American Families Need Income During The Pandemic Trump Has Extended With His Early-- And Continuing-- Incompetence

Pramila Jayapal-- still moving the country forward

Yesterday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus let Pelosi know what they expect to be included in the next federal COVID-19 relief package. Although Pelosi was once a co-founder and active member of the caucus-- and although it's the biggest of the Democratic groupings in Congress-- Pelosi pays far more attention to what the Blue Dogs and New Dems want than what the mainstream of the Democratic Party wants. The letter, which was sent by CPC co-chairs Pramila Jayapal and Mark Pocan, identifies four key areas that should be prioritized in order to ensure a just, effective, and equitable response to the COVID-19 pandemic:

• Keeping people on payrolls
• Providing economic relief
• Protecting public health
• Safeguarding our elections

The letter also highlights three principles that should underpin all Democratic efforts on the COVID-19 crisis. Progressives want everyone, regardless of tax or immigration status, age or disability status, to be eligible for robust assistance. This including parity for tribal residents, U.S. territorial residents, and people living in the District of Columbia, all of whom conservatives always seen to disregard. Progressive also insist that financial assistance must last the duration of the crisis through automatic triggers that tie assistance to economic conditions. "Every action taken by Congress," wrote Jayapal and Pocan, "must address inequality and strengthens racial equity and economic equality."

J.D. Scholten, the progressive Democrat taking on Trumpist reactionary Steve King in Iowa feels strongly that the CPC is going in the right direction. "Our response," he told me yesterday, "should focus on what is essential and what is not. Our essential priorities must be the health and well-being of all people, especially our frontline workers; providing relief directly to people-- not CEOs; lifting up small businesses and nonprofits; and ensuring the safety of our elections. Steve King has been on the wrong side of this crisis since the beginning. He voted against the Families First Coronavirus Act that provides free coronavirus testing and paid leave, he consistently shares memes making light of this crisis, and he wants to publicly share the names, addresses, pre-existing conditions, and health status of every confirmed COVID-19 case. Sharing this personal information would endanger public safety and likely result in chaos, violence, and potentially, hate crimes."

Arizona progressive Eva Putzova still has a primary opponent, Blue Dog and "ex"-Republican Tom O'Halleran. She's In full agreement with the CPC COVID-19 relief proposals to Pelosi. She acknowledges "It is an effort to fully fund and support income, healthcare, housing, food, and other assistance to those millions of people who lost jobs, income, housing, food, and  health insurance from the pandemic shutdown. Naturally, my opponent, the incumbent, is not a signatory to this CPC appeal to the Speaker because he doesn't lead on anything. He sits back quietly and pursues small-bore reforms while the world is collapsing around us. We can no longer afford such a representative. We need bold, outspoken, and progressive leadership that fights for a future worth living in. When elected to Congress I will be that kind of leader."

Mike Siegel, the progressive candidate taking on Trump crony Michael McCaul inTexas' newly purple 10th district, has every intention of joining the CPC when he's elected. "Representatives Pocan and Jayapal," he told us, "are leading the way and articulating a progressive vision for how our government should take care of the people. Here in the Texas 10th we have a runoff July 14, and I'm the only candidate who supports this program including monthly cash assistance, student loan cancellation, an eviction and foreclosure moratorium, compassionate release of prisoners and detainees, and universal vote-by-mail. While my opponent has called programs like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal 'fools gold' and 'selling false hope,' I see these policies as an essential foundation for a more just, sustainable future. How we respond to this crisis could determine our collective future for decades to come. That's why it's so important that, in this moment, we keep fighting for a society that works for everyone."

Robin Wilt is a strong Berniecrat running for a congressional seat in the Rochester, NY area currently occupied by a hackish New Dem with nothing to offer. Robin told me she's grateful to the CPC "for assuming leadership in centering both the needs of people and equity as a guiding principle in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Quite the opposite of a first responder, my opponent has taken the sidelines, deferring to the local and state response to the pandemic and advising constituents to 'contact the New York State Department of Health and the Monroe County Department of Health with any questions or concerns.' In contrast, I believe these times demand true leadership in not only identifying and meeting constituent needs, but also in establishing the underlying principles that the governmental response to the crisis will follow. The CPC highlighted three guiding principles that I strongly support:

1 that everyone should be included in the relief package, regardless of immigration status
2 that people (not corporations) should be the primary beneficiaries of stimulus
3 that stimulus response must not exacerbate racial and economic disparities, but rather be grounded in equity

COVID-19 has exposed existing gaps in the country’s social safety net. An approach that fails to proactively address the disparities that rendered some of us more vulnerable to that system’s inadequacies, can only exacerbate those disparities. That my opponent has not stepped up to chart any course through the crisis, let alone an equitable, people-centered one, should disappoint us all as constituents. A public health crisis is no time to shy away from leadership. Members who have signed on to this letter have demonstrated the true leadership that Rochester and Monroe County deserve."

Tom Guild is also up against a conservative Democrat, in his case, an incumbent Blue Dog, Kendra Horn, one of the most Republican-allied Democrats in Congress. "My opponent," he said, "is very timid and incremental in her approach towards many issues. She tends to side with corporate Democrats in Congress and even worse, many times votes with the Republicans. Sometimes she is one of less than a handful of Democrats frequently voting with the GOP in the House. I fully support the proposal put forward by the Progressive Caucus. It is bold, comprehensive, and helps repair the safety net during the current national crisis. It puts people first and will help many families survive the current onslaught on their health, safety, and economic welfare. Since you can’t much improve on near perfection, I’m excited to endorse what our progressive congressional caucus has put forth. We are lucky to have dedicated and far sighted progressive leaders fighting for working people, economically disadvantaged Americans, and those who will have the most difficult time repairing the damage done to their lives and fortunes that were already hanging by a thread, and who now face devastation without quick and bold action to bring them the necessary assistance this progressive package provides."

You can read the whole CPC letter here. Right now I want to focus on just two very different goals-- ensuring safe elections and guaranteeing every America a paycheck during this Trump-created catastrophe. First off, people are worried about Trump's tendency towards authoritarianism and "winning" at all costs. That's why the CPC is insisting on including three ideas in the next relief bill that Pelosi should not disregard:

• Enact a vote-by-mail requirement for 2020 federal elections while maintaining access to in-person voting for those who do not have access to mail voting.
• Ensure the protection of voting rights through the passage of core pieces of the Voting Rights Advancement Act.
• Invest in state election integrity efforts by appropriating at least an additional $3.6 billion for state-administered elections.

Pramila Jayapal and Bernie introduced bicameral legislation guaranteeing paycheck continuity. Yesterday she told me that "We are in the middle of an unprecedented public health and economic crisis, and it is critical that Congress take bold action to prevent mass unemployment, provide immediate relief to those in need, protect public health and safeguard our elections. And in order to truly get through this pandemic, we have to ensure that relief lasts the duration of the crisis, that every single person has access to assistance and that every single action we takes strengthens-- not weakens-- racial equity and economic equality." Both her legislation and the CPC letter to Pelosi work to achieve exactly that.

The letter includes several clauses to prevent layoffs and protect paycheck continuity, including keeping small businesses (and nonprofits) alive:

• Improve the federal workshare program by allowing businesses in every state to fully participate, with no minimum employee limit, by reducing required work hours to allow small businesses to ramp back up and permitting additional hours to be covered by UI.
• Create a federal Paycheck Guarantee program for employers, including small businesses and nonprofits, to ensure all workers are protected and businesses can quickly return to normal after the emergency ends; with strong conditions for federal assistance.
• Ensure federal dollars flow to workers by strengthening industry bailout oversight through repealing waiver authority that override prohibitions on stock buybacks, dividends and compensation limits; providing subpoena power and independence for the newly-created Special Inspector General; respecting collective bargaining agreements, and ensuring strong reporting requirements on all funds; and by prohibiting the waiver of civil rights obligations on all funds.
• Provide expanded and monthly direct cash assistance of at least $2,000 per person to adults, plus $1,000 for children...
• Expand social safety net programs by expanding Earned Income Tax Credit & Child Tax Credit; waiving TANF work requirements; increasing maximum SNAP benefit by 15% and doubling the minimum monthly SNAP benefit to $30; and barring rules that would tighten eligibility for SNAP. Expand safe access to food by rapidly expanding the SNAP online purchasing program and allocating emergency funding for SNAP recipients to use for grocery delivery fees.
• Support small businesses by placing a moratorium on commercial evictions, limiting small business debt collection, and preventing predatory small business lending. Find more ways to address small business and nonprofit losses via grants and forgivable loans.

Pramila's PAYCHECK GUARANTEE ACT is meant to end mass layoffs, keep workers in their jobs and connected to their health care and other benefits, prevent employers of all sizes from being forced to close permanently, and ensure that the economy is ready to restart when the COVID-19 pandemic ends. Her initial House co-sponsors are Mark Pocan (D-WI), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Brendan Boyle (D-PA), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Andy Levin (D-MI). The bill is also endorsed by leading economists, labor unions, businesses and a diverse set of national and local organizations. Here's the thinking inside her office that went into the bill and here's a short summary of the legislation which is meant to create "a streamlined program to provide a three-month federal guarantee for 100 percent of worker salaries of up to $100,000 to ensure employers of all sizes keep workers on the payroll and continue to provide employer-sponsored benefits. This paycheck guarantee would automatically renew on a monthly basis until consumer demand rebounds to pre-crisis levels. The bill also includes strong worker protections and fraud prevention measures." Jayapal: "A federal paycheck guarantee is a real solution that matches the scale of the crisis. Mass unemployment is a policy choice. We can and should choose differently. A federal paycheck guarantee would stanch more layoffs and unemployment, and quickly and reliably deliver relief to workers. Workers would not be forced to apply for unemployment insurance, overwhelm that system and then have to once again find a job. Businesses of all sizes would be able to keep workers on payroll and benefits-- and be able to quickly re-open-- partially or fully-- without having to rehire and retrain their workforce."

One of America's top progressive economists, Gabriel Zucman, is fully behind Jayapal's legislation. "Congress needs a more forceful response to the job crisis. If nothing changes, the unemployment rate will soon exceed 20 percent. The federal government needs to guard against mass unemployment by guaranteeing paychecks, like many other countries are already doing. Rep. Jayapal’s Paycheck Guarantee Plan is a critically important step that would save millions of jobs and put the United States on track for a faster recovery."

Both the AFL-CIO and the SEIU are firmly behind the bill, which may help prevent Pelosi and Hoyer from burying it. Mary Kay Henry, president of the SEIU: "Congress must take action on the Paycheck Guarantee Act to help to end mass layoffs, keep working people paid and connected to their healthcare and other benefits. This type of bill is vital to ensuring that the economy is ready to restart when the pandemic ends by protecting the health, safety and long-term economic well-being of working people across America."

This is what Jayapal intends for the legislation-- if McConnell doesn't block it in the Senate-- to accomplish:

• Cover 100% of wages for workers earning salaries up to $100,000 to ensure that employers keep workers paid and out of the unemployment line
• Keep workers enrolled in employer-sponsored benefits, including health care
• Encourage employers to rehire recently laid-off or furloughed workers by covering payroll retroactively to the start of the crisis
• Cover essential business expenses like rent, to ensure that businesses don't shutter completely and can re-open when the pandemic ends
• Get support to workers and employers as quickly as possible, using existing payroll tax infrastructure to facilitate delivery of payments
• Keep workers attached to the labor market and businesses ready to reopen, speeding up the economic recovery.  

The best way to end Mitch McConnell's poisonous political career would be to elect Louisville state Rep. Charles Booker to replace him. Yesterday Booker told his supporters that McConnell blocked the newest pandemic relief bill and is now undermining Kentucky’s state and local leaders working to control the outbreak of the coronavirus. "Governor Beshear, Mayor Fischer, and local leaders are working around the clock to flatten the curve and save Kentuckians’ lives during this pandemic," said Rep. Booker, "and it is dangerous for Mitch McConnell to undermine their leadership. In an attempt to pander to religious conservatives, Mitch McConnell is willing to endanger the lives of thousands of Christians and people of faith across the Commonwealth on Easter weekend. Both of my parents are ministers, and I grew up in the church. It pains me to be away from my church this weekend as we celebrate the Resurrection. The decision to ask Kentuckians to stay home this weekend is not an infringement on faith; it comes as a necessity to save lives, and from the principles of our faith that tell us to care for one another."

Progressive Champions Like Eloise Reyes Stand Up To Bigots

The new 31st congressional district, which runs south of L.A. from Upland and Rancho Cucamonga out to San Bernardino, Colton, Loma Linda and Redlands, was carved out of Democratic-leaning areas that were once represented by Jerry Lewis, David Dreier and Joe Baca, 3 conservatives who are no longer in Congress. It's the bluest district anywhere in America with a Republican congressman. And that congressman, Gary Miller, isn't just a standard, garden variety Republican; he's a far right ideologue and has been for his entire sordid career. The people of CA-31 deserve better, a lot better. The only reason Miller, who had never represented one square inch of CA-31 before he won last year, is in the congressman from this D+5 district, is because DCCC chairman Steve Israel insisted on trying to elect an unpopular and unsuitable empty suit to the office, Pete Aguilar, an appointed mayor of Redlands, who came in third behind two Republicans in his own city. Aguilarwas so unpopular-- outside of DC backrooms-- that he managed to lose the district to both Republicans last year. So, of course, Steve Israel wants to anoint him as the Democratic candidate again. This time CA-31 voters will make that decision, not Steve Israel. And the popular and well-respected candidate is Eloise Gomez Reyes.

Eloise fits the profile of the district in ways that Gary Miller and Pete Aguilar never will. Miller and Aguilar want to reduce Social Security benefits for seniors, veterans and the handicapped. Eloise wants to go to Congress to work to increase those benefits and protect them for future generations. "I grew up in a family where everyone did their part to make ends meet," she told us recently. "My brothers, sisters and I all worked the onion fields alongside our parents to help pay for our school clothes. I understand what it means to work your whole life, pay into Social Security and expect to live out your final years without having to make critical choices between food or medicine or rent. It’s simply wrong to try to balance the budget on the backs of our seniors, veterans and the disabled. I’m running for Congress to make sure that never happens to anyone in San Bernardino, Upland, Redlands or anywhere else in America. Whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat who proposes it, 'chained CPI' is just another way of saying "benefits cuts"-- and I will always hold Congress accountable when it comes to keeping the promises we have made to our seniors. The families here in the Inland Empire will always come first for me, before anyone in Washington or anyone on Wall Street."


Chained CPI is exactly what Pete Aguilar and Gary Miller want to do to working families in CA-31. Aguilar doesn't want to admit it to voters today but in May of 2012 he told the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin he would have voted for the Simpson-Bowles plan if he was in Congress. That's a conservative plan that seeks to balance the budget on the backs of the people who can least afford it and it embraces Chained CPI for retired workers. When the very right-wing editorial board of the San Bernardino Sun News endorsed Republican Bob Dutton last year, they said they had almost endorsed Aguilar. They sensed in him someone as conservative and unfair to working families as Dutton. "Aguilar," they wrote admiringly, "has been something of a fiscal hawk in Redlands. The city work force has been reduced by 17 percent over five years, and the city is currently negotiating with unions to get employees to pay toward their own retirement benefits. On the federal level, Aguilar told us, he would have voted for the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan (which did not, unfortunately, get to Congress for a vote)."

After losing so badly in 2012, the DCCC is telling him to try to sound a little more like a Democrat this year. They may even be getting him a tutor so he'll be able to say a few words in Spanish. And he's not supposed to campaign in favor of cutting Social Security or putting up higher border fences anymore. But that will never make him a fighter for progressive values like Eloise. If he ever manages to defeat Miller, he'll basically be just a lighter, slightly less conservative version of him. Now's a time we need fighters on issues where Eloise has been a fighter and where Aguilar has been a… punter. Watch that video up top again. And then think about what Gary Miller is doing too make sure there will never be comprehensive immigration reform. Miller stands with Steve King. Aguilar won't be will he ever fight Steve King? Not if you judge by his past. This is what Miller's amigo, Steve King has been up to this week:

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) hinted in an interview with Newsmax this week that he'd consider trying to oust Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), should he bring immigration reform to the House floor.

King, perhaps the House's most vocal opponent of comprehensive immigration reform, praised Boehner's performance during fights over government funding and the debt ceiling, saying he "did serve to unify the conference better than I thought."

But he didn't firmly commit to support the speaker in the future if he was crossed on immigration.

"We'll have to see how the future issues play out," he told Newsmax on Monday. "For example, if immigration comes before the House, it would be the most divisive thing that could be brought up by Republicans in the House. Then I would have a different answer to that question."

King and Boehner have clashed on immigration before. King opposes passing any legislation that could be combined with a Senate-passed comprehensive immigration reform bill-- regardless of whether he'd support the measure as a standalone bill. While Boehner has said he would not allow a vote on the Senate's bill, he has also said he hopes to pass other measures.

King caused a major headache for Boehner and other GOP leaders in July when he compared young undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children to drug mules. Boehner quickly put out a statement calling King's comments "wrong" and "hateful."

He later told reporters that King's language had made the reform effort more difficult.

"What he said does not represent the values of the American people or the Republican Party," Boehner said at the time.

Roll Call's Niels Lesniewski noted that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made similar comments in August on immigration reform and Boehner's speakership.

“I think … if [Boehner] allows something to pass out of conference that looks anything like the Senate bill and is passed with a majority of Democrats, I think that will be the final thing he does as speaker," Paul told conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham at the time. "So, I think he knows that, and I think he’s going to be very cautious, and I hope he will defend us on this and not pass something that looks like the Senate bill."

What people in CA-31 need is someone who will stand up and fight back against these hate mongers, not someone who will bend over for them like Pete Aguilar.

SEIU Is Running Spanish Language Ads Against 4 Of California's Worst Congressional Bigots

As part of a big radio buy [listen right above by clicking on that gizmo] aimed at a dozen right-wing anti-immigrant extremists, the SEIU is targeting 4 GOP crackpots in California: Jeff Denham, Gary Miller, David Valadao and Buck McKeon. The ad asks each of these galoots to support the comprehensive immigration bill that the Senate already passed by a wide bipartisan margin. The ads will fall on deaf ears, even though all 4 represent districts with huge Latino populations. Valadao's district, for example, is 72% Hispanic. Gary Miller's current district-- there are rumors that with John Campbell retiring he may try to run in CA-45, which is whiter (and redder)-- is 49% Hispanic and he was only elected by a fluke. Jeff Denham's district is 40% Latino and Buck McKeon's is 38% Latino. They left out Devin Nunes (despite a 46% Latino district) because he isn't on the DCCC's taget list. Nor are senior GOP leaders Kevin McCarthy (35%), Ed Royce (35%) and Darrell Issa (26%)-- so they got left out too. Too bad a good organization like SEIU takes their cues from the clueless DCCC.

They're spending $200,000 on the ads, which are running all week, and will probably do more to help the Democratic candidates who are opposing the dozen bigots than actually influencing the biggots to change their minds. The ad highlights John Bircher and notorious Georgia racist Paul Broun claiming that "These illegal aliens are criminals and we need to treat them as such," which neatly sums up the attitudes of all the Republicans who are being targeted. The ads go on to say, in Spanish: "This is offensive and an insult to our community. Fortunately, on the other side are true patriots-- business owners, religious leaders and elected officials from both parties-- who have declared themselves firmly in support of immigration reform."

A poll out yesterday from PPP shows that these ads are exactly waht these Republican incumbents DON'T need right now.

New Public Policy Polling surveys in 7 Congressional Districts across the country find that key Republicans could be in trouble if the House doesn’t pass immigration reform this year. The polls show two things:

• Republican and Independent voters want Congress to pass a solution to our country’s broken immigration system

• Many are less likely to support Republicans if the House fails to pass immigration reform this summer

Voters in CA-10 (Jeff Denham), CA-21 (David Valadao), CA-31 (Gary Miller), CO-6 (Mike Coffman), MN-2 (John Kline), NV-3 (Joe Heck), and NY-11 (Mike Grimm) all say they would be less likely to vote for their Congressman next year if he opposes immigration reform. Voters in those districts also say they will be inclined to punish the Republican Party more broadly if the House GOP does not allow immigration reform to move forward.

The reason voters would hold it against their officials if immigration reform does not pass is that there’s overwhelming support for it in each of these highly competitive districts. Anywhere from 61 to 69% support the proposal the Senate passed last month. There’s also a sense of urgency on the issue with 75 to 78% of voters in each district saying they think it’s important the US fix its immigration system this year. The Huffington Post is keeping an excellent whip count of where every House Members stands of comprehensive immigration legislation. If you hit the link and look at their chart, you'll notice that there are 188 pro-immigrants votes (all Democrats), 114 anti-immigrants (all Republicans) and 132 undecided Members. And not all the undecided congressmembers are Republicans. Blue Dogs and New Dems like John Barrow (GA), Jim Matheson (UT), Dan Lipinski (IL), Mike McIntyre (NC), Collin Peterson (MN), Kurt Schrader (OR) and Tom Owens (NY) are playing their cards close to their chests. Several of them are dependent on the DCCC financially for reelection. What a shame Steve Israel adamantly refuses to pressure them into voting with the 188 Democrats who are pro-immigrant!

Meanwhile, Spanish-language media isn't exactly a safe haven for any Republicans these days. Greg Sargent hipped the Beltway types on Thursday:

House Republicans claim they see no urgency whatsoever about acting this summer on immigration reform, and just might get around to it some time this fall. And it’s probably true, as many have already noted, that individual House Republicans-- tucked away in safe conservative districts-- won’t feel any pressure to act on reform.

But there’s one potential downside for the party in this strategy: it could mean the GOP gets hammered in the Hispanic media for months.

...The word is that House Republicans believe the GOP elite’s concerns about the need to repair relations among Latinos, and the potential consequences failure to do this could have for the party, are “overblown.”

But Democrats are planning a concerted push to make Republicans pay for failure to support reform in the Latino media. Obama himself is planning a series of interviews with Spanish-language media, where he’ll no doubt call on Republicans to get behind comprehensive reform without delay.

If Republicans become as toxic to Hispanic voters nationally, as they made themselves in California, it will become increasingly difficult from congressmembers in at least a dozen demographically-changing districts to hold onto their careers, particularly Steven Pearce (R-NM), Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Doc Wastings (R-WA), Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Michael Conaway (R-TX) and 5 California wingnuts who are already on very shaky grounds: David Valadao, Gary Miller, Devin Nunes, Jeff Denham and Buck McKeon. Rumors are that Miller is looking to move to a redder district and that McKeon is about to retire from Congress and become a lobbyist, rather than face a growing and pissed off Hispanic constituency.

Conservatives Would Rather Blame Working People For The Country's Woes Than The Robber Barons Who Finance Their Careers

Ever talk to a conservative? I have; in fact, I've talked to lots of them. What really binds them all together isn't really the hatred and the bigotry and the stupidity. Those are just things they use to appeal to a mass audience of hateful, bigoted and stupid people (their base). What really binds them together and gives their belief system meaning is the greed and, especially, the selfishness. Let me go off on a little tangent for a minute and tell you about a discussion between Thom Hartmann and Professor Tim Roper from the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Sussex in England, which Hartmann relates in his incredibly useful book, Threshold.

[I]n our modern society, the libertarian era of "self over all" has taken considerable root, being the animating theme of the conservative movement. How could it be, I asked Roper, that democracy-- where an individual often doesn't get what he personally wants-- is best? The answer, he said, is that democracy always best supports the survival of the group over the long term, and because the individual is a part of the group, democracy therefor benefits the individual as well.

...But what about the American ideal of the noble woodsman, the rugged individualist, the man who looks out for himself first in all cases? Such a mythos, Roper pointed out, sounds nice, but it would ultimately lead to chaos and perhaps even species extinction. "The idea of individuals going it alone is simply not viable for most intensely social creatures, because if they left the group they would get knocked off by a predator in five minutes, or starve... [or not make it through a winter].

"Being a member of a group is a sort of survival necessity in individual terms. And therefor it's in every individual's selfish interest that the group remains a cohesive unit."

End of tangent. I went down that path because I wanted to remind you about how conservatives are always denigrating public employees. In fact, "demonizing" is probably a more accurate word. A few days ago Kate Thomas and Jessica Kutch for the SEIU make a stab at deunking some of the orchestrated myths perpetrated by the conservative propaganda machine about public employees.

The Grover Norquists of the world have waged a coordinated, decades-long war on public sector employees. Whether you're a teacher, fire fighter, social worker or engineer-- nobody has escaped the right's smear campaign.

Attacking the imagined wealth of public employees is a constant refrain in the Republican playbook:

• Sen. Scott Brown denounced the "lavish pay and benefit packages [that] have unfortunately become a way of life for public employees."

• The Wall Street Journal editorialized that public employees-- and their unions-- "may be the single biggest problem" for the nation's economy.

• And CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger claimed that the "The single biggest threat to the fiscal health and California's future, obviously, is our public pension system."

• Reason.com continues, writing that public sector workers have "turned themselves into a coddled class that lives better than its private sector counterpart."

But this couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, while we've demanded more from public services in the past decade, we've paid our public servants far less. The gap between public and private sector wages has widened, making public sector jobs less competitive than they were 20 years ago. A new report by the National Institute for Retirement Security (NIRS) and the Council on State and Local Government Excellence (CSGE) finds that we pay our state and local public sector employees 11-12% less than their private sector counterparts.

The right wing has seized on the economic downturn as an excuse to rail against public employee compensation, often in favor of private contractors and overhyped privatization schemes. Recently, the headlines have only gotten worse. The Christian Science Monitor printed a commentary, "Want a balanced budget? Cut state workers' pay." Michelle Malkin has invited readers to "compare your salary to a California public employee's."

But pegging the massive economic crash on an underpaid civil servant is not only misguided-- it's highly suspect. Writes Amy Traub of the Drum Major Institute, "Those looking for a 'coddled class' should look to the Wall Street bonus pool, not the Parks Department."

It's just too bad that the right isn't more interested in Lloyd Blankfein's lavish pay.

Washington State Senator Craig Pridemore has been a stalwart defender of working people, including public employees and he's noticed the same insidious trend of blaming working folks first. He's running against a very wealthy conservative Democrat who is no friend of working families. It's part of the reason why Blue America is so enthusiastic about our endorsement of Craig's campaign to win the WA-03 seat being given up by Brian Baird. "Over the past three decades, "pointed out this week, "we’ve seen a steady assault on the workers who are the engines of our economy. I support the Employee Free Choice Act because we need to honor the tradition of labor in our country and provide security for working families during these uncertain and difficult times.

"Just as with health care and financial reform issues, I am the first candidate in this race to make clear my position on the rights of labor to organize.

"Time and again I have asked, ‘where is Denny?’ And all we hear back is silence. From financial reform to health insurance reform to the rights of labor, Denny Heck has failed to tell us unequivocally where he stands. These are crucial issues and voters deserve to know how their next representative will serve them in Washington, D.C.

"The Employee Free Choice Act would strengthen the ability for employees to organize and collectively bargain for their wages. It would also provide for mandatory injunctions should unfair labor practices arise." 

If you support working people and if you're not the type who gets sucked in to conservative memes blaming workers and covering up for Wall Street robber barons and the political hacks they own for the turmoil in the economy, please consider supporting Craig Pridemore and the other pro-working family candidates Blue America has endorsed. In fact, do it today, and you get a chance to win an autographed copy of Al Franken's book, The Truth-- With Jokes.

SEIU Tells Anti-Health Care Democrats That There Will Be A Price To Pay-- Does Blanche Lincoln Have Something To Worry About?

Bad Democrat, good Democrat

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is one of the most powerful of the reactionary engines in America, right up there with the Republican Party, Fox News and Hate Talk Radio. According to this morning's Politico the Chamber's top lobbyist sent a letter thanking 12 Finance Committee members who voted against both public option amendments, i.e., all the Republicans, of course, plus one conservative, anti-family Democrat, Blanche Lincoln. The Chamber pledged to continue funding their careers.

In the past labor unions have contributed $580,495 to Lincoln;s campaigns and so far this year they have given her, cluelessly, $36,100. Put health care reform aside for a moment and recall that Lincoln is the only Democrat who vowed-- at a Chamber of Commerce meeting coincidentally-- to cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans to filibuster Employee Free Choice, thus guaranteeing that the Labor's #1 priority will never even be voted on. Last time Lincoln had to face Arkansas voters-- 2004-- the Chamber of Commerce donated over $160,000 to members of Congress. Their two biggest investments, in either house-- were for the most reactionary Chamber water carriers in the Senate, Jim DeMint of South Carolina ($15,000) and Richard Burr of North Carolina ($10,000). But #3 was Blanche Lincoln ($7,600), more than Ben Nelson, more than Jim Bunning, more than Chuck Grassley, more than Orrin Hatch, more than Arlen Specter, John Thune... even more than Chamber of Commerce love-child Dan Boren.

This year the SEIU's PAC has already given Lincoln $5,000-- same as what they gave anti-worker fanatic Chuck Grassley (who returned their check). Lincoln didn't have the decency to return their check-- and is hoping for more. Yesterday SEIU president Andy Stern warned conservative Democrats like Lincoln that there would be a "price to pay" if they joined in the Republican filibuster against health care reform. It is widely agreed that the only Democrats contemplating such a move are Ben Nelson, who is, in effect, a lobbyist for the Insurance Industry, and, of course, Blanche Lincoln, who has always put her donors demands above her constituents best interests.

Stern said if members like Nelson decide to vote against the bill, he could live with that. But filibustering it to prevent it from being voted against is beyond the pale. "If the Democrats have told people like ourselves, supporters for a long time, 'Just give us 60 votes. Give us the money, give us 60 votes and we will show you what we can do.' Well, it's show time."

SEIU has had people on the ground in Arkansas looking at possible opponents for Lincoln. So far the only Democrat to step up is a neo-Confederate maniac who is actually-- as hard as this is to believe-- even more right-wing than Lincoln! The 6 or 8 or 25 Republicans in the race are like a circus side show. That leaves the two independents, Trevor Drown and Green Party nominee John Gray.

It isn't likely that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will be sending any love letters or donations to Alan Grayson for moving the discussion along and making people understand that Americans are dying every single day because of the mean-spirited-- and bought-and-paid-for-- Republican obstructionism in regard to health care reform. Stern, however, singled him out for praise:

"They have no health care plan and they are letting people continue to suffer," he said.

"I think what Rep. [Alan] Grayson is right about is that the Republicans have no plan," Stern said, referring to the Florida Democrat who said earlier this week that the GOP approach to health care would result in more Americans dying.

"And while they have no plan, people are suffering and people are dying. That is an issue and they should be held accountable. And the insurance companies are even worse because people have been paying for their health care can't get it when they need it and then they suffer and die."

Although Grayson asked Georgia Republican Tom Price, the crackpot who filed-- and then dropped-- the resolution of censure against him, to be his campaign finance chairman, Blue America isn't taking any chance and we've already managed to collect over $25,000 for him from over 775 netroots donors. Wanna join in and let a real American hero know we have his back? You can do it here.

At the same time, we're also collecting more to keep our TV ads running across Arkansas. Take at them and see if you want to help warn voters that their senator could single-handedly scuttle health care for them and for all of us.

Craven, Cowardly Democrats Let Republicans Drag Them Around By The Nose Again

Does anyone think they would grow a pair if they had a 70 seat majority in the Senate? No, me neither. How about 80 seats?

Huge victory for Glenn Beck! Only 75 Democrats had the guts to stand up for ACORN today when the not-so-hapless Republican minority forced through a motion by GOP crook Darrell Issa (R-CA) to defund the organization. This is so pathetic-- and a true vision of the Republican idea of bipartisanship (even worse, if you can imagine than the rancid kind of bipartisanship corrupt Democrats like Kent Conrad, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson are always pumping for). I want to especially congratulate the Blue Dog coalition, Steny Hoyer, and the freshmen we helped elect who see nothing wrong in selling out our allies in a tough time. Here's the list of the ones who didn't sell out:

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Xavier Becerra (D-CA)
Robert Brady (D-PA)
Corrine Brown (D-FL)
GK Butterfield (D-NC)
Mike Capuano (D-MA)
Andre Carson (D-IN)
Kathy Castor (D-FL)
Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)
Jim Clyburn (D-SC)
Joe Crowley (D-NY)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Danny Davis (D-IL)
Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Bill Delahunt (D-MA)
Mike Doyle (D-PA)
Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Keith Ellison (D-MN)
Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Chaka Fattah (D-PA)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
Al Green (D-TX)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Rush Holt (D-NJ)
Mike Honda (D-CA)
Jesse Jackson, Jr (D-IL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Rick Larsen (D-WA)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
John Lewis (D-GA)
Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
James McGovern (D-MA)
Gregory Meeks (D-NY)
Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
Gwen Moore (D-WI)
Jim Moran (D-VA)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Richard Neal (D-MA)
John Olver (D-MA)
Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)
Donald Payne (D-NJ)
Jared Polis (D-CO)
David Price (D-NC)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)
Charlie Rangel (D-NY)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Linda Sánchez (D-CA)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
David Scott (D-GA)
Bobby Scott (D-VA)
Jose Serrano (D-NY)
Brad Sherman (D-CA)
Albio Sires (D-NJ)
Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
Pete Stark (D-CA)
Bennie Thompson (D-MS)
Edolphus Towns (D-NY)
Nikki Tsongas (D-MA)
Nydia Velázquez (D-NY)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Diane Watson (D-CA)
Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Robert Wexler (D-FL)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

Shame on every other Democrat in the House-- even if they are clucking around how this will be "fixed" in conference. I bet Democrats like Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln are running around trying to make sure they can get a shot at voting against ACORN in the Senate too. Nathan Newman, a friend of mine, made a brilliant suggestion when Issa introduced his poisonous motion, although no one in the House took it up:

Can the Democrats attach an amendment to the motion to defund any federal corporate contractor that has been found guilty of violating a federal law with those funds? That would pretty much kill the amendment in its tracks since the list of corporate felons is pretty infinitely long. The fact that corporations with active fraud histories continue to receive federal funds while ACORN is being defunded based on a video of a couple of idiot employees offering advice that was never actually processed in any financial form is incredible.

Instead we got this kind of messaging from Democrats, only too happy to run back to their constituents and validate right-wing talking points for their own political gain:

"With mounting allegations against ACORN, a public outraged by recent videos, and considering the Census Bureau's recent decision to sever their ties with ACORN, I voted to prohibit any future federal spending on this organization. I too was deeply disturbed by the recent ACORN videos that have been played out over the news and am glad that I had the opportunity today to sever Congress' ties with this organization."

The Dust Brothers:




UPDATE: Senate Proves Itself As Cowardly As The House... Big Surprise

Reactionary Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns introduced an amendment and senators were tripping all over themselves to show how big and tough and anti-ACORN they are. Only 11 Democrats stood against Fox News' jidah against reason: Dan Akaka (D-HI), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Roland Burris (D-IL), Robert Casey (D-PA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Pat Leahy (D-VT), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).


UPDATE: The Price Of Cowardice: An Escalation Of Attacks... Against Democrats

I hope Jim Webb and Mark Warner are proud of themselves for bending over and taking it from the Republicans yesterday. The GOP made this video (below) in a show of thanks. I'm sure we won't hear much from either senator but at least the SEIU knew how to respond:

"Another prime example of how the right wing is willing to lie, cheat and smear to silence the voice of people who work for a living. SEIU members are janitors, security officers, nurses, Head Start teachers and women and men who go work hard each day in the Commonwealth to make a better life for their families. Ken Cuccinelli could not find a more vivid way to prove that he is not offering what working families in Virginia need right now."

Banksters Using Taxpayer Funds To Fight Against Workers Again

I want to put up Mojo Nixon's "I Hate Banks" video again, but I can't imagine anyone who reads this blog hasn't already seen the clip. Are we in-- or about to be in-- a Depression? Probably, although most Americans say definitely. But that doesn't mean there isn't still tremendous wealth in this country. Unemployment may be around 10%-- more in Michigan, South Carolina, Rhode Island and California-- but that means around 90% of workers still have a job. And just look at those gargantuan bonuses-- billions of dollars the big Wall Street firms and the banksters have been giving themselves! Sure, household net worth has sunk by 2% ($11.2 trillion)-- Bush's farewell present to America in his last quarter of misrule but... well let's just look at the Bank of America bonuses for a second. Under TARP, the government gave Bank of America $25 billion in bailout funds-- and at Republican insistence, with no strings attached-- to jump-start the economy by unfreezing the credit stream. Instead Bank of America bought foreign banks, bought corporate jets-- and gave top executives at Merrill Lynch (which it bought) $4 billion in "performance bonuses." Had that money been evenly divided among every person-- all 247,000 of them-- who is employed at Bank of America, each person would have walked away with $16,000-- a significant amount, not just for them and their families, but for their communities and for the country. According to a salary survey by PayScale.com, the median salary of BofA bank tellers was $23,597 a year as of December 28, 2008. By comparison, Bank of America's crooked CEO Ken Lewis took home $99.8 million in 2006, more than four thousand times as much as a BofA teller.

Every single dollar that goes into workers' wages generates $4 worth of economic activity, more than enough to stop the economic downturn dead in its tracks. But the wealthy and powerful who have done so very, very well under Bush misrule, like the way the country's wealth has been skewered in their direction over the last couple of decades. That's why they are so hysterical about stopping Obama's plans to regenerate the middle class. And part of that regeneration is giving workers an opportunity to organize and bargain collectively again.

The right-wing mania against Employee Free Choice-- with its attendant smear campaign against unions-- is a manifestation of a failed power elite to hold onto the undeserved gains they gobbled up under Bush. They brought on the economic meltdown because of their unregulated greed and avarice and now they're claiming that rebuilding the middle class will bring about Armageddon. The fact of the matter is, they already brought about a kind of economic Armageddon by refusing to pay workers fairly and by forcing them to borrow money-- at usurious interest rates-- to keep their families going. Until workers can afford to pay their bills, the economy is doomed. The Employee Free Choice Act is meant to level the playing field a bit between the top 1% of families and the rest of society.

This morning at HuffPo, intrepid reporter Sam Stein exposed Citigroup's latest attempt to beat down workers with some of that $50 billion in taxpayer dollars they got their grubby paws on. Yesterday they hosted a private war-room call about how to manipulate politicians and public opinion in regard to the Employee Free choice Act.

The call, which came just one day after the labor-backed legislation was introduced in Congress, represents a growing effort on Citi's behalf to air concerns about the bill, which would make it easier for employees to organize. On Tuesday, the bank downgraded Wal-Mart's rating over fears that the Employee Free Choice Act could pass.

Wednesday's conference call was led by Glenn Spencer, a senior executive at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an ardent EFCA opponent. It was promoted as "An Update on the Employee Free Choice Act," but much of the content was focused on demonizing the legislation. EFCA will "inhibit flexibility," "hamper companies from competing effectively," and prove "cumbersome" for business, declared Spencer. "From the Chamber's perspective, and I would say probably from the whole business communities perspective, there are really no amendments you could make to this bill that would make it acceptable."

..."Citigroup and the Chamber of Commerce have no shame," said Stephen Lerner, director of the Private Equity Project at SEIU. "One day, Citi issues a report claiming it would hurt the stock of the Billionaire Walton family if free choice passes and workers win decent wages. Then they follow it up with a conference call where the Chamber of Commerce claims paying workers a living wage is bad for the economy."

Fox TV is already strategically at work spreading the misinformation and outright lies that came out of the Citigroup conference call.

Yesterday Kai Ryssdal interviewed former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich on NPR's Marketplace. If only political leaders like Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer could express themselves as clearly as Reich. Maybe their hearts need to be in it a little more.

The way to get the economy back on track is to boost the purchasing power of average Americans. One way to do this is to expand the percentage of Americans in unions.

Go back 50 years, when America's middle class was growing and the economy was soaring. Good pay meant more purchases, and more purchases meant more jobs. At the center of this virtuous circle were unions. In 1955, more than a third of working Americans belonged to one. Unions gave them the bargaining leverage they needed to get the paychecks that kept the economy going.

But now, fewer than 8 percent of private-sector workers are unionized. Middle-class wages slowed so much in the intervening years that most Americans could maintain spending only by working more hours and then, this decade, going deep into debt. But then the bubble burst, and now there's not enough purchasing power to keep the economy going.

The decline of unions isn't the only reason for the long-term slowdown in American wages. Much of what Americans used to make can now be made more cheaply abroad or by automated machines. But the vast personal-service sector of the economy is not affected by imports or automation, including millions of jobs in big-box retailers, fast-food outlets, hotel chains, hospitals, construction, and transportation.

Few of these jobs are unionized. All too often, that's because employees who want to form unions are threatened by their employers. And if they don't heed the warnings, they're fired, even though that's illegal. I saw this when I was secretary of labor over a decade ago.

We tried to penalize employers that broke the law, but the fines are minuscule. Too many employers consider them a cost of doing business.

The most important feature of the Employee Free Choice Act toughens penalties against companies that violate their workers' rights. The sooner it's enacted, the better-- for American workers and for the American economy.

That pretty much says it all. If you live in Arkansas, try explaining it to your two waivering senators, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. If you live in Pennsylvania or Ohio, let Arlen Specter and George Voinovich, two Republicans who don't reflexively undermine the aspirations of working families at every opportunity the way most of their Republican colleagues do. And think about participating in the mass demonstrations at banks on March 19 nationwide. Meanwhile, they sure have bought Chuck Grassley lock, stock and barrel: "It won’t become law because we’ve got 41 Republicans sticking together against it. And it’s my understanding that we have some Democrats that are nervous about it, too. I don’t see how you can get around a filibuster. And it will be filibustered.” In 2007 Arlen Specter (R-PA) voted for Employee Free Choice. He says he hasn't made up his mind (on the identical bill) this year but... deals are being made. And finally someone is explaining what the bill really is about and not just allowing right-wing propaganda to mis-define it:

Best Ad Of The Day-- Employee Free Choice vs The Blood-Sucking Wall Street Plutocracy

The SEIU may not have the right people picking candidates-- we caught them donating money to reactionary Blue Dogs like John Barrow last year and this year they're off to a typically clueless Inside-the-Beltway start with endorsements of Sarah Feingenholtz in Chicago and Kendrick Meek in Florida-- but whoever does their YouTubes is doing a bang-up job. The one below, is absolutely great and really makes the distinction between the kinds of characters-- society's vicious scavengers and self-entitled parasites-- who are fighting unions, and the people defending the rights of working people to live in some kind of human dignity. Please watch the ad-- because if you don't you'll never understand how "Radical Islam and Employee Free Choice are the two fundamental threats to society"-- and then donate to Dan Gelber, the progressive, commonsense candidate for Florida's Senate seat who isn't the corporate shill and corrupt hack the SEIU endorsed down there.



And keep in mind, Republicans are threatening their new hapless sad sack of an RNC chair that unless he stops calling their boss "ugly," and gets busy working on things like sabotaging the Employee Free Choice Act and preventing Al Franken from taking his Senate seat, he will soon be announcing that he's spending more time with his family.

Indications are that Americans are now paying a steep price for our shocking national disdain for labor unions

Have you seen this Brave New Films video (brought to us here by WarOnGreed.org)? A sustained campaign built around it has won some still-too-limited concessions from Burger King -- see below.

"When I mentioned the word 'union,' I was told never, never mention that word again if I want to keep my job."

-- Burger King worker-turned-executive Gene Franques, in the video

"Suppose that China and the United States did have powerful unions. In China, such unions might have pushed for higher wages, social insurance and more domestic consumption. Here, such unions would have preserved more of a manufacturing sector and boosted wages in the service and retail sectors, so that American consumers could have relied more on income than on credit to make their purchases. The two nations would have had more sustainable economic strategies. And the world economy might not now be plunging into what, so far, appears to be a bottomless pit."

-- Harold Meyerson, in his Wednesday Washington Post column,
"The Dysfunctional Duo"

by Ken

Last night Howie talked about the grotesque situation that has developed around the nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis to be the first secretary of labor since . . . well, at least since the Clinton administration who actually believes that the job includes standing up for the rights and working conditions of working people. Anyone who has so quickly forgotten the horror of the Bush regime tenure of now-former Secretary Elaine Chao is directed to Joe Sudbay's Thursday AmericaBlog post, which began:

For the last eight years, America's workers have had the crap kicked out of them by the Bush administration and Republicans on the Hill. We had an anti-labor Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, who is married to the vehemently anti-labor GOP Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell. Those two are worth millions (she was on 13 corporate boards before becoming Labor Secretary) so you can imagine they didn't have much in common with people who actually work for a living. Chao and McConnell were a potent (and very wealthy) combo determined to undermine the safety and job security of America's workers.

Do Americans understand the problems set out in the above Burger King video? ZP Heller offered a valuable take in a Saturday OpenLeft post:

All week long, Brave New Films, SEIU and many progressive bloggers have been holding Burger King's feet to the deep fryer. Together we exposed Burger King's horrendous working conditions; launched a contest asking people to Have It Their Way with Goldman Sachs (Burger King's top shareholder) for squandering $6.5 billion of the bailout on bonuses while average BK workers earn less than the federal poverty line; and staged peaceful demonstrations at Burger Kings across the country protesting the fast-food chain's low wages, lack of healthcare, and lobbying against unionization legislation. So what was Burger King's response? They served up this flamebroiled pile of garbage yesterday: "Burger King Corp. (BKC) believes unions serve a purpose in some workplaces and a number of its guests, vendors and franchisees have positive union membership experiences. BKC is not anti-union. BKC and its franchisees serve a diverse consumer base and, therefore, aim to remain neutral on political issues."

Neutral on political issues, eh? If that's the case, why did Burger King spend $319,648 between 2006 and 2008 lobbying against pro-labor laws like the Employee Free Choice Act? Why did Goldman Sachs spend $15,849,000 in 2008 alone lobbying against the Employee Free Choice? And why, as SEIU's Michael Whitney noted, has Burger King fought this legislation through their involvement with the National Retail Federation, which stands firmly behind an anti-union group called the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace?

If Burger King is "not anti-union" as they claim, then let's see them stay out of their workers' efforts to unionize. And if they're "not anti-union," does that mean they're suddenly pro-worker? Then perhaps they should quit dropping hundreds of thousands on lobbying efforts to oppose federal minimum wage hikes. They should improve workplace conditions to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act. And while they're at it, they could also provide their employees healthcare so they no longer have to rely on publicly-funded health insurance programs that cost taxpayers up to a quarter of a billion dollars a year. If Burger King is really "not anti-union," let's see them put their money where their mouth is. Until then, we'll continue to have it our way.

I really don't understand what it is with Americans and labor unions. Is it simply yet another effect of the chokehold the Right has gained over the American mis-education system?

When I was growing up, even though I'm not aware that anyone in our extended family was a union member -- there are more management types in my family history -- Samuel Gompers was a household name. (Gompers was the crusading labor organizer who forged the American Federation of Labor, which when merged with the Congress of Industrial Organizations in 1955 became the powerful AFL-CIO coalition.) It was part of the general public understanding, once upon a time, that the American prosperity of the second half of the 20th century would have been impossible without strong labor unions, because the economy could never have blossomed without consumers to buy the products sold by American industry.

I've got a bad feeling that none of this history is taught to today's students. For Americans who have no idea that, for example, the mines were once operated as something close to slave-labor camps, with the tacit acquiescence and even active support of the U.S. government, maybe we need to schedule nationwide screenings of Martin Ritt and Walter Bernstein's shattering 1970 film The Molly Maguires (with huge performances by Sean Connery, Richard Harris, and Frank Finlay)? (Anyone is welcome to borrow my Laserdisk copy.) And slide-show presentations tracing the origins of the ILGWU, including the still-almost-unimaginable horror of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911?

All useful, but I doubt that it would be helpful. It would all be dismissed as, "That was then. We've gotten past all of that." But of course we haven't. As with so much else that's gone wrong in this country, a lot of it started with Reagan. It was in the Reagan administration that open warfare against unions became not only acceptable but officially approved. Over time, partly in sync with changes in the structure of the economy, such gains as organized labor had achieved were steadily ungained.

There's no question that the unions did themselves no favor with the excessive demands and entrenched corruption that set in at the height of their power. But of course this was a pale reflection of the wanton abuse of power and corruption characteristic of the managements they were dealing with -- where does anyone think the overweening and corrupt union bosses learned it all from? It's notable that the anti-union propagandists were never heard from when crusading union members were trying to reform the unions from within. And it's not hard to understand why: It wasn't the corruption the anti-unionists objected to, it was the very notion of workers being able to push back against the bullying of management. If anything, strong and uncorrupt unions are their worst nightmare.

The liars and delusionaries who preach "the free market" have it that all the problems for which pro-union advocates insist unions are necessary can be solved more simply and fairly by the workings of the free market. The only difference is that the liars know better, while the delusionaries don't. Even if there were such a thing as a free market it would be bullshit, for a panoply of reasons, most of which come back to the basic fact that it's human nature to seek any advantage that's obtainable by any means, and when management has no checks on its powers, it will exploit those advantages in every way possible, dehumanizing workers to the level of merely another commodity, like plant fixtures and raw materials, simply occupying another column on the balance sheet.

But of course we've never had a free market, and it's the last thing the people who claim to champion such a thing want. What they want is for the government to play the role it played back in Molly Maguires days: behind-the-scenes enabler and when necessary active partner of management.

I guess Americans like to think that unionism is a grubby business that's beneath them. Of course in other countries even white-collar workers have benefited from union organization, but Americans like to think they're "individuals" who are above all of that. This may be why so many white-collar Americans were so stunned to wake up and find that their jobs had been outsourced to cheaper workers abroad, kaboom! More perplexingly, even Americans who are bitter and resentful about their poor prospects for job improvement seem to identify with the managements that have worked so hard to trap them in dead-end jobs, and to replace even those jobs with even worse, no-benefits "opportunities."

Economists have told us for decades that in strong union economies, even non-union workers benefit in terms of wages and working conditions from the countervailing force offered by unions to untrammeled management control. In the simplest terms, where there are strong unions, managements wishing to keep them out of their workplaces have to treat their workers with a respect that's likely to vanish with as union options do.

We haven't had many more grotesque national spectacles than that of the predominantly Southern senators, which is to say states from what was once the slave-holding South, states that have invested heavily via massive tax subsidies in non-union auto plants, used the economic meltdown as leverage to try to once and for all destroy the U.S. auto-industry unions. We're talking about intellectual flyweights like Alabama's Richard Shelby and Tennessee's appalling Bob Corker. It might have been funny if it wasn't all so dishonest and shabby and shameful -- the careful cherry-picking of numbers to "prove" the arrogance of the unions, who in fact had already made massive concessions and were the only parties offering additional cooperation.

All of this was churned up by the really fine, thought-provoking Harold Meyerson column I quoted from at the top of this post. Meyerson advances the proposition that we Americans, like our chief international partners in union-hating, the Chinese, pay a steep price for this, and in the economic meltdown the bill has come due. I have too much respect for Meyerson's argument to try to "highlight" it. So here it is in full:

The Dysfunctional Duo

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, February 18, 2009; A13

We are hemorrhaging jobs just now, but by historic standards, unemployment may look a little low. The official unemployment rate (which understates actual unemployment, to be sure) is at 7.6 percent, a far cry from the 10 percent-plus during the downturn of the early 1980s. In those years, Midwestern manufacturing shed more jobs than it is shedding today. Where's the comparable unemployment now?

It's out there, and then some. Only, it's in East Asia. We've offshored it.

In China, where exports dropped 17.5 percent in January, tens of thousands of factories have closed, and the government estimates that 20 million migrant workers -- rural Chinese who moved to manufacturing zones for the work -- have lost their jobs. Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan all project declines in their gross domestic products this year.


The problem is that East Asia is one big export platform, and its mega-importer -- the United States -- has stopped buying. If the emblematic image of the Great Depression was that of Americans lined up for bread or living in urban shantytowns, the signature image of the current collapse is the acres of Japanese-made cars gathering dust in the immense parking lots abutting the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors. According to Morgan Stanley economists, exports account for 47 percent of the output of East Asia's developing economies. Here in the United States, consumption accounted for more than 70 percent of our GDP on the eve of our consumer meltdown.

The solution for East Asia, and China in particular, is to change its economic strategy. Instead of relying so heavily on exports, China will have to increase its domestic consumption. It will have to invest in upgrading its infrastructure and establish social insurance programs so that its citizens, instead of hoarding money, will be able to spend more. It will have to allow wage levels to rise, creating a more stable domestic market for its goods.

Devising a successful economic strategy for the United States is a good deal trickier. When our economic elites offshored much of our manufacturing sector to East Asia and other cheap-labor lands, and took arms against union labor here at home, they ensured that most of the American jobs created over the past quarter-century would come in retail and service sectors that paid less than manufacturing. Every year for the past couple of decades, we've added lots more sales-clerk, cashier and fast-food jobs than we've created in high technology or energy. Yet Americans have been able to maintain middle-class living standards -- not through rising income but through rising debt, available to us because China has funneled the immense revenue it amassed selling us goods back to us in the form of loans that we can no longer repay.

At the center of the global meltdown, then, is the misshapen economic codependency of the United States and China. Each has followed a fundamentally unstable economic model, with one nation suppressing wages so that it could export more and the other living on borrowed funds so that it could purchase more. Despite the sharply different roles that each nation carved for itself, though, a shared characteristic allowed them to chart their ultimately disastrous course.

What do the United States and China have in common? They are the only two major economic powers that are resolutely hostile to unions. In China, any unions not controlled by the state are outlawed, which is why so many protests about unpaid wages and the like take the form of riots; there's no legal way to enforce workers' rights. In the United States for the past 30 years, business has been implacably opposed to labor, routinely violating the National Labor Relations Act rather than permitting employees to join unions.

Over the past few years, as global alliances of unions have begun to win agreements with global corporations, there's been one major impediment to such accords. "I always look at the percentage of a company's revenues from two nations, China and the U.S.," says Ron Oswald of the International Union of Food Workers, "in deciding whether to push for an international agreement." That's what happens when worker organizing is all but forbidden.

But suppose that China and the United States did have powerful unions. In China, such unions might have pushed for higher wages, social insurance and more domestic consumption. Here, such unions would have preserved more of a manufacturing sector and boosted wages in the service and retail sectors, so that American consumers could have relied more on income than on credit to make their purchases. The two nations would have had more sustainable economic strategies. And the world economy might not now be plunging into what, so far, appears to be a bottomless pit.

#