People Before Profit blog

Stock market drops 777 points as House votes down Wall Street bailout

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:24:00 +0000

The stock market dropped by 777 points today, in response to the bailout vote in Congress, its largest numerical drop in history. As a percentage of overall volume, the drop did not measure in the top ten – at least not yet. The vote was in response to widespread anger at the proposed bailout of Wall Street. Joining together were right-wing conservatives, middle-of-the-roaders and progressives. Strange bedfellows indeed.

The new proposal modified by rushed weekend negotiations contained provisions to limit corporate golden parachutes and provide greater tax-payer relief and recovery of assets with a form of IOU’s if stocks recover and can be sold for better yields. Included also were insurance measures for bad debts to allay conservative concerns. However when the votes were cast, these provisions were not nearly enough to prevent a Republican revolt from the leadership of George Bush and John McCain, the main cause of the victory of today’s naysayers, The House rejected the package 228 – 205. 133 of the no votes came from Republicans. Only 65 Republicans voted in favor of the measure.

New York Times reporter David Herszenhorn commented that the 65 Republican votes was the “operative number.” The Democrats he continued knew that they needed a bipartisan vote in order to win. Bush and McCain in an enormous display of lame-duck weakness and Republican disarray were unable to muster the needed votes.

House members, up for re-election in just a few weeks in the case of Republicans may have voted their fear and not their pocket books. Ideological considerations may also have played a role with some Republicans seeing the government bailout and intervention as threatening “socialism.”

Operatives in the McCain campaign were quick to blame Democrats and Barack Obama for the vote raising speculation of continuing tactical shenanigans from the Republican side. Many of the no votes came from Gingrich Republicans. Gingrich had been campaigning against the Paulson plan.

Democrats voted against the measure for still other reasons. The Cleveland Plain Dealer's Sabrina Eaton writes that the Ohio’s “Marcy Kaptur, a Toledo Democrat, said the bill would concentrate more financial power into Wall Street megabanks.” On the other hand Dennis Kucinich, a Cleveland Democrat, said 'the bill wouldn't keep more people in their homes because it wouldn't give federal authorities any ability to change mortgage terms to avoid foreclosures. If we had a plan that focuses on saving families' homes, it would actually do more for the economy than this bill,' Kucinich said “What's good for Wall Street is good for Main Street? Not today.”

Similar attitudes were expressed in neighboring Michigan. The Detroit Free Press reported that Congresswoman Cheeks-Kilpatrick said 'the legislation did not go far enough to guarantee that people facing foreclosures would be able to remain in their homes.” Kilpartrick is the chair of the Black Congressional Caucus whose annual legislative weekend ended a few days ago. Much anger at Wall Street was expressed at the event.

Justin Hyde of the Free Press wrote that before the bill was voted on Rep. John Conyers expressed big doubts. Asked what he thought of it, Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, said, 'Not much.We're waiting to see how much room there is for improvement,” he said, following a meeting of what some House Democrats called the skeptics' caucus. “I can tell you we haven't gotten one call in 10 days in support of this plan.”

Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland also expressed similar views according to Oakland Tribune’s Josh Richman: 'First, it does little to address the underlying problem - the foreclosure crisis. We need a moratorium on foreclosures and bankruptcy reform to help people stay in their homes. Second, this bill should be paid for by the high-flying industry that created this problem.”

Richman also reported that a study done by a Berkley outfit that analyses money in politics that Democrats and Republicans who received the largest campaign contributions by banks and financial institutions – some twice – as much, voted in favor of the legislation as compared to those who didn’t:

“MAPLight found the 140 House Democrats voting “yes” received an average of $212,700 each, about twice as much as the average $107,993 for the 95 House Democrats who voted “no.” On the other side of the aisle, the 65 House Republicans voting “yes” received an average of $273,181 each, about 50 percent more than the average $181,688 for the 133 House Republicans voting “no.”

However, it would wrong to conclude that yes votes were simply a matter of campaign contributions as many progressives voted for the bailout with an eye toward the markets and the November election.

The financial crisis and the 2008 elections

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:41:00 +0000

John McCain is posing as a populist. In a typical sound bite, he says, 'We need to put our country first and focus what's best for Main Street. It's the excess and greed of Washington and Wall Street that got us in this situation to start with.' (CNN.com. quoting McCain in a campaign stop in Media, Penn., Sept. 22 or 23).This theme was echoed by the majority of Republicans who voted against the deal in the House on Sept. 29.

As part of his populist message, McCain demanded a cap in compensation for CEOs for companies that participate in the government rescue to no more than $400,000 -- the amount the president makes.

The same story continued, 'We can't have taxpayers footing the bill for bloated golden parachutes,' McCain said. 'The senior executives of any firm that's bailed out by the Treasury should not be making more money than the highest-paid government office.'

'Never before in the history of our nation has so much power and money been concentrated in the hands of one person,' McCain said. 'This arrangement makes me deeply uncomfortable. And when we're talking about a trillion dollars of taxpayer money, 'trust me' just isn't good enough.'

Many media stories implied that McCain and Barack Obama have similar approaches. This is not true. Obama called for measures that go far beyond feel-good gimmicks like capping executive compensation. (The cap on executive compensation is likely to be temporary, full of loopholes, and will save relatively little.) The most important parts of Obama's program would provide direct bottom-up help, as well as steps to rein in the financial industry:

● Help for families facing foreclosure, possibly by having government purchase the mortgages directly (presumably at a discount, and presumably with the intent to modify their terms). ● An economic stimulus package that includes 'a plan that would help folks cope with rising food and gas prices, save one million jobs by rebuilding our schools and roads, help states and cities avoid painful budget cuts and tax increases, and help homeowners stay in their homes.' not as part of the rescue legislation but to be moved on rapidly. ● Institute a Financial Stability Fee (apparently a tax of some kind) on the entire financial services industry to repay losses the people have suffered.

These demands might not be broad enough or deep enough, but they are definitely in the right direction.

McCain's record

McCain has followed Bush as the champion particularly of the military-industrial complex and of the energy industry. Through his family he is a member of the military elite, and through his marriage he is connected to the corporate elite. On economic matters, he relies on economic advisers who not only represent the interests of the financial industry, but personify the open corruption and looting that have come to characterize finance in recent decades.

Foremost amongst these advisers is former Senator Phil Gramm. McCain and Gramm have worked together for years, supporting each other's presidential bids. Gramm was forced to resign as co-chair of McCain's campaign after his remarks that US is a “nation of whiners,” but while McCain repudiated Gramm's remarks, he has never repudiated Gramm or his policies. In any case, McCain's economic philosophy has been shaped by Gramm.

Gramm pushed through the 1999 bank deregulation bill, which allowed the wave of mergers and speculation in the financial industry. McCain remains a strong supporter of this legislation, and now calls for the same kind of deregulation for health insurance, according to a Communication Workers of America fact sheet.

In December 2000, Gramm pushed through the commodities trading bill that allowed Enron first to fleece Californians of tens of billions of dollars, and then to collapse spectacularly, triggering the first financial scandal of the Bush administration. In the meantime, Gramm's wife Wendy was paid over $1M to serve on Enron's Board of directors. The commodities legislation also allowed for “credit default swaps,” an esoteric financial arrangement that made risky investments look safer, and contributed to the recent meltdown, all according to CWA.

It's not just Gramm

McCain follows the Gramm's principles of deregulation in every aspect of economic policy.

He says he wants to do for health care “what we have done over the last decade in banking.” He still favors privatizing and undermining social security.

McCain says he is a patriot, but he wants to continue to allow the fate of our economy, our health care system, our retirement, to be in the hands of a small band of super-rich, elite, corrupt, egotistical vultures whose only goal is to maximize profit.

The candidates are not the same

Some of the press coverage has implied that McCain and Obama have similar positions. It is possible that the Obama campaign has contributed to this by emphasizing the emergency nature of the crisis and expressing willingness to work in a bipartisan manner. The media has contributed by focusing on feel-good side issues like executive pay, which McCain and other right-wing Republicans can easily wax indignant about, while advancing so-called solutions that will have almost no effect.

The key difference is this. Obama, and/or congressional Democratic leaders, call for measures that actually help the working class:

● Help for families facing foreclosure ● An economic stimulus package that including jobs, infrastructure, aid to cities and states. ● A Financial Stability Fee (apparently a tax of some kind) on the entire financial services industry to repay losses the people have suffered. ● Improvements in unemployment compensation ● Repeal tax cuts for the rich; cut taxes for the working class. ● Protect social security ● Improve health coverage ● Pass the EFCA

These are important not only in themselves. If pursued correctly (a big if) they provide the only solid basis for easing the financial crisis. As long as tens of millions of Americans are crushed by unpayable levels mortgage and credit card debt, there can be no real stability in financial markets. As long as families are being foreclosed and evicted, there can be no stability in the housing market.

The Sept. 27 PWW editorial expresses this very well: “The crisis in the real economy on Main Street is the true underlying crisis. Any bailout plan must address this crisis. Failure to do so would make the Wall Street fix short-lived and set the stage for an even bigger future squeeze on the hard-pressed American people.”

The real difference was seen in the first debate between McCain and Obama. The moderator, Jim Lehrer, repeatedly stated, as if it were a fact, that the proposed bailout will force cutbacks in other priorities, and asked each candidate what they would drop from their program. Obama, while failing to challenge Lehrer's assumption, insisted the he would proceed with his main priorities on health care, energy security, and infrastructure rebuilding.

McCain repeatedly stated that his top priority is to cut government spending. He played the favorite theme of right-wing populists – cutting waste, particularly earmarks. But earmarks and waste are a relatively small part of government spending, and the deregulated environment McCain supports makes it controlling waste even harder. More fundamental is the fact that the country is already in recession, and it will be a lot worse by the time the new President takes office. In a recession, the need and demand for government spending and services increases. Many programs are constructed to automatically increase spending in hard times -- unemployment compensation, Medicaid, food stamps. And sound public policy for the past 70 years has included increased spending on public works and other needs to help counteract the downturn. An attempt to cut government spending during a serious recession would have a far worse impact on the overall economy, and on the lives of working class families, than allowing Wall Street banks to fail!

After the election

We should be very clear. On Nov. 5, the real offensive against the working class will begin. The Republicans who attack the bailout plan from the right, and the Republican pragmatists who support the bailout plan, will agree that the country cannot afford Social Security, Medicare or any other program that benefits working people, or even basic measures to maintain the physical and social infrastructure.

No matter what plan is passed or not passed, the position of US imperialism will continue to decline. The dollar will decline, tending to raise interest rates and prices. The US overseas empire will cost more and more to maintain, a cost born by the American people; the benefits of empire, which accrue entirely to the biggest capitalists, will decline.

The contradiction between ruling class interests and the interests of ordinary people will become sharper. At some point, Wall Street will pose the question to the new administration – which is more important, maintaining the confidence of investors, or maintaining Social Security benefits? Which is more important, the stability of the financial markets or providing health care? Always with the threat – if you don't do things our way, the Wall Street way, the economy will collapse and you will be even worse off.

When those questions are asked, who do you want in the White House? Obama, of course, has his share of Wall Street advisers, and so far has seemed, to me, to be trying to please both Wall Street and Main Street. But an Obama administration will be open to mass pressure, and has strong pro-labor and pro-people influences as well as Wall Street influences.

Despite superficial populist rhetoric, McCain has one message: end all government regulation; turn everything over to the insurance and finance industries and the military-industrial complex. If you don't like it, tough! Suck it up, join the army, and help liberate Iran/Georgia/Venezuela/Russia for Exxon.

Art Perlo (econ4ppl@cpusa.org) is chair of the Communist Party’s economic commission.

Stop the U.S.-India nuclear deal

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:33:00 +0000

By this time next week, Congress will likely have left Washington for the countdown to Election Day. Before your representative and senators go home, President Bush is urging them to rush through a nuclear cooperation agreement with India allowing that country to resume nuclear testing without facing international sanctions. India has already exploded one nuclear weapon and has refused to join the international agreement to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Urge your members of Congress to oppose any deal with India allowing that country to resume nuclear testing.

Congress could improve relations with India without agreeing to its resumption of nuclear testing, without enabling the Indian government to increase production of nuclear weapons by up to 500 percent. Congress should insist that before the United States signs any nuclear cooperation agreement, India agree to not produce or test any more nuclear weapons; sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits all nuclear test explosions; and stop the production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium - fissile materials used in the production of nuclear weapons. All five acknowledged nuclear weapons states (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have halted production of fissile materials.

Insisting on these safeguards would likely mean that the agreement would be dead for this Congress. A dead agreement would be better than one that undermines efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

Friends Committee on National Legislation is a Quaker lobby in the public interest.

A modest proposal: How about a trickle-up bailout instead of trickle-down

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:27:00 +0000

Perhaps the biggest fault of the bailout being debated (possibly passed by the time you read this) is that it is based on the idea that the relief given to Wall Street will trickle down to hard hit working class folks on Your Street.

Who knows? Given that the underlying problem of crazy predatory mortgages and lending practices, and the housing bubble are not fundamentally addressed, then the bailout could just as well not avert a meltdown. Most people you talk to don’t have much confidence that the bailout will slow foreclosures, unemployment or declining incomes.

But what if the bailout went the other way? What if taxpayers bail out themselves and then the benefit trickled up?

How could you do it? What if everyone who has lost a home to foreclosure in the last year, or is in foreclosure, or is behind on their house payments, got a bailout directly from the Treasury? This would be a direct injection of liquidity into the financial markets. Banks and lending institutions would receive an infusion of cold hard cash from their victims, er… customers. This would immediately stimulate consumer spending also. It would free up stressed incomes for working class families and right the injustice of the unfair and predatory lending practices used by the big finance boys on Wall Street. If this works then Congress might want to extend it to car loans and other big loans – this would inject liquidity into the auto industry instead of the $25 billion taxpayer bailout to auto already passed by Congress.

I can hear the rightwing now. How can you reward those who used poor judgment and borrowed over their ability to pay back? Well yeah…. Isn’t that the “principal” that is already enshrined in the Wall Street bailout? Not to mention that the housing bubble that got us into this mess began with risky, predatory loans. But now increasingly the crisis involves conventional loans, overwhelmingly by folks who have faithfully paid their mortgages. Wouldn’t millions of people getting a several thousand dollar bailout do more to free up spending and money circulation than a few dozen big lenders getting billions to put in their bank vaults?

This could even be extended to health care. Instead of a bailout of insurance vampires like AIG, or silly schemes to give tax credits for private purchase of insurance, why not pay the full premiums with no deductibles and no co-pays for every person in the US (Might be called single payer). Then, working class families (the overwhelming majority) again, would have more cash to circulate and consume – billions in liquidity. And corporations would shed billions in healthcare costs thus freeing up huge amounts of capital to invest in creating jobs and Greening their industries. Congress might then realize that the predatory “middlemen” of big financials, like private insurance companies, don’t really play any useful purpose anyway – and could be allowed to go out of the healthcare business.

Not only would $700,000,000,000 probably be enough for a trickle up bailout, it would probably also calm world markets faster, because it would get at the root of the current economic crisis. And it would promote goodwill and a better image of America. It would show that even under gigantic state owned capitalism with all its vast inequalities, it is still possible to fight and win humane, logical, people-helping solutions.

I can hear my conservative friends now, “This will only lead to even bigger public programs. People will start taking about nationalizing the big oil and energy companies, nationalizing the banking system, free education and child care, and on and on.”

Well yeah……

Guide to financial crisis: week 2

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:51:00 +0000

Articles and Resources on the Economic Crisis

The week of September 22, 2008, saw huge popular opposition to the Bush administration's bailout of Wall Street banks at taxpayer's expense. While stabilization of credit markets and banking sector is crucial, the smart choice is to pursue a solution that addresses the fundamental causes of the collapse and helps working families avoid further economic calamity.

The week of September 15, 2008 was a dramatic and unprecedented period in the world of high finance. The economic crisis is not over despite what some pundits and politicians have claimed. A series of government interventions have changed the map of banking and finance.

So what does it all mean? What will be impact of the Wall Street bankruptcies, bailouts and blunders on working people in this country and worldwide? What's the solution to the crisis?

Perhaps only time will tell the full extent of the impact. Needless to say, this week’s developments don’t bode well for the future. Here are some thoughts from contributors to the People’s Weekly World and Political Affairs and leaders of the Communist Party on the current economic crisis, the policies that got us to this point and the historical precedents.

We will update this resource list in the days and weeks to come, as the full scope of the crisis is better known.

Week of Sept. 22

Editorial: Shock and Awe Revisited
Sept. 25, 2008 – People's Weekly World

$700,000,000,000 for what?
By John Wojcik Sept. 25, 2008 – People's Weekly World

Reject the 'Bankers' Strike': Groups Demand No Bailout Without Conditions
Sept. 25, 2008 – PoliticalAffairs.net

Rescue Me!: What Else Could We Use the Bailout Money For?'
By Peter Zerner and Joel Wendland
Sept. 25, 2008 – PoliticalAffairs.net

Barney Smith, Not Smith Barney
By Joelle Fishman
Sept. 24, 2008 – People's Weekly World

Save Main Street, Not Wall Street
By Communist Party USA
Sept. 23, 2008 – CPUSA.org

Ramming Through the Bailout
By Sam Webb
Sept. 23, 2008 – CPUSA.org

Wall Street Bailout: Not Without Preconditions
By Joel Wendland
Sept. 23, 2008 – PoliticalAffairs.net

Week of Sept. 15:

EDITORIAL:

Bailout Main Street
Sept. 19, 2008 – People's Weekly World

Economic Meltdown
By Joel Wendland
Sept. 19, 2008 – PoliticalAffairs.net

Wall Street meltdown wallops Main Street
By Phil Cadman
Sept. 19, 2008 – People's Weekly World

From Archives:

Is Freddie Mac

really never coming back?
By John Wojcik
Sept. 8, 2008 — People's Weekly World

Got money?

By Marilyn Bechtel
Aug. 15, 2008 — People's Weekly World

Mac

the Knife: Cut the Needy to Feed the Greedy
By Joelle Fishman
July 24, 2008 — PoliticalAffairs.net

Interview

with Doug Henwood, Left Business Observer
May 29, 2008 — PoliticalAffairs.net

It’s

Time for a New Deal
by Norman Markowitz
May 29, 2008 — PoliticalAffairs.net

Financial

Crisis and Class Struggle
By Paulo Nakatani and Rémy Herrera

May 28, 2008 — PoliticalAffairs.net

Foreclosures point to systemic crisis

By Denise

Winebrenner Edwards
April 4, 2007 — People's Weekly World

Bailout goes to

Wall Street, not Main Street
By John Wojcik
March 20, 2008 — People's Weekly World

Things Fall Apart: Wall Street and the Crisis of US Imperialism
By Joe Sims and Joel Wendland
March 2008 – PoliticalAffairs.net

Weathering

the Storm: the economic recession
Video interview with Sam Webb
March 10, 2008 — Communist Party USA

Unions tackle

housing, foreclosure crisis
By John Wojcik
March 9, 2008 — People's Weekly World

Interview

with Art Perlo, CP Economics Commission
Feb. 15, 2008 — PoliticalAffairs.net

To fix economy

put working class first
By Teresa Albano
Jan. 24, 2008 — People's Weekly World

Banks bilk

homebuyers, Black, Latino families hit hardest
By Tim Wheeler
Jan. 19, 2008 — People's Weekly World

A look behind

the housing crisis
By Art Perlo
Aug. 30, 2007 — People's Weekly World

Mortgage crisis

stoked by incredible greed
By Susan Webb
Aug. 16, 2007 — People's Weekly World

Corporate

thievery, a new political moment
By Sam Webb
July 20, 2002 — People's Weekly World

En Español:

La crisis

económica y las viviendas
Por Art Perlo
26 de Julio, 2008 — Nuestro Mundo

Californias budget: 85 days late & billions of dollars short

Sat, 27 Sep 2008 08:00:00 +0000

After an unprecedented nearly three-month delay, California finally has a budget. The $103 billion-plus spending plan — born of a year-long struggle between legislative majority Democrats trying to minimize cuts to social services, minority Republicans rejecting any new taxes, and a Republican governor seeking to raise revenues through a temporary sales tax hike and gambling on future lottery proceeds — is being roundly criticized on all sides.

At issue was a $15.2 billion gap in the general fund budget, as the financial crisis and especially the sinking housing market depressed revenues. Underlying the unprecedented delay was California’s requirement that budgets and tax increases must both be passed by a two-thirds majority. This has allowed Republican legislators to hold the process hostage to their no-new-tax pledge.

Before signing the budget on Sept. 23, Schwarzenegger removed a further half-billion dollars through line-item vetoes, especially to senior, welfare, health and mental health programs.

Saying the budget “does not represent the values of California’s working families,” California Labor Federation head Art Pulaski said in a statement that it “relies on sleight of hand and downright thievery from those who can least afford it … This ‘no new taxes’ budget really means ‘let the grandkids pay for it later.’”

Anthony Wright, executive director of the Health Access coalition, wrote on the organization’s web site, “With his line item vetoes, the governor has made an already bad budget even worse.” He noted that the budget passed by the legislature already included big cuts for doctors and other health providers, higher premiums for children in the Healthy Families program, and increased reporting requirements for low-income families which he said were aimed at having a quarter-million children drop out of coverage.

Both K-12 education and public higher education were hit hard in the final budget. California Federation of Teachers President Marty Hittelman said in a Sept. 24 San Francisco Chronicle op-ed that CFT believes both “progressive tax policies” under which the wealthiest 1 percent would “pay a bit more,” and elimination of the two-thirds requirement to pass a budget are needed to straighten out the mess.

The final budget includes over $10 billion in spending cuts and only one small permanent tax change, requiring buyers of boats, vehicles and aircraft to keep them out of state for a year (instead of the former three months) to avoid paying a use tax. It limits business’ use of tax credits and net operating loss deductions in the next two years in exchange for a budget-busting loosening of those provisions in future years. It also calls for issuing bonds against future state lottery proceeds. Left mainly intact were so-called public safety programs involving police, juvenile justice programs and rural sheriffs. Left out of their jobs at least for the coming year were about 10,000 “temporary” workers, some employed in state agencies for years.

As they waited for the budget to be finalized, thousands of institutions — from health clinics to senior and substance abuse programs — were left without the payments they depend on to keep their doors open. Earlier this month, San Francisco Bay Area legislators joined the Oakland-based Alzheimers Services of the East Bay for a press conference. “People don’t realize the decisions they make today affect not only my mother” but many others in the community, said Joann Bell, whose mother attends an adult day health care program run by ASEB. Bell said without the program, she would have to quit her job to care for her mother 24 hours a day, putting both of them in dire economic straits.

ASEB’s deputy director, Micheal Pope, told how the agency had used its building as collateral to obtain loans that enabled it to keep going. “But come Halloween, we’ll be in deep trouble,” she said.

As they spoke, they were flanked by Democratic Assemblymembers Sandre Swanson and Loni Hancock. The fundamental issue is “what kind of California we will live in,” Swanson said. “California must decide what it stands for and then we have to provide the needed services.” Hancock called for a constitutional amendment to pass budgets by a simple majority.

Voters would have to okay such an amendment. This week the Public Policy Institute of California released figures showing likely voters for the first time favoring the proposal by 46 percent to 43 percent — a big change from last year when 56 percent thought it was a bad idea.

mbechtel @pww.org

Obama lays out vision for 21st century schools

Sat, 27 Sep 2008 07:25:00 +0000

Barack Obama laid out the changes he would bring to the nation’s educational system as president in a forum last month in Dayton, Ohio.

He asked why countries like China, India, South Korea and Japan have advanced their economies by changing their education systems, while America continues to fall behind. Obama noted the United States has the highest rate of high school dropouts of any industrialized country and that a large percentage of our students are not proficient in math and science — skills needed for the new jobs of the 21st century. “Only 1 in 10 low-income students will get a college degree,” he told the Sept. 9 forum. “I find this morally unacceptable for our children and for our country.”

“Two-thirds of all the new jobs will require advanced training or college degrees,” he said, adding that these are the jobs workers need to support their families.

Obama said he wants to give every child in the USA a world class education from birth to college graduation. He intends to greatly increase funding for early childhood education in order to ensure that all students entering kindergarten are ready to learn.

Our country must recruit, prepare and retain 30,000 high quality teachers a year, especially to teach math and science, he said. His Teacher Residency Program would pair new teachers with successful experienced teachers.

Teachers must be held to high standards and be accountable in their students’ teaching/learning process. To accomplish this, they should be given the support and help they need, he said, but if a teacher doesn’t improve after help is given, that teacher must be replaced. Obama said he will implement a $4,000 college tuition tax credit for those willing to serve their communities, so that anyone who wants to attend college can have the opportunity.

Obama stressed innovation in his speech, proposing that Congress establish an education innovation fund. He described Austin Polytech High School in Chicago as an example of what an innovative curriculum can do. Students there are prepared for a career in engineering, receiving two industrial certifications at graduation. Another program Obama pointed to is the Harlem Children’s Zone, encompassing two charter schools with built-in social programs that include parenting classes, a health clinic, after-school tutoring and enrichment and family counseling. He said early intervention and continued intervention is needed for at-risk children to succeed.

He said he would promote quality after-school programs for those that need them as well as summer school and an extended school day.

As president, Obama said, he wants to see classrooms where every student has a laptop, where students can use the Internet to research their reports and can present their reports as PowerPoint presentations, where the teacher becomes the guide and coach rather than the source of all knowledge.

Obama said he wants to fix the No Child Left Behind Law. He supports some of its goals such as an excellent teacher in every classroom, closing the achievement gaps, higher standards and more accountability. But, he said, there is a great deal wrong with No Child Left Behind — forcing schools to accomplish goals without the resources they need, focusing on test-taking skills instead of problem-solving and critical thinking. Even if these flaws are fixed, he noted, it will take more than No Child Left Behind to bring our education system into the 21st century and prepare our children to succeed in the global economy.

He said he wants to double funding for charter schools but qualified that by saying those that are not working should be closed and charter schools must be held accountable just like other public schools.

Obama said he supports plans linking to teacher pay to performance that are designed jointly by teachers and school districts through union negotiations. Outstanding successful teachers should be rewarded, he said. In the past merit pay has been a very controversial issue among teachers. Denver and Prince George’s County, Md., were able to come up with such plans, he noted.

In addition, Obama said, parents need to become accountable and to take more responsibility for their children’s education.

As president, he emphasized, he will hold government accountable. The Department of Education must spend every tax dollar on programs that make a difference in children’s lives he said. He pledged to report on the progress in education each year.

How does Obama think the U.S. can pay for all of these innovations in education? “The money spent on the Iraq war for a few days would go a long way in improving our schools,” he declared. Ending no-bid contracts and eliminating wasteful military spending would cover the costs.

“The leadership of our country has left schools and parents to fend for themselves,” Obama said. “John McCain has not done one thing to improve the quality of education during his 30 years in Congress. Not one proposal or law or initiative. Nothing. He opposed hiring more teachers, expanding Head Start and fully funding No Child Left Behind. John McCain doesn’t get it. He doesn’t understand that success as a nation depends on success in education. I do understand.”

McCain, at the Republican National Convention, attacked teachers unions, charging that Obama wants schools to be beholden to “unions and entrenched bureaucracies.”

Fed up with being “beat up” by numerous GOP candidates who have used inflammatory rhetoric against teachers and their unions, the 3.2-million-member National Education Association says Obama is a presidential candidate who “respects our professional expertise, including with bus drivers and support staff.” All these jobs, they note, makes a school district run. The NEA, which had backed Hillary Clinton during the primaries, has strongly endorsed Obama.

Ohio Education Association Vice President Bill Leibensperger said for his members education is the top issue. “For eight years teachers and students have been assaulted by No Child Left Behind, which is really Orwellian double-speak because so many children are being left behind by this law.”

Leibensperger is optimistic about rank and file support for Obama in Ohio, a battleground state. “The election is close in Ohio. Our members are strong for Obama. They are having conversations at worksites about the elections and issues. I think in the end people will do the right thing and vote for Obama.”

Teresa Albano contributed to this article.

EDITORIAL: Shock and awe revisited

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:03:00 +0000

The Bush administration developed expertise in the use of “shock and awe” in its Iraq war for oil. Now it is using those tactics in economic warfare against the American people.

Having sent over 4,100 Americans to their death in Iraq at a cost to taxpayers of $600 billion, they now demand that we cough up anywhere between $700 billion and $1.8 trillion to bail out their Wall Street friends.

Bush wants American workers to hand over a blank check to the administration that deregulated Wall Street, helped shed millions of American jobs, weakened national and economic security with the Iraq war, allowed a major American city to drown and rolled back our standard of living — as it fought tooth and nail against even a paltry increase in the minimum wage. This blank check, Bush says, is required to fix the financial mess deregulation created.

The bailout demand comes after 18 months of telling us the economy is basically sound and everything is under control. Suddenly, we are told the sky is falling and we must immediately consent to being rolled for at least $700 billion.

The sky may indeed have fallen on Wall Street last week. On Main Street, however, it has been falling for a long time. The livelihood of the working class has been systematically destroyed as jobs have gone overseas, 50 million have gone without health care, wages have stagnated, home values have sunk and people have lost their homes, pensions, dreams and hopes.

Where has the sense of emergency been all this time? Why only now does Bush declare an emergency?

The bailout plan the administration is pushing is dangerous and should not be approved by Congress. The crisis in the real economy on Main Street is the true underlying crisis. Any bailout plan must address this crisis. Failure to do so would make the Wall Street fix short-lived and set the stage for an even bigger future squeeze on the hard-pressed American people.

A blank-check bailout would tie the hands of the next administration and Congress and block real reforms. You would kiss health care for all good-bye, because the lords of high finance would say: you must pay off this debt first, and the only way is to “liberalize” your markets. You have to privatize Social Security, cut public spending for education, and on and on. In short they would impose a “structural adjustment plan” like the ones forced on numerous developing countries by the same U.S. (mainly) corporate finance forces.

We need government intervention to stabilize the financial and credit interests of working families and retirees, whose pensions are invested in these markets. But we reject the notion that the world will end if we don’t immediately adopt a “welfare for the rich” scheme.

Let’s be clear: Bush’s proposed government action has nothing in common with socialism. It leaves the companies controlled by the same greedy capitalists who ran them in the first place.

The AFL-CIO says any bailout should:

• Be governed by an independent board with transparency and effective public and congressional oversight with strong safeguards so that any taxpayer money is spent in the public interest, and does not become a raid on the Treasury by financial elites. Participating institutions must give the government equity — a stake in the good assets in exchange for the benefits of the bailout;

• Stop foreclosures and restructure home mortgage loans for working families;

• Address the cause of the crisis on Main Street in addition to the symptoms on Wall Street. Congress should pass a second stimulus package in its entirety. We need a stimulus that extends unemployment benefits, provides needed aid to cities and states, and creates good jobs by rebuilding crumbling schools, roads, bridges and water systems;

• Work to strengthen our financial regulatory system and corporate governance system that allowed this disaster to happen.

We agree. The credit and financial markets must be stabilized to safeguard the livelihoods of working families and retirees. In addition, a tax relief plan for lower- and middle-income Americans is a must. And those who may be heading for college — or paying off college debt — need access to low-interest student loans and do-able payment schedules. Young people should not have the boom lowered on them because of Wall Street’s meltdown.

Speak out! Tell Congress and the White House you refuse to mortgage yourselves, your children and the country’s future to the same people who brought us Enron and now seek a no-strings-attached giveaway to Wall Street.

Latino voters key to Western states

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 05:57:00 +0000

With the Nov. 4 presidential election just weeks away, a monumental battle is heating up in a few crucial swing states, as some 9 million Latino voters prepare to cast ballots which could be the deciding factor for an Obama win.

“Well over 60 percent of Latino voters are supporting Obama — closer to 66 percent now,” Jose Laluz, chairperson of Latinos for Obama, told the World last month. Laluz, who is also with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, has been campaigning in Colorado and New Mexico.

“The right wing is pulling all its dirty tricks even in the Latino community,” he said. “We all realize that Bush used appeals to ‘family values,’ religion and the sanctity of marriage, to get white workers and Reagan Democrats to back him last time. They are using the same tactics in the Latino communities.”

“We find they are waging an especially big push against Obama in the Mexican communities in Colorado and New Mexico,” he added.

“They spread their lies in Spanish just as well as they spread them in English,” said Laluz, citing TV and newspaper ads for McCain in Western states.

The Obama campaign is telling Latinos about McCain’s terrible stands on the economy and about the Republicans’ anti-immigrant positions, he said. “We are showing how the companies and outfits that exploit Latino workers are the people behind McCain.”

Obama activists are registering voters and developing lists of tens of thousands of Latino supporters that they will make sure get to the polls on Election Day, he said.

Bush won a significant percent of the Latino vote in 2004. If John Kerry had won Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, he would be president, Democrats note. Today the margin of victory in these states is in the Latino vote, they say.

Polls across the country indicate that Latinos are fed up with the Bush administration and the Republican Party represented by McCain and see Obama as the person to change course for the better.

A record-breaking turnout of more than 9 million Latino voters is expected this year compared with 7.6 million in 2004, says USA Today.

Tiffany Fiser, AFL-CIO Labor 2008 coordinator in New Mexico’s 1st Congressional District, has been knocking on doors of union households six days a week. Many voters she comes across are Latinos.

“We’re seeing across the board that people are hurting when it comes to paying their mortgages, affording gas prices or the lack of health care,” said Fiser. “They understand the difference between the candidates, and labor households are really tired and want a change,” she said.

“I truly believe that New Mexico will go for Obama and we will win because our unions, community organizations and volunteers on the ground working here did our part to win,” Fiser said.

plozano @pww.org. John Wojcik contributed to this story.

McCain still pushing to privatize Social Security

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 05:05:00 +0000

Advocates for senior citizens and disabled people denounced Republican Presidential nominee John McCain for repeating his call for a Wall Street takeover of Social Security in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

They cited an interview on CNBC in which McCain reiterated support for President Bush’s privatization scheme, in which workers would put part of their Social Security withholding in private “individual retirement accounts.” McCain told CNBC, “I still believe that young Americans ought to…put some of their money into accounts with their name on it.” He made the comment even though workers with private 401(k) plans are now watching as their retirement nest eggs go up in smoke.

The critics, speaking at an emergency Sept. 19 telephone news conference sponsored by Americans United for Change (AUC), pointed out that tens of millions of seniors and disabled people who depend on monthly Social Security checks would be facing poverty if Bush and the Republican leadership, had succeeded in privatizing the system.

AUC Spokesman, Jeremy Funk, told the World, “It is truly amazing that following one of the worst weeks on Wall Street since the Great Depression, that John McCain would unapologetically renew his call for Social Security privatization. The Bush-McCain plan would turn Social Security from a guarantee into a Wall Street gamble. It shows us just how out of touch he is.”

McCain, the 8th richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, owns nine houses and 13 cars and wears $500 loafers, Funk pointed out. “It doesn’t matter to McCain whether he wins or loses his Social Security benefit. He can afford it. But what about the tens of millions of seniors and people with disabilities? They can’t afford to lose their houses, let alone their monthly Social Security benefit.”

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research, said the current “turbulence” on Wall Street underlines the importance of Social Security’s ironclad guarantees. “This illustrates the risk” of “relying on private accounts,” Baker said. “Furthermore, the collapse of the housing bubble has destroyed much of the wealth of middle class baby boomers, making them even more dependent than ever on Social Security.”

Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute said, “After the events of this week, to not recognize the folly of privatizing Social Security suggests an imperviousness to evidence that is really quite scary in someone who wants to be president.”

Earlier, George Kourpias, president of the AFL-CIO-affiliated Alliance of Retired Americans said, “Don’t be fooled. John McCain is, was and always will be a privatizer. While he fancies himself a maverick, he has long championed the Bush plan to gamble away Social Security on the roulette wheel of the stock market. In a Bush-McCain world, seniors’ risk would be Wall Street’s reward.” He pointed out that without Social Security, one half the nation’s senior citizens would live in poverty. Privatization would cut Social Security benefits by as much as 50 percent and the average retiree would lose $134,000 in benefit payments over 20 years.

Funk said AUC’s “Bush Legacy” bus, now half-way through its nationwide tour, focuses on the Bush-McCain drive to privatize Social Security. During the 2006 election AUC, which spearheaded the fightback against Social Security privatization, initiated the “Golden Promise Pledge to Protect Social Security and Oppose Privatization.” It was presented to every House and Senate candidate with the demand that they swear they will not support Bush’s drive to destroy Social Security. “The Bush Legacy bus just arrived at the offices of Republican Congressman, Tim Walberg in Battle Creek, Michigan, to ask him to sign the pledge,” Funk said. “Democrats are 100 percent unified in opposition to privatization. The Republicans like to play word games. We’re uncertain where they stand so we are going to confront them: Do you or don’t you support the Bush-McCain privatization scheme?”

Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign began airing a TV ad in which Obama says, “Social Security has never been so important but John McCain voted three times in favor of privatizing Social Security.” Both Sen. Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, have been staunch and consistent opponents of any scheme to privatize Social Security.

greenerpastures21212 @yahoo.com

Veterans tell VA, Open front door to disability claims

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 04:58:00 +0000

As the number of veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan grows, vets and members of Congress are stepping up demands that the long wait many endure before disability claims are accepted must be drastically shortened.

On Sept. 22, New York Democrats Sen. Hillary Clinton and Rep. John Hall joined with Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America to announce introduction of a Senate equivalent to the Disability Claims Modernization Act (HR 5892), passed by the House in July. The bill would revise the disability rating system, update the way the VA decides claims and extend key benefits to veterans’ families.

Citing HR 5892 as among several positive developments in Congress, Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense (VCS), said between 600,000 and 800,000 vets are now waiting an average of more than six months for the VA to decide about their disability benefits. Even those figures are distorted by the VA’s practice of mixing statistics for the quicker pension claims with those for disability, he said.

“If the veteran files a claim for a mental health condition like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the decision usually takes about a year,” Sullivan, a former VA staffer, said. If a veteran has to appeal because the VA denied the claim, awarded an incorrect amount or set a wrong effective date, an appeal can take three or four more years, he added.

VCS and Veterans United for Truth are co-plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of wounded Iraq veterans whose claims were rejected by the VA. While calling the VA’s performance “troubling,” a judge ruled in July that overhauling the system was beyond the court’s jurisdiction. The two veterans’ groups have appealed.

In a fact sheet updated earlier this month, VCS said nearly 1,718,000 soldiers have been deployed to the Iraq or Afghanistan war zones, and about half are now eligible for VA services. Nearly 350,000 veterans from the two wars have been treated at VA hospitals, including nearly 150,000 diagnosed with mental health problems.

Sullivan emphasized that military doctors and medical personnel “are doing a superb job. They are saving more soldiers than have ever been saved in combat. The VA doctors and medical personnel really care and are doing a heroic job. The president and Congress need to act immediately to make sure veterans’ caregivers are recognized and supported in their heroic efforts.

“The VA’s biggest problem is the front door. VCS wants the VA to stop turning away suicidal patients, to confirm disability benefits and provide care “faster and without all the red tape,” Sullivan said, citing several widely publicized cases in which suicidal Iraq war veterans were refused medical care in an emergency, with fatal consequences.

After the lawsuit was filed, the VA set up a suicide prevention hotline, which has received tens of thousands of calls, with the VA reporting some 1,600 “rescues,” he said.

Sullivan places responsibility for the current problems squarely at the White House doorstep. “Responsibility lies with the president of the United States,” he said. “He started the Iraq war and he had no plan to care for the casualties.”

Another organization fighting for prompt, effective care for veterans is Disabled American Veterans. DAV spokesperson Thom Wilborn pointed out that vets must go through a two-tier system to get their disability status recognized: first through the military — sometimes spending as long as two or three years in a medical holding company before being discharged, and then through the VA.

Wilborn told of his conversation with a young soldier who was among those routing Saddam Hussein from his underground hideout. The young man, who suffers from PTSD, has been waiting for months to get both local and Pentagon approval for his combat infantryman’s badge — needed to prove his status as a combat veteran so his claim can be decided.

Emphasizing that his organization is “non-political” and doesn’t endorse candidates, Wilborn said DAV’s rating of the two major presidential candidates’ Senate performance showed Barack Obama with an 80 percent rating on disabled vets’ issues, compared to just 20 percent for John McCain.

mbechtel @pww.org

$700,000,000,000 for what?

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 04:52:00 +0000

CHICAGO — First, it was the shock. Then it began to sink in. Then came the anger.

In a little over a week the American people first heard of, then digested and are now grappling with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s and with the Bush administration’s demand that they hand over $700 billion of their hard-earned tax dollars to bail out Wall Street.

If comments of people on the street here are any indication, there is deep resentment about having to trade, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman put it, “cash for trash.”

Carolyn Preiss, a single mother of two, works as a teller at Citibank here — until October 15, that is, when she will lose her job. “How does this help me feed my kids?” she asked Sept. 20. “My job is gone, I’m laid off as of mid-October.” Preiss, who makes $12 an hour, said she hasn’t gotten a raise in a year. “They’ll tax my unemployment so that when I’m out on the street, even then, I’ll be shelling out money to some greedy bastard on Wall Street,” she complained.

Michael George and his brother Pete, both retired bus drivers, purchased a home together for themselves and their wives two years ago on East 74th Street. “The mortgage rate doubled this year to $2,400 per month and now we will lose this place,” George said as he swept the tree-shaded sidewalk in front of his house. “I haven’t figured out what we will do. I just don’t understand, though, what would be wrong with the bank giving us a better mortgage rate. I pay tax on my pension and they’ll take that money and give it to the idiots who made this mess. If I’m saving their asses why can’t I get a break on my mortgage?”

Carol Mueller, a waitress at a Potbelly restaurant downtown, was in the waiting room at Knapp Medical Center on Halsted Street, Sept. 20. She has a bleeding stomach ulcer that, she said, might soon require surgery. “I don’t know what to do, because I don’t have health insurance,” she said. “As it is I have to ask the doctor to prescribe the cheapest generic available. There is a drug that would work better but I can’t afford it.” Mueller said that she hopes Barack Obama is elected because “then we might get health care, but now with all this they’ll probable tell us there is no money left for health care — it’s all going to Wall Street.”

“The American people are faced with the choice of committing more than a trillion dollars of public money to rescue the financial system, or facing a complete collapse of the credit markets, and all the economic activity that lives on credit,” John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor federation, said last week. “How will this be implemented? Will we finally help the millions of Americans losing their jobs, their homes, their health insurance and their pensions? Or will this be another bailout without conditions, leaving Main Street in crisis and guaranteeing that Wall Street’s crisis will continue in another form?”

Permanent solutions can only be found, Sweeney said, “in the economic program of Barack Obama — re-regulation of the financial markets, a government focused on creating good jobs by investing in infrastructure and solutions to the energy crisis, health care for all Americans, a government that will protect and improve Americans’ retirement security and a guarantee that American workers can bargain for their fair share of the wealth they create.”

Only days after the crisis exploded on Wall Street its potential as the ultimate “game changer” in the elections was displayed in polls that showed Barack Obama widening his lead over McCain and majorities blaming the Republicans and de-regulation of high finance for the crisis.

Obama told a crowd of 20,000 in Charlotte, N.C., Sept. 21, referring to McCain and the Republican Party: “They said they wanted to let the market run free but instead they let it run wild. And now we are facing a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression.” Obama, backing many in Congress, called for another $50 billion stimulus for taxpayers and for an overhaul of the financial regulatory system. He called also for an end to tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, an end to the war in Iraq and creation of millions of “green” jobs with massive investment of funds for that purpose.

In Green Bay, Wis., the following day, Obama declared, “We cannot give a blank check to Washington with no oversight and accountability when no oversight and accountability is what got us into this mess in the first place. This plan can’t just be a plan for Wall Street, it has to be a plan for Main Street. We have to pass a stimulus plan that will put money in the pockets of working families, save jobs and prevent painful budget cuts and tax hikes in our states.”

jwojcik @pww.org

For Michigan, its the economy, stupid!

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 04:43:00 +0000

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Auto parts maker Lear Corp. shipped its plant from here to Mexico, laying off hundreds of workers. Robin Golden, president of UAW Local 2344 and one of the laid-off workers, spoke about it at the Democratic National Convention in August.

“I believed if I worked hard and did a good job, I’d have my job until I retired,” he said. Pointing a finger at John McCain, who has repeatedly voted for tax breaks for companies to move jobs out of the U.S., Golden said, “It’s time for a change.”

“Michigan is the key to the whole [electoral] map,” a pollster recently told Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne. Its 17 electoral votes are one reason, but the anger of the state’s working class over Bush’s policies, backed by McCain, that have cost them jobs and a decent standard of living is far more telling.

While the national unemployment rate rose in August to a five-year high of 6.1 percent, the jobless rate in Michigan was more than 2 points higher — 8.9 percent. Four of the state’s largest cities — Detroit, Grand Rapids, Saginaw and Flint — ranked near the top of the list of U.S. cities with high unemployment.

One person in Michigan who benefited from the policies McCain has backed was billionaire Amway co-owner Dick DeVos, a former Michigan Republican gubernatorial candidate. When it was revealed that as Amway CEO he had used federal tax loopholes to help pay for moving production facilities out of the country, costing Michigan as many as 1,300 jobs, his campaign crumbled.

Michigan has lost more than 60,000 jobs due to NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Those jobs, EPI estimated, were typically manufacturing jobs that would have paid an average of $800 per week.

McCain, a supporter of unfettered “free trade,” told one Michigan audience during the primary season that “NAFTA was a good idea.”

“Free trade,” he said, “is vital to the future of America. Have people lost jobs? Yes, they have, and they’re gonna lose jobs.”

McCain and fellow congressional Republicans blocked efforts to expand unemployment benefits and to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover an additional tens of thousands of children of Michigan working families.

Meanwhile, Michigan Republicans, who control the state Senate, have blocked efforts to amend the state’s “flat tax” to increase revenues for public schools. Over the past year, schools across the state saw state funding drop by about $400 per pupil.

Dozens of schools in Detroit have closed, while cutbacks around the state have caused children go without art, music and some foreign language classes and other programs.

Grand Rapids teachers are in their second year without a contract. Last year, the school system was forced to cut $2 million from its budget.

The city of Ypsilanti earlier this year was forced to close part of its police force and share public safety duty with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office as a result of budget shortages. Highland Park, an impoverished city surrounded by Detroit, has gone without a fire department for several years.

So far the economic crisis appears to have led the state’s voters to agree with UAW local leader Robin Given: it is time for change. The most recent poll shows Obama with a 9-point advantage. At least two suburban Republican-held House seats are up for grabs.

Michigan Republicans are nervous. One local Republican official said his group planned to use a list of home foreclosures, obtained through a foreclosure specialist who has donated at least $100,000 to the McCain campaign, to challenge voters in Detroit on Election Day. The publicity led to a lawsuit by the Obama campaign and state Democrats calling for an injunction against use of such a list.

Republican operatives are training loyalists on how to challenge voters at polling places. They plan to use the state’s draconian voter ID law that requires a state identification card in order to cast a ballot. The state itself estimates that 370,000 eligible voters will be excluded by the law.

Michigan’s Republican Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, co-chair of the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign, told poll watchers they can even demand that a voter produce a second piece of photo ID if they don’t think the ID photo looks enough like the voter, according to Common Cause.

The American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan has filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s voter ID laws and has circulated a voter rights flier.

The state AFL-CIO is campaigning to educate its 1.4 million members about their voting rights and mobilize them to vote Nov. 4.

In a statement urging members to get involved, state AFL-CIO President Mark Gaffney said, “Here in Michigan we have been battered by the Bush/McCain policy of rewarding companies that ship jobs overseas and providing tax cuts for the wealthy while working families struggle to pay their bills and put gas in their car.” Labor activists say every one of those voters will be needed to ensure a victory for Barack Obama.

jwendland @politicalaffairs.net

Voices from the neighborhood: 'Bring all the troops home'

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:53:00 +0000

PWW event: The Better World Awards

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:01:00 +0000

The Better World Awards -- the annual People's Weekly World-sponsored event in New York City -- was held on June 14, 2008.

The event took place at the Martin Luther King Jr. Auditorium at 1199 SEIU.

This year the event focused on the “Costs of War and the 2008 Elections.' Our featured speaker was Judith Le Blanc, National Organizing Director for United for Peace and Justice.

The 2008 Better World Award Honorees included: Chelsea for Peace co-founder Estelle Katz, Transport Workers Union, Local 100, Brooklyn For Peace and the New York Taxi Workers Alliance.

Below is a brief video from the event.

Better World Awards 2008

OPINION: Barney Smith, not Smith Barney

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:23:00 +0000

The shockwaves from the financial crisis have left working class families in every part of the country in a state of great worry and fear.

Over $100 billion of public money has been spent to bail out huge financial corporations while millions of people are losing their homes, losing their health care, losing their pensions, losing their jobs and losing college loans. Those who have been paid the least, African American, Latino and women workers, are losing the most.

The line that brought down the house at the Democratic convention says it all: “The president should be worrying about Barney Smith, not Smith Barney.”

The question could be asked: who do you want in the White House as this economic crisis continues to unfold?

The economic policies of George W. Bush, supported by John McCain, including deregulation, privatization and tax gifts to the wealthy along with the $3-trillion-dollar war, are major contributors to this crisis. They have created the biggest wealth gap in the history of our country, similar to 1929.

John McCain showed that he represents four more years of the same when he declared that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. He’s been backtracking from that ever since, in an effort to maintain his campaign image of a maverick for change.

McCain’s cynical use of populist rhetoric has to be unmasked. His hypocrisy was revealed when he reversed his position and came out in support of regulation. Not only has McCain opposed regulation in the past, but his campaign staff is riddled with 83 top Wall Street corporate lobbyists. The regulation he supports now is likely to stabilize Wall Street at the expense of working people.

When it comes to Main Street, McCain voted with Bush against raising the minimum wage, voted against aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, voted against increasing veterans’ and children’s health care, home heating assistance and Pell grants for college. Barack Obama voted in favor of all of these measures.

John McCain, like Bush, supports privatizing Social Security and gambling the small incomes of senior citizens on the stock market. Millions would have been devastated when the financial crisis hit if this basic survival income was mixed up in the market. Barack Obama opposes privatization of Social Security.

John McCain says health care should rely on unregulated private plans, “as we have done over the last decade in banking.” If health insurance providers fail like the finance institutions, the ranks of the uninsured will be swelled far beyond the current 45 million to include just about everyone else. Barack Obama supports universal health care coverage.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney emphasizes the importance of a candidate who addresses the needs of working people in the midst of the financial crisis: “Permanent solutions can be found in the economic program of Barack Obama — re-regulation of the financial markets, a government focused on creating good jobs by investing in infrastructure and solutions to our energy crisis, health care for all Americans, a government that will protect and improve Americans’ retirement security, and a guarantee that American workers can bargain for their fair share of the wealth they create.”

The financial crisis raises the stakes of this election even higher. The wealth gap can be narrowed, or it can continue to escalate, plunging millions more into poverty.

The McCain campaign is spending big money on vicious ads filled with distortions and personal attacks against Obama, to create distractions and cloud the issues.

In the battlegrounds of Ohio and western Pennsylvania, union members have been knocking on the doors of fellow workers to talk things through. They are taking on the McCain “Swift boat” attack machine by comparing the candidates on issues of concern.

Those battlegrounds are beginning to turn from red to blue. Undecided workers and their families are coming to the conclusion that “enough is enough.” They want someone in the White House who voted with labor 98 percent of the time, not someone who voted with Bush all of the time last year.

Millions of similar one-on-one conversations among working people, young people and retirees all across this country can determine the outcome of the election.

Economic crises are basic to a system that allocates critical resources for short-term profit instead of for the social good. It will take a huge mass movement to achieve fundamental changes, just as it took a huge mass movement in the 1930s to win the New Deal.

An uprising of voters on Nov. 4 can change the political balance of power, thereby opening the way for new struggles and demands that the economic crisis be solved on behalf of working people instead of on the backs of working people.

That’s what this history-making election is all about.

McCain-Palin attacks fall flat with Latinos

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 04:06:00 +0000

The Republican attack machine has launched a multifaceted offensive to falsely accuse Democrat Barak Obama of being anti-immigrant. In Spanish-language ads directed at Latino voters in the battleground states of Florida, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada, John McCain wrongly claims Obama blocked the path to legalization. At the same time McCain and the GOP are saying to their far-right base (in English) that Obama and the Democrats in general are “soft” on “illegal immigration.”

The Spanish ads, which also appeared in the swing state of Virginia which has a growing Latino population, blame Obama and colleagues in the Senate for “poison pill” amendments to the comprehensive immigration bill that resulted in its defeat, meaning, the ads say, “no path to citizenship, no secure borders and no reform.”

On July 14 at the National Council of La Raza, when pressed by audience questions on having backed off support for legalization in favor of “enforcement first,” McCain responded accusing Obama and labor of killing comprehensive reform in 2007.

In reality, Obama voted for the reforms in 2006 and 2007. He did support an amendment to end guest worker provisions after five years. Guest worker programs are used by corporations to drive wages down and pit worker against worker. Even so, Obama was joined by Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida in that vote. In limiting guest worker programs, Obama was trying to make the bill more worker- and family-friendly. The bill was eventually killed by Republican opposition.

Many say McCain has shifted from his “moderate” approach to immigration, caving in to the far-right wing of the GOP. His running mate, Sarah Palin, is even more anti-immigrant than McCain, they charge.

Speaking at a Sept. 10 meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Obama reinforced his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform with a legalization component. “This election is about the 12 million people living in the shadows, the communities taking immigration enforcement into their own hands,” he said. “They are counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves and rise above the fear, and rise above the demagoguery, and finally enact comprehensive immigration reform.”

As the McCain ads hit the airwaves, the anti-immigrant group Fair American Immigration Reform (FAIR) started a two-day “Put their feet to the fire” lobby effort on Capitol Hill featuring right-wing talk show personalities. On Sept. 11 Lou Dobbs hosted a live telecast in support of FAIR and the Republican platform, which says immigration is primarily a “national security issue,” implying that immigrants are terrorists.

In addition, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids at workplaces across the nation have escalated, adding to an atmosphere that serves the Republican agenda.

America’s Voice, a coalition that supports comprehensive, humanitarian immigration reform, denounced the anti-Obama ads and FAIR’s new campaign at a Sept. 15 press conference. It has bought a full-page ad in the Washington Post exposing FAIR’s extremist background, links and policies.

John Trasvina of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund told the press the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda had urged McCain to fight the GOP’s anti-immigrant planks in its platform. They got no response, he said, and the platform passed the GOP convention unanimously. Trasvina said the GOP platform had language that would “split families,” exclude undocumented taxpayers from the 2010 Census and close the door on access to higher education for children who do not have a Social Security number.

Wall Street meltdown wallops Main Street

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 03:37:00 +0000

The most serious financial crisis since the 1930s exploded this week, plunging global markets into a meltdown, pushing credit card rates up, threatening life savings and pensions, hiking the jobless rate, and sending John McCain and the Republicans scurrying for cover.

The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the largest financial firm to collapse in the credit crisis, coupled with the failure of Merrill Lynch & Co. and the collapse of AIG, the world’s largest insurance company, all within 24 hours, triggered fear among workers worried about the aftershocks.

Yet McCain, who has long backed deregulation of the finance industry, declared that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.”

“What economy is he talking about?” his opponent Barack Obama asked at a campaign rally. “Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulations, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious crisis since the Great Depression.”

Obama warned, “This turmoil is a major threat to our economy and its ability to create good paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills, save for their future and make their mortgage payments.”

John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, which is strongly backing Obama, said in a statement, “These events make clear the desperate need for a president who understands the nature of the economic crisis facing our country and has a concrete plan for rebuilding our economy that is founded on good jobs rather than financial bubbles.”

The financial earthquake sent markets around the world into a slump as countless businesses, large and small, made plans to slash expenses and lay off workers. Layoffs are expected to go well beyond the tens of thousands who are losing jobs as a direct result of the Wall Street meltdown.

The financial giants collapsed under the weight of bad loans and get-rich-quick schemes permissible now on Wall Street after a Republican- and McCain-backed era of deregulation that began when the GOP controlled Congress during the Clinton administration in the 1990s.

“A generation of conservative propaganda, arguing that markets make wiser decisions than government, has been destroyed by these events,” wrote William Greider, national affairs correspondent for The Nation.

Doug Henwood, editor of Left Business Observer, said the underlying cause of the crisis is “maldistribution of income” in the United States. “Until this is addressed,” he said, “we’re going to face years of financial problems, economic stagnation, an eroding job market and strains on the standard of living.”

Many observers note that the Federal Reserve Bank’s long-time policy of bailing out wealthy financiers, combined with its refusal to regulate their behavior, has destabilized the economy.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out last week with no plan to restore them to their original status as nonprofit federal agencies that serve the public’s housing needs.

McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin have attacked Fannie and Freddie as “too big and too expensive to taxpayers” but have remained silent about the need to dismantle the more recently created banking conglomerates that have done irreparable harm to the economy.

These conglomerates arose in the last 10 years after the boundaries between commercial banks and investment banks were lowered by McCain and others in the Senate. Observers note that McCain has never called for either anti-trust enforcement or establishment of rules for firms that are bailed out by taxpayers.

The regulatory role of the Federal Reserve Bank, observers they say, should be assigned to a public agency that is visible and accountable to the public, not to the occupants of corporate boardrooms.

A new, effective set of regulations for the entire financial system is needed, labor and others are saying. The regulations, they say, should end the conflicts of interest on Wall Street and allow responsible investors a say in corporate decisions. Unions that invest pension funds and workers with life savings are examples of the “responsible” investors they point to.

Some are calling for reenactment of federal laws similar to ones promulgated during the New Deal barring banks from charging excessive interest rates. The ability to charge whatever they could get spurred shady lenders into making the bad loans that provoked the current crisis.

McCain claimed the crisis is the “latest reminder of ineffective regulation and management.”

In reality, the crisis developed because commercial banks, stockbrokers and hedge funds, were allowed, in a GOP-McCain-baked scheme, to get into the “swap” business. Through the rampant reselling of loans, they were able to reap quick and vast profits. It didn’t matter if the loan recipient was unable to pay or if the value of the property he or she bought was outrageously inflated. The only thing that mattered was to trade away or insure the paper on which the loan was printed before foreclosure happened.

These shady mortgage swaps were made legal by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which, with McCain’s help, former Republican Sen. Phil Gramm pushed through Congress in 2000. Gramm was recently McCain’s campaign co-chair, and the senator’s likely pick for treasury secretary, until he was forced out after having described the result of his handiwork as a “mental recession.”

Latino voters key to Obama win in battleground states

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:30:00 +0000

The historic Nov. 4th presidential election is less than two months away, and a monumental battle is heating up in a few crucial swing states, as some nine million Latino voters prepare to cast their ballot, which could be the deciding factor for an Obama win.

Latinos are the fastest growing minority group in the U.S. at 15 percent of the population and represent nine percent of eligible voters. But many agree the Latino vote could be the key bloc that could lead to an Obama victory, especially in battleground states where Latinos make up at least 10 percent of the voting population. With roots in different countries, main Latino voting blocs are among Mexican American, Puerto Rican and Cuban American communities.

A recent report by pollster Sergio Bendixen for the New Democratic Network (NDN), a progressive think tank and advocacy organization, notes that the majority of Latino voters in Colorado, New Mexico, California and Nevada favor Obama over McCain. Latino voters are tied between the two candidates in Florida. Bendixen’s group interviewed 2,000 people in Florida, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada Aug. 6-14.

Latino voters represent 35 percent of the electorate in New Mexico, 11 percent in Colorado, 12 percent in Nevada and 14 percent in Florida. According to the poll Obama is expected to win the majority of Latino voters in California, which is the state with the largest Latino population. McCain will probably carry Texas, the second largest Latino populated state, where a significant number of Latinos vote Republican.

The poll reveals the following:

In New Mexico, Obama leads McCain 56 percent to 23 percent among Latino voters. Among non-Latino voters McCain leads 50 percent to 34 percent.

In Colorado, Obama has a 56 percent lead over McCain’s 26 percent among Latinos. And among non-Latino voters Obama has a narrow 45 percent lead over McCain’s 41 percent.

In Nevada, Obama leads McCain at 62 percent to 20 percent among Latinos. Yet McCain leads among non-Latino voters at 46 percent to 37 percent.

Jose Laluz is the chairperson for Latinos for Obama and is campaigning in Colorado and New Mexico registering, educating and mobilizing voters until Election Day. He is also the director of the Leadership Academy with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union. Laluz spoke with the World during an AFL-CIO labor forum at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

“Well over 60 percent of Latino voters are supporting Obama – closer to 66 percent now,” Laluz said. “The right wing is pulling all its dirty tricks even in the Latino community. We all realize that Bush used appeals to ‘family values,’ religion and the sanctity of marriage, etc. to get white workers and Reagan Democrats to back him last time,” he said. “Well they are using the same stuff, the same tactics in the Latino communities. When you combine this with their attention on swing states we find they are waging an especially big push against Obama in the Mexican and Chicano communities in Colorado and New Mexico,” added Laluz.

“They spread their lies in Spanish – just as well as they spread them in English,” said Laluz, describing TV and newspaper ads for McCain in Western states.

Laluz said the Obama campaign is working in both New Mexico and Colorado, among other states, telling Latino voters about McCain’s terrible stands on the economy and about the horrible role Republicans have played and continue to play on immigration.

According to the poll, 52 percent of likely Latino voters in New Mexico and Colorado feel Obama has a better stance on immigration. In Nevada 60 percent feel the same, whereas in Florida 42 percent favor Obama compared to 37 percent for McCain on the issue.

“We are showing how the companies and outfits that exploit Latino workers are the people behind McCain,” said Laluz. Between now and Nov. 4, Laluz said the Obama campaign is registering voters in New Mexico and Colorado and developing lists of tens of thousands of Latino supporters for Obama. “Those lists will constitute the people we bring out on Election Day,” he said.

President Bush won 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004, a key factor in his win. Even though John Kerry lost Ohio then, many Democrats feel if Kerry had won Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, he would be president today. Things have changed since then and the margin of victory is in the Latino vote, particularly in these states, respectively, Democrats say. Polls across the country concur and find that Latinos are fed up with the Bush administration and the Republican Party represented by McCain and see Obama as the person to change course for the better.

Matt Barreto, a University of Washington political scientist, told USA Today that he predicts a record-breaking turnout of more than 9 million Latino voters this year compared with 7.6 million in 2004.

Tiffany Fiser is the AFL-CIO Labor 2008 coordinator in New Mexico for the 1st congressional district and has been canvassing six days a week since the primaries ended. She has been knocking on the doors of union households for Obama, the congressional race and Tom Udall’s run for U.S. Senate there. Many voters she comes across are Latinos.

“We’re seeing across the board that people are hurting when it comes to paying their mortgages, affording gas prices or the lack of health care,” said Fiser. “They do understand the difference between the candidates and labor households are really tired and they want a change,” she said.

Fiser added that most people have a deep understanding about how the White House and Congress affect their daily lives.

“I truly believe that New Mexico will go for Obama and we will win because our unions, community organizations and volunteers on the ground working here did our part to win,” said Fiser.

plozano@pww.org

John Wojcik contributed to this story.

Michigan, Ohio fight GOP dirty tricks

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:18:00 +0000

The Obama campaign filed a lawsuit Sept. 16 to block an apparent Republican Party effort in Michigan to use home foreclosure lists to exclude registered voters in the Detroit area from casting ballots this November.

At the same time, 14 Senate Democrats, including Michigan Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow and Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey asking him to prevent the use of foreclosure list to disfranchise registered voters.

According to media reports, the Obama campaign filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Detroit asking for an injunction against the Macomb County Republican Party, the Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee. The injunction would block the Republicans from using a list of home foreclosures obtained through a McCain campaign donor to exclude registered voters who may be on the list.

Macomb County, northeast of Detroit, includes key working class communities.

Last week, Macomb County Republican Party Chair James Carabelli told a local news web site, the Michigan Messenger, that Republican activists would use lists obtained from foreclosure specialist firm Trott & Trott to identify voters whom they would accuse of not being residents of the addresses listed on their voter ID and state ID cards.

The firm's founder, David A. Trott, has raised between $100,000 and $250,000 for the McCain campaign, reported the Michigan Messenger.

While Michigan Republicans are denying the Messenger report now, other reports indicated that Ohio Republicans planned to use similar tactics in that state. In Franklin, Ohio, for example, Doug Preisse, the local Republican Party boss, told a Columbus newspaper that his political machine plans to use foreclosure lists to exclude registered voters there.

Responding to these and other reports, Ohio’s Sen. Sherrod Brown said, 'Just when you think you've seen it all, somebody sets a new low.'

'Ohioans have faced enough slimy tactics used to discourage voting,' Brown added, referring to vote-suppression schemes used by Republicans in that battleground state in 2004 and previously. 'The Justice Department must work harder to prevent these shameful and illegal efforts. When someone loses their home, they should not lose their vote as well.'

Michigan Democrats told the media that it is difficult to believe Republican denials about the current charges given the fact that they used similar tactics to exclude, challenge or intimidate registered voters in the past.

The Michigan Messenger report noted that the Republican tactics were focused on Detroit, where the vast majority of home foreclosures came against African American homeowners, who largely support Democratic candidates and Barack Obama for president. The tactic could represent a violation of civil rights and voting rights laws.

Other were quick to point out that the 'lose your home, lose your vote' tactic also targets registered Latinos, whites and others caught up in the mortgage crisis and credit crunch that has swept the country.

In their letter to Attorney General Mukasey, the 14 senators wrote that questioning voter status based on foreclosure status would represent a new variant of voter 'caging,' a vote-suppression tactic to challenge whether voters are living at their registered addresses. The letter charged that even rumors of this type of vote 'caging' can discourage turnout and suppress the vote.

Home foreclosure is a lengthy process that does not always result in the homeowner's eviction from the home. Using a list of addresses and foreclosure filings to challenge the residence of voters would therefore sweep up large numbers of properly registered voters, turning them away from the polls or forcing them to cast provisional ballots, the senators' letter stated.

jwendland @politicalaffairs.net