"People who aren't Jewish and aren't on the extreme right are facing political delegitimisation."

Conservative initiative

Yisrael Beitenu alleges IDF soldiers are being betrayed by some leftist groups.
The Yisrael Beitenu party, led by the ultra-conservative Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, wants to set up a commission of inquiry to examine the funding of leftist groups.

It claims they work under the guise of human rights advocacy to encourage draft dodging and accuse Israeli soldiers of war crimes.

Some organisations are accused of providing material to the unpopular Goldstone Commission established by the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate the military offensive in Gaza two years ago.

"They are not reporting on human rights," says David Rotem, of Yisrael Beitenu, who chairs the Knesset's law, justice and order committee.

"They are working for foreign organisations and hostile organisations... They are trying to fight against the state of Israel."

Racism claims

The mainly right-wing governing coalition denies there are political motivations behind the planned inquiry, but as Saturday's rally showed, few on the left accept that.

Continue reading the main story Controversial bills before the KnessetPledge of Allegiance bill - obligates new citizens of Israel to pledge allegiance to a Jewish, democratic stateNakba bill - denies state funding for groups that commemorate Israel's establishment as a catastrophe or "nakba" for PalestiniansInfiltration bill - stipulates prison terms for "infiltrators" and those helping them although humanitarian groups say it may affect refugeesBill Against Boycott - those who back any anti-Israel boycott can face criminal chargesAdmissions Committees bill - allows communities to reject unwanted new members on ethnic, religious or political grounds
Banners accused it of racism, persecution and McCarthyism - a reference to the political witch-hunts seen in the United States in the 1950s.

In the past months, various bills have also targeted those seen as disloyal to the state. The Israeli Arab minority that makes up about 20% of the population has been singled out.

"There is legislation in the pipeline that is meant to limit the actions of human rights organisations and others critical of the current Israeli government," says Ronit Sela of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

"Some is aimed at Israeli Arabs, for example demanding they pledge allegiance to a Jewish and democratic state.

"All these propositions are made in the Knesset without members realising how much they undermine the values of democracy and equality in the country," Ms Sela says.

Divided politics

Continue reading the main story “Start Quote[Foreign Minister Lieberman] really knows how to play on the Israeli psychology... He can speak to their guts, not their minds.”
End Quote Idan Kweller Israeli commentator
Reactions to the various legislative proposals reflect the complicated divisions in Israel's political scene where the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu controls a slim Knesset majority.

The head of the centrist opposition Kadima party, Tzipi Livni, described how "an evil wave" was sweeping the nation.

"The Netanyahu-Lieberman government fans the flame of fire," she recently remarked.

Within the Labour party, already split over the breakdown of peace talks with the Palestinians, disputes over the parliamentary measures contributed to further infighting. Finally, on Monday, the leader, Ehud Barak, quit the party.

So divisive has the NGO inquiry proven that it prompted Mr Netanyahu to publicly rebuke his outspoken foreign minister after Mr Lieberman criticised some senior members of the prime minister's Likud faction who opposed it.

Drift to the right

Mr Lieberman is himself under long-term investigation for corruption. This could force him to resign from the government in the coming weeks to face charges.

The hardline foreign minister is often controversial but has committed followers.
However, his party, which holds a crucial 15 seats, is expected to remain in the ruling coalition.

According to commentator Idan Kweller the right-wing drift of Israeli politics means that if the hardline minister successfully fights off accusations against him, he will continue to be an important player.

"The biggest problem Mr Lieberman has is his style and the way he speaks, but many Israelis agree with his motives," says Mr Kweller. "He really knows how to play on the Israeli psychology."

"He recognises what makes Israelis nervous when they look at the political agenda, or their Arab neighbours or the situation with the Palestinians. He can speak to their guts, not their minds."

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Saturday, January 8, 2011



US will back UN on rights of native peoples
MATTHEW DALY
AP News
Dec 16, 2010 17:43 EST


President Barack Obama said Thursday that the United States will reverse course and support a United Nations declaration defending the rights of indigenous peoples. The U.S. voted against the declaration when the General Assembly adopted it in 2007, arguing it was incompatible with existing laws. Three other countries, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, also opposed the declaration, but have since announced their support.

The declaration is intended to protect the rights of more than 370 million native peoples worldwide, affirming their equality and ability to maintain their own institutions, cultures and spiritual traditions. It sets standards to fight discrimination and marginalization and eliminate human rights violations.

2:256 The Cow - There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
--Quran--

United States Representatives Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) both failed to attend the swearing in ceremony as required by the United States Constitution. Despite not swearing in, both representatives have been casting votes as if they were legal.
--tpm--
--rollcall--
January 6th, 2011

The Republicans passed an important rules package and a number of procedural motions to repeal health care reform using the votes of Sessions and Fitzpatrick. Technically, that could invalidate all of the business of the House for the last two days. Ironically, the Republicans read the United States Constitution to open the House session today, but no one must have been listening to the portion which requires House members to be sworn in before performing their duties. As soon as the Republicans did discover their error late this afternoon they immediately went into recess to try and resolve the matter.

The only way for Republicans to get around the problem is to now pass a motion by unanimous consent which cleans up the mess. However, a unanimous consent motion, by definition, requires the consent of the minority. As a result, Republicans are literally forced to go to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to ask her if she will consent to the motion. It is unclear at this time if Pelosi will give the Republicans grace for what now appears to be a fairly large error.

The story gets worse for Republicans when it comes to the reason for the two men's absences. Both were somewhere else in the Capitol Building with about 500 supporters for a "victory lap" event. Sessions was in charge of the Republican Party's strategy to take back the House, and was celebrating with Fitzpatrick and others instead of taking his constitutionally-required oath.

Friday, January 7, 2011



Obama on FOX
--associated press--
updated 1/7/2011 8:50:51 AM ET 2011-01-07T13:50:51

WASHINGTON— President Barack Obama will
sit for an interview with Fox News Channel
host Bill O'Reilly on Super Bowl Sunday.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest says it's
in keeping with the president's custom of
granting a pre-game interview to the network
that is broadcasting the Super Bowl. Last year,
it was with Katie Couric on CBS.

The Super Bowl will be played in the new
Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas, on
Sunday, Feb. 6. The interview will be taped at
the White House.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Tuesday, January 4, 2011


Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination 01- 3-11 04:58 PM --huffingtonpost.com--
Amanda Terkel

WASHINGTON -- The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a newly published interview in the legal magazine California Lawyer, Scalia said that while the Constitution does not disallow the passage of legislation outlawing such discrimination, it doesn't itself outlaw that behavior:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.


For the record, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That would seem to include protection against exactly the kind of discrimination to which Scalia referred.

Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women's Law Center, called the justice's comments "shocking" and said he was essentially saying that if the government sanctions discrimination against women, the judiciary offers no recourse.

"In these comments, Justice Scalia says if Congress wants to protect laws that prohibit sex discrimination, that's up to them," she said. "But what if they want to pass laws that discriminate? Then he says that there's nothing the court will do to protect women from government-sanctioned discrimination against them. And that's a pretty shocking position to take in 2011. It's especially shocking in light of the decades of precedents and the numbers of justices who have agreed that there is protection in the 14th Amendment against sex discrimination, and struck down many, many laws in many, many areas on the basis of that protection."

Greenberger added that under Scalia's doctrine, women could be legally barred from juries, paid less by the government, receive fewer benefits in the armed forces, and be excluded from state-run schools -- all things that have happened in the past, before their rights to equal protection were enforced.

"In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger," Adam Cohen wrote in Time in September. "It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection -- or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so."

In 1996, Scalia cast the sole vote in favor of allowing the Virginia Military Institute to continue denying women admission.



Jeffrey Brown of PBS's "NewsHour" recently summed up the year's economic performance by invoking the most overworked chestnut of modern American punditry: "the disconnect . . . between Main Street and Wall Street."

The notion that Wall Street and Main Street are fundamentally at odds with one another remains a popular orthodoxy. So much so that we may be missing the first stirrings of a true American class war: between workers in government unions and their union counterparts in the private sector.

In theory, of course, organized labor is all about fraternal solidarity. For many years, it is true, private-sector unions supported collective-bargaining rights and better benefits for government workers, while public-employee unions supported the private-sector unions in their opposition to legislation such as the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990s.

Suddenly, it's a different world. In this recession, for example, construction workers are suffering from unemployment levels roughly double the national rate, according to a recent analysis of federal jobs data by the Associated General Contractors of America. They are relearning, the hard way, that without a growing economy, all the labor-friendly laws and regulations in the world won't keep them working.

What's more, "blue-collar union workers are beginning to appreciate that the generous pensions and health benefits going to their counterparts in state and local government are coming out of their pockets," says Steven Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. "Not only that, they are beginning to understand the dysfunctional relationship between collective bargaining for government employees and their own job prospects."

The signs of this new awakening are gathering. In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie rightly becomes a YouTube sensation for taking on his state's obstinate public-sector unions. The more interesting story, however, may be the president of the New Jersey Senate, Steve Sweeney—who also happens to be an organizer for the International Association of Ironworkers.

In the days of Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, Mr. Sweeney angered state-employee unions by opposing their push to balance the budget with an increase in the sales tax. In the Christie days, he continues to anger them by pushing for reform of state-employee pay and benefits. Another way of putting it is that Mr. Sweeney knows that 40% of his fellow iron workers in New Jersey are out of work—and that unless his high-tax state gets its fiscal house in order, the only work they'll find will be in Texas.

Over in New York, meanwhile, newly inaugurated Gov. Andrew Cuomo faces a similar battle. Mr. Cuomo campaigned on a cap on property taxes and a freeze on state salaries, both anathema to the powerful state-employee unions. As the New York Times reported last month, however, in this showdown Mr. Cuomo may have found a surprising ally in the 100,000- member Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York. Maybe not so surprising: The Times says unemployment for these workers is running at 20%.

Elsewhere, in 2005 Republican Govs. Mitch Daniels and Matt Blunt used executive orders to end collective bargaining with state employees in Indiana and Missouri, respectively. Now the incoming Republican governors of Ohio and Wisconsin—John Kasich and Scott Walker—are targeting collective bargaining for government workers in their states.

In some ways, this new appreciation for the private sector is simply back to the future. FDR, for example, warned in 1937 that collective bargaining "cannot be transplanted into the public service." In the old days, unions understood economic growth. Mr. Malanga points to AFL-CIO President George Meany's strong support for the JFK tax cuts as an example.

These days the two types of worker inhabit two very different worlds. In the private sector, union workers increasingly pay for more of their own health care, and they have defined contribution pension plans such as 401(k)s. In this they have something fundamental in common even with the fat cats on Wall Street: Both need their companies to succeed.

By contrast, government unions use their political clout to elect those who set their pay: the politicians. In exchange, these unions are rewarded with contracts whose pension and health-care provisions now threaten many municipalities and states with bankruptcy. In response to the crisis, government unions demand more and higher taxes. Which of course makes people who have money less inclined to look to those states to make the investments that create jobs for, say, iron workers, electricians and construction workers.

Some of these folks are beginning to notice.

Write to MainStreet@wsj.com

Saturday, January 1, 2011


Serfing USA: Corporate America is Robbing American Workers
by Dave Lindorff
Thursday, December 30, 2010 by --ThisCan'tBeHappening.net--


Along with the staggering theft in broad daylight of Americans' assets that has occurred in the course of the ongoing financial crisis, as taxpayers funded multi-trillion bank bailouts and banks stole homes through foreclosures with the help of fraudulent paperwork, American companies have also been picking the pockets of workers more directly.
This second round of paycheck theft has come in the form of stolen productivity gains.

Historically, the relatively high and rising standard of living of American workers--both blue and white-collar--which once gave the US one of the highest standards of living in the world, has come courtesy of rising productivity, which has allowed US companies to produce more goods with less labor, and to then pass some of the enhanced profits on to workers in the form of higher wages, without having to raise prices. That has been important because, when higher wages are financed by higher prices, it tends to be a kind of zero-sum game: higher wages cancelled out by inflation.

But beginning in 2000, the old system already creaky, broke down. (It must be noted that this system was never the result of the capitalists' largesse, but rather was because of a tighter labor market and, critically, a powerful labor movement.)

The corporate onslaught against trade unions and against the minimum wage, which began with the Nixon administration in 1968, combined with so-called "free-trade" deals that allowed US companies to shift production overseas and then to freely import the products of their overseas production facilities back for sale to Americans at home, by weakening the power of workers to demand higher wages, has led to a situation where companies can just pocket all the profits from productivity gains, leaving wages stagnant, or even driving them down.

The recession that began in late 2007 has only made matters worse, giving owners and managers to opportunity to really hammer employees. With real unemployment and underemployment now running at close to 20%, employees are in no position to press for higher wages, even as those who are still working are putting in extra effort to keep their jobs, thus pushing productivity gains even higher.

The figures speak for themselves.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, productivity gains during the 1990-1999 decade averaged just 2.1% per year. The prior decade, from 1980-1989, the average productivity gain was 1.5% per year. But between 2000 and 2009, when the economy suffered two recessions, the average annual productivity gain has been 2.9%, almost 50% higher than the prior decade, and almost double the rate in the 1980s.

During this same period, however, wages have actually declined. According to the BLS, wages in 2010 rose 0.1%, but inflation, running at an official (and grossly under-measured) 1%, more than ate that up. According to the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, for the whole decade from 2000 through 2009, wages actually sank for most people. In 2000, the median weekly wage for a high school graduate was $629. By the end of 2009, high school graduates were earning a median weekly wage, in inflation-adjusted dollars, of just $626--three dollars a week less than a decade earlier. A college degree didn't change things, either. In 2000, the median weekly wage for a college grad was $1030, but that had fallen to $1025 by the end of 2009.

Remember, all during that decade, companies were seeing productivity gains averaging almost 3% per year. If 50% of that gain in productivity annually had gone to workers, as might have been typical back 30 years ago when unions were stronger and before Congress gave away the store by signing onto the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Act and similar trade agreements, that high school grad would have been earning $729 a week in inflation-adjusted dollars by 2009, while the college grad would have been earning $1,195.

Of course as a whole, Americans have been doing even worse, because these are just the mean wages of people who are working full weeks. In fact, many companies have been laying off workers, and making the remaining workers, desperate to hang on to their jobs, work harder to produce the same amount of product, meaning that besides not getting any pay increase, they are producing much more profit for the boss. Many workers who are still hanging onto their jobs are actually working fewer hours, and thus are taking home smaller paychecks, all of which goes into that higher productivity figure for output per worker the government is reporting.

Indeed, the Wall Street Journal recently reported glowingly that US production of goods and services had returned to its 2007 pre-recession level, but this is with unemployment running at an official rate of 9.8 percent, and an actual rate of about 19 percent.

What we're witnessing is a massive national "speed-up" which is enriching the owners of capital, while the workers are getting stiffed. It is the payoff to the ruling class for decades of hammering of trade unions, and also of trade unions cutting deals with the Democratic Party, which in turn has refused to defend workers' interests. Look at the sell-out of Labor during the first two years of the Obama administration. The union movement's one big issue--restoring some measure of fairness to the Labor Relations Act, so that it would be at least possible to organize unions and to win contracts and improved wages and working conditions--was dropped without even a fight by the Obama administration and the leadership of the House and Senate. The government, fully in the hands of Democrats, has also continued to sign trade agreements, most recently with Korea, that further shift jobs overseas, thus further weakening the position of workers here at home.

A cynic might speculate that this is also why the Democrats have refused for over three years now to come up with any real public jobs program despite the desperate straits of tens of millions of jobless people who have been without work for more than a year. The Democrats, in thrall to corporate interests, would on the evidence much rather spend $50 billion on a program of extended unemployment benefits that leaves those millions of people hungry for any real job, than spend that same sum on providing them with government jobs, as that would actually reduce unemployment and increase the bargaining power of all workers vis-a-vis employers.

Meanwhile, the national corporate media, itself viciously anti-union, continue to skew news coverage to portray unions as corrupt and greedy, so that the 90 percent of American workers who are not in a union don't even realize that any pay gains or benefits they get are because employers are trying to avoid unionization of their workforce.

Unless Americans wake up soon to how this process is impoverishing us all, we will see this shifting income and wealth to the top strata of the population continue until most of us are little more than modern-day serfs.

A start would be for people to at least recognize that this stagnation and decline in incomes we're witnessing is not some natural phenomenon. It is, no less than the fat salaries, perks and bonuses paid by corporate managers to themselves, simply another manifestation of corporate greed gone wild.

© 2010 ThisCan'tBeHappening.net
Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. He is author of Marketplace Medicine: The Rise of the For-Profit Hospital Chains [1](BantamBooks, 1992), and his latest book "The Case for Impeachment [2]" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). All his work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net [3]