Tag Archives: labor

The People Behind the Title of “Job Creator”

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This old proverb is perhaps most true and apt when it comes to labor. I’ve written about the state of labor on the global level before, but recently I’ve done some homework to brush up on my history regarding the topic. In today’s America, we now are a nation giving millions of dollars to companies in the form of subsidies and tax breaks, and its all in the name of “helping job creators,” as the Republicans put it, but honestly, does anyone really believe it when a politician says “job creator” anymore? Haven’t we all just accepted the phrase as a euphemism for the wealthy, or some other specialized interest group that is not representational of the interests of the citizens a representative is actually supposed to represent?

For example, in New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has given out $1.57 billion in state tax breaks to many large companies in the name of “job creation.” Mind you, he does so at a time when New Jersey’s budget and the budgets of its local governments are so badly in debt they can’t even afford toilet paper in their government buildings anymore. Of the $1.57 billion, $80 million went to the food company Goya, who used that money to create nine whole jobs. Campbell Soup was given $42 million, and they cut 100 jobs. Of course, they were punished for this, and had $8 million in credits taken away. For those of you that aren’t math wizards, that still leaves Campbell with $34 million of tax credits paid for by the New Jersey taxpayers, which the company was awarded after doing them the service of cutting 100 of their jobs.

But no, Republicans tell me we have to cut taxes for the “job creators,” right?

Another recent (and awesomely hypocritical) example of this is the gaming company 38 Studios. They were originally in Massachusetts, but the state of Rhode Island wanted their business, so they spent $112 million of Rhode Island taxpayer money trying to bring the company there, only for… well, this to happen:

Curt Schilling; job creator. Republicans told me so.

Don’t even get me started on repatriation… just click the dang hyperlink.

How did we get to such a sorry state though? That’s where my studying comes in. Prior to the industrial revolution, most of the world still operated on some form of legalized serf or slavery system. A slave is inarguably the most economically efficient form of worker; you don’t have to give them any benefits like sick days or safe work environments, you can pay them almost nothing or nothing at all, and you’re generally free to abuse them however you wish. It just so happens that around the same time (depending on the country in question) as the industrial revolution, there also began revolutions to put an end to slavery. With no slavery the power of business owners to exploit their workers would be greatly diminished. They would have to actually pay those that did work for them, and have no control over their lives outside of the work day, costing them significantly financially and socially since they would no longer command such levels of authority. It was such an issue for those within the industries most heavily dependent upon slavery here in the United States that we fought a Civil War over it – one of the bloodiest wars in which our nation has ever taken part. The American Civil War was one of the biggest “last stands” of legalized slavery in the modernized world, but even afterward these same businessmen, making the transition from “master” to “employer,” would seek to exploit their workers however possible for personal gain.

This was already happening prior to the Civil War, especially in the more industry-based economy of the North where many states had long since abolished slavery following the Revolutionary War over half a century prior. Workers, particularly those of the textile industry, were abused to the point of practically being slaves. Again, they had no benefits or protections, had no limit to the number of hours they could be forced, or expected by their employer, to work, and did so for a pittance of pay; some working from sunup to sundown every day to earn less than $2 a week. This was because we had little to no labor law in the United States at that time (or at least what we would consider labor law today). Employer’s weren’t required to provide sick leave or vacation time, they weren’t required to give out overtime pay, or even pay any sort of any sort minimum wage because no such thing existed. Without these laws, there became a “race to the bottom” amongst potential employees. With no social safety nets or welfare programs, employees were literally dependent upon their employers to physically survive. Without their job, they could not afford the basic necessities of life, such as food and water, even if with their job they could only barely do so. Plus, with no laws or standards in place to protect workers or mandate minimum levels of proper treatment, each worker could work for less than the last. Each worker could work more hours than the last. Each worker could suffer more work-related physical pain and injury than the next. Unless you were willing to take cuts in pay or treatment, your job was in jeopardy the moment someone else came along willing to do the same job for cheaper. When compounded by a booming population as was brought on by the industrial revolution, the world found itself with an even greater surplus of potential workers, significantly more than it did employers, than the world had ever seen before, giving employers all new power despite being stripped of their legal right to slaves. For all too many employers it wasn’t about a person’s qualifications, but rather for how little money they’d be willing to work and what abuses they’d be willing to suffer. This allowed employers to create an environment wherein they could bring slavery back despite it being “outlawed,” and it was a dream come true for them.

It wasn’t until the late 19th, early 20th century that workers in America began to say no more. Ideologies like Communism and Socialism gave them newfound willpower to stand up and say no to these injustices, even if the governing principles of those ideologies were flawed. Employers were displeased with what must have felt to them as an old fashioned peasant revolt straight out of the Dark Ages. The will of America’s newly organized labor eventually collided head-on in many protests that turned tragically violent. A little over a year ago, Alan Grayson sent out an e-mail during the Wisconsin labor protests specifically about the right to collective bargaining, wherein he listed a few of these events. Here is an excerpt;

“On May 4, 1886, in Haymarket Square in Chicago, the public rallied peacefully in support of 40,000 workers in Chicago who had gone on strike, to win the right to organize. The police attacked, and eight died.

On July 6, 1892, in Homestead, Pennsylvania, 3800 workers went on strike, to win the right to organize. Three hundred hired and armed goons attacked them. Five people died.

On April 20, 1914, in Ludlow, Colorado, 1200 coal miners went on strike, to win the right to organize. The Colorado National Guard attacked their shantytown, and burned it to the ground. Nineteen people died. Two women and 11 children were asphyxiated, and they burned to death.”

For one of the last times in American history, citizens were coming together, fighting, and even dying for their rights here on American soil. They were dying for their just beliefs that workers should be treated with a bare minimum level of respect. They were fighting for their right to survive and build this nation to be what it has become today. Had they not, had Americans not earned these rights with the blood, sweat, and tears of these men and women, there’s no possible way America would be the power that it is today, and the American Dream would never have been realized.

Republicans today are always complaining of big government getting in employment’s and businesses’ way, being over-regulating or over-burdensome, making the claim that it would be better if employers were simply allowed to make decisions for themselves on how much to pay employees, what benefits to extend to them, and generally how to treat them. Apparently though, Republicans aren’t too good with their history because as I’ve just highlighted we already tried that in this nation, and it did not work well.

After seeing riots break out in city after city in America, and watching helplessly as entire nations fell to Communism, eventually, to prevent an all out revolt of national proportions, workers were given their rights they have today. Over time, the memory of this struggle faded from the minds of Americans as they grew more and more settled in the middle class, living long, happy, healthy lives the likes of which their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents could only dream. This, coupled with the constant threat of Communism, quelled the rebellious working class and contained the abuses of the aforementioned employers both through a certain sense of nationalism to “fight the Ruskies” and, more importantly, a certain level of fear of Communism taking hold in America should their abuses of workers grow too much for them to bare.

The years would pass, however, as would the threat of Communism. Technology advanced significantly, and our once massive world began to shrink. Transportation technology became much more efficient, and information exchange even more so with the digital revolution of the 1990s. Many Asian countries began fighting for and winning their freedom throughout the mid 20th century, enabling them to bring new forms of employment to their shores. The problem with this, though, was that these nations were at a similar place America was over a century ago in terms of development – perhaps most importantly in the field of worker’s rights. The long dormant employers that sought to create environments that turned their legal employees into slaves found themselves with a new outlet for their abuse; foreign countries. With communication from one side of the world to the other now possible in the flash of a second, any sort of data-related job or telecommunication was outsourced to the nations that did not yet have worker’s protections in place. Later, significant levels of manufacturing were also outsourced as our ability to ship goods was also aided by the technological explosion of the late 20th century and trade routes were safer because there was no significant hostility between world powers in the post-Cold War era. Goods like cheap plastic containers, toys, and other assorted knick-knacks, as well as textiles and anything digital or computer-related are now made overseas and shipped, not to mention consumed, en masse by the American people. This ultimately led to what we now know as outsourcing, and is causing a significant problem when it comes to creating jobs in America.

Labor in foreign nations is just cheaper. Employees are worked to death, sometimes literally, with as many as 100 hours of overtime, in squalor working conditions. Not paying for air conditioning is cheaper. Paying for a bigger factory so workers aren’t crammed together like sardines costs money. Paying for chairs for workers costs money. If the employer or businessman that opened this factory in Taiwan, or China, or a multitude of other nations, had opened it in America instead, he would have been required to make these expenses by law, which exists for the sake and protection of the workers from employers seeking to exploit them. The very fact that American-owned manufacturers exist overseas is proof in and of itself; even employers of today’s America are still looking to cut costs through any means possible, even if that means forcing their employees into a de facto slavery.

Why on Earth should we give them the ability to mistreat American workers, as they so clearly demonstrate they’re willing to do, or at least allow, to workers on the other side of the world? Republicans are currently of the position that it should be allowed to save the infallible, precious “job creators” (i.e. the wealthy) a few more pennies. They want to go back to a time as depicted by Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, where there were no safety regulations, no worker’s rights or benefits, not even a minimum wage, as I explained earlier in this article.

But therein lies the problem to which there isn’t much in the way of a specific answer; how do we prevent this? Businesses large enough to be based in America, but outsource jobs to foreign nations, are large-scale corporations. These entities are neither moral nor immoral, but rather amoral, meaning they don’t do or see good or bad. Their entire purpose for existence is to make profits at any costs. Therefore, outsourcing will always happen, because there will always be a “lowest bidder” nation with the fewest regulations and labor laws, yet also with reasonable security and stability. The American people have no say or control over what other governments’ policies and laws are, let alone the indifferent, corrupt American government (even if it wanted to make a change for the better). We could create preventative laws here to stop outsourcing, or at the very least make it the less affordable option to opening factories here in America through our tax and trade policies, but with new free trade deals as recently supported wildly by both Democrats and Republicans, the US government is only putting in an express lane to allow these companies that outsource jobs to re-import their goods manufactured elsewhere without paying standard import taxes and fees on them. Clearly, if my “indifferent and corrupt” comment didn’t make it clear enough, it’s not likely we can count on the government to take direct action on this issue any time soon. Both smaller, more specific steps must be taken on this specific issue, as well as sweeping reform of a broken system, before we could even come close to reaching any sort of policy like this.

But, as the battle of a democracy marches ever-onward, what do we do in the mean time?

This question brings me back to my opening statement; a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. As the working class of this world, we must all look out for each other. This is one of the founding principles of organized labor. It doesn’t take much; if only a single worker out of one thousand, or even one million, is willing to sell out his rights for pay, it lowers the standard for all of us, pitting worker against worker to see who can sell out more. We’re caught in this vicious cycle right now on a global scale, and America is in danger of slipping back in time over a century to “make job creation in America affordable again,” as Republicans often put it. It’s up to all of us to prevent that from happening both in America, and across the world. On the global scale, we can help by supporting democratic efforts in oppressed nations, such as those that took place in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Libya, and countless other nations fighting and dying for just the tiniest flicker of a hope they may too have a democracy, and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Only once nations embrace this kind of true democracy, something of which even America has lost sight (but is not yet beyond hope) do we even stand a chance of putting these abuses of the working class by the wealthy and powerful to rest once and for all.

(Note from the author: most of my historical research did come from either my old college textbooks, which I obviously can’t hyperlink, or generalized Wikipedia reading, of which I always checked the sources of at the bottom of the page. I apologize for not linking them all in the text; that would have been a tremendous amount of links and information through which to sift. If you wish to check my facts for me, feel free. Hell, I’d encourage it.)

Obama’s First Term – the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

The circus that is the Republican Primaries will soon be winding down, meaning we won’t have the same clown acts to keep us distracted from the real decision in 2012 any more. The question will finally be about Obama vs. Romn… I mean, whoever wins the Republican Primary. So, I’ve started reflecting on the past few years and Obama’s accomplishments. I criticize him a lot, but he does deserve credit when credit is due. At the same time, he deserves scorn where it is due too. That is when I came up with this article: President Obama’s First Term – The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Like I said, he did do many good things, but there are other situations and issues he handled poorly or he displayed questionable behavior during deliberation of the issue. To his credit, he still at least tried on most of these issues, unlike the ugly. The Ugly column refers to the ugly facts we’ve come to learn about Obama during his first term, including the issues on which he didn’t even try to fight.

Due to the limitations on size and organization for this graph, I have to skip a lot of the specific details for the longer accomplishments such as the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Many of its smaller details, or the more minor accomplishments of Obama’s first term, can be found on see this list.

Forgive me if my sources seem a little sloppy on this one. There was a TON of information hunting involved for an article created on such a simple idea.

The Good

The Bad

The Ugly
Nominated two liberal Supreme Court Justices – I ultimately decided to put Obama’s two liberal appointments to the Supreme Court on the good list because it’s by far the most important reason why I’ll be voting for him in 2012. Really though, complimenting him on this is like thanking someone for going to a grocery store and not stealing anything. Obama ran as a liberal. He’s supposed to appoint liberal justices. Nonetheless, it was a good, vitally important move to the health of our democracy. The Supreme Court is dangerously corporatist right now, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, possibly the most solid liberal on the court, is 79 years old. If a Republican wins in 2012, it’s possible she could be replaced with yet another corporatist, meaning we won’t see campaign finance reform or any degree of cleaning up our government for literally another lifetime, and I honestly don’t know if America can wait that long. The War in Iraq – While it’s very good that Obama ended the war in Iraq, he can hardly be credited for that. He was only following the Status of Arms Agreement as laid out by President Bush. The reason this is in the “bad” category, however, is because for a time Obama was showing signs of possibly re-considering following the Bush timetable of leaving Iraq and staying for longer. The simple fact that he showed signs of re-considering is extremely troubling. We still ended up withdrawing thankfully, so ultimately Obama made the right decision, but it was such an obvious one even minor reconsideration draws his thought process into question. Expanded executive power and violations of civil liberties – Obama has changed little about the violations of civil liberties largely done by unjust expansion of executive power enacted by the Bush Administration, especially outside of torture. We still do warrantless wiretapping, searches, and seizures, shredding the 4th amendment. Plus, after becoming President, Obama suddenly began supporting the Patriot Act. Worse yet, in many ways, he’s greatly expanded violations against our civil liberties. Under Obama, the US Department of Homeland Security has begun testing FAST (Future Attribute Screening Technology), a program created to judge people’s intent for future crimes. It has also recently been revealed that the United States President and Military hold the authority to take military action against a cyber attack, opening the possibility of simple computer hackers being labeled as terrorists. With the passage of the most recent National Defense Authorization Act, we learned more about Obama than anything else. This Act enabled the military to operate within the United States, violating the Posse Comitatus Act which forbade the US military from policing the streets and instead left it up to local law enforcement over 130 years ago. It also shredded the 5th and 14th amendments and Habeas Corpus by allowing indefinite detentions of any “enemy combatants” without trial, and with the military determining who is and is not a military combatant with no outside jurisdiction, and they may do so to US citizens. In other words, Obama has signed into law a bill that allows the military to detain whomsoever they want, American citizens on American soil included, without the authority of the government or law enforcement for whatever reason they want without any evidence for however long they want without a trail. When Obama signed it into law, he defended it by saying “MY Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”

While Obama’s administration may not use the bill for this purpose, the bill establishes that power for the President, and Obama won’t be President forever. It’s not that we’re necessarily worried about President Obama; it’s future Presidents who will now have this authority.

Worst of all, Obama has normalized these things. Bush introduced them, but instead of saying “oh, he was all wrong,” Obama accepted them as normal and went on about his business. These violations of our privacy and liberties have been standardized into American life by President Obama now, after running his campaign on “change,” and will be extremely difficult to stop.
Health Care Reform – Health care reform was such a mixed bag I put it in here and in “the bad.” There were dozens and dozens of small, beneficial aspects to the Affordable Care Act of 2010, but here are a few highlights:

  • Required insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions
  • Lets children stay on their parents’ health insurance until they’re 25
  • Closed the doughnut hole in Medicare prescription drug plans, and cut the “wasteful spending” of the Medicare Advantage plan.
  • Created tax credits for those who need help paying health premiums
  • Required health plans to disclose how much of the premium goes to patient care

In addition to the Affordable Care Act of 2010, Obama also expanded the SCHIP program by increasing eligibility for it, covering an additional 4 million children and pregnant women. Obama also expanded eligibility for Medicaid.

 The STAR Treaty – Like many things in this column, the STAR Treaty was a very good deal to help prevent loose nukes from spreading around Russia and the rest of the world. It was so good, as a matter of fact, that there was no reason to oppose it. Republicans only opposed it because they took every issue hostage that they could to see what they could get out of Obama as “compromise,” because they knew Obama would not fight them on it. Thankfully, Obama did not fail as hard on this issue as others, as he did not compromise despite Republican efforts to do so. It’s good that he got the treaty passed, but the passive way he got it passed earned him a spot in the “bad” list. Extended the Bush Tax Cuts and passed more tax cuts of his own on top of them – One of Obama’s biggest campaign promises was to end the disastrous Bush Tax Cuts, yet he completely and utterly broke that promise and extended them for another two years, opposing the wishes of a majority of his own political party and American people as well. His stimulus bill contained massive tax cuts, he fought tooth-and-nail for the payroll tax cuts, and he has even shown support of cutting the corporate tax rate. Even his own jobs bill, before compromising with Republicans, was 56% tax cuts. He hasn’t fought once to stop tax cuts, let alone raising taxes on the rich, defying a key reason why so many voted for him in 2008 and more importantly what this nation desperately needs right now to save our economy and budget.
Student Loan Reform – The government now provides student loans instead of banks, cutting out the “middle man,” and saving the nation $61 billion a year. Also:

  • Students can reduce their monthly payments from 15 to ten percent of their discretionary income as of 2014
  • The balance of students’ debt would be forgiven after 20 years of payments rather than in 25 years
  • Enables recent graduates to consolidate their loans and achieve lower interest rates
  • Set up a program aimed at helping students better understand their options when taking out loans.
 Killed Awlaki – First of all, the principle of this issue alone is downright ugly. Obama ordered the execution of a US citizen without even charging him with a crime, let alone a trial. There’s little to no concrete evidence that he actually plotted terrorist attacks, or that he was involved. In fact, he had been cleared of charges regarding involvement with the 9/11 attacks. Since it wasn’t without its good reasoning, however, I counted it only as “bad,” as it was still a dangerous precedent to be setting for future Presidents by establishing that the President has the power to order the execution of US citizens abroad without a trial. Supports the war in Afghanistan – Despite initially asking for an exit strategy, and massive public opposition to the war, President Obama will have twice the number of troops in Afghanistan by the end of his first term than the day he entered office. Initially the war had good intentions – capturing and stopping those responsible for the September 11th attacks. Now, Osama bin Laden, the orchestrator of the attacks, is dead (whom, by the way, after invading Afghanistan and Iraq, we caught in Pakistan), and there could be less than 50 members of Al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan today. Isn’t that mission accomplished? No, instead, now military leaders indicating we may be staying indefinitely. What are we still doing there?
Stimulated the economy – As in the Great Depression, Obama aimed to fight economic troubles by re-investing in the country. This stimulus plan focused on job creation and prevention of job losses, primarily by the federal government giving more money to law enforcement, education, transportation projects, energy projects, modernization of technology, and subsidies families and states designed to help struggling families under hard economic times. The stimulus included, but was not limited to:

  • Extending unemployment benefits
  • Increasing food stamp benefits
  • Highway and bridge construction and repair
  • Mass transit rail projects
  • Public Housing Improvements
  • Clean drinking water projects
  • Modernization of health information technologies
  • Increased education funding to Pell Grants and Head Start
  • Renewable, “green” energy projects
  • Cleaning up nuclear weapon production sites
  • Funding for law enforcement to hire new workers and purchase new equipment
  • Funding for new airport screening equipment
 Financial Reform – Obama’s financial reform was an absolute joke. The bill; did nothing to regulate the derivatives market or risky financial practices that sank the economy in the first place, kept the policy of too big to fail intact, did nothing to fix the corruption of the rating, allowed the banks to continue gambling with client’s money, banks are still allowed to do mark to market, and let the federal reserve continue pumping money into toxic assets, letting financial institutions privatize their gains but socialize their losses onto taxpayers. The one really good part of the legislation was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to which Obama took nearly a year and a half to make an appointment because of his inability or unwillingness to fight Republican opposition, and even then still had to be a recess appointment, and EVEN THEN didn’t pick the best person for the job. The bill was so watered down it was almost useless, especially when given how unwilling Obama was to really fight for the bureau. The economy is still in just as much danger now as it was before the legislation, and that’s the best way to measure its effectiveness. Failed to pass or even attempt campaign finance reform – Despite both making claims that he would support campaign finance reform when running in 2008 and this issue by far being inarguably the most important issue to clean up our government and get it working for the American people again, President Obama has done absolutely nothing to promote campaign finance reform. Obama has actually raised record amounts of money from private donors because of the lack of campaign finance laws.
Overhauled the food safety system – Obama increased the power of regulators to inspect and recall unsafe foods. It emphasizes prevention by requiring food manufacturers to prepare detailed food safety plans and to tell the Food and Drug Administration what they are doing to keep the food safe at different stages of production. Health Care Reform – Now that I’ve listed the good parts of the bill, there’s three major parts that are bad. First and foremost is the mandate without public option. I wouldn’t mind the mandate nearly as much if a public option, a non-profit insurance provider, had been in the legislation, but it wasn’t. As a matter of fact, it now turns out that Obama fought against the public option behind closed doors despite the massive public popularity for the program. So now people are forced to become customers of an industry famous for unethical behavior and cut-throat profit seeking. This, of course, is the worst problem with the bill; health care “reform” did nothing to reform the actual system. It implemented a few new rules, but our system is still entirely privatized and for-profit. It was a huge-ass band-aid, but band-aids don’t do much good when the problem is an underlying cancer slowly killing the American people. So long as profit is still the leading motivator in the health insurance game, compassion and care for clients will not be a prime directive for providers. Just like with financial reform, though, since Obama has raised the “mission accomplished” banner on his self-proclaimed “historic” health care reform, odds are we won’t becoming back to it any time soon, which is the third problem. Why should we reform health care again if Obama just did it? And if we’re not re-visiting it, what’s going to fix the massive problem we still have with a for-profit system? Sadly, right now, it looks like nothing. MASSIVELY failed in the 2011 & 2012 budget debates – Obama’s absolute worst trait is his complete and utter lack of negotiating skills. He continually pre-compromises his own side of the argument before negotiations even begin in some vain hope of looking like the “good guy” and his adversaries will do the same, even though it completely defies how compromise, and thus, democracy, really works. In 2011, he failed so hard at negotiating over the budget that Republicans literally got over 100% of what they initially asked for in the negotiations, and cut more spending than any modern US President. Nearly all of it came out of the middle and lower classes; the defense budget and wealthy were virtually unscathed. Because of the debt ceiling, the entire 2012 budget debate was fake, and Obama played along with the Republicans holding the debt ceiling hostage, despite the fact that it’s been raised without question or debate 74 times since 1962, five times under George Bush by many of the same Republicans that opposed raising it in 2011, and 235 economists, 6 of whom were Nobel Peace Prize winners, were publicly and vehemently opposed to any notion of not raising the debt ceiling. On top of that, we got stuck with the Grand Bargain, of which Obama was a fervent supporter, that cuts entitlements and raises taxes on the middle and lower classes while cutting them for the upper class and corporations. This rightfully earned Obama significant scorn from his supporters – both fellow lawmakers and constituents. Obama is so terrible at negotiating, and gives Republicans so much of what they want and more in budget negotiations, it’s hard to see how he doesn’t want the Republican agenda on taxation, spending, and the budget, because I refuse to believe he’s that woefully incapable of negotiating. If all of that wasn’t enough to make you cynical of Obama and his ideology of the budget, consider the fact that he personally created the Simpson-Bowls Commission to address the 2012 budget when the debate first started, which tried to rob the middle class and tie Social Security into the general budget. Obama himself made each and every appointment to the commission, yet 14 out of the 18 commission members were fiscal conservatives. The co-chair to this commission was Alan Simpson, who said that all people on Social Security are leeches, that Social Security is insolvent, which is factually untrue, and said, I quote, “[Social Security is] a cow with 310 million tits.” On top of that he also wanted veterans to give up their disability benefits so he can afford more corporate tax cuts. Even now, Obama is preparing another budget proposal, and is going around to all of his supporters and constituents preparing them to be massively disappointed. I could go on, believe me I could go on, but for the sake of this chart I have to end it here. Long story short; Obama is either nightmarishly incompetent when it comes to the budget, or he’s secretly a conservative. There’s no other way to explain it.
Stopped torture – Obama stopped the practice of waterboarding, calling it torture and “contrary to America’s traditions.” Women’s right to choose – While the Obama Administration does believe a woman has a right to have an abortion if she chooses, they sure as hell aren’t doing much to convince us of that. Obama even signed an executive order that would make abortions more difficult to obtain for some women. The real reason why Obama is failing so hard at defending a woman’s right to choose is because he does nothing and says nothing about the heinous assault against women’s reproductive rights at the state level by Republicans across the country. I highlight a lot of these attempts here. The worst of these cases involve women being imprisoned on charges of murder for miscarrying a child because, in accordance with South Carolina law, the baby is “alive,” and the woman’s body just killed it. Already over 300 women have been arrested in South Carolina because of this legislation, and other states are pushing for the same. While Obama has done little to nothing to damage a woman’s right to choose, he sure as hell hasn’t done a damn thing but stand on the sidelines and watch as the right to choose is literally banned in dozens of states across America, despite the unconstitutionality of such legislation. Continually got advice and administration officials from the Washington establishment – Picking up where I left off, Obama continually picked questionable people for his cabinet and advisory positions, especially for a so-called “liberal,” which he really isn’t (see the next point). Alan Simpson from the last point was just the tip of the ice berg. Tim Geithner, Obama’s Treasury Secretary, basically is a Republican. He “left” the party, but never re-joined another, and is still a solid corporatist / conservative. The banks refer to him as “their man in Washington.”  He has been involved with corruption case after corruption case. Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, has not prosecuted a single person responsible for the financial collapse, despite Obama promising to on the campaign trail, nor has he investigated any of the countless wrongdoings of the Bush administration. Larry Summers was originally Obama’s Chief Economic Advisor, and he was one of the biggest Democrats responsible for promoting the deregulatory practices that lead to the economic recession, and still continues to support today. Now, Obama is considering Summers to be the Chief of the World Bank. His first Chief of Staff was Rahm Emmanuel, who stated that liberals are, quote, “fucking retarded.” His second Chief of Staff William Daley may have been largely responsible for a lot of the Administration’s concessions to Republicans, causing a lot of Democratic leadership to turn on him. Let’s not forget Daley also had an awkwardly honest interview with Politico where he did nothing but focus on how horrible Obama’s first three years had been. Most of all though, Daley was the primary one responsible for telling the President he wasn’t friendly enough to businesses and the big banks despite massive public opposition to such a notion. Now his third official Chief of Staff is Jack Lew, who has received millions from CitiGroup and whom the Republicans absolutely love. These people are Obama’s appointments; he doesn’t have to compromise on them, and yet he keeps picking pro-establishment, pro-banker, conservatives. Why else would he do so, if he wasn’t secretly pro-establishment, pro-banker, or conservative himself?
Killed Osama bin Laden – Largely self-explanatory. I’d say I don’t want to hear conservatives criticizing Obama for being “weak on terror” ever again, but I know I will… Guantanamo and off-shore detention – Obama tried to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, but failed. He did not fight passionately for his side of the argument, and when you don’t do that you lose. Yes, the Republicans were ruthless in their opposition to his plans, but it’s a yet another classic example of how Obama doesn’t know how to fight for his ideas. The simple truth is he didn’t carry out his promise, we didn’t get the outcome we wanted, and therefore, this falls under the category of “bad.” Disdainful of his own constituents – On many occasions, Obama and members of his administration have expressed disdain or even disgust for liberals and left-wing ideology. Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel called liberals “fucking retarded.” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs sarcastically mocked liberals, calling them crazy, unrealistic, falsely accusing liberals of holding radical ideology of wanting to abolish the pentagon, and saying they all need to be drug tested (and all just before an election too, when Democrats actually need their liberal voters supporting them). Obama himself derisively told Senator Sanders (while pointing to a half-filled glass of water), “that’s the problem with YOU PROGRESSIVES; you see this as half-empty.”

Obama is not a liberal. Both his words and actions as President, particularly when it comes to administrative and advisory appointments, he just can’t be. In fact, he seems to have great disdain for liberals and progressives.
Repealed DADT – By repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the military can no longer discriminate against enlistees based on sexual orientation. Obama’s Pocket Change – As I listed in the “good” column, Obama did make tiny, incremental changes here and there to some programs. The problem was he ran his entire 2008 campaign on “change,” and not just petty “pocket change,” like I wrote about in my very first piece on this website. He campaigned on changing the very system on which America operates. He knew it was a broken system, and he knew people would get excited about fixing it, as they did. Turns out, Obama loves the core system as it is, which I address further in the “ugly” column. I know change is slow, but slow is one thing; not even trying is another entirely. Obama cannot bring the change he promised until he at least learns to fight for it properly, assuming, of course, that he ever intended on fighting for progressive principles in the first place. Failed to pass Immigration Reform – Obama has done nothing to reform immigration. He attempted, but failed, to pass the DREAM Act, which would allow children brought here illegally (and non-consensually, given that they were children) to have a pathway to citizenship if they either went to college or joined the military. The Act failed because of opposition within the Democratic Party. Obama has actually drastically increased deportation of illegal immigrants since becoming President.
Stopped defending DOMA – Obama stopped the Justice Department from defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Obama will, however, still be “enforcing” the Act.   Failed to protect unions and worker’s rights – During the Wisconsin labor disputes, Obama and the White House would not support the workers protesting over their rights to collectively bargain being taken away almost entirely because of Republican criticism. Ultimately, the White House would not even send a single person to help, despite the protestors asking for it from the President, Vice President, and even the Secretary of Labor. This is despite the fact that Obama directly promised during the campaign to support protesters whose rights specifically to collectively bargain become jeopardized. It is because of this and similar actions (and inactions) on the part of the President that the unions, the largest supporters of the Democratic Party by far, are now turning on Democratic Party establishment entirely.
Expanded the definition of hate crimes – Under the new definition of a hate crime, those committed against someone due to gender identity or sexual orientation would also count as federal offenses.   Increased off-shore oil drilling – President Obama introduced a bill to increase off-shore oil drilling, one of the primary points on the Republican agenda and primary issues liberals oppose. He did so less than a month before one of the worst oil spills of all time.
Supported NATO in Libya – Many liberals questioned Obama going into Libya, especially after so vehemently opposing the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, but Libya was very different. First and foremost, it wasn’t our idea. Our allies in NATO asked for our help, meaning we weren’t going in alone, nor were we the ones leading or investing the most effort. The Libyan rebels also asked us to come, which the Afghani and Iraqi people did not do. Finally, we did not send in ground troops – we simply enforced the policies and rulings of the United Nations and NATO. For our actions in Libya, the world’s longest-ruling dictator was deposed, and our commitment to NATO and the international community was strengthened.    
Bailed out the Auto Industry – While some may question the ethicality of bailouts on principle, the Auto Industry Bailout was the right way to do one if a bailout is to be done. The companies bailed out through this package supported unionized labor, meaning that workers’ rights would not be sacrificed, and more, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid imposed strict “strings” attached to the bailout that required CEOs to suffer pay cuts, protect the taxpayer’s investment, and general means to prevent abuse of the emergency funds allocated to them. Given that, the Auto Industry Bailout is the only bailout that may have actually saved jobs and helped the average American worker. Ultimately, this bailout saved as many as 3 million jobs.    
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act – Allowed lawsuits against employers over discriminatory pay to have the 180 day statue of limitations on filing the lawsuit applied to the date of the most recent discriminatory paycheck, instead of the first.    
Opposed SOPA and other similar legislation – This is an extremely recent development as of the creation of this graph, but the White House has come out and denounced SOPA-like legislation such as PIPA and the PROTECT IP Act.    
Blocked the Keystone XL Pipeline – Obama blocked the creation of the Keystone XL pipeline that would route tar sands petroleum from Canada to Texas, posing a huge environmental risk and running an oil pipeline through America’s largest fresh water aquifer. Some may question if this was right or not, but it did show a rare sign of strength on Obama’s part in just making a decision with such opposition towards blocking it.    
Various other “Pocket Change” – Obama did a great number of other very minor changes throughout his first term. A good list of them can be seen here at PolitiFact.    

As usual though, I spend a week working on an awesome article like this only for Cenk Uygur to come in and beat me to the punch. On yesterday’s episode of The Young Turks, Cenk did a breakdown of nearly everything I discussed in this chart. Here’s the primary video, with two subsequent ones. Damn you Uygur and your awesome team at The Young Turks; damn your efficiency I say!

A Global Labor Movement

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen
(Originally posted September 5th, 2011)

Honor laborIn honor of Labor Day, I’ve finally decided to share with you all something that’s been on my mind for a long time. If you recall, a few notes ago I wrote about political code talk, and what politicians really mean when they say they want to make job creation in the United States the affordable option, as opposed to opening a factor in China, India, Pakistan, Mexico, etc. Long story short, they say they want to lower taxes for companies and the wealthy with no strings attached, claiming that this alone will incentivize job creation in the United States despite having no proof of that, and the existence of evidence to the contrary. Right-wing ideology supports tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, while cutting workers’ benefits, increasing their taxes, and abolishing minimum wage laws, work environment safety regulations, and even child labor laws. Without these laws, there is absolutely no protection for the American worker, and our society will be plunged back to Upton Sinclair’s Jungle. Simultaneously, these same right-wingers also support abolishing or drastically cutting entitlement programs like Social Security, which act as insurance that our elderly and disabled won’t have to work beyond their able years. So basically, right-wing ideology is that the lower and middle class should be paid slave wages in deplorable working conditions for limitless hours a day with no overtime pay or benefits until they drop dead on the factory floor.

An exaggeration? Hardly, given the actual political positions of many in the Republican party. If we eliminate government requirements and regulations that companies pay minimum wages, maintain relatively safe working environments, ban children from working dangerous jobs, and generally take care of their employees, then they won’t. To believe otherwise is both naïve of corporate nature and ignorant of history. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are neither moral nor immoral; they’re amoral. Their only goal is to make money, not do good or evil. If they can make more profit by cutting benefits or generally not taking care of their employees, they will. It’s not a question of what’s right or wrong; it’s a question of what’s profitable. As Cenk Uygur always points out, if an executive of a big company were to propose the idea that CEOs give up a small portion of their paychecks (which comes from their profits) in order to provide better care for their physical laborers with no financial gain for the company, he’d be fired that day. If that weren’t enough proof for you, just keep in mind that there was once a time in American history where we didn’t have such regulations or protections for our workers. As I alluded to earlier, that America can be seen in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. In honor of Labor Day, I would suggest trying to pick up a copy and giving it a quick read if you haven’t already for insight on what America would look like, and what it did look like, without the very laws, regulations, and insurances Republican politicians want to eliminate.

As I pointed out in my piece on political code talk, however, right-wing politicians are right on one thing; it is cheaper to open a factory in China, or any number of other nations, than it is in the United States because the workers of these countries are not given the same bare-minimum level of decency and respect that all too many American workers take for granted. In many Asian countries, factory workers are barely paid enough to buy food, let alone a safe place to live or a retirement program. This is why we have the minimum wage and Social Security, among other things, in the United States. The question we face is how to overcome this problem. The United States government can’t control the laws of foreign governments, so we can’t legally require them to treat their workers better. Republican (and many right-wing Democratic) law makers have decided the only solution is to lower the standard of our work environments and care for labor to that of other nations that pay little to no respect to the human beings that make up their workforces. This is the core principle behind right-wing ideology’s view of labor in today’s world.

Let’s say there’s a company in the United Arab Emirates that hires people to build a new skyscraper for them, but only pays them enough money for food and prevents them from leaving the nation. Or maybe there’s a factory in China that forces its employees to work 100 hours of overtime a month. The reaction of the American right-wing is that we have to give up our worker’s rights (and give more tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations) because other nations decide to so deplorably treat their own all in the name of “competing” with their “more affordable” (slave) labor. Does that seem right to you?

If our government is either so helpless or so unwilling to better the conditions in other nations, then the matter of worker’s rights is in the hands of workers themselves. That is why I wrote this note. When it comes to employees, the lowest bidder will always win thanks to our ever-shrinking world. A company in the United States could open a factory in India without even a second thought, so whichever workers of the world are willing, or are forced, to work for the lowest wages and least benefits and respect are the ones that will keep winning the jobs. As workers, we must unify in a single, global labor movement to ensure that workers everywhere can be given proper treatment. Unionized labor at the national level here in the United States did miracles during the labor reform years of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and as unionized labor in the United States decreased over the past few decades, so did worker’s income and rights. The answer, then, is clear.

To dust off an old nutshell, workers of the world must unite to fight for mutual rights and demand proper treatment from employers that would seek to abuse them. Do not misjudge me; I am not a communist, and I’m well aware that not all employers are as amoral as the world’s largest corporations (especially at the small business level). I don’t feel, however, that asking for certain minimum guarantees for employees is too much. All full-time workers of the world should be entitled to enough income to pay for the full cost of living, or have the necessities of life provided to them by their government, with at least some percentage left over to either go towards savings or to spend on luxuries. All workers should be entitled to sick leave, and not have to worry about being fired if they don’t show up to work because they have a highly contagious disease. All workers should be entitled to safe work environments relative to the job in question. All workers should be entitled to some form of retirement. All workers should be allowed to collectively negotiate and bargain with their employers. No worker should be forced to work endless hours. No worker should be forced to work overtime without proper compensation. No worker should be forced to work against their will. No worker should be forced to work beyond their physical limits due to age or disability. Young children should be strictly banned at the global level from working in factories, mines, power plants, and other highly dangerous locations. All workers of the world should be entitled to basic human respect and dignity if not great gratitude for their sacrifice and effort to build our world. These things should be non-negotiable, and demanded by all the workers everywhere in a single, unified effort to make this world a better place.

So this Labor Day, keep this note in mind as you honor the hard workers in your life. Give them thanks for all they do to build and maintain our society. Thank them for keeping our buildings sturdy, our roads and bridges safe, our factories productive, our hospitals clean, our planes and trains running on time, our shelves stocked, our files organized, our computers and machinery functioning, our consumers happy, and so much more that keeps our world spinning.

Thank you.

Deciphering Code Talk – “Making job creation in the United States affordable.”

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen
(Originally posted August 18th, 2011)

Right-wing politicians continue to make the argument that the reason we don’t have job creation in America is because it costs too much, and that making jobs in foreign nations is cheaper. Therefore, we must reduce or completely eliminate taxation on corporations in order to make job creation here in the United States profitable. This argument is flawed for many obvious reasons. Allow me to elaborate as we decode this example of political code-talk.

First off, it’s extremely naive. As I pointed out in my last note, corporations will not do the right thing when they have no profit incentive to do so. If they have no federal requirement to use money saved from tax cuts for job creation, then they won’t. They will only spend money on making more jobs if it is profitable for their company to expand, and when the American consumer has little available money to be spending, expansion is not profitable. This assumption, that companies will simply “do” the right thing with the money, makes the right-wing argument similar to that of Communism. Communism assumes that people will do the right thing by working as hard as they can and to improve without any incentive to do so. We give corporations huge tax reductions, but do not regulate them or require them to hire any more workers or create better work environments. What then, is their incentive to do so? Corporate corruption then, is the only logical reason why a politician, Republican or Democrat, would support giving more money to corporations and businesses with no-strings attached.

This argument also doesn’t follow a logical pattern. Taxes are at the lowest they’ve been in generations. For the last ten years, for example, we’ve had the now infamous Bush / Obama tax cuts that are the principle cause of our catastrophic debt. Over the last ten years, we’ve only lost millions and millions of jobs. So, ten years ago, we slash taxes to historic lows, and no jobs were created. We lost jobs. Now, right-wingers believe that to incentivize corporations to create jobs, we have to cut taxes… again?

Most devastatingly, “making job creation in America profitable” destroys the American dream. Please, do not be dismissive of my comments here as “bitter” or overly emotional. A little over a century ago, labor conditions in this nation were atrocious. There were no safety regulations, there was no minimum wage, young children were forced to work in heavy industry just so families could afford to get by, and countless other issues plagued the supposed land of opportunity. Thankfully, we had a labor movement that reformed how things were done. Children were banned from working, minimum wages were established, employers had to provide safe and sound work environments, and much more that all lead to the rise of America’s glorious middle class. Now though, with our ever-shrinking world, corporations have found a way to wiggle back out of these regulations by way of outsourcing. Instead of opening a manufacturing plant in America, where there are laws that require certain levels of safety and care for workers, they can open them in foreign nations where there are no such regulations; where workers are given no rights, are worked to death, are paid slave wages, and so on. This is what Republicans are referring to when they say it is not profitable to create jobs in America. On that, they’re being quite honest. From a purely fiscal perspective, it is much more expensive to open and maintain a manufacturing plant in America than in other nations in most circumstances because of our level of standards we have for labor’s rights and the conditions in which they work.

Keeping that in mind, let’s go back to the Republican argument. They want to make “job creation in America the affordable choice for corporations.”

Well then, what do you think that means? Time to break the code, and we can do so with simple logic. If Republicans and other right-wing politicians want to make job creation in America the affordable option, how can they obtain that? Clearly, American politicians have no hold over foreign governments’ labor laws, and therefore, cannot make it more affordable by altering cost from that end (by increasing working conditions and laborer’s rights abroad). American politicians can only change policy at this end, in this nation. They could always create new regulations that require corporations to keep jobs in the United States, but the Republican Party platform doesn’t support that. Their platform is now and has always been less government regulation. On top of that, let’s take a look at some other policies from their platform:

  1. They are against labor’s rights
  2. They are against collective bargaining
  3. They are against labor unions
  4. They are against the federal minimum wage
  5. Some (not all) are against child labor laws
  6. They are against government regulation of the private sector, including safety regulations and health standards

I believe we have our answer. Republicans do want to make America the affordable choice for job creation, and they choose to do so by lowering our standards to those of all other nations in the world. Every one of the listed points do cost more money to enforce, after all, and competing nations don’t ensure such quality of work environments for its laborers. According to this argument from the right-winger then, the only way to stimulate job growth is to eliminate worker’s rights, force children to go back into sweatshops, reduce or remove the responsibility for employers to provide safe work environments, and force American laborers to work for slave wages. Their own party platform supports all of these policies, and when combined with the argument that they want to “make job creation in the United States the affordable choice for corporations,” it’s really hard to say otherwise. Anyone who uses this argument, or any politician that mentions how job creation in America is not affordable, is speaking in code to say they want to reduce America’s working conditions to those of slaves, like they were over a century ago. Any politician that uses these code words should be avoided at all costs, as such policy will destroy the middle class, and bring an end to the American Dream.