People Before Profit blog

Look who’s getting Wall Street’s campaign cash

Fri, 28 May 2010 18:16:00 +0000

In the May 23 issue of the New York Times, Paul Krugman had a very important column on who is getting the lion's share of corporate campaign contribution as we approach this fall's mid-term elections.

While the party in power usually gets the largest amount of corporate contributions, this year it's the Republicans who are racking up the Wall Street cash.

Krugman points out that, according to the Washington Post, 63 percent of bank corporate PAC contributions has gone to Republicans so far this year. This is up from 53 percent last year. Security and investment firms that usually lean Democratic are so far giving more money to Republicans this year. Oil and gas companies who usually lean to the Republicans have so far given the GOP 76 percent of their contributions.

So what's going on, Krugman asks. He says that "corporate American hates the current administration" and he quotes John Heilemann of New York magazine who says, "Wall Street is in a state of bitter, seething, hysterical fury" towards President Obama.

Apparently Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy (back to the level they were when Clinton was in office) and the fact that part of the cost of health care reform will be covered by a surtax on high-income individuals has made CEOs, investment bankers and the like very, very angry at the president and his party.

Of course, Wall Street doesn't want to be regulated. But after the lords of finance literally brought down the economy, triggering the loss of 15 million jobs, and causing millions of working families to lose their homes, their savings and their pensions, you d think they would expect some kind of crackdown. But Krugman thinks they're angry because they really didn't think the Obama administration would pass new restrictions on them. And now that the administration is pushing for that, they are mad as hell.

By the way, Sam Webb, the national chair of the Communist Party USA, at our national convention last weekend pointed out that if you add up the number of underemployed and the unemployed caused by the financial collapse, the real number of jobs lost is more like 30 million.

It's hard to imagine, but based on their reaction, Wall Street apparently thought it wouldn't have to face the music. So these profiteers are putting their money on the political party that gave them carte blanche to do whatever they wanted and made them lavishly wealthy: the GOP.

What a picture: We have tens of millions who have been forced into joblessness, have been foreclosed and evicted. Homelessness and hunger are growing. overty among black and brown children is reaching the 50 percent mark. States and cities are starved for money to run the public schools, hospitals and other services. All kinds of sacrifices are being forced on working families. Meanwhile, Wall Street is back to making billions. And they are throwing a temper tantrum over even the mildest step towards regulation. It is another reason to really crack down on them. Sam Webb got it right in his keynote at the CPUSA convention, when he said that the Wall Street "banksters" should face criminal charges for what they did.

The unrepentant profit pigs on Wall St. really think they ought to be able to do whatever they want. They are back making billions and in effect expected to be bailed out so that they could continue their unregulated destruction of the economy. That is the height of arrogance.

Financing the Republican efforts to bring down Obama and to elect more Republicans and tea party types to Congress means Wall Street is financing the use of blatant racism and red-baiting to hide what it did: history's most criminal ripoff of the American people.

The midterm elections this November are an effective way to stop the profit pigs of Wall Street and open the way to more peace and democracy.

Photo: Protestors in Washington, D.C., May 17 demonstration against corporate lobbyists. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

CD for veterans and kin: Until You Come Home

Fri, 28 May 2010 17:09:00 +0000

Until You Come Home: Songs for Veterans and Their Kin

George Mann, Julius Margolin and Friends

February 2010, www.untilyoucomehome.com

(Political Affairs) http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/9342/ -- With "Until You Come Home," singer-songwriter George Mann is able to offer up not only a strong musical statement on behalf of veterans of our recent wars but also one about his own fallen comrade, Julius Margolin. The oft-celebrated Margolin, Mann's duet partner for several years, passed away some months ago at the age of 93 but not before helping to inspire this final product. Julie Margolin has been a beloved figure in the ranks of labor and throughout the Left in the New York City area for generations; his history ranged from working man to labor activist to union organizer and agitator to protest singer-and his absence has been sorely felt by those in the know.

The duet of George and Julius has been a conduit for outreach to other musicians and their recorded output has embraced a wide swath of topical song artists, making all the more effective their fight-back against the forces of reaction. No surprise that this latest release includes not only the leadership of Mann and the visceral presence of Margolin, but guest powerhouse performers Tom Paxton, Utah Phillips, Holly Near and John Gorka as well as strong voices for social change David Rovics, Magpie, Arlon Bennet, Jon Brooks & Rodney Brown, Walt Cronin, Laurie McAllister (of Red Molly) & Amy Speace, Emily Nyman and Eric Schwartz. While some of the tracks were recorded specific to this collection, 'Until You Come Home' also includes some pieces which were granted to Mann for use in this project. The presence of topical songs by noted performers like Paxton and Near gives us one more opportunity to hear these selections which had been released on earlier albums, and of course for the one piece included here by the late great Utah Phillips.

This disc was inspired by the book Voices of Vets and the work of Veterans for Peace and the Welcome Home Project. In describing the sense of mission about the creation of this compact disc collection, Mann stated, "There is a concerted effort underway to ease the transition back to post-service life for our veterans, in a way that recognizes that they have been affected, and wounded in various ways, by their service. It is up to the community to help in the process and this CD is our contribution to acknowledging the toll that these wars have taken on our service members and their families". And this mission is evident throughout the selections herein. Mann's own recordings open and close the disc; they speak in plain about the struggles of a returning vet, both laying out the format for what's to come and offering an echo of the tracks between. His voice is sober, maybe sounding a bit more lonesome than usual, all the more important to the record's concept. In contrast, Julius' single selection on this disc, recorded before succumbing to the withering of illness, offers a view into the man's vitality. His "Endless War" which had appeared on one of the pair's earlier anti-Bush collections reminds us of which administration began this bloody trek, even if the current one keeps to the dreadful policy...all the more a clarification of the sense of eternal battle.

While this collection would never have reason to deny its strong and serious content, the selections are not downtrodden, blue in emotion. Gentle, ringing harmonies like those offered by Laurie McAllister and Amy Speace, dreamy melodies such as that which Emily Nyman imparts, clear and clean latter-day Country brought to us in the offerings of Arlon Bennet and Eric Schwartz, the integrity of the latter-day topical folk by Rodney Brown and David Rovics, the rough-hewn blues edge of Jon Brooks, the vexations of Walt Cronin and the tapestry of the lovely and forlorn by Magpie (on the 1921 ballad "Michael") only serve to compliment and extend the work of the even more established artists they share sonic space with.

John Gorka's brilliant story song "Writing in the Margins" dates from 2006 but it carries with it the urgency of many Vietnam-era anti-war pieces. Of course one hears this ironic generational blur even more apparently in the work of Holly Near, represented here by her gorgeous song "I Am Willing", and Tom Paxton, one of the most beloved of the 1960s protest singers. Paxton's reedy voice on his late '80s piece "the Unknown" acts as a bridge from the time of the '60s tumult through the repression of the Reagan years and into our more immediate struggles against the madness of war. Similarly, "Yellow Ribbon" by Utah Phillips. The fallen compadre of radical workers everywhere told a story like few others ever could or will and here in this song from 1991 we feel the intensity of the anti-war movement without ever missing the aspect of the veterans' own viewpoint. Phillips, who served during the Korean conflict, knew of what he sang and he brings to us listening today a strong dose of reality; there ends up being no glory in bloodshed, little fanfare in the aftermath. But then, that's the whole point of 'Until You Come Home': collectively its artists sing with the utmost respect for the "troops", the favorite symbol of the purveyors of the war machine, while heartily reflecting the sentiment of today's peace movement; this group of cultural workers cries for our nation to support the troops-by bringing them home NOW!

CPUSA: A fighting spirit

Fri, 28 May 2010 13:53:00 +0000

Without any sense of hyperbole, the 29^th convention of the Communist Party was a "home run."

Most of the delegates came expecting that the convention would be impressive. None, including myself, were disappointed,

On the convention's first day I remarked to an older comrade that the enthusiasm among the delegates was infectious. But to my surprise she immediately disagreed.

"No, it isn't enthusiasm," she exclaimed, "it's a fighting spirit."

She was right. Enthusiasm didn't quite capture the mood of the delegates. It was, more accurately, combative and confident.

There was no cynicism, no going-through-the-motions attitude.

Instead the feeling was, "Si Se Puede - Yes We Can!"

This sentiment was not something the convention organizers concocted, bottled, and passed out as the 200 delegates and friends entered Winston Unity Center where the convention was held.

In an immediate sense, the fighting spirit comes from the rising tide of struggle, evident in the passage of the health care bill and the mass actions for jobs and against Wall Street.

In a longer term sense, it springs from our confidence in our strategic and tactical policies, the fighting capacity of the multi-racial, multi-national working class, and the increasing willingness of the American people to take a fresh look at more radical solutions, including socialism, to the multiple crises shaking the country - from the financial and economic meltdown to the BP oil spill disaster.

As we finished the final refrain of The Internationale (our traditional song) at the convention's end, I noticed the fighting spirit still on every face, along with smiles (and a few tears) as delegates of all races and nationalities embraced before heading back home.

A better ending could not have been planned!

More CPUSA convention stories and videos:

Communist Party convention opens in New York

CPUSA delegates eye November elections

Homeless tent cities grow in the West

Highlights from CPUSA's 29th Convention

On technology, what would Lenin do?

Streamed: Keynote to convention

After 500 years, Copernicus is forgiven

Fri, 28 May 2010 13:30:00 +0000

Materialists, take heart! Hard-bound idealistic religious leaders may be giving ground! At least, according to the Associated Press, they are giving enough ground to re-bury Nicolas Copernicus, who pissed them off over 500 years ago by demonstrating that the Earth is round and rotates around the Sun.

As historians tell it, Copernicus was a very smart fellow. He was smart enough to figure out that the flat-worlders were full of it, and he was smart enough to know they would probably strip, gag, and burn him to death as they did Giordano Bruno, for the same offense, in 1600. The wily Pole hid his findings underneath his bed so that the truth would only be told after he was safely gone (1543).

His bones lay safe from the wrath that burned Bruno and put a 400-year church curse on telescope-operator Galileo Galilei until a Polish Bishop named Jacek Jezierski dug him up and re-interred him May 22 in a style more in keeping with his tremendous contribution to the renaissance of materialist science.

The contribution of Copernicus was only denounced for a mere 500 years, so there may be hope for evolution's Charles Darwin, today's environmentalists, and even Karl Marx, someday!

Photo: From a copper engraving of Nicolas Copernicus. (Public domain)

On technology, what would Lenin do?

Fri, 28 May 2010 13:25:00 +0000

I explained at the recent CPUSA convention in New York that Communists have always embraced the highest technology. In Lenin's day, the highest form of information technology was newspapers, and he touted this technology throughout his famous pamphlet, "What Is to be Done?" in 1902.

Imagine, though, some of the older Bolsheviks discussing the pamphlet:

"I used to think Lenin was a sharp cookie, but he's gone too far this time. Have you read 'What is to be done?' He talks about newspapers all the way through it! This new technology will never catch on!

"Sure, you can reach thousands of people with a single article in a newspaper, but it's just doesn't communicate nearly as well as our old way of having speakers drop by from time to time with their news and analysis. Can a newspaper raise its voice? Can it wave its arms? Speakers are far better!

"Also, why would anybody want to go through all the hassle of learning this technology? It involves paper, it involves ink, it involves pictures, it involves printing presses - these are things that the common worker doesn't know much about, and I doubt very seriously that they will want to learn it just so they can keep up with Lenin and people like him!

"No, Comrade V.I. Lenin has gone too far in pushing us toward this new technology. It won't work, and we won't ever hear of him again!"

We gotta have park

Fri, 28 May 2010 11:50:00 +0000

Most mornings, I take a 45-minute walk around my Bronx neighborhood. My route takes me past Harris Field, where my kids played baseball with the Mosholu-Montefiore Little League. My oldest played there for seven seasons, and I have lots of good memories of Harris, of sitting in my portable chair, rooting for my kids and schmoozing with the other parents.

Unfortunately Harris Field has been closed for two years now, and from the looks of the place (construction fences closing it off, dirt and rocks everywhere), no one will be playing baseball or any other sport there anytime soon.

What's the problem? In a nutshell, lack of money.

In the spring of 2008, a renovation project began at Harris, with a budget of $6.6 million, which soon went up to $8.7 million. However, the price tag skyrocketed to $15 million, after high levels of lead were found in the soil.

Given the budget crisis facing the city, and the priorities of the Bloomberg administration, it's hard to imagine how they will find money for a park in the Bronx, despite the fact that Harris was a very busy place. In addition to the Mosholu-Montefiore sports program, the Bronx High School of Science, DeWitt Clinton High and others shared its six fields.

For the past two years, M-M has had to cut its Little League program from 1000 to 500 kids, and the high schools have scrambled for space. Unfortunately, playing field scarcity is a common story here in NYC- unless you have money, as when a group of private schools brokered a deal with the city to reserve for themselves the choice times on Randalls Island fields in exchange for paying part of the renovation costs.

What's happening at Harris is just a tiny part of the catastrophe that's in the works when it comes to the public places where working-class people relax, play and enjoy nature.

According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, state parks from coast to coast are threatened with deep funding cuts - in fact, they list "state parks" as #1 of the most endangered sites.

This year nearly 30 states have proposed or enacted such cuts and a recent survey estimates as many as 400 state parks could close. And city parks are in as bad or worse shape.

Here in New York, Governor Paterson recently came up with a cynical proposal for saving New York's parks - cutting the budget of the Environmental Protection Fund. Needless to say, environmental organizations are outraged at this King Solomon-like choice.

Is there no money for parks? The Central Park Conservancy (a private foundation that runs Manhattan's Central Park) raises 85% of its $25 million annual operating budget from private donors, and pays its president $364,000 a year. Richard Hammond, the CEO of the recently opened Highline park in lower Manhattan receives $250,000 a year.

When I read this, I thought about the fact that Paterson and gubernatorial hopeful Andrew Cuomo have both come out against the State Assembly's "millionaire tax" -- a 1 percentage point increase on millionaires, and another 0.75 points on those earning more than $5 million per year.

Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has estimated that a small tax of a quarter of 1 percent imposed on the sale of a wide range of securities would yield $100 billion to $150 billion.

As the Central Park Conservancy slogan says, "You gotta have park." Unless we believe that Manhattanites "gotta have park" more than people in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island, then funding must be found to keep all of our parks open and cared for. Unless we believe that the students at exclusive private schools in Manhattan have more right to sports than kids in the Bronx, funding must be found to quickly clean up and renovate Harris Park.

So yes, tax those millionaires (the "half-millionaires" too). Tax those Wall Street bonuses, most of which were given as stock transfers to avoid income tax. Find the money, because we all gotta have park.

Photo: Heavy metals have been found during the reconstruction of Harris Field. (Megan Taylor/Norwood News)

On public sector unions: A reply to Mort Zuckerman

Thu, 27 May 2010 15:09:00 +0000

Recently I read with dismay an article by Mort Zuckerman, the editor of U.S. News & World Report, on the Huffingtonpost.com titled 'Breaking the Public Sector Unions' Stranglehold on State and Local Governments.'

First, that's a whopper of a title, right? Secondly, the article has nothing at all to do with facts. When you start with a false premise (i.e. the union stranglehold) it is easier to lead readers to false conclusions (i.e. public sector workers are paid too much, have cushy pensions, health plans, etc.).

Let's deal with Zuckerman's claims one at a time.

The union stranglehold: Zuckerman claims, "The public sector unions organize voting campaigns for politicians who, on election, repay their benefactors by approving salaries and benefits for the public sector, irrespective of whether they are sustainable." He continues, "These unions will naturally back a candidate willing to support better pay and benefits for their members."

This, Zuckerman claims, perpetuates the unions' stranglehold on state and local governments.

First, has Zuckerman been living in a cave? Seriously? Either he is incredibly naive, an idiot or a liar. His analysis is not only condescending. Even worse, it's petty!

Of course public sector unions - all unions, all organizations, community groups, and don't forget the corporations! - organize voting campaigns. Of course they support candidates who back their issues - higher pay, better benefits, etc. To think otherwise is idiocy! That's the whole point! Don't act shocked and surprised Zuckerman. It is disingenuous!

As Bart Simpson would say, 'Duh!'

Additionally, we have to ask: Does organizing voting campaigns equal a stranglehold? Just because you organize a campaign doesn't mean you win! Last I checked only a small percentage of union backed candidates actually make it into office! And when they do they are always in the minority. Stranglehold? I don't think so!

Furthermore, where's Zuckerman's outrage regarding corporations and their voting campaigns? Aren't they repaid with sweetheart contracts, tax breaks, loopholes and lax regulatory oversight? BP anyone? I'm sure the disaster in the Gulf Coast can be traced back to BP financed candidates who support off-shore drilling.

Additionally, Zuckerman adds, "Over recent decades public sector employment has exploded and public workers have come to dominate the labor movement." However, the truth is far less dramatic. In fact, maybe Zuckerman should leave the drama to the cast of Glee.

A simple Google search of Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports shows that public sector union membership is currently at 7.9 million, while 7.4 million workers belong to unions in the private sector. A total of about 15.5 million workers belong to unions. The total U.S. work force is around 230 million. Obviously, both sectors are in a weakened position.

Do public sector workers make-up a larger share of the unionized work force? Yes, but they hardly dominate it. They have .5 percent more members than the private sector unions, and that is largely because of the recession. Has the percentage of the private sector unionized work force declined in recent years? Yes, but we've also been in the worst recession since the Great Depression and the private sector has lost millions of jobs, many of them union jobs in auto, steel, construction, etc. A decline in private sector employment doesn't necessarily equal an explosion in public sector employment.

Common sense coupled with a Google search of BLS data discredits Zuckerman's first claim.

The cushy pay and benefits: Through-out his article Zuckerman uses a lot of emotional rhetoric, but very little factual data. He insists that public sector workers have "extraordinary benefits," "soaring pay," "generous health insurance benefits" and "gold-plated perks." But wait, don't forget about the "multibillion-dollar unfunded liability" of union imposed "defined contribution" pension plans. He even goes so far as to claim that public sector workers are the "cushioned brethren" of private sector workers.

Now the facts: According to the BLS, the average pay for private-sector workers grew from $36,525 in 2001 to $46,708 in 2008. Pay for state employees trailed slightly, growing from $35,386 in 2001 to $43,540 seven years later. The most current data from the BLS indicates that the average pay for state employees today is about $50,000 - this includes executives, managers and union represented employees.

However, public sector unions don't represent executives, managers and other higher paid job classifications. They represent low-pay workers - the people who run the Department of Social Services, the Unemployment Offices, the Medicaid and Medicare office, etc. The average pay, if executives and managers are excluded, would be considerably lower.

As to the so-called "extraordinary benefits" and "gold-plated perks," all I have to say is this: If the union negotiated it and the state agreed to it, then it is a contract!

I believe in the sanctity of a contract. Maybe Zuckerman doesn't. I don't know. Maybe they don't have contracts in that cave he's been living in!

Photo: Public worker union members from AFSCME participate in 2008 Labor Walk in Wisconsin to mobilize union members to vote and educate them about the issues. Casie Yoder/AFL-CIO/CC/http://www.flickr.com/photos/labor2008/2603491739/

Racial wealth gap quadruples in 20 years

Wed, 26 May 2010 13:13:00 +0000

Capitalism is bad for working-class people. Unregulated capitalism is even worse, particularly for black and brown citizens and immigrants who suffer the additional burden of systemic racial, ethnic and gender discrimination.

So says a new study by Brandeis University's Institute on Assets and Social Policy. The study shows a dramatic quadrupling of the wealth gap between African American and their white counterparts in the two decades since 1984. The study tracked median wealth between whites and blacks."The greatest wealth produced in this period accrues primarily to highest income whites," says the study. This group was the chief beneficiariy of Republican tax cuts.

Several causes are seen as contributing to the unequal outcomes: tax cuts on investment income, tax deductions for home mortgages and patterns of discrimination in housing, credit and labor markets. Growing debt as a result of predatory high cost home loans is also seen as one the chief causes.

The size of the wealth gap is startling. "Measured in 2007 dollars, the disparity in assets increased $75,000 on average, from $20,000 to $95,000 over the 23-year period. At least one in four black households had no assets," writes the LA Times.

Significantly this economic racism affects African Americans across class lines, which saw almost no wealth increase even among higher income brackets. "The study found that even as white families saw their financial assets grow from a median value of $22,000 in 1984 to $100,000 in 2007, black families experienced only the slightest growth in wealth during this same period," continues the LA Times.

Median wealth does account for class differences among a given population and may overstate wealth accumulation among working-class whites, given the stupendous capital accumulation of wealthy white elites. The study however does point out that "economic stagnation and decline was experienced by both low wealth whites and low wealth African Americans." Still, one if four African Americans had no assets at all.

On the other hand African Americans at the higher end of the income bracket lost ground during this same period leading the study to conclude that "African Americans who have worked hard at well paying jobs to achieve the American Dream are still not able to achieve the wealth of their peers in the workforce, which translates into very different life chances."

The new consumer protection agency contained in the recently passed financial reform legislation is seen as an important potential safeguard. It does not however target wealth building measures.

Thomas Shapiro one of the study thinks more is necessary, including special targeting measures, say the Times:

"Shapiro said while he is in favor of the 'general ideas that frame' the provisions for such an agency in the proposed financial reform bill, he hopes the agency would take on more of an advocacy role and have more autonomy than contained in the current proposal. Wealth building policies, he recommends, should carry provisions to 'target...families of color.'"

The Brandeis study only indirectly refers to the double digit unemployment among African Americans that has been a consistent presence throughout the 23 years it tracked economic data. It does not address the racial wage differential.

The Great Recession which has seen severe worsening of unemployment, foreclosure and wealth loss is sure to make these matters worse. The subprime crisis has precipitated the biggest wealth loss in Black and Latino history in the United States.

Photo: CC/http://www.flickr.com/photos/carbonnyc/3355476155/

Corporations take away jobs, not immigrants

Tue, 25 May 2010 13:02:00 +0000

On May 1, the immigrant community from New York City to Los Angeles stood up to the racist law passed in Arizona known as SB 1070. What was recognized for us in Arizona was the multi-racial composition of the marchers. The affront to human decency, of this law, was expressed by a broad multi-racial, multi-cultural, young and older, male and female stream of marchers.

The march captured the slogan of "Aqui estamos, y no nos vamos, y si nos hechan, nos regresamos!" The idea is "We are here to stay! We're not leaving, And if they throw us out, We will return!"

The humor was present with a poster that read, "No illegals, No burritos, Think twice America!" And a t-shirt worn by a young man read, "I'm only ½ illegal."

The immigrant community is solid in their place in the U.S. economy, politics and culture. The super exploitation of the immigrant community is the basis for the tremendous wealth in many industries of our nation. Instead of being the target of racial profiling and asked for "papers" by the local police and state agencies, they should be exalted and honored for their contributions, sacrifices and hard work! The extremist legislators and our governor in Arizona should be profiled for ignorance, intolerance, racism and defeat at the polls in November!

Rep. Raul Grijalva, on the day of the signing of SB 1070, called for a national boycott of Arizona- and in so doing, opened one of the greatest opportunities to influence Arizona politics, to repeal SB 1070 and strike a blow against racism and change Arizona's legislature. I can tell you that the response to the boycott call has been very uplifting for the people in this state.

We say, in the labor movement, that a bad boss is the best union organizer and a governor like Brewer and the extremist right-wing legislator Pearce should be able to galvanize, unify and embolden a national movement.

The signing of SB 1070 is a subject of conversation wherever people meet- it can frustrate and divide people very easily. I decided not to lose my temper with a co-worker who supports the law and told him, "If the governor passed a law against people over six foot tall and goofy looking, I would stand up for you and your right to be here. Why can't you defend me?"

If transnational capital can disrupt the lives of millions of subsistence farmers in Mexico, by flooding their market with cheap corn and forcing migration to the north, they have a responsibility for those calamities. As long as workers must sell their labor in order to sustain themselves and their families, and where a job is the only way to do this, then the right to a job must be acted on as international law. Full employment and the right to a job are already recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and maintain that a job is fundamental to all human rights and material survival.

On the question of jobs and immigrants, a very important and quick guide is the AFL-CIO and Change to Win framework for comprehensive immigration reform. In order to deal with the attitude of "They're taking our jobs" and to appeal to their better sense, we need to talk about limiting wage competition, the right to form unions and collective bargaining, protecting U.S. workers and reducing the exploitation of immigrant workers. We need to say that border security is clearly important, but not sufficient, since 40 to 45 percent of unauthorized immigrants did not cross the border unlawfully, but overstayed visas. It's also a fact that 30 million valid visitors cross our border each year. "Enforcement only" policies will not work.

Immigration reform, developed by organized labor calls for:

independent commissions to determine flow of immigration
a worker authorization mechanism
rational operational control of the border
adjustment of status for current undocumented
improvement, not expansion, of temporary worker programs

The AFL-CIO this year has called for a new amnesty for the undocumented, for repeal of employer sanctions and for educating immigrants about their rights.

As we go forward, let's continue to weave the fight for full employment, immigrant rights and the struggle for equality into the 2010 midterm elections.

Steve Valencia is a labor activist from Arizona.

Photo: From the May 1 demonstration of 20,000 people in Tucson, Ariz. (Steve Valencia)

Capitalism: Big surprises in recent polls

Mon, 24 May 2010 17:20:00 +0000

(Majority Agenda) -- According to the conventional wisdom, the United States is a center-right country. But a new poll by Pew casts doubt on that idea. It shows widespread skepticism about capitalism and hints that support for socialist alternatives is emerging as a majoritarian force in America's new generation. Carried out in late April and published May 4, 2010, the Pew poll, arguably by the most respected polling company in the country, asked over 1500 randomly selected Americans to describe their reactions to terms such as "capitalism," "socialism," "progressive," "libertarian" and "militia." The most striking findings concern "capitalism" and "socialism." We cannot be sure what people mean by these terms, so the results have to be interpreted cautiously and in the context of more specific attitudes on concrete issues, as discussed later.

Pew summarizes the results in its poll title: "Socialism not so negative; capitalism not so positive." This turns out to be an understatement of the drama in some of the underlying data. Yes, "capitalism" is still viewed positively by a majority of Americans. But it is just by a bare majority. Only 52% of all Americans react positively. Thirty-seven percent say they have a negative reaction and the rest aren't sure. A year ago, a Rasmussen poll found similar reactions. Then, only 53% of Americans described capitalism as "superior" to socialism.

Meanwhile, 29% in the Pew poll describe "socialism" as positive. This positive percent soars much higher when you look at key sub-groups, as discussed shortly. A 2010 Gallup poll found 37% of all Americans preferring socialism as "superior" to capitalism.
Keep in mind these findings reflect an overview of the public mind when rightwing views seem at a high point - with the Tea Party often cast as a barometer of American public opinion. The polls in this era do not suggest a socialist country, but not a capitalist-loving one either. This is not a "center-right" America but a populace where almost 50% are deeply ambivalent or clearly opposed to capitalism. Republicans and the Tea Party would likely call that a Communist country.

The story gets more interesting when you look at two vital sub-groups. One is young people, the "millennial generation" currently between 18 and 30. In the Pew poll, just 43% of Americans under 30 describe "capitalism" as positive. Even more striking, the same percentage, 43%, describes "socialism" as positive. In other words, the new generation is equally divided between capitalism and socialism. The Pew, Gallup and Rasmussen polls come to the same conclusion. Young people cannot be characterized as a capitalist generation. They are half capitalist and half socialist. Since the socialist leaning keeps rising among the young, it suggests-depending on how you interpret "socialism"-that we are moving toward an America that is either center-left or actually majoritarian socialist.

Turn now to Republicans and Democrats. Sixty-two percent of Republicans in the Pew poll view capitalism as positive, although 81 % view "free markets" as positive, suggesting a sensible distinction in their mind between capitalism and free markets. Even Republicans prefer small to big business and are divided about big business, which many correctly see as a monopolistic force of capitalism undermining free markets.

The more interesting story, though, is about Democrats. We hear endlessly about Blue Dog Democrats. But the Pew poll shows a surprisingly progressive Democratic base. Democrats are almost equally split in their appraisal of capitalism and socialism. Forty-seven percent see capitalism as positive but 53% do not. And 44% of Democrats define socialism as positive, linking their negativity about capitalism to a positive affirmation of socialism. Moreover, many other subgroups react negatively to capitalism. Less than 50% of women, low-income groups and less-educated groups describe capitalism as positive. So much for the view that Obama does not have a strong progressive base to mobilize. In fact, "progressive,' according to the Pew poll, is one of the most positive terms in the American political lexicon, with a substantial majority of almost all sub-groups defining it as positive.

You may conclude that this all add ups to little, since we can't be clear about how people are defining "capitalism" and "socialism." But in my own research, summarized in recent books such as The New Feminized Majority and Morality Wars, attitudes registered in polls toward concrete issues over the last thirty years support the interpretation of the Pew data, at minimum, as evidence of a center-left country.

On nearly every major issue, from support minimum wage and unions, preference for diplomacy over force, deep concern for the environment, belief that big business is corrupting democracy, and support for many major social programs including Social Security and Medicare, the progressive position has been strong and relatively stable. If "socialism" means support for these issues, the interpretation of the Pew poll is a Center-Left country. If socialism means a search for a genuine systemic alternative, then America, particularly its youth, is emerging as a majoritarian social democracy, or in a majoritarian search for a more cooperativist, green, and more peaceful and socially just order. Either interpretation is hopeful. It should give progressives assurance that even in the "Age of the Tea Party," despite great dangers and growing concentrated corporate power and wealth, there is a strong base for progressive politics.

We have to mobilize the majority population to recognize its own possibilities and turn up the heat on the Obama administration and a demoralized Democratic Party. If we fail, the right will take up the slack and impose its monopoly capitalist will on a reluctant populace.

Charles Derber, professor of sociology at Boston College and author of Corporation Nation and Greed to Green. He is on the Majority Agenda Project's coordinating committee, info@majorityagendaproject.org.

Photo: Demotivational poster rstrawser/flickr/cc

A Main Street and MLK Boulevard stimulus

Mon, 24 May 2010 16:58:00 +0000

"What good is having the right to sit at a lunch counter if you can't afford a hamburger?" Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. asked in 1968. Today, many of us who fought for lunch-counter rights have children and grandchildren who can't afford a restaurant meal.

It's not just people of color who are paying the price. All communities, including whites, African-Americans, Latinos, and others in Rust Belt states, the northeast corridor, and "new economy" Sun Belt states are losing jobs, homes, and businesses. It's a nightmarish destruction of wealth.

For communities that were already in economic freefall before this recession, it's a catastrophe. Unless we take action soon, generations of progress may get reversed.

African-American unemployment is 16.5 percent (versus 9 percent for whites). Look at any indicator of economic well-being--jobs, income, poverty, health care--and it's clear that African Americans are still falling behind.

Manufacturing's demise in the United States has robbed millions of African Americans of their jobs, along with their membership in America's middle class. Places that were hit the hardest by these job losses--Chicago's South Side, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Toledo, Atlanta--all have large black populations. Local tax bases are shrinking, eroding education and destroying public jobs, public services, and public safety.

African-American communities were targeted for subprime lending, and we've been disproportionately slammed by foreclosures and bankruptcies. Communities suffering these economic blows are less able to support minority-owned small businesses--the auto dealership, the barbershop, and more.

Perhaps most disturbing, the economic scarring of African Americans--and of all those suffering from unemployment in this crisis--may endure for generations. Think of the child who doesn't get enough to eat. She has trouble concentrating in a school which is in disrepair and has class sizes too large because teachers have been cut. Her state has cut funding for higher education. One out of six adults around her is unemployed.

Acting immediately is essential for communities carrying the heaviest weight of the crisis. Five steps can save and create 4 million jobs and help secure the future.

Maintain the lifeline of extended unemployment insurance, health care, and food assistance. A record 38 percent of the unemployed have been without jobs for 27 weeks or more. African-Americans remain jobless for an average of five weeks longer than others. Maintaining the lifeline is a matter of survival.
Pump life back into deindustrialized communities. We can start by retooling shuttered factories and building new facilities for green jobs. In Gary, Indiana, two closed steel mills reopened due to increased demand from wind turbine manufacturers. General Motors plans to build a new facility in Detroit to assemble battery packs for hybrid vehicles. These initiatives show that change can happen where we need it most--but we've got to invest more to jumpstart these efforts on a larger scale.
Rescue states and communities with budget shortfalls before they lay off teachers, police officers, and firefighters. Our investments can save desperately needed middle class jobs and make distressed communities safer and more livable.
Hire community banks to lend leftover TARP money directly to small and medium-sized businesses. The banks we taxpayers so generously bailed out still aren't lending to medium and small businesses, the engine for job growth in communities.
Connect jobless people in distressed communities directly with work that needs to be done. In Los Angeles, a construction careers policy combines local hiring requirements, apprenticeships and a project labor agreement ensuring middle-class wages and benefits to move residents into skilled jobs on green construction projects. A portion of jobs is dedicated to people in extreme poverty and those who lack high school diplomas. These jobs must pay competitive wages, so that we're not replacing good state and local government jobs with temporary or poorly paid positions.

These five steps are the start we need right now to rebuild an economy that works for Main Street and MLK Boulevard, not just Wall Street.
--

Arlene Holt Baker is the executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, a union movement that represents 11.5 million members. www.aflcio.org

Is Rand Paul a racist?

Mon, 24 May 2010 07:50:00 +0000

Is Rand Paul, a: prejudiced, b: a chauvinist, c: a racist?

First we should define these three words in context with the discussion.

Chauvinism - unreasoning devotion to ones race, sex, etc. with contempt for other races, sex, etc.

Prejudices - suspicion, intolerance, or irrational hatred of other races, sex, creeds, regions, occupations, etc.

Racism - any programs or practices of discrimination and segregation that uphold the political or economic domination of one race over another or others.

(definitions from Webster's New world College Dictionary)

Now lets consider the question(s) at hand considering recent comments of Rand Paul.

a. Is Rand Paul a chauvinist?

He says he is not. Absent any defining "macaque" moment, the question, in and of itself, will stand answered by his denial: for now.

b. Is Rand Paul prejudiced?

He says he is not. Ditto the "macaque" statement above.

c. Is Rand Paul a racist?

Yes. He is. His statements concerning his opposition to Federal laws that protect African Americans against "programs or practices that uphold political or economic domination of one race over another or others" brands him.

Racist Jim Crow laws and culture - "program or practice" - existed throughout the country before the passage of the Civil Rights Law. The consequences their existence amounted to the uninterrupted "economic or political" domination over African Americans, going back to the earliest days of our nation.

Racist "programs or practices", first and foremost, are sources of power and profit - "political or economic" - and those who support them have been the most ardent and consistent opponents of Federal laws that put those sources out of reach. Here is where we may revisit questions a and b above and challenge Rand Paul's denial of chauvinism and prejudice. How else can his opposition to laws that provide relief and protection from "political or economic" super-exploitation for millions of African-American citizens be viewed?

One of the great setbacks of the discourse over equality and justice that has taken place since the passage of the Civil Rights Law is the success those who benefit from racist "programs or practices" have had in redefining racism as a prejudice and/or chauvinism. A subjective state of mind rather than one of design represented by "program or practice."

These days we hear talk of black racism, even among some who should know better, as if the African-American community as a whole is or has ever been in any position to institute any "program or practice" that would lead to any level of "political or economic domination" of the white population. It is akin to saying a round square is a geometric figure. It is a lie created to hide the truth and the facts of the consequences of racism. Consequences that do harm to all except the seekers of ever more power and profit. Those who, like Rand Paul, lurk under the mantle of respectability while planning the return of "programs or practices of discrimination and segregation that uphold the political or economic domination of one race over another or others."

Rand Paul is a racist. We as a nation trying to move forward risk much if we shy from the challenge his ilk presents. Although the danger of what he represents is great, he can be dealt with easily. Simply toss him onto history's trash heap of other aberrant individuals, as we pass it in November, and don't look back!

CPUSA convention video: Socialism -- sustainable and necessary

Fri, 21 May 2010 14:25:00 +0000

The Communist Party USA's 29th National Convention kicks off today in New York City.

In the player below, you can watch the opening session of the Convention including remarks by Party Chairman Sam Webb, based on his report to the Convention. You can join in the discussion in the chat window below that. For more information, cpusa.org.

British Petroleum and friends: The face of the enemy

Fri, 21 May 2010 08:41:00 +0000

When we rail against corporate abuses on these pages and elsewhere, we sometimes forget that a corporation is not a person, it is an inanimate thing, a mere instrument used by certain flesh and blood individual persons to advance their economic and political interests. The enemy of the working people of the world may seem at times to be "the corporations" but behind the corporations are the ruling class and its individual members, who are human beings, sort of.

This is revealed in the ease with which certain ruling class individuals are sometimes willing to loot "their own" corporations and leave them as heaps of rubble underneath which their employees and small scale investors lie buried. We saw that with Enron and with a whole bunch of corporations in the last couple of years.

So when we denounce British Petroleum, Halliburton and other corporations for the catastrophe they have created in the Gulf of Mexico, we must not let the actual individuals who made the decisions off the hook. The corporate structures must not be allowed to mask the face of the enemy, which is a human face, though a nasty one.

Let us look at the Board of Directors of British Petroleum. It is composed of extremely high powered individuals. They cannot wash their hands of responsibility for the disaster and pass the blame to some underling, saying "I did not know". They are experienced achievers, movers and shakers, not fools or puppets of their own underlings. They as individuals, and not just the corporation, have to be held personally accountable. On the board of directors there are no fewer than four people listed as being on the committee charged with "environmental responsibility'. With so many people at the top looking out for "environmental responsibility" you would think that some environmental responsibility would have materialized. Maybe that was not really their role.

The Chairman of the Board of British Petroleum is a Swede, Carl-Henric Svanberg, who has plenty of establishment connections, which got him a medal from King Carl-Gustav for "his contribution to Swedish industry". There are a number of Englishmen, Scots, Americans and others, some of whom began as humble chemists or engineers but all of them are now as wired as can be with transnational capital.

Particularly interesting to me is board member Cynthia Carroll, an American, who is one of several people on the BP board with membership in the corporation's "safety, ethics and environmental responsibility committees", again according to the website.

What caught my eye about Ms. Carroll, as I scanned over the potted biographies of Board members, was the fact that she is the current Executive Director of Anglo American PLC, as well as sitting of the board of DeBeers and BP.

For those who don't following mining matters, Anglo-American and DeBeers are the two ugly twins of South African mining. Both companies are heavily implicated in oppressive labor conditions in South Africa and its neighbors. Historically, Anglo-American ran the gold mines of the Transvaal, while DeBeers is of course world famous for its diamonds. Ms. Carroll became Executive Director of Anglo-American in March 2007, and has been sharply criticized in South Africa because of her company's labor practices. She was also formerly associated with the aluminum mining giant, Alcan, and other corporate behemoths. Her salary at BP is said to be about $2 million per year.

Anglo American is now worldwide. It is in the process of developing a very large scale gold and molybdenum mine, the Pebble Mine in interior Alaska, near villages of the Tanana and other Native American communities. In fact, the project is very controversial locally and beyond, because it may block salmon migrations, vital to the local fishing industry, by damming the rivers the fish need for spawning, and because of fears that cyanide and other materials used in such mining will create an environmental catastrophe that will harm the livelihood and health of the local communities.

Both Anglo American and BP are huge transnationals, the leaders in the respective fields of oil extraction and mining. Their fingers are in many, many pies, and the greed and irresponsibility that have bubbled to the surface in the Gulf of Mexico disaster amount to a systematic rape of the whole planet. Nor are they alone: Other major mining companies such as Rio Tinto and Pacific Rim have their own scandals. But in each case, the corporations do not make the bad decisions that harm people and the environment, the ruling class people who run those corporations do.

Let us work to for an accounting of the flesh-and-blood ruling class, not just their bloodless corporate instruments.

Photo: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en

Over-taxed? Not by the numbers

Thu, 20 May 2010 16:28:00 +0000

LONDON (PAI) - Conservatives in the United States and Great Britain have been marching, in lockstep, for over three decades, pushing a variety of almost identical comfort-the-comfortable policies that made their nations two of the most unequal in the world. But the marchers may now be headed in somewhat different directions.

In the UK, the Conservative Party gained a parliamentary majority through a coalition with the third-place Liberal Democrats, but only after agreeing, as one analyst notes, "to ditch a few of their ugliest policies - like giant inheritance tax cuts for double-millionaires." British conservatives are even swallowing "considerably higher taxes" on capital gains, the income the wealthy reap from selling stocks and other assets.

Meanwhile, in the United States, conservatives are busily blasting any move to end GOP President George W. Bush's tax cuts for America's richest. The nation, they're warning, remains weighed down by a horrific tax burden that threatens to beggar us all. There's just one problem with the GOP's claim: It's wrong. Nevertheless, the British may be stepping into a new era, while we still have a way to go.

Taxes on the wealthy in the United States run low. Many wealthy Americans want these taxes to run even lower. But the American people, for some strange reason, have never rallied around candidates who champion tax cuts for the richest among us. So rich people-friendly politicos do the next best thing. They champion tax cuts for all.

But this approach can prove problematic, too. Across-the-board tax cuts for everybody, the rich included, can quickly end up gutting the revenues that fund the public services average Americans depend upon and appreciate.

How do friends of the fortunate sidestep this inconvenient reality? They wildly exaggerate the tax burden that falls on average Americans. They endeavor to convince America's non-rich majority that we're deeply and terribly "overtaxed."

Now, two new data sources challenge this "overtaxed" claim. One compares what U.S. taxpayers pay now to what they used to pay in years gone by. The other compares tax bills in the United States to tax bills elsewhere in the developed world.

The two analyses, in the end, tell the same tale: Any candidate or lawmaker who calls the United States "overtaxed" is running interference for America's rich. He or she is also flat wrong.

The first new analysis - from the U.S. Commerce Department - shows that total income, property, sales, and various other taxes together equaled 9.2% of all U.S. personal income in 2009, the lowest such rate since 1950.

The second, an analysis from the industrial world's official economic research agency, found that the average married couple with two kids in the United States has a tax burden one-half the size of the comparable average family in the developed world as a whole.

This second analysis zeroes in on what the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, calls the "tax wedge," the difference between what an employer has to spend to employ someone - both in wages and the employer's share of social security taxes - and what that employed person actually nets, after taxes, in take-home pay.

In 2009, for the developed world as a whole, the "tax wedge" - or, more simply put, the tax burden - stood at 26% of employment costs for average-wage couples with two children. In the United States last year, that average family tax burden ran 13.7%.

Only five of the nations the OECD tracks had a lower tax burden than this U.S. rate. Twenty-four had a higher rate.

The bottom line? By any rational historical or global standard, we don't have an "overtaxation" problem in the United States.

Our problem lies elsewhere. We have an under-taxed rich. Under current U.S. tax law, the wealthy in the United States don't have to pay much in taxes. Even worse, they don't even pay what they owe.

Another reminder of this systematic shortchanging of Uncle Sam emerged from the independent panel Congress created in 1998 to monitor the IRS. According to the latest available figures, this IRS Oversight Board notes in its new annual report, $290 billion a year in taxes due is going uncollected.

Not all of that, to be sure, reflects tax evasion by the rich. But tax evasion by the wealthy represents an oversized share of that gap. In 2008, one study broke the IRS "tax gap" data down by income level and found that Americans making between $500,000 and $1 million a year were underreporting their incomes at triple the "misreport" rate of taxpayers making between $30,000 and $50,000.

What's the IRS doing about all this? The Oversight Board sees some promise in recent IRS action. The agency, notes the board, "initiated a major effort in 2009 to

identify taxpayers who were hiding money in offshore tax jurisdictions."

As part of that effort, the UBS Swiss banking giant agreed to turn over the names of 4,450 U.S. taxpayers who had been stashing dollars in secret Alpine accounts. And 14,700 U.S. taxpayers agreed to reveal details on their own offshore accounts after the IRS set up a voluntary disclosure program.

Data from these 14,700 affluent taxpayers, says the Oversight Board, will hand the IRS "a wealth of information to mine for future enforcement efforts."

Unfortunately, on the audit front, the IRS doesn't seem to be moving with the same sense of urgency. Close examinations of high-income returns remain relatively rare. The exam rate for taxpayers making over $200,000 a year has essentially remained flat for the past three years, hovering around 2.9%.

And the IRS still lacks an up-to-date sense of how much in taxes America's rich are evading. The $290 billion "tax gap" estimate the IRS Oversight Board cited comes from data collected way back in 2001.

This failure to update the tax evasion stats, notes the Oversight Board, makes it "difficult, if not impossible, for the Oversight Board, the IRS, or any other member of the tax administration community to determine with any degree of certainly that the IRS is making progress in reducing the tax gap."

We need that progress. In troubled economic times, we need that money.

Veteran labor journalist Sam Pizzigati edits Too Much Online (http://toomuchonline.org), a newsletter about wealth and income sponsored by the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington research group.

A port in the storm

Thu, 20 May 2010 15:10:00 +0000

McKINLEYVILLE, Calif. - As readers may have noticed, I haven't written an article in the last few months. I've been fully occupied with a condition that comes with life - its passing.

In February, I wrote about my dear friend and fellow-adventurer, "Tree" (Doug, "Tree of many feathers"), who suddenly became ill and died. A few weeks later my 88-year-old mother, Tillie, passed in the same manner.

Being no stranger to these circumstances, I wrote obituaries, planned memorials, spoke and read poetry at the ceremonies.

While losing family members and friends is always difficult and painful, a gallant organization that has greatly helped me, and others in similar circumstances, is "Hospice."

Hospice, in its modern form, had its roots in England. The organization was founded to give care and support to people with terminal illnesses, along with counseling, relief, planning, and assistance for the dying person's loved ones and family members. Under its umbrella many, if not most, hospice clients are able to go back to or remain in their homes to pass in relative comfort.

Hospice caregivers seem unique in always being present and very attentive to the needs of the patient and family.

Beyond the appropriate medical applications and hygienic care, their social and psychological support is outstanding. Considering the needs and wishes of family and patients, caregivers often read books, letters and news articles to those who are ill, and share in their life's good memories, exciting stories and beautiful experiences. Suffice it to say they bring to patients and families the gifts of gentleness, support, care and comfort - all with compassion, dignity and respect.

And at the conclusion of life's journey, they help to address disposition of the remains.

Without exception, all my family members and friends who have had the benefit of hospice caregivers' services have felt their burdens greatly lightened and have deeply appreciated their help.

Though not often talked about, dying is truly the final goal of living in honor, dignity, and respect. Reasonable planning for the future must include preparation for life's transitions. Hospice is filling the void of this neglected exercise.

All of us in this great Socialist struggle age a bit more each day. Attention and praise should be given to all non-profit, volunteer organizations and their members who gently usher the travelers to their final comfortable, peaceful, and respectful retreat.

To my dear Comrade, "Tree": "Save a spot for me beside your hobo fire where the billy-can pleasantly brews - and this time, I'll get the hot dogs."

To my sweet Comrade mother, Tillie: "Yes, Mom, I will remember to wear a warm jacket under the yellow slicker when I go out in the rain."

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/theodorescott/ / CC BY 2.0

Save public libraries

Wed, 19 May 2010 09:57:00 +0000

Full disclosure: I LOVE books. I love the way they look stacked on shelves and scattered on my bedside table. I love the way the pages feel; I love the way they smell.

Ipso facto, I love the library.

When I was home on maternity leave with twins more than a decade ago, my sanity was saved by the public library system, which in New York is especially wonderful since you can order any book you want online, and it will be delivered to the branch of your choice. (Even without that I would have benefited from the proximity of my local branch - two blocks away - and the fact that everything there is free, a big plus when your family has expanded from three to five overnight!)

I go to the library at least once a week, either the branch near my home in the Bronx, or near my job in Manhattan, and both are always PACKED. I mean, seriously, at the Manhattan branch, I frequently have to wait on line to check out books. And the Bronx branch is always full of people, from kids to teenagers to senior citizens.

So I do not pretend to be unbiased, and in fact, I was outraged that, as the NY Times reported last week, "public libraries are always among the first city services to be threatened with substantial cuts."

Now, billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg's budget has other outrageous cuts, all of which have in common that they make working people pay or suffer for the economic crisis. Proposed to be closed are 16 daycare centers, 50 senior centers and 20 firehouses. Parks, pools and beaches will be shuttered.

But the cuts proposed to the libraries are as cruel as the others, and I wondered, why are they "always among the first?" Is the idea that libraries don't provide essential services?

In fact, public libraries are absolutely essential, to a democratic society, and to the overall wellbeing of working people.

As Margalit Susser, president of the union that represents Queens library employees put it, "We're more than a library, we are part of the community."

Libraries are not just about books - people go there to read newspapers and periodicals, for movies and music, for classes and concerts. And millions use the internet at the library.

A recent study by the University of Washington found that "low-income adults are more likely to rely on the public library as their sole access to computers and the Internet than any other income group," and that "people relied on library technology to find work, apply for college, secure government benefits, learn about critical medical treatments, and connect with their communities."

Libraries are community centers, hosting cultural events and offering classes. They teach English to immigrant adults.

Of course, the two key (and beautiful) words to remember when it comes to libraries are "public" and "free."

Which is why libraries should be fought for as hard as we fight for everything else that is threatened by the economic crisis. And by the way, needless to say, Bloomberg's cuts to the libraries include lots of layoffs -- close to 1000 workers -- many of whom are women.

Christian Zabriskie, from Urban Librarians Unite, said, " These budget cuts will destroy the public libraries in this city as we know them, marginalize our impact on our communities and deprive our citizens of information, culture and entertainment."

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhoweaa/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

The people of Greece and the rest of us

Mon, 17 May 2010 12:02:00 +0000

If you rely - as we usually must - on the major mass media to get a picture of what's going on in the world you probably think the economic crisis in Greece came about because the irresponsible Greeks are insisting on retiring at 50, are unwilling to give up the "bonuses" to which they have become accustomed, and are insisting that their European neighbors foot the bill. However, most of what we read or hear is either distorted out of proportion or simply isn't true. The economic crisis in the European Union wasn't caused by Greek working people and the threats they face these days are far greater than are being portrayed.

The Greek worker living high on the hog, getting paid for doing little and retiring into the lap of luxury is as real as the proverbial "welfare queen" driving her Cadillac downtown to pick up her check. Yeah, there are moochers and con artists in every society but that's not the real issue here. The working people of Greece confront the same problems most of the rest of us do. The world of capitalism has become dysfunctional and those still profiting from it have come up with a way to deal with it, by putting the cost right on our shoulders. And, as with the unemployed single mother, the scapegoating is tinged with racial/ethnic stereotyping. The same goes for the Italians, Spanish and Portuguese - the southerners lining up for dole from the frugal, hardworking people in the North.

The working people of Greece did not create the mess their economy is in any more than their counterparts in the rest of Europe are responsible for the now continent-wide economic crisis.

"Want to know exactly why public anger in Greece is running at such explosive levels?" asked Tony Bonsignore last week in the British financial investment advice service Citywire. "Then take a look at the austerity measures currently being debated by the Greek parliament.

"The BBC reports that as part of the IMF/ EU bailout Greek leaders are proposing the following measures:
* Public sector pay to be frozen till 2014;
* Public sector salary bonuses - equivalent to two months' extra pay - to be scrapped or capped;
* Public sector allowances to be cut by 20 percent;
* State pensions to be frozen or cut, with the contribution period up from 37 to 40 years; the average retirement age raised from 61 to 63, and early retirement restricted;
* VAT [value added tax] to be increased from 19 percent to 23 percent;
* Taxes on fuel, alcohol and tobacco raised to 10 percent;
* A new one-off tax on profits to be introduced, plus new gambling, property and green taxes."

"On their own any one of these measures would probably be enough to prompt significant political disquiet; taken together they represent a catastrophic setback to the financial aspirations of the average Greek," wrote Bonsignore, formerly a reporter and editor for Financial Times. "It certainly wasn't what the Greek population voted for when they entered the EU in 1981 and adopted the single currency two decades later."

Writing from Athens, John Lichfield of The Independent (UK) observed, "Whether pain can ever be spread evenly in a system so endemically corrupt and perverse as the Levantine political and economic system of Greece is open to question. How can anyone trust a system in which large sections of the wealthiest members of society - from ship owners to lawyers and doctors - have traditionally, and quite legally, evaded almost all direct taxes?

"The problem is that correcting the injustices in the tax system will take years to harvest its fruit. The deeper, immediate, further austerity measures VAT [value added tax] increases and pension and public spending cuts - imposed on Athens last weekend will produce an immediate cut in the state deficit. But they will fall mostly on modestly-off Greeks, in the private and state sectors, who do pay into the system and feel they have already made several blood sacrifices already."

The significant difference between Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland and other European countries is that they are economically less affluent countries than others to the north. Therefore there are major imbalances in trade on the continent. One result is that they are relatively uncompetitive compared with the others, especially export powerhouse Germany. The other result is that the countries sometimes referred to as "the periphery of the continent" were doubly undermined by the current economic crisis that - you will recall - originated in the United States.

Poverty was increasing in Greece before the present crisis hit. The Greek unemployment rate was 9.5 percent last year; it rose to 11.3 per cent in January. As a consequence of steps now being undertaken, it will rise further. The Financial Times says the EU-IMF-imposed measures will deliver "a brutal amount of pain" to the country. As economist Paul Krugman has said, the "severe austerity" now demanded of Greece "will have a strong depressing effect on an already depressed economy."

In some ways the economic situation in Britain is of greater consequence than that in Greece. The other day someone described that country as a heart patient in urgent need of a transplant. They just had an election in the UK and, on its eve, Andrew Wander wrote in Al-jazeera, "Analysts say that this election will mark the dawn of an era of austerity unlike anything seen in the country for a generation, with higher taxes and drastic cuts in public spending needed to fund efforts to balance the nation's books." He went on, "If Britain is not seen to be dealing with its mountain of debt, the country could lose its triple-A credit rating and with it the trust of the financial markets whose investment in government bonds keeps treasury coffers full.

"If that happens, the results could be even more harmful than a recession sparked by spending cuts; demand for UK bonds could collapse and the UK could end up facing a Greek-style cash flow crisis."

Wander reported that Mark Littlewood, the director of the Institute of Economic Affairs, "believes that British public sector strikes are `quite likely' as the cuts kick in, and he is not alone in predicting political problems for the next government." Furthermore, "Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, is said to believe that whoever wins this election will be out of power for a generation because of how tough the austerity measures will need to be."

"Innocent Greeks are facing years of austerity," Ruth Sunderland, business editor of the Observer (UK) wrote this last Sunday. "People will have their pay slashed, lose their jobs and be forced to wait for years longer to draw the pensions they were promised. Dreams and aspirations will be ground into the dust.

"In London and New York, the plight of Greek families fails to stir the faintest compassion in the cold-eyed speculators who have been feasting on their distress before moving on to their next prey in Spain, Portugal or Italy. And despite the revision of views on Black Wednesday, there is no guarantee that this bout of speculation will turn out to be for Greece's benefit in the end.

"In the UK, we have good reason to be afraid of the jackals stalking global markets. Our situation is a long way from being as dire as that of Greece, but the election result has left the markets nervous about more political turmoil and whether there will be credible plans to reduce our deficit. If and when the speculators turn their attentions our way, we can be sure they will act mercilessly, with no regard for the human misery of lost jobs, home repossessions or emptied-out pension plans."

Quiet as it's kept, there is a much bigger picture here and it contains some sinister implications. Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, president of the party of European Socialists (PES), which coordinates Europe's socialist, social democrat, progressive and labor parties, says the EU's conservative majority is, in fact, punishing Greece, subjecting it to "the nation-state equivalent of waterboarding" and is out to "dismantle core social standards." Writing in Britain's Guardian May 7, Rasmussen said the continent's conservatives are "trying to use these kinds of austerity measures to force through social cutbacks across Europe."

"This is but a cynical attempt to roll back fundamental social standards. It does not even make financial sense as it would force thousands into the grey economy - one of the structural causes of the crisis in the first place - or even worse, would force them into abject poverty," Rasmussen wrote.

In most of the rest of the world the prescribed method for dealing with the system's crisis is referred to it by it proper name: austerity. The media in our country seems to have an aversion to using the term. But that's what it is when, in order to deal with the economic malfunctioning, you cut education budgets and fire teachers, enact special taxes that hit working people hardest, reduce services for the indigent and threaten to reduce or eliminate retirement and medical programs for seniors. It comes down to who, in a pinch, is going to be required to lower their living standards, and which individuals and families are expected to lead more austere lives. There is a political crisis in most of the industrialized capitalist world because things are getting tough for the lower end of the economic ladder while vast fortunes are being amassed at the top.

There is nothing even remotely equal about the sacrifices people are being asked to make at the present moment. The financial arrangements being worked out for Greece don't involve aid for Greek workers and the middle classes being squeezed by the economic crisis; its purpose is to rescue the banks - the local ones and the other European banks that hold Greek debt. This will seem familiar to anyone who has looked on as troubled financial institutions on Wall Street have been bailed out and are again raking in profits while the unemployment rate rises and more and more people are evicted from their homes.

"In truth, the very foundations of the global neo- liberal system, which emerged from the Reagan-Thatcher inspired capitalist economic blitzkrieg of the last 25 years, is now discredited," wrote John Palmer in the Guardian May 7. "TheEU as a whole also needs a new economic philosophy based on green and sustainable growth and which encourages social cohesion and not short-term economic growth, reduces excessive dependence on the financial and carbon energy sectors, and which actively promotes greater social equality. The time to strike out in a new direction is now - before it is too late. Where Europe leads, the world may well now want to follow."

Try telling that to Thomas Friedman. The New York Times columnist - of late earth fame who will never have to worry about where his next meal is coming from or whether he will have a roof over his head - is quick to endorse the idea that the task in our country is, as he put it Sunday, to "cut public sector pay, freeze benefits, slash jobs, abolish a range of welfare entitlements and take the ax to programs such as school building and road maintenance." And all the while, we can be sure new billionaires will arise, poverty increase and economic inequality grow. Now that's something to look forward to.

Originally published May 12 at blackcommentator.com and reposted with permission of the author.

YouTube -- major game-changer in digital world

Mon, 17 May 2010 11:51:00 +0000

Remember the good old days when the entire family used to get together in front of the television and watch America's Funniest Home Videos? They would make us laugh out loud because the videos usually featured moments of regular people in original, homemade footage.

Well, a lot has changed since those days. As the digital world continues to revolutionize modern communication, one of its major game changers is none other than YouTube.

Whether its thousands filmed marching in the streets for immigrant rights on May Day or a Lady Gaga and Beyonce music video, or a guy named "Dancing Matt" showing off his moves around the world, YouTube has become one of the most popular Web sites in the world.

YouTube, in just five years, has rocketed to global stardom and has become a key stakeholder in the ever-expanding online revolution. Today, the site gets more than one billion views each day.

Founded in 2005, YouTube dubs itself the "world's most popular online video community, allowing millions of people to discover, watch and share originally-created videos."

YouTube says it "provides a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small."

The leader in online video, YouTube has become the premier destination to watch and share original videos and allows people to upload them across the Internet through websites, mobile devices, blogs and email.

First-hand accounts of current events are featured on YouTube including videos about personal hobbies or interests like cooking, learning about math and science or how to tie a tie, and much more.

YouTube says it is "empowering people to become the broadcasters of tomorrow."

One of YouTube's founders and CEO Chad Hurley told ABC News that the site "makes the tools but the human race provides the content."

Hurley adds, "We didn't know what was going to happen. We just knew that we wanted to create a site that we would enjoy and others would enjoy and the fact that people have the chance to do that kind of tells us something."

Google bought YouTube in a $1.65 billion deal about 19 months after it was founded. An average of 24 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube each minute in an amount of content equal to 150,000 full length films over the course of a week. Currently, there is 1,700 year's worth of video on the site.

YouTube, next to Facebook and Google, is part of the online revolution that connects millions of users worldwide every day.

Twelve-year-old Greyson Michael Chance is the latest biggest thing on YouTube. His rendition of Lady Gaga's "Paparazzi" during a middle school talent show has jumped from 40,000 hits to over 1 million in one night.

Consider AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka's speech against racism and the labor movement's overwhelming support of President Obama's historic election. The speech was praised by unions and progressives and seen as a growing testament for change, hope and unity as the country celebrated its first black president. The speech went viral.

The world of YouTube helped bring fame to a young rising star, now teen idol, Justin Bieber, after his mom posted footage of him singing.

YouTube viewers also witnessed a cell-phone video of a 26-year-old woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, shot dead at an Iranian protest, whose dying body became the face of a turbulent uprising there.

Sometimes YouTube even exposes the down-right dirty. Take for example Republican Sen. George Allen who was caught on camera making an alleged racial slur. His 2006 reelection campaign never quite recovered.

Other most memorable YouTube clips include:

Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance" music video with more than 187 million hits.

"Charlie bit my finger," with an astounding 181 million hits.

"Susan Boyle impresses on Britain's Got Talent" and because of YouTube, launched her career with 91 million hits.

Then there is "David after the dentist" that totaled some 57 million hits.

We can't forget "The Wedding Dance," which received 48 million hits and was even parodied in the American sitcom, "The Office."

Like it or not, understand it or not, YouTube has revolutionized how we live. Videos whether they're original or scripted on YouTube are everyday becoming part of an online phenomenon taking the world by storm.

Socialism in North Dakota

Fri, 14 May 2010 10:56:00 +0000

The Bank of North Dakota is the only state-owned bank in America. Despite that, or because of it, the bank earned a record profit last year even as its private-sector corollaries lost billions.

Some who have difficulty even absorbing news of a profitable socialist enterprise point to North Dakota's well-insulated economy, which is heavy on agricultural staples and light on housing speculation, as the source of its success.

But this has not stopped out-of-state politicos from making pilgrimages to Bismarck for counsel and advice. Could opening state-owned banks across America get us out of the financial crisis? The Bank of North Dakota, with its $4 billion under management, has avoided the credit freeze and crisis by creating its own credit, and in doing so, is leading the nation in establishing state economic sovereignty as well. Could decentralizing large sectors of finance provide better insurance - a better hedge, if one may use that term - for the people, against the "too big to fail" phenomenon?

The North Dakota state bank was created 90 years ago, in 1919, as a populist movement swept the northern plains. Basically it was a very angry movement led by farmers against bank and land speculators in Minneapolis, or New York. Those money markets decided who got credit and who did not and who got to market their goods. So a rebellion swept the northern plains. In North Dakota the movement was called the Nonpartisan League, and the League actually took control of the legislature and created what was called an industrial program, which created both the Bank of North Dakota as a financing arm and a state-owned mill and elevator to market and buy the grain from the farmer. And both of those institutions are in existence today doing exactly what they were created to do 90 years ago.

The funding model, or deposit model, is really the unique engine that drives that bank. The state bank is the depository for all state tax collections and fees. In effect, this is a captive deposit base. The bank pays a competitive rate to the state treasurer to help insure competent management. What separates the state bank from private institutions is that the base of deposit funds is plowed back into North Dakota in the form of loans to foster public state economic development activities.

Private banks also invest their deposits. The difference is that the state bank invests a larger portion of that money back into the state's own economy. Investments are put into agriculture or other economic development programs that are deemed necessary in the state. Energy production, due to ethanol, now plays a huge role there too. The bank does a lot of student loan financing as well. It designs specific loan programs for different business sectors at very low interest rates to encourage activity along certain lines.

The bank has also played a big role in recovery from disasters caused by flooding. It walks a fine line between competing and partnering with the private sector. Most of the lending is participatory in nature. It's originated by a local bank wherein the state bank can come in and participate and use some of its programs to share risk, or buy down the interest rate. The bank also works to provide guarantees similar to the Small Business Association (SBA) to encourage entrepreneurial startups.

Aside from that, the bank acts as a bankers' bank or a wholesale bank, providing services to banks, whether it's check clearing, liquidity, or bond accounting safekeeping. In this sense it acts as kind of a "mini" Federal Reserve.

The advantage of a publicly owned "bankers' bank" instead of a privately owned one is this: the model employed is to use the deposit base to help other banks with funding their loans, even providing federal funds lines with excess liquidity - by buying and selling fed funds and acting as a clearinghouse for check clearing activity.

North Dakota citizens are fairly conservative and the bank didn't do any subprime lending. Nor was there a powerful incentive to get into the derivatives markets and put on swaps and callers and caps and credit default swaps. Their philosophy was: "If we don't understand it, we're not going to jump into it." Thus they avoided those pitfalls.

They also provide a dividend back to the state. The Bank of North Dakota stands to make somewhere north of $60 million this year, and will turn over about half of the profits back to the state general fund. And so over the last 12 years, a third of a billion dollars has been returned to the general fund to offset taxes and to aid in funding public sector needs.

The State of North Dakota does not have any funding issues at all. In fact they are dealing with the largest surplus ever. North Dakota state bank deposits are not insured by the FDIC, but by "the people of North Dakota". Yet the bank has never been a bank that tries to hit home runs. It has a specific mission that is more important. For most corporations and banks, their top priority is to maximize shareholder return. The Bank of North Dakota does have a nice return - a return on net operating assets of 2 percent; a return on equity of 26 percent. But the mission of making sure the needs of the state are met comes first - being able to finance those types of investments that make the state go forward.

When the act that established the North Dakota state bank was enacted, all public corporations in the state were also required to deposit their funds in the bank. However a ballot initiative the same year eliminated that requirement, though not without a big struggle over the issue. Though initially conceived by Nonpartisan League founders as a credit union style institution to free the farmers from predatory lenders, the bank's functions were partially neutered by the time of its inception by the business-backed "Independent Voters Association." The recall of NPL Gov. Lynn Frazier in 1921 effectively ended the initial plan, with the bank taking a more conservative central banking role in state finance.

The current president and CEO is Eric Hardemeyer. The bank is managed by the North Dakota Industrial Commission, which is composed of the governor, attorney general, and the agriculture commissioner (formerly the agriculture and labor commissioner) of North Dakota.

Can a "state bank" play a positive role in current struggles for jobs and sustainable recovery? The answer must be YES - although the emergence of such banks must be linked directly to the kinds of investments each state needs to move forward.