USW Blog » From Campaign for America’s Future

Archive for the ‘From Campaign for America’s Future’ Category

Anti-Union FAA Bill Passes Congress

Posted February 8, 2012 at 8:00 am, in Allied Approaches, From Campaign for America's Future

Dave Johnson
Fellow, Campaign for America's Future

The FAA reauthorization bill has passed Congress with its anti-union provisions. Once again big companies of the 1% were able to use their money and power to buy legislation that hurts 99% of us. And many Dems joined in. Watch the powerful video at the end of this post.

TPM has the headline that just about covers it: Senate Dems Greenlight Key Anti-Union Bill,

With the help of Senate Democrats, Congress took its final step Monday toward enactment of long-term FAA reauthorization legislation, despite an aggressive last-minute effort by organized labor to kill the package.

… Democrats and Republicans have been tussling over this bill for a year now, with the key flashpoint being language aimed at preventing transportation workers from forming unions. In the end, Democratic leaders agreed with Republicans on a new measure that largely accomplishes the same anti-union goals — and labor officials are steamed.

Huffington Post: Senate Passes FAA Bill With Anti-Union Measure,

The Senate passed a Federal Aviation Administration bill on Monday that includes an anti-union measure bitterly opposed by labor groups.

… Among the controversial provisions were changes to labor law for rail and airline workers — backed by the airline industry — that would count anyone who did not vote in an election for a union as voting against it, making it much more difficult to certify attempts to organize new unions.

That measure was stripped in a conference committee to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill, only to be replaced by another that raises the threshold for seeking a union from requiring 35 percent of workers’ signatures to requiring half. (more…)

Citizens United: Uniting the One Percent

Posted February 5, 2012 at 12:00 pm, in Allied Approaches, From Campaign for America's Future

Terrance Heath

Mitt Romney is taking a lot of heat for saying that he’s “not concerned about the very poor.” To be fair, he also said he’s not concerned about the very rich either. Lucky for him the feeling isn’t mutual that that side of the economic divide. According to recent FEC filings, the very rich are very concerned with Mitt Romney’s campaign for his party’s presidential nomination. And why shouldn’t they be concerned? After all, some of them are Mitt’s friends and former colleagues.

One of Mitt Romney’s strongest assets as the GOP presidential front-runner is also a potentially serious liability in the race: his heavy reliance on a small group of millionaires and billionaires for financial support.

A quarter of the money amassed by Romney’s campaign and an allied super PAC has come from just 41 people, each of whom has given more than $100,000, according to a Washington Post analysis of disclosure data. Nearly a dozen of the donors have contributed $1 million or more.

The preponderance of mega-rich supporters poses a political challenge for Romney, who has struggled for weeks over questions about his vast wealth, his history as a private equity manager and a series of gaffes that seemed to highlight his privileged station. He stumbled again on Wednesday when he told a CNN interviewer that he was “not concerned about the very poor, because they have a safety net.”

Some of Romney’s biggest supporters include executives at Bain Capital, his former firm; bankers at Goldman Sachs; and a hedge fund mogul who made billions betting on the housing crash. These and other donor details follow the release last week of Romney’s tax returns, which showed millions held in the Cayman Islands and other overseas havens and a tax rate that is far lower than that paid by most American workers.

In Romney’s case, it looks like the Citizens United ruling has had the effect of uniting the 1 percent behind one of their own, and their support for Romney’s primary campaign portends even greater investment a Romney victory in the general election, if betting on him in the primaries pays off. (more…)

Tags: Mitt Romney, social safety net, superpac

Another Privatization Horror Story: Taxpayer-Backed Mortgage Giant Bets Against Its Customers

Posted February 3, 2012 at 3:00 pm, in Allied Approaches, From Campaign for America's Future

By Richard (RJ) Eskow
Senior Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future

Above is a video of a conversation I had the other night with Thom Hartmann on his television show, The Big Picture, about the latest – and one of the most shocking – revelations about the government-sponsored housing finance agency Freddie Mac: That it created a pre-2008 style risk package so that it could bet billions against the very homeowners it’s supposed to help. This is another privatization horror story, and it illustrates how badly the American public gets shafted when politicians turn what should be a government function over to the greedy-minded.

The short version is this: A government-backed agency used billions in taxpayer money to bet against the economic well-being of those taxpayers. (Even people who don’t have mortgages are being hurt, because the housing crisis is crippling the entire economy.) It undercut its own social function. And because these were risky bets, it went back to the glory days of banker recklessness – once again gambling with our money but keeping the bonuses for themselves it worked out. Heads they win, tails we lose.

The moral of the story? Government is better than the private sector at doing many of its historical functions. More often than not, when it comes to well-run agencies we need to re-learn a lesson: Privatization stinks.

Fannie Mae, Freddie’s sister organization, worked perfectly as a government agency for thirty years. Then Lyndon Johnson ‘privatized’ it, mainly to get its costs off the books because he was spending so much on the war in Vietnam. Freddie was created afterwards to introduce ‘competition’ – another concept which can be useful in some circumstances, but is too often invoked as something that good on its own merits.

Wrong. (more…)

FAA Bill Still Anti-Labor! Call Your Senators!

Posted February 3, 2012 at 8:00 am, in Allied Approaches, From Campaign for America's Future

Dave Johnson
Fellow, Campaign for America's Future

Not long ago, in A Win For Labor – FAA Bill Drops Anti-Union Language, I wrote that, “negotiators have dropped the anti-union language for votes to start a union. Republicans were insisting that no-shows be counted as “No” votes. Delta’s check must have been mailed late.”

Well, not so fast. While dropping a blatant anti-labor requirement that any non-voters be counted as ‘no’ voters, it turns out that the bill remains solidly and sneakily anti-labor. This is supposed to be a bill about airline safety and security, but the fight is over anti-labor provisions… what’s up with that? Laura Clawson at Daily Kos writes in, Unions call on Democrats to reject poison pills buried in Republican ‘compromise’ on FAA,

When Republicans suggested that they would agree to a compromise on Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization, dropping their demand to count workers who did not vote in union representation elections as having voted against the union in exchange for raising the threshold of workers asking to get a union representation election from 35 percent to 50 percent, there were two possibilities: Either Republicans were dropping a huge demand in exchange for something relatively minor and it was a bit of a win, or there was something sneaky buried in what Republicans now wanted.

Why This Fight?

The reason there is a fight over labor rules in an FAA bill at all is that Delta Airlines is trying to keep unions out, so the 1% can keep from paying good wages and benefits to the 99%. And, as usually happens, they are offering the Republican Party a share of the take if they can just make it happen for them. Such is our present-day political system. It seems to come down to who is giving the most money to the Republican Party gets priority in legislation. (“Drill, baby, drill!”) (more…)

Democracy v. Plutocracy, Unions v. Servitude

Posted January 29, 2012 at 8:00 am, in Allied Approaches, From Campaign for America's Future

Dave Johnson
Fellow, Campaign for America's Future

Servitude: “a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one’s course of action or way of life”

Democracy: “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections”

Plutocracy: government by the wealthy

Labor union: an organization of workers formed for the purpose of advancing its members’ interests in respect to wages, benefits, and working conditions

You may have seen the recent flurry of stories about how hi-tech products are made in China. The stories focus on Apple, but it isn’t just Apple. These stories of exploited Chinese workers are also the story of how and why we — 99% of us, anyway — are all feeling such a squeeze here, because we are suffering the disappearance of our middle class. Our choice is democracy or servitude.

Working In China

A collection of excerpts from the Charles Duhigg and David Barboza story, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad and the Charles Duhigg and Keith Bradsher story, How the U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work both from the NY Times:

Rousted from dorms at midnight, told to work:

Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.

A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.

“Work hard on the job today or work hard to find a job tomorrow.”

Banners on the walls warned the 120,000 employees: “Work hard on the job today or work hard to find a job tomorrow.”

(How close is that to the very definition of servitude?) (more…)

Tags: insourcing, Labor, outsourcing, Unions

Anti-Union “Right-To-Work” Laws Really A Tax On Unions

Posted January 27, 2012 at 8:00 am, in Allied Approaches, From Campaign for America's Future

Dave Johnson
Fellow, Campaign for America's Future

Indiana is about to pass what is called a “right-to-work” law. These laws prohibit union contracts from requiring workers to be in the union and paying dues to the union, while forcing the unions to provide full benefits to the non-unions members for free. The idea is to weaken and defund the union’s (99%) ability to push back against the big corporations (1%).

CSM: With Indiana ‘right to work’ vote, a GOP thumb in the eye to unions,

Indiana is poised to become the first state in the upper Midwest to follow the lead of Southern “right to work” states, taking a big step Tuesday to bar unions from requiring nonunion workers to pay membership dues for representation in bargaining.

… Democrats framed the bill’s passage as a political maneuver by Republicans to weaken union strength in the state.

“The only places where today’s events will be cheered is in the boardrooms of big businesses and corporations across this state,” said the top House Democrat, Patrick Bauer, in a statement Tuesday. “The House Republicans just helped increase the profit margins for these companies at the expense of their workers.”

Union dues have long been a target of Republican lawmakers, who say those dues are often used to further a Democratic agenda and to elect Democrats to office. The right-to-work legislation hits unions right in their pocketbooks, reducing their ability to wield clout in elections and during negotiations over labor contracts. (more…)

Tags: right to work for less

Obama Didn’t Steal “All Of The Above.” The Republicans Never Had It.

Posted January 26, 2012 at 3:19 pm, in Allied Approaches, From Campaign for America's Future

Bill Scher
Online Editor, Campaign for America's Future

Yesterday, one of Politico’s headlines from the State of the Union was: “He steals GOP’s ‘all of the above’ energy slogan.”
But something can only be stolen from you if you actually had it in the first place.

Yes, the Republicans like to say they are for an “all of the above” energy strategy, but every time they are presented with one from the Democrats that would mean oil would have to compete with “all” the other available sources of energy, they always vote “no.”

When, in the last Congress, Democrats proposed a comprehensive energy strategy that would cap carbon emissions, make both renewable energy and nuclear energy more affordable, while providing support for continued production of American oi and, coal, Republicans said “no.”

When the President last year shelved the idea in face of conservative obstruction, and instead proposed a “clean energy standard” with a broad definition including nuclear power and relatively cleaner coal, Republicans said “no.”

When, in 2008, House Democrats offered a bill that would expand coastal oil drilling while also eliminating oil subsidies and mandating more renewable energy production, Republicans said, “no.”

And as far back as 1977, when President Jimmy Carter proposed an ambitious energy policy to end dependence on foreign oil, but would increase domestic production of coal, wind, solar power, geothermal and methane and even “encourage production of oil and gas here in our own country”, Republicans still said “no.” (more…)

President Puts American Manufacturing Front and Center in State of the Union

Posted January 26, 2012 at 1:00 pm, in Allied Approaches, From Campaign for America's Future, From the News

Dave Johnson
Fellow, Campaign for America's Future

President Obama put American manufacturing literally at the front and center of his State of the Union speech. American manufacturing was at the front of the speech and at the center of a “blueprint” for bringing back jobs and strengthening our economy. By placing manufacturing front and center he has taken this conversation further than any president before him.

There is good reason to cheer, but also good reason to ask for even more. He outlined steps to stop the outsourcing and start the insourcing, but there is not yet a comprehensive, overall government strategy to fix trade and capture the industries of the future.

The Speech

Right up front the president talked about building “an America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs.” Then,

“Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last, an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.This blueprint begins with American manufacturing.”

Bob Borosage, in “The Obama State of the Union: A Progressive View,”

On the economy, the speech led with more discussion of manufacturing than anyone has heard in years. The president wanted and deserved credit for saving Detroit — a key to his campaign in the Midwest — and wanted to highlight the uptick in manufacturing jobs and “insourcing,” the movement of some jobs back to the U.S.Again, his agenda focused on mostly symbolic measures of populist appeal. In addition to the tax on multinationals, he promised a new trade enforcement effort to challenge China and others who trample global trade rules. With Romney promising to cite China for currency violation on day one if elected, the administration seems likely to finally challenge China, at least symbolically. (more…)

Tags: insourcing, manufacturing jobs

A New Vision for America: Restoring a Country That Makes Things

Posted January 26, 2012 at 11:18 am, in Allied Approaches, From Campaign for America's Future

By Harold Meyerson
Editor-at-Large, The American Prospect

So much for post-industrial America. After decades of our leaders and sages assuring us that the United States would thrive as we moved beyond manufacturing, President Obama used his State of the Union address to officially declare post-industrial America an unqualified bust.

Ours has become, he said, a land of “outsourcing, bad debt and phony financial profits.” Reconstructing “an economy that’s built to last,” by contrast, means revitalizing manufacturing, he said. The president proposed ending tax breaks for corporations that move offshore and imposing a tax on their overseas profits, while cutting taxes on domestic manufacturers. He promised a trade enforcement unit to investigate foreign violations of trade law — for instance, China’s massive state subsidies to solar and wind power companies, which manufacture almost entirely for export. So far, U.S. manufacturers and unions that suspect foreign countries of violating trade laws have had to investigate such practices themselves: No agency of government has been empowered to initiate legal actions against trade law miscreants, which speaks volumes about the unquestioning faith that our elites have had in the blessings of free trade and the benefits of corporate offshoring.

Obama didn’t stop there. In a paper accompanying the president’s speech, the White House promised, “When competitors like China offer unfair export financing to help their companies win business overseas, the United States will provide financing to put our companies on an even footing.” That financing, which requires congressional approval, would include tax credits to embattled clean-energy manufacturers, though they likely wouldn’t match the sums that the Chinese government is handing to its own energy companies. Tim Brightbill, a lawyer who is working with U.S. solar manufacturers on their trade complaint, which is pending before the Commerce Department, says that Chinese subsidies to their solar industry may total $40 billion. (more…)

Tags: insourcing, outsourcing

Why is Romney Only Offering Up His 2011 Tax Return?

Posted January 20, 2012 at 12:00 pm, in Allied Approaches, From Campaign for America's Future

Bill Scher
Online Editor, Campaign for America's Future

After a painfully wobbly response to a debate question regarding whether he would release his tax returns, Mitt Romney has relented and said he would release his 2011 tax return once it was filed in April.

Why should this be considered full disclosure?

There could be lots of things from his past tax returns which would be quite illuminating in the debate over our tax code.

For example, McClatchy notes that “because [Romney] owns homes in numerous states, he is likely to take tax deductions for property taxes and state taxes.”

But Romney sold two of his giant mansions recently. When his real estate portfolio was fatter, that would have driven his effective federal tax rate down.

Romney also may have exploited loopholes, particularly with offshore investments, as Reuters reported:

His tax returns could shed light on how Romney and Bain use offshore strategies to avoid taxes, said Daniel Berman, a former U.S. Treasury deputy international tax counsel and now director of tax at Boston University’s graduate tax program.

Bain funds in which Romney is invested are scattered from Delaware to the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, Ireland and Hong Kong, according to a Reuters analysis of securities filings.

“Certain interests in foreign investment structures would have to be reported on attachments to his return,” Berman said.

On capital gains, Romney’s tax returns would not reveal any gains that he has not yet realized, even though those gains would be easy for him to lock in at any time, Berman said. (more…)

Tags: Mitt Romney, offshore investments, Tax Rates

Get our blog feed via e-mail

Archive for the ‘From Campaign for America’s Future’ Category

Working In China