Category Archives: Economy

A Recipe For Failure.

Posted on by

Since 2009, many conservatives have believed that Barack Obama is an anti-American socialist who was born in Kenya and, therefore, is an illegitimate president. Many in Congress refuse to recognize him as president, let alone negotiate with him. Even after he was re-elected in overwhelming fashion, they refuse to accept the results believing that he bought votes by offering “stuff” to the 47 percent they claim do not pay taxes.

On the other hand, Democrats in Congress believe that Tea Party conservatives were elected based on an avalance of misinformation and spending from billionaire ideologues. They also believe that many were the beneficiaries of conservative gerrymandering.

So where does this leave us?

It leaves us with a government that simply doesn’t function. If it were not for presidential orders, the government would be at a complete standstill. Congress and the president cannot agree on a budget, on foreign policy, on military action, on job creation…they cannot even agree on laws that have already been passed. The House continues to vote to repeal “Obamacare” without hope of actually doing so. Why? Merely because conservatives in Congress want everyone to know how much they dislike President Obama.

Conservatives in both the House and the Senate refuse to negotiate a budget deal. They merely want to dictate. In 2011, that led to an impasse over the debt ceiling that damaged the credit rating of government bonds, collapsed the stock market and brought economic recovery to a standstill. In 2012, it led to sequestration which created further problems.

Now conservatives in the House are threatening to pass a budget that will defund “Obamacare” and, unless they get their way, they not only threaten to refuse to raise the debt ceiling. They plan to shut down the government entirely.

In an attempt to reach some form of compromise, President Obama reached his hand across the aisle. In return, conservatives merely extended their collective middle finger.

Given the circumstances. it’s not at all clear which side will win. But I do know that we will all lose.

Arizona’s Right Wing “Job Creators.”

Posted on by

When Gov. Janet Napolitano was replaced by the finger-wagging Jan Brewer following Napolitano’s appointment to become Director of Homeland Security in 2009, the last check on Arizona’s right wing-dominated legislature was eliminated. That led to such bills as the anti-immigrant SB 1070; bills that made it legal to carry guns in bars; bills that protected guns, not people; bills that cut tens of millions from public schools while cutting taxes for corporations.

All the while, the right wing legislators claimed that their top priority was job creation.

Therefore, it seems fair to judge their efforts by looking at the jobs created in Arizona compared to the rest of the nation. Since the end of the Great Recession, the US has regained 77 percent of the jobs lost according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Over the same period, Arizona has recovered just 46 percent of the jobs lost. Despite being one of the states hardest hit by the recession, Arizona ranks just 44th in job creation since February 2010.

The statistics show that Arizona has recovered just 66 percent of jobs lost by the information industry, 40 percent of those lost in professional and business services, 34 percent in other services, 32 percent in trade, transportation and utilities, 29 percent in government, and just 27 percent in manufacturing.

How can that be?

According to Teapublican legislators, the best way to create jobs is to cut taxes. Yet Arizona’s corporate taxes are among the very lowest in the nation. They also claimed that SB 1070 would allow Arizona citizens to reclaim jobs from undocumented workers. Somehow, they believed that chasing tens of thousands of immigrants from the state who rent homes, purchase cars, buy groceries and buy clothes would improve the state’s economy.

Apparently they also believe that outlawing a Latino studies program in the Tucson school district, eliminating the poor from Medicaid, attacking the federal government, cutting school budgets, redirecting money to private schools and private prisons, closing rest stops, closing state parks, demanding further proof of Obama’s citizenship, and telling the world that Arizona is unsafe, would entice tourists and sophisticated corporations to come here.

Maybe, just maybe, the right is wrong.

Ronald Reagan: Solar Assassin.

Posted on by

When President Obama recently ordered the White House to be fitted with solar panels, he was following the precedent set by President Jimmy Carter in 1979. After the OPEC cartel’s decision to limit oil production in order to drive up oil prices, Carter had recommended a series of measures designed to conserve energy and limit US dependence on oil imports. An aggressive plan to develop solar energy was one of those measures. To promote his plans, Carter ordered the installation of solar panels on the White House.

But when Ronald Reagan defeated Carter in 1980, one of his first actions was to order the panels, which he called “a joke”, removed. He also set about reversing all of Carter’s other energy-saving measures.

As a result of Reagan’s short-sighted decisions, the development of solar energy in the US was set back decades. While European nations and China continued the development of solar and other alternative energies, the US redirected all of its subsidies and resources toward oil exploration and ensuring access to foreign oil.

One could argue that Reagan’s decision culminated in a series of oil wars intended to protect the supply of oil from the Middle East. The US fought Desert Storm in order to secure Kuwait’s oil wells and keep them out of Iraqi hands. Despite the Bush Administration’s statements to the contrary, oil was at the heart of Operation Iraqi Freedom. That fact was made clear when then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and his assistants stated that the invasion of Iraq would pay for itself (it didn’t) through profits from Iraqi oil reserves. And since American oil interests had long sought an oil pipeline across Afghanistan in order to deliver Balkan oil onto the world markets, oil was likely part of the equation that led to the invasion of Afghanistan.

Imagine what might have happened if the trillions of dollars used to pursue war had been invested in alternative energy that would free us from oil imports. Imagine where we might be had the Carter administration’s energy conservation initiatives been followed to their conclusion.

In all likelihood, we would not have sent our troops into endless wars. We would have greatly decreased our dependence on oil, especially oil imports from the Middle East. We would not have an enormous federal debt. And, perhaps most important, we would have contributed far less to carbon emissions which have led to climate change.

When US Jobs Are Shipped Offshore, It’s In A Shipping Container.

Posted on by

Since Malcom McClean invented the modern shipping container in the late sixties, no individual item has had a greater impact on the US and world economies.  These large, steel and aluminum boxes can be filled with products, carried by truck to the nearest port, and loaded by crane onto a ship specifically designed to carry them.  Then, upon reaching the next port, the containers are stacked onto a rail car and carried across country, loaded onto another truck and hauled to a warehouse before being unloaded and the products distributed to stores.

Shipping containers have not only revolutionized shipping.  They have revolutionized manufacturing and distribution.  More than any other single factor, they have enabled and defined globalization.

In the process, they have eliminated jobs of dock workers and merchant mariners.  They nearly destroyed our railroads.  And they have allowed manufacturers to export jobs to countries with the lowest salaries and least regulations.  Indeed, the equipment from manufacturing plants in the US was likely shipped to new manufacturing plants in China and other parts of Asia in shipping containers.

True, these containers also bring us cheaper products.  But, following the loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs, an increasingly smaller percentage of Americans are able to afford them.

During a recent interview on National Public Radio, Rose George, author of Ninety Percent Of Everything; Inside Shipping, The Invisible Industry That Puts Clothes On Your Back, Gas In Your Car, Food On Your Plate, explained that the efficiency of the shipping container has impacted virtually every industry on every part of the planet.  For example, she noted it is now cheaper for Scotland’s fishing industry to load fish caught in the North Atlantic into containers and ship them to China to be filleted then shipped back than to have workers fillet them in Scotland!

This is good for the companies, good for China, and good for the consumer.  It’s bad for Scottish workers and bad for the environment.  For even though maritime shipping is, in itself, fuel efficient, such unnecessary shipping adds to the carbon emissions that accelerate climate change.  Ships and their sonar also create noise that disrupts communications of sea life, such as dolphins and whales.  And there is the inevitable pollution of waste from the ships.

There are other negative aspects of shipping containers.  Since they have overwhelmed ports around the world, there are far too many to be checked by customs and law enforcement, making it easier for smuggling rings to operate.  They have even been used to smuggle humans into the US.  The increased maritime traffic has also rejuvenated the once-dying pirate trade.  And increased shipping has accelerated the transfer of invasive species.

Often the shipping containers used to bring finished products to the US are filled with our toxic e-waste and shipped to countries that have few environmental regulations for the heavy metals to be reclaimed, damaging the environment and risking the health of low-paid workers in the process.

George’s book and another, The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller, by Marc Levinson examine the scope of the container shipping industry and all of its impacts, both positive and negative, on our society.

Both books are fascinating reads.  But they could just as well have been titled How the Shipping Container Destroyed the American Middle Class.

Today’s Corporate CEO No One To Look Up To.

Posted on by

The CEO of a corporation is supposed to act as the rudder of the ship; a leader; someone that sets an example for the rest of the corporation’s employees. But, increasingly, CEOs set an example of greed and unethical, even criminal, behavior.

According to a recent study by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), in 2012 the CEOs of large corporations were paid approximately 354 times as much as the average American worker. Worse, about 40 percent of the CEOs were fired for cause, paid fines or settlements for fraud, or resorted to asking the government to bail out their companies.

Some leadership!

The IPS study also found that about 30 percent of corporations led by the highest-paid CEOs were subsidized with taxpayer money. By taking advantage of a variety of tax deductions and loopholes, CEOs have been able to increase corporate profits while reducing or eliminating corporate taxes. And since most of these corporations are multinational, many have created P.O. Box “headquarters” in offshore tax havens to shelter corporate profits. By “gaming” the tax codes, the CEOs are able to pocket the savings for themselves.

Moreover, most CEO compensation is based on share price. That may seem like a good idea that encourages CEOs to work for the benefit of stakeholders. But the real reason for such compensation plans is self-interest. It’s easy for a CEO to make decisions that will increase sales and share prices over the short term, yet mortgage the company’s future. Unfortunately, many CEOs simply don’t care about the future because they don’t plan to be with the company more than 2-3 years. That’s all the time they need to be set for life.

But many want even more.

Unwilling to settle for multi-million dollar salaries, stock options, perks and a long list of benefits, some corporate CEOs create what amount to elaborate Ponzi schemes and a variety of high stakes gambling schemes using investors’ money. When their schemes fail, they seldom face charges and, even when they’re indicted, they’re seldom subjected to jail time. On those rare occasions when they are, “jail” often looks more like a country club and their sentences are often reduced or commuted.

Worse, when unscrupulous CEOs are fired, resign or are forced out, they almost always receive “golden parachutes” consisting of full retirement benefits and large lump sum payments allowing them to walk away with tens of millions in ill-gotten gains subsidized by investors and middle class taxpayers.  Meanwhile a high school dropout from the inner city who steals $50 can serve years of hard time.

It makes one wonder whatever happened to the nation that once proudly proclaimed “all men are created equal.”

Beware The Pendulum.

Posted on by

As a creative director for ad agencies and as a part-time college instructor, I used to teach that social trends and fashions responded like a pendulum with a 360-degree axis. The pendulum freely swings, but never back to exactly the same place twice.

I was reminded of that description while watching the ceremonies marking the 50-year anniversary of the March on Washington. In 1963, the US seemed hopelessly racist. In the Jim Crow South, blacks were segregated from whites. African-Americans were denied the right to vote. Peaceful civil rights demonstrators were met with fire hoses, police dogs, beatings and murder.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 began to change that.

In the last two presidential elections, African-Americans voted in record numbers helping to elect the first US president of African-American heritage. (I’ve always marveled that his Irish-American heritage is seldom mentioned because of the color of his skin.)

Obviously, the pendulum has swung a long way from 1963. But it seems to be swinging back.

Since the election of President Obama, numerous states in both the North and the South have passed restrictive voting laws to make it more difficult for minorities to vote. No other US president has been subjected to such angry derision. No other president has been repeatedly asked to show his papers to prove that he is a citizen. No other president has been interrupted during a State of the Union speech by a “Congressman” calling him a liar. No other president has been met by such congressional obstruction.

Racism did not disappear in the sixties. It is just more subtle. There are fewer racist killings, beatings and other hate crimes. Today, the racism is economic and institutionalized. Unemployment for African-Americans is roughly double that for whites. Many of those who do have jobs are not paid a living wage. Schools in African-American communities are grossly underfunded compared to those in white communities. African-Americans are not only three times more likely to be arrested as whites, they receive longer sentences for similar crimes.

Indeed, young African-American and Latino males are seen as a source of profit for the private prison industry. They are also disproportionately represented in our military and asked to fight wars to protect the economic interests of large corporations that are almost exclusively owned and managed by wealthy white Americans.

News organizations, once again, insert race into stories of crime. Media commentators feel comfortable talking about the disintegration of African-American families while ignoring the disintegration of white families. When minorities bring up discrimination and other issues of race, white political pundits refer to it as “playing the race card.” They would like us to believe that racism no longer exists. (Of course, it doesn’t for them.)

Most disturbing is the fact that the conservative majority of the United States Supreme Court has voted to weaken the Voting Rights Act and to undermine affirmative action.

On the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s iconic “I Have A Dream” speech, we should all take a moment to celebrate how far we’ve come. But only a moment. It’s time to get back to work to make sure the pendulum swings in the right direction again.

What Is Our Real Legacy For Future Generations?

Posted on by

Much has been written about the national debt that is being left to future generations; how that debt is the greatest threat to the future of our nation.

I beg to differ.

Not that the debt isn’t a serious issue, but our nation faces many more daunting problems. For example, our infrastructure is crumbling.  Roads and bridges are in disrepair. Our electric grid is woefully inefficient and unreliable – approximately half of all the electricity generated is lost in the grid. Our rail system is antiquated. Ports and canals need to be expanded and remodeled. And our computer systems are increasingly vulnerable to hackers.

In addition, the vast majority of the world’s scientists – real scientists – are sounding alarms about global climate change. Their computer models show that our dependence on burning fossil fuels will raise sea levels by as much as three feet by 2100, drowning some of the world’s largest cities, many of them in the US.

These scientists aren’t politically-motivated. They aren’t beholding to corporations. And they aren’t making unsubstantiated claims. They say that human-caused climate change is as proven as gravity.

Making the investments to address these issues now makes infinite sense. Not only are interest rates at all-time lows. Making changes would create an enormous number of high-paying jobs. And when more people make more money they purchase more and pay more taxes. All of which will help reduce the deficit and debt.

In fact, Nobel laureate economists tell us that such investments will do more to reduce our debt than austerity measures.

So what are we waiting for? Why do we listen to Wall Street-financed politicians instead of economists? Why do we listen to oil-soaked politicians instead of climate scientists? We have been shown a road map to the long-term health of the United States and the globe. These are not Democratic issues or Republican issues. They are human issues.

Isn’t it as important to leave future generations with a safe, efficient infrastructure as with a surplus? Isn’t it as important to bequeath them a sustainable planet as with a reduced debt?

Detroit Is Merely The Canary In The Coal Mine.

Posted on by

It’s popular for conservatives to blame the bankruptcy of the City of Detroit on a history of Democratic leadership. Indeed, the conservative commentators seem to revel in the city’s troubles. And since Detroit has a high percentage of African-Americans, the problems also conveniently fit their racist narrative.

The wingnuts believe that this simply couldn’t happen to a government run by white conservatives.

Hmmm…What about California? Following a government led by Ronald Reagan and, more recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state was teetering on the abyss. But after a return to Democratic leadership, California is regaining economic health and running surpluses. The same can be said for Minnesota.

Detroit’s problems aren’t merely the fault of city leadership. The state of Michigan has failed to deliver the aid it promised. But the real problems are the result of national and international politics. As part of globalization, greedy corporations shipped Detroit’s manufacturing jobs out of state and out of country in order to avoid paying for employee health care and pensions. In addition, many of the city’s mostly white executives fled to the suburbs leaving the poor and the unemployed to pick up the tab for their excesses.

Given the many factors contributing to the city’s financial problems, it would have been virtually impossible for Detroit to overcome them by itself. Detroit didn’t create the problems on its own. It shouldn’t have to face them alone.

Moreover, Detroit may be just the first large city to declare bankruptcy. Other cities that were once home to large manufacturing plants are facing many of the same difficulties. And, depending on what happens in Detroit, they may follow its lead.

Sadly, the situation in Detroit reminds me of the aftermath of natural disasters. When the Midwest was devastated in the nineties by floods, many on the East Coast objected to paying for disaster relief. Many across the nation objected to paying to help New York City after 9/11. Many objected to the cost of rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina. And congressional representatives and senators from other states voted against funding to New Jersey and New York to pay for relief from Hurricane Sandy.

Far too many Americans lack compassion for their fellow Americans. Instead of looking for ways to help, they are more intent on affixing blame. They assume that they are so smart that such a disaster could never happen to them. Invariably, they are wrong.

How Would You Pay For Uninsured Healthcare?

Posted on by

Conservatives in Arizona and other states are mouth-frothing mad over the expansion of Medicaid for those who can’t afford health insurance. They claim that it’s a matter of personal responsibility; that the current system is fine; that people should simply go without healthcare if they can’t afford it.

Hmmm…

The people saying that consist mostly of the Bible-thumping, church-going crowd. You know, the good “Christians” who claim to follow the guy who once said something like, “What you do unto the least of these, you do unto me.”

What these people don’t understand, in addition to the Bible they claim to study, is that even people without money deserve healthcare. In fact, our federal government came to that realization years ago. That’s why hospitals are mandated to treat those in need, even if they can’t afford to pay for the treatment. As a result, most of the working poor (people below or near the poverty line are already eligible for Medicaid) delay medical care as long as possible. When their conditions have reached a point where they are more difficult to treat, they go to the Emergency Room where treatment costs many times more than care at a doctor’s office.

Who pays for their treatment? The very people who are whining and bitching about expanding Medicaid to cover more of the working poor. As a result, the whiners pay considerably more than they would if everyone had health insurance…even government-paid health insurance.

So the question is this: How would you like to pay for your brothers’ and sisters’ healthcare? Through the efficiently-run Medicaid system? Or through the many times more expensive E.R.?

Families In Deep Doo-Doo.

Posted on by

It seems that nearly every week, a new study is released that shows the growing income disparity in the United States. Recently, an Associated Press survey found that 80 percent of adults in the US face near-poverty and unemployment at some point in their lives. Another study by the International Human Rights Clinic at New York University’s School of Law found that 1 in 6 (50 million) Americans face food insecurity, including 17 million children.

Now, the medical journal Pediatrics has published a study measuring the psychological impact on mothers who are unable to afford diapers.

The study, “Diaper Need And Its Impact on Child Health,”  by a group of Yale researchers, found that 30 percent of mothers have struggled to pay for diapers and more than 8 percent of low-income mothers reuse soiled diapers! Not surprisingly, the researchers concluded that the lack of clean diapers “seriously affects maternal stress, child health, and child development.”

So, in the richest nation on Earth, a large percentage of our people can’t tend to the needs of either end of a baby!

We have millions who can’t afford the most basic necessities despite working full-time jobs. We have tens of thousands of homeless – many of them families and veterans. And, instead of passing laws to raise the minimum wage; instead of eliminating tax loopholes that encourage companies to ship manufacturing jobs overseas; instead of passing bills to help create jobs here at home; House Teapublicans plan to cut $40 billion from our food stamp programs over the next 10 years.

It will be difficult since the House has only 9 scheduled work days between now and the end of September, but I’m certain they’ll find a way.