Category Archives: Current Events

Paying It Forward.

Posted on by

Renewing the Emergency Unemployment Compensation bill would add $25.2 billion to the current federal budget. Right wing politicians and media outlets tell us that we can’t afford such “giveaways” unless they are offset by other spending cuts. Oddly, they have no such requirements for subsidies to defense contractors, the oil industry, the financial industry, big Pharma, corporate agriculture and other large interests.

But for a program that will prevent 1.3 million people from falling into the abyss? Teapublicans believe that cost needs to be offset!

Certainly saving $25.2 billion sounds good. But, in government, saving money always comes at a cost. In this case, it’s not difficult to imagine the human cost of taking away the only source of income for 1.3 million people…people who have been unemployed for six months or longer. People who are discriminated against by employers who think there must be something wrong with someone who has been unemployed for so long.

And there are other costs.

As journalist Bill Moyers reports, “Harvard economist Lawrence Katz estimates that the expiration of benefits for the long-term unemployed is costing the economy $1 billion per week.” Others estimate the cost to our economy at $400 million a week. Whichever figure is correct, that means the cost of extended unemployment benefits is already offset by what the program contributes to the economy.

Economists confirm that money spent on such programs goes directly into the economy. After all, what else are the long-term unemployed going to do with the money? Save it? Obviously, they spend it. They use it to pay for food, gasoline, utilities and other necessities. It’s not enough to allow them to live comfortably. But it helps. And that money stimulates other portions of the economy. It contributes to sales taxes. It contributes to the profits of local businesses which, in turn, pay income taxes on the money. As a result, the money finds its way back into federal, state and local governments as revenues.

It’s a win-win. It’s taxpayers paying it forward to help their struggling neighbors. Anyone who would say otherwise is cruel and heartless.

Oh wait! I just described today’s GOP.

CBS’ “60 Minutes” Fails Again!

Posted on by

After its well-publicized failure to report the truth about the attack on our Benghazi consulate, one would expect that CBS, particularly its 60 Minutes crew, would be careful to assure accuracy in future reports.

Yet, this past Sunday, just 10 weeks after its Benghazi debacle, 60 Minutes failed again.

In attempting to uncover government waste on the part of the Obama administration’s clean energy loan program, Leslie Stahl displayed her apparent bias and ignorance of the subject. Under the label “clean tech,” she conflated high-tech companies with clean energy companies. (Not every clean energy alternative is high tech.) She also conflated the failure of venture capital-backed start-ups with the failure of companies receiving federally-backed loans. In doing so, she implied that a majority of loans to clean energy companies were lost. She also implied that clean energy is a fool’s errand.

Further, Stahl failed to provide real context for her story.

She failed to report that when a federally-backed company fails it doesn’t always default on the loans. That’s because the loans are often recovered through the sale of assests. She failed to report the failure rate of federally-backed loans which, according to congressional testimony by the former head of the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program, is less than 3 percent. She failed to report that the loans to Solyndra began during the Bush administration. She failed to report that even companies that fail often create products and technologies that eventually benefit us all. She failed to report that, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, 2013 was a huge success. She failed to mention that nine states now get 10 percent or more of their electricity from wind and solar; that wind is now the dominant energy source in Spain; that solar and wind compete head-to-head with coal in places like South Africa.

Stahl also failed to report that approximately three-quarters of all venture capital-backed businesses fail. That’s across all industries. Not just in the clean energy sector. She didn’t recognize the ecological consequences of making fuel from trees (one of the “clean tech” start-ups she covered in her story). She failed to report the ecological consequences of basing our future on oil, most especially tar sands oil. More important, she failed to report the staggering amount of money that the federal government gives to the carbon-based energy sector with no expectation of repayment (estimates range from $14 billion to $52 billion annually).

Stahl suggests that taxpayers should expect more from our government than failures such as Solyndra (which was a superior technology that failed primarily because of our long-standing trade policies with China).

I’d suggest that we should expect better…much better…from Leslie Stahl and 60 Minutes.

Stone Cold GOP.

Posted on by

I can think of no better way to describe Teapublicans’ failure to extend benefits for the 1.3 million long-term unemployed. After all, these are people who, through no fault of their own, are hanging on by their fingernails. Instead of offering them a hand, Teapublicans seem unwilling to give them anything but some nail clippers.

Nevertheless, Democrats have refused to give up on the unemployed. Not only have they called for an extension of benefits, they have pushed numerous bills that would result in job creation. In response, Teapublicans not only refused to act. They demanded more cuts which, according to most economists, would result in even more unemployed. Worse, as the benefits were expiring, Teapublicans took to the airwaves to blame the victims for their plight and to call them moochers!

By contrast, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy spent a day with the homeless in order to better understand their situation. His “guide” was a homeless man who had overcome a difficult childhood with a drug-addicted father. Having worked many years in sales, he lost his job and his home. He now spends his days looking for work and just trying to survive.

Such stories are not uncommon.

Very few of the homeless are lazy layabouts. Many are addicted or mentally ill. And many others are ordinary people who worked hard, played by the rules and found themselves in financial trouble after losing their jobs or encountering medical problems that they couldn’t afford…often despite having insurance.

For example, one of my friends contracted throat cancer resulting in laryngectomy (removal of the voice box) and causing him to lose his job as a telemarketer. That, in turn, caused him to lose his home. An Army veteran, he was too proud to accept offers to stay in friends’ homes. Instead, he survived by showering and changing clothes at the YMCA, using computers at the public library to apply for jobs, reading, visiting the offices of friends, and riding the buses at night. (The bus became his bedroom.) Once a month, he treated himself to a room at a inexpensive motel. His only source of income was a small (very small) check for a military disability. He wasn’t even eligible for SSI.

My friend despised the stench, noise and prostelityzing of church-sponsored shelters. He thought homeless camps were dangerous. So he lived this way for more than a year before he finally received additional disability compensation from the VA.

Tell me, Teapublicans, exactly what made my friend a moocher? What made him so undeserving in your minds that you would deny him, and people like him, unemployment benefits or other forms of help? What would you have him do? He couldn’t ask for job interviews over the phone. He had no phone, anyway. He couldn’t apply in person. As a black man with no ability to speak, most of those he encountered turned away from him. If he handed them a note, they assumed he was trying to rob them!

Aside from his few friends, the only people who would engage him were children. They were fascinated with his stoma (the hole where his larynx used to be) and with the electrolarnyx (the electronic wand that can be used to produce a robotic-like voice).

My friend’s story was worse than most (he has since passed away), but the point is the same. Most of the people who are now without unemployment benefits have similar stories. And Teapublicans seem to think they are disposable.

Cutting Through The GOP’s Economic Talking Points.

Posted on by

Almost from the first day President Obama took office, conservatives have howled about his economic policies. They blamed him for growing the national debt. They blamed him for record deficits. They created the Tea Party to protest taxes, even though they were at historic lows.They labeled Obama a socialist for saving the auto industry. They called him a fascist and a communist for signing the Affordable Care Act. And they campaigned on the need for government budget cuts in 2010 and 2012.

Democrats countered that the growing debt and deficits were the result of President George W. Bush’s policies. For his part, President Obama refused to place blame on the previous administration. Instead, he pointed to the irresponsible behavior of Wall Street and the resulting economic crash. And though he has cut the deficit faster than any previous president, he has repeatedly stated that unemployment is still too high and the economy too fragile for more draconian cuts.

So what’s the reality? Who’s right?

Bob Deitrick, a principal of Polaris Financial Partners, and Lew Goldfarb, a business attorney, conducted an exhaustive study of US presidencies from 1929 to 2009. That particular time period was selected because each party controlled the White House for exactly 40 years during that time. What Deitrick and Goldfarb found was that Democratic presidents have been better for the economy than Republicans! Their findings were published in the book Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box.

Interestingly, the administration that ranked highest was the JFK/LBJ administration. (The authors combined the two due to Kennedy’s assassination.) In descending order, the next five were Clinton, FDR, Eisenhower, Truman and Reagan.

The book did not cover Obama’s performance since he had not been in office long enough to make judgments. Yet when Deitrick discussed more recent data in a Forbes interview, he declared, “By all measures, President Obama has outperformed every modern president.” That’s because Obama has reduced the deficit from 10 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) at the end of the Bush presidency to just 4 percent today! This is more the result of growth than budget cuts. It’s the result of Obama’s stimulus plan combined with his decision to save the auto industry. And as the economy continues to grow, the deficit is expected to be just 2 percent of GDP by 2015.

Obviously, presidents who refuse to cut taxes for the wealthy and who refuse to start unnecessary wars are good for the economy.

Still, President Obama is facing a particularly troubling economic reality – that of income inequality. As a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has shown, from 1979 to 2007, the share of income for the top fifth of our population has grown 10 percent. During the same period, all other households saw their share of income decline by 2-3 percent.

This can be fixed. But it will likely take more than a Democrat in the White House. It will take a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Good News/Bad News For 2014 And Beyond.

Posted on by

For the New Year, I thought it appropriate to list a few of the accomplishments from 2013. First the good news:

1 – Millions more Americans now have health insurance thanks to Obamacare. More than 2 million have signed up on the federal and state exchanges, tens of millions more will benefit from Medicaid expansion.

2 – US demand for electricity dropped in 2013. Some utilities reported a decrease in residential demand by as much as 9 percent and up to 5.9 percent overall. This is likely the result of conservation measures, such as CFL and LED light bulbs, new green construction techniques, and growth of solar and wind energy. Imagine what would happen if we ever took conservation and alternative energy seriously.

3 – The US continues to shift electricity production away from coal-burning power plants. Just this week, Arizona Public Service Co. closed three 1960s era coal-fired generators in the Four Corners region near Farmington, New Mexico. These old generators were among the nation’s dirtiest.

4 – According to the Census Bureau, the US population is growing at the slowest rate since the Great Depression – just 0.72 percent. Even if it’s the result of the Great Recession, it’s definitely good news. There will be fewer demands on our natural resources and our infrastructure. Of course, large corporations think this is terrible news since there will be more competition for customers and (gasp) workers.

Now the bad news:

According to a new study published in Nature: The International Journal of Science and reported by HuffPost, climate change could pose more significant problems than previously thought. Climate sensitivity models show that global temperatures could rise as much as 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100! The result of such an increase could be worse than the extreme storms and rising sea levels already predicted. It could be catastrophic.

Happy New Year, everyone! Be sure to stock up on sun block.

A New Kind Of Pope.

Posted on by

Much has already been written about Pope Francis, but I can’t resist adding my two cents worth. For much of my life I found myself contrasting various religious leaders. The most remarkable contrast was between the Dahli Lama and Pope Benedict XVI.

Where the Dahli Lama sought to find the similarities of all religions, too often Pope Benedict focused on issues that divide. While the Dahli Lama dressed in the simple robes of a monk and eschewed the trappings of power and wealth, Pope Benedict seemed to embrace them. While the Dahli Lama displayed humility and humor, Pope Benedict too often allowed the Church to condemn those who strayed too far from his conservative viewpoint. Indeed, under Pope Benedict, the Vatican chastised a group of American nuns for placing too much focus on poverty and economic injustice, the core teachings of Christ.

Under the leadership of Pope Benedict, many bishops and priests felt comfortable engaging in partisan politics; some even threatening parishoners that they would “go to hell” if they voted for the wrong candidate. Worse yet, under Pope Benedict, several Archbishops continued to give cover to predatory pedophiles within the Church.

Enter Pope Francis.

Suddenly, we have a Pope who speaks for the poor and the downtrodden. In fact, he intentionally chose to be called Pope Francis in honor of the patron saint of the poor. This is a Pope who denounced runaway greed and economic inequality; who condemned the “idolatry of money;” who stated that the Church has spent too much time focused on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage; who even went so far as to say that atheists and non-Catholics would be redeemed by doing good. He has embraced the homeless and even washed the feet of prisoners. Pope Francis not only speaks about the principles of Christ. He follows them.

What a refreshing change!

I’m not Catholic, but I believe that our purpose in life should be to help others; to be kind. And I agree with author Thomas Cahill who said, “There are really only two movements in the world. One is kindness. And the other is cruelty.” Let’s all try to embrace the first.

For more insights into the “People’s Pope,” I encourage you to watch Bill Moyer’s interview with Cahill. I’m sure you will enjoy it.

Environmental Suicide.

Posted on by

Many years ago, a scientist named Paul Ehrlich convinced me of the dangers of uncontrolled population growth. He helped create an organization named Zero Population Growth (ZPG) which called for couples to have no more than two children – the number needed to replace the parents while maintaining the existing population. At the time, the world’s population stood at approximately 3.6 billion.

In 2011, the world population exceeded 7 billion!

Even today, few of the world’s governments have taken serious action to limit population growth. Discounting the effects of our never-ending wars, the exception is the one baby policy instituted by China and Indonesia. By enforcing a policy of one baby per couple, the governments hoped to improve economic conditions for their people while preserving dwindling resources. Although the populations of China and Indonesia have continued to grow, by most accounts, the policy has worked. China claims that 400,000 births have been averted. As a result, it recently announced that it will begin to relax the policy.

It seems that one of the biggest obstacles to population control is the lack of access to contraception. Population Action International estimates that as many as 215 million women around the world who want to prevent pregnancy need contraception. Many of these women are denied access to education and contraceptives by religion. This is even a problem in the Americas, especially Latin America.

That’s because the Vatican and other religious leaders have called for a ban on contraceptives and family planning. (It seems they believe that only God can decide the number of children to be born.) These religions often consider science the enemy of faith. Further, many of the same religions tell us that we have nothing to fear from over-population; that if the Earth is destroyed, the faithful will all end up in heaven. Indeed, some religious leaders are anxiously awaiting the “Rapture.”

The attitudes of politicians and corporations are nearly as bad.

In the US, some conservative politicians are trying to ban access to both contraception and abortion. In addition, many corporations see population control and environmental regulations as threats to sales growth. Any real effort to stop global warming would curb the sales of the oiligarchy. And how would corporations continue the escalation of their share prices if they couldn’t clear-cut forests, extract minerals, pillage our oceans, and create sprawling subdivisions?

Large profits require large populations.

Meanwhile, scientists the world over are screaming about the effects of over-population and the increased burning of fossil fuels. They point to alarming evidence that our environment may soon reach a tipping point. They cite statistics of rising temperatures, rising sea levels and shrinking ice shelves. They warn that lost species are like canaries in the coal mine; that the extinction of such species is a precursor to the extinction of our own.

If none of that alarms you, maybe this video will. The scientist in the video makes one of the most compelling (and frightening) arguments yet.

The Conservative War Against Labor.

Posted on by

In the years following the Great Depression, labor unions were popular and thriving. The Wagner Act of 1935, also known as the National Labor Relations Act, guaranteed workers the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. As a result, union workers, particularly those in mining and manufacturing, experienced dramatic gains in salaries and benefits, along with safer working conditions.

Corporations didn’t give up these things without a fight. But public sentiment was temporarily on the side of workers and World War II demanded unity between corporations and unions.

The end of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War gave corporations a new opportunity to undermine unions with the rise of Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) and his House Un-American Affairs Committee (HUAC). Likely emboldened by President Truman’s loyalty program intended to discredit Democratic rival Henry Wallace (former V.P. to FDR, nuclear disarmament advocate and pro-labor candidate) prior to the 1948 presidential election, McCarthy launched a witch hunt in search of communist sympathizers. News of the Soviet Union’s growing nuclear capability spawned a national paranoia that allowed McCarthy to portray labor unions as a communist front .

By the time McCarthy’s lies and un-Constitutional tactics were exposed, hundreds of Americans had been imprisoned, thousands more had lost their jobs and tens of thousands had been investigated. The victims included those who had supported Wallace, civil rights leaders, union leaders…even the unions’ rank and file.

The unraveling of the HUAC may have posed another setback for corporations and the wealthy, but McCarthy’s accusations left many suspicious of organized labor, even as labor unions continued to help build the middle class. Finally, in the 1980’s, anti-union forces suceeded in electing a president sympathetic to their cause – Ronald Reagan. When the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) went on strike, violating a law banning strikes by government workers, Reagan fired all 11,345 members who failed to return to work.

Reflecting on the event, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan commented, “His [Reagan’s] action gave weight to the legal right of private employers, previously not fully exercised, to use their own discretion to both hire and discharge workers.”

The war against unions resumed in earnest.

Corporations began sending jobs offshore in search of labor willing to work for low wages and without benefits such as health insurance, disability insurance and unemployment insurance. The export of jobs also eliminated the need for worker pensions. (In the years since Reagan’s election, more than 85,000 defined benefit pension funds have been eliminated.) Many of the jobs that can’t be exported, like those at Walmart and McDonald’s, now pay so little that their employees require public assistance. And with fewer workers eligible to pay dues, many labor unions have been weakened.

Meanwhile, management compensation has soared. The savings on labor costs has resulted in million dollar annual salaries and bonuses for executives.

With money comes influence allowing corporations and industries to successfully lobby Congress for subsidies, tax write-offs and lower tax rates. In addition, many corporations have been allowed to avoid taxes by creating Post Office box “headquarters” in off-shore tax havens. The resulting drop in tax revenue led to increased deficits and greater debt. But, rather than rewrite the corporate tax code and raise taxes on those who could afford it, conservatives have seized the opportunity to cut social programs. They not only cut food stamps. They have targeted Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, as well.

Not surprisingly, conservatives have also taken aim at the labor unions which represent government workers, such as teachers, firefighters and police. In particular, they want to eliminate government pensions. The argument is that, if private workers don’t have pensions and benefits, why should government workers? If successful, conservatives will have turned the clock back to the gilded age; the days prior to labor unions; the days of extreme wealth and extreme poverty.

Some say that we already have two Americas. I would argue three.

One is the America of the one percent; those who make lots of money and pay little to no income tax; those who can buy influence by donating to political campaigns and build new businesses with government subsidies financed with the taxes paid by others.

The second is the America of hard work, limited upward mobility and shrinking investments. In this America, you work ever longer hours in order to meet the corporate demands of increased productivity. Each year, you are forced to do more with less. For you, retirement may be little more than a dream. And for your children, college will become a financial burden they may never be able to repay.

The third America is one in which people work for so little money they can’t afford many of the necessities of life. According to the Working Poor Families Project, one in three American families are now among the working poor. One in six Americans and one in four children don’t know where the next meal is coming from, or even if there will be a next meal. In this America, more than 630,000 are chronically homeless and 3.5 million will experience homelessness in a given year. For many of these people, there is little hope that their circumstances will change. They not only lack political influence, many face new laws and obstacles intended to discourage them from voting.

Both President Obama and Pope Francis have recently called economic inequality the biggest problem we face. But President Obama can’t reduce inequality in America by himself. We will need a Congress that represents all Americans. We will need a sympathetic and unified citizenry. And we will need organized labor.

(As a footnote, I should make it clear that, having become part of middle management almost immediately following college graduation, I was ineligible for union membership. But, like most Americans, I was able to take advantage of the improved working conditions, salaries and benefits negotiated by labor unions.)

Dumb Dynasty.

Posted on by

Last week, social media were overwhelmed with the Duck Dynasty scandal after the program’s “star,” Phil Robertson likened homosexuality to bestiality and talked glowingly about the days of Jim Crow. In an interview with GQ, he said, “I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once … They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

It seems that Robertson missed the Fifties and Sixties when black people were beaten or lynched for being “uppity.” Apparently he missed the entire civil rights movement when dogs and fire hoses were aimed at those participating in peaceful marches; when black churches were bombed or burned; when organizers were murdered for registering African-Americans to vote.

But Robertson’s failed memory isn’t the real scandal here. Neither is the fact that a ZZ Top lookalike said something stupid, insensitive and hateful. Nor is the fact that his employer chose to “suspend” him for his statements. It is somewhat more scandalous that the program is on a network named Arts & Entertainment, and that Robertson was interviewed by a magazine named Gentleman’s Quarterly. But none of those things represent a real scandal.

The real scandal is that anyone actually cares.

Contrary to the beliefs of its supporters, Duck Dynasty is not a reality show. Most of it is as phony as the family member’s beards which were grown just for the program. It doesn’t represent the South or American family “values.” What it actually represents is the further dumbing down of America. Centered on a family that made a fortune by making and selling duck calls, the program’s alleged entertainment comes from watching a wealthy family act like spoiled, overgrown children imparting hillbilly homilies. It is, in fact, a prime example of what former Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Newton Minow once condemned as television’s “vast wasteland.”

As for conservatives who have their tighty whities in a bunch over A&E’s “suspension” of Robertson, they can relax. The network has already announced that Robertson will not miss a single episode, and publicity of the controversy will likely only increase the program’s ratings. Further, the “suspension” was not a violation of Robertson’s First Amendment right to free speech. He was admonished by his employer, not the government. (Get back to me if he’s ever arrested for making dumb statements.)

Don Imus, Keith Olbermann, Martin Bashir, Alec Baldwin and many others have been removed from the air and lost substantial income as the result of making insensitive statements in public. On the other hand, Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, the pundits of Fox News Channel and other conservative icons never seem to face any real consequences for being chronically and publicly stupid.

The Privatization Fraud.

Posted on by

For many years, the GOP has called for smaller government while, at the same time, extolling the virtues of privatization. GOP politicians have pushed for private schools through tax incentives and vouchers. In many states, they have turned the operation of prisons over to private, for-profit corporations. And thanks to the GOP, many of the operations once provided by military personnel are now provided by private contractors, such as Halliburton and Blackwater.

More recently, the GOP has pushed for privatizing Medicare through a voucher system and privatizing Social Security through private financial institutions.

The argument is that private companies can always perform tasks better and cheaper than public institutions. But before you jump on the privatization bandwagon, maybe you should ignore the rhetoric and look at studies which compare the costs and quality of services provided by private institutions with those provided by government.

Let’s begin by comparing charter schools with public schools. A 2009 report entitled Multiple Choice Charter School Performance in 16 States by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University found that only 17 percent of charter schools performed better than public schools while 47 percent performed at roughly the same level and 37 performed worse than public schools! This is in spite of the fact that charter schools often get to select students and usually provide few of the extra-curricular activities that public schools do.

As for prisons, a 2012 study by the Tucson Citizen found that private prisons cost the State of Arizona $3.5 million per year more than public prisons even though private prisons do not take high security prisoners or those with chronic illnesses. Ironically, the one exception is Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Tent City. Like the name suggests, Tent City is a series of canvas tents in the desert with no heat or air conditioning. The bathrooms are portable toilets. Prisoners are made to wear pink underwear. And prisoners are served two meals a day. One meal consists of milk, juice, porridge and a hard roll. The other consists of a green baloney sandwich. Yet, despite the primitive conditions, Tent City costs more per prisoner than any other jail or prison in Arizona. Worse, recidivism is 14 percent higher than the national average.

Sheriff Joe may be the self-proclaimed “nation’s toughest sheriff” and an extreme conservative, but he is a failure as a steward of taxpayers’ money.

Nevertheless, the biggest waste of money is the privatization of our military. During the early stages of the Afghan war and the Iraq war, the Department of Defense (DoD) awarded no-bid contracts to Halliburton for everything from food service to transport and supply. In addition, the DoD handed out lucrative contracts for security services to Blackwater. The expectation was that privatizing such services would cost the US substantially less and allow the DoD to focus on military operations. But, after examining the DoD’s own documents, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) found that private contractor employees cost 2.94 times more than an average DoD employee performing the same job!

According to POGO, in 2010 the DoD spent $254 billion for contract employees compared to $108 billion for civilian personnel directly employed by the DoD and $150 billion for military personnel.

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. After all, the primary difference between a service provided by government and a service provided by a corporation is profit. The corporation must deliver profits in order to pay dividends to shareholders. And the corporate CEOs tend to pay themselves salaries that are many times those of government leaders. In most cases, the only way private corporations can compete with government is to reduce the scope and quality of service.

Imagine what will happen if they ever get their hooks into Medicare and Social Security!