QUICKIE COMMENT

So right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart posts a small clip of a speech, given by a current administration employee relating a story about an experience she had more than 20 years ago.  The edited video clip purported to expose a black woman making racist comments — and Breitbart acknowledges that his motivation in posting the video clip was retaliation against the NAACP for comments they made, which he interpreted as an accusation that the Tea Party is racist. 

Of course, any of us who actually bothered to listen to the statement made by the NAACP know that the organization asked the Tea Party, and their supporters in the Republican Party, to speak out and condemn those racist elements in the movement.  They expressly stated that they did not feel that the Tea Party itself was racist.

Now we know that the full video of Shirley Sherrod demonstrates that she is not only not a racist, but that her out-of-context comments posted by Breitbart (and replayed over and over and over on Fox) were a part of a story she was telling to promote racial healing. 

We now also know that Andrew Breitbart proved that at least one of the Tea Partiers is racist — Andrew Breitbart.

The right-wingers want us to focus on the fact that the administration “threw her under the bus,” which they did do.  But, we have to ask ourselves why they felt they had to cut her loose.   All the vitriolic accusations were flying from the very right-wing media that now accuses the administration of “rushing to judgement!” 

Egads — these people have no scruples.

DESTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS

The American middle class is rapidly disappearing.  The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and the disparity is growing at blinding speed.  At one time America had the most widespread prosperity of any middle class in the history of the world, but no more. 

The causes are many: globalism, supply side economics, growing corporatism and greed  — for starters.  The pie chart below shows us how real wealth in our country is now distributed. 

As can be readily seen, the top 1% of our population holds a whopping 34.3% of the country’s wealth.   When we add to that number the holdings of the next 9% of the population, at 36.9%,  we can see that the top 10% of America’s population holds 71.2% of our national wealth, leaving the bottom 90% of the American people with only 28.7% of the wealth –– just a little over 1/4th of our nation’s wealth. 

 

Stagnation at the bottom and modest growth in the middle: In inflation-adjusted dollars, among the poorest 20% of households, average income was $14,500 in 1979 and $15,500 in 2005 — an increase of 7.6%.   Among the middle 60% of households, average income rose from $42,000 to $51,000 — an increase of 21.4% — while household income among those in the top 1% averaged $325,000 in 1979.  By 2005 that had increased to nearly $1.1 million — an increase of 238%!  Today, the bottom 50% of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. 

According to Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, the growing inequality in America is unprecedented.  

“Most people assume that this rise in inequality was the result of impersonal forces, like technological change and globalization. But the great reduction of inequality that created middle class America between 1935 and 1945 was driven by political change; I believe that politics has also played an important role in rising inequality since the 1970s. It’s important to know that no other advanced economy has seen a comparable surge in inequality – even the rising inequality of Thatcherite Britain was a faint echo of trends here.” 

“On the political side, you might have expected rising inequality to produce a populist backlash. Instead, however, the era of rising inequality has also been the era of movement conservatism,  the term both supporters and opponents use for the highly cohesive set of interlocking institutions that brought Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich to power, and reached its culmination, taking control of all three branches of the federal government, under George W. Bush. (Yes, Virginia, there is a vast right-wing conspiracy.)” 

“Because of movement conservative political dominance, taxes on the rich have fallen, and the holes in the safety net have gotten bigger, even as inequality has soared. And the rise of movement conservatism is also at the heart of the bitter partisanship that characterizes politics today.” 

From the 1940s to the 1970s the marginal income tax rate was in the 70% to 90% range. So, there wasn’t much incentive for the ultra-greedy to demand $100 million bonuses if the government would get $70 to $90 million of it.  It was a de facto executive pay cap. 

By lowering the high marginal rates — reduced first to 50% and then to the 30% range — an incentive did develop for a demand of big salaries and bonuses: there is no longer any reason not to be as greedy as possible. 

DATA PROVES THAT THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS IS BEING WIPED OUT:  According to The Business Insider      

  • 61 percent of Americans “always or usually” live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
  • 66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
  • 36 percent of Americans say that they don’t contribute anything to retirement savings.
  • A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
  • 24% of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
  • Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
  • Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975
  • For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
  • In 1950, the ratio of the average executive’s paycheck to the average worker’s paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
  • As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
  • The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
  • Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
  • In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
  • The top 1% of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America’s corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
  • In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks
  • More than 40% of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
  • For the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
  • This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
  • Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
  • Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 – the highest rate in 20 years.
  • The top 10% of Americans now earn around 50% of our national income.

CRIMINAL MINES

UPDATE:  The Pittsburg Post-Gazette reported on July 15:  “An electrician at the Upper Big Branch mine, scene of a disastrous explosion that killed 29 miners, confirmed that he was ordered to bypass the methane detector on a piece of mining equipment — an action that has become part of an ongoing federal criminal probe growing out of the disaster.”

Today’s NY Times (July 19) picks up on the Post-Gazette story in an editorial titled: That Noisy Coal Mine Alarm.  “… a grand jury is reportedly looking into a possible pattern of detector-tampering, an outlawed practice that the company, Massey Energy, firmly denies.”

Corporations exist to make profits.  Profits can be made by cutting costs.  Keeping employees safe costs money.  Twenty-nine miners died at Upper Big Branch mine.  Unions keep mines safer.

Our next post on CLN will be about the disappearing American middle-class.  An obvious contributor to the growing disparity between the haves and the have-nots is the shrinking of American unions.  Without unions American corporations are free to hire with cut-throat impunity:  “If you want a job here, you’ll take the salary, benefits and safety conditions we give you.”  The lowered work environment becomes the new norm for the nation. 

And somehow, this new norm is supported by the American people!  The American people cheer the huge profits made by corporations that screw the people.  And what are the huge profits used for?  Oh, yeah — executive bonuses, massive salaries, and enormous benefits for the upper 1%. 

?????????????????????????????

Eleanor Roosevelt said it well: Workplace rights are human rights

This article about the history of mine safety in America first appeared on May 23, 2010 in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, which graciously agreed to allow CLN to reprint it for our readers.  Brigid O’Farrell is a political activist in the San Francisco Bay area, well-respected scholar and author. 
 
 
COAL MINERS, AND ALL WORKERS, NEED STRONG UNIONS AND PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION

By Brigid O’Farrell

Tomorrow, the House Education and Labor Committee will hold hearings in Beckley, W.Va., with the families of the 29 miners who died six weeks ago in an explosion at Massey Energy Co.’s Upper Big Branch mine. The mine had no union and more than a thousand unresolved safety violations on record. President Barack Obama traveled to Beckley last month to lead the nation in mourning.

Seventy-five years ago, on May 21, 1935, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt defied the superstitions of the era and entered Hanna Co.’s Willow Grove coal mine in Neffs, Ohio, just across the Ohio River from Wheeling, W.Va. Miles beneath the mountain, reported the United Mine Workers Journal, she discussed “wages and working conditions, safety precautions and mining methods, with miners black with coal dust.”

The Willow Grove mine, having been recently updated with new machinery, was thought to be one of the safest in the nation. Five years later, an explosion there killed 73 miners. The First Lady sent her deepest sympathies.

After her first visit to a mining community, in Scott’s Run, W.Va., in 1933, Mrs. Roosevelt regularly denounced dangerous working conditions and opposed feudal company policies that drove miners into debt and forced them to patronize company stores.

A writer and member of the Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, for more than 25 years, Mrs. Roosevelt believed there were “only two ways to bring about protection for workers … legislation and unionization.” Legislation set safety standards and exacted penalties for violators while unions gave democratic voice to people in mines, factories and offices, allowing them to negotiate safe working conditions.

Mrs. Roosevelt believed that everyone deserved the right to a decent job, a living wage, safe working conditions and a voice at work. She took this belief to the United Nations and under her guidance workplace rights became part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Over the years Mrs. Roosevelt had her disagreements with John L. Lewis, the legendary president of the United Mine Workers of America, but she never lost sight of the miners. When Lewis retired in 1959, she paid tribute to his singular contributions in her My Day syndicated newspaper column:

“When Mr. Lewis started out, no one knew what conditions were for mine workers, protective legislation was rare in many states and it was not till he really began functioning that the situation for miners began to improve. … We must be grateful for his accomplishments.”

Union membership grew under New Deal labor policies, reaching 35 percent of the overall workforce and 90 percent of miners in the 1950s. Eventually, mine-safety legislation became law and the Department of Labor began inspecting mines and fining violators. The numbers of fatalities and injuries declined.

Data collected by the United Mine Workers of America today finds union mines safer than non-union mines, and David Moberg of In These Times found that between 2006 and 2009, “unionized miners appear to have been one-fourth to one-half as likely to be killed in mine incidents as their non-union peers.” Industry groups and some regulators dispute union safety claims and some independent researchers have found no correlation between safety and unionization. Unfortunately, the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration doesn’t report safety statistics by union status.

Over the past decade or more, worker-protection enforcement agencies have been severely weakened by policy changes and budget cuts — despite some stiffening of mine regulations after the Sago mine disaster in 2006 — while employer resistance to regulation and unions has increased. Union membership among all private-sector workers has declined to just over 7 percent, and only one-third of coal miners now belong to unions.

Writer Art Levine at Truthout has reported that nearly 70 percent of Upper Big Branch miners had signed cards saying they wanted a union but that three organizing attempts were defeated. Massey CEO Don Blankenship personally met with workers and threatened to close the mine if they voted for a union. Labor expert Kate Bronfenbrener has found that employers threaten to close plants in 57 percent of union representation elections and actually fire workers in one-third of union campaigns.

“If everybody had the right to collective bargaining, all work sites would be a lot safer and a lot healthier for our workers,” believes AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, an attorney who used to be a miner and president of the UMWA.

Decades earlier, Eleanor Roosevelt argued in her newspaper column that “the right to explain the principles lying back of labor unions should be safeguarded, that every workman should be free to listen to the pleas of organization without fear of hindrance or evil circumstances, and that he should have the right to join with his fellows in a union.” She saw collective bargaining as a way to resolve disputes and she encouraged mediation as an alternative to strikes.

These are the goals of the Employee Free Choice Act, which is languishing in Congress. Under EFCA, if most employees sign valid union “authorization cards,” a company must recognize the union and negotiate a contract or submit to mediation. No longer would elections be required — elections that companies often derail by intimidating workers.

The Upper Big Branch tragedy calls out not only for better and more strongly enforced mine-safety laws, but also for restoring basic human rights to all those who work for a living. Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act would take us one step closer toward Eleanor Roosevelt’s far-reaching vision of workplace democracy.

Brigid O’Farrell is an independent scholar whose book, “She Was One of Us: Eleanor Roosevelt and the American Worker,” will be published in the fall by ILR Press/Cornell University Press. She is affiliated with the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project at George Washington University and a member of UAW Local 1981 in the San Francisco Bay area.

CHECK-IT-OUT:  Link to the original article in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette  

IS GUN CONTROL DEAD?

GLOCK 35 40S&W PRACTICAL/TACT 10RD

If you get a chance, please read this terrific article on Huffington Post about the future of gun control, by Dennis Henigan, — VP of The Brady Center.

At first glance it seemed like a defeat for the Left with the recent Supreme Court ruling, McDonald v. Chicago.  Five of the nine Justices affirmed their earlier decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which declared that the Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantees that the right to bear arms includes the individual’s right to own weapons.

Across the country there are gun laws that are more restrictive than the federal law.  So the nation is left to wonder if these two Supreme Court rulings will lead to local laws being struck down.   The truth, as always, is in the detail.

Justice Alito,  in his written opinion, actually affirms the Constitutionality of many of these gun laws — the rights of local governments to regulate the sale of guns, as well as laws that restrict guns in sensitive places and laws that ban concealed weapons.

Henigan suggests that these two rulings from the high court may actually make it easier politically for the Left to get some practical restrictions on guns.  The reason?  Well, the scare-tactics used for decades by the NRA — “Dems are going to ban handguns!” and “Dems are going to confiscate your guns!” — can no longer be used by the Right as  big scary possibilities.  Henigan thinks that with these high court decisions the Right will no longer have this issue as an excuse to prevent any common sense gun regulation from being enacted.

Gun control opponents have long-held that if government is empowered to conduct background checks, license and register guns, enact some restrictions on the number of guns purchased within a short-time period, and even ban assault weapons (which police departments across the country want) that it would lead to the proverbial slippery slope and the banning of handguns.  They claimed that ANY gun regulation laws would (in a domino effect) lead to a loss of individual gun ownership.  Well, that excuse is now taken away from the Right by their conservative Supreme Court which has said, loud and clear, that Americans have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to own guns as individuals.

Now what will be their excuse?  How lame will the NRA look if they continue to oppose safety lock requirements on handguns so that children can’t find Daddy’s gun and kill himself or another child accidentally?

Maybe this IS an opportunity for common sense gun regulation!

SHORT-TERM MEMORY?

Does the “Elephant” really think that we forget their earlier behavior?  Geez. 

Reagan continued to “blame Carter” well into his second term.  Our favorite quote about the Republican screed condemning Dems for “blaming Bush” was from Lizz Winstead (former Daily Show writer) in an appearance on The Ed Show when she said, “Oh, yeah and when are we gonna stop blaming that Hitler?

DEFICITS AND AUSTERITY

Forty percent of our national deficit is due to the Great Recession.  The rest is mainly due to two wars funded off the books, massive tax cuts that benefited the wealthy, and run-away healthcare costs.  There are structural issues in our economy that also need to be addressed:  long-term adjustments to Social Security and Medicare.

So the obvious, glaring reality is:  When we put people back to work, close to half of the nation’s deficit goes away.  When America works, taxes are paid, and the deficit declines.  No one denies this fact. 

The President and his party desperately want to put people back to work and are doing everything they can to jump-start this economy.  And, they also are ahead of the curve in addressing the structural issues around Healthcare, Social Security, Medicare.  The President’s Deficit Reduction Commission is on its way to presenting a plan to correct these long-term issues.

But, the most immediate thing that needs to happen right now is putting people to work, and keeping the economy from falling backward, by continuing to provide stimulus in the form of unemployment checks until the nascent recovery can be firmed up.   

Economy

MARK ZANDI, FORMER McCAIN ADVISER

Mark Zandi is  a former adivsor to John McCain, and chief economist with Moody’s Economy.com.  He has recently been quoted as saying that the expired unemployment aid needs to be reauthorized, and fast.  The unemployment checks are helping to keep our economy afloat, and underpinning the fragile recovery. 

“The odds that the economy will slip back into the recession are still well below even,” Zandi said.  “But if Congress is unable to provide this help, [aid for the jobless] those odds will rise and become uncomfortably high.”

One of the most important pressures on the economy is consumer confidence.  Everything looks good-to-go to get this economy moving.  But, consumer confidence is lagging, and without it we could fall back into recession.  We can’t help but wonder if all the negative, gloom and doom talk coming from the Right isn’t impacting that confidence.

And, here is the dilemma on moving forward:  The Dems believe that the lesson of the Great Depression is that if a government removes stimulus spending too soon, before the economy is stabilized and the recovery established, that the economy can slide backward into trouble;  the Republicans believe that if a government cuts spending in a recession and balances the budget that the economy will recover.

History tells us that the Republicans are wrong.  Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, has been on an absolute rant for weeks over Europe’s determination to pursue frugality, and America’s inability to reach political consensus to continue stimulus spending over the short-term, while developing a plan to address the long-term structural issues.   Check-It-Out: Myths of Austerity.

STRATEGIC AFGHANISTAN PLAN

In our last post, P.S., we posed the — somewhat hopeful — possibility that there is a strategic big-picture plan (something beyond “Fight ’em over there, so we don’t have to fight ’em here!”) behind our reason to still be in Afghanistan after nine years.  Well, here’s what we heard from The Washington Post’s, well-respected foreign policy expert, David Ignatius on Thursday. 

According to Ignatius both sides in the conflict are thinking ahead to what the political solution might look like.  Both sides know that there is no military solution.  What the US and the Taliban are doing now is fighting hard to try to get the upper hand so that they can negotiate from a stronger position.  How long this fighting will go on before these negotiations begin is unclear. 

Somehow, just knowing that both sides are actually thinking about a peaceful Afghanistan future is truly reassuring.  And, the fact of the matter is:  we really don’t want to have to negotiate from a weaker position, because that part of the world is a dangerous place and we need to have the best possible outcome in Afghanistan that we can achieve at this point.  Not a lofty reason to still be fighting for, after nearly a decade, but dare we say it’s a “pragmatic” (very Obama-ish) one?

P.S.

As the previous post, 40 YEARS AFTER KENT STATE, unfolded on my computer screen I wasn’t sure where it was going.  After it was written I realized that it could have become an anti-war rant.  The fact that it didn’t, tells me that some of us really are looking for opportunities to have a little faith.  Maybe that truly is blind trust in this President — trust that we may regret.  Yet, I can’t bring myself at this point to be so cynical as to believe that the only reason President Obama wants to stay in Afghanistan is a political one — that he doesn’t want to be seen as “weak on defense” before the November elections (an opinion espoused by Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe.)

We all have a certain level of skepticism about this war.  The comparisons to Vietnam are inevitable and uncanny.  Yet … yet, could there actually be a sensible reason to be in Afghanistan at this point?  Are there strategic realities that are in play here?  Yeah, I know … faith.   I guess I’m not yet willing to give up on our leaders once again — it would hurt too much this time.

40 YEARS AFTER KENT STATE

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywKe8ezL8vI]

On May 4, 1970 armed National Guard troops were sent onto the campus of Kent State University in Ohio to control young college demonstrators who were protesting the war in Vietnam.  On that day the unthinkable happened — an unthinkable memory that still brings stinging tears.  The kids were yelling, protesting both the war and the presence of armed Guardsmen on their campus.   Some threw stones and a few hurled the smoking tear gas canisters back at the unwanted troops, who were all decked out in protective gear. 

As the Guardsmen threw tear gas, the unarmed students retreated and began to disperse as the line of Guardsmen with rifles advanced toward them.  Twelve of the Guardsmen at some point, inexplicably, raised their guns in unison and shot at unarmed American citizens for 13 long seconds.  The FBI report concluded that the shootings were not provoked, but were deliberate.  Four young college kids lay dead on the ground when it was all over — nine wounded — one paralyzed for life.

Many in the nation were traumatized and shocked at the deaths of young people by other young people, seemingly under the authority of our own government.  Yet the initial reaction of the American people reflected the bitter divide about the Vietnam War — more than half of those who were polled following the event thought that the shooting was the fault of the college protesters. 

We were young people ourselves at the time, in our mid and late twenties.  Our campus years were behind us;  we were married with two young children and launched out into the big world for the first time with real responsibilities.  But, I remember the Kent State massacre well.  I have a very clear memory of seeing the news reports on our television and feeling like the very breath had been punched out of me.  I remember going to my knees and tearfully wailing, “Oh my God … we’re killing our own children!”

As we look back at that time, from where we are today, we’re left to wonder how what happened at Kent State in 1970 is different from what has recently happened in Iran, when armed representatives of the government shot and killed young Neda and other youthful protestors on the streets of Teheran.  They too were killing their own children.  Killing them for speaking out and daring to demonstrate against their government.

How, how had we been brought so low?  Was it the war itself?   Or had the war protesters and war supporters so demonized each other that the violence was justified in their own minds, perhaps making violence inevitable?  The 12 shooters moved together, aimed together, attacked retreating college protesters — together.  Yet, there was no accountability.  They had been ordered onto the campus to break up the protest.  They were sent to the campus with live ammunition.  They were following orders.

But the Kent State massacre did change our country.  The years have not been kind to the Vietnam War supporters, nor to the shooters on the Kent State campus.  The American people have come to understand that what happened at Kent State was unjustified and that authorities are not allowed to use lethal force against unarmed protesters.  It was a sad day in the nation’s history.

And, we’re left to wonder if that was when all this anger at government started?  Did our generation begin to distrust government when we watched our own troops kill and massacre in Vietnam and at Kent State?  Did the Kent State massacre, followed by Richard Nixon’s Watergate betrayal of American ideals, leave the country stripped of any ability to have faith in our country’s leadership?

I sometimes think of America as a child.  After World War II and before Vietnam we were like an innocent babe;  we trusted our leaders — Ike was Grandpa to the nation and would take care of us.  During Vietnam we were a demanding toddler, we didn’t like what we saw our nation doing (hey, we’re supposed to be the good guys!) and we screamed until it stopped.  After Vietnam we were a growing child, struggling to make sense of the world.  Lately, we seem to be erratic teenagers — swinging wildly from hope to despair, wondering why the world isn’t the way we want it to be. 

The last 40 years have left me exhausted with all this distrust, and open to believing in the opportunity for our government to do some good.  We’ll never blindly trust again — that’s not possible now.  But maybe we could find it in our hearts to trust just a little bit, and to look for a few opportunities to believe again.  We know it’s hard, but America does need a little faith right now.