By Leo W. Gerard
International President

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele appears to be suffering philosophical identity confusion, you know, like some people experience sexual identity confusion.

He’s got an organization named United STEELE Workers Union, white hardhat emblem and all, collecting members for him on Facebook. It had 255 worldwide as of June 19.

This is disconcerting on so many levels, least of which is that I head the original, authentic United Steelworkers Union (USW). It has, by the way, 1.2 million retired and active members in North America.

Far more importantly, Steele historically has expressed hostility toward unions. When President Obama agreed to help General Motors restructure in bankruptcy, for example, Steele said it was “another handout to the union cronies who helped bankroll his presidential campaign.” Now that there’s a union created in his own image, if Steele slams labor organizations, is he criticizing himself? Has he become a “union crony?”

Steele can perch that white hard hat atop his head, but he’s going to have to labor at learning some hard philosophical lessons before becoming a real steelworker, a true union man.

A union brother or sister knows it’s all for one and one for all. Our union brothers and sisters don’t see themselves as “ownership society” islands. That’s because they know when the sun stops shining, it’s nice to have union siblings to help clean up after the hurricane.

To join, Steele must learn that a union man has his brother’s back; he doesn’t stab him in the back. This may be a tough lesson for the Republican. Consider, for example, what Mark Bergeron, the STEELE Worker Union Facebook group administrator, says on his blog about the party’s 2008 nominee for president:

“How far to the left do we as Conservatives go to satisfy some of our Moderate ( Liberal ) Republicans? What sacrifices will we make to the Moderates? Abortion? Illegal Immiration [sic], a little more Socialism? Less Fiscal Responsibility? My point is that we have already made concessions to these softies and we got John McCain.”

In addition to insulting McCain, that smacks of exclusion. It is the Republican Party wringing itself out, shedding diversity at the insistence of its most conservative, self-appointed, over-amplified leader, Rush Limbaugh. So it has been reduced to little more than wealthy white protestant males — and wannabes. A union, by contrast, is a collective. By nature, then, it is inclusive. This may be a tough one for Steele to accept, considering he refused to stand up to Limbaugh earlier this year when the talk show host insisted he, not Steele, headed the Republican Party.

The STEELE Worker Union Facebook site says the group is interested in organizing. That’s a great first step in the correct direction. An important function of an international union, like the United Steelworkers, is to help employees at individual workplaces organize their local unions. Those efforts in recent years, however, have been thwarted by corporate campaigns of intimidation against union organizers and sympathizers. This is documented in a study called, “No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organization,” released in May by Cornell University professor, Kate Bronfenbrenner.

Bronfenbrenner, who has researched labor issues for a quarter century, documents employers obstructing unionization by firing union organizers, threatening to close down the shop, cutting wages and benefits, and forcing workers to meet one-on-one with supervisors who interrogate them to determine whether they support the union. Bronfenbrenner found employers conducted these coercive tactics, many of which are illegal, in the run-up to union elections more frequently than in the past to dissuade workers from voting for unionization.

The upshot is that organizers and union sympathizers risk their livelihoods and corporations are increasingly killing unions. The Employee Free Choice Act now before Congress would significantly reduce that. It would allow workers — rather than the employer — to decide how to form the union. It would give workers the right to choose whether to form their union by collecting signatures from a majority of the workers or by conducting a secret ballot election. The threat-filled period before balloting could be eliminated, if the workers wanted.

The United Steelworkers union actively and vociferously supports the Employee Free Choice Act. If Michael Steele wants to be a real union man, he must do so as well. I will be waiting to hear from him. If I do, I will be glad to take him under my wing and mentor him. I will make him an Associate Member of the real United Steelworkers union. We will embrace him. Of course, I will warn my male members to be careful not to actually hug him because this is a guy, so touchy about unions, that he even used the word “crazy” to describe civil unions.

By Leo W. Gerard
International President

“He’s a real nowhere Man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
For nobody.”

These lyrics to “Nowhere Man,” written and recorded in 1965 by John Lennon and Paul McCartney, describe the Republican Party of 2009. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter rejected that party and returned to his Democratic roots because, even at the age of 79, he’s got plans that go somewhere.

The GOP’s leaders and their inactions have placed the party at the corner of Unpopular and Nowhere. GOP voter registration fell in every western state in 2008, including Colorado where it dropped a whopping 9 percent. That year, the Pew Research Center found that voters calling themselves Republicans declined six points over four years, for the lowest percentage of self-identified Republican voters in 16 years of Pew polling.

Pennsylvania voters, not always in step, were this time. More than 200,000 Republicans switched registration to Democrat in 2008. Arlen Specter, who was a Democrat the first 16 years of his adult life, this spring joined those fellow Pennsylvania Republicans and returned to his Democratic roots.

The Republican response typifies why voters continue to convert the GOP to D on their party membership cards. The Republican National Committee posted on its web site nasty automatic e-mails to Specter that can be sent with the click of a mouse. Mean spirited is bad enough, but these lack a certain introspection.

One is supposed to be the White House teleprompter welcoming Specter to the Democratic Party. The text says, “Welcome to the Democrats. I look forward to working together to borrow more money from China.” Another is supposed to be a welcome from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, saying, “You’ll love how much we can spend taxpayer money.” Both are blind to a fact that taxpayers clearly see – Republican majorities during the Bush administration spent so much that they created the largest budget deficits known to man or nation, compelling excessive borrowing from China.

He’s as blind as he can be,
Just sees what he wants to see,
Nowhere Man can you see me at all? – Nowhere Man

The leader of Specter’s new party – President Barack Obama – stood before the American people on his 100^th day in office, assessing progress and promising to press forward to aid people in need during the worst recession since the Great Depression.

He spoke of accomplishments, such as the stimulus bill that will create or save 3.5 million jobs, the extension of health insurance for 11 million children whose parents work full-time, and a measure to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. He talked of changing the tone of foreign policy from threats to diplomacy, forbidding torture and closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

This Democrat has his sights set on the next hundreds and hundreds of days and pledged to continue working on priorities he established during his campaign, including health care reform and clean energy development.

Even those who disagree with him know he’s got plans. He’s going places.  This guy’s definitely not at the corner of Unpopular and Nowhere.

He has offered to bring Republicans along with him, to negotiate with them, to include them in the process. But they’ve smacked him down at every turn. They’re not just fighting with him, either. They’re also bickering among themselves. And it isn’t pretty.

There was the infamous back and forth between GOP mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh who is calling for the president of his country to fail, and GOP chairman Michael Steele, who made himself famous by promising an “off the hook” public relations blitz “to uptick our image with everyone, including one-armed midgets.”  After Obama’s chief of staff said Limbaugh was the representative of the GOP, Steele shot back saying he was the head of the party, adding that Limbaugh was incendiary and “ugly.” Limbaugh responded with a rant on radio that Steele was unfit to lead, to which Steele responded by crawling on his belly to apologize to the “ugly” one.  There’s some inspiring leaders for you!

Now a group of Republicans has split from the RNC, calling itself the National Council for a New America. They contend they are upset that the GOP has failed to provide alternatives to the Democrats’ plans. The group includes former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. “It’s no secret that we’re in a seriously troubling time for the Republicans,” said Mike Murphy, a strategist who has advised Romney and Sen. John McCain.

It’s also seriously troubling that this new cabal, supposedly trying to solve the old group’s problems, called itself National Council for a New America. Clearly they are not satisfied with the current America, the America that is rejecting Republicans. So their plan is to remake America rather than to remake themselves.  Good luck with that.

Actually, there’s a much easier option. Obama described it to Republicans during the press conference on his 100^th day in office. Even with Specter in the Democratic fold and the potential of a 60-vote supermajority for Democrats in the Senate, the President said he would like to work with Republicans. He said the majority will likely rule on core issues. But there are many matters on which Republicans could exert influence if they would come to the table and negotiate in good faith.

Republicans can continue to simply vote NO on everything. They can bicker among themselves and look ridiculous to the American people. They can get nothing done and be the party of “I’m-in-control-NO-I’m-in-control” nonsense. They can continue to lose members and statesmen like Specter. Obama suggested that would be an unwise strategy.

That would be a nowhere strategy.

By Bob Cesca
Author of One Nation Under Fear

It only makes sense that a party currently being wagged by fringe crazy people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Michele Bachmann would release its alternative budget on April Fools’ Day.

Not only does the Republican plan freeze discretionary spending for five years in the midst of a recession which, by most accounts and proved by history, will countermand any sort of economic recovery, but it also cuts taxes by 10 percent for the same Wall Street executives whose actions largely got us into this economic mess in the first place. In other words: Congratulations, Republicans, you just released a budget that rewards wealthy corporate executives while blocking any attempt to dig us out of the economic catastrophe they created.

Smart!

The only bit of Republican legislation that’d be more ridiculous would be if Michele Bachmann were to introduce a constitutional amendment thwarting a fake plot to eliminate the dollar as the form of currency in the United States.

Oh wait. She’s already done that. And 30 Republican congressmembers so far have co-sponsored the amendment. 30 Republicans have irrevocably tethered their wagons to the Bachmann crazy train. Excellent. Next on the agenda: a bill creating the Office of Robot Insurance, protecting us from robot attackers who use old people’s medicine for fuel. Speaking of which, the Republican plan also phases out Medicare.

The marquee item, however, in the Republican plan is their inexplicably regressive tax cut for the super rich. Wealthy Americans in the top three tax brackets would see their tax burden cut to a flat 25 percent from previous rates of 35, 33 and 28. According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, CEOs from any of the top 800 corporations would receive a tax break of around $1.5 million a year. Meanwhile, if you earn $15,000 a year, your tax break will be around $0 a year.

But get this. Under the Republican plan, Americans are given the option of paying the old tax rates instead of the new, expensive and regressive Republican rates. So, for example, if your household income is $100,000, you could pay the same tax rate as someone earning $15,000. Or you could be a swell egg and go back to your old rate. Aside from the utter lack of fairness in the notion of a $100,000 household paying the same rate as a $15,000 household, who in their right mind would voluntarily pay higher taxes?

Now you might be asking, given that the Republicans are all about fiscal responsibility, how much does this Republican tax cut for the wealthiest three brackets actually cost? Some estimates, according to Steve Benen, project upwards of a $4 trillion price tag. At the very least, according to their own projections, the Republican plan would run up a $500 billion annual budget deficit through at least 2080. Again, the Republican grasp of fiscal responsibility is about as firm as their grasp of reality and sanity. The subtext here being: The trillion dollar Bush tax cuts weren’t irresponsible enough. Let’s go crazy! WOOO!

And by the way, those are annual deficits that factor into the mix a completely insane five year freeze on discretionary spending — a freeze that would surely plunge the American economy into a deep depression. To that point, the Republican plan doesn’t account for such an economic catastrophe, and therefore doesn’t factor such an inevitable consequence into their revenue and deficit projects.

All told, imagine if you will the Monopoly man running up and shoving you into a deep precipice. The Republican plan not only gives that Monopoly man a $1.5 million check for his trouble, but it also cuts the rope you were using to climb out of the hole — provided you actually survived the fall in the first place.

Speaking of holes, did you see the graph Paul Ryan clearly yanked out of his?

 

Check out that steep blue line illustrating the alleged Democratic budget deficits extending to upwards of 50 percent of GDP by 2060. Put another way, suggesting a deficit that’s 50 percent of GDP is like presupposing a living human being that’s 50 percent marshmallow man. It’s insane. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections only extend out to 2019. Yet the Republican chart somehow extends out to 2080. The steep upwards slope of the Democratic budget begins at around 2030 — 11 years after the furthest CBO projections stop.

What does this mean? For starters the claim on the chart: “Out-years based on CBO’s Long-Term Alternative Fiscal Scenario” is a lie. And the text: “Source: House Budget Committee Republican Staff” might as well say: “Source: Paul Ryan’s Ass.” In other words, that steep upwards slope is entirely made up.

The graph might as well look like this:

 

Yes, the Democratic budgets will be so out of control they’ll eventually make little curly-cues and travel backwards in time — adding to past deficits — while also looping around the word “government” — you know, because the Democrats love government.

At this point, the laughable street vendor pamphlet that John Boehner rolled out was probably less ridiculous than this actual budget plan and its accompanying Wall Street Journal graph. But it stands to reason that given their track record the Republicans would churn out a budget proposal that’s fully in line with their backwards, zero cred reputation.

BobCesca.com

                                                           *************************

CORRECTION: I erroneously credited the CEO taxation numbers to the Center for American Progress. These numbers came from the Wonk Room at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

                                                            ********************

One Nation Under Fear, with a foreword by Arianna Huffington of  Huffington Post is available on Amazon. For more by Bob Cesca, see BobCesca.com! Go!

In June of 2007, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter was the only Republican to vote with Democrats to end debate on the Employee Free Choice Act. The motion failed, 51 to 48, because 60 votes are needed in the Senate to end debate.

Now that Democrats presumptively have 59 votes in the Senate (with Democrat Al Franken the expected winner of the contested seat in Minnesota), Specter has announced he won’t repeat his vote to end debate on the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation which would make forming unions at workplaces less difficult.

What do you think of Specter’s reversal?

Specter’s loyalties lie with Big Business

It’s clear that his first vote to support cloture (to end debate) was simply political calculus.  He did vote against his party, but obviously knowing that the motion would fail and his vote would have no practical effect.  Thus, allowing him to have his cake and eat it too.  Something ALL politicians love to do.  Now that his vote would have the practical effect of making the EFCA law, we can see his true loyalties.  They obviously lie with the Republicans and Big Business and not with working class Americans.

Charles Sellers
San Diego, Calif 

Can’t count on Specter

As a former resident of Pennsylvania, I’m very disappointed to hear that Arlen Specter has changed his mind on the EFCA, but I am not surprised. The guy has always been a weasel and someone you really can’t count on for help with the middle class. I hope he loses his bid for re-election in 2010. Good riddance!

Dan Zurosky
Lexington, S.C.

Specter: always there when you don’t need him

I’m not surprised at all about Specter’s reversal on key labor legislation, in this case EFCA, Employee Free Choice Act.  Senator Specter, like many other so-called moderate members of Congress, who claim to be labor-friendly, is always there when you don’t need him.  Look at his vote in June of 2007.  It was doomed for failure, so the Republican leadership released him to curry favor with labor.  Unfortunately, this is a pattern for many other fair weather friends of labor, as well as Senator Specter.  They vote with labor often enough to earn or keep labor leaders’ support but, when “key” legislation like trade bills, anti-strike breaking laws and labor law reform like EFCA come along, they turn their back on workers.

This practice is not surprising nor is the practice of unions giving these legislators a pass and, in most cases, an endorsement when they run for reelection.  So, no, I’m not surprised by the reversal of Senator Specter on EFCA, and I won’t be surprised when he receives support from many unions in his upcoming reelection bid.  The rationale we will hear is “he’s with us (labor) on many issues.”  And he is.  But try finding him and other “moderates” when it really matters.

Jan D. Pierce
Quaker City, Ohio

Senator Flip Flop

The best way to deal with Senator Flip Flop is to put in his seat a Democrat who will not flip flop.  Is Ed Rendell interested and wouldn’t he be reliable on such issues?

Herbert G. Reid
Emeritus Professor of Politics, University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky

Is this a new, ratty philosophy from Specter?

Anyone who has worked in a non-union shop and tried to organize a union knows the barriers placed before them: the rumor-mongering, the open threats, the veiled threats, the workplace changes that nearly but don’t quite cross NLRB rules and so on. Just getting the minimum number of cards signed means that a great many more support unionization but for various reasons are reluctant to sign. The EFCA is a self-evident no-brainer, and even if the EFCA is passed, the odds are still stacked against the unions. Passing the EFCA would, however, begin to reverse the anti-union tide that was accelerated by Reagan’s destruction of the Air Traffic Controllers union in 1981.

That sharp reversal of union power has led to a wage depression over the last 40 years, and this has a close connection to our current economic crisis. High wage earners don’t need subprime mortgages, tend not to default, and do create a domestic market to sustain a vibrant economy– low wage earners (the result of de-unionization) do not.

Specter is not a fool, and he surely understands all the above. But, did he vote pro-union in 2007 because he could do the math and realize then that he could appear pro-union but with no effect? Or was he sincere then, but now is running scared of a primary challenge within an increasingly right-wing, anti-people, anti-union, marginalized Republican Party? I guess that amounts to asking “was he always a rat or is this something new?”

David Arnow
Brooklyn, New York

Repuglican coward and corporate lapdog

 What do I think of the Republican’s reversal?  Specter rolled over and is a Repuglican coward and corporate lapdog.

The more important question is what do I think, as a resident of Colorado, of our “appointed” new Democratic(?) Senator Michael Bennet? 

I think even less of Bennet after his failure to come out in support of the Employee Free Choice Act than I do of Arlen Specter.  Bennet’s been ducking the issue like a shy prostitute, in other words how oxymoronic of him to be a Democrat(?) who can’t choose between supporting labor or supporting corporate power.

 Mary Ann Meyers
Littleton, Colorado

Specter prefers credit cards over union cards

Specter apparently favors credit cards and payday loans as the preferred “union cards” in this country.  Disgusting!  American workers deserve a living wage, and the only way to that end is unionization. 

Jacqualyne Cody
Rhinelander, Wis. 

Organizing a perceived right, not a real one

Had Senator Specter not reversed his decision, Senators would have been forced to show the vote.  Where I come from, it’s called the Employer Free Choice Act and undoubtedly it’s a perceived “right” not a real one. Been there, Still there. Ready to move forward. Put away the past.

 Kerry Joel Sudberry
Royal, Tenn.

Votes for workers when there’s not gain

It looks like Senator Spector’s big business masters allowed him to vote the way workers in Pennsylvania would prefer as long as he could safely do so without actually achieving gains for workers.  Now that the balance has shifted, he must show his true colors and tow the corporate line.

Karen Grainey
Savannah, Ga.

Time for Specter to be a statesman

The skills of a great politician include a mastery of showmanship, compromise, deal making, fund raising, and most important of all, knowing how to get reelected each and every time.  The skills of a great statesman are the courage and wisdom to dismiss all the potential rewards from those political skills to do something that you know is right and will improve the lives of the greatest number of people.

Senator Arlen Specter has shown his skills as a great politician throughout his entire career and now is the time for him to show his skills as a great statesman by voting to end the debate on the Employee Free Choice Act.

As the senior Senator from the great state of Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter knows better than anyone the damage done to working and middle class Americans by thirty years of union busting, trickle down, voodoo economic policies.  He knows that only a resurgence of strong healthy collective bargaining units across the America workforce will stop the decline in living standards and economic opportunities for all American wage earners across this great country.

The Employee Free Choice Act is a once in a generation piece of legislation that will have such a positive impact on so many lives.  It is time for Senator Specter to rest his laurels as a great politician, and step up to the plate as the great statesman that he is and vote to end the debate on the Employee Free Choice Act.

John O’Connor
North Smithfield, R.I.

Specter seeking both sides

He’s walking both sides of the street.  He knows how poorly Pennsylvanians are doing (and that the state went for Obama in the election), and he doesn’t want to appear to be unsupportive of his constituents.  But on the other side of the street, he worries about his party exacting a political price in the future for his support of Democrats.  He can tell his constituents a half-truth in his next campaign–that he voted for it–knowing most people don’t really know or bother to look up individual votes on various bills.

Gloria Aukland
Mesa, Ariz.

Pressure from RNC

I think Specter was pressured by the RNC and most likely told that he would not receive funds for his upcoming run for re-election.

Bruce Jenkins
Sunnyvale, Calif.

Buckling under pressure of the nasties

Ever since the rise to power of the nasty breed of Republican that seeks to make government a zero-sum political game — I’m thinking Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, etc. — there have been distinguished, experienced senators quitting the senate while expressing dismay at how the institution had deteriorated.  I have always seen Arlen Specter as one of the old-style, respectable men willing to continue trying to make the legislature something all Americans can be proud of.  But lately, I’m afraid, he has been buckling under the pressure of the nasties. 

It’s very sad.

Bob Persons
Newton, Mass.

Reversal provokes questions about intent

Senator Specter’s “change of heart” with regard to the Employee Free Choice Act makes one wonder.  Was he cynical when he supported it knowing that it would not pass?  After all, he scored some points with working people by his assumed support.

And, now, has he had a change of heart, or simply been overwhelmed with pressure from corporations and lobbyist?  Or was he opposed to the EFCA all along?

Mauna Richardson
La Madera, N.M.

Specter clueless about survival today

I wonder if Mr. Specter has ever had to work for his income, do a dirty job, do something he doesn’t want to, but had to, because without doing said job, there would be no food on his children’s table.  I doubt it.  Senators and Congresspeople have absolutely no idea what it is like to survive in this day and age of, at the minimum, two jobs to make ends meet. 

Or maybe they all should be laid off, given their proverbial pink slips, because those buffoons got us into this mess in the first place.  I am referring to the fact that it was Congress, which, when they stripped away the banking controls that had been enacted in the last depression, caused this current depression.  They should have to clean toilets for a while; you know, get a feel for what the rest of us have to suffer through.  

I’d be happy to make six figures to sit on my butt and listen to lobbyists all day, and I don’t want to hear about how hard these government officials work because you and I don’t have an army of staff members doing our job for us.  Don’t get me started.

Vincent Falcone
Biotechnology student, Hocking College
Amesville, Ohio

Specter tows typical GOP anti-union line

I think it is very disappointing to hear that Sen. Specter will not vote as he did in 2007. I am wondering what prompted him to vote for the Employee Free Choice Act in the first place and then change his mind this year. I have respected some decisions/stances he has taken in the past (ie voting for this in 2007) but to hear that he is towing the typical Republican party line of anti-unionism is upsetting. I am disgusted to see time and time again, politicians who are supposed to be “for the people” or the voice of the people, continue to vote for the best interests of the corporation rather than the people, the worker.

Janet Hada
Snohomish, Wash.

Sounds like RNC threats

Sounds like the RNC threatened him, doesn’t it?

Could be just general cussedness; he’s done that before, but my guess is that the party made it known that if  Specter voted against their line, he could lose support.

Again, there’s precedent for that. 

Mary Carter
Endicott, N.Y. 

Senate should change filibuster rules

When will Sen. Reid have the good sense to change the filibuster rules so that a mere majority can pass a bill in the Senate?

Jack McKissen
Grand Coulee, Wash.   

Reversal surprising and disappointing

Sen. Specter: Your reluctance to support this legislation is surprising and disappointing.  In the name of fairness, please reconsider your position.

Rev. Wesley E. Blaha
Monroeville, Pa.

Seek support of others

I think we must leave Senator Arlen Specter to vote his conscientious in peace.  He needs the support of Republicans. Let’s reason instead with the others and seek to develop additional allies among them.

David A. Crosbie
Pittsburgh, Pa.

Specter made a major mistake

Specter has made a major mistake if he is planning to run for re-election.  Several hazards await him: (1) he could be defeated by a strong candidate who is a liberal and pro-labor Democrat, of course; but he could also (2) run into terrible troubles in his party’s primary.  Far-right GOPs like to run a candidate against him, as they did last time, though he managed a narrow victory.  BUT Democrats, possibly faced with a primary in which the choice is obvious or an easy winner, could (temporarily switch parties and) vote in the Republican primary for the far-rightist in order to help insure that Specter goes down.  (There are many ways to skin a fat cat!) 

Gerald L. Houseman,
Spokane, Wash. 

Specter’s weasel votes

A reversal from Specter is no big surprise. He will vote with us whenever he knows the vote won’t matter. He votes with the Republican leadership when it counts. Look at his weasel words on the Clinton impeachment votes. His only saving grace is that any other Republican from Pennsylvania would be worse (or maybe not – integrity is something to value even if it’s in one’s opponents).

Tom Wolfinger
Centreville, Va.   

Specter sell-out

There is no sinister conspiracy behind the EFCA to thwart an employee’s freedom to choose or not to choose union representation as some opponents would have the public believe.  The EFCA is a straightforward attempt to reverse the anti-union bias that has perverted US law for nearly thirty years. Arlen Specter knows that. His refusal to support EFCA this time around is nothing short of a sell-out to political expediency now that his incumbency is challenged by strong right-wing opposition in the forthcoming Pennsylvania Republican primary election. Shame on you Arlen Specter.

David A. Blythe
Oxford, Mich.

Specter pressured by Republicans and right

I think it is awful.   Senator Specter has had a lot of pressure put on him by Republicans and the Right in general.  We need to get our folks out there with emails, calls, etc. in support of his progressive votes of late. We also need the same kinds of action to show him how many people are in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act.  Each member must contact family and friends to do the same.  We must get this act through now, at this point in history. Other potential Republicans might be Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.  We need mass action now!

Judith Richards
Lathrup Village, Mich.

Exigencies of politics

Even as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, I have always admired Senator Specter’s honesty. I don’t want to think that he would vote to end debate only when he knew his vote was safe; when his vote would not be the 60th. Yet, I believe he is up for election this year and that his seat is not safe. The exigencies of politics are such that, should his vote be the 60th, he would lose his seat. I’d rather see him hold back this time with the hope that this decent man will be returned to his Senate seat.

Barbara Gunther
Bayport, NY

Tragedy for Employee Free Choice Act

I guess soul-selling is the accepted way to go when you are up for reelection. He finds ways to placate his conscience by pretending he is in the Senate to serve the people. Isn’t this par for the course among too many of our politicians?

What a tragedy when The Employee Free Choice Act hangs in the balance!

Elaine Babian
Far Rockaway, N.Y.  

Senator, you have to go

Hon. Sen. Specter, Sir: Thank you for nothing.  After sending us two identical “‘boiler-plate” letters, one on 12/22/08 and the other on 3/24/08, on your ostensibly supportive position of the EFCA, yesterday you turned around and announced your opposition to it.

Most troubling, was the report from The Patriot-News, by Charles Thompson: “On the Senate floor, Specter said he was troubled by the bill’s proposed elimination of the secret ballot, which he called ‘the cornerstone of how contests are decided in a democratic society’.”

This is troubling because you know “the elimination of the secret ballot” is absolutely false, and not part of the bill.

The article suggests your decision was politically motivated.  This is the political reality:  You have had the support of moderate Democrats in the past because of the moderate positions you have shown.  To stray to the far right would be a mistake.  Should you do that, we would actually welcome the candidacy of far right lunatics like Pat Toomey, so that he would be crushed in November of 2010.  Sorry, but if we can’t rely upon you for non-partisan votes, then you have to go.

Randi & Tom Alba
Ambler, Pa.

Specter kneeling at the alter of big business

Spector is a gutless punk who pandered to labor when there was no chance of the bill passing. Now that we have a real shot at passing this bill, he is showing his true colors. He is kneeling at the altar of big business. Unions and their members in Pennsylvania should not forget this double cross. 

Steven Elliott
Danbury, Conn.

Specter should vote for fairness

Are all Republicans the same?  We had one on our road, who signed a right-of-way for the road to be paved when a Republican was governor, but when it was a Democratic governor, he wouldn’t sign one.  They never vote on the fairness side of any issue.

Without unions our country will not survive as the leader of the free-world.  Education on union backed issues is the key to enlightenment of people who through no fault of their own, stand on the wrong side of issues.

Ronnie Young
Waynesville, N.C.

Vote change inconceivable

I cannot understand how Senator Specter could even consider changing his vote. This bill is a “no-brainer. It is vital for our economy. How could anyone not support it – where are the thoughts of those missing Democrats – amazing that we would elect persons like this to “represent” us in Congress.

Howard Lord
Montezuma, Iowa

Make the Republicans filibuster

 I think it is time to make the Republicans filibuster against the working man if that is their choice.

Robert Hooker
Upper Marlboro, Md.

A jolt

I think somebody needs to kick Arlen upside the head. 

Robert Young
Nashville, Tennessee

Specter feels threatened

I hope that Specter (and others in the GOP) have the courage to vote in good conscience for the interest of working people in Pennsylvania and the country. It’s apparent that he feels threatened by the CFG (Club for Growth) contingent, who are interested in a business agenda that is disconnected from the needs of working people. If only politicians on either side of the aisle would stand up to this anti-worker agenda, people would respond in support.

It’s very disheartening to see the path that Specter and so many others in government are taking while the middle class continues to be undermined across the U.S., by denial of basic union organizing rights and protections granted in most “civilized” nations.

Brent McFarlane
Seattle, Wash.

Specter votes for his own advantage

Arlen Specter has been a successful politician for a very long time.  

Successful politicians, for the most part, do what is in their best interests.  When Specter voted FOR the Employee Free Choice Act, he did so in order to position himself with the Democratic Party, at a time when that party’s fortunes were on the rise.  Now, he is fighting against the EFCA because he has more to gain from his fellow Republicans, and the business interests that support them, by doing so, than can be gained by siding with the Democrats. Politics as usual.

Victoria LoSchiavo
Mentor, Ohio

Specter’s decision all GOP politics

It’s about politics. The Republicans see Barack Obama succeeding beyond their and many others’ (including Democrats) expectations and so now they see themselves circling the wagons lest they help the President succeed. I say the President, because he has expressed strong support for Employee Free Choice, so anything that furthers that success will be opposed by the GOP. Come election time, they’ll come around. We need to remember that, including let’s not forget the biggest traitor of all, Senator Joe Lieberman.

Angel Rodriguez, a former copper miner from Morenci, Ariz.
Glendale, Ariz.

Specter a straw in the wind

I think Senator Specter is still smarting from the beating his fellow Republicans administered after his vote on the stimulus bill, so he is trying to assert his ideological purity with this vote. I can remember when he first ran for the Senate; he was a decent, principled former DA with crime-fighting credentials. Now he seems more like a straw in the wind, hell-bent on keeping his seat, no matter who gets hurt.

I guess we’ll have to get some other help with this….

Barbara Bruce
Mandan, N.D.

Replace Specter with pro-union Democrat

I am not surprised. After all, he is a Republican. The union members of Pennsylvania need to replace Specter with a pro-union Democrat. Unions do have an ally with Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. We could urge Obama and Biden to resort to the nuclear option. The first step is getting all Democrats to support EFCA.

William Joseph Miller
Los Angeles, Calif.

Specter’s response unfortunate

Senator Specter’s response was unfortunate, and it probably was due to his fear of being defeated in the next Republican primary because of a YES vote.  It may be possible to deal with his concerns and to eventually gain his support, but if not, surely there are other ways to gain a Republican vote. I think the solution is to compromise- make a deal – give up something, to gain something else. Perhaps the key is with President Obama. Maybe he can help put a deal together that satisfies labor and one Republican senator.  Please recall that Specter, Snowe and Collins helped Obama before, for something I am sure each of them wanted.

Bill Weiss
Morgantown, W.Va. 

Votes for middle class when it doesn’t count

Mr. Specter has done this before.  He votes for the middle class so long as his vote won’t count; but when it counts, he always votes for the corporate hierarchy. He is a true Republican, but tries to conceal the fact.  I was surprised when he voted with Collins and Snowe for the stimulus, the only time I have seen him break his rule.

David G. Wagner MD
Portland, Ore.  

Union members must vote their interests

I think Senators are allowed to vote for their constituents when it won’t affect the outcome, but must vote with the party when required to do so or face primary opposition. 

As long as union members–or the 60 million who want to become union members–fail to vote (or vote Republican), the Employee Free Choice Act has an uphill fight. 

My county brags about being one of the “most Republican in the nation” — and 60% of the parents of public school kids are not registered. 

Arlen Specter should have been voted out long ago.  Yet, he can’t have been elected without the votes–or apathy– of labor. 

Judy Ferro
Caldwell, Idaho

 

By Robert Borosage
Co-Director Campaign for America’s Future

Will Obama’s transformative budget survive? As his press conference last night illustrated, it runs a serious risk of drowning in a swamp of cant.

The budget is getting strafed by politicians in both parties for its deficits and debt. (the deficit is the annual shortfall between revenue and spending; debt is essentially the accumulation of net deficits over time).

Republicans, having joined Rush Limbaugh in betting that Obama fails, have done most of the ranting. Sen. Judd Gregg, lead Republican on the Senate budget committee, fulminates that if we pass Obama’s budget, “this country will go bankrupt. People will not buy our debt. Our dollar will become devalued.”

Richard Shelby, top Republican on the banking committee, warns Cassandra-like that Obama’s budget will put the country on “the fast road to financial destruction.” Eric Cantor, the hyperbolic House Republican Whip, brings it down to his favored level, railing about wasteful spending like “money that goes to remove pig odor.”

Conservative Democrats are chiming in also. Evan Bayh has formed what must be the twentieth new democratic rump group, arguing that “families and businesses are tightening their belts to make ends meet — and Washington should too.” Kent Conrad, Democratic head of the budget committee, is pushing for deep cuts in spending on domestic programs. “Moderate” Senators are expressing growing opposition to the president’s spending plans. Even the Chinese, America’s biggest creditor, are wringing their hands about US deficits, suggesting perhaps a new international currency might be needed to replace the dollar.

Before this babel completely drowns out reason, a little common sense might be useful.

1. The newfound Republican fiscal probity is worth less than a drunkard’s morning after regret.

For the last decade, they merrily embraced the Dick Cheney dictum that “Reagan taught us that deficits don’t matter. They doubled the national debt when the economy was growing, exactly at the height of the business cycle when they should have moved budgets into balance and reduced debt burdens. Fully $1.4 trillion of the largest annual “Obama” deficit — the $1.8 billion the CBO projects for FY 2009 that ends this October — was bequeathed to him from George Bush; the remainder comes from worsening conditions and the Obama stimulus spending to put people back to work..

Now as the economy verges on a depression, Republicans are indicting Obama for raising spending and deficits. This is like a gambling addict squandering the family fortune in a Las Vegas blowout and then scolding his wife for borrowing money to keep the kids in college. Had Republican leaders any sense of decency, they would just shut up and let adults address the mess they have left.

2. The greater worry in the short-term is that the deficits may be too small, not too large.

We’ve just suffered what Warren Buffett calls an “economic Pearl Harbor.” The accelerating downturn is turning into a global collapse. Consumers are cutting back; businesses laying off workers; exports have plummeted. The Fed has already cut interest rates to near zero. The only thing lifting this economy is deficit spending at the federal level. Senators intoning the comfortable mantras of the last years like Even Bayh can’t seem to grasp that we’re in a big-time trouble. If we took his advice, and cut federal spending and deficits, it would simply contribute to a downturn that is already the worst since the 1930s.

That’s why the high-church of economic conservatism, the International Monetary Fund, is calling on countries across the world to borrow more to stimulate the economy, not less. And that’s why all the talk about deficits in the out years — six, eight, ten years from now — is simply a dangerous distraction. The Congress isn’t passing the budget for a 2019. It is passing one for next year, and it should be spending more, not less, to put people to work and get the economy going. Once the economy recovers, we can act to bring deficits down to a sustainable level.

3. We can afford to take on the debt

Before joining Judd Gregg in rending garments and mumbling darkly about the end of the world, legislators would be well advised to inhale deeply, calm themselves and look around. The Congressional Budget Office predicts budget deficits will total some $9.3 trillion over 10 years (Obama’s budget which is more optimistic about the pace of recovery projects $6.97 billion). That’s a lot of money.

But this is a very big economy at $15 trillion a year and hopefully soon growing again. Bill Gates undoubtedly carries more debt than I or you do. But the burden of that debt — the carrying charges in relation to his income or the debt in relation to his assets — is far less than mine or thine. He can afford to take on more debt.

After years of conservative misrule, the US isn’t in as good shape as Bill Gates, but it isn’t broke either, particularly in comparison to other industrial nations. The current US public debt is about 40% of our annual economic production (GDP). It’s been far higher — reaching as much as 109% of GDP coming out of World War II. Post-war growth brought the burden down to about 25% GDP until Reagan gave us over to the seductive supply-siders and doubled the debt burden to about 49% GDP. Clinton brought it down to 33% and Bush drove it back up to about 40% even though the economy was growing.

Under Obama’s plans, the national debt will rise as a percentage of the economy to about 65-67%. That’s a big change. But the reason countries carry low levels of debt is so they can borrow when trouble comes. And this is the mother of all trouble.

But what is notable about that increase is that it will leave the US carrying only about the same debt burden that Germany, France and Canada were carrying -before they began adding to it in the current economic downturn. According the analysis of the Central Intelligence Agency in 2008, Germany’s public debt was at 65%, France at 66%, and Canada at 64%. The Italians, always somewhat more fiscally dissolute, were at 106%. Sober Japan, coming out of its lost decade, carried a public debt that was182% of its country GDP. 

None of these countries are going bankrupt. The Euro isn’t turning into toilet paper. The Japanese haven’t boarded up the country. We are urging all of these countries to borrow and spend more to help counter the downturn. We can afford the Obama deficits and more if necessary to lift us out of what looks increasingly like a global depression. (And that’s why if the Chinese are looking for a new currency to supplant the dollar, they’ll have to invent it.)

4. The most dangerous deficit is our public investment deficit.

Fact is we can’t really afford to cut the public investments Obama would make in education, new energy, health care and 21st century infrastructure. For too many years, we’ve starved basic investments to pay for adventure abroad or top end tax cuts at home. Now we have a national security imperative to invest in new energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and begin to address catastrophic climate change. We can’t compete as a high wage economy in a global economy without providing our children with a world-class pre-K to college (or advanced training) education. We must make the changes needed to provide Americans affordable high quality health care while getting health care costs under control. And we’ve paid the costs everyday of allowing our basic infrastructure to decay — from unsafe water to gridlocked roads to falling bridges to the outmoded electric grid.

Obama’s budget and recovery plans run up deficits to put people back to work while making a down payment on investments vital to our future. His domestic spending plans are, if anything, already too austere, reducing domestic discretionary spending to a lower percentage of the economy than under Reagan or Clinton or the Bushes. He argues correctly that we have to make investments in these areas to move our economy to sustainable growth, and away from the disastrous bubble economy that has now exploded in our faces. It is notable that his Republican critics don’t dispute him on this point. They simply stand firm against any tax increases on the wealthy, while calling for cutting spending to reduce the deficits — without ever offering a budget of their own to let us know exactly what it is they think should be cut.

The lesson? Let’s make certain we spend enough to get this economy going. Once we do that, we must guard against making Roosevelt’s mistake of trying to balance budgets too quickly, driving the economy back into the pits, as he did in 1937. Ignore the hyperventilating about America’s pending bankruptcy. But let’s make certain we stop spending money on pig odor, or whatever it is goofy Eric Cantor is whining about.