TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | economy

Clinton to Iran: Engagement Won’t Be There Forever

By on 15 July 2009

“…smart power counsels that we lead with diplomacy, even in the case of adversaries or nations with whom we disagree. We cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage. Yet some suggest that this is a sign of weakness or naiveté – or acquiescence to these countries’ repression of their own people. That is wrong. The President and I believe that refusing to talk to countries rarely punishes them. And as long as engagement might advance our interests and our values, it is unwise to take it off the table. …” – Secretary Clinton

Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations today, Secretary Clinton hit many points, but it remains to be seen whether this will be considered a “major speech” as it was billed. However, we do now know she intends to travel to Pakistan in the fall.

“Success in Afghanistan also requires close cooperation from neighboring Pakistan, which I will visit this fall. … “We and our allies fight in Afghanistan because the Taliban protects al Qaeda and depends on it for support,” she added. “To eliminate al Qaeda, we must also fight the Taliban.” (Reuters)

Regarding Afghanistan, as an aside, it’s worrying where the Administration seems to be considering moving on this front. Clinton’s talk about fighting the Taliban to “eliminate al Qaeda” is aggressive rhetoric that will please many, but it’s hardly a practical end goal. We built them up, starting way back in the Reagan era, and they’ll be there long after we’re gone. If that phrase sounds familiar, well, it should. As new calls come from commanders to further expand our military position in that country, it’s making me extremely nervous. I was on board with Obama’s initial strategy, but you can move me to “not convinced in the least” on the latest rumblings.

However, Clinton did deliver the muscular promise to Obama’s engagement dialogue (this image says it all), just in case anyone gets the wrong idea.

“And to these foes and would-be foes, let me say: You should know that our focus on diplomacy and development is not an alternative to our national security arsenal. You should never see America’s willingness to talk as a sign of weakness to be exploited. We will not hesitate to defend our friends and ourselves vigorously when necessary with the world’s strongest military. This is not an option we seek. Nor is it a threat; it is a promise to the American people.”

Clinton’s speech today had one particularly striking section emphasizing the importance of the role of women and girls in economics going forward. (It’s not in the prepared notes, but was shown on Andrea Mitchell’s MSNBC show.) It was powerful insistence about the role women must play in the world today and a reminder we must stay vigilant to manifest what women offer to countries around the world. In the same breath she also spoke of poverty’s cost to women and girls.

On Iran, Clinton’s message, speaking for the Administration, was unmistakable.

“We watched the energy of Iran’s election with great admiration, only to be appalled by the manner in which the government used violence to quell the voices of the Iranian people, then tried to hide its actions by arresting foreign nationals, expelling journalists, and cutting off access to technology. As we … have made clear, these actions are deplorable and unacceptable. …

Iran can become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism. It can assume a responsible position in the international community if it fulfills its obligations on human rights. The choice is clear. We remain ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now. The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely.”

The Administration’s priorities were set out:

• “In approaching our foreign policy priorities, we have to deal with the urgent, the important, and the long-term all at once. But… we must have priorities:”

- “reverse the spread of nuclear weapons, prevent their use, and build a world free of their threat;”

- “isolate and defeat terrorists and counter violent extremists while reaching out to Muslims around the world;”

- “encourage and facilitate the efforts of all parties to pursue a comprehensive peace in the Middle East;”

- “pursue global economic recovery and growth – by strengthening our own economy, advancing a robust development agenda, expanding trade that is free and fair, and boosting investment that creates decent jobs;”

- “combat climate change, increase energy security, and lay the foundation for a prosperous clean-energy future;”

- “support and encourage democratic governments that protect the rights of and deliver results for their people;”

- “and stand up for human rights everywhere.”

The State Department made sure Clinton’s speech today was billed as “major.” But I agree with Glenn Kessler that Clinton’s “major” speech sounded very similar in tone and reach to Clinton’s confirmation hearings.

“…we have the right strategy, the right priorities, the right policies. We have the right President. And we have the American people, diverse, committed, involved and open to the future.”

Read full story · Comments are closed

J. Stephen Simon, The Exceptional Oil Man

By on 11 July 2009

Cross-posted and featured on Huffington Post, Business Section.

J. Stephen Simon, Director, Senior VP of ExxonMobil (now retired) dies. That will be the official line. But he was simply the man who married my sister; the man who was always there for me.

From the time I was old enough to remember, when I thought of my sister Susie, it was always in conjunction with Steve. That’s because they fell in love in 9th grade and stayed together the rest of their lives.

That is until this past week when this dynamo of a man had a massive heart attack, leaving his family, his beautiful daughters, all of us in slack-jawed disbelief. Gone.

J. Stephen Simon didn’t start at the top. He worked his way up, all the way. When he married Susie they definitely couldn’t afford some fancy honeymoon. It was a quick celebration after an amazing December wedding, then off to work Steve went. Nothing given, all earned, with Susie by his side every step of the way. The noble quest of acquiring all you have through hard work, dedication, love of family, and staying true to your humble Missouri roots. Steve never forgot where he came from and always remembered how hard he and Susie worked to get what they achieved. With the only thing that ever really mattered to him was making Susie happy. That he did, more than they could ever have dreamed might manifest.

Others might remember J. Stephen Simon from congressional hearings. Let’s just say his testimony was animated, which is why I chose this shot. Steve was larger than life.

Photobucket

Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corp. reiterated that point. “Imposing punitive taxes on American companies will discourage the investments needed to safeguard our energy security. The pursuit of alternative fuels must not detract from investments in oil and gas,” he said.

Markey hammered Exxon’s Simon over the company’s investment in renewable energy. “Why is Exxon Mobil resisting the renewable energy revolution?” asked Markey.

Simon said Exxon has given $100 million to Stanford to study renewables. “$100 million?” said Markey. “But you made $40 billion last year.”

When pressed, Simon said Exxon believes the current generation of renewable energy options will not be able to significantly meet demand.

… ..Exxon has long said it is in the business of oil, and that it prefers to leave renewable energy up to the renewable energy companies. Although the company has received some praise – even from its critics – for its investments in cutting-edge battery technology.

I remember when I wrote to Steve and my sister about working on the side of Al Gore on climate change (also Robert Redford). He respected my decision, then sent me an information packet filled with data. We never engaged in a fight over energy or ExxonMobil. As was fitting given my conflict of interest on the subject, I didn’t cover anything that incorporated ExxonMobil and little on the oil industry, writing disclaimers about it to explain the emails asking why I wasn’t. Knowing Steve, it taught me why demonizing people through politics on issues because of what they do, especially when it’s a commodity that’s been instrumental in our country’s history and national security, never tells the full story when it’s a man as good as Steve. I learned that story through my family.

ExxonMobil has many enemies on the progressive and activist side, but I can say with pride and without equivocation that J. Stephen Simon was one of the most honorable, decent, dedicated American patriots you’ll ever find. Yes, even an oil man can be a patriot.

Steve and I had several conversations on politics, though not nearly as many as I would have liked. It was tough given his position and my work. I’ll cherish what he told me in confidence, because you can imagine the access he had. I don’t think he’d mind now me saying this much on one subject. Thumbs up on Hillary. On John McCain…. um… not so much. But you had to know Steve to appreciate the color he added when politics was the subject. Steve’s mental brilliance made for a razor sharp wit.

Yes, he graduated number one from his class at Duke; and number one when he got his MBA from Northwestern. … .. Served in the Army.

However, this isn’t what I’ll remember most about Steve.

It’s the moments Steve was there, like when I was a little girl and dad had died, and he stepped up (as did my hero bro, as always). Then there was Steve’s unending understanding when a rift turned into a divide until I flew to Italy, where he was president, Esso Italiano, Rome. Telling the story of a personal family tragedy, Steve crying along with me as he helped us put the past where it belonged. What he did for me throughout my life, his generosity, the sibling trips he and Susie treated us to, where we all landed in a city taking in the best theater, then barnstorming the best restaurants, where the good food and wine flowed, with so much laughter you cried. Treating me to a fabulous, first-class ticket to Venice on the train, as well as one of the finest hotels on the Grand Canal. It also didn’t surprise me when I walked into my room to see long-stem red roses waiting. That was Steve… and Susie.

So, the loss… it’s all so crushing.

It just seems wrong that “life goes on.” It should stop. Everyone should stop. … .. if just for a moment when someone this good, this remarkable, this dedicated to his family passes from the earth plain.

Steve and Susie. From the time I can remember, there wasn’t one without the other. It was simply the greatest of love affairs.

___________________

The Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University has established the J. Stephen Simon Scholarship Endowment Fund. Memorial contributions to the J. Stephen Simon Scholarship Endowment Fund may be made to Duke University in care of Judge Carr, 305 Teer Engineering Building, Box 90271, Duke University, Durham, NC 27702.

____________________

TM NOTE: I’m off to the wake and funeral. I’d so appreciate everyone pitching in and putting important stories “In the News”. I’ll check in when I can. You can can follow me on Twitter, which will be a bit easier for me than posting over the next couple of days.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Stimulus II?

By on 08 July 2009

–updated–

I’d like to smack all those conservative Democrats up side the head with the federal check book. What were they thinking and why did Obama let them thwart what could have made the stimulus do the work it was supposed to do? However, Obama says he’s happy with it, even if Sen. Whitehouse believes another one is needed, while Sen. McCaskill, Obama’s super fan, says it’s a “non starter.” Floating what looks inevitable isn’t working so well, now is it? I’d believe in it if I didn’t think we’d just get part two of what hasn’t worked fast enough in the first place.

Steny’s hinting we may need a second stimulus, while Harry Reid would rather walk to into a casino and bet the house rather than propose one.

The economists have a different opinion:

“To my mind it’s pretty obvious we need another stimulus package, probably a lot bigger than the last one,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research. “It’s horrible that you have all of these people suffering because you have people in Washington with rocks in their head.”

Paul Krugman concurs.

Laura Tyson, one of the Clinton’s econ gurus, said all along the stimulus was too small and she’s still saying it. Earlier this year I heard Tyson speak, with her feeling we can afford a $10 trillion short fall, if it’s only in the short run.

“The money is just really starting to come out in more significant amounts now,” Tyson said. “The stimulus is performing close to expectations but not in timing.”

Frankly, looking at this from the political analysis side since I’m not an economist, all I see are danger signs ahead. If Democrats wade into the stimulus II water we hand Republicans all sorts of talking points for 2010, which since the economy isn’t rebounding as hoped is beginning to set up in places like Ohio as nothing good. Seriously, have you seen these numbers? However, considering I never believed the first stimulus was put together in a way that would provide what was needed, the talk of a second stimulus is totally understandable. But the politics for Democrats and Obama are treacherous if they do.

Republicans are looking for their issue and a second stimulus on top of one that’s working too slowly will bring out the econ hawks. A second stimulus will put them over the top.

It will also likely give people fodder for why health care will be too expensive.

Bad set up. (…unless you’re Mitt Romney.)

Duck! Here comes the punch line.

In a research note that’s been making the rounds of economics blogs this week, Berner declares that “America’s long-awaited fiscal train wreck is now under way.”

By “train wreck,” he means out-of-control federal budget deficits that he’s sure will finally drag the economy under — as if we weren’t already feeling badly enough about its shaky state.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Dems Get Hit at Home on Health Care

By on 02 July 2009

–updated–

Can there be any doubt what these job loss numbers mean? More people will be struggling to keep their health care insurance.

However, when you’re getting big money from insurance companies, which includes many Democrats, it seems you’re willing to ignore the needs of million and millions of people.

Mary Landrieu is getting hit hard at home.

Kay Hagan, who was pushed by Emily’s List and Hillary Clinton is, too. Breast cancer survivors are sending her a simple message: Senator Hagan support a strong public insurance plan, available nationwide from day one and accountable to Congress and the voters. Sign your name so she knows how you feel and that you stand with these breast cancer survivors.

Even Wal-Mart gets what this is about.

Why don’t some Democrats?

TO ADD… As for the HELP legislation and costs (see Ezra on CBO numbers), Johnathan Cohn writes the cost at around $1-1.3 trillion, higher than the CBO numbers. The good news, it’s a much better bill, which is worth the cost.

UPDATE II: From what I’m hearing from impeccable sources is that Dodd is making clear that the bill would have to be combined w/ the Finance bill to cover Medicare, etc. We’re talking *only* the cost of the HELP bill ($611 billion) in the CBO numbers.

Additionally, from what I’m also hearing, Hagan is now on board, as ALL members of the HELP committee have signed on. Post on it.

UPDATE: Read HELP legislation (bring food & drink, it’s long).

Read full story · Comments are closed

Is Madoff Worse than a Child Molester?

By on 29 June 2009
Photobucket

Talk about sentence overkill.

I’m sure it makes some people feel good, but it hasn’t solved the problem or revealed the mysteries. I also still want to know who helped him and where is the money, but also where was the SEC?

Madoff’s lawyers referred to the verdict as “mob vengeance.”

A federal judge sentenced Bernard L. Madoff to 150 years in prison on Monday for operating a huge Ponzi scheme that devastated thousands of people, calling his crimes “extraordinarily evil.”

But worse than a child molester? In Corpus Christi just a couple of weeks ago, a guy was found “… guilty of six counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child. Those counts accused him of repeatedly molesting a girl” and sentenced to 80 years.

The stories of the victims of Madoff are heartbreaking in the extreme. But aren’t investors to be responsible enough to know that if something sounds too good to be true, with rewards that don’t make sense when compared to the rest of the investment world, that likely means something’s amiss?

In a capitalistic society, every citizen investor is responsible for his or her investment decisions. Government can only do so much.

On the other hand, people need to trust that investment brokers aren’t lying crooks.

Between the two lands your own personal judgment, but you, too, are involved. There is also a good rule about percentages of your money being invested in different funds, etc.

Jill Schlesinger, Editor-at-Large for CBS MoneyWatch.com, has a ridiculous post up that claims the sentence “doesn’t seem long enough.” Really?

Madoff is a being used as a symbol that’s supposed to send a warning message. It should come as cold comfort for people, because the system that allowed it to happen is still in place with no answers as to where the regulatory agencies were when Madoff ran amok.

Good riddance to the schmuck, but the overkill sentence is nothing less than judicial smoke and mirrors.

Madoff is the biggest con artists to ever hit Wall Street, leaving financial victims everywhere. But worse than a child molester?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Sotomayor in Line with Supreme Dissenters

By on 29 June 2009
Photobucket

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that precedent no longer matters. An illustration of how important Obama’s court appointments will turn out to be.

Cue the right-wing freakathon! Rush led the way today by reiterating his talking point that Sotomayor is a “racist.”

Via AP:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge. New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities. …

Reality is that in her Court of Appeals decision she used precedent, which ended up in a unanimous decision, because other judges on the court agreed with her.

Text of today’s ruling is here.

However, James Joyner uses the opportunity to say that Justice Ginsberg’s dissent is “absurd.”

The usual suspects go full tilt unhinged. Thinkers they are not.

Glenn Greenwald outs the Supreme slim majority on this one:

3. For all the chatter about “judicial activism” and that dreadful Roberts metaphor of “a neutral umpire calling balls and strikes,” it is so striking how frequently conservative judges invalidate policies which conservatives dislike as a political matter. Here we have the conservative wing of the Court declaring illegal the employment decisions of local government officials, who used a political approach — diversity — which conservatives dislike on policy grounds. So often, the outcomes of the allegedly neutral conservative judges are completely consistent with (and aggressively advance) the political preferences of conservatives (Bush v. Gore being only the most obvious example). Indeed, few things are rarer than conservatives Justices invalidating policies that conservatives like politically, or upholding policies they despise — the true test for whether one applies to law independently of political and outcome preferences.

A new poll on the issue finds Americans agreeing across the political spectrum. The recession and unemployment fears, as well as the general unease with the economic situation today is a silent partner in these opinions. Just a guess.

“Not surprisingly, most Republicans think that the firefighters were victims of discrimination, but a majority of Democrats join in that view,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Fifty-seven percent of Democrats say the white firefighters were discriminated against. Two-thirds of Independents and three-quarters of Republicans agree.”

Read full story · Comments are closed

Health Care Tonight

By on 24 June 2009
Photobucket

In the run up to the ABC event tonight (10 p.m. eastern), some thoughts on health care and where we stand. Political analysis below, because I’m no health care expert, and even those who are still have to fight the political winds, which are gale force and in your face.

Sure, 70% of the public wants, but in order to get it you’d have to have the full weight of the White House behind it. In short, we don’t and never have; even yesterday Obama refused to say he wouldn’t sign a bill without it. That’s the beginning and the end of it.

Now a confession. I have never believed we’d get to a public option. I know, I know, I can feel the hate from here. Part of it has to do with the conventional wisdom that it’s not possible. The other part is that there has never been any evidence that Democrats are willing to stand and fight on this hill. Obama certainly has never given any indication of this, not as a candidate, so as President, what he wants is what he always wants: consensus. By its nature this not a line in the sand, my way or I won’t sign a bill, I’ve got the majority to get what I want stance. Especially since Democrats are part of the problem, because, well, see conventional wisdom above.

So, I believe Ezra Klein has the bottom line (also the source of the graph above). He compares it to the stimulus.

That, I’d bet, is how health reform will close out as well. We will spend a trillion or a bit more covering the un- and underinsured. We will regulate a fairer and more decent insurance market into existence. We will expand Medicaid and build out subsidies to at least 300 percent of poverty and create health insurance exchanges. We will fund all this through sharply progressive taxes. We may even have a public plan. In 2006, it would have been a great deal. But as the legislation winds its way through the Senate, there will be unpleasant compromises, and unconscionable omissions, and the constant knowledge that though this is progress, it is not sufficient, and the people who stand in the way of a better bill are frequently incoherent or disingenuous. And that will be terribly frustrating for supports of the effort. The result will probably be a historic win when compared to the status quo, but I doubt it’s going to feel like that for supporters of the initiative.

We’ll see tonight, but I doubt we’ll know much more than we do today. But if Obama comes out and says he won’t sign a bill without a public option, I’ll drink a bottle of champagne. And you long time readers know this isn’t an idle bet.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama: ‘The Iranian People Can Speak for Themselves’

By on 23 June 2009

UPDATE: Some member of the White House press corps have their egos in a bunch because Obama called on Pitney, out of usual sequences, but also with a little coordination on the question. Michael Calderone has written a peevish post about it. But in the update, Burton dismisses any notion that it was a set up to an easy question, which it clearly was not.

UPDATE: Deputy press secretary Bill Burton responds: “We did reach out to him prior to press conference to tell him that we had been paying attention to what he had been doing on Iran and there was a chance that he’d be called on. And, he ended up asking the toughest question that the President took on Iran. In the absence of an Iranian press corps in Washington, it was an innovative way to get a question directly from an Iranian.”

________Original post below________

“…But only I am the President of the United States.” – Barack Obama

Are you hearing him now, Mr. McCain? Any other question, Lindsay?

Did your critics inspire you today, Mr. President? “What do you think?” –insert laughter here–

Reading from notes, somewhat halting in his delivery until he got to the Q&A, Obama addressed the drama in Iran directly. As a response to the first question Obama said “obviously what has happened in Iran is profound.”

“The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost. I’ve made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness…” - President Barack Obama

To continue, what happened in Iran, Obama makes clear was “indigenous” and “happened organically.

Nico Pitney, whose liveblogging the “green wave” has been so important, was tapped second by Obama to ask a question. The President mentioned that across the Internet people are getting reports out of Iran, and “there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet.” Pitney had a question from an Iranian, who had responded to HuffPost’s query online. “Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn’t that a betrayal of what the demonstrators are working towards?” Obama began by saying we didn’t have international monitors on the ground, continuing that spanning the Iranian society, people consider this election “illegitimate.”

Moments later he took on Major Garrett from Fox, who questioned why it took so long for Obama to speak forcefully, to which Obama clearly bristled. Then it was Chip Reed, Chuck Todd, invoking Neda, though not using her name, stating that “when a young woman is shot on the street that’s a problem.”

Last question, Suzanne Malveaux asked Obama if he’d seen the video of Neda’s murder. He had, his response, “heartbreaking,” with a nod of his head, emphasizing the tragedy.

Read full story · Comments are closed

New Media is Different from Blogging

By on 14 June 2009
Photobucket

The fundraiser is going great.

But I still haven’t met the goal. We’re stuck on $300 still needed in order for me to break even up to this point in 2009. Thanks to the amazing people who have jumped in, many first time financial supporters.

The last inch is always the hardest. But I need to get over this line, because I’ve still got the reality of my financial nut going forward.

NEW MEDIA is having a tough time this year. The economy has hit traditional media hard, so you can imagine how it’s hit NEW MEDIA.

To make an important point by way of a distinction, there is blogging and then there is NEW MEDIA. What’s the difference? Your sister might have a blog, which is important to you and her world, as well as her readers, all of which matter, no doubt about it. NEW MEDIA does reporting on events that have a wider impact and we devote our life to this purpose, and independent NEW MEDIA outlets like mine don’t have a base of financial support, except through you, the reader, and advertisers. As a way of thanks, I am so grateful for the people at Common Sense Media (and regular advertisers like SEIU, as well as Al Gore’s climate group, to name just two). Because BlogAds isn’t exactly successful when it comes to drumming up any advertising at all. I cannot thank the people at Common Sense Media loudly enough.

Everyone needs to consider sites that offer valuable reporting and other critically important news coverage that only NEW MEDIA provides worthy of financial support. It’s tough because we started out on a free information platform, so getting people to see us as requiring the same financial support that, say, a monthly or weekly subscription supplies isn’t easy. That includes advocacy groups and politicians who want to reach the activist base of the Democratic Party. Don’t just invite us to events to cover, support your issue by reaching our audience through advertising. Don’t tease us with access, then make us pay for the privilege when you’re also asking us to cover your issue through making us foot the bill; when you’re not reaching out to our readers through advertising yourself that helps us pay for expenses, including trips to do the reporting you want done. Make it possible for us to cover important news that the traditional media ignores.

Like any subscription to a newspaper or magazine, like paying for cable, NEW MEDIA sites can’t succeed without financial support.

Other sites have obviously done amazing work too, like Firedoglake’s coverage, to name one.

And just look at the foreign policy live reporting I’ve done, taking the Twitter posts as just one example: covering an important Saudi Arabia forum, the Middle East (covering it like few others), invite only meeting with David Miliband, journalists on Afghanistan-Pakistan, lunch with Mustafa Barghouti, even Cuba, Iran pre election polling, and a CATO event on whether the Pentagon can be fixed. …and that’s just a brief summary of what’s been going on around here since I moved to Washington. Sorry to bore regulars around here, but many don’t know what’s been going on.

Here’s the mailing address people have asked me to post:

Taylor Marsh LLC
P.O. Box 8303
Alexandria, VA

(Also see the “support independent journalism” donate button below the ad box up on the right that is always there.)

So please donate and support NEW MEDIA. We earn it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama (and the People) v. the AMA (and the GOP)

By on 11 June 2009

The AMA is not on our side, at least according to what they sent to the Senate:

But in comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.” … The medical association said it “cannot support any plan design that mandates physician participation.” For one thing, it said, “many physicians and providers may not have the capability to accept the influx of new patients that could result from such a mandate.” …

The portion in bold is stunning coming from the American Medical Association.

Now, I’m not a health care expert. Talking about Pakistan, Iran, and the Middle East comes easier to me. But it doesn’t take an expert to understand that without the public option plan we’re never going to get this done.

Republicans are scared witless about the public option, but the reason is political:

Republicans fear that the public option would work, and therefore undermine their broader arguments about the evil of government and the perfection of the market (and make voters thankful to Democrats to boot).

Mike Lux, who was in the Clinton administration (also aided the Obama transition team), said it so perfectly recently, when talking about how determined we are to get health care passed:

So here’s the point I made to CNN: Obama is doing a great job of including the insurance companies and their stalwart Republican defenders in the discussions, welcoming their ideas, etc. But this bill does not need to be bipartisan, and if the Republicans want to insist that the insurance industry gets what they want, we can do this without them. We will need 83% of the Democrats in the Senate, and 85% in the House, and an effective, popular president can get that done.

And to those who worship at the alter of bipartisanship, who say we need a bipartisan bill for something to be “sustainable,” I would suggest you check your history books: many of the greatest reforms in our nation’s history — including ending slavery and most of the great New Deal reforms — came without much or any bipartisanship. So, look, if you Republicans want to stop carrying water for an insurance industry desperate to avoid legitimate competition from a public plan, you are welcome to the table, come on aboard. But if not — as I said to CNN — we will just roll you and muscle this one home.

Exactly.

Obama speaks in front of the AMA on Monday in Chicago.

Read full story · Comments are closed

My Blue Collar Husband and Terry McAuliffe

By on 08 June 2009

cross-posted on Alternet and Huffington Post

We’re new to the D.C. area. So when we started paying attention to the Virginia governors race it was late in the game. But because I don’t write about these issues, I wouldn’t have even commented on the race if it hadn’t been for McAuliffe being attacked for backing Hillary Clinton in ’08. That’s how petty it’s gotten.

It didn’t take long, however, for my blue collar husband to take sides. I haven’t, except that Brian Moran isn’t an option for me, because he’s still fighting ’08 primary fights against Terry McAuliffe through Clinton. That turned us off from the start. So it’s between Creigh Deeds and Terry McAuliffe, though not for my husband. There’s only one choice for him. That’s McAuliffe. I’ll explain in a minute. For those of you not familiar with the race, here’s where it stands today, according to FiveThirtyEight:

[...] Most public polling is showing Deeds and Moran gaining and McAuliffe dropping, but the numbers are close enough that a good GOTV operation could make the difference for any one of the three candidates. I see the most likely outcome as a Deeds win, but McAuliffe could still win if Deeds and Moran continue to split the “non-McAuliffe” vote. If Moran’s supporters begin to defect to Deeds then there is probably no way for McAuliffe to win what would then be functionally a 2-person race against Deeds.

As with all close races, it’s about GOTV.

People must be a little worried, because a couple of posts have lately picked on Terry McAuliffe. One post a bit earlier took issue with something I’d written and even goes so far as to completely misrepresent a post I wrote in order to target McAuliffe. The post I wrote was about Moran targeting McAuliffe through Hillary. Believe it or not, this post takes out after McAuliffe for backing Clinton too.

What does that have to do with Virginia? As my husband looked for work, he wanted to know that too.

After having the same job since he was in his twenties, when we moved he took early retirement, which meant my husband was looking for work once we landed. Even as talented as he is it was daunting. He can build anything; give him two beams and you’ll get yourself a shopping mall; he can also fix anything. He was offered a couple of jobs, then landed a really good one, but the hunt had an impact. That’s when McAuliffe’s ads started showing up. He also heard Creigh Deeds, coming to the judgment that he “sounds like a solid guy.” But McAuliffe’s ads had a bigger impact on him. What my husband heard from McAuliffe was a man who can widen his job options if he goes hunting again. He also heard enthusiasm and someone who he believes has the dynamic optimism to convince businesses to choose Virginia.

When I told him I hadn’t decided whom to vote for, though neither of us will vote for Moran because of his negativity, he looked at me like I’d just insulted him. “How can you not vote for the guy?, meaning McAuliffe. “He’s so optimistic. You just know he’ll tell businesses they have to come to Virginia and they’ll come.” Of course, my husband doesn’t know a thing about the progressive push against Terry McAuliffe, so when I told him he just laughed. After looking for work and seeing the job market after so long, he’s looking for someone who can pitch big companies, get them to Virginia and help people like him have more choices. As far as he’s concerned it’s McAuliffe. “You’ve gotta vote for him,” he now simply says.

I just don’t know. With Moran hitting me wrong from the start, looking at Creigh Deeds, he seems solid, his record a good one. The Washington Post endorsement was impressive. But…

I’m just not convinced he can beat Bob McDonnell, who is slick. He’s also got serious right-wing tendencies, and the guy he picked to run his campaign proves McDonnell’s judgment stinks.

“One of the underlying concerns that many thoughtful Virginians have about McDonnell are his ties to the Christian right,” Sabato said. “I can’t tell you how many times senior people have asked, ‘Who will Bob McDonnell appoint to the 4,000 appointments he gets?’ ‘Who will run the college boards of visitors and the state agencies?’

“The reasons these questions matter to the people asking them is they fear it will be the far right and the Christian conservatives,” he said.

So, it gets down to who can beat McDonnell for me. Nothing else matters. I’m just not sure it’s Creigh Deeds.

“The other big issue is electability, and Bob McDonnell has already beaten Creigh Deeds.” – Terry McAuliffe

Read full story · Comments are closed

Unions Even Help My Non-Union Husband

By on 04 June 2009

The “Morning Joe” crew has really been on a race to the bottom this week.

First they refused to even discuss the murder of Dr. Tiller. Relegating this horrific assassination to quiet “horrifying” murmurs from Mika, as Scarborough ran for cover.

Then the crew mixed up the generals in back to back segments that had anyone watching in full tilt whiplash. First showing a picture of fired Gen. McKiernan, Mika saying he was to have his confirmation hearing that day; then in the very next segment finally getting Lt. Col. McChrystal’s photo up, with Mika saying it was his confirmation that was on deck. No correction offered, just two different segments, one wrong, the next right, without ever acknowledging what had happened.

Now we’ve got “Morning Joe” and guests Andrew Ross Sorkin and Jim Cramer proclaiming that unions cause companies to fail. Never mind what they offer middle class families.

“Name a successful unionized company. Think. You’re going to go to break before you come up with one. And that’s the problem.” Andrew Ross Sorkin

Mind you, this ignorant pronouncement was said in a room full of union NBC employees, as Brian Beutler also noted.

They even impact people who are not union.

Take my husband. He’s a blue collar genius who can fix and build anything. Mark has always proclaimed loudly that without the unions trying to push where he worked for 25 years, his wages wouldn’t have been competitive with what they offer, including benefits and pension. I cannot count how many times Mark has hailed the unions in being responsible for keeping the company he worked for honest. Now that we’ve moved to D.C., Mark has looked for work across the region, with some companies telling him joining a union would be mandatory at some point. He just smiles and says, gladly. He’s working non-union again, having no trouble getting job offers, proving once again that a little college is terrific, but having a trade and being creative in a bad economy is even better.

Brian Beutler nailed them.

Off the top of my head I can give you several Teamster-represented companies who continue to thrive, despite the economic downturn, but there are thousands more: UPS, Eight O’Clock Coffee, Coca-Cola Enterprises, PepsiCo, Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors. The Morning Joe team really should be embarrassed for showing their lack of knowledge on the subject. – James Hoffa, General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, in a statement to TPMDC

Joe Scarborough, Mika and their entire crew have no idea how valuable unions are to people and families, including ours. Even when a company isn’t union, the fact that unions are out there working for the average family makes all the difference in the world.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Blame It On Reagan

By on 01 June 2009

I’ve said this innumerable times over the last ten years. It’s just more convincing when a Nobel Prize winning economist says it. Paul Krugman’s “Reagan Did It.”

Photobucket

For the more one looks into the origins of the current disaster, the clearer it becomes that the key wrong turn — the turn that made crisis inevitable — took place in the early 1980s, during the Reagan years.

Attacks on Reaganomics usually focus on rising inequality and fiscal irresponsibility. Indeed, Reagan ushered in an era in which a small minority grew vastly rich, while working families saw only meager gains. He also broke with longstanding rules of fiscal prudence. … The increase in public debt was, however, dwarfed by the rise in private debt, made possible by financial deregulation. The change in America’s financial rules was Reagan’s biggest legacy. And it’s the gift that keeps on taking. …

When Ronald Reagan signed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act in 1982 it was the beginning of an era that would lead to where we are today. And by the turn of karmic justice, where we are today levels the final verdict on all things Reaganomics, but also the philosophy the Republicans continue to embrace.

It’s ironic that it was also Ronald Reagan who opened the door to invite the Jerry Falwell’s of this world into our politics, which led to people in groups like Operation Rescue, as well as the gullible right wing lunatics who listen to radio and drink up their violent swill by the gallons.

As we see GM enter bankruptcy through a lens that in the background shows pictures of a murdered doctor, it’s good to know when we turned into the direction we ended up in today.

There’s plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers….

That last line excerpted above actually ends with the financial reckoning we’re now facing, but it just as easily could have stopped with what I offered, because it renders the proper verdict as it reads now.

Oh, and that goes for Pakistan too, because it was Reagan, after Carter’s initial funding, who allowed William Casey to build up the Taliban through Zia without a thought of what would happen later.

Reagan may have been charismatic, after all, people like me fell for him in 1980 –standing in gas lines in NYC, while hearing unending news reports about Iran and hostages, while donning sweaters, didn’t seem like leadership to me– but by 1982 it was clear. There was no there there.

So when Barack Obama touted Reagan during the primaries as being transformational all I could think was, He has to be saying that in a negative way, right? Not all “transformation” is good. Reaganism certainly was not.

So as long as Republicans pine for the Gipper’s good old days we all have to keep the watch. Because people have short memories and in America nostalgia is a trap.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Heating Up the Defense Meltdown

By on 16 May 2009

by Winslow Wheeler
Center for Defense Information
originally published by Military.com

TM NOTE: I finally met Winslow Wheeler at a Cato Institute military forum in D.C. He’s the toughest die hard defense budget cut hawks I’ve ever heard speak. He’s cross-posted here before. Danielle Brian, who appears in the YouTube clip on the F-22 below, was also at the Cato event and is a spectacular speaker. These people are some of the most ardent watchers of our defense budget, always there to criticize and push back, even if Congress is not. They’re unsung heroes in the fight to get our money where it’s most needed on national security.

It’s too bad some people in states like Texas, Georgia, and Connecticut think that pork is more important than a strong defense. The puny number of additional jobs and F-22 fighters that the politicians want – at huge cost – will make America weaker, not stronger. Some take solace from the economic benefit and relief from unaffordable defense systems they think they will get from the “Raptor’s” country cousin, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. They are wrong.

Narrow parochial interests outranking an effective defense has been crippling our armed forces for decades. Pentagon data show that America’s military budget is now larger than at any point since the end of World War II. However, our Air Force has fewer combat aircraft than at any point since 1946.

The Congressional Budget Office informs us that this reduced number of tactical aircraft is, on average, older than ever before. Still worse, Air Force combat pilots get one-half, or less, of the in-air training time they had, for example, in the early 1970s. Major reasons for this decay are programs like the F-22 and the F-35.

For the 184 F-22s currently on order, the cost is $64 billion. That’s an astounding $350 million for each. Too expensive to be bought in numbers beyond the puny 20 per year being purchased now, our F-15 inventory is aging faster than the F-22 will “modernize” it.

Despite the out of control cost, the F-22 is a huge disappointment as a fighter. For dog-fighting, its “thrust to weight” and “wing loading” (i.e. its agility) are barely an improvement over the early models of the F-15. Instead, it relies on its “stealth,” avionics, and long range radar-guided missiles to stay out of a dogfight and kill enemies “beyond visual range.”

What Lockheed and the Air Force forget to tell you is that “stealth” only means that against some radars at some angles the F-22 is less detectable; it’s not invisible. The history of “beyond visual range” radar missiles in real air-to-air combat is failure after failure. Do not expect the Air Force to have changed the laws of physics that make that so.

And there you have it: More money buys us a fighter force that is smaller, older, and less able to fight.

The F-35 “Joint Strike Fighter” will not rescue us. At $299 billion for 2,456 aircraft (that’s $122 million each), it is not affordable either. And, that unit cost is going up, not down. The program has finished only two percent of its flight tests; we will uncover more problems than the ones with the engine and avionics we already know about. Rushing ahead to produce more than 500 copies before we know the test results is a huge mistake, guaranteeing greater cost growth.

Sadly, even if not a single new flaw is found in that testing and the F-35 performs as promised, it will be an even bigger performance disappointment than the F-22. So sluggish in the air in a dogfight, one analyst said it would be like “like clubbing baby seals” if it meets up with competent fighters. With a payload of only two 2,000 lb bombs in its bomb bay – far less than US Vietnam-era fighter-bombers – the F-35 is hardly a first-class bomber either.

Both aircraft are equally bad as jobs-stimulus. Studies, such as by the University of Massachusetts, show that DoD spending is quite inefficient in creating jobs, compared to education, transportation, and even tax cuts.

Happily, we face no competent enemy air force in the foreseeable future. We should take that opportunity to start with a clean sheet of paper and design far more effective combat aircraft for truly affordable prices. We did that with the F-16 and the A-10 in the 1970s; it’s time to modernize: this time seriously.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Unions and the Middle Class Crisis

By on 04 May 2009

Paul Krugman’s column today is a clarion call.

Some of the wage cuts, like the givebacks by Chrysler workers, are the price of federal aid. Others, like the tentative agreement on a salary cut here at The Times, are the result of discussions between employers and their union employees. Still others reflect the brute fact of a weak labor market: workers don’t dare protest when their wages are cut, because they don’t think they can find other jobs.

Whatever the specifics, however, falling wages are a symptom of a sick economy. And they’re a symptom that can make the economy even sicker.

…But the unemployment rate is almost certainly still rising. And all signs point to a terrible job market for many months if not years to come — which is a recipe for continuing wage cuts, which will in turn keep the economy weak.

Meanwhile, unions are manning the lifeboats, especially on EFCA, something that Specter opposes, which should give everyone pause. As unions like UAW prove they’re willing to take deep cuts where they’re required, while remaining the last vestige of the further falling paycheck.

Look at what’s happening at the Boston Globe. Read the comments on this latest development, as conservatives believe this is their window, tantamount to Dems complaints about deregulation. As conservatives believe, unions are the problem and why businesses are failing. Keep it up, because it only proves why the blue collar trust in Republicans is unwarranted.

American dreaming you’ll one day be rich doesn’t make it happen when no one’s around to keep your wages from falling to a minimum.

Krugman gives Obama some credit in the last paragraph, while stating more needs to be done.

I’ll second that, with one avenue nobody is talking about. College is one thing, but the importance of having a real skill is another. Pres. Obama never talks about trades. You know, like repairing stuff. As my husband said to me recently upon his first venture into the job wars in over 25 years, air conditioning and heating repairmen are in demand all over Craig’s List. By the grace of the gods, my husband has talent; hand him two toothpicks and he can build you a shopping mall. But there isn’t enough understanding of how much tradesmen and women can mean to this economy.

We’re in deep trouble, as unions continue to step in and step up. With wages falling there is no bottom, except what can be applied by the unions. So goes unions. So go the middle class. Democrats need to continue championing unions, even as they remake themselves completely. They’re the only hope we’ve got, even when your company isn’t union. I’ve seen this myself in my own union life, then through my husband, who knows this first hand.

This nightmare is a long way from over.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Dem Conference Cold on Reid’s Deal

By on 30 April 2009
Photobucket

Well, there is blood in their veins, and according to The Hill, it’s boiling.

After a stupendously stupid promise to Sen. Specter, which has him moving ahead of die hard Democrats on committee seating, some are not being quiet about Reid’s sell out.

One senior Democratic lawmaker told The Hill that the Democratic Conference will vote against giving the longtime Pennsylvania Republican seniority over lawmakers like Harkin, Mikulski and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) when they hold their organizational meeting after the 2010 election.

Under his deal with Reid, Specter would jump ahead of all but a few Democrats when it comes time to dole out committee chairmanships and assignments.

“That’s his deal and not the caucus’s,” the senior lawmaker said of Reid’s agreement with Specter.

The rumor mill is rumbling with all sorts of scenarios, with this the obvious: Specter could bump Harkin after the election from his chairmanship of the powerful Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services subcommittee or return to be chairman of Judiciary if the current chairman, Leahy, takes over the gavel at Appropriations.

Harry Reid doesn’t care about whether Specter is a Democrat in name only, that he voted against the budget just yesterday, any more than he cares that Joe Lieberman backed John McCain in the election. Reid’s job is different. What Reid cares about is “Democratic” bodies in the caucus that can be sold whatever it takes to get them in. To him, a “Democratic” is a Democrat. Principle and political purpose has nothing to do with it.

Oh, and just so we’re clear. I could care less about political purity. But if a Democrat isn’t going to support signature issues of our party that’s a completely different story, especially someone coming from blue Pennsylvania. You expect a little winger juice running through the veins of a Dem coming from the deep south, but even Casey, who is against choice, understands what EFCA means to Pennsylvania workers.

Besides, one of the real reasons Specter jumped ship, besides that he couldn’t beat the tea bag candidate Pat Toomey in the primary, is to stick it to the Club for Growth and the GOP for not standing by their man. This is a revenge move on Specter’s part. That Reid’s allowing him his vengeance and his cake too shouldn’t sit well with the caucus. It’s good to see some reaction, though I’d like to see full scale rebellion against Reid.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Slaps Fox’s ‘Tea Bag’ Constituents

By on 29 April 2009

President Obama speaks tonight, but Fox didn’t give him time. It’s not a coincidence that at their expense, as well as the wingnuts who’d rather hold up tea bags and whine, that both were the brunt of his Missouri straight shot. Via Think Progress:

OBAMA: So, you know, when you see, you know, those of you who are watching certain news channels, on which I’m not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around, let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term how we’re going to stabilize social security. [...] [L]et’s not play games and pretend that the reason is because of the Recovery Act because that’s just a fraction of the overall problem that we’ve got.

Obama suggesting that some are “just waving tea bags around,” while forgetting what Republicans dumped in his lap just 100 days ago.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Obligatory First 100 Days Review

By on 29 April 2009

This day is going to be interminably long.

It’s going to be redundant on so many levels.

It’s also going to be gratifying for Democrats, while only adding to Republican depression. The one real issue in question being Obama’s resolve and his willingness to confront. One review says the window is the auto crisis. I think it’s another, one that doesn’t lead to something so sure.

Photobucket

Among what Obama has done is an Af-Pak strategy; strong Administration push on an early Middle East presence; engaging with leaders Bush wouldn’t (Chavez, etc.); while promising more with Ahmadinejad, which is where we’ll pause for just a moment.

The Iranian president has an election coming up on June 12th, so he’s campaigning. So you need a slogan, right? He’s evidently found one:

Obama’s signature campaign slogan, Yes We Can, has been replicated by the Iranian president in a promotional video issued for Iran’s presidential poll on 12 June, when Ahmadinejad is seeking re-election. The video features a cover picture of Ahmadinejad wearing his trademark white jacket and pointing to the Farsi phrase Ma Mitavanim (We Can) on a blackboard. The film is aimed at students and capitalises on his former status as a university lecturer.

It leaves you speechless.

Obama has also gotten his stimulus passed, expanded SCHIP, reversed the Gag Rule, stem cells, budget done, ethics, Lily Ledbetter, announced yesterday that officials will once again have to consult agencies on rulings that might impact endangered species, among other things, and planted a White House garden to boot.

Photobucket

But if you look back on other presidents, the first 100 days doesn’t tell you how it will all end. So while the review is obligatory, it’s going to tell us nothing, unless you use a different criteria than the usual laundry list, which everyone is trying to do. Find a new way to judge the first 100 days. For instance, danger signs.

WJC got to work on the deficit, aid to Russia, and more, but who could know that in 1994 a simple move to reactivate the special counsel statute would change the first paragraph of his presidential biography forever? You decide if there was a hint it would in the first 100 days.

In George W. Bush’s presidency, something happened at the beginning of his administration that would actually reveal a lot, as far as I’m concerned. Bush demoted the terrorism czar position from cabinet level to staff position, ignoring Bill Clinton’s warnings about al Qaeda. Now this wasn’t an item on Bush’s 100 day list, but looking back it’s one of the most consequential. However, nothing in the first 100 days prepared us for the type of president Bush would be after 9/11, except if you weigh Richard Clarke not being able to get anyone’s attention on the threat until it was too late.

So after weighing Barack Obama’s accomplishments, one of which is turning the right track numbers on their heads from where they were with George W. Bush. Does anything stand out that has the potential to rock his presidency, even as today we evaluate Mr. Obama with superlatives, minus the “state secret” privilege claims, which is a window, but not the nut of what could end up dogging Pres. Obama, much like his predecessors had their own moment when something shifted.

In life, it’s often your strengths that can be your blindside, because that’s where the ego resides, especially for politicians. Not that doing what’s right isn’t laudable, but Obama’s core message, his theme, has always been bringing people together, not confronting them. Once again I go back to that interview with George Stephanopoulos: “I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that’s been in short supply over the last several years. …that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody’s concerns, seeing other people’s points of views and then making decisions.” – Barack Obama (on ABC’s “This Week” – May 2005)

Photobucket

The release of the OLC memos has changed this dynamic. It’s unleashed a fury on the right, leaving Obama in a seemingly confrontational position, which is not his natural comfort zone, as has been witnessed by his “no one will be prosecuted” stance that shifted to Justice, while letting it be known that he doesn’t want an accountability or truth commission on torture. He’s besieged on the right, but also on the left, for diametrically opposed reasons. He’s gotten himself caught between his promise for transparency and his penchant for bringing people together in consensus.

Looking back, Bush releasing the terror czar, even after warnings about Al Qaeda, is a hint to his asleep at the wheel reality we faced after “Bin Laden determined to attack inside US.” But it didn’t tell us we’d walk down the torture lane.

So, after all the publicity and stories about Obama’s first 100 days, most of them laudable, and after looking at other presidents, I’ve come to the conclusion that what we should look at is the signal that something might lead us down a path that would change the presidency of Barack Obama. That one moment is the release of the OLC memos, which has twisted the Obama administration into knots. It has exposed Obama’s discomfort with confrontation, something that at his core Mr. Obama is not exactly good at navigating.

Photobucket

But it is this confrontational nature that Pres. Obama will need going forward as he addresses the most important foreign policy area, the Middle East. It’s his stretch moment, to which if he cannot rise he could see a myriad of other issues unable to solve. Because if he doesn’t stand firmly and decidedly in front of PM Netanyahu on the two-state solution, getting something concrete implemented, the Saudis and other important Arab allies, as well as the EU, are less likely to listen to him as readily on Central Asia. Then the next sound you’ll hear is kaboom, with Obama’s presidency changed forever, because bringing people together on the issues he faces today takes skillful confrontation, the bookend of successful leadership.

So the first 100 days tells us something, but only if you look at it through the lens of what the 100 days exposes might be President Obama’s Achille’s heel and the early signs of how well he navigates this personal challenge to his presidency. We all know he can bring people together, but can he confront on issues and push forward implementing what’s needed? His behavior after the OLC memos were released is the window. You decide what you see.

____________________
“Delivering Change” photos compliments of the White House, available on flikr.

Read full story · Comments are closed

UAW to Chrysler’s Rescue

By on 28 April 2009
Photobucket

If this ends up working it could revolutionize unions and (save?) the U.S. auto industry. What compromise and solution look like when desperation is seen as opportunity:

The United Auto Workers union will own 55% of a restructured Chrysler LLC and its retiree health care trust will get a seat on the board if union members vote to approve contract concessions this week.

Chrysler stock could even be traded publicly again, as there are mechanisms for the UAW to sell shares to fund the health care trust.

Factory-level union leaders voted unanimously Monday night to recommend approval of concessions that union President Ron Gettelfinger said would help keep the automaker out of bankruptcy. ..

The union made serious concessions, according to this report, which has laid off workers getting only 50% of their gross pay, among other deal sweeteners instead of bankruptcy:

The union also agreed to consolidate nonskilled labor job classifications into a team concept at all factories. Performance and Christmas bonuses will be suspended this year and next to help pay health care costs.

Ed Schultz has been all over Gettelfinger, so we’ll see if swine flu coverage takes a back seat to this blockbuster story, which has the UAW saving Chrysler, but also a lot of middle class jobs through compromises that are anything but easy.

I’ve said for a long time that globalization will not only force unions to get creative for survival, but that it could open opportunities to remake unions if leadership understands that the 20th century rules are gone and compromises that hurt at first will be the moves that make unions once again indispensable, not only here, but globally. Their viability depends on it, but so do workers across the globe hoping to raise their standards of living in a world more passionate about profit.

Read full story · Comments are closed

BoA’s Ken Lewis v. Everybody

By on 23 April 2009

The SEIU (an advertiser on this blog) isn’t the only one wanting Ken Lewis fired at the upcoming shareholders meeting on April 29th.

Via the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), we get a look into a transcript from Lewis’ recent testimony in front of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s office. According to WSJ, Lewis hints at being urged by Bernanke and Paulson not to talk about Merrill losses of $15b, not to mention bonuses paid out, because shareholders might have voted down the Merrill merger.

Sounds to me like Lewis is caught between claims of coincidental testimony and fending off shareholders’ rage at the upcoming meeting. Because he doesn’t explicitly say he was told not to talk, but instead says that disclosing the losses “wasn’t up to (him)” and that sharing the news with shareholders would “impose a big risk to the financial system,” obviously because it would threaten the deal.

Sorry, but I smell a rat, but who is it?

Via AP:

Just a few weeks after the deal was completed, Bank of America’s earnings report showed the major hit its balance sheet would take on the Merrill transaction, quickly making Lewis the target of much shareholder fury.

Two of the nation’s largest state pension funds are seeking to lead a class action lawsuit against Bank of America, alleging the bank’s management “misstated or omitted” important information about Merrill’s financial health before the deal was completed.

And Finger Interests Number One Ltd., which owns about one-fifth of one percent of Bank of America stock, is asking shareholders to vote against re-electing Lewis as well as lead director O. Temple Sloan and Jackie Ward during the bank’s annual meeting April 29.

Bank of America warned of worsening loan default problems this week even as it posted a first-quarter profit of $2.81 billion. The amount of its problem loans more than tripled to $25.7 billion and Lewis said he couldn’t predict when the bank’s credit morass would end.

A powerful group of progressive organizations is supporting action on April 28th, with a “taxpayers’ proxy card,” beyond what actual BofA shareholders will do on April 29th, that you can sign over at TakeBacktheEconomy.org.

This issue has become the central theme in Ed Schultz’s new MSNBC show. He’s found his niche, because the issue is scuttling people’s lives.

People in the eye of the economic storm are paying a price too, which became clear when Freddie Mac exec David B. Kellermann hanged himself in his basement.

“The pressure right now is relentless,” said a Freddie Mac executive who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak. “Everyone in the financial sector, regardless of where you work, is constantly told both that this is our fault, and that we have to work as hard as possible, otherwise the nation will fall apart.”

Read full story · Comments are closed