Going Backwards
By Reginald Johnson
August 4, 2011
You don’t get a good feeling about what’s happening in this country right now --- not after the events of the last week.
Not after a supposedly Democratic president and leaders in Congress agreed to the demands of a group of far-right-wing zealots in signing a debt-ceiling agreement which will inflict substantial harm to the citizens of this nation.
President Barack Obama, after garnering votes of approval in both chambers of Congress, signed the deal which will allow the government to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars needed to keep regular government operations going and avoid the U.S. going into default on its obligations.
The good part of this agreement is that the U.S. will not renege on its obligations, which would likely have made an ailing world economy even worse.
The bad part --- and it’s really bad --- is that Obama agreed to some $2.5 trillion in spending cuts here at home, which were insisted on by Republicans as a condition for their support for the debt increase.
The cuts will slash everything from education to environmental protection to housing and will eventually chip away at bedrock safety net programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which hundreds of millions of Americans rely on.
Though the aim of the deal was to reduce debt, the agreement calls for no revenue enhancements in the first phase of the deal. The wealthy and corporations, who already enjoy historically low tax rates, will see no increases right now.
The no taxes provision was another key part of the package that Obama and the Democrats conceded to the GOP, during weeks of negotiations with the Republicans over what it would take to pass a debt ceiling increase. Republicans, particularly the Tea party faction, had threatened to block the increase if they didn’t get their way.
The cuts in government programs will result in over 300,000 jobs lost, according to the Economic Policy Institute. These job losses will add to the total of 14 million people already out of work in the U.S.
It was an extremely high price to pay for winning the support of the GOP for the debt hike. Obama and the Democrats did not put up much of the fight in the face of the absurd demands by the Republicans.
This right-wing attack was basically an assault on the New Deal and the whole concept that government should play an important role in helping people in need and also act as a stimulant for the economy when times are tough.
New Deal programs like Social Security and others that came later in the 1960s like Medicare, have worked well for this country and been very popular. I believe Obama could have beaten back the attack by the right and really put the Republicans on the defensive if he had used his bully pulpit as president, gone to the people and spoke passionately in defense of government programs like Medicare. He also could easily have debunked the Republican mantra the simply cutting taxes for the rich rejuvenates a weak economy. Trickle-down economics has never worked, and the record is clear.
But Obama didn’t go to the people, and didn’t speak passionately in defense of government’s role in helping people. Instead he went along, at least in part, with the idea that government debt was out of control, and social spending was a key factor in that, not the lack of revenue from a depressed economy, excessive spending on wars and from a tax system skewed in favor of the rich and corporations.
Unbelievable as it may seem, Obama appears to agree with the view --- held by both the GOP and big business --- that debt is a huge problem and the nation's economic health depends on reducing it.
Maybe that's the reason why Obama didn't stop the whole charade about whether to raise the debt ceiling, by invoking his powers under the 14th amendment and unilaterally raising the limit. He wanted major spending reductions to go through, so there was no point in ending the debate and enacting a debt ceiling increase without conditions.
When the dust settled, the right-wingers had won big time. Tea Party darling Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin --- whose slash and burn budget proposal earlier this year set the tone for the debt ceiling talks --- said he got “two-thirds” of what he wanted.
So now comes the bitter fruit of this debt deal. The first part of the agreement calls for $1 trillion in discretionary spending cuts over 10 years, with no new taxes and safety net programs like Medicare and Medicaid left out. But in the second phase, a special “super committee” composed evenly of Republicans and Democrats will come up with another $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions, and those will take in cuts to entitlement programs and tax hikes. The committee will make a report to Congress by November, with legislative recommendations.
Should the committee deadlock or Congress fail to approve the proposals, automatic “trigger cuts” in spending will kick in.
While assurances are being made that the process will not entail cuts in Medicare and Medicaid benefits (nor Social Security), those programs are still likely to be hurt. The cost cutters reportedly will look to reduce reimbursement rates for providers enrolled in the programs. Doctors are already dropping out of Medicare due to low rates, and further rate cuts will drive out more. The elderly and poor will have a harder time finding doctors.
This becomes a back door way of undermining and eventually eliminating Medicare and Medicaid.
Speaking on WBAI the night after Obama signed the debt bill, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (who voted against the deal) summed up the significance of the agreement: “We’ve seen a turning of a chapter here in American history. A turning away from New Deal economics to a punitive approach, which in a sense denies the legitimacy of government itself by attacking public investment, public employees and public services.”
***********************************************************************************
One other point. Mainstream media coverage of the debt deal talks and battle in Congress was predictably weak and in some cases biased. Few reports got down to the nitty gritty and showed how the spending cuts would hurt people. And few media outlets really explored how the huge debt came about, i.e., the wars, low taxes on business and the wealthy, the housing slump, etc. Instead you heard a lot of cheerleading about the need to cut social spending and so-called entitlements.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
Commentary
Breaking with the Democrats?
By Reginald Johnson
June 17, 2011
It was a hopeful sign the other day when AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the federation may drive a harder bargain with Democrats if they want labor’s backing.
Trumka took a militant tone when he addressed a convention of the United Nurses in Washington, saying that union members are tired of working hard to get Democrats elected every election cycle and then being disappointed in the results.
“For too long, we’ve been left after Election Day holding a canceled check, waving it about—‘Remember us? Remember us? Remember us?’—asking someone to pay a little attention to us,” said Trumka, according to an article by John Nichols in The Nation.
Trumka and other union leaders have been frustrated with the failure of the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (card check) and other needed labor law reforms as well as caving in to the GOP on tax issues.
“…I don’t know about you, but I’ve had a snootful of that shit!” Trumka shouted.
The AFL-CIO leader said the country needs an “independent labor movement strong enough to return balance to our economy, fairness to our tax system, security to our families and moral and economic standing to our nation.”
Nichols further wrote that Trumka has recently “been repositioning the AFL-CIO as a force that will hold Republicans and Democrats to what he describes as “a simple standard: ‘Are they helping or hurting working families?’ ”
It is very refreshing news indeed if the AFL-CIO --- which represents 13 million workers --- is going to take a more independent position on national political issues, and not just be a lapdog for the Democrats, as they have been for too too long. The Democratic Party in recent years has been drifting to the right --- with President Barack Obama and leaders of the U.S. Senate taking centrist or even conservative postitions on key issues of government spending, taxes, social programs, labor needs, civil liberties and war policies. Caving in to the Republicans has become the norm for Democrats, not the exception.
You get the sense now that people in labor and many progressives have had it with the Democrats and are ready to make a move away from the party. This move could be to create a new umbrella organization that would work to achieve a clear set of progressive goals. In turn that group would in effect tell all political candidates seeking their support --- ‘endorse our goals or we don’t support you.’ Period, and no compromise. If no candidate meets the test, the group simply announces, ‘OK guys, we’re sitting out the election.’
Or there could be a move to form a third party altogether.
I know this has been talked about ad infinitum, the idea of breaking away and forming a new party. In the past progressives and people in labor have always rejected this idea in the end, and stayed with the Democrats, seeing that, while not perfect, the Democratic candidate for president in any given national election was always more palatable than whoever the Republicans put up.
This syndrome was, as Ralph Nader puts it, opting for ‘the least worst.’
But has ‘least worst’ run its course?
Think about it. How much difference is there between Obama, and say, Mitt Romney? Obama has been lousy on labor, lousy on the environment, lousy on civil liberties, and a total sell-out on tax and spending issues. Where’s the big difference?
I think more than ever this year, people, including those in labor, are showing disgust with the performance of both the Democrats and Republicans. I think there’s wider recognition among people today that the leaders of both parties are really not interested in the welfare of workers and consumers and are just kow-towing to the interests of the corporate elite --- because in the end that helps them stay in power and continue to enjoy their privileged status.
I do hope that the stirrings of setting up new political formations will come to something. The country desperately needs it.
By Reginald Johnson
June 17, 2011
It was a hopeful sign the other day when AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the federation may drive a harder bargain with Democrats if they want labor’s backing.
Trumka took a militant tone when he addressed a convention of the United Nurses in Washington, saying that union members are tired of working hard to get Democrats elected every election cycle and then being disappointed in the results.
“For too long, we’ve been left after Election Day holding a canceled check, waving it about—‘Remember us? Remember us? Remember us?’—asking someone to pay a little attention to us,” said Trumka, according to an article by John Nichols in The Nation.
Trumka and other union leaders have been frustrated with the failure of the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (card check) and other needed labor law reforms as well as caving in to the GOP on tax issues.
“…I don’t know about you, but I’ve had a snootful of that shit!” Trumka shouted.
The AFL-CIO leader said the country needs an “independent labor movement strong enough to return balance to our economy, fairness to our tax system, security to our families and moral and economic standing to our nation.”
Nichols further wrote that Trumka has recently “been repositioning the AFL-CIO as a force that will hold Republicans and Democrats to what he describes as “a simple standard: ‘Are they helping or hurting working families?’ ”
It is very refreshing news indeed if the AFL-CIO --- which represents 13 million workers --- is going to take a more independent position on national political issues, and not just be a lapdog for the Democrats, as they have been for too too long. The Democratic Party in recent years has been drifting to the right --- with President Barack Obama and leaders of the U.S. Senate taking centrist or even conservative postitions on key issues of government spending, taxes, social programs, labor needs, civil liberties and war policies. Caving in to the Republicans has become the norm for Democrats, not the exception.
You get the sense now that people in labor and many progressives have had it with the Democrats and are ready to make a move away from the party. This move could be to create a new umbrella organization that would work to achieve a clear set of progressive goals. In turn that group would in effect tell all political candidates seeking their support --- ‘endorse our goals or we don’t support you.’ Period, and no compromise. If no candidate meets the test, the group simply announces, ‘OK guys, we’re sitting out the election.’
Or there could be a move to form a third party altogether.
I know this has been talked about ad infinitum, the idea of breaking away and forming a new party. In the past progressives and people in labor have always rejected this idea in the end, and stayed with the Democrats, seeing that, while not perfect, the Democratic candidate for president in any given national election was always more palatable than whoever the Republicans put up.
This syndrome was, as Ralph Nader puts it, opting for ‘the least worst.’
But has ‘least worst’ run its course?
Think about it. How much difference is there between Obama, and say, Mitt Romney? Obama has been lousy on labor, lousy on the environment, lousy on civil liberties, and a total sell-out on tax and spending issues. Where’s the big difference?
I think more than ever this year, people, including those in labor, are showing disgust with the performance of both the Democrats and Republicans. I think there’s wider recognition among people today that the leaders of both parties are really not interested in the welfare of workers and consumers and are just kow-towing to the interests of the corporate elite --- because in the end that helps them stay in power and continue to enjoy their privileged status.
I do hope that the stirrings of setting up new political formations will come to something. The country desperately needs it.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Commentary
Democratic Sell-Outs
By Reginald Johnson
June 7, 2011
Get ready for another betrayal by the “party of the people.”
Despite overwhelming public opposition to Medicare cuts and the recent surprise victory of a pro-Medicare Democrat in New York’s 26th congressional district against a cost-cutting Republican, mainstream Democrats ---- led by President Barack Obama --- appear ready to make a deal with the GOP’s right-wing leaders to make significant cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs.
For weeks now, top Democrats have been in negotiations with GOP leaders over what cuts could be made to reduce the nation’s budget deficit. House Republicans have been insisting that unless the Democrats agree to massive cuts in spending --- including ax chopping Medicare --- they will vote to stop the government from raising the debt ceiling.
Without the debt ceiling being raised, the nation will be unable to borrow the money needed to fund basic government services --- including payments for Social Security, Medicare benefits and military salaries. Should the U.S. government default on payments, it could have a severe effect on bond markets, and set the country back into another economic tailspin.
The Republicans in effect are holding the nation hostage. They’re saying ‘make massive cuts, or we’ll burn the house down.’
It should be noted that GOP leaders almost certainly would not in the end push the country into default. Even they know this would be a very dumb idea. So they’re posturing today, posturing for the far-right fringe and Tea Party yahoos who really do believe that wiping out all government programs, except the military, is a great idea.
But even if most Republicans don’t really mean their threats about blocking a debt ceiling increase, this is the public position they’re taking, and the Democratic response has been pathetic. The GOP’s wild demands for draconian cuts could be attacked, and fairly easily, if we had the right kind of Democrat at the top. Just think if Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman or Franklin Roosevelt were president --- given the public opposition to social cuts --- they’d rip the Republicans to shreds and turn the whole thing into a huge Democratic advantage.
I can just hear a speech attacking the Republicans from one of those Democrats from yesteryear. It might go like this:
‘They want to take away your Medicare and Social Security, and fund more tax breaks for the rich! They want to take away your benefits, but give more tax breaks to corporations who are already making hefty profits while paying little or no taxes. Just whose side are they on?’
But we don’t have a Truman, Johnson or Jack Kennedy leading this country. We have Barack Obama --- a conservative Democrat, and not a liberal as he led so many people to believe. Like Bill Clinton before him, he’s very mindful of what big business wants. The business elites don’t like spending on social programs, because they want government to spend less, so there will be more tax cuts for them. A reduced safety net also means more desperate workers, willing to work for less.
The Obama-Clinton type of Democrat is basically Republican-lite.
So Obama is not hitting the hustings and blasting away at the shameful Republican position on the budget. He’s not trying to rally the American people. He’s not trying to tell them how harmful it will be if the proposed cuts go through. No, he’s staying silent. He’s sent out his top lieutenants like Vice President Joe Biden (Grinnin’ Joe) and some leading senators to ‘talk turkey’ with the GOP about how to reach a “compromise.”
Biden reported the meetings have been going well. “Our Republican friends and the Democrats think we’re making progress…I think we’re in a position where we’ll be able to get well above a trillion dollars pretty quick,” Biden said.
Only spending reductions are being talked about here as a way to eliminate the deficit. Tax increases on the wealthy and big business are off the table, at the Republicans’ insistence.
As the GOP postures, so too, do the Democrats. The Democrats staged a well-publicized vote in the Senate recently in which they voted down the much-criticized ‘Ryan budget,’ which would have voucherized Medicare, effectively ending the program.
The Democrats came out as the ‘defenders of Medicare,’ and that theme can be used effectively in next year’s congressional and presidential election races.
But quietly, behind closed doors, the Democrats are showing willingness to make significant cutbacks in Medicare and Medicaid and other vital programs. While these likely cuts would not wipe out the programs, they would further erode their strength. Increasing premiums for future enrollees and reducing payments to Medicare providers are some of the things being discussed. Also on the table are cuts to Medicaid, which 69 million poor people rely on, and cuts in federal pensions.
After a meeting with Obama recently at the White House, House Republican Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy told reporters that Obama agreed that spending cuts and “entitlement reform” will be addressed in any debt ceiling deal.
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, had it right in assessing what’s going on, and Obama’s willingness to let the Republicans set the table.
“The failure of President Obama to play any role in shaping this debate is so massive that it must be deliberate. They have all the cards, especially after NY-26, and are playing none of them,” Baker said in a recent interview published in The Nation. “I think it’s wrong to assume that Obama is pushing to defend programs like Social Security and Medicare here. All the evidence points in the other direction.”
As noted, I believe Obama thinks much like Bill Clinton ---- and that view is close to what Wall Street thinks. After the Senate voted down the Ryan plan on Medicare, Clinton made an interesting comment. He said the rejection should not mean that we should stop talking about controlling Medicare costs.
Clinton has been an avid fan of Peter G. Peterson, the one time head of the huge investment firm the Blackstone Group, and now a billionaire in retirement.
For years Peterson has been advocating reducing the costs of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, through his foundation the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Peterson maintains that unless entitlements are cut, federal deficits can’t be brought under control and the future of the country is threatened.
Clinton has spoken at conferences sponsored by the foundation.
So with the Wall Street view permeating the thinking of both Democratic leaders and Republicans, trouble lies ahead for the American people. The benefits they’ve worked hard for and come to expect, are under the knife.
Progressive Democrats (who are in a distinct minority) are criticizing the policy of making concessions, as are progressives outside the party like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader. But they need help.
The only way to stop the cave-in trend is for people en masse to speak out about it, denounce the sell-outs and demand that the rich and large corporations pay their fair share in creating a balanced budget, which addresses the needs of all Americans.
By Reginald Johnson
June 7, 2011
Get ready for another betrayal by the “party of the people.”
Despite overwhelming public opposition to Medicare cuts and the recent surprise victory of a pro-Medicare Democrat in New York’s 26th congressional district against a cost-cutting Republican, mainstream Democrats ---- led by President Barack Obama --- appear ready to make a deal with the GOP’s right-wing leaders to make significant cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs.
For weeks now, top Democrats have been in negotiations with GOP leaders over what cuts could be made to reduce the nation’s budget deficit. House Republicans have been insisting that unless the Democrats agree to massive cuts in spending --- including ax chopping Medicare --- they will vote to stop the government from raising the debt ceiling.
Without the debt ceiling being raised, the nation will be unable to borrow the money needed to fund basic government services --- including payments for Social Security, Medicare benefits and military salaries. Should the U.S. government default on payments, it could have a severe effect on bond markets, and set the country back into another economic tailspin.
The Republicans in effect are holding the nation hostage. They’re saying ‘make massive cuts, or we’ll burn the house down.’
It should be noted that GOP leaders almost certainly would not in the end push the country into default. Even they know this would be a very dumb idea. So they’re posturing today, posturing for the far-right fringe and Tea Party yahoos who really do believe that wiping out all government programs, except the military, is a great idea.
But even if most Republicans don’t really mean their threats about blocking a debt ceiling increase, this is the public position they’re taking, and the Democratic response has been pathetic. The GOP’s wild demands for draconian cuts could be attacked, and fairly easily, if we had the right kind of Democrat at the top. Just think if Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman or Franklin Roosevelt were president --- given the public opposition to social cuts --- they’d rip the Republicans to shreds and turn the whole thing into a huge Democratic advantage.
I can just hear a speech attacking the Republicans from one of those Democrats from yesteryear. It might go like this:
‘They want to take away your Medicare and Social Security, and fund more tax breaks for the rich! They want to take away your benefits, but give more tax breaks to corporations who are already making hefty profits while paying little or no taxes. Just whose side are they on?’
But we don’t have a Truman, Johnson or Jack Kennedy leading this country. We have Barack Obama --- a conservative Democrat, and not a liberal as he led so many people to believe. Like Bill Clinton before him, he’s very mindful of what big business wants. The business elites don’t like spending on social programs, because they want government to spend less, so there will be more tax cuts for them. A reduced safety net also means more desperate workers, willing to work for less.
The Obama-Clinton type of Democrat is basically Republican-lite.
So Obama is not hitting the hustings and blasting away at the shameful Republican position on the budget. He’s not trying to rally the American people. He’s not trying to tell them how harmful it will be if the proposed cuts go through. No, he’s staying silent. He’s sent out his top lieutenants like Vice President Joe Biden (Grinnin’ Joe) and some leading senators to ‘talk turkey’ with the GOP about how to reach a “compromise.”
Biden reported the meetings have been going well. “Our Republican friends and the Democrats think we’re making progress…I think we’re in a position where we’ll be able to get well above a trillion dollars pretty quick,” Biden said.
Only spending reductions are being talked about here as a way to eliminate the deficit. Tax increases on the wealthy and big business are off the table, at the Republicans’ insistence.
As the GOP postures, so too, do the Democrats. The Democrats staged a well-publicized vote in the Senate recently in which they voted down the much-criticized ‘Ryan budget,’ which would have voucherized Medicare, effectively ending the program.
The Democrats came out as the ‘defenders of Medicare,’ and that theme can be used effectively in next year’s congressional and presidential election races.
But quietly, behind closed doors, the Democrats are showing willingness to make significant cutbacks in Medicare and Medicaid and other vital programs. While these likely cuts would not wipe out the programs, they would further erode their strength. Increasing premiums for future enrollees and reducing payments to Medicare providers are some of the things being discussed. Also on the table are cuts to Medicaid, which 69 million poor people rely on, and cuts in federal pensions.
After a meeting with Obama recently at the White House, House Republican Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy told reporters that Obama agreed that spending cuts and “entitlement reform” will be addressed in any debt ceiling deal.
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, had it right in assessing what’s going on, and Obama’s willingness to let the Republicans set the table.
“The failure of President Obama to play any role in shaping this debate is so massive that it must be deliberate. They have all the cards, especially after NY-26, and are playing none of them,” Baker said in a recent interview published in The Nation. “I think it’s wrong to assume that Obama is pushing to defend programs like Social Security and Medicare here. All the evidence points in the other direction.”
As noted, I believe Obama thinks much like Bill Clinton ---- and that view is close to what Wall Street thinks. After the Senate voted down the Ryan plan on Medicare, Clinton made an interesting comment. He said the rejection should not mean that we should stop talking about controlling Medicare costs.
Clinton has been an avid fan of Peter G. Peterson, the one time head of the huge investment firm the Blackstone Group, and now a billionaire in retirement.
For years Peterson has been advocating reducing the costs of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, through his foundation the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Peterson maintains that unless entitlements are cut, federal deficits can’t be brought under control and the future of the country is threatened.
Clinton has spoken at conferences sponsored by the foundation.
So with the Wall Street view permeating the thinking of both Democratic leaders and Republicans, trouble lies ahead for the American people. The benefits they’ve worked hard for and come to expect, are under the knife.
Progressive Democrats (who are in a distinct minority) are criticizing the policy of making concessions, as are progressives outside the party like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader. But they need help.
The only way to stop the cave-in trend is for people en masse to speak out about it, denounce the sell-outs and demand that the rich and large corporations pay their fair share in creating a balanced budget, which addresses the needs of all Americans.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Report
Connecticut Workers Fight Back
By Reginald Johnson
May 9, 2011
Everywhere they look, union workers see their middle class lifestyle being threatened.
Quality jobs are lost as manufacturing firms send work overseas. Governors in several states try to cut the pay and pensions of unionized public employees and take their bargaining rights away. Members of Congress set their sights on Medicare and Social Security as a way of reducing federal spending.
Increasingly, at rallies and protests around the nation, union workers are expressing their anger over this turn of events and their determination to do something about it.
On May Day, Connecticut’s unions joined in the fightback. Several hundred union workers and union officials rallied at the state capital, where Gov. Dannel Malloy is trying to force state employee unions to give up $2 billion in concessions to close a budget gap.
Speaker after speaker denounced the greed of corporations and the wealthy, who they said, are not doing their fair share to pay for government operations. They also attacked politicians who are looking to cut social benefit programs --- directing most of their fire at Republicans and not specifically criticizing Malloy or other Democrats.
The theme of the rally, appropriately, was “Enough is Enough.”
“So far all the answers to our problems is we have to give back. Well, why do we have to give back? “ asked State AFL-CIO President John Olsen. “So that corporations don’t have to pay taxes and they can get rebates? So that the rich can take all the wealth and hoard it?”
Olsen went on, “You know we in labor are always accused of waging class war. Well, let me tell you something brothers and sisters. There is a class war going on and it’s against the middle class. They’re trying to exterminate us!”
Ed Reilly, business manager of Local 15 of the Ironworkers said union workers are tired of being pushed around by corporate owners and their right-wing allies and are ready to take a more militant approach.
“Today we say no. We’re going to fight you on every corner. We’ll fight you in the legislatures and we’ll fight you in Congress. If necessary, we’ll fight you in the streets!” Reilly shouted as the crowd cheered.
Reilly also said, referring to those in the state legislature, “We put you in those offices, and we’ll take you out if necessary!”
Many of those at the rally were in the construction trades, including sheet metal workers and ironworkers. Also present in large numbers were members of the Teamsters union, including truck drivers and employees of Sikorsky Aircraft in Stratford, which makes helicopters for the military.
State and municipal workers who are members of AFSCME were also on hand. Municipal workers around the state are under the gun as cities strapped for cash look at possible layoffs as a means of cutting costs.
Many of the protesters wore T-shirts saying “Stop War on Workers.”
Speakers at the event and those in the audience stayed away from criticizing Malloy, even though the concessions being demanded from unions are substantial. News reports indicate there is a possibility of 4,700 layoffs if an agreement is not reached between unions and state officials.
Even Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman got up to say a few words at the rally, assuring the crowd that the administration supports unions. “We’re not like Wisconsin or Massachusetts,” she said, referring to anti-union bills that passed under a Republican governor in Wisconsin and some surprisingly anti-union legislation that is now being considered in heavily-Democratic Massachusetts.
Luke J. Ford, a representative of the Sheet Metal Workers, Local 40, said the recession and bad government policies are really creating tough times for many members.
“There’s too much off-shoring going on. We’re losing jobs,” he said. “We need more manufacturing.”
Ford said companies should only be allowed to move operations overseas if they can only sell their products those countries. He said firms are playing a double game --- running away from the U.S. to benefit from cheap labor in China and other countries, and then turning around and selling their products back here, where consumers have more money.
Ford also called for more government funding to create jobs.
June Pinkin, a retired school teacher from Manchester, who wore a sign saying “Jobs Not War,” said the state needs a more progressive income tax so that wealthier citizens pay a greater amount.
“The U.S.A. and Connecticut cannot afford low taxes on the rich,” she said.
By Reginald Johnson
May 9, 2011
Everywhere they look, union workers see their middle class lifestyle being threatened.
Quality jobs are lost as manufacturing firms send work overseas. Governors in several states try to cut the pay and pensions of unionized public employees and take their bargaining rights away. Members of Congress set their sights on Medicare and Social Security as a way of reducing federal spending.
Increasingly, at rallies and protests around the nation, union workers are expressing their anger over this turn of events and their determination to do something about it.
On May Day, Connecticut’s unions joined in the fightback. Several hundred union workers and union officials rallied at the state capital, where Gov. Dannel Malloy is trying to force state employee unions to give up $2 billion in concessions to close a budget gap.
Speaker after speaker denounced the greed of corporations and the wealthy, who they said, are not doing their fair share to pay for government operations. They also attacked politicians who are looking to cut social benefit programs --- directing most of their fire at Republicans and not specifically criticizing Malloy or other Democrats.
The theme of the rally, appropriately, was “Enough is Enough.”
“So far all the answers to our problems is we have to give back. Well, why do we have to give back? “ asked State AFL-CIO President John Olsen. “So that corporations don’t have to pay taxes and they can get rebates? So that the rich can take all the wealth and hoard it?”
Olsen went on, “You know we in labor are always accused of waging class war. Well, let me tell you something brothers and sisters. There is a class war going on and it’s against the middle class. They’re trying to exterminate us!”
Ed Reilly, business manager of Local 15 of the Ironworkers said union workers are tired of being pushed around by corporate owners and their right-wing allies and are ready to take a more militant approach.
“Today we say no. We’re going to fight you on every corner. We’ll fight you in the legislatures and we’ll fight you in Congress. If necessary, we’ll fight you in the streets!” Reilly shouted as the crowd cheered.
Reilly also said, referring to those in the state legislature, “We put you in those offices, and we’ll take you out if necessary!”
Many of those at the rally were in the construction trades, including sheet metal workers and ironworkers. Also present in large numbers were members of the Teamsters union, including truck drivers and employees of Sikorsky Aircraft in Stratford, which makes helicopters for the military.
State and municipal workers who are members of AFSCME were also on hand. Municipal workers around the state are under the gun as cities strapped for cash look at possible layoffs as a means of cutting costs.
Many of the protesters wore T-shirts saying “Stop War on Workers.”
Speakers at the event and those in the audience stayed away from criticizing Malloy, even though the concessions being demanded from unions are substantial. News reports indicate there is a possibility of 4,700 layoffs if an agreement is not reached between unions and state officials.
Even Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman got up to say a few words at the rally, assuring the crowd that the administration supports unions. “We’re not like Wisconsin or Massachusetts,” she said, referring to anti-union bills that passed under a Republican governor in Wisconsin and some surprisingly anti-union legislation that is now being considered in heavily-Democratic Massachusetts.
Luke J. Ford, a representative of the Sheet Metal Workers, Local 40, said the recession and bad government policies are really creating tough times for many members.
“There’s too much off-shoring going on. We’re losing jobs,” he said. “We need more manufacturing.”
Ford said companies should only be allowed to move operations overseas if they can only sell their products those countries. He said firms are playing a double game --- running away from the U.S. to benefit from cheap labor in China and other countries, and then turning around and selling their products back here, where consumers have more money.
Ford also called for more government funding to create jobs.
June Pinkin, a retired school teacher from Manchester, who wore a sign saying “Jobs Not War,” said the state needs a more progressive income tax so that wealthier citizens pay a greater amount.
“The U.S.A. and Connecticut cannot afford low taxes on the rich,” she said.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Commentary
Turning the Page?
By Reginald Johnson
May 3, 2011
So Osama Bin Laden is dead, reportedly killed by U.S. special forces in a commando raid on a compound in a city not far from Islamabad, Pakistan.
If this is true, that the alleged perpetrator of the 911 terror attacks on the U.S. is gone, then it is a time to breath a sigh of relief, close the chapter on this book and declare victory over al-Qaeda.
We can now say our mission in Afghanistan is over, we won, time to pack our bags. We can stop bombing the heck out of civilians, losing our own soldiers, and spending billions in the process. We can bring the troops home and start spending money not for war, but for addressing many domestic needs --- rebuilding our infrastructure, building new schools, building a better energy system, and widening health care opportunities.
I do hope the death of Bin Laden will be used by President Obama in a positive way to change American foreign policy and pull back from our massive involvement in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I think it would do our country --- and the world --- tremendous good.
But something tells me, it won’t happen that way. A couple of reasons for skepticism. First, history. Remember the “peace dividend?” That was the money that was supposed to be freed up when the old Soviet Union and communist countries in eastern Europe collapsed. That was the end of the Cold War, and the near elimination of communism --- after a 50-year struggle.
There was talk of substantial cutbacks in military spending and reducing our military presence around the globe. Not needed now.
Wrong. There were some modest cuts in defense spending, but nothing huge. In a few years, there was talk of new threats, this time from world-wide terrorism and new enemy states. By the end of the 1990s, we were hectoring Iraq over alleged weapons of mass destruction, expressing fear over Iran and sending missiles into Afghanistan to knock out a previous ally and now Islamic terrorist, Osama Bin Laden. And defense spending was back to the old clip.
Based on what happened then, you can expect right-wing politicians and many wormy Democrats to sound the alarm now that "the threat's not over" and "there's still enemies out there," and we can't pull back. These calls will create political pressure on Obama to "not pull out precipitously."
The other more subtle reason why the U.S. will remain parked in Afghanistan and Iraq --- albeit at a somewhat lower profile, but still with a substantial presence --- is oil. Iraq has lots of it, and Afghanistan is a key location for access to the vast oil and gas reserves of Central Asia. The U.S. does not want to lose out on its ability to tap this area and bring oil out via pipelines through Afghanistan. Chinese interests are involved in Central Asia to gain oil, and this is seen as a threat.
I never believed terrorism was the only reason for the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a lot about energy --- particularly in the case of Iraq --- and this fact has been covered up, even to this day. Revenge for 911 was the other part of it. There certainly was good reason to believe al-Qaeda and Bin Laden --- based in Afghanistan --- were the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, given previous terrorist incidents and public statements. American officials, including former President George W. Bush, claim they had enough information to justify the October 2001 attack on Afghanistan. ( It must be noted, however, that charges were never brought against Bin Laden, and the FBI said they had “no concrete evidence” linking him to 911).
I’m hoping against hope that there will be a page turning now. Let’s get back to focusing on our own country and providing jobs for everyone and rebuilding our economy.
By Reginald Johnson
May 3, 2011
So Osama Bin Laden is dead, reportedly killed by U.S. special forces in a commando raid on a compound in a city not far from Islamabad, Pakistan.
If this is true, that the alleged perpetrator of the 911 terror attacks on the U.S. is gone, then it is a time to breath a sigh of relief, close the chapter on this book and declare victory over al-Qaeda.
We can now say our mission in Afghanistan is over, we won, time to pack our bags. We can stop bombing the heck out of civilians, losing our own soldiers, and spending billions in the process. We can bring the troops home and start spending money not for war, but for addressing many domestic needs --- rebuilding our infrastructure, building new schools, building a better energy system, and widening health care opportunities.
I do hope the death of Bin Laden will be used by President Obama in a positive way to change American foreign policy and pull back from our massive involvement in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I think it would do our country --- and the world --- tremendous good.
But something tells me, it won’t happen that way. A couple of reasons for skepticism. First, history. Remember the “peace dividend?” That was the money that was supposed to be freed up when the old Soviet Union and communist countries in eastern Europe collapsed. That was the end of the Cold War, and the near elimination of communism --- after a 50-year struggle.
There was talk of substantial cutbacks in military spending and reducing our military presence around the globe. Not needed now.
Wrong. There were some modest cuts in defense spending, but nothing huge. In a few years, there was talk of new threats, this time from world-wide terrorism and new enemy states. By the end of the 1990s, we were hectoring Iraq over alleged weapons of mass destruction, expressing fear over Iran and sending missiles into Afghanistan to knock out a previous ally and now Islamic terrorist, Osama Bin Laden. And defense spending was back to the old clip.
Based on what happened then, you can expect right-wing politicians and many wormy Democrats to sound the alarm now that "the threat's not over" and "there's still enemies out there," and we can't pull back. These calls will create political pressure on Obama to "not pull out precipitously."
The other more subtle reason why the U.S. will remain parked in Afghanistan and Iraq --- albeit at a somewhat lower profile, but still with a substantial presence --- is oil. Iraq has lots of it, and Afghanistan is a key location for access to the vast oil and gas reserves of Central Asia. The U.S. does not want to lose out on its ability to tap this area and bring oil out via pipelines through Afghanistan. Chinese interests are involved in Central Asia to gain oil, and this is seen as a threat.
I never believed terrorism was the only reason for the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a lot about energy --- particularly in the case of Iraq --- and this fact has been covered up, even to this day. Revenge for 911 was the other part of it. There certainly was good reason to believe al-Qaeda and Bin Laden --- based in Afghanistan --- were the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, given previous terrorist incidents and public statements. American officials, including former President George W. Bush, claim they had enough information to justify the October 2001 attack on Afghanistan. ( It must be noted, however, that charges were never brought against Bin Laden, and the FBI said they had “no concrete evidence” linking him to 911).
I’m hoping against hope that there will be a page turning now. Let’s get back to focusing on our own country and providing jobs for everyone and rebuilding our economy.
Commentary
Stop the Madness
By Reginald Johnson
May 2, 2011
As the world marked the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident last week, you had to wonder whether our leaders have learned anything at all about the perils of nuclear power.
The Chernobyl disaster should have been enough to end the whole concept of developing energy through nuclear fission. The plant in the Ukraine exploded on April 26th, 1986, sending a cloud of radiation over much of the old Soviet Union and Europe. Dozens of firefighters died as a result of fighting the fire and getting acute radiation sickness.
Some 800,000 liquidators were brought in to clean up the wreckage and bury the radioactive waste at the plant and nearby towns. Thousands of them have died as a result of the radiation exposure. Children of liquidators have been born with deformities.
Some 150,000 to 200,000 people had to be permanently evacuated from the land around Chernobyl and huge areas are now uninhabitable because radioactivity remains in the soil.
Estimates range on how many people who lived in the area of the old Soviet Union and eastern Europe died as a result of radiation-induced cancers. Conservative estimates put the figure at 4500 while a Greenpeace study points to 200,000 deaths or expected deaths. But a more recent study by the New York Academy of Sciences said close to 1 million people have already died from the Chernobyl disaster.
Even in the early years after Chernobyl, it was clear the impact would be deadly and wide ranging. You would think government leaders in the U.S. and around the world might have paused and thought, ‘hey, maybe we better phase these nuclear plants out, or at least crack down on the facilities that have a history of safety problems.’ No, the nuclear industry was allowed to keep running their plants pretty much unfettered. This, despite the fact that some power stations had a pattern of safety violations while others sit precariously near earthquake fault lines.
It was just a matter of time before another disaster occurred, and so it did in Japan on March 11 of this year. A 9.0 earthquake hit the Asian nation and a resulting massive tsunami came crashing in on the Fukishima Daiichi power plant, which has six nuclear reactors. The cooling systems at the complex --- which are vital to prevent the radioactive fuel rods and spent fuel from overheating and exploding ---were knocked out with the loss of power. Hydrogen explosions then occurred, causing extensive damage.
A tremendous amount of water was dumped on the reactors to keep them cool. Eventually, power was restored, but due to the high level of radiation in the plant, workers have been unable to make the needed repairs to the cooling systems and the situation remains unstable.
Dr. Michio Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics at the City College of New York called the situation at Fukishima a “ticking time bomb” in an interview with Amy Goodman on the show Democracy Now!
As workers try feverishly to clear up the problems, the plant is emitting radiation into the air and soil, and dumping thousands of tons of radioactive waste water into the ocean.
Strontium 90 and plutonium, both lethal elements, have been found in the soil outside the plant. The tap water in Tokyo, 136 miles away, is now contaminated.
Winds have now carried radioactive particles around the world. Elements such as Iodine 131 ---- which is linked to thyroid cancer --- has shown up in the U.S. in municipal drinking water in Los Angeles, Phoenix and other cities. Cesium 137 has shown up in milk samples in Vermont.
Government officials in Japan and in the U.S. maintain the radioactive pollution is “within allowable limits” and not hazardous to humans. But this claim is debunked by nuclear critics.
Harvey Wasserman, a long-time anti-nuclear activist and writer, said there is no “safe” level of radiation exposure. “Anyone who tells you otherwise is either ill-informed or deliberately deceiving you. If it’s detectable, it’s dangerous. If iodine shows up in any quantity in milk, it should not be drunk,” Wasserman said during an interview with Scott Harris on the Between the Lines radio show.
Leaders Oblivious to Hazards
Despite the horror of Chernobyl and the ongoing crisis in Japan, world leaders support the continuation of nuclear energy.
With the exception of Germany, which will now phase out atomic plants (thank you to them), other countries stubbornly stick with the nuclear program.
President Barack Obama recently restated his support, saying developing nuclear was one major step in avoiding the use of carbon-based fuels, which create global warming. He never mentioned that a crash program to develop renewables, such as wind and solar, would get us away from fossil fuels and also avoid the huge risks inherent in nuclear power.
And despite Chernobyl still fresh in the memory of so many who lived in the Soviet Union, Russian President Dmtry Medvedev continues to back nuclear power. The Russians plan to help Turkey build new plants.
I must be missing something. The logic escapes me. Here you have two terrible disasters connected with nuclear power plants, fatal cancers left and right, a pretty bad accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, and national leaders still back nuclear power. Huh?
There are so many risks that go with running nuclear power plants --- so many chances for things to go wrong, and so much potential for the worst kind of health catastrophe.
Chernobyl showed what can happen when there is operator error; Fukishima is showing what can happen when a natural disaster strikes and cooling systems are knocked out.
Every nuke plant, as far as I am concerned, is fraught with danger. But I want to mention one in particular because it is near the nerve center of this country and the biggest population center of this country.
The Indian Point nuclear power station sits 19 miles from New York City --- with 7 million people, and millions more in the immediate environs. The plant also lies close to an earthquake fault! What happens if an earthquake knocks out power at the plant? Indian Point, like other U.S. plants, has no back-up power capability. You could have a partial meltdown or full meltdown and deadly radiation would shower the New York area.
Talk about an awful scenario.
It’s time to get real about nuclear power. It is simply not worth the risks.
We have alternatives.
Let’s move to close all these plants now and end nuclear power.
By Reginald Johnson
May 2, 2011
As the world marked the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident last week, you had to wonder whether our leaders have learned anything at all about the perils of nuclear power.
The Chernobyl disaster should have been enough to end the whole concept of developing energy through nuclear fission. The plant in the Ukraine exploded on April 26th, 1986, sending a cloud of radiation over much of the old Soviet Union and Europe. Dozens of firefighters died as a result of fighting the fire and getting acute radiation sickness.
Some 800,000 liquidators were brought in to clean up the wreckage and bury the radioactive waste at the plant and nearby towns. Thousands of them have died as a result of the radiation exposure. Children of liquidators have been born with deformities.
Some 150,000 to 200,000 people had to be permanently evacuated from the land around Chernobyl and huge areas are now uninhabitable because radioactivity remains in the soil.
Estimates range on how many people who lived in the area of the old Soviet Union and eastern Europe died as a result of radiation-induced cancers. Conservative estimates put the figure at 4500 while a Greenpeace study points to 200,000 deaths or expected deaths. But a more recent study by the New York Academy of Sciences said close to 1 million people have already died from the Chernobyl disaster.
Even in the early years after Chernobyl, it was clear the impact would be deadly and wide ranging. You would think government leaders in the U.S. and around the world might have paused and thought, ‘hey, maybe we better phase these nuclear plants out, or at least crack down on the facilities that have a history of safety problems.’ No, the nuclear industry was allowed to keep running their plants pretty much unfettered. This, despite the fact that some power stations had a pattern of safety violations while others sit precariously near earthquake fault lines.
It was just a matter of time before another disaster occurred, and so it did in Japan on March 11 of this year. A 9.0 earthquake hit the Asian nation and a resulting massive tsunami came crashing in on the Fukishima Daiichi power plant, which has six nuclear reactors. The cooling systems at the complex --- which are vital to prevent the radioactive fuel rods and spent fuel from overheating and exploding ---were knocked out with the loss of power. Hydrogen explosions then occurred, causing extensive damage.
A tremendous amount of water was dumped on the reactors to keep them cool. Eventually, power was restored, but due to the high level of radiation in the plant, workers have been unable to make the needed repairs to the cooling systems and the situation remains unstable.
Dr. Michio Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics at the City College of New York called the situation at Fukishima a “ticking time bomb” in an interview with Amy Goodman on the show Democracy Now!
As workers try feverishly to clear up the problems, the plant is emitting radiation into the air and soil, and dumping thousands of tons of radioactive waste water into the ocean.
Strontium 90 and plutonium, both lethal elements, have been found in the soil outside the plant. The tap water in Tokyo, 136 miles away, is now contaminated.
Winds have now carried radioactive particles around the world. Elements such as Iodine 131 ---- which is linked to thyroid cancer --- has shown up in the U.S. in municipal drinking water in Los Angeles, Phoenix and other cities. Cesium 137 has shown up in milk samples in Vermont.
Government officials in Japan and in the U.S. maintain the radioactive pollution is “within allowable limits” and not hazardous to humans. But this claim is debunked by nuclear critics.
Harvey Wasserman, a long-time anti-nuclear activist and writer, said there is no “safe” level of radiation exposure. “Anyone who tells you otherwise is either ill-informed or deliberately deceiving you. If it’s detectable, it’s dangerous. If iodine shows up in any quantity in milk, it should not be drunk,” Wasserman said during an interview with Scott Harris on the Between the Lines radio show.
Leaders Oblivious to Hazards
Despite the horror of Chernobyl and the ongoing crisis in Japan, world leaders support the continuation of nuclear energy.
With the exception of Germany, which will now phase out atomic plants (thank you to them), other countries stubbornly stick with the nuclear program.
President Barack Obama recently restated his support, saying developing nuclear was one major step in avoiding the use of carbon-based fuels, which create global warming. He never mentioned that a crash program to develop renewables, such as wind and solar, would get us away from fossil fuels and also avoid the huge risks inherent in nuclear power.
And despite Chernobyl still fresh in the memory of so many who lived in the Soviet Union, Russian President Dmtry Medvedev continues to back nuclear power. The Russians plan to help Turkey build new plants.
I must be missing something. The logic escapes me. Here you have two terrible disasters connected with nuclear power plants, fatal cancers left and right, a pretty bad accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, and national leaders still back nuclear power. Huh?
There are so many risks that go with running nuclear power plants --- so many chances for things to go wrong, and so much potential for the worst kind of health catastrophe.
Chernobyl showed what can happen when there is operator error; Fukishima is showing what can happen when a natural disaster strikes and cooling systems are knocked out.
Every nuke plant, as far as I am concerned, is fraught with danger. But I want to mention one in particular because it is near the nerve center of this country and the biggest population center of this country.
The Indian Point nuclear power station sits 19 miles from New York City --- with 7 million people, and millions more in the immediate environs. The plant also lies close to an earthquake fault! What happens if an earthquake knocks out power at the plant? Indian Point, like other U.S. plants, has no back-up power capability. You could have a partial meltdown or full meltdown and deadly radiation would shower the New York area.
Talk about an awful scenario.
It’s time to get real about nuclear power. It is simply not worth the risks.
We have alternatives.
Let’s move to close all these plants now and end nuclear power.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Report
Obama’s No Show
By Reginald Johnson
March 16, 2011
At a rally last weekend in New York on behalf of the embattled public workers in Wisconsin, one of the most popular tunes sung by the protesters was “Which Side Are You On?”
It’s an old union song, made famous during a bitter strike by workers in the 1940s against coal mine operators in Harlan County, Kentucky.
Today, a lot of people have to be wondering which side President Obama is on --- the side of unions and workers, or big corporations and their right-wing allies.
You would think that a Democratic president who owes his election in good part to the hard work of union members and contributions by organized workers, would be out there fighting against blatant attempts to eviscerate public sector unions. But Obama has failed to do that.
While he’s made a couple of statements in support of unions under attack in Wisconsin and other states, they’ve been mild in tone --- not the firey, passionate speeches Obama is fully capable of making.
He’s also refused to go directly to Wisconsin and speak, and refused to allow any top people in his administration, such as Vice President Joe Biden, from going.
What’s happening?
Obama is showing once again he’s not very progressive, and really not much of a labor supporter either, despite the union support he’s gotten for his campaigns. Recall in his first year in office, he never really campaigned for the “card check” bill which would have aided union organizing and which the AFL-CIO so desperately wanted. Then last year he stunned the labor community when he praised school district officials in Rhode Island for firing all the union teachers at a low performing high school.
National politics is also at work here. Obama seems to be playing a game of not being too spirited in supporting unions in Wisconsin and Ohio, lest he be open to a Republican charge of being a ‘tool of union bosses’ and blocking budget reform.
This is all very troubling. The labor movement’s very survival may be on the line right now as the right-wing attack on workers continues, and the leader of the Democratic Party doesn’t think it’s in his interest to get out and really fight for working people.
I can’t think of any Democratic president in the past who would have been this low-key when unions were under such a vicious attack.
In the meantime, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has gotten his way, at least for now, ramming through the bill that curbs bargaining rights for public workers. Other right-wing governors in Ohio, Idaho and Florida are also working to gut the power of public employee unions.
Obama, and many leading Democratic members of Congress as well, better realize that the progressive-liberal base has woken up during this Wisconsin-Ohio labor battle, and people are not in the mood for the usual political fence-sitting and game-playing. They want answers and they want leaders who will stand by them.
Hundreds of thousands of workers, activists and supporters have been rallying for weeks in Wisconsin and Ohio, refusing to cave in to the demand that public employees give up their rights.
Last weekend, over 100,000 people rallied in the Wisconsin capital of Madison to again protest Walker’s bill and voiced their support for a recall drive directed at all the Republican state senators who backed the measure. They also welcomed back like conquering heroes the 14 Democratic senators who had fled the state for weeks, to prevent the GOP from getting the quorum needed to act on the bill. The Republicans nonetheless staged a last minute legislative maneuver to get the bill through without the Democrats.
Other demonstrations broke out spontaneously around the country in support of the Wisconsin workers.
In Union Square in New York, about 70 people gathered in an impromptu rally, carrying signs denouncing Walker, singing along with a pick-up band and shouting pro-worker chants.
While the rally wasn’t big, it wasn’t bad for a protest thrown together on short notice, just a day after Walker signed the union-killing law.
Bill Linville, a Bronx school teacher who helped organize the protest, said it was important to show solidarity with workers in Wisconsin.
“What happened in Wisconsin could happen here,” said Linville, noting that New York leaders like Mayor Michael Bloomberg are threatening huge teacher layoffs, despite a budget surplus.
“This is our PATCO moment,” said Linville, referring to the time 30 years ago when then President Ronald Reagan fired members of the air traffic contollers union, when employees walked off the job in a dispute over working conditions.
Many observers feel that labor as a whole did too little to oppose the firings, and unions have been in retreat ever since.
“I’m behind the Wisconsin workers a kuzillion percent,” said Rosemarie, a retiree who was visiting New York from her home in Pennsylvania. She saw the rally and decided to jump in.
“If that kind of thing can be done out there to workers, it could happen all over, and our whole quality of life will be worse, she said.
By Reginald Johnson
March 16, 2011
At a rally last weekend in New York on behalf of the embattled public workers in Wisconsin, one of the most popular tunes sung by the protesters was “Which Side Are You On?”
It’s an old union song, made famous during a bitter strike by workers in the 1940s against coal mine operators in Harlan County, Kentucky.
Today, a lot of people have to be wondering which side President Obama is on --- the side of unions and workers, or big corporations and their right-wing allies.
You would think that a Democratic president who owes his election in good part to the hard work of union members and contributions by organized workers, would be out there fighting against blatant attempts to eviscerate public sector unions. But Obama has failed to do that.
While he’s made a couple of statements in support of unions under attack in Wisconsin and other states, they’ve been mild in tone --- not the firey, passionate speeches Obama is fully capable of making.
He’s also refused to go directly to Wisconsin and speak, and refused to allow any top people in his administration, such as Vice President Joe Biden, from going.
What’s happening?
Obama is showing once again he’s not very progressive, and really not much of a labor supporter either, despite the union support he’s gotten for his campaigns. Recall in his first year in office, he never really campaigned for the “card check” bill which would have aided union organizing and which the AFL-CIO so desperately wanted. Then last year he stunned the labor community when he praised school district officials in Rhode Island for firing all the union teachers at a low performing high school.
National politics is also at work here. Obama seems to be playing a game of not being too spirited in supporting unions in Wisconsin and Ohio, lest he be open to a Republican charge of being a ‘tool of union bosses’ and blocking budget reform.
This is all very troubling. The labor movement’s very survival may be on the line right now as the right-wing attack on workers continues, and the leader of the Democratic Party doesn’t think it’s in his interest to get out and really fight for working people.
I can’t think of any Democratic president in the past who would have been this low-key when unions were under such a vicious attack.
In the meantime, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has gotten his way, at least for now, ramming through the bill that curbs bargaining rights for public workers. Other right-wing governors in Ohio, Idaho and Florida are also working to gut the power of public employee unions.
Obama, and many leading Democratic members of Congress as well, better realize that the progressive-liberal base has woken up during this Wisconsin-Ohio labor battle, and people are not in the mood for the usual political fence-sitting and game-playing. They want answers and they want leaders who will stand by them.
Hundreds of thousands of workers, activists and supporters have been rallying for weeks in Wisconsin and Ohio, refusing to cave in to the demand that public employees give up their rights.
Last weekend, over 100,000 people rallied in the Wisconsin capital of Madison to again protest Walker’s bill and voiced their support for a recall drive directed at all the Republican state senators who backed the measure. They also welcomed back like conquering heroes the 14 Democratic senators who had fled the state for weeks, to prevent the GOP from getting the quorum needed to act on the bill. The Republicans nonetheless staged a last minute legislative maneuver to get the bill through without the Democrats.
Other demonstrations broke out spontaneously around the country in support of the Wisconsin workers.
In Union Square in New York, about 70 people gathered in an impromptu rally, carrying signs denouncing Walker, singing along with a pick-up band and shouting pro-worker chants.
While the rally wasn’t big, it wasn’t bad for a protest thrown together on short notice, just a day after Walker signed the union-killing law.
Bill Linville, a Bronx school teacher who helped organize the protest, said it was important to show solidarity with workers in Wisconsin.
“What happened in Wisconsin could happen here,” said Linville, noting that New York leaders like Mayor Michael Bloomberg are threatening huge teacher layoffs, despite a budget surplus.
“This is our PATCO moment,” said Linville, referring to the time 30 years ago when then President Ronald Reagan fired members of the air traffic contollers union, when employees walked off the job in a dispute over working conditions.
Many observers feel that labor as a whole did too little to oppose the firings, and unions have been in retreat ever since.
“I’m behind the Wisconsin workers a kuzillion percent,” said Rosemarie, a retiree who was visiting New York from her home in Pennsylvania. She saw the rally and decided to jump in.
“If that kind of thing can be done out there to workers, it could happen all over, and our whole quality of life will be worse, she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)