children

Former Egypt Bank Chairman Pleads Guilty To Sexually Abusing Maid

June 24, 2011

NEW YORK — A prominent Egyptian businessman admitted Friday to kissing and groping a hotel housekeeper who didn’t welcome his advances, pleading guilty as the woman sued him for $5 million. Mahmoud Abdel Salam Omar pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor sexual abuse charge, acknowledging he kissed the woman on the lips and neck and touched her breasts after she brought tissues to his room at the posh Pierre hotel. The 74-year-old chairman of state-run salt production firm El-Mex Salines Co. already has completed five days of community service in a soup kitchen, and his case will be closed without jail time or probation if he stays out of trouble for a year. After softly answering “yes” in English to questions from a judge and prosecutor, Omar declined to comment as he left a Manhattan courthouse. Arrested while in New York to pick up a salt-industry award for El-Mex Salines, he spent about four days behind bars before being released on bail earlier this month. His lawyer, Lori Cohen, called the case the result of a “big miscommunication” between the 44-year-old maid and Omar. While he acknowledged in court that he knew he didn’t have the woman’s consent for his advances, Cohen said he thought the housekeeper was receptive. “I believe he thought something was happening that wasn’t,” she said. “I think his lack of a great understanding of English, and her desire to file a multimillion-dollar lawsuit, led to these accusations.” The woman’s lawyer bristled at the suggestion that she embellished the encounter to try to reap money from the former bank chairman. “That’s just not true,” said the attorney, John P. Grill. “She didn’t know who he was.” Omar initially faced a felony sexual abuse charge that carried up to seven years in prison. After interviewing numerous witnesses and reviewing surveillance video and forensic evidence, prosecutors concluded the incident “did not rise to the level of forcible compulsion,” which would have to be proven for the felony charge, Manhattan assistant district attorney Nicole Blumberg said. Whatever his plea deal, the woman’s lawyer said, “it doesn’t change what happened.” The woman’s federal assault and false-imprisonment lawsuit says Omar also rubbed his groin against her legs and groped her buttocks. It was filed Friday so Omar could officially be served with a copy before he left the country, Grill said. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had said the case could be complicated to prosecute. Although the maid told a superior immediately that she had been attacked, the supervisor waited until the next morning to alert the hotel’s security director, who then told police. The hotel suspended the supervisor and promised to buy “panic buttons” for maids to alert managers if they are attacked. A spokeswoman for the hotel’s owner, Mumbai-based Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces, didn’t immediately return a telephone call Friday. Omar’s lawyer said he might well have chosen to go to trial but was eager to get home to his wife, who has recently had surgery. “This was the most expeditious way for him to return home,” she said. Besides chairing the salt company, Omar has served as chairman of Egypt’s Bank of Alexandria, the Egyptian American Bank and the Federation of Egyptian Banks, according to a biography on his company’s website. He has led El-Mex Salines since 2009. Omar’s arrest came little more than two weeks after then-International Monetary Fund leader Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested on charges of attempting to rape a maid at a different hotel, charges Strauss-Kahn denies. Together, the cases drew attention to the potential dangers of hotel maids’ jobs. The New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council plans to call for panic buttons as part of its contract negotiations with 150 hotels next year, and a state legislator has proposed to require the devices statewide. ___ Associated Press writer Tom Hays contributed to this report. ___ Jennifer Peltz can be reached at http://twitter.com/jennpeltz

Read the full article →

Why It’s Hard To Predict Bubbles

June 24, 2011

The recent sky-high IPO of LinkedIn, along with eye-popping valuations for other social networking and shopping companies, has raised concerns that we are now in the midst of another technology bubble, this one fueled by excessive investor enthusiasm for all things social. No sooner have these concerns been raised, however, than they have been countered by an array of arguments, all of which are variations on the basic claim that this internet boom is unlike the previous one. This debate illustrates one of the central causes of financial bubbles: Although after the fact it seems obvious that prices were irrational and an unhappy end was inevitable, bubbles are neither obvious nor inevitable at the time.

Read the full article →

GoDaddy Could Sell For $2.5 Billion

June 24, 2011

SAN FRANCISCO — Go Daddy, the domain-name registration company known for its racy Super Bowl ads, is close to being bought by two private investment firms for up to $2.5 billion, according to a person close to the deal. A deal is expected by Tuesday, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the transaction hasn’t been publicly announced. The deal is being led by Silver Lake Partners and KKR & Co., according to the person. Silver Lake’s investment portfolio includes a variety of tech companies, while KKR’s spans a number of industries, including technology. Private-equity and venture capital firm Technology Crossover Ventures will be involved as a lesser partner. The person said Go Daddy had been looking to sell itself. The Go Daddy Group Inc. was founded in 1997 by Bob Parsons, who continues to serve as its CEO. The privately held company, which is based in Scottsdale, Ariz., manages more than 48 million domain names. It also sells Web hosting services, site-building tools and other website-related offerings. The company’s ads for its eponymous domain registration website, GoDaddy.com, are known for featuring scantily clad women including Danica Patrick, a race car driver who is sponsored by the company. KKR’s desire for Go Daddy was reported earlier by the New York Post.

Read the full article →

Marty Zwilling: You Never Learn Anything While You Are Talking

June 24, 2011

When you are not presenting to investors or your team, try to spend more time listening than talking. You can’t learn anything new while you’re talking, yet many entrepreneurs seem to never stop. It’s a sad spiral, since the more you talk, the less people really hear, meaning they don’t learn anything either. If someone left this article on your desk, read extra carefully. Building a business is all about building relationships, and one of the most important elements of a relationship is effective communication. Communication doesn’t happen unless both parties practice the art of effective listening. Check to see if you are practicing the key disciplines of listening, as outlined by Brian Tracy in No Excuses: the Power of Self-Discipline : Listen attentively. Listen as though the other person is about to reveal a great secret or the winning lottery number and you will hear it only once. Since you always pay attention to what you most value, when you pay close attention to another person, you tell that person that they are of great value to you. You will be remembered. Pause before replying. When you pause, you avoid the risk of interrupting the other person if they are reformulating their thoughts. It also enables you to hear not only what was said, but what was not said. Then you can respond with greater awareness and sensitivity. Ask for clarification. Never assume that you automatically know what the other person is thinking or feeling. It is when you ask questions and seek clarity that you demonstrate that you really care about what he or she is saying, and that you are genuinely interested in understanding how he or she thinks and feels. Feed it back. The acid test of listening is to see if you can paraphrase what you heard in your own words. It is only when you can repeat back what the other person has just said, in your own words, that you prove you are really listening, and understood the message. For all feedback, be sure to mirror the other person’s pace and communication style. Even good communicators average only about half their time listening. Yet experts assert that most people listen with only about 25 percent of their attention, hear about 25 percent of what is said, and after two months, remember only half of that. That’s not effective communication. There are also things you can do to encourage others to listen to you, when you do speak, to improve the overall communication: Lower voice, no emotion. This causes the other party to listen more carefully, and facilitates a more pleasant and more effective conversation. Adapt to listener interests. Use analogies and terminology that are easy for the other person to relate to, and they will respond with attention and higher comprehension. Choose the right environment. Wait for the right opportunity, when you can be easily heard and understood, and the listener is in the right mood. Address people by name. This gets their attention and focus. Sometimes it helps to bring others into the conversation to support your input. In business, you need to always be listening – to customers, to advisors, to investors, and to your team members. When you do talk, concentrate on making it effective. You don’t have the time to have things repeated to you four times before you really hear and understand them. Responsible, effective listening is a rare skill that will give you a sustainable competitive advantage over your peers and your competitors. It’s also a skill that can be developed with practice. You can never know enough in business, so even top entrepreneurs find time to listen. Are you learning anything these days?

Read the full article →

Steve Mariotti: How to Start a Non-Profit, Part Four

June 24, 2011

This is the fourth of four articles on starting a non-profit enterprise. Read Part one here and part two here . Here are some more issues and topics that will come into play when you begin a non-profit organization. Again, much of this advice would be useful in a for-profit startup, as well. Document Your Program You should document everything you do. For the first ten years, put half your money into programs and the other half into research and development. Explain to funders that you are looking for breakthrough ideas that will greatly expand and facilitate your mission. Always keep your research budget separate from your program budget; if they are combined, it will skew your cost-per-change unit. Try to have one set of funders to finance your research and another group fund the programs. Media There is nothing you can do to help your mission more than getting widespread media attention. Get the story right by demonstrating positive change in individuals involved in your program (as Jan Legnitto, formerly of 60 Minutes told me once). Developing a story based on improved conditions or behavior (depending on your mission) due to your program will be the key to attracting media notice. It is usually worth it to hire a public relations expert. Tell the Truth Do not exaggerate your program results. If you tell the truth, you will have nothing to be ashamed of. People will admire you for it. Develop an Earned-Revenue Strategy It is a good idea to have a product or service that you can sell directly to the public, rather then rely wholly on donations and grants. However, this scenario should not be developed for several years, until you are fully established as a non-profit. For one thing, it can derail you and your team from your primary mission. Also, if you are successful in raising revenue through a product or service, people will wonder why you became a non-profit in the first place, and be reluctant to donate money. Growth Can Kill Uncontrolled growth can destroy your organization. Don’t think that because your program has suddenly taken off and is expanding you can just let it go without careful supervision. If you’re not careful there will be a decline in the quality of the delivery of benefits to your target audience. My experience is that growth over 25% is unmanageable in a non-profit venture. Establish a Reserve Fund From day one, put a modest percentage of each dollar you raise into a reserve fund. It will keep you afloat if your top donors withdraw their funding (as they almost certainly will, eventually). If supporters question your development of a reserve fund, and try to prevent you from achieving financial independence, they are not your friends. Do not forget that you are dependent on your donors’ wealth. Becoming financially independent may not be one of their goals for you. But it should be your goal for yourself and your organization. Hire the Best People Hire the best people you can get. Compensate them as well as you can, and give them incentives to make bonuses. Even in non-profit environments, money matters – people have families to support and their personal aspirations. Be clear about what your employees have to achieve to earn bonuses and raises. Open Book Management Jack Stack’s Open Book Management is a must-read. In it he argues that letting people see the financials of an organization is absolutely critical for success. At NFTE, every aspect of our financial circumstances except salaries is open for inspection. Continue Strategic Research Hire a top researcher from a college or university that specializes in the area you are working on. Often, a professor will find a graduate student to do a Ph.D. thesis on your program. Develop a research design based on your unit of change. Whenever possible use the “random assignment” method in comparative studies, rather than just a control group. Think Globally A local problem is usually a global one as well. Food, shelter, health, education, environment – make a breakthrough locally and it will help people everywhere. Final Thoughts… I originally founded NFTE as a for-profit. I wanted to make money and solve a social problem at the same time. My primary motivation was split. I wanted to do both, but since the audience I wanted to reach — low-income youths and their parents — could not afford the products and services I wanted to develop, I established a non-profit instead. I realized that if NFTE were successful I would never be able to sell the company, and thus make a financial return on my investment, but I thought I would be paid in the personal satisfaction of having made a difference in the lives of many deserving individuals. And I was right.

Read the full article →

U.S. Manufacturing Orders Rose Last Month, Easing Fears Of Slowdown

June 24, 2011

New orders for U.S. manufactured goods and a gauge of business spending plans rose in May, easing fears of a sharp slowdown in factory activity. Durable goods orders increased 1.9 percent after dropping 2.7 percent in April, the Commerce Department said on Friday. Economists had expected orders to rise 1.5 percent in May. Durable goods orders are a leading indicator of manufacturing health. An improvement across the board in May and revisions to April’s figures, which showed smaller declines than previously reported, pointed to underlying strength in a sector that has powered the economic recovery. The report came as a relief to investors after recent regional factory data had shown some signs of fatigue. Supply chain disruptions after the March earthquake and tsunami in Japan are constraining manufacturing. The report was “a little better than you might have expected given the gloomy news that’s coming out of the manufacturing surveys. So that’s a small plus,” said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist, IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. U.S. stocks extended gains on the data, while prices for Treasury debt fell. The report also supported views the sluggish economy would regain momentum in the second half of the year. The economy grew at an annual rate of 1.9 percent, the department said in another report, up from the previously estimated 1.8 percent. The revision was in line with economists’ expectations. The economy expanded at a 3.1 percent rate in the fourth quarter. Orders were a buoyed by a 36.5 percent jump in volatile aircraft bookings. Boeing received 27 aircraft orders, up from just two in April, according to information posted on the plane maker’s website. Motor vehicle orders rose 0.6 percent after plunging 5.3 percent the previous month, suggesting some improvement in auto production, which has been hit by a shortage of parts from Japan. Excluding transportation, durable goods orders increased 0.6 percent after a revised 0.4 percent decline in April, previously reported as a 1.6 percent fall. Economists had expected this category to rise 0.9 percent. Outside of transportation, orders for machinery, primary metals, capital goods, computers and electronic products all rose. Non-defense capital goods orders excluding aircraft, a closely watched proxy for business spending, rebounded to increase 1.6 percent last month after a revised 0.8 percent fall in April. Economists had expected a 1.0 percent increase from a previously reported 2.3 percent drop. Shipments of non-defense capital goods orders excluding aircraft, which go into the calculation of gross domestic product, increased 1.4 percent after falling 1.5 percent in April. (Reporting by Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Neil Stempleman) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Erika Shaker: The Attack on Workers: Back(sliding) (in)to the Future

June 24, 2011

The public response to recent labour disputes has been a disturbing sideshow to the return of Parliament. What’s remarkable is the level of nastiness that gets tossed around, littered with references to “union stooges” and the ubiquitous “socialist dinosaurs.” Perhaps the most obvious line of attack is based on a backdrop of selfishness — “I don’t have benefits/vacation/job security, so why should they?” It is an argument borne of misplaced resentment. The understandable anger at an increasingly stratified society is being directed not at the handful of people who are benefiting handsomely from an increasingly unfair and unequal economy, but rather at those individuals and organizations trying to make that same economic system a little less unfair for themselves and eventually for others. As a strategy, though, it’s completely backwards: rather than resenting unionized workers for what they have achieved, doesn’t it make more sense to say, “What great benefits — I would like to have them too” (or maybe, “I would like my kids to have those opportunities, even if I don’t”)? Isn’t that how we improve living and working conditions for all of us? I don’t understand the apparently pervasive rationale that unless everyone (or at least the person doing the complaining) has these rights, no one should. How does that guarantee any kind of social progress? Do we reject social improvements out of sympathy for those who didn’t benefit from them? Or do we initiate social progress by creating examples of good policy and practice to which we all collectively work to aspire? Like, for example, paid maternity leave — which many of us now have as a direct result of the postal workers’ fight for that benefit in the 80s. If the founders of Medicare thought that establishing public health care would be unfair to those who grew up without it, where would we be today? But there’s also another theme that’s been percolating on message boards (following news stories about what has become a full-fledged lockout of postal workers by Canada Post, and the recent tabling of back-to-work legislation by the federal government) — one deeply rooted in elitism and adherence to a rigid class system. “What makes them think they deserve more?” “You only need a grade 6 education to do their job.” “Why should unskilled labour get paid $50,000 a year?” Funny, isn’t it, how people claim to respect those who do “an honest day’s work.” Yet when that “honest day’s work” comes with decent wages, benefits, vacation days, a pension and job security — you know, if it’s unionized — suddenly those same hardworking folks are “coddled,” their work somehow not so “honest” anymore. Workers are universally loved (or at least they get some rhetorical “props”) when they’re downtrodden… but the moment they have the gall to look beyond their “place,” they’re met with a wave of righteous indignation: who do they think they are, anyway? “They think they work harder than you and me,” someone responded on facebook when I voiced my support for postal workers. “Well, maybe they do,” I said. I’m certainly not out there every day carrying upwards of 35 lbs of mail for hours at a time, trudging through Ottawa streets in minus-40 winters and plus-40 summers, and dealing with the realities of a job that has the second-highest rate of work-related injuries in the federal sector. The implication is that some jobs (and the people who do them) just aren’t deserving of a good wage, security, or safe working conditions. Times are tight (for working people, though not for CEOs), they have a job, and that should be enough for them. Living wages are for slackers, and unions have to get with the times. Really? So this is the new definition of progress: household debt is at record levels and working people (particularly the younger ones who are just entering the job market) are told they have to do more and expect less while paying off student loans, raising families, and caring for aging parents. Ironically, in resisting this so-called “new reality” for their current and future members (and more broadly, for society) unions are painted as obstructionist and out of touch. But it’s our increasingly stratified system — the one so many people, against even their own best interests, tie themselves into knots defending — that’s truly untenable. Erika Shaker is Director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives ‘ Education Project.

Read the full article →

Deutsche Fired Top Trader After Complaints Of ‘Substantial’ Anomalies

June 24, 2011

NEW YORK (Matthew Goldstein) – In the fall of 2009, Deutsche Bank quietly fired one of its top derivative traders in London after a colleague in New York complained about finding “substantial trading anomalies” in a multibillion dollar portfolio of high-risk credit default swaps managed by the German-based bank, Reuters has learned. The bank dismissed Alex Bernand after a quick internal investigation prompted by the employee’s complaint led to the discovery of improper trading in one of Bernand’s personal brokerage accounts, according to documents seen by Reuters and interviews with people familiar with the situation. The documents, part of a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower action filed against Deutsche in May 2010 by the employee in New York, also reveal that the Securities and Exchange Commission opened an inquiry last year into a related allegation that some of the assets in the derivatives portfolio overseen by Bernand may have been improperly valued in order to hide trading losses. Deutsche bank spokeswoman Renee Calabro declined to comment on Bernand’s dismissal. But she said the allegation that some assets in the bank’s derivatives book had been improperly valued was investigated by the bank and is “wholly unfounded.” The SEC investigation and Bernand’s October 2009 firing, neither of which has been previously reported, come as Deutsche is aggressively winding down the portion of its derivatives trading business that Bernand had overseen. Earlier this month, the bank reported in an investor presentation that its plan to unwind its “high-risk” credit correlation portfolio “is well ahead” of schedule. The bank first announced a plan to begin “de-risking” some of its derivatives trading desks in late 2008. In January, Deutsche settled the whistleblower case by agreeing to pay $900,000 to trader Matthew Simpson and promoting him to managing director shortly before he voluntarily agreed to leave the bank in April. It was the largest Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower settlement for a complaint filed in 2010. Simpson, who now works for Rochdale Securities in Stamford, Connecticut, did not return a phone call seeking comment. UNFOUNDED ALLEGATION “This complaint, which is over a year old, has been the subject of a thorough investigation, and we believe that any allegations about financial misreporting are wholly unfounded,” said Calabro, who declined to comment on the terms of the settlement with Simpson. “The bank is cooperating with the SEC on its review of the matter.” An SEC spokesman declined to comment. Bernand, who lives in France, also declined to comment. On his LinkedIn profile, Bernand describes himself as an “independent philanthropy professional.” Simpson’s and Bernand’s names were redacted from the whistleblower documents seen by Reuters, but their identities were confirmed by two people familiar with the situation. In its settlement agreement with Simpson, Deutsche also denied “any wrongdoing in connection with the matter.” In light of the settlement, the U.S. Department of Labor in February closed its investigation into Simpson’s claim that he had been retaliated against by some of his superiors for bringing the allegations of improper trading to the attention of the bank’s compliance department. The firing of Bernand, a one-time rising star in the derivatives world, is something of an embarrassment for Deutsche. In 2006, the bank issued a press release to trumpet his hiring from Bank of America as its global head of credit correlation. At BofA, Bernand had pretty much built the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank’s structured credit trading business from scratch. Inside Deutsche, the portfolio that Bernand oversaw from London was called the “exotics book,” because many of the derivatives in the portfolio were tied to complex securities. At its peak, the portfolio was one of the largest on Wall Street with the assets underlying the trades valued in the tens of billions of dollars. ILLUSORY PROFITS The bank’s credit correlation desk specialized in using credit default swaps to make proprietary trades that were aimed at hedging some of the bank’s exposure to potentially risky corporate bonds, leveraged loans, currencies, indexes and commercial paper. Many of the trades put on by correlation traders involve synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), financial instruments that use credit default swaps to get exposure to various bonds and other assets. Some have blamed credit default swaps — a type of derivative that is supposed to provide a level of insurance against an underlying asset going bad — with exacerbating the global financial crisis because they increase the level of risk on balance sheets of the world’s major banks. However, the synthetic CDOs traded by the correlation desk were not like the more popular variant of CDOs which were stuffed with subprime mortgage securities. Janet Tavakoli, a Chicago-based derivatives consultant who has written several books on credit derivatives and structured products, said many bank managements did not fully appreciate the illusory nature of the trading profits being generated from derivatives correlation desks before the financial crisis. She said those profits often disappeared and turned into losses when the underlying assets turned south. “The thing about correlation desks is that it will appear you are making a lot money from trades, but it is all money at risk,” said Tavakoli. “I call this kind of trading an invisible hedge fund.” In an early 2010 regulatory filing, Deutsche attributed some of the rise in the bank’s value-at-risk, or VAR, at the end of 2009 to a “recalibration of parameters in the Group’s credit correlation business.” On Wall Street, VAR is one metric used by a bank to estimate how much money it could conceivably lose in a day if all of its trading bets and hedges went awry. It’s an imperfect measurement, but one followed by most industry analysts. A person familiar with Deutsche said the bank is winding down the credit correlation desk to both reduce its risk profile and better comply with the so-called Volcker Rule’s ban on proprietary trading in the United States. The bank’s internal investigation into Simpson’s allegations was overseen by the big New York law firm Fried Frank. The revelation that the SEC is investigating the valuations used for some of Deutsche’s derivatives portfolio comes at an awkward time. Over the past few months, the bank has taken some high-profile lumps for its role in contributing to the financial mess. A Senate report released in April faulted Deutsche for continuing to churn out collateralized debt obligations and other securities backed by subprime mortgages even as the housing market in the United States was starting to crumble. The report from the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said Deutsche aggressively marketed CDOs to its client, “despite the negative views of its most senior CDO trader” about the failing health of the housing market. Just last month, federal prosecutors in New York filed a civil suit against Deutsche, claiming its MortgageIT subsidiary repeatedly lied about the quality of the mortgages it was issuing to obtain federal guarantees on those iffy home loans. The government seeks to recoup some $1 billion in losses it incurred from insuring the mortgages. Deutsche contends most of the problem loans were issued before the bank acquired MortgageIT in 2007. Before filing his whistleblower complaint last May, Simpson had built a long track record at Deutsche. Over the dozen years he worked for the bank in New York, he held positions in finance, risk management and then trading. He joined the firm’s correlation trading group in 2008 and was responsible for trading derivatives tied to bonds and currencies. In his whistleblower complaint, Simpson said when he reported his concerns about trading improprieties to Deutsche’s compliance department he “expressed concerns for future retaliations.” Among the acts of retaliation that Simpson alleged were being passed over for a promotion in February 2010 and later “stripped” of all his trading and management responsibilities. Calabro said the bank denies Simpson’s claim of retaliation. (Reported by Matthew Goldstein; Editing by Michael Williams and Claudia Parsons Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Republicans Bail On Debt Ceiling Talks, Blame Democrats

June 24, 2011

WASHINGTON — Republicans pulled out of debt-reduction talks led by Vice President Joe Biden with a flourish on Thursday, blaming Democrats for demanding tax increases as part of a deal rather than accepting more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicare and other government programs. “Let me be clear: Tax hikes are off the table,” said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Boehner spoke shortly after the House GOP second-in-command, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, announced he would not attend a planned negotiating session and said it is “time for President Obama to speak clearly and resolve the tax issue.” White House spokesman Jay Carney quickly obliged, while announcing that the talks were “in abeyance.” He said Obama supports a “balanced approach” to debt reduction. “I would point that the president supports a balanced approach,” Carney said. “He does not support an approach that provides for a $200,000 tax cut for millionaires and billionaires paid for by a $6,000 a year hike in expenses and costs for seniors.” Numerous officials have said in recent days that Obama and Boehner would soon take a more public role in the negotiations, as time grows short for confronting politically vexing questions over taxes and Medicare and other benefit programs. As a result, it appeared that the day’s events marked an eruption of political maneuvering rather than a blow-up that would jeopardize the success of negotiations. “The goal of these talks was to report our findings back to our respective leaders,” Biden said in a statement. “The next phase is in the hands of those leaders, who need to determine the scope of an agreement that can tackle the problem and attract bipartisan support. For now the talks are in abeyance as we await that guidance.” In general, the negotiations are aimed at producing legislation to cut future deficits while simultaneously lifting the $14.3 trillion limit on Treasury borrowing. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has said that without an increase in the debt limit by Aug. 2, the United States faces a first-ever default, with potentially catastrophic consequences for the economy. Carney told reporters that Boehner had met unannounced with Obama at the White House Wednesday evening. The meeting was at the president’s initiative, and the first known encounter between the two men since their widely publicized round of golf last weekend. Nor was it likely Democrats were taken by surprise by the day’s events, since Cantor informed Biden of his plans before making any public announcement. Adding to the intrigue, one GOP leadership aide said Cantor did not inform Boehner of his plan to withdraw from the talks until shortly before he did so. Nor was Cantor aware of Boehner’s trip to the White House the evening before, this aide said. For his part, Cantor said the secretive Biden-led talks had “established a blueprint” for agreement on significant cuts in spending, but had reached an impasse because of the Democratic demand for taxes. Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the other Republican participant, also said he would not attend the scheduled session, and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell spoke in unusually biting terms of Democratic demands for new government spending as part of a debt-reduction deal. “What planet are they on?” McConnell wondered aloud. While accepting a need to raise the debt limit, Boehner has said that deficit cuts must exceed the size of any increase in borrowing authority – a position that neither Obama nor any other Democrat has challenged. The president and Biden were meeting with House Democratic leaders at the White House when Cantor made his announcement. One of the Democratic negotiators, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, said at a news conference that Republicans “are playing with fire and really putting the very fragile economy at greater threat by playing the games that we’ve been seeing.” In several weeks of talks, Biden and congressional negotiators had largely completed a review of the federal budget, focusing at first on areas where the two sides were amenable to cuts. They quickly identified higher pension contributions for federal employees as one area of savings, and cuts in farm programs and student loan subsidies as others. Additional items include a federal auction of parts of the spectrum and the sale of surplus federal property. Discretionary programs, which bore the brunt of an earlier agreement to cut spending by $38 billion, would be ticketed for additional cuts. Other steps had been discussed to rein in future government spending automatically if deficit targets were not reached. But in recent days, officials said, the two sides were increasingly at an impasse, with Democrats demanding higher taxes to accompany spending cuts, while Republicans ruled out tax hikes and pushed for deeper cuts in benefit programs. The conflicts long predate the current negotiations. Republicans long ago branded themselves as the party of lower taxes, while Democrats, looking to the 2012 elections, are already campaigning hard against a new Republican plan to turn Medicare into a system of private insurance coverage beginning with anyone currently under 55 years of age. Privately, Republicans bristle at the suggestion that taxes be traded off for Medicare. They argue that official reports make it clear that without significant changes, the Medicare program is financially unsustainable. Yet polls show that while there is general support for spending cuts, there is opposition to benefit cuts in Medicare. The imperative to cut spending has gained impetus since Republicans won control of the House last fall, benefiting hugely from tea party activists demanding a smaller and less intrusive government. In addition, sputtering recovery from the worst recession in decades and stubbornly high unemployment have helped form a bipartisan agreement that long-avoided steps are needed to reduce federal red ink. The Congressional Budget Office warned on Wednesday that unless steps are taken to rein in deficits, the country risks a “sudden fiscal crisis,” with investors losing faith in the U.S. government’s ability to manage its fiscal affairs. ___ Associated Press writers Julie Pace and Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Opening The Oil Taps: A Shot Fired At Speculators

June 24, 2011

On first inspection, President Obama’s decision to tap the nation’s petroleum reserves, announced Thursday, seemed far more symbolic than consequential: Only 30 million barrels of oil will be injected into the national supply over the next month — less than what the United States consumes in two days. But energy experts emphasized that symbolism has a way of altering perception in global markets, molding a new reality. Oil prices, stocks of major energy companies and futures prices all plummeted following the announcement, as traders interpreted the news as a sign that the Obama administration will take a harder line against high oil and gas prices. Crude oil futures plunged to a four month low on Thursday, and Goldman Sachs projected that crude oil prices could drop by as much as $12 a barrel — more than 10 percent — by the end of July. In this case, Obama’s move appeared to convince traders that his administration is intent on intervening in the markets and snuffing out speculative zeal in order to confront the soaring price of gasoline. Rising prices at the pump have been putting Americans in a particularly thrifty mood, just as fears deepen about a weak and slowing economy. “It will hopefully keep speculators from getting back in the market for fear that [Obama] could do this again,” said Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “It is very important to burst this speculative bubble.” The administration’s action was part of a coordinated campaign with the International Energy Agency, which announced plans to expand the global supply by 60 million barrels of oil over the next 30 days. The United States will lead the effort by providing half of that amount from its emergency stock, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Both the Obama administration and the IEA cited the ongoing conflict in Libya as an imperative for expanding the global supply, asserting that chaos in that country had effectively taken an estimated 132 million barrels of oil out of the market through the end of May. Some energy experts have asserted high oil prices are in part the result of speculators, who have exploited global instability to send prices skyward. Since last June, oil prices have climbed by nearly 50 percent. Earlier in the week, federal regulators launched a probe into whether oil companies and refineries have manipulated prices. Senior administration officials told Reuters that they have decided to release oil from emergency reserves in order to help the debilitated U.S. economy. But analysts were divided over whether the action will ultimately offer lasting relief. Using the results of past emergency reserve sales as a guide, Weiss estimated that gas prices will fall by about 25 cents per gallon, collectively saving about $95 million per day for American consumers. But MIT energy economics professor Christopher Knittel estimated that gas prices would fall only about 2 to 3 percent, which would translate to about 8 to 11 cents per gallon in New York City. Knittel emphasized that the science of estimating the impact of any one infusion of oil is very imprecise, since a number of variables affect oil and gas prices. He criticized the administration’s attempt to lower prices, arguing doing so would interfere with the fundamental message of the market’s high prices: the need to conserve energy and embrace renewable sources. “It signals to consumers that the administration appears to be willing to use the strategic oil reserves to move oil prices, and I think that is a bad precedent to set because U.S. consumers should face the actual price of oil,” Knittel said. “It’s also not obviously sustainable.” Proponents of expanding American oil production took a different, but still critical, position, asserting that by tapping the strategic reserve the government risks sowing a false sense of relief, undercutting momentum for domestic drilling. Spencer Pederson, press secretary for the House Natural Resources Committee, said the reserves are meant to be used to address severe supply shocks, and not simply to roll back rising oil prices. He urged the administration to “go offshore, go onshore and drill for more oil,” adding that this would stimulate the economy by creating jobs, as well as by bringing down oil prices.

Read the full article →

Beck To Santorum: ‘I Could Kiss You In The Mouth’

June 24, 2011

Fox News host Glenn Beck responded with an awkward suggestion when Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum confirmed on his program that he’s signed his name to the “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge, which entails opposing any debt limit increase without significant spending cuts, enforceable spending caps and congressional approval of a balanced budget amendment. “I could kiss you in the mouth,” said Beck to Santorum on Thursday. A few moments later after the pair laughed, he added, “I was just kidding, I don’t want to kiss you in the mouth.” Santorum lauded House Republicans last month for voting down a clean measure to raise the debt ceiling. “Conservatives in the House are absolutely right,” the presidential hopeful and former U.S. senator wrote in a Facebook post at the time. “We cannot continue to write blank checks that our nation cannot cash. Before we again raise our nation’s debt ceiling, we must insure that the major components of our exploding debt are under control, namely our entitlement programs.” The Hill reports that Republican presidential contenders former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain have all added their names to the “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge, which is backed by conservative favorite Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). Via Mediaite comes video of the exchange between Beck and Santorum. WATCH: The Huffington Post wants to know about the campaign ads, town halls, robocalls, mailings and other election news happening where you live. Email us your tips, videos and photos at offthebus@huffingtonpost.com.

Read the full article →

Larry Magid: Report: Twitter to Place Ads in Timeline

June 24, 2011

The Financial Times is reporting that Twitter will include advertisements in users’ message streams “according to people with direct knowledge of its plans.” The newspaper’s site also said that Twitter is likely to launch a Groupon-like service to provide discount offers to Twitter users. Twitter already offers “promoted Tweets” which are placed “at the top of some Twitter.com search results pages,” according to a Twitter help page . The Tweets are labeled as “promoted” but “in every other respect they exist initially as regular Tweets and are organically sent to the timelines of their followers.” The difference between what the company now offers and what it is reportedly considering is that the new ads would be part of the user’s regular Twitter stream among the Tweets of the people or organizations users follow. In March Twitter introduced a “QuickBar” in its iPhone app which displayed ads, but withdrew it a few weeks later after user complaints . Likely to generate complaints I certainly respect Twitter’s need to sell advertising. Without ads, the company couldn’t stay in business — unless it started charging people to send and read Tweets which isn’t going to happen. But the question is whether they can come up with an advertising strategy that isn’t intrusive. Google, for example, has proven that it’s possible to put clearly labeled ads on the side or above search results and on the side of a user’s Gmail page without actually interrupting what the user is doing, That type of creative placement of ads has earned Google plenty of money without alienating its user-base. If Twitter winds up interrupting users with ads, the reaction will be loud, swift and not pretty. I don’t see any downside to a Groupon-like discount program as long as it’s something people subscribe to or see outside of their regular Twitter stream.

Read the full article →

Biden Speaks After Deficit Talks Break Down

June 23, 2011

WASHINGTON — Vice President Joe Biden says bipartisan budget talks have made headway but that the next step is up to President Barack Obama and top congressional leaders. Biden issued a statement Thursday declaring the talks in a state of “abeyance” after Republican negotiators abandoned the talks in a dispute with Democrats over higher taxes. Biden said the goal of the talks was, in his word, “to report our findings back to our respective leaders.” He said those leaders need to determine the scope of an agreement that can tackle the problem and attract bipartisan support. Democrats and Obama have insisted on reducing long-term deficits by cutting spending and increasing tax revenue. Republicans have said tax hikes will not be part of the negotiations.

Read the full article →

Nathan Newman: Pro-Labor Progressives Should Support The AT&T – T-Mobile Merger

June 23, 2011

Why should progressives care about the proposed merger of AT&T with T-Mobile? Because AT&T is the ONLY unionized wireless company in the country and the merger would ensure that 20,000+ T-Mobile workers would have the chance to join the 43,000 currently unionized AT&T Mobility employees with decent wages and legal protections on the job. There are a range of other likely benefits from the merger, from a projected deployment of high-speed broadband to over 97% of the population and better service for existing AT&T and T-Mobile customers from more efficient integration of available spectrum from both companies. But stepping away from the impact on consumers, which is being endlessly debated, progressives should be focusing as well on the massive gain for workers rights from the merger. A Company That Has Worked with Its Union Employees: In an era when workers rights are on the chopping block even in the public sector, this is a chance to strengthen labor rights in the private sector, where a multi-decade war on the labor movement has decimated most unions. AT&T has actually been and remained a unique employer, agreeing to stay neutral when workers seek to organize unions in various units and recognizing the union whenever a majority of those workers sign cards requesting it. Based on this model approach to employee rights, American Rights at Work, which led the drive for the Employee Free Choice Act, picked AT&T as a model employer in its 2007 “Partnerships that Work” list where they wrote: “AT&T and its unions serve as allies and business partners working to advance the success of the company.” When AT&T has acquired new units in recent years, the workers have been able to choose to join the union without the usual employer intimidation that is constant in other firms. In fact, unionized workers at AT&T’s Mobility wireless division grew from 9300 members in 2001 to 43,000 today, most of that growth during the heart of the Bush era. When AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson was asked about workers rights in an investor conference call about the proposed T-Mobile merger, he said : “We have with the CWA the Communication Workers of America] a card check/neutrality agreement so if those employees decide they want to be represented by the CWA that process is there … In fact you saw that with the AT&T Wireless deal. You saw the CWA begin to represent those employees in fairly short order. That’s how that process will work out.” Can you imagine that statement coming from other company executives? In an era when Boeing is trying to bust its unions by opening non-union production lines in South Carolina, Wal-Mart routinely intimidates its employees seeking a voice on the job, and a host of other employers wage endless day-to-day attacks on labor rights, this merger is one of the few opportunities where tens of thousands of workers at a place like T-Mobile will be able to ask to have a union recognized without risking the loss of their jobs. The Anti-Union Alternatives: Right now, workers at T-Mobile face a complete atmosphere or fear and intimidation. On top of the normal threats of being fired if they form a union, T-Mobile workers were told by the company that they would be punished if they said anything negative about the company even on their personal Facebook page. This led to charges before the National Labor Relations Board , which were just recently settled with the company being required as part of the settlement to tell employees they actually did have free speech rights on their own social networking pages. With the parent of T-Mobile, Deutsche Telekom, looking to pull out of the U.S. market, the possibility looms that if AT&T does not acquire T-Mobile, the company might be merged with the even more viciously anti-union Sprint Nextel. Sprint has a long history of being arguably the most anti-worker company in the telecom industry, racking up multiple NLRB charges in repeated organizing campaigns. Notoriously, Sprint even shut down a whole subsidiary in San Francisco called La Conexion Familiar (the Family Connection), which sold long-distance service to the Spanish-speaking community, when those workers voted for a union. With Sprint’s majority ownership of telecom company Clearwire, a merged T-Mobile-Sprint would create a viciously anti-union gorilla controlling more spectrum than any other firm in the industry. So having T-Mobile workers land with AT&T is all the more important given that alternative. Why Protecting Labor Rights in Telecom Matters: Strengthening the labor movement in a major private sector industry is important all by itself, but what makes the 43,000 unionized wireless workers at AT&T — hopefully to be joined by the 20,000+ T-Mobile workers legally eligible to join a union — is that they are one of the few unionized outposts in the growing high-technology sector. The labor movement needs to expand in that sector and AT&T Mobility can be a model for how a union in a technology company can work with its employer both to protect workers rights and build out new technology for customers. Also, notably, AT&T’s wireless unionized workforce is heavily southern in a country where few workers in the South have ever had a chance to unionized. AT&T’s corporate headquarters are in Texas, reflecting its origin as the Southwestern Bell “baby bell,” which went on to acquire other telephone companies around the country, including AT&T long distance (from which it borrowed a new name). With thousands of southern wireless workers joining the union, this has meant that the telecom industry has actually been a beacon of union success in a region notoriously hostile to labor. Progressives Should Stand with Labor on AT&T-T-Mobile Merger: A number of consumer groups have argued against the merger as potentially harming consumers and competition. I’ll write more on this in a future column, but these consumer worries seem overwrought. Post-merger, AT&T will still be a minority player in the wireless world. The large majority of the wireless industry and, unfortunately, the majority of workers in the industry will be in the remaining non-union companies, all looking to undercut AT&T at the expense of their own workers’ rights. And competition in the cell phone industry, if anything, is exploding. Right now, anyone with an AT&T iPhone, for example, can bypass AT&T’s own phone plan to make free Skype phone calls, use Facebook’s Beluga texting service as an alternative to AT&T’s own texting plan and even bypass AT&T’s dataplans with wi-fi at home, at work or at coffee shops all over. Hundreds of apps are appearing on smartphones every day to compete with services previously only available from the wireless companies themselves. When you contrast hypothetical competition worries with the concrete gains in workers rights for tens of thousands of T-Mobile workers, it’s hard to argue this is a close call for progressives. This is one merger pro-labor progressives should be lining up to support. Disclosure: Nathan Newman has consulted on technology issues with the Communication Workers of America, which supports the merger. His views in his columns are his own.

Read the full article →

Federal Judge To Resentence Media Mogul Conrad Black

June 23, 2011

CHICAGO — Competing portraits of Conrad Black – once one of the world’s most powerful media moguls – will be on display Friday in Chicago at his resentencing hearing, where a judge will decide whether he heads back behind bars or remains free for good. The Canadian-born businessman is a devil-may-care elitist who looks down his nose at the rest of humanity, according to prosecutors; and a gentleman, unbowed by adversity, who quietly has gone about helping others, counters the defense. Which portrayal U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve accepts may factor into her ruling about whether to return Black to a Florida federal prison for several more years or, as his lawyers have asked, to resentence him to time already served. The resentencing is a climax of a long legal saga for Black, 66, who rubbed shoulders with the rich and powerful before his fall to disgrace, convicted in 2007 and sentenced to 6 1/2 years for defrauding investors in Hollinger International Inc. Black, whose empire once included the Chicago Sun-Times, The Daily Telegraph of London and small papers across the U.S. and Canada, was freed on bail after serving two years to let him to pursue what would be partially successful appeals. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court last year tossed out two of Black’s fraud convictions but upheld a conviction for fraud and one for obstruction of justice. And it said Judge St. Eve would have to sentence Black again for those two standing counts. Despite the nullified counts, prosecutors are asking St. Eve to hand the burly, silvery-haired Black the same 6 1/2-year sentence she originally meted out in 2007, meaning he would have to spend about 4 1/2 more years in prison. “He fails to acknowledge his central role in destroying Hollinger International through greed and lies, instead blaming the government and others for what he describes as an unjust persecution,” prosecutors said in a recent filing. Black’s lawyers, in turn, have accused government attorneys of vindictiveness. In filings of their own, they say the fervor prosecutors have shown in justifying the stiffer sentence displays “a drive-by disparagement of Mr. Black which reveals nothing but the intensity of the governments dislike for him …” A major point of contention Friday is likely to be accounts of Black’s behavior during his two years in prison. The defense argues Black was a model prisoner, noting that the accomplished biographer – whose subjects have included Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard Nixon – helped teach inmates American history and economics; and gladly offered advice about business and other matters to prisoners who constantly approached him. “In a place where hope is a rare commodity, Conrad provided at least a glimmer of it to countless inmates,” one inmate wrote in a letter, cited by the defense in a recent filing. Prosecutors say the defense paints too rosy a picture of Black’s prison life. One prison employee, Tammy Padgett, claimed in an affidavit filed by prosecutors that Black had arranged for inmates – “acting like servants” – to clean and cook for him, to iron his clothes, mop his floor and perform other chores. Another employee told her that Black once insisted that she address him as “Lord Black,” after an honorary title bestowed on him by Britain, Padgett added. The defense denied both characterizations. After his conviction, the defense showed letters from such celebrities as Sir Elton John, describing Black as someone who had devoted much of his life to helping charities. It’s not clear if his attorneys will roll out similar letters vouching for Black on Friday. His big chance to squash the convictions arose in June of 2010, when the U.S. Supreme Court sharply curtailed disputed “honest services” laws that underpinned part of Black’s case. The appellate court that reversed two of Black’s convictions cited that landmark ruling. But the appellate judges said the one fraud and obstruction of justice convictions were not affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling. The fraud conviction, the judges concluded, involved Black and others taking $600,000 and had nothing to do with honest services: It was, they asserted, straightforward theft. Defense lawyers have criticized honest services laws as vague and a last resort of prosecutors when they couldn’t show money changed hands. Watchdogs countered they were key to fighting white-collar and public fraud.

Read the full article →

Geithner Defends Small Business Loan Fund

June 23, 2011

WASHINGTON (David Lawder) – Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner defended the Obama administration’s initiative to aid small business lending on Wednesday, blaming delays in disbursing capital to banks on a cautious approach by regulators. Geithner, testifying before the House of Representatives Small Business Committee, fielded questions from lawmakers as to why none of the $30 billion in capital for small banks in the program had been disbursed. The program was approved by Congress last December. “I wish it were otherwise, but we’re doing what you would expect us to do,” Geithner said. “We are being careful with the taxpayers’ money.” He said that bank regulators, which must approve the requests before passing them onto Treasury, wanted to ensure that capital was not disbursed to banks that are not viable. “We can’t justify helping to keep them alive,” Geithner said of such banks. The Treasury chief said that so far, the program has received 869 applications from banks for about $11.6 billion in capital, or just over one third of the available funds. Treasury will soon begin to disburse funds from the program, which aims to leverage $300 billion in new bank loans to small firms, which are considered an engine of job growth in the economy. Under the program, banks will pay interest rates for the funds ranging from 1.0 percent to 5.0 percent. The more they increase their lending with the funds, the lower the rate they will pay. CONFIDENCE FROM BUDGET DEAL Several lawmakers on the Republican-controlled House panel also suggested that small businesses may increase hiring if they had more certainty about the federal budget deficit and their future taxes. Geithner agreed, but said a bigger challenge was uncertainty about the strength of recovery and said a budget deal needed to protect growth. “It’s important not just to bring more gravity to our fiscal position and demonstrate that we can live within our means, but we have to do that in a way that that’s going to be good for growth. Good for the economy in the near term and good for the economy in the long run, and that’s a complicated challenge,” In his prepared remarks, Geithner said the Obama administration would make every effort to aid small firms. “There is no single silver bullet, which is why we have taken a multifaceted approach,” Geithner said in remarks to the House of Representatives Small Business Committee. Geithner also outlined measures that the Obama administration has undertaken, including tax relief, public-private partnerships, assistance to small exporters and efforts to award federal contracts to small businesses. Geithner said small companies faced heavy challenges because so many were concentrated in sectors like construction and real estate that were hit especially hard by the recession and bursting of the real estate bubble. (Additional reporting by Glenn Somerville; Editing by James Dalgleish) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

New Hampshire Republicans Restrict Minimum Wage

June 23, 2011

New Hampshire legislators voted to override a veto by Democratic Gov. John Lynch on Wednesday, paving the way for a new law to restrict the state’s minimum wage. The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Carol McGuire and strongly backed by GOP leadership, automatically ties the state minimum wage to the federal minimum wage, assuring that New Hampshire’s rate is as low as it can legally be. With its minimum wage currently set at the federal rate of $7.25 per hour, New Hampshire is ensuring that it will continue to have the lowest minimum wage in all of New England. Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut all have state minimum wages between $7.40 and $8.25 an hour. The fight over McGuire’s bill led to some unusual stances for New Hampshire politicians. McGuire has been honored by the libertarian-leaning New Hampshire Liberty Alliance and enjoyed Tea Party support, yet she essentially argued that the state should defer to the feds when it comes to the minimum wage. Meanwhile, the Democratic governor made a states’ rights argument for killing McGuire’s bill. Lynch said New Hampshire shouldn’t relinquish its right to set its own wage rate. The governor’s spokesman, Colin Manning, told HuffPost that as a result of the law New Hampshire now “cedes state control and authority” to the federal government. “New Hampshire has had a minimum wage law since 1949, and neither our citizens nor our businesses have called for its repeal,” Manning wrote in an email. “There is no need to undermine our state’s economic strategy or cede our state authority to the federal government, which is why the governor vetoed the bill.” Calls to McGuire and Republican House Speaker William O’Brien seeking comment were not returned. But in a statement after Lynch’s veto, O’Brien accused the governor of acting on “an anti-business philosophy” and “removing the ‘open for business’ sign” from New Hampshire by trying to maintain the current minimum wage flexibility. “There is no reason for New Hampshire to set ourselves higher than the national average and make ourselves less competitive for these workers who need to gain experience,” he said. Opponents of McGuire’s bill point out that the previous law did not set the New Hampshire minimum wage any higher than the federal rate — it only gave the state the option to do so if it pleased. Also, New Hampshire does not appear to have suffered from a competitive disadvantage, given that the minimum wages in neighboring states were already set higher. Several states have raised their minimum wage in recent years, but GOP leaders and business interests have assaulted some of those bumps as job killers. Missouri Republicans tried and failed to cap their state’s minimum wage earlier this year . Then in May, a Florida federal judge ruled that a state agency had been illegally suppressing its minimum wage. And business groups in Maine have lobbied for the creation of a ” training wage ” that would let companies pay teenagers less than the state minimum. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour translates into a $15,000 salary for a full-time worker. Many economists now say that higher minimum wages can provide a boost to the sluggish economic recovery. “Given the fact that minimum wage workers spend every penny they earn in their local businesses, a strong wage floor is also vital to stimulating the consumer spending necessary for real and lasting economic recovery,” said Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, in a statement decrying legislators’ override of Lynch’s veto. Earlier this year, Democratic Rep. Terie Norelli called McGuire’s bill “just the beginning of what I think is a real assault on New Hampshire workers and wages and irresponsible legislation.” Last month, Lynch vetoed a bill brought forth by Republicans that would have converted New Hampshire into a so-called right-to-work state. The bill would prohibit collective bargaining contracts that require workers to pay union dues if they are not union members. It would make New Hampshire the first right-to-work state in New England. O’Brien has said Republicans will try to override Lynch’s veto of that bill in the fall.

Read the full article →

Dylan Kendall: Biscuit Marketing: What Nonprofits Can Learn About Building Relationships From Popeyes

June 23, 2011

Brent Leary, social media expert and man about town, was seated at an award dinner for CRM Magazine with friend and work-partner Michael Thomas. Paul “PJ” Johnston, the founder of Entellium , a competitor in the Customer Relationship Management industry, was also seated at the same table. All got along well, sharing stories. A few weeks later, Michael came across an article in CRM Magazine where Brent was quoted from the dinner. Michael sent Brent the following tweet : “@brentleary saw where you were quoted…remember the conversations with Entellium?” Brent tweets back “@mwthomasNA I knew there was something crooked about him [PJ] when I found out he stole a biscuit off my plate at the CRM mag award dinner! ☺” So Michael, trying to out-funny Brent, tweets “Uh…I confess, it was me…I love biscuits!” Here’s where Popeyes Chicken (and the lesson) comes in . Popeyes, monitoring Twitter for buzzwords, humorously adds to the conversation: @Brentleary I can testify that @mwthomasNA is a biscuit fanatic. He can wolf them down. It would make quite a YouTube video. No hard sell, no product push. Just a little fun. The outcome? Brent started following Popeyes on Twitter, blogged about the tweet on his heavily-trafficked site, interviewed Popeyes Vice President of Communications and Marketing on his webinar, and went to Popeyes himself the next to buy a biscuit. All this out of 140 characters. Social media has changed the face of communications today. Gone is the power found in the faceless corporation — private or public — that relies on putting walls between itself and customers to create a feeling of credibility and importance. Taking its place is power based on genuine relationships with people, relationships that inspire loyalty and Word of Mouth marketing. Rohit Bhargava discusses this trend as it applies to for-profit ventures, explaining that “every element of your business, from your interactions with your customers to the packaging of your product, is an element of your brand personality, and these are the elements that inspire delight or indifference among your customers.” Personality Not Included , 2008 Nonprofit organizations are not exempt from these new marketing waves, being exposed to the same conditions resulting from the prolific use of the Internet and social media. Over 79% of all Americans use the Internet averaging 2,750 web page views per month. What does this mean for nonprofit organizations? Nonprofits need to inspire delight or suffer the indifference of donors who have an unprecedented choice of agencies to support, many sharing the same mission and goals. All nonprofits should have optimized websites that allow them to easily keep content fresh on the home page. Statistically 94% of all first-time visitors to any website are there doing “research,” only 6% are ready to purchase or donate. This means fresh content on your home page is likely to inspire a repeat visit. All nonprofits should have a call to action or CTA on every page. What is the action you want your visitor to take on each page? Leave his email address, donate to the cause, or buy a product? And most importantly, nonprofits need to be talking to their “people” — their supporters, volunteers and networks. To do this, agencies should have a social media policy that sets guidelines about frequency, voice and tone. The nonprofit’s personality should color all communication efforts from how content is distributed online to impromptu dialogues between donors and volunteers. If participated in respectfully and with an authentic voice, like Popeyes Chicken, these conversations can become the pathway to new friends who are more likely to get involved because they are being personally invited. Nonprofits cannot afford to think they are exempt from customer relationship management in cyberspace. Plunking down a “flag” website on the premise that if you build it, then they will come is no longer enough. Internet real estate is plentiful — strategic use of social media to build open, engaging and easily recognizable platforms may surprise you with the results.

Read the full article →

One Contentious Issue Produces Position-Shifts From Four GOP Presidential Candidates

June 23, 2011

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has faced sharp criticism from conservatives over the health care reform package he signed into law in the Bay State during his tenure, and more specifically, the plan’s inclusion of a mandate that individuals purchase health insurance. Romney, however, is not the only Republican running for president in the next election cycle who has voiced support for the measure — a key element of the health care law signed by President Barack Obama — in the past only to later criticize it. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich , former Utah governor Jon Huntsman and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty have all spoken out in favor of the individual mandate. Below, a look at the GOP hopefuls who supported the measure before coming out against it. WATCH:

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: Why Libertarians Are Wrong on Free Trade

June 18, 2011

I recently gave a podcast interview to Vox Day, a prominent Christian libertarian, explaining why free trade is bad for America. He followed it up with an article making many of the same points. Finally, a libertarian gets it. This did not go over well with some of his followers. I’m not qualified to speak to the “Christian” aspects of free trade — whatever those are — beyond observing that globalism, of which free trade is a part, certainly looks like the Tower of Babel. But as one prominent libertarian has now seen through the free trade delusion that generally grips his fellow libertarians, this is probably a good time to explain what he got and they didn’t. The libertarian defense of free trade can get as complicated as anything in technical economics, but at bottom it comes down to ideas like this, which one can read all over the place in the comments posted after my articles — and now Vox Day’s: “What right do you have to tell me who I may and may not buy things from?” At first blush, that’s quite a challenge. Many libertarians certainly seem to think it’s decisive. It’s certainly a snappy quote. But it’s wrong. Let’s start by noting that I am not claiming any right at all. Protectionism, if implemented, wouldn’t be implemented by me. It would be implemented by the U.S. Government, and would be legitimate — if it is legitimate — for the same reasons all our other legitimate laws are legitimate: We have Constitution and a democratic process, and that’s where laws come from. Some libertarians prefer to call themselves constitutionalists, so it is worth pointing out that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the right “to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” The second point in answer to the libertarian challenge stated above is this: This isn’t just about you. Like it or not, even a capitalist economy is a system in which your actions affect other people. Your freedom to swing your fist ends, famously, at the tip of my nose, and what you buy and don’t buy affects other people. Even more importantly, your own economic actions don’t mean anything except in the context of a system that you didn’t create. You don’t enjoy the income you enjoy — which is what gives you the very ability to buy things disputed above — solely because of your own efforts. You enjoy that income because, among other things, you were born into a society which had a per-capita GDP of $47,000 during your working lifetime. If you’d been born in medieval Afghanistan, it would be a very different matter. And not because of anything you personally can claim credit (or deserve blame) for. So you can’t claim that what you’ve got derives solely from your own efforts and that you are therefore entitled to do what you like with it. Robinson Crusoe can claim absolute economic freedom; you can’t. None of this is to deny that a reasonable amount of economic freedom is a good thing. But you get into trouble when you elevate it, like any other good, into an absolute. Try absolutizing national security, traditional values, law enforcement, self expression, religious piety, intellectual sophistication, social order… get my point? Here the plot thickens, because the nature of this economic system we are all a part of is the real key to why free trade doesn’t work even within libertarian assumptions. The libertarian economic model is a model based on free markets. That is, it is based on the idea that free market economics describes both the way the economy is (insofar as it works well) and the way it should be. The key idea of this free market economics is equilibrium. That is to say, free market economics holds that if market forces are allowed free play, then the prices and production of things will reach natural equilibria that are the most efficient outcome that could exist. To a huge (but not total) extent, this is true. (I studied economics at the University of Chicago; trust me, I know this story.) But there’s a catch. Equilibria only balance properly if nobody puts a “thumb on the scale” anywhere in the economic system and distorts it. If that happens, then all bets are off about the outcome being efficient at the level of the system as a whole. All bets are also off — this is the key — about any individual “free” market decision being valid. Why? Because the market isn’t free anymore. You can’t play by free market rules when you’re not in a free market. Try playing fair when the game is rigged. That’s not fairness, it’s suicide. Unfortunately, there are a million “thumbs on the scale” in international trade right now. All of these distort market forces, so even if pure-free-market economics is right (it isn’t, but that’s another story), libertarian economic conclusions don’t follow. How are markets distorted in trade? Don’t get me started. To name just a few ways: China manipulates its currency. So does Japan, Germany, and a few others. China keeps American goods out of its markets. So does Japan, yadda yadda yadda, albeit more politely. China subsidizes (contravening its own WTO treaties) its industries in ways ranging from cheap credit to free land. China steals American intellectual property. (Germany and Japan mostly quit doing this long ago, largely because they now have a lot of intellectual property of their own to protect.) China uses slave labor. Even its non-slave labor is regimented in ways unimaginable in the U.S. As a result, someone who buys cheap foreign goods isn’t exercising a free choice, they’re just taking advantage of someone else’s utterly coercive subsidy. The price system can’t tell the difference — cheap is cheap — and that’s why people make this choice thinking they’re practicing freedom. But the slaves keep on sweating. And the money changers keep cheating. And all the rest of it. Whenever libertarians buy foreign goods that are cheaper because of all these practices, they encourage them. And that actually diminishes, rather than increases, freedom. So even from a libertarian point of view, free trade is a losing move.

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: The Stalled Recovery, Smoke and Mirrors and the Carnage on the Street

June 11, 2011

The Dow ended the week below 12,000 for the first time since March. This is the sixth straight week of downs for the Dow. It’s almost as bad over at the Nasdaq. All the gains racked up in 2011 have now been erased. What’s going on? The real economy is catching up with the financial economy, as it always does eventually. Wall Street is built on smoke and mirrors, while the real economy is based on jobs and wages. Smoke and mirrors can only take you so far — as we learned so painfully three years ago. Jobs and wages stink, if you haven’t noticed. They’ve been bad for months, even before this week’s data made it fairly clear the recovery has stalled. Stock prices had been rising nonetheless. That was partly because big corporations were enjoying big sales and fat profits from their foreign operations. But foreign sales are slowing . Chalk that up to the European debt crisis, Europe’s insane austerity measures, Japan’s tragedy and China’s concerns about inflation. Meanwhile, other companies have been busy restocking inventories in the hope American consumers will be in a mood to buy. But that hope is coming to an end, as the reality dawns that American consumers can’t and won’t buy very much, given their shrinking home values, high debts and job worries. Stock prices were also rising because of Wall Street’s certitude that it can make loads of money from the gullibility of millions of small investors. Here’s where the smoke and mirrors come in. Over the past year, the Street lured small investors back into the market on the smoky promises that the worst is over and stock prices are bound to rise. The lure became a self-fulfilling prophesy. As investors reentered the market, they bid up stock prices. Hence, the mirror. Insiders on the Street are always the first to bail when they sense they’ve been overselling, as they started to do a few weeks ago. This gives them a second opportunity to make money off small investors — by selling short. The nation’s second-largest financial redistribution in history (the largest, on a percentage basis, occurred in 1929) came in 2007 and 2008 — from small investors and their pension funds to the Street’s savvy traders who shorted them. Now it’s been repeated, although on a smaller scale. And Washington? Completely clueless. Our representatives in the nation’s capital continue to obsess about future budget deficits and games of chicken over raising the debt ceiling — neither of which has anything at all to do with the stalled recovery and the carnage on the Street. Otherwise, the airwaves are filled with Weiner’s tweets, Gingrich’s implosion and Palin’s emails. When times are tough, we look for entertainment. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future , now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

Retail Mortgage Business Too Troublesome For Goldman

June 7, 2011

Even the geniuses at Goldman Sachs have decided the retail mortgage business is more trouble than it’s worth. The firm agreed to sell its mortgage servicing unit, Litton, to Ocwen Financial Corporation, according to a Sunday filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission . The deal marks the bank’s exit from an industry that lately has been plagued by scandal and strained by a historic housing market slump, as the largest mortgage companies have allegedly been cutting corners in an attempt to preserve their bottom lines. Even for Goldman, a storied titan of Wall Street, the retail mortgage business wasn’t producing the hoped-for rewards. “Now is a terrible time to be in the servicing industry,” said Diane Thompson, an attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “Your margins are getting squeezed. The standard model for how you make money in servicing is sort of out the window.” Litton has had a rough several months. In October, as the nation’s biggest banks suspended foreclosure proceedings when it came out that they had employed “robo-signers” who signed thousands of documents daily without reading them, Litton likewise halted some of its foreclosures . Goldman said it had discovered “process issues” with the way those foreclosures were handled. In March, Goldman said it was considering selling Litton, which the company acquired in 2007. And then in May, the New York branch of the Federal Reserve received a letter from a Litton employee, who said Litton was denying mortgage modifications to distressed homeowners. The New York Fed said it was looking into those allegations. For the first quarter of this year, Goldman marked down Litton’s value by about $200 million. Goldman agreed to sell Litton to Ocwen for $263.7 million, to be paid in cash. The amount the firm initially paid for Litton wasn’t made public, but a month before that deal, a company that partly owned Litton’s seller said Litton would be sold for about $467.9 million, Bloomberg News reported. “The purchase of Litton did not yield the benefits we anticipated, given the unprecedented depth of the housing crisis, which we, like virtually everybody, failed to foresee,” Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally said. The housing market crash decimated home values nationwide, forcing millions of borrowers into default and foreclosure. Home prices still fall, in a painful feedback loop, as foreclosed properties push home values down still further. And mortgage companies have been overwhelmed by the volume of distressed properties. Banks now hold more than 872,000 homes, nearly twice as many as in 2007, according to data-provider RealtyTrac. In some regions of the country, banks seize more homes than they sell. This “shadow inventory” amounts to another drag on the housing market, as the glut of supply tends to prevent prices from rising. In 2009, more than 2.8 million homes received a foreclosure filing, and in 2010, that number rose to nearly 2.9 million, according to RealtyTrac. The Obama administration’s signature foreclosure-prevention effort, Home Affordable Modification Program , intended to encourage banks to modify distressed mortgages, is widely seen as a failure. And Litton’s record is less than ideal. As of the end of February, Litton had started 10,767 permanent mortgage modifications under the Obama administration’s program, equivalent to about 27 percent of its eligible delinquent borrowers. That compares to Bank of America’s record of 32 percent, JPMorgan Chase’s record of 46 percent, CitiMortgage’s 53 percent and Wells Fargo’s 58 percent. “Servicing has turned out to be a liability for many of the players,” said attorney Margery Golant, a principal at the law firm Golant & Golant. “If they have a situation where they could write down principal to some reasonable number and come out with a performing loan, instead of foreclosing and trying to sell the property in this market for less, why wouldn’t they? It should be common sense.” Ocwen, which agreed to buy Litton, has a relatively strong mortgage-modification record. It started 32,136 permanent HAMP mortgage modifications as of the end of February, equivalent to 79 percent of its eligible borrowers. Unlike Goldman, Ocwen specializes in handling mortgages. But according to Nadine Cohen, managing attorney of the consumer rights unit at Greater Boston Legal Services, homeowners with Litton loans shouldn’t necessarily expect an improvement in service. “People are realizing that servicing is harder than they think,” Cohen said. “To be really ethical and conscientious seems to be very difficult for a lot of the servicers.”

Read the full article →

The Agriculture Industry’s Dirty Little Secret

June 4, 2011

WASHINGTON — The agriculture industry fears a disaster is on the horizon if the one bit of new immigration policy that Congress seems to agree on becomes law. A plan to require all American businesses to run their employees through E-Verify, a program that confirms each is legally entitled to work in the U.S., could wreak havoc on an industry where 80 percent of the field workers are illegal immigrants. So could the increased paperwork audits already under way by the Obama administration. “We are headed toward a train wreck,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat whose district includes agriculture-rich areas. “The stepped up (workplace) enforcement has brought this to a head.” Lofgren said farmers are worried that their work force is about to disappear. They say they want to hire legal workers and U.S. citizens, but that it’s nearly impossible, given the relatively low wages and back-breaking work. Wages can range from minimum wage to more than $20 an hour. But workers often are paid by the piece; the faster they work, they more they make. A steady income lasts only as long as the planting and harvesting seasons, which can be measured in weeks. “Few citizens express interest, in large part because this is hard, tough work,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsak said this past week. “Our broken immigration system offers little hope for producers to do the right thing.” Arturo S. Rodriguez, president of United Farm Workers, said migrant farm workers are exposed to blistering heat with little or no shade and few water breaks. It’s skilled work, he said, requiring produce pickers to be exact and quick. While the best mushroom pickers can earn about $35,000 to $40,000 a year for piece work, there’s little chance for a good living and American workers don’t seem interested in farm jobs. “It is extremely difficult, hard, dangerous work,” Rodriguez said. Last year Rodriguez’s group started the “Take Our Jobs” campaign to entice American workers to take the fields. He said of about 86,000 inquiries the group got about the offer, only 11 workers took jobs. “That really was thought up by farm workers trying to figure out what is it we needed to do to show that we are not trying to take away anyone’s job,” Rodriguez said. Vilsak and the American Farm Bureau Federation president, Bob Stallman, said in a recent conference call with reporters that the best and likely only hope to stave off an economic catastrophe for American farmers and consumers is comprehensive overhaul of immigration policy. Vilsak said the industry is worth about $5 billion to $9 billion a year. “We need to address the agriculture labor supply,” Stallman said. “This situation will affect the future of America’s farmers and ranchers.” Manuel Cunha, president of Nisei Farmers League, a group representing growers in central California, said farmers don’t have the wherewithal to verify a worker’s status when their labor force is often hired on the spot and in a hurry to pick ripe crops. Forcing them to verify a worker’s legal status, he said, would prove disastrous. “If we were to use E-Verify now, we’d shut down, either that or farmers would go to prison,” said Cunha, a Fresno-based citrus farmer. “We’ve admitted many workers are not legal and if you have to get rid of everybody, where do I go to get my labor? Nowhere. We have to have a work force that we can put in the system.” Shawn Coburn, a politically active farmer who grows thousands of acres of almonds on the west side Fresno County, said he favors tighter borders, a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for those already in the U.S., or at the very least their children. But, like Cunha, he believes a mandatory E-Verify plan would be nothing but trouble for the industry. “I don’t think it’s going to happen, but if it does it would throw the California economy for a loop,” Coburn said. Without a broad overhaul in the works, industry officials have focused on improving the H-2A temporary agricultural workers visa program that’s aimed at allowing season workers to come and work on U.S. farms. The program, however, is costly, time consuming and inefficient, according to Cathleen Enright, vice president of federal government affairs for the Western Growers Association. “It has never been a great program or easy to work with,” Enright said. “It’s an unbelievably crushing program.” There isn’t enough capacity in the system to process, interview and approve visa applications for the nearly 1 million seasonal workers who take to the fields every season. Farmers are required to pay for a worker’s transportation from their home country to the fields, provide housing and other benefits. Even minor violations of the numerous rules and regulations that govern the H-2A program can lead to hefty fines, Enright said. “It’s too expensive, it’s too litigious, it’s too bureaucratic,” said Lee Wicker, deputy director of the North Carolina Growers Association. “We need a program that farmers can use and have confidence in.” Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said farmers in his area want to do the right thing and hire legal workers but they are frustrated with the stifling bureaucracy that comes with the visa program. “It’s a labyrinthine visa process, with the slow walking of applications,” Gowdy said. “You could not by accident come up with a better plan to ruin the small family farm.” Farmers, he said, “are just at their wits’ end.” Using the program to get workers can put farmers at a disadvantage if their competitors decide to take their chances and hire illegal workers, Wicker said. Lawmakers agree the visa program is problematic, but there’s a wide divide on how to make it workable. In 2009, Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced legislation that would have given temporary resident status to immigrant farm workers and have created a path to legal residency for those workers after five years. Neither bill, known as the AgJOBS Act, made it out committee. The idea is part of the discussion involving changes to the seasonal workers visa program, but Republicans have pledged to block it because it includes a path to legal status for immigrant workers. Rep. Dan Lungren, a California Republican from an agriculture industry-heavy district near Sacramento, has said he sees that same “train wreck” Lofgren described, but that the AgJOBS bill isn’t the answer. “We’re going to have a crisis in agriculture,” Lungren said during a hearing this year on the visa program by the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration policy and enforcement. “And while it sounds great to say an agreement (on AgJOBS) is going to take care of it, it’s not going to pass.” About the only hope for success for any immigration-related legislation, Lungren and others say, is a bill that would make it mandatory for American employers to use the government’s E-Verify program to ensure their workers are legal. GOP Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has pledged to introduce such legislation. Such a proposal appeared to get a push this past week when the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in favor of an Arizona law that allows the state to penalize businesses for hiring illegal immigrant workers. Agriculture officials say there needs to be some exception for farm workers. “It needs to take into account the unique aspects of agriculture,” Vilsak said. ___ Associated Press writers Gosia Wozniacka and Tracie Cone in Fresno, Calif., contributed to this report. ___ Array ___ Online: Array Array Array Array

Read the full article →

Brent Budowsky: Jobs: An Angry Dissent

June 2, 2011

On behalf of the 15.9 percent of Americans who compose the real jobless rate and their moms, dads, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters who compose the 30 percent of Americans suffering misery from unemployment, I write this angry dissent against the culture of callousness of official Washington, which is doing virtually nothing to create jobs in America. The ugly housing numbers released Tuesday suggest a double-dip collapse below earlier crash levels. The ugly jobs numbers released Wednesday by ADP remind us why 55 percent of Americans believe the nation is in a recession or depression, according to a recent Gallup poll . Never before in American history has unemployment been so high, yet neither the president nor Congress pushes for a major jobs bill. With so many Americans crushed by personal and family economic tragedy, there is no attempt to enact any program worth a damn to help the jobless, except by House Democrats, whom I credit for trying. My mission here is to give voice to the jobless, who have little voice in this town. I must offend some friends as well as adversaries. I angrily dissent from the lack of a major jobs program. I angrily dissent from a Federal Reserve policy that provided some $20 trillion to bankers in the greatest trickle-down exercise in world history, which created vast wealth at the top, rampant speculation throughout markets, the cash-starving of small businesses and a tidal wave of foreclosures by bailed-out bankers who showed neither common sense, basic decency nor economic patriotism. Then they whine to the media that their feelings are hurt because they are unpopular. I called for a foreclosure freeze in this paper in 2007. I angrily dissent against incompetent foreclosure programs under two presidents and many banks that poison our economy by extending the collapse of housing and reinforcing the collapse of jobs, which small minds call “the new normal.” The acceptance of current jobless levels is the lowering of our standards to miserable levels, the shame of our time, the scandal of our age and the source of public contempt toward Washington and Wall Street. The president deserves great credit for rescuing the auto industry, but this is not the moment for victory laps. It is a time for taking responsibility, not taking credit. If Martin Luther King were here, he would express great pride that President Obama was elected while calling millions of people to Washington to protest against the neglect that I 
deplore here. It is not acceptable for the president and Democrats to fail to fight for a major jobs program and take their fight to the voters. It is not acceptable for Republicans to blockade programs to create jobs, propose many actions that will destroy jobs, and try to blackmail America into an economic crash by threatening to defeat the debt-ceiling increase unless their anti-jobs ideology is enacted into law. It is an outrage to punish the jobless with Marie Antoinette economics, where the same old policy pigs are dressed in new tuxedos, the same old bromides are falsely called job creators, the jobless are told, “Let them eat public relations” and those jobless for 99 weeks are treated like human garbage to be thrown away and forgotten, or degraded and humiliated by the sickening lie that they want to be jobless. Let’s bring back the housing tax credit, now. Let’s put a jobs program into the budget talks. Let’s promote buying American and rebuilding America. Let’s not burden our children with costs and deaths of bridges that collapse and cars that crash on roads that decay. Let’s find Ted Kennedy Democrats and Jack Kemp Republicans and take the best of their ideas for jobs. Today I condemn the consensus in this town and write on behalf of the jobless. Those whose failures caused their pain should have the moral decency, economic sense and political courage to make America great by putting Americans to work. This column was originally published at The Hill .

Read the full article →

Maine Teen Labor Law A Boon To Businesses

June 1, 2011

WASHINGTON — Paul LePage, Maine’s Republican governor, signed into law Tuesday a watered-down version of a controversial bill that would have rolled back the state’s child labor standards. Although the most contentious elements had been struck by the time of its signing, the new law marks a small victory for two groups: Children who want to work more hours on school nights, and business owners who want more cheap labor. The law boosts the maximum amount of hours a 16- or 17-year-old can work during the school year from 20 to 24 hours per week. It also raises the per-day limit from four hours to six, and allows children to work until 10:15 p.m. on school nights. Although the law doesn’t affect wages, teen workers tend to earn significantly less than older workers. According to the most recent statistics from the Department of Labor , about 25 percent of teen workers made the minimum wage or less in 2010, compared with just 4 percent of workers age 25 and older. The much stronger original bill, sponsored by Sen. Debra Plowman (R-Hampden), would have removed all the hour restrictions on 17-year-old workers, as well as the summer work restrictions on 16-year-old workers. Plowman could not be reached for comment. According to her biography on the state legislature page, the state senator is a member of the National Association of Women Business Owners, and her family runs a garage-door installation business. Rep. Timothy Driscoll (D-Westbrook), a strong opponent of the bill, told The Huffington Post that the final law “did get softened up a bit, but it still wasn’t to my liking.” Driscoll said the focus for teens should be school, not work, and that the new law “exploits children.” Driscoll also said he never really believed the Republican line that the bill was aimed at giving youngsters more work experience, noting that his suspicions grew during a state labor committee hearing on the proposed bill back in March. “The only folks there supporting it were the folks in high-priced suits and shiny shoes,” Driscoll said. “There weren’t any children or parents there testifying in favor of it.” (The Maine legislature’s website does not feature video from past hearings.) Instead, as Driscoll recalls, there were a representative from the Maine Restaurant Association, a representative from the Maine Innkeepers Association and a stakeholder from a Maine amusement park called Funtown Splashtown USA. Driscoll pointed out that restaurants, inns and amusement parks tend to rely on low-priced teen labor and would have an interest in seeing children allowed to work more hours. Earlier this year, a bill was proposed in Maine that would have pushed the teen pay floor beneath the state minimum wage of $7.50 per hour, to a so-called training wage of $5.25 for the first 6 months of employment. That bill, titled ” An Act To Enhance Access to the Workplace for Minors ,” was voted down in committee. Similar proposals have been popping up in the last four years, according to Driscoll who’s been in the legislature since 2004. The lawmaker said he usually hears the same argument for relaxing teen labor regulations: Some kids are cut out for school, and some kids aren’t, so best to get the latter to work as soon as possible. “I’ve always pushed back on that,” said Driscoll. “What we should be doing is giving every kid a fair opportunity to get ahead and make sure they’re afforded an education.” “They’ll have the rest of their lives to work,” he added.

Read the full article →

Matt Cohen: Is Your Strategy Mature? A Simple Test Reveals the Answer

May 31, 2011

There’s a simple test you can use to determine the strength of your strategy, and it’s based on a classic psychology experiment. When he was a psychology professor at Stanford University, Walter Mischel developed the marshmallow experiment. If you don’t remember studying Mischel’s famous behavioral experiment in your undergraduate Intro to Psychology class, you can actually duplicate his work at home: You’ll Need: A 4- to 6-year-old child Two marshmallows The Experiment: Give the child one of the marshmallows. Tell them that they may eat the marshmallow right now if they want to, but if they wait 15 minutes before eating it, you will give them a second marshmallow. Results: If you were to perform this experiment with enough subjects, you would find that only about one-third of the children are disciplined enough to wait for the second marshmallow. According to Mischel’s longitudinal studies, the children who waited for the second marshmallow tended to be more successful when they grew up. (They had better test scores, were more likely to attend college, etc.) Back when I was taking Psych 102, I loved this experiment (largely because it involved giving sugar to children.) Over the years, I’ve come to think of the marshmallow test as an easy-to-use business tool. The experiment was designed for small children, so you would think that adults would have developed the logical reasoning skills and the patience to perform better on the test than the typical preschool kid. And yet, the world is full of ample evidence to the contrary: Imagine the same experiment, but instead of marshmallows, the subject is asked to forgo profits in this quarter in exchange for sustainable growth several years from now. See what I mean? Every time a business sacrifices the better payoff of a long-term strategy in exchange for the immediate gratification of a short-term strategy, they are failing the marshmallow test.

Read the full article →

USA- A Cause for StrawberryFrog: Co-Founder Karin Drakenberg Reaffirms Commitment to Educating Girl Children After Winning One Show Gold and Bronze Pencils

May 30, 2011

USA- A Cause for StrawberryFrog: Co-Founder Karin Drakenberg Reaffirms Commitment to Educating Girl Children After Winning One Show Gold and Bronze Pencils

Read the full article →

Children of Immigrants: America’s Science Superstars

May 24, 2011

Adding fuel to the fiery debate over immigration policy, a study released Tuesday shows that top science achievers in the U.S. are overwhelmingly the children of immigrants. The study, conducted by the National Foundation for American Policy , found that 70 percent of the finalists in the 2011 Intel Science Talent Search competition — also known as the “Junior Nobel Prize” — were the children of immigrants even though only 12 percent of the U.S. population is foreign-born. According to the report, children of immigrant parents have been increasingly dominant in the fields of math and science. In 2004, for example, researchers found that 60 percent of the top science students in the U.S. and 65 percent of the top math students were born to immigrant families. Findings were based upon data from the Intel Science Talent Search and the 2004 U.S. Math Olympiad. Based on these findings, the study concluded that “Liberalizing our nation’s immigration laws will likely yield even greater rewards for America in the future.” Yet providing a path to residency for immigrants — both legal and illegal — has proven politically difficult, and some advocates are pessimistic about any significant reform in the near future. Tamar Jacoby, President of ImmigrationWorks USA , a business-focused immigration advocacy group, told HuffPost, “We’re in a totally different climate than we were in 2006 and 2007. Immigration has become such an impacted, partisan issue. Never say never — I hope something can happen — but it’s hard for me to see [reform] happening any time before the 2012 election.” In particular, debate continues over reforming H1-B visa — a temporary 3- to 6-year visa for skilled foreign workers. According to the NFAP study, 24 of the 28 immigrant parents of 2011 Intel Science Talent Search winners started working in the United States on H-1B visas and later received an employer-sponsored green card. Proponents of H1B visa reform, including both the White House and technology companies , say skilled workers should be incentivized to stay in the U.S. and not forced to leave after a certain time period, thereby encouraged to set up rival operations overseas. While there is some interest on both sides of the immigration debate in keeping skilled workers in the country, Jacoby posits that advocates pushing for comprehensive immigration reform are unlikely to take up the H1-B visa issue independent of their broader reform goals. Said Jacoby: “They want to keep that steam bottled up. It’s an ‘All or nothing’ regime.” “In my view,” Jacoby added, “if it was ever a useful strategy, I think it’s outlived its usefulness. There haven’t been any fixes. We’re just not gonna get the whole package anymore.”

Read the full article →

Art Levine: High Noon: Tuesday Protests Take on "Fully Loaded" Chairman, GOP-Style Dems Over DC Cuts to Poor

May 24, 2011

The scandal-plagued chairman of the DC Council, Kwame Brown, best known for asking city taxpayers to pay for a “fully loaded” Lincoln Navigator worth $2,000 a month, is joining with other GOP-style Democrats to slash city services for the poor. At the same time, they’re opposing the mayor’s proposal to raise $35 million in added taxes from Washington’s richest residents — and, amazingly, the council is moving to give away $19 million in revenue through repealing some taxes for the rich altogether. With the vote scheduled Wednesday, The Washington Examiner reports that a backroom deal was apparently struck Monday evening with Brown when Marion Barry, the former crack-smoking mayor and still a councilman, agreed to reverse his support for tax increases on the rich in exchange for property tax abatements for some churches in his district. The pending budget deal could still cut over $100 million from critical services for the poor, disabled and homeless from the social services budget, roughly two-thirds of all proposed cuts. The safety-net is already so tattered that homeless mothers with infants in tow have been given bus fare to ride the buses all night rather than shelter. As a result , Save Our Safety Net , a group leading a loose coalition of progressive safety-net advocacy organizations, called for protests Tuesday at noon at DC’s City Hall, the Wilson Building. And in the day before the event, they unleashed a series of last-minute videos targeting Kwame Brown, most on the City Council and an otherwise liberal council member, Mary Cheh, for opposing raising taxes on the rich and risking the well-being of the city’s neediest. What wasn’t mentioned publicly is that these same city council members also pay themselves and their staff the most lavish salaries and expenses in the country when measured on a per-seat or per-taxpayer basis: $1.5 million per council seat. The biggest target remains Kwame Brown and his lavish lifestyle contrasted with the poor children, disabled and homeless who could be denied services. The latest video ends with an SUV heading for a crash and the tag line: “Don’t let Kwame run over our most important public services.” Brown has offered what critics see as vague promises to restore $25 million in proposed cuts, but as the S.O.S. group pointed out, following protests last week : After our Wednesday action, we had 7 confirmed Council votes in support of the Mayor’s income tax proposal, enough to pass it. But yesterday we got word that Marion Barry (Ward 8) and Tommy Wells (Ward 6) have decided they no longer support the Mayor’s proposed income tax! We have also heard that Kwame Brown is proposing $25 million in restorations. That is certainly a step in the right direction, but it is not nearly enough. Safety net services are still underfunded by $32 million. By getting rid of the income tax proposal, Chairman Brown, Barry, Wells and other Councilmembers would take away $19 million in resources that could be used to restore funding to critical services. Even though at least 85% of the city residents in a recent poll back raising taxes to preserve social services, most city council members reject that stance and instead are supporting other accounting schemes and alternative revenue measures, including some that the council has rejected in earlier years — such as ending DC’s unique tax break for those who buy out-of-state municipal bonds helping other cities. What’s especially striking is the way these formerly liberal Democrats, echoing a national right-leaning trend in the party, adopt right-wing talking points and even cite the Chamber of Commerce as “evidence” for their views. As recounted in emails about a tense meeting with constituents held by council member and law professor Mary Cheh, who represents the richest and whitest area in the city, Ward 3, liberal voters there aired their complaints that she was abandoning the principles of the Democratic Party and her campaign promises. For instance, as Jessie Sigel, a Ward 3 resident, wrote angrily to Cheh after the meeting: The tax issue aside, I was, quite frankly, shocked to hear someone who professes to be a Democrat, suggest, as her “philosophy,” that anyone one on TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ] for more than five years doesn’t want to work; that their children don’t have proper role models, followed by righteous professions about the “dignity of work.” The language you used is akin to the old Reagan demonizing of the poor as “welfare loafers” and of the poor “coming to collect their welfare checks in Cadillacs.” If one is going to take a hard line that people should get a job, they need to ascertain that there are jobs — jobs that enable people to pay the rent and feed their children — to be had. When I asked you about jobs programs, child care programs and job training, you didn’t seem to know to what degree they exist in the district. (and, obviously, revenue would be needed to support these sorts of programs)… But embracing a “philosophy” — or as I would call it, a stereotyping of people, without making an inquiry into the group’s situation and options is reprehensible. It is something I would expect of right wing Republicans who have a particular agenda in mind and who are determined not to let logic or others’ needs get in the way. Cheh, like some other leading Democrats who are moving to slash services, used to be considered a progressive, innovative member of the City Concil. Kesh Ladduwahetty, an activist with DC for Democracy , also recounted: Cheh is adamantly against the tax increase, and there’s nothing more substantive in her reasoning than “sending the wrong signal” and small [businesses]. When pressed about small biz, she doesn’t have any data (she’s just repeating Kwame’s rhetoric). Mary Beth Tinker [another DC4D member] called her on the fact that she kept citing the Chamber of Commerce, although nothing specific. Mary Beth also heard her say something to the effect that in order to get some things that she wants done, she has to do some other things (sounds like a blatant statement about trading favors with Kwame). Bottom line: she’s not budging for this vote (not that we can see), but she got the message loud & clear that her progressive base is shocked and disappointed in her. On Tuesday, groups like Save Our Safety Net hope that some in the city’s progressive base will turn out and start calling members of the City Council to support fully funding city services. To that end, some of her young progressive supporters even created a mocking rap video calling on Cheh to respond to the wishes of her constituents on taxes and the safety net:

Read the full article →

WATCH: College Grads Move Home, Face Uncertain Futures

May 24, 2011

LANSDALE, Pa. — One midnight in April, Sabrina Malik pulls her red Chevy Blazer into her mother’s asphalt driveway, removes the keys from the ignition, and stops to take a deep breath. Alone in the darkness, a sense of defeat courses through her body — disappointment about her past and uncertainty about what lies ahead. This, she thinks to herself, is surely what failure feels like. Six years ago, Malik fled this town for Syracuse University. Since graduating in 2009 with a bachelor’s degree in art history, she has yet to find a decent job. She hadn’t planned on moving back home and, at the age of 23, never expected to return to her mother’s house for an extended and open-ended period of time. “At times, it really feels very personal, it really feels like I’ve failed,” says Malik, standing in the kitchen of her mother’s two-story stone house and recalling the eight weeks since she returned home. She’s wearing khaki shorts and white socks that come up to her ankles. Glasses frame her brown eyes and wavy chestnut hair grazes her shoulders. “Your dream is a very personal thing and when you can’t do it, it feels like you’re being told that you’re not talented enough and that you haven’t worked hard enough.” After graduating from college, Malik moved to Boston. There, she worked as a nanny, sold books, and waited tables — a series of dead-end jobs that didn’t pay more than the minimum wage, didn’t require a college degree, and weren’t remotely related to what she wanted to do for the rest of her life. Two months ago, she ran out of money and drove home from Boston to Lansdale, a middle-class suburb north of Philadelphia, her car brimming with the contents of post-college life: canned food, twinkle lights, potted plants. A dozen of her paintings, stacked to the ceiling, kept hitting the back of her head. When a gas station attendant in New Jersey asked why she was moving and where she was headed, Malik didn’t know quite how to respond. She’s hardly alone. Malik is part of a generation of 20-somethings that’s experiencing what it’s like to graduate from college, move back in with your parents, and then get stuck there. Though estimates vary, a recent study by Twentysomething Inc., a consulting firm specializing in marketing to young adults, predicted that of the 2 million graduates in the class of 2011, 85 percent will return home because they can’t secure jobs that might give them more choices and more control over their lives . To be sure, having a college degree still matters. Nationwide, while the unemployment rate hovers around 9 percent, the jobless rate for college graduates 25 years and older is 4.5 percent. By contrast, 20 to 24-year-olds who only have a high school diploma are contending with an unemployment rate of nearly 20 percent. While college graduates typically navigate periods of economic decline far better than those lacking such credentials, the past few years have still taken an especially brutal toll on them. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the jobless rate for younger workers with a college degree has more than doubled since the recession began four years ago — from 3.5 percent in April of 2007 to 6.4 percent in April of this year. For college graduates under the age of 25, finding stable work is a particular challenge. According to Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University, about half, or 3.2 million, are “underutilized”  — meaning they’re unemployed, working part-time, or working a job outside of the college labor market, such as bartending or waiting tables. Added to the lack of jobs is an increased amount of debt. Student loan debt recently outpaced credit card debt in terms of total amounts owed by borrowers. By year’s end, it is on track to surpass a trillion dollars, according to Mark Kantrowitz, an expert on student financial aid who runs the websites FinAid.org and Fastweb.com. According to the Institute for College Access and Success, an independent, nonprofit organization that works to make higher education more affordable, the average graduate finishes school with $24,000 of debt — though many struggle to repay far more. Like Malik, many 20-somethings are experiencing early adulthood as one long pause in their lives, affecting not only conventional coming-of-age milestones such as becoming financially independent, but more deeply personal things as well — like their hopes and their dreams.  THE AMERICAN DREAM Recently, after sending out dozens of resumes and cover letters, all of which went unanswered, Malik’s spirits plummeted. Even rejection feels better than no response at all, she thought to herself. In her second-floor bedroom, where handmade quilts cover the bed and charcoal drawings line the walls, she tries as best she can to avoid her mother’s notice. Mostly, she just doesn’t want her to worry. But Marilyn Malik is close to her daughter and is an expert at reading Sabrina’s shifting moods. “Sabrina gets down on herself and I worry,” says Marilyn, sitting in her home office in the basement, where she works as a nursing supervisor for a health insurance company. While she says that her daughter is welcome to live in the house for as long as she needs, she hopes that Sabrina might find a job sooner rather than later. And Marilyn is adjusting to the fact that her daughter’s path may not mirror the one she took 30 years ago, when, as a college-educated young woman, she first ventured out into the world.  Marilyn, 53, grew up in a small town in the Poconos. Her father worked as an electrician; her mother worked as a nurse. Marilyn studied nursing in college and she and her parents split the $4,000 annual tuition. She worked as a waitress to earn her share. A few years after college, Marilyn married Ajmal Malik, a Pakistani immigrant. He attended college at the University of Lahore in Pakistan and earned two master’s degrees after moving to the U.S. The couple made their home in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., where they raised Sabrina and her older brother Omar, who’s now 25. In those early years, Ajmal, an accountant, worked his way up the ladder while Marilyn picked up night shifts at the nearby hospital. She describes their standard of living as lower-middle-class — borrowing money to purchase their first starter home and relying on quick, cheap dinners of soup and biscuits to get by. Ajmal died of cancer when his children were nine and 11, leaving Marilyn to support an entire household on her income alone. “You grieve for yourself, and you grieve for your kids,” explains Marilyn, who started working full-time after Ajmal died and has yet to let up. Sending both kids to college was always the plan. The majority of the payout from her deceased husband’s life insurance went towards a college savings account, which ultimately wasn’t enough to cover the high costs associated with sending two kids to out-of-state schools. Marilyn paid about $100,000 for Sabrina to attend Syracuse University in upstate N.Y. and took out another $20,000 in loans to cover the rest. Sabrina and Omar, who attended the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, will have to shoulder their own graduate school costs, however. “She’d probably say no to doing things if she knew how much everything cost,” says Marilyn, who pays down the $20,000 in Sabrina’s student loans while also saving up for her own retirement. Sabrina is struggling to pay off about $2,000 in credit card debt and her remaining student debts weigh on her relationship with her mother. Marilyn hates owing money and tries to put an extra $100 or $200 towards paying down the student loans whenever she can. Marilyn and Sabrina find it hard to talk about Sabrina’s student loans and generally avoid the subject. Sabrina wishes she could do more to help her mother pay the debt and had planned on having a job after graduating that would allow her to do that — yet another part of her future that hasn’t exactly gone as planned. While living in Boston, she made barely enough to cover her own rent and utilities, let alone scrape together enough extra to help her mother with the monthly loan repayments. Sabrina also wonders whether paying so much for college has made her mother’s own life more insecure. “I know she’s further away from her own retirement because she sent us to such expensive schools” says Malik, whose plans for graduate education are indefinitely on hold until she can save up some money. Right now, even $80 application fees for graduate school seem like a lot.  Although Marilyn remarried a few years ago, her first husband’s absence is deeply felt — especially now, when their daughter is struggling. “I wonder if he had been around, whether my kids would have been better placed, whether they would have received better advice,” says Marilyn, who plans to work for at least another decade. She long ago decided that sending her kids to college was more important to her than saving for the day when she could retire. By this point in her life, Marilyn imagined that her daughter would have already embarked upon a well-paying career and be living on her own. She also wonders what it means for the next generation of 20-somethings, and whether they’ll have access to better opportunities than their parents’ generation. “My generation had it better than what my parents had and you’d think it would continue progressing that same way,” she says. “Historically, each generation gets better as it goes along — they’re more affluent, they have more education, they reach more goals. This generation, you would hope that would happen, too, but it doesn’t seem to be going that way.” DREAMS ARE CHEAP Half a century ago, 77 percent of women and 65 percent of men had attained traditional markers of maturity by their 30th birthday: They had left home, finished school, gotten a job, married, and started a family. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2000, less than half of 30-year-old women and just one-third of 30-year-old men had attained similar markers of adulthood. A lot, but not all, of the shift has to do with work — or, more specifically, a lack of work, say analysts and others . They argue that the current recession has pushed 20-somethings farther and faster in a direction they were already headed. Sending your kid to college once was a way of ensuring their sure-footed success. But with 20-somethings mired in debt and confronting a dearth of decent-paying jobs, many are returning to the nest. “I can assure you that few people in my generation are living high off the hog in their parents’ house,” says Matthew Segal, the 25-year-old founder of Our Time , a national membership organization for young people under 30. He says he resents the popular characterization of 20-somethings as lazy and unmoored. “Trust me, they’re not getting too comfortable sleeping in their childhood bedroom or eating out of their parents’ fridge. They’re moving home because they don’t have jobs and they have a lot of debt.” Except for designated downtime, when she’s either making art or weaving on her loom, Malik spends much of her time avoiding thinking about what became of the goals her parents helped her to set. Her mother always encouraged her to think and dream big. Yet since graduating from college, she’s found herself doing the exact opposite. Her dream for the future used to encompass a well-appointed and comfortable life — a farmhouse, two artist studios, a husband, and several children. “But it’s not worth dreaming so big anymore,” says Malik. “My plans now are far less extravagant. I guess I’m learning to dream on a much smaller scale.” Specifically, she doesn’t think she’ll be able to afford a home as nice as her mother’s. Nor, she predicts, will she be able to send her own children to schools as fancy as those that she attended. “The hope that things are going to get better is really all we have,” she explains. “I mean, on top of being the generation that’s struggling, we don’t want to be the generation that’s cynical, too.” Some scholars attribute such hard-wired optimism to the way that the parents of 20-somethings raised them. Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais co-author books about millennials (typically defined as the generation born between 1982 and 2003). “Millennials were raised the way Bill Cosby told parents to raise their kids — set rules, show encouragement, don’t use physical discipline, build up a child’s self-esteem,” explains Winograd. “If you tell someone from zero to 13 that they’re always doing a nice job and that they’re really special and wonderful, they’ll wind up believing they are.” Self-confidence breeds optimism, according to Winograd and Hais, even when times are tough. “The millennials don’t have a sense that everything is wonderful, because obviously it isn’t, but they believe as a country that things will get better and their lives will also get better,” says Hais. “In part, it’s because they’re young and they actually have time to accomplish this. But it’s also because generations like the millennials feel they’ve accomplished good things in the past and that they will again in the future because their parents told them so.” Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, a psychology professor at Clark University, is also struck by the optimism of the young adults that he studies. “I think the main reason for their optimism is that dreams are cheap in emerging adulthood. That is, their dreams haven’t yet been tested in the fires of real, adult life. And who knows, maybe they really will find their dream job?” In general, young people are taking longer to assume more traditional adult responsibilities and young lives are unfolding in a less predictable sequence , Arnett says. He views the twenties as a new and distinct life stage and classifies it as “emerging adulthood.” According to Arnett, this stage generally starts around the age of 18 and continues until an individual is in his or her mid-to-late twenties. While the category itself is fluid, “emerging adulthood” refers to a time during which young people are relatively free of obligations. But many 20-somethings, like Malik, are increasingly delaying adult responsibilities because they can’t secure a job stable enough to allow them to take the steps necessary to establish an independent life. As such, even youthful optimism has its limits . Despite a general proclivity toward positive thinking, analysts say current circumstances are weighing down this generation of 20-somethings. “The mood for young people definitely isn’t as optimistic as it’s been in the past,” says Carl Van Horn, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University. Last week, he and his colleagues released a study titled “Unfulfilled Expectations: Recent College Graduates Struggle in a Troubled Economy.” It polled young people who graduated from college between 2006 and 2010. “You expect people to be optimistic when they’re young about their ability to get ahead,” Van Horn says. “It’s pretty clear that this group of college students are feeling very much like their opportunities have been stunted.” A FALSE PROMISE? Since moving home, the highlight of Malik’s weekend involves walking to the edge of her mother’s driveway on Sunday morning and retrieving the hand-delivered copy of The New York Times . She’s on a $15 weekly budget and getting the paper delivered is a rare indulgence. Last Sunday, Malik accompanied her extended family to a pancake breakfast to support the local firehouse in the nearby town of Sellersville, Pa. Without traffic, it’s about a 20-minute drive from Lansdale. As her family and some of her mother’s friends waited for a table, Malik carved out a tiny space where she sat and read the paper in silence. She wasn’t up for answering the questions that usually follow — about what she was up to, or how the job search was going. She mostly just needed a break from the constant inquisition. “I spend a lot of my time trying as best I can to appease everyone and show them that I’m in good spirits and putting forth all this extra effort,” says Malik. “Every once in a while, I just need to be by myself. They know what I’m going through.” Even the relentless optimism of millennials is straining under the depth and length of the current recession. A poll released in April by AP-Viacom indicated that among Americans between the ages of 18 to 24, there was skepticism about the notion that life would improve with each passing generation. Four in 10 of those surveyed predicted difficulty in raising a family and affording the lifestyle they felt they deserved. Like homebuyers who took on outsized mortgages they couldn’t afford, either out of ignorance or because banks cajoled them, in order to realize the American Dream of home ownership, many students and their parents have taken on crushing piles of educational debt in order to realize another part of the American Dream: a college education. Andrew Sum, a 64-year-old economist at Northeastern University who’s studied the college labor market for the past 30 years, thinks the current economic slump is giving both recent graduates and their parents a rude awakening. Sum grew up in Gary, Ind. with a father who worked as a welder. While he says that he and his four siblings were able to achieve a better life than their parents, for the first time in recent American history, the majority of the young people he studies are not. “Every generation ought to try and leave behind a better world for the next generation,” says Sum. “And until recently, it’s generally been true that the next generation exceeded the living standard of the current one. But over the last decade, that’s no longer the case.” One of Sum’s pet theories is the “age twist effect.” He says that over the decade from 2000 to 2010, the younger someone was, the more likely they were to get fired or be otherwise left without a job. Historically, and in every decade since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics began compiling such data, it’s been the exact opposite. Sum’s findings conclude that 7 million more young people under the age of 30 would be working today if the labor market behaved as it did only a decade ago. Sum and his colleagues predict that underutilization and underemployment will leave an indelible mark on this generation. In the near term, Sum finds college graduates moving home, and staying there. And while college degrees matter, they only matter if young people are able to then convert them into a job — hence, generating the considerable college premium. “If you can manage to do that, you can do well,” says Sum. “But if you end up outside, you’ll only do marginally better than someone who has a high school diploma and those losses stay with you for a lifetime.” For Malik, both in terms of her current and future income, the longer she’s out of work, the more dire the consequences will be. Being unemployed is always worse than working, but it’s ultimately the type of job she gets that will affect her future stability. For instance, should Malik secure yet another job outside the college labor market — working again as a nanny or as a clerk in a retail shop — the chances that she’ll regain a more permanent economic toehold will grow ever more unlikely. The impact that the job she lands will have on her future wages is likely to be staggering. For the public at large, Sum finds there’s a 73 percent gap in the annual earnings of college graduates that have a college labor market job versus those that work in a job that doesn’t require a degree — say, the difference between working as a paralegal and a receptionist in a law firm. Bachelor’s degree holders between the ages of 22 to 64 that have a college labor market job make an average salary of $52,873. Those working outside the college labor market earn $30,503 — or a difference in salary of more than $22,000 a year.  But many 20-somethings, like Malik, are also struggling with what is likely a case of bad economic timing. Graduates of 2009 were hit especially hard. A study conducted by the  John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers indicates that 50 percent of 2009 graduates are either unemployed or working in jobs that don’t require a college degree. Lisa B. Khan, who studies economics at Yale’s School of Management, recently conducted a study that looked at the long-term impact of graduating into a weak economy. Khan examined young people that graduated from college during the peak of the recession that occurred in the 1980s. In their first three years on the job market, Khan found they made about 30 percent less than classmates with more advantageous economic timing. And their subsequent salaries, even a dozen years later, were between eight and ten percent lower. This means that it might take Malik, who graduated two years ago during the beginning of a particularly brutal recession, up to a decade to recover the wages she might have earned had she sidestepped the downturn altogether. Paul Oyer, an economist at Stanford University, concedes that young people who start work when times are tough not only get behind, but generally have a tough time catching up. But Oyer also thinks that luck plays a role in the making of any successful career, good economic times or bad. What does concern him is that some historical trends seem to be withering in the current economy. Although wealth in America has increased from generation to generation, Oyer isn’t convinced that the current generation of 20-somethings will enjoy the rewards of a similar phenomenon. He attributes the shift to globalization and the number of available jobs. Because of these factors, he doesn’t think it makes much sense for young people to pile on educational debt to attend elite schools when they have less expensive alternatives — unless, of course, their parents are willing to go on the hook for it. Parents exert a powerful shaping force on their children’s decisions to go to college, as well as which college to attend. In addition, they are often caught up in the emotional rush that a college education entails, further complicating an issue that has already become a financial minefield for the middle class. “All along, I was going to make it work,” explains Marilyn. “If I had to take out loans, I was going to do that.” Once Sabrina and Omar were admitted into the colleges of their dreams, Marilyn saw it as her personal responsibility to make sure they could attend — even when it meant taking out additional loans in order to finance it. And while Marilyn says she doesn’t regret her investment, she assumed that a $120,000 degree would at least translate into a decent-paying job for her daughter. “One thing that terrifies parents more than budget deficits or a weak economy is job security for their kids. They’re afraid they won’t be able to pass along their middle class status to the next generation,” says Anthony P. Carnevale, who directs Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. “In raising a child in America, the fear of failing is just enormous. Sending your kid to college used to pretty much guarantee their future success. It no longer necessarily works that way.” And, of course, what if this generation simply doesn’t value the same things their parents’ generation did? John Della Volpe, who directs polling at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics, spends much of the year gauging the thoughts of young people. His company SocialSphere recently conducted a study of 5,000 millennials between the ages of 16 and 24. It asked them to think about the next five to seven years of their lives and to rank the importance of what they hoped to achieve. His findings indicate that many young people aren’t focused on becoming famous or making piles of money. On the contrary, their hopes for the future revolve around making a contribution to society and staying in close touch with family and friends. “There’s a potential for this younger generation to have an economic reset,” explains Della Volpe. “It’s now okay to stay in your hometown.” AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE When it’s your decision, returning to your hometown is one thing. Being stuck there feels like something else entirely.  Malik says her days are an exercise in resilience. She has yet to shake her loneliness and general feeling of isolation. Most weekdays, she gets up by nine o’clock and immediately forces herself to get dressed. After breakfast, she typically positions herself on one of two floral upholstered couches in the sunroom, where, with laptop in hand, she begins the daily chore of scouring websites for job openings. When not job hunting, Malik helps out around the house — taking out the trash, doing the dishes, going grocery shopping, walking the dog, or making dinner a few nights a week. In some ways, the chores remind her of being in high school. Before her mother remarried and she and her brother headed off to college, it was just the three of them helping out around the house. Growing up, when her mother made dinner or when the house needed cleaning, the two siblings alternated chores. “Now that I’m back, I do those same kinds of things and it feels like the least I can do,” explains Malik. “It doesn’t feel like a task or a chore. I’m just helping my mom out, like I’ve always done.” But now, Malik is a grown woman. Part of her yearns for her own place where she can come and go as she pleases, and where the rules are hers and hers alone. On visits to see her boyfriend, who lives in Brooklyn, N.Y. and works for a private art collector, she sees glimpses of the independent life she expected to be living by now. Until she can land her ultimate gig of working as a curator in an art gallery, or begin a long trajectory of jobs that might eventually get her there, she’s looking for something to pay the bills. She’s looked into working as a clerk in a local retail shop and selling hot water heaters. Businesses in Lansdale are inundated with swarms of recent colleges graduates looking for any job they can get. Locally, there’s the option of working for a big pharmaceutical company, Starbucks or Walgreens, but not much else. When things start to feel overwhelming, Malik finds it helpful to make lists of things to accomplish. The current two-page iteration lists everything from big to small stuff — like getting a job and someday opening an art gallery to straightening her hair and eating fewer bagels. A recent addition, which has yet to be crossed off, is that Malik aspires to be less hard on herself. Namely, that for the time being at least, it’s okay to allow herself to feel sad sometimes. “Right now, it’s a battle of trying to remain levelheaded — and I don’t know if it’s trying to stay optimistic, or become more realistic, or just learn to be okay with going through the motions,” she says. “It feels like a lot of pressure. I want to make everyone proud. I want to blow everyone out of the water with everything I’ve accomplished. And I just can’t get there.” 

Read the full article →

House GOP Proposes Budget Cuts To Domestic, Foreign Food Aid

May 24, 2011

WASHINGTON — House Republicans are targeting domestic nutrition programs and international food assistance as they try to control spending in next year’s budget. In a bill released Monday, Republicans proposed cutting $832 million – or 11 percent – from this year’s budget for the Women, Infants and Children program, which provides food for low-income mothers and children. The 2012 budget proposal for food and farm programs also includes a decrease of almost $457 million, or 23 percent, from international food assistance. The legislation would cut $2 billion from food stamps, or about 1.3 percent of the feeding program’s giant $67 billion budget. Republicans who wrote the bill said the cuts in domestic food programs are taken from excess dollars in those accounts, and participants won’t see a decrease in services. Domestic nutrition programs are mined for dollars in tight budget times because they often have extra money sitting in their accounts. Money is allocated for the programs based on projections of need and food costs, and those needs are sometimes overestimated. Hunger advocates have warned against stripping those programs of those reserves. Two analysts from the liberal research and advocacy group Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Zoe Neuberger and Robert Greenstein, said Monday that the cuts could mean turning away as many as 475,000 people from the Women, Infants and Children program if food prices continue to rise. Almost 9 million low-income mothers and children participate in the WIC program, which provides food, health care referrals and nutrition education. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said the GOP budget “rolls back years of progress.” “This budget threatens the health and security of American families, while asking the most of low-income seniors and the most vulnerable among us,” she said. The bill would cut about 10 percent of the Food and Drug Administration’s $2.5 billion budget, with fees charging industry for regulation potentially making up some of that difference. The legislation also cuts rural development programs, rural housing programs and agricultural research programs administered by the Agriculture Department. Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations agriculture subcommittee, said the cuts would “root out waste and duplication.” “Where they have strayed from their core mission, we rein in agencies so they may better focus on the responsibilities for which they are intended,” Kingston said.

Read the full article →

Joan Williams: Air Traffic Controllers: The Canary in the Coal Mine?

May 14, 2011

This post was originally published in the Harvard Business Review blog, The Conversation. Air traffic controllers sleeping in their towers are emblematic of a much larger problem: how employers hurt American competitiveness through scheduling practices that create a bleed of back-end costs. “They fall asleep because of the shifts they work,” said a controller in a letter to the San Francisco Chronicle . A typical shift pattern starts at 6 a.m. on Monday, 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, 8 a.m. and then again at 10 p.m. on Thursday. “That’s right, two shifts in 24 hours. Which means that at 5 a.m., most controllers are exhausted,” concluded the letter writer. The air traffic control issue reflects a larger problem in the American economy, as documented in studies by Susan Lampert, Julia Henly and Anna Haley-Lock. Many private employers have shifted from the stable schedules of yesteryear to “just-in-time” schedules that change, with very little notice, from day to day and week to week. Airline catering workers are sent home if a flight is canceled, but are expected to work overtime on busy weeks. Nurses’ aides arrive to find that their shifts have been canceled because the patient census is lower than expected. Restaurant staff often are sent home if the ratio of labor costs to sales staff exceeds 29% by 3 p.m., or if that ratio seems unlikely to drop below 21% by the end of the business day, according to one study . Sounds scientific. It’s not. Just-in-time schedules take into account neither basic human realities, like the need to sleep, nor demographic realities . Such schedules don’t fit with Americans’ family caregiving responsibilities. Workers in other industrialized countries have paid family leave and mandatory vacations, as well, often, as limits on overtime and subsidized child care — family supports not mandated here. As a result, one in four American families handles child care by tag teaming (where mom works one shift, dad works a different shift, and each cares for the children while the other is at work). This makes mandatory overtime a problem. In the U.S., grandparents often tag team with their children to care for grandchildren: about half the managers in one study reported having at least one employee caring for family members other than their own children. In some inner cities, grandparents are the primary guardians of 30% to 50% of children under 18, according to a study in The Gerontologist by R. Pruchno. The relatives hourly workers rely on often have just-in-time schedules themselves. This leaves employers competing with their employees’ relatives’ employers. In addition, when just-in-time schedules give only part-time hours to a large pool of workers (which is common), employers are left competing for workers’ attention with their employees’ other employers. Americans’ heavy reliance on tag teaming and other forms of family care combines with just-in-time scheduling to drive up labor costs through sky-high turnover and absenteeism. In addition, key aspects of just-in-time scheduling are illegal in other countries. In Canada, for example, employers are required to pay for at least eight hours of work if an employee reports for a scheduled shift. Cancelled shifts and erratic schedules produce a pattern of serial quitting that costs American employers dearly. Annual attrition over 80% is commonplace in just-in-time jobs, with attrition rates as high as 500%. Given that replacing a single hourly worker costs between 30% and 75% of annual salary, this is just bad management. It’s bad management, too, when 80% of employees are on probation due to tardiness and absenteeism, as was the case in one flagship department store studied, according to a 2006 study by Julia Henly, J.R. Shaefer and Elaine Waxman. The solution is schedule effectiveness, a concept pioneered by workforce consultant Lisa Disselkamp. Scheduling needs to come out of the 19th century — a paper and pencil world where the assumption was that any employee worth having was always available for work. Ninety-four percent of store managers try to hire for “open availability” — the ability to work anytime — according to one study. It’s unrealistic to design 21st century schedules around the assumption that anyone worth hiring has someone else taking care of their children. Sorely needed is a more scientific scheduling process that uses “cloud” technology, which now offers on-line scheduling for as little as $1.25 per employee per month. Scheduling effectiveness starts with a survey to identify common scheduling constraints, and to build them into the basic schedule. The next step is to analyze past schedules to find hidden scheduling stability: one study found that 80% of the hours worked in retail stores were stable, month after month. (Employers were unaware of this.) The third step is to lengthen the period within which supervisors can “stay within hours,” so that if labor demand is lower than expected, supervisors can achieve the required ratio by the end of the week by not replacing someone who calls in sick rather than by sending home people who have already reported for work. The final step is to determine the optimum advance notice of employee schedules. This needs to be done empirically: by testing out various notice periods, and comparing the costs associated with more notice with the savings achieved by lengthening the notice period. Effective schedules are key to American competitiveness. The best way to solve the airport slumber-party problem may not be to schedule two controllers on overnight shifts, which is one of the proposed solutions. A cheaper alternative is to redesign schedules so controllers can get enough sleep. The larger goal is to identify scheduling equilibrium: the point at which one cannot drive front-end labor costs (a tight fit between labor supply and labor demand) any lower without driving up back-end labor costs (turnover, absenteeism, etc.). Effective scheduling can keep us safer in the air and in hospitals, allow for better service in retail stores, hotels and restaurants, and enhance the overall competitiveness of American business. Joan Williams reports further on these issues in her new report , Improving Work-Life Fit in Hourly Jobs: An Underutilized Cost-Cutting Strategy in a Globalized World.

Read the full article →

William S. Becker: Big Oil’s Political Ploy

May 13, 2011

Whatever else we might say about Big Oil in the United States, we have to give the industry credit for one thing: it has mastered the art of scamming us with a perfectly straight face. The scam has been underway for decades. This year’s example is the debate about repealing $21 billion in federal subsidies for big oil companies over the next decade.To their credit, President Obama and several Democrats in Congress are pushing the idea. Oil executives have launched a counteroffensive reminiscent of Gordon Gekko’s argument that “greed is good.” Requiring taxpayers to subsidize America’s biggest oil companies is in the best interest of the country, they say, and anyone who disagrees is playing politics. ExxonMobil, for example, said that President Obama and congressional Democrats are engaging in “political theater” on this issue. Perhaps. But the real plot line is that big oil companies are fighting once again to keep largesse they don’t need and the nation can’t afford. Here are some examples of the time-tested arguments we’re hearing from Big Oil: Eliminating their subsidies will force oil companies to increase the cost of gasoline. Even some oil executives acknowledge this is not true. Unless the industry uses subsidy reform as an excuse to gouge consumers, reducing its tax breaks will not affect energy prices. The handful of subsidies under scrutiny here are the proverbial drop in the oil barrel. They are a fraction of the special favors oil companies receive from the federal government, usually at taxpayer expense. And oil company revenues are so high, even counting the cyclic nature of the market, that subsidy reform will not make a difference in energy prices. The bigger misdirection is the industry’s stubborn assertion that encouraging more domestic production with taxpayer subsidies and permission to drill everywhere will have a meaningful impact on consumer prices. Legions of experts have pointed out in the past that petroleum prices are set by a world oil market so large that more domestic drilling and subsidies won’t much matter. Two fresh examples illustrate how little we control the factors that influence the global petroleum market. Last December, a vegetable vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest harassment by police. His self-immolation and subsequent death triggered the “Arab Spring” — a chain reaction of protests across the Arab world fueled by frustrations ranging from high food prices to chronic unemployment, and suppression of freedoms to government corruption. Oil prices rose just because of the fear that Arab unrest would threaten world supplies. The second example is the historic flooding along the Mississippi River. Hopes have been high that high oil prices will flatten demand and lower the cost of gasoline. But gasoline prices may rise anyway because the river is threatening to disrupt oil barges, pipelines and refineries. It’s unfair to cut subsidies for big oil companies when other companies and industries get taxpayer support. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-UT, made this statement when oil company executives testified before Congress on May 12. The corollary is that if oil companies get tax breaks, so should all other companies and industries. The last time I checked, we can’t afford that. More seriously, Hatch’s point is valid within the oil industry. Current proposals would cut some subsidies for big oil companies, but not smaller oil producers. The equitable solution is to phase out all federal subsidies for oil, regardless of the size of the company producing it. Applied to the energy sector in general, however, Hatch’s point is bogus. The oil industry has been getting federal subsidies for nearly a century, far longer and in far greater amounts than alternative energy industries. Rational public policy would recognize there’s a big and legitimate difference between subsidizing mature and wealthy industries such as coal and oil, and subsidizing emerging industries that are critical to national security, such as solar and wind energy. Fossil energy subsidies are classic corporate welfare; renewable energy subsidies help these vital young industries get across the “valley of death” and into the marketplace. The American people don’t want shared sacrifice. They want shared prosperity. This interesting statement came from Chevron CEO John Watson at the same congressional hearing. If Watson really supported the idea of “shared prosperity,” he’d volunteer to give his company’s tax breaks back to the American people. Rather than reducing federal budget deficits, cutting oil subsidies will have the opposite effect. Jobs and investors will disappear and government tax revenues will fall. This argument has been raised by Jim Mulva, chief executive of ConocoPhillips, among others. It’s ludicrous to believe that cutting these few subsidies will drive investors away from oil. So long as there are profits to be made, oil companies will drill and investors will invest. In a world in which populations are growing, consumerism is surging and emerging economies are injecting oil like steroids, there are ample profits to be made. Eliminating a few subsidies won’t change that. Cutting these subsidies is a tax increase for Big Oil. The “tax increase” argument is an all-purpose fear phrase routinely rolled out by fiscal conservatives and corporations. It’s not clear to me that eliminating a tax break qualifies as a tax increase, strictly speaking. Yes, removing subsidies would result in big oil companies paying higher taxes, assuming their accountants don’t find other ways to escape the obligation. But taking away subsidies merely results in oil companies paying what they should pay without favored treatment. Look at it this way: Big Oil is subsidized not only by access to public lands, low royalty fees and special breaks in the federal tax code. It also is subsidized every day by every one of us who pays taxes, buys gasoline or purchases a petroleum-based product. Our tax dollars pay the enormous costs of protecting overseas oil supplies and shipping lanes. The gas taxes we pay at the pump help build and maintain the highways that promote the use and sale of oil. More than 154 million Americans live in places where coal plants and petroleum-powered vehicles contribute to pollution that makes the air too dangerous to breathe . Families bear the medical costs and lost wages associated with that pollution. It’s difficult to feel bad about the taxes paid by Big Oil. Oil subsidy reform is election-year silliness and political posturing by Obama and reform advocates on the Hill. Ken Cohen, the vice-president of public and government affairs at Exxon, told the Financial Times the subsidy debate is merely “the kickoff for the 2012 presidential campaign and congressional elections.” So what? The 2012 election cycle is an excellent time for presidential and congressional candidates to differentiate themselves on national energy policy. Our oil addiction is one of the biggest national, environmental and economic security issues of our time. We need an electoral intervention. Cutting subsidies by $21 billion over 10 years will make little difference in reducing the federal deficit. That’s true. As of May 12, the national debt was more than $14 trillion — the largest in the world, about $46,000 for every citizen. But we have to start somewhere. To paraphrase the late Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen, “Twenty billion here, twenty billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.” The oil subsidy debate has greater significance than $21 billion, however. It is a litmus test of conservative sincerity about reducing the federal deficit — a test the Tea Party should watch closely. So far, the spending cuts proposed in the Republican-controlled House have been driven by naked ideology, using deficit reduction as an opportunity to attack environmental regulations, climate science and government services for the poor and middle class. In the words of ExxonMobil, the votes have been pure political theater. Last February, shortly after he became Speaker of the House, John Boehner said this : “It is immoral to bind our children to as leeching and destructive a force as debt. It is immoral to rob our children’s future and make them beholden to China. No society is worthy that treats its children so shabbily.” With that level of moral conviction, it should be a no-brainer for Republicans to vote in favor of eliminating oil subsidies. If conservatives are not willing to harvest this low-hanging fruit, it’s doubtful they’ll make the far tougher choices that meaningful deficit reduction will require. Congress should take up oil subsidy reform another time, as part of overhauling the nation’s tax system. There’s no reason to wait on reforming such an obvious and equitable target for deficit reduction. And there’s no reason to believe that a Congress so deadlocked by partisanship and its own rules will succeed at reforming the tax code anytime soon. This isn’t the first time we’ve had this debate. In the past decade alone, oil executives were called before Congress to justify excessive profits in November 2005 when oil cost $60 a barrel; again six months later when a barrel of oil cost $75; again in April 2008 when oil hit $100 a barrel; and again this week, with crude back in the $100 range. For the past 40 years of oil crises, oil wars and oil-induced recessions, it has been Groundhog Day on Capitol Hill. The questions reform-minded members of Congress asked oil executives over the years remain relevant and unresolved today: Why should oil companies get tax breaks when their profits are so high and consumers are so broke? Why isn’t Big Oil investing more of its profits to develop the alternative energy resources that would keep the industry and the nation secure in the long-term? If it were up to me, all fossil energy subsidies would be shifted to a rapid buildup of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies in the United States. But if deficit reduction provides the only sufficient leverage for subsidy reform, so be it. However we use the revenues, we should resolve the indefensible perversities of national energy policy once and for all, starting with the elimination of federal subsidies for Big Oil.

Read the full article →

Sen. Carl Levin: Time to Fight Conflicts of Interest on Wall Street

May 11, 2011

Something strange has happened to our financial system over the past years. We have always prided ourselves on having well-supervised financial markets and sophisticated financial institutions. Yet despite the preeminent role of the U.S. financial and capital markets, we have in recent years seen a significant and worrisome increase in conflicts of interests in the world of financial intermediaries and advisers, when their own economic interests and benefits increasingly clash with those of their clients, whose interests the intermediaries and advisers are paid handsomely to represent. Unfortunately, we have allowed these conflicts of interest to compromise the integrity of these very markets and to contaminate so many of the commercial relationships that form the core of our financial system — to the point that many parties and participants in these markets have come to accept a financial universe riddled with conflicts of interest as business as usual. To those who believe that financial markets can only survive and prosper in transparent, ethical and fair conditions, the pervasiveness of conflicts of interest indicates a serious and potentially fatal flaw in our economy. It is high time for us to address and correct this serious problem in the interest of reestablishing thriving financial markets that serve the legitimate capital raising and investment needs of its participants. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair and of which Senator Tom Coburn is the ranking Republican, spent over two years investigating the factors and causes that have contributed to our financial crisis and recently released a 639-page bipartisan report (available at levin.senate.gov ). In the course of four hearings and the review of countless documents and pieces of correspondence, we uncovered stunning evidence of rampant and blatant conflicts of interest. Time and again, we learned how financial professionals who were supposed to look out for their clients’ interests violated those very interests and instead chose to enrich themselves. Some of the structures we exposed were as impressive in their complexity as they were repulsive in their breach of the clients’ trust. There are countless examples, such as investment vehicles set up to contain highly dubious assets sold with aggressive sales tactics to clients, while the financial institution that selected the poor assets made huge profits by secretly betting against these very assets with short positions. In one case, a $2 billion security called Hudson was marketed by Goldman Sachs to clients with promotional materials representing that the firm’s interest was aligned with the security, when in fact Goldman had secretly held the short position, which resulted in Goldman enriching itself at its clients’ expense when the security tanked. When questioned about the obvious conflicts of interest, evidenced further by internal correspondence within the financial institutions describing the assets as worthless, financial industry representatives regularly claim that their clients are sophisticated investors and assume risks with open or semi-open eyes. This industry-wide retort to accusations of obviously bad and disloyal behavior is very troublesome. It seeks to establish that conflicts of interest are a necessary byproduct of complex financial transactions and that they can always be cured by means of disclosure to the client in the form of so-called risk factors or investment considerations, which most often tend to be grossly inadequate, vague, out of context and meaningless. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act finally puts to rest the myth of conflicts of interest as perhaps an unfortunate but nevertheless unavoidable part of our financial system, and gives a forceful mandate to our regulators to use their broad powers in order to clean the Augean stables that our financial and capital markets have become. In clear provisions, the law tackles these disgraceful practices that jeopardize our markets’ integrity and long-term viability. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and I successfully argued for explicit provisions in Dodd-Frank prohibiting conflicts of interest and granting necessary powers to the regulators to implement the prohibitions. Together with other Senate colleagues, we were determined to send a clear signal that this gross violation of ethical standards and this colossal betrayal of clients’ trust is intolerable. Conflicts of interest are at the very core of abusive and fraudulent practices that are dangerous to effective and high-performing markets. Many existing prohibitions of dishonest or manipulative acts in the financial and capital markets are based on the same need to prevent and sanction unethical behavior. The Dodd-Frank Act has finally taken a major legislative step in addressing these appalling practices with the urgency they deserve. The financial crisis has shattered the financial security of countless Americans, many of whom have tragically lost their life savings and are facing desperate fears and anxieties about their economic survival and their children’s future. We all witnessed what happens when financial institutions entrusted with maintaining the safety and soundness of the markets fall short in their commercial and ethical duties, and we all received painful reminders that some people with the opportunity to enrich themselves will behave badly when they are not regulated and supervised. Putting an end to this supervisory and regulatory vacuum, and making an unequivocal commitment to go after conflicts of interest, is not regulatory overreaching, as some have claimed. It is a critical and long overdue step toward economic healing and healthy financial markets. The cops on the Wall Street beat must take the mandate we gave them in the Dodd-Frank Act seriously and implement it forcefully to end these conflicts of interest.

Read the full article →

Government Borrowing Goes On Under GOP, Obama Plans

May 2, 2011

WASHINGTON — It’s all but impossible to glean from the political rhetoric, but government borrowing will grow by trillions of dollars over the next decade if the budget backed by House Republicans translates into law. And by a few trillion more if President Barack Obama gets his way. Call it the unpleasant truth behind a political struggle over raising the debt limit that is expected to intensify as lawmakers return Monday from a two-week break. While polls show voters angry over the debt, and politicians support a goal of paying it down, the two principal deficit-reduction plans would merely restrain its growth for the next decade – the Republicans’ significantly more so than the president’s. To do otherwise, Congress “would have to enact policies that would produce a surplus,” with money left over to begin retiring debt, said Robert Bixby, executive director of the anti-deficit Concord Coalition. The last government surplus was in 2001. For one to occur in the future would require “Republican spending policies and Democratic tax policies,” Bixby said, referring to GOP calls for deep program cuts, and Obama’s support for higher taxes. “Right now the two parties haven’t been able to agree on those kinds of changes.” The increase in debt woven into their budgets is not a fact that Obama, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee, or any other official chooses to trumpet. The president and most lawmakers generally avoid saying directly that government debt will rise if their budget prevails – although they are careful not to claim it won’t, either. Instead, they use similar, vaguely reassuring terms. “We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt,” Obama said last month as he called for $4 trillion in deficit reductions over the next dozen years. Unlike the Republicans, he favors about $1 trillion in tax increases, in addition to allowing Bush-era tax cuts on upper-income households to expire. Administration officials say they have no estimates of the impact the president’s new proposals would have on the future size of the government’s debt, which now stands at nearly $14.3 trillion. The president’s original budget for 2012, unveiled last winter, would leave debt at $27.6 trillion at the end of the decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The administration itself put the figure at $26.3 trillion. “The House Republicans’ budget reduces government spending by $6.2 trillion over the next decade and puts the budget on a path to balance in the years ahead,” Ryan wrote on the panel’s website, a theme that is similar to the one Obama struck. Congressional Budget Office figures, however, show that if Ryan’s plan were put into law, there still would be new borrowing each year and government’s debt would total $23.1 trillion at the end of 2021. The House Republicans’ plan relies on repealing the year-old health care law, as well as deep cuts in Medicaid and domestic programs. Its most controversial provision, phasing out Medicare as it now exists, would not begin for 10 years and has no impact on debt in the current decade. The GOP plan would generate about $4 trillion less debt than Obama’s budget envisions over the decade. Republicans point out that unlike Obama’s plan, theirs would quickly begin shrinking the debt as a percentage of the overall economy. Even so, debt would rise by nearly $9 trillion in 10 years. The administration has asked Congress to approve borrowing beyond the current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. In exchange, Republicans want the White House and Democrats to agree to a series of measures to cut spending in the near term and make sure it stays under control in the future. They sometimes suggest that their approach would put an end to borrowing. “While America cannot default on its debt, we also cannot continue to borrow recklessly, dig ourselves deeper into this hole and mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren,” House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio said last winter on the day Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner notified lawmakers the limit on borrowing would have to be raised. More recently, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a member of the GOP leadership, said Obama “is going to have to start the process of cutting up the credit cards, pure and simple.” Voter anger over government spending and rising debt helped generate tea party enthusiasm for Republicans and propel them to control of the House in the 2010 elections. An AP-GfK poll taken last month showed continuing concern. Among Republicans, 95 percent said they were very or somewhat worried that the increasing federal debt would harm the financial future of their children or grandchildren. Among independents, 82 percent agreed, and among Democrats, 79 percent. Yet polls also show the public is less willing to support changes in Medicare, spending cuts and certain tax increases that have been proposed to stop the debt from growing. Two plans have been advanced that project a surplus in less than a decade, one by the conservative Republican Study Committee in the House, and the other by first-term Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. The RSC proposal projects a $50 billion surplus in 2020, while Paul’s shows red ink disappearing even more quickly, in 2016. Both rely on highly controversial spending cuts to meet their targets and have drawn relatively little political support. In the House, the RSC plan split Republicans down the middle, with 119 GOP members voting in favor and 120 against. In addition to cuts of domestic and defense programs, it recommends gradually raising the age of eligibility for Medicare to 67 for those born in 1952 or later. Paul’s blueprint has not yet come to a vote in the Senate, but it has less than a handful of supporters. Among other recommendations, it calls for abolishing the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development.

Read the full article →

Dean Baker: Why Does Senator McCaskill Want to Bankrupt Our Children?

May 2, 2011

That is what people should be asking Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill along with her fellow senators who are advocated strict caps on government spending. The idea being pushed by Senator McCaskill, together with Tennessee Senator Bob Corker and several other prominent senators, would limit federal spending to 20.6 percent of GDP. It would require difficult to obtain super-majorities to exceed this cap. Spending would be cut across a variety of programs if the cap is not reached. This proposal is hugely deserving of ridicule for a variety of reasons. First, it operates from a blatantly wrong premise – that government spending has grown out of control. Those familiar with arithmetic know that government spending had increased by little as a share of GDP prior to the downturn caused by the collapse of the housing bubble. In 2007, the last year before the onset of the recession, spending as a share of GDP was 19.6 percent. That is 1.1 percentage points less than the 20.7 percent share 30 years earlier in 1977. So the idea that there is a long-term trend of out of control spending is simply not true, or what they call outside of Washington, a “lie.” Spending has risen in the wake of the downturn, but this was not due to a flood of new and expensive government programs. It was overwhelmingly attributable to the expansion of safety net programs like unemployment compensation and Food Stamps and a decline in GDP, which raises the spending-to-GDP ratio even when spending remains constant. If McCaskill and the other senators are upset about this recent rise in spending then they should be going after the incompetents at the Fed and Treasury who somehow could not recognize the $8 trillion housing bubble whose collapse wrecked the economy. This was indeed a horrendous mistake that has been devastating to the country, but it has nothing to do with government spending. Over the long term government spending is projected to rise, but this also has nothing to do with the profligacy of Congress. There are two reasons for the projected increases in spending. The first is an aging population. As a result federal programs that provide for elderly like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will cost more money. The second reason is that health care costs are still rising out control. The United States already pays more than twice as much per person for health care as other wealthy countries. This disparity is projected to grow even larger in coming decades. If this proves true then it will both impose enormous costs on the private sector and lead to growing strains on the budget. By contrast, if health care costs were brought under control we would be looking at huge budget surpluses in the decades ahead. Of course controlling costs would mean confronting the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and other powerful lobbies. Unfortunately Senator McCaskill and her colleagues lack the courage to confront such powerful elites. In fact, McCaskill and her colleagues do not even have the courage to propose cuts for specific programs. Does McCaskill wants to cut Medicare, Social Security, Head Start, unemployment insurance? She won’t tell her constituents or the country. She just wants to cut generic spending. This one might sell well with the Wall Street crew, but it is incredibly bad policy. First off, any budget expert can quickly devise 100 ways to game spending caps, the most obvious being tax expenditures, where the government gives a tax break for items it wants to subsidize. This does not count as spending. More importantly, a strict limit on government spending that is binding would prove enormously costly because there are some things that the government does more efficiently than the private sector. Providing Medicare to retirees is one of the items in this category, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). CBO’s analysis of Representative Ryan’s plan for privatizing Medicare showed that having private insurers take over the Medicare program would add more than $34 trillion to its costs over its 75-year planning period, an amount that is almost seven times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall. CBO’s analysis implies that the Ryan plan, which was approved by the Republican House last month, would increase the cost of paying for retirement health care for someone turning 65 in 2022 (the first year the plan takes effect) by almost $170,000. This doesn’t count the cost transferred from the government to beneficiaries. This is pure waste associated with using a more inefficient private system rather than the public system. There is a similar story with Social Security. The administrative costs of privatized systems like those in the United Kingdom or Chile are 20-30 times as high as the administrative costs of the Social Security system in the United States. This would cost a typical retiree close to $40,000 in higher fees (which is income to the financial industry) that would come directly out of their retirement income. If Senator McCaskill and her colleagues really expect their caps to be binding then they must want to privatize either Social Security or Medicare or both. Arithmetic leaves few other options. By 2030, CBO projects that spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would take up 14.5 percent of GDP. If we assume, conservatively, interest payments of 3.0 percent of GDP, this brings us to 17.5 percent of GDP against a proposed cap of 20.6 percent. Any reasonable level of spending on the military, education, infrastructure, the environment and research and development would push the country far over the cap. This would leave little choice except to privatize Social Security and/or Medicare imposing an enormous and unnecessary burden on our children and grandchildren. The higher costs associated with privatized programs will leave all but the wealthiest workers struggling in retirement. Of course, the senators who want to impose this enormous burden on our children and grandchildren will mostly be enjoying a comfortable retirement themselves by the time the effects of their policy are being felt. In the meantime, they will have enjoyed the praise of the Wall Street crew and the elite media for having the courage to destroy the programs that the middle class depends upon. Welcome to Washington.

Read the full article →

J&J CEO ‘Disappointing Recalls’ Won’t Slow Company Down

April 28, 2011

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. — Johnson & Johnson’s chief executive told shareholders at their annual meeting Thursday that the company will come back “stronger than ever” after addressing quality problems that resulted in an astounding string of product recalls. William Weldon, who became CEO in 2002, said the series of “disappointing recalls” troubled him and employees and meant thousands of parents could not get medicines they needed for their children. Since September 2009, the company has had about two dozen recalls of prescription and nonprescription medicines, replacement hips, contact lenses and diabetes test strips, including tens of millions of bottles of children’s and adult Tylenol and Motrin. Many of those nonprescription drugs were made at a liquid medicines factory in Fort Washington, Pa., that J&J closed a year ago, gutted and is rebuilding as a state-of-the-art factory. Shareholders saw photos of the plans and steel framework as work there continues, while Weldon tried to reassure them. “You would be right to ask if we made mistakes, and yes, we did,” Weldon said. “Our goal is to restore McNeil Consumer Health Care to the highest level of quality … thus restoring confidence in McNeil.” Weldon, 62, said J&J has inspected 120 plants around the world and invested millions to improve the quality of its manufacturing and satisfy federal regulators, who have three of its factories under scrutiny. J&J has shifted manufacturing of some products to other factories. Its biggest challenge may be winning back consumers as recalled products such as Tylenol and Motrin come back on the market this year and next. Roughly 1,300 shareholders – fewer than in recent years – packed into four different rooms at a hotel opposite J&J’s headquarters seemed satisfied with Weldon’s explanation of the recalls and what J&J has been doing to rectify the problems. The audience clapped repeatedly during his comments and lengthy presentations about the company’s financial results and innovative medicines and medical devices in development. After 2 1/4 hours of speeches, slideshows and testimonials about J&J products and health care programs, only six people in the audience asked questions or made comments. “When I look at what’s been happening at J&J over the last couple of years, I see a fundamental attack on the credo,” Tom Williamson told Weldon. He referred to J&J’s corporate pledge, displayed prominently at headquarters, that stresses responsibility to patients, doctors and nurses. “Your company tried to do a stealth recall of Motrin,” he added. Congress has been investigating that 2008 incident, in which J&J paid a third company to quietly buy up faulty Motrin packets, rather than issuing a recall. But another shareholder, Kathleen Bennett, told Weldon she appreciates his efforts to fix the recall-related problems. “I say, Mr. Bill Weldon, well done,” she said, drawing loud applause. Shareholders also sided with the company on the three shareholder proposals on the agenda, voting them all down by 95 percent or more. One, by the Sisters of Charity of Saint Elizabeth and other religious groups, would have restricted future prescription drug price increases sharply. Another would have expanded J&J’s employment nondiscrimination policy to include people with health problems, but J&J said its broad policy is sufficient. The third would have required ending use of animals in training surgeons to use J&J’s high-tech surgical tools; Weldon said J&J already tries to use alternatives when possible. That proposal was presented by Alka Chandna, a spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The group had four picketers outside the hotel protesting on the issue, two in big pink piggy suits because pigs are sometimes used in surgical training. A second group of three medical students picketed beside them, because J&J has not agreed to join an international “medicine patent pool” that would make it easier and cheaper for generic drugmakers to produce inexpensive HIV medicines for developing countries. Weldon opened the meeting by touting J&J’s biggest deal ever, reached the day before. J&J agreed to buy U.S.-Swiss medical device maker Synthes Inc. for $21.3 billion. The deal, which should close next year, would give J&J a much bigger share of the market for surgical trauma equipment and orthopedic implants. “It is consistent with our long-term strategy to strengthen our leadership position around the world,” Weldon said. “Our pipeline today is considered one of the best in the industry,” Weldon added. He also noted that J&J’s board had just decided to raise the quarterly dividend on company stock by 5.6 percent, from 54 cents to 57 cents per share. In afternoon trading, shares of the company fell 8 cents to $65.49.

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Bachmann/Ryan Overdrive: A High-Speed Escape From Economic Reality

April 14, 2011

Remember all those mini-movies that summarized a broad topic in two minutes? Whether the subject was the Civil War, the magical things that happen when you multiply by ten, or the complete history of Western Civilization, these little films covered it all in one rapid-fire shot after another, giving you a whole lot of information — and a splitting headache — in a very short period of time. The first couple minutes of this Michelle Bachmann Today show interview are like that. She runs through the entire litany of conservatism’s disproven economic cliches in 100 seconds or less. without even getting short of breath. If someone ever wants to make one of those two-minute movies and call it The Ideas That Crushed the American Dream , Rep. Bachmann’s already written the script. Fire it up and watch her go! We’ll sound the bell every time she floats a discredited idea. Ready? Raising taxes for the wealthy shouldn’t be “on the table,” says Bachmann, because “tax rates are high enough (ding!), and history shows (ding!) that when we raise taxes, particularly on job creators (ding!) we actually bring in less revenue (ding! ding! ding!) rather than more.” Forget what I said about two-minute movies. Michelle Bachmann could cover Western Civilization in ten seconds . I was on a talk radio show from St. Louis yesterday with a guy from the Heritage Foundation who used the same “history shows us” line. What history actually shows us is that we lost jobs after the Bush tax cuts, even before deregulation brought down the economy. History also shows us that our periods of greatest economic prosperity occurred when taxes were higher than they are now. The history of the Great Depression shows that it took a lot of government investment to get people working and the economy growing — and that this investment paid off handsomely. FDR listened to the Bachmannites of his time in the late 1930′s, and that’s when everything started falling apart again. So history shows us that we need government investment to reduce persistent unemployment. And “job creators”? Oh, please. Wall Street financiers have regained their pre-crash parasitical economic stranglehold, seizing nearly 40% of corporate profits. They’re getting rich by not creating jobs, and sometimes by destroying them through destructive hedging. Corporate profits are at historic highs and taxes for the wealthy are at historic lows, yet people in the real world are still taking the world’s longest unemployment gut-punch. Which raises the question: If these guys are “job creators,” where are the jobs ? “Do we want more revenue or more taxes?” Bachmann asks rhetorically. Because the two don’t go together.” As the young people say (picture a finger snap here): Oh no she didn’t! Did she cite the Laffer Curve ? Yes, she did. Michelle Bachmann just brought out the most discredited theory in modern economic history: the notion that people will stop making money if taxes are too high, so overall government income will fall and not rise. There’s only one thing that contradicts that theory: The economic history of every single nation on the planet. The Laffer curve argument goes like this: if you taxed everybody 100% of everything they earned, nobody would ever bother to make money. So it must be bad to increase taxes. That sort of reasoning cuts both ways: If you paid everybody zero for their work, nobody would bother working. But they never use that logic to fight for a higher minimum wage. Economists like the name “Laffer curve” because this theory is always good for a laugh. “You could actually confiscate (ding!) all the wealth that people make at $200,000 or more,” says Bachmann, “and that would only yield about six or seven months of revenue to run the government.” Hey, that’s half the whole cost of government! She’s selling the idea pretty well! Conservatives love that word “confiscate.” They’re the same ones who say they’d lay down their lives for their country. But pay four pennies on the dollar on six-figure income? Forget it. That’s dictatorship! Think of it: Our highest tax bracket under Dwight D. Eisenhower was 91% percent. He must be the greatest dictator of all time! This is the type of person who loves to sing along when they play that song about sacrificing everything for this country — you know the one . All the Democrats are proposing is a four-and-a-half percent increase on income over $250,000. “There ain’t no doubt I love this land” — but not enough to chip in for it. Here’s the song they should really be singing. Know what’s funny? Bachmann and her colleagues are the same people people who think we can’t afford to pay thirty million dollars per year to predict coastal storms and floods and plan for disasters. These floods create an average of $11 billion in damage every year , along with loss of life — and they think we can’t spare a few million to lower that cost and save some lives. Yet they’ll give away hundreds of billions in tax expenditures like it was peanut butter in a smoke-filled college dorm. For the Representative from Minnesota it’s “confiscate” this and “take 100 percent” of that… on and on and on… until all of the ridiculous rhetorical tricks that got us into this mess begin to flicker stroboscopically and the rational listener is in danger of having a seizure, like those cartoon-watching kids from a few years back. Bachmann goes on in this vein for what seems like forever, but which in reality is only four minutes or so. This alteration in subjective temporal experience is produced by something physicists call the “Mind Dilation Effect,” in which time appears to be moving more slowly as the flow of bullsh*t approaches the speed of light. We see every single conservative cliche simultaneously, as if … Well, almost all. She left out one of their favorites, the one that says “If you could go back in time one day for every dollar the government spends, you’d be face to face with Jesus.” Just as well. With all their cuts to life-saving health care and law enforcement programs, it looks like a lot of other people are gonna wind up face-to-face with Jesus too. “Already again,” she says later, “the top 1% of income earners pay about 40% of all taxes.” (That’s not the right number, because it leaves out other forms of taxes, but whatever.) Why do the top 1% pay a large share of taxes? Because the top 400 families in America are richer than the bottom fifty percent of the entire country! So of course they pay a big chunk of income tax, even after they’re coddled with tax breaks galore. Rep. Bachmann sure has a lot of talking points, but here’s an odd thing: When Matt Lauer asked about the CBO’s report on, which documents the devastating financial impact their Medicare cuts would have on seniors, suddenly she tells us she “hasn’t had a chance to look at the study.” “But it’s important for us to understand,” Bachmann continues, “that individualism (ding!) and personal responsibility (ding!) have always been a bedrock of this country.” When it comes to the whole “devastating financial impact” question, I’ll take that as a “yes.” There’s more, but you get the gist. Some people think she’s a little nuts, and they’ll even get a little personal by mentioning that Children of the Damned-ish glint in her eyes. Actually she’s very polished and effective here. Somebody’s been coaching her, both on presentation and on talking points. Still, her ideas are as radical and as detached from reality as ever. But as Dave Johnson points out, Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposed budget is too extreme even for her. And that’s how it is on the Right these days. You can always tell that a movement’s degenerating into extremism when the radicals start attacking each other. Think Stalin vs. Trotsky, or that big squabble among birthers a couple of years back. And don’t forget the Judean People’s Front vs. the People’s Front of Judaea. (“Splitters!”) Now we’re in Bachmann/Ryan Overdrive time. These Representatives and other members of the Right are in a high-speed race to see who can outbid the other to win the extreme vote. I’m not against radicalism — it’s can be a laboratory for new ideas — but they’ve seen that responsible members of the far Right like Ron Paul are suddenly at risk of being thrown over by the Tea Party. That means that the Ryans and Bachmanns are going to keep upping the ante as long as they can. It’s like the game of chicken in Rebel Without a Cause where neither driver will take his foot off the accelerator until somebody goes over the cliff. Hope it’s not us. Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars . __________________________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project and the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

J&J Recalls Epilepsy Pills

April 14, 2011

TRENTON, N.J. — Johnson & Johnson issued yet another recall Thursday, this one for about 57,000 bottles of a widely used epilepsy pill, due to complaints of a chemical odor. The health care giant said it is recalling two lots of 100-milligram tablets of Topamax, sold between Oct. 19 and Dec. 28, 2010. The lot numbers are OKG110 and OLG222. J&J said fewer than 6,000 of the bottles are believed to still be on the market. J&J said only that the pills were sold in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. The New Brunswick, N.J., company has now issued 22 product recalls, involving well over 300 million bottles of medicines, since September 2009. Many of the recalls involved widely used nonprescription drugs such as Motrin and Children’s Tylenol. The reasons have ranged from metal and other contaminants, to nauseating odors and packaging issues. Joint replacement systems so painful they required corrective surgery were also recalled, as were contact lenses that irritated eyes, along with potentially contaminated syringes full of the antipsychotic drug Invega. The high-profile lapses have tugged at J&J’s revenue, profit and stock price, as well as its once-stellar reputation. On Thursday, Johnson & Johnson said it had received four consumer complaints of an odor believed to be a chemical called TBA, or tribromoanisole, a byproduct of a chemical preservative sometimes used on shipping pallets. J&J said “a very small number of patients have reported temporary gastrointestinal symptoms,” but TBA is not considered toxic. The same issue was linked to some of its previous recalls. Lost revenue stemming from recalls and the lengthy closure of a plant in suburban Philadelphia reduced J&J’s 2010 sales by $900 million. In the fourth quarter, J&J posted a 12 percent profit decline and a 5.5 percent drop in sales. The latest bad news for J&J comes just five days before it is scheduled to release first-quarter results. In January, J&J forecast 2011 earnings per share of about $4.85, well below analysts’ expectation of $4.99 a share for 2011.

Read the full article →

Terry Newell: Race to the Bottom: How Low Expectations Are Hurting Us

April 14, 2011

If America is the land of opportunity and optimism, you could be forgiven for wondering where it went as you watch contemporary social and political affairs. From one area to another, we seem driven not by the soaring rhetoric of hope and promise but by the sinking call to lower our expectations. Education is a prime example. The drive for minimum standards of achievement, in recognition of the poor performance of American students matched against themselves and other nations, is a drive of diminished expectations where the phrase “race to the top” gets equated with an educated person. There is no question that these minimum standards are crucial to meet, but what do they say about the importance of exceeding them or the enjoyment of art, poetry, music and literature — as ends in themselves apart from a score on a test — in forming an educated person and a good society? When we define success in education as a passing score, we act as if everything that counts can be counted. Education is not the only field in which minimum standards seems to have replaced the call for American greatness. We have bottom-oriented thinking in mileage standards for cars, in acceptable levels of pollutants in power-plant emissions and other industrial operations and in permissible levels of chemicals in food and drugs. We have minimal requirements of disclosure, transparency and integrity for financial institutions in instruments from home loans to credit cards. While such standards play a useful role in protecting public health and consumer finances, they also signal that anything you can get by with while still meeting this floor is not only acceptable but damn creative. Where is the invitation to excellence? In many of our social relations, we seem to have reached the point where legality is the sole measure of acceptability. Rather than ask how we should behave, we settle for figuring out how we have to behave. If it’s legal, it must be OK. Said another way, you can’t stop me unless you can prove I broke the law. While this has created a boom economy for lawyers, it does not do much to build the moral character on which good societies rest. It is a year after the BP oil spill and we have yet to figure out if anyone at BP can be charged with breaking the law, and meanwhile we watch Transocean claim that 2010 was its best year for safety. How do we signal to them both that there is a higher standard by which we judge them — and by which they should judge themselves? In politics, the race to the bottom is driven by nastiness and the desire to take away anything people don’t have the power to keep. Admittedly, state and federal debts have to be reduced, but must the path to doing so be strewn with vitriolic words and the assumption that the social safety net is the primary place to cut? When we charge public employees with being the “haves” and the rest of the middle class with being the “have-nots,” we are in headlong battle with ourselves that looks down the economic ladder for solutions. It’s as if we’ll be happy when everyone else is as miserable as we are, rather than viewing our relationships as a way to lift each other up. Indeed, we seem to have almost given up hope in raising everyone, a hope that has sustained us for generations. My wife told me once that, as a child, she would tend to look down as she walked on the street. Her mother, a woman whose early childhood photograph is a poster for optimism and who met life more than half-way and expected the best from her children, used to tell her, “Look up; that’s where God is.” Not a terribly religious woman, I think what my mother-in-law meant was that we realize the best that is in us and others when we aspire to the possibilities in the world rather than shrinking from them and limiting our view. After all, if you want to see the sun, you have to look up. Looking down is sure to show you only the shadows. America could do itself a big favor if — whether in education, commerce, politics or social relationships — it looked up instead of joining the current race to the bottom.

Read the full article →

WATCH: Boehner Discusses Budget Deal, Says GOP Won’t ‘Roll Over’ On Debt

April 11, 2011

House Speaker John Boehner spoke about a budget deal struck between Democratic and Republican leaders late last Friday to avert a government shutdown during an appearance on Fox News on Monday. In the exclusive interview , Boehner defended the spending agreement, which left some conservative lawmakers less than pleased , and offered a glimpse into budget negotiations that unfolded behind-the-scenes. Asked to discuss a reportedly tense moment when Vice President Joe Biden lost his temper with the Speaker, Boehner described the heated outburst as “feigned moral outrage.” He said, however, that the behavior was “out of character” for the vice president and afterwards they “just moved on” from the incident. As for President Barack Obama, he said that while they “certainly haven’t always agreed” when it comes to policy issues, they “understand each other better” and were “honest” and “straight up” with one another over the course of the budget negotiations. In the interview, Boehner also addressed the prospect of raising the debt ceiling, an issue expected to take center stage in a looming and potentially more intense fiscal showdown. “I think not raising the debt limit would have serious, very serious implications for the world-wide economy and jobs here in America,” he said, adding, “But having said that, we’re just not going to do the typical Washington thing, roll over, increase the debt limit with addressing the underlying problem.” Boehner said that the government “needs to listen” to the fiscally conservative message of the Tea Party when it comes to tackling the economic issue. CBS News reported on Sunday: President Obama, who is advocating to raise the level at which the U.S. government is legally permitted to borrow, so as not to cause a default on payments, has said he wants to see a “clean” bill on the matter – one without attachments. The leading Republicans in the House says no way. On Saturday night House Speaker John Boehner declared, “The president says, ‘I want you to send me a clean bill.’ Guess what, Mr. President. Not a chance you’re going to get a clean bill.” While speaking on Fox News, however, Boehner did say, “We do not want to default on our debt and we should not default on our debt.” In an op-ed published by USA Today on Monday, Bohner said the budget deal last week “is far from perfect” and there’s much more to be done to rehabilitate the economy. “More of the same spending, taxing and borrowing will not make our economy stronger or our future brighter,” he wrote. “This is why the spending cut agreement is important. While not nearly enough, these cuts represent a first step in taking our nation off the path to national bankruptcy, to giving employers the confidence they need to expand their businesses, and to sparing our children of lives indebted to foreign countries such as China.” WATCH: Part One WATCH: Part Two

Read the full article →

Nelson Davis: A Boy’s First Business

April 9, 2011

If there is or was a favorite “first business” in America for the past one hundred years, it is probably delivering daily newspapers as a newsboy. Now, that business has shifted from eager youngsters on bicycles to less enthused adults in pickup trucks. I think that’s too bad. Every young person should have the benefit of learning what is involved in the business basics of buying, selling and working with customers. Even people whose work area is a cubicle in corporate America would be better off having these skills at their disposal. In reality, each of us is a chief marketing officer and a self-sales manager. Think of the many times while watching old movies that we’ve seen a newsboy working an urban street corner shouting the latest headlines to attract attention for his product. “Extra! Extra! Read all about it,” was a shout heard on the streets of Manhattan from the early nineteenth century onward. That was an inspiration for me when I first took on a newspaper route at age 12 to deliver the Sunday edition of the Buffalo Evening News while growing up in Niagara Falls, New York. Finding that I liked making my own weekly allowance money, a business expansion for me was switching to daily delivery duties for the Niagara Falls Gazette which meant a larger potential income. It was a real business because I had to purchase the papers for x, sell for y and deal with an interesting variety of customer personalities. Whatever was left over was the profit. If customers were late paying, or didn’t come up with the $.75 per week, the effect on my pocketbook was immediate. But I was proud to walk the grounds of the Center Court public housing project carrying the Gazette in twin canvas bags. An older sister taught me how to run a simple balance sheet and my mother gave me a Sanborn Coffee can to hold my funds. I remember proudly wearing a change making machine on my belt to keep the coins organized on collection days! With the world of physical newspapers shrinking faster than publishers would like, the ranks of paperboys and girls is trending downward as well. In 1990 which doesn’t seem like very long ago, about 70% of the newspapers were delivered by youngsters. By 2008 that number had tumbled to 13%. This happened because in the name of efficiency newspaper distribution systems adopted bigger bundles to cover wider areas. All of this requires people who are old enough to drive and who own a vehicle. Enter the era of the adult newsboy or woman. Also, I expect that the mindset of boys and girls between 11 and 16 years of age has changed. A lot of them would prefer to work their parents for the money rather than working a business or job to get spending cash. Another factor is that in too many of our country’s urban areas parents and kids are beset by the fear of walking anywhere. It was only recently that I heard the phrase “Stranger Danger” which is insidiously infecting our society. I know that many successful men and some women trace their success habits back to lessons learned on a newspaper route. Smokey Robinson the famous singer-songwriter tells a story of how his earnings as a newsboy were used to purchase the notebooks he used to write his songs. I’m told that Walt Disney, H. Ross Perot, Tom Brokaw, Wayne Gretzky, Jackie Robinson, John Wayne and Martin Luther King all delivered newspapers in their younger years. Thomas Edison was hustling papers at age 12 and Warren Buffett sold copies of the Washington Post . Maybe that’s why he tried to purchase the company later! In our society, we mark the growth of our children by their first steps, first bicycle or roller skates. Whether it’s a newspaper route, lemonade stand, or computer repair service, they should also get a chance to operate a first business, even if there’s no immediate profit. They’ll absorb lessons as valuable as those any educator could give them. I’d bet that Mark Zuckerberg’s parents are immensely proud that he had a first business!

Read the full article →

Jason Alderman: Smart Uses for Your Tax Refund

April 8, 2011

Each spring, millions of Americans look forward to receiving a hefty income tax refund. And it truly is “hefty” with the average federal refund in 2010 hovering around $3,000. That’s a lot of money to be giving the government through what is essentially a year-long, interest-free loan. If you regularly receive large tax refunds, you’re probably having too much tax withheld from your paycheck. Instead, you might want to withhold less and put the money to work for you, by either saving or investing a comparable amount each month, or using it to pay down debt. Your goal should be to receive little or no refund at the end of the year. Ask your employer for a new W-4 form and recalculate your withholding allowance using the IRS’ Withholding Calculator . This is also a good idea whenever your pay or family situation changes significantly (e.g., pay increase, marriage, divorce, new child, etc.) Just be careful, because if too little is deducted, you might end up owing more tax next April, and possibly even interest or penalty fees. IRS Publication 919 can help guide you through the decision-making process. Some people received larger-than-normal tax refunds in 2009 and 2010 thanks to the Making Work Pay credit, which expired December 31, 2010. In its place, most taxpayers will see a 2 percent reduction in the amount being withheld for Social Security in 2011 paychecks as part of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. Another change this year was a U.S. Department of Treasury pilot program that offered 600,000 randomly selected low- and moderate-income families an opportunity to have their tax refunds direct- deposited into a MyAccountCard Prepaid Debit Card offered by my employer, Visa and issued through Bonneville Bank. The pilot explored ways to save the government money (a direct deposit costs 1/10th as much to process as a paper check) as well as to give people with no bank account easier and more cost-effective access to their tax refunds. If you will be receiving a large refund this year, here are ways to put it to good use: Pay down debt. By increasing your payment amount on outstanding loan or credit card balances you can significantly lower the total amount of interest paid. Say you’re paying $80 a month on a $2,000 credit card balance at 18 percent interest. By doubling your payment to $160, you’ll reduce the payoff time from 32 months to 14, and shave $295 off the total amount of interest paid. In effect, you’d be getting the equivalent of an 18 percent return on your money. Start an emergency fund . To protect your family against the impact of a layoff or other unexpected financial crisis (such as a medical emergency, car accident or theft), set aside enough cash to cover at least six months of living expenses. Save for retirement. If your debt and emergency savings are under control, add to your IRA or 401(k) accounts, particularly if your employer matches contributions; remember, a 50 percent match corresponds to a 50 percent rate of return. Invest in yourself. Enroll in college courses or vocational training to ensure you have additional skills to fall back on should you lose your job or want to change careers. And ask whether your employer will help pay for job-related education. Invest in your family’s future . Another good use for your refund is to set up a 529 Qualified State Tuition Plan or a Coverdell Education Savings Account to fund your children’s or grandchildren’s education — all while ensuring your contributions will grow tax-free until withdrawn. Visit the websites of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Introduction to 529 Plans and the IRS’s Tax Topic 310 – Coverdell Education Savings Accounts for information. Spend money to save money. If you’ve got older appliances such as refrigerators, washer/dryers or dishwashers, consider replacing them with energy-efficient models that will pay for themselves through lower utility bills. The government’s Energy Star website can help you find Energy Star products. And finally, if you want to check on the status of your refund, go to the IRS’s Where’s My Refund site. You can usually get information about your refund 72 hours after the IRS acknowledges receipt of your e-filed return or three to four weeks if you filed a paper return. This article is intended to provide general information and should not be considered legal, tax or financial advice. It’s always a good idea to consult a legal, tax or financial advisor for specific information on how certain laws apply to you and about your individual financial situation. Follow Jason Alderman on Twitter: http://twitter.com/PracticalMoney

Read the full article →

Max Fraad Wolff: Suffer the Young

April 8, 2011

Two years into the official recovery, some things about the great recession are well known. Many other vital facts and contours are only beginning to emerge. A very distressing, on-going feature of the downturn is the disproportional havoc it is wreaking on the young. You have heard the last few years called a mancession. The disproportionate impact on male workers from declines in construction and manufacturing are well known. Less well known is that this recession continues to debilitate younger Americans disproportionally. America’s future continues to struggle. People under 35 years old are not getting the new jobs we create. Employment, home ownership, and wage increases are bypassing younger Americans. As state and local budgets are cut, education and services for the young are contracting especially sharply. Teachers and education workers are being let go. Head Start, supplemental nutrition programs and educational grants are being cut. Thus, we are likely to see younger Americans risk falling behind past generations and competitors in other nations. Real solutions will require us to get serious about the economic conditions of young people and stop simply evoking concern as an applause line. Home ownership among young Americans has contracted by a jaw dropping 10% over the last few years. The US Census tells us that home ownership rates among those under 35 have fallen from 43% in 2005 to 39% at the end of 2010. These rates continue to fall as this goes to press. Tighter credit standards, weak labor markets and rising down payment requirements all contribute. Younger households continue to be hard hit by foreclosure. Fewer young people can afford homes and losses of homes continue. Young families and couples have are missing the earnings, savings and credit scores required to form households and buy homes. This is also a contributor to the continued weakness in housing markets. Figure 1. Source US Census Housing Vacancies and Home Ownership (CPS/HPS) The younger you are in America the more likely you are to be poor. This has long been true, but has become pronounced across the great recession. In the years 2008 and 2009 we saw large increases in poverty nationally and particularly for the young. In 2008 14million Americans under 18, 19%, lived in poverty. By the close of 2009 we had 15.5million Americans under 18 living in poverty, 21%. Since the recession began, people under 18 years old have poverty rates 45% higher than the general US population. 6.3% lived of all Americans lived on less than 50% of the US poverty income level in 2009. 10.4% of Americans 18-24 lived on less than half of US poverty income in 2009. Poverty and severe poverty are concentrated among younger Americans. There is little doubt that youth centric poverty increase is continuing. We will have to wait for government data to update these statistics. We already know to be alarmed as we see federal, state and local officials targeting the young for massive cuts during rounds of budget balancing. Figure 2 US Census Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) 2010 Younger workers earn less, get less valuable benefits and tend to have fewer job protections. 25-34 year old Americans earned 80cents on the dollar for 55-64 year olds in 2009. Younger workers are paid lower wages at or above the same rate that we are used to seeing displayed for women workers, as against male workers. Clearly there are experience and productivity issues across age lines. There also seems to be a growing problem of poverty and limited upward mobility among younger Americans. Younger people have experienced higher unemployment rates over the last decade. This has become more pronounced during the recent recession. People need to be and should be working during their prime productive years, 24-35. Figure 3. BLS Data for Unadjusted Unemployment Rate. All Values for March 2001-2011 Across the last decade and particularly across the last few years, we are seeing labor force participation rates increasing for older workers and falling for younger workers. This is unusual and has received very little attention. Some of these shifts are explained by people going back to school during weak labor market periods. This does not explain the entire change or the longer term trend. Figure 4 below looks at the falling labor force participation rate among 20-35 year olds and rising labor force participation among those over 55. We are seeing higher unemployment and lower labor market participation among the young who are the poorest group by age. Needless to say, this is a disturbing trend and requires significant attention. Figure 4. BLS Data Unadjusted Labor Force Participation Rates by Age Increasingly difficult conditions for younger Americans should be of paramount concern. This is especially true as we enter into an election super-cycle defined by budget cut proposals. Younger Americans tend to receive less focus and more than their fair share of cuts. Lower voter registration and turn out, as well as less organization among younger people contributes to suggestions that the young shoulder too much of the burden from cutting. This is bad for America and terrible for our future. Over the last few months we have seen this as many thousands of local teachers and education workers are dismissed each month. 32,000 local education workers and 5000 state education workers have been dismissed since February 2011. Younger teachers are the most likely to be let go and our youth is left in under staffed class rooms attended by teachers struggling under political attack, declining conditions and benefits. I don’t think the realities sketched in the charts and observations above are consistent with staying competitive in the global economy. Amid loud calls to save our children and grandchildren from excessive debt– a worthy goal — we seem to be saving them from the ravages of education, employment, health care, affluence and opportunity. This is no way to win the future.

Read the full article →

William Lucy: Eerie Echoes of a Long-ago Battle

April 8, 2011

Forty-three years ago this week Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee where he’d gone to stand with a beleaguered band of city sanitation workers who had been out on strike for nearly two months. Those workers were part of my union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). They were a small local, made up entirely of African-Americans, in a region of the country that had demonstrated scant good will toward labor unions and even less towards black men seeking to better their lives. I was with Dr. King during his time in Memphis. Today the struggle of union members in Wisconsin and elsewhere stirs my memories of that time. In 1968 I was on AFSCME’s national staff and had been sent to Memphis to aid the strikers. Decades have passed, yet that initial impression stays so fresh and strong in my mind. Men, weary and worn-down by back-breaking labor, looked down upon as “garbage men”, dark-skinned and old beyond their years. Yet there they were, day after day, walking the picket lines with their heads — and signs — held high. Their message still echoes down the years: “I am a man.” They were paid little more than the minimum wage, and not paid at all if it rained and garbage couldn’t be collected. Their work was often dangerous, lacking even minimal safety protections. In fact, it was the deaths of two workers chewed up in the trash machinery that helped to spark their walkout. They sought better pay and fairer treatment, but most fundamentally, they were striking for recognition of their right to have a union. The politicians attacked them relentlessly, claiming they just didn’t want to do their jobs. The mayor was willing to pay them a little more money, but flat-out refused to recognize their right to form a union that would allow them to bargain from a position of strength, not beg for crumbs from a position of weakness. I saw in these men something noble in their bearing — at once humble and dignified — and something ennobling in their steadfast insistence on being treated with respect. I believe Dr. King saw it as well. He came to Memphis without hesitation or question because he knew with utter clarity that the sanitation workers’ struggle for labor rights was an essential aspect of the struggle for human rights to which he had devoted his life. It was there, finally, that he gave his life to the struggle. After his death, the strike was soon settled and the sanitation workers won their right to have a union. In the ensuing years, that right brought them improved pay and working conditions, but more profoundly it brought them the dignity and respect that are at the core of our democracy. Dr. King is always in my thoughts on this sad anniversary, but never more so than this year, with its eerie echoes of that long-ago battle for fundamental collective bargaining rights on the streets of Memphis. Today we find ourselves once again facing politicians who are fiercely determined, no matter what the cost to the public good, to deny workers a voice on the job. In 2011, sanitation workers and nearly every other public employee in the states of Wisconsin and Ohio find themselves denied their right to collective bargaining just as their brethren in Tennessee were in 1968. Today it has once again become acceptable for politicians to belittle public employees and the important, often demanding, jobs they perform. We rely on these men and women when a fire breaks out, when the snow piles up, when disaster strikes. We entrust them with the care of our children, the health of our communities, and the safety of our streets. I believe they deserve our appreciation, not vilification. That’s why working people throughout the country are rallying this week, under the banner “We Are One,” at more than 1,000 events all across the nation. They are standing up to defend their rights and to defy the raw power grab by the corporate elite that is behind the assault on those rights. Like thousands of Illinoisans who have marked the anniversary in their own communities, I will be traveling to Chicago on Saturday for a culminating statewide rally. When I rise to speak to those assembled — those who work in the public or the private sector, union members and union supporters, all of them joined together by the conviction that animated Dr. King nearly half a century ago — I will recall those sanitation workers in Memphis. And I will know, deep in my heart, that once again we shall overcome.

Read the full article →

Government Shutdown Could Hit Federal Workers In Wallet

April 8, 2011

WASHINGTON — Last time there was a government shutdown, furloughed federal workers were able to recover their lost pay. They may not be so lucky this time. Congress would have to decide whether an estimated 800,000 government employees could recoup back wages if they are forced to stay out of work. When workers were sidelined during the most recent partial shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, Congress quickly voted to make them whole. But that was during flush economic times and before tea party conservatives wielded influence over GOP lawmakers, seeking smaller government and deeper spending cuts. “It was a very different economic time back then, and a very different Congress,” said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. “I think there is such a vocalized hostility by too many in Congress today against the federal work force and federal agencies.” That warning was echoed by Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., who predicts it’s “highly unlikely” government workers would be reimbursed by Congress this time. “There are going to be disruptions to our economy all the way down the line,” said Moran, whose suburban Washington district includes thousands of federal employees. At least one House Republican dismissed those fears. Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., said he has no interest in penalizing federal workers and would vote to reimburse lost pay. “In my opinion, federal workers, their children and families, should not suffer because (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid and President Barack Obama think a shutdown is good politics,” said Ross, who considers himself a tea party Republican. A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, did not respond to a request for comment. The disparate effects of a shutdown, depending on where government workers are employed, have drawn criticism. By law, Obama and lawmakers will continue to draw salaries even if the government shuts down. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said lawmakers shouldn’t be paid if the impasse between Obama and Congress forces a shutdown. He’s vowed to donate his salary to charity or give it back to the U.S. Treasury. And Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said he would not accept his federal salary during a shutdown. According to the federal Office of Professional Management, nearly all government employees will be furloughed in a shutdown, except for certain workers who conduct emergency services or perform other work deemed essential. Those employees who keep working under an exception would recover pay for hours worked once Congress passes – and the president signs – new legislation to fund the government. But Congress would have to make a separate determination whether nonessential workers could get back pay. After the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns ended, Congress approved back pay so quickly that federal employees never missed a paycheck. The shutdown, in November 1995, lasted six days and furloughed about 800,000 federal employees. The next, a partial shutdown, lasted three weeks, from mid-December 1995 to early January 1996, and furloughed about 240,000 workers. Thousands of state government employees have been furloughed without pay in recent years to help ease state budget woes. In California, for example, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered state workers to take two unpaid days off each month in 2009 and later extended the furloughs to three days a month. Why shouldn’t government workers take a similar hit? Kelley, the federal employee union president, says federal workers are simply bystanders caught in the middle of a political dispute, not part of a calculated plan to save money. “This is not about a budget that is attempting to cut costs through furloughs,” she said. “This is a situation where the parties cannot come to an agreement on a budget. Rather than stepping up and doing their jobs, they are just choosing to do nothing and shutting the government down.”

Read the full article →

How The Oil Lobby Greases Washington’s Wheels

April 6, 2011

Clout in Washington isn’t about winning legislative battles — it’s about making sure that they never happen at all. The oil and gas industry has that kind of clout. Despite astronomical profits during what have been lean years for most everyone else, the oil and gas industry continues to benefit from massive, multi-billion dollar taxpayer subsidies. Opinion polling shows the American public overwhelmingly wants those subsidies eliminated. Meanwhile, both parties are hunting feverishly for ways to reduce the deficit. But when President Obama called on Congress to eliminate about $4 billion a year in tax breaks for Big Oil earlier this year, the response on the Hill was little more than a knowing chuckle. Even Obama’s closest congressional allies don’t think the president’s proposal has a shot. “I would be surprised if it got a great deal of traction,” Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Senate energy committee, told reporters at the National Press Club a few days after Obama first announced his plan. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), co-author of a House bill that closely resembles Obama’s proposal, nevertheless acknowledges that it has slim chances of passing. “It will be a challenge to get anything through the House that includes any tax increase for anyone under any circumstance,” he told The Huffington Post. The list goes on: “It’s not on my radar,” said Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Bracewell Giuliani , a lobbying firm with several oil and gas industry clients. “It’s old news and it’s never going to happen in this Congress. It couldn’t even happen in the last Congress.” Indeed, the oil and gas industry’s stranglehold on Congres is so firm that even when the Democrats controlled both houses, repeal of the subsidies didn’t stand a chance. Obama proposed cutting them in his previous two budgets as well, but the Senate — where Republicans and consistently pro-oil Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu had more than enough votes to block any legislation — never even took a stab at it. Now that the House is controlled by the GOP, Obama’s proposal is deader than an oil-soaked pelican. Over the last decade in particular, the Republican Party’s anti-tax policies and pro-drilling campaign rhetoric have become nearly indistinguishable from those of Big Oil. “Obama’s been proposing to get rid of these subsidies since his first budget in February 2009,” said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program for the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen. “The obstacle has been the petroleum industry. The American Petroleum Institute has dug in their heels and is fighting tooth and nail to retain these subsidies.” The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the industry’s enormously powerful lobbying and trade association. “API is very focused on making sure that we have a voice in policy debates,” said Martin Durbin, the organization’s executive vice president for government affairs. “Certainly I hope we’re having some role in the debate here.” Is he pleased at the industry’s success in heading off this particular debate? “I feel that we are successfully getting the point across, successfully educating policy-makers about the importance of our industry throughout the economy,” he said. Even before Obama’s 2011 State of the Union address, API president Jack Gerard used his ” State of American Energy ” speech to cast the repeal attempt as a tax increase and a job-killer. “The way I see it, our policy-makers are at a crossroads,” Gerard said. “They face two choices: One leads us forward and promotes jobs, investments, revenue and growth — or one that takes us backward, threatening the progress we’ve made and closing the door on future opportunities.” Gerard was speaking to a receptive audience. As Time noted , “Republican Fred Upton , the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, was in the front row of the audience for Gerard’s speech.” Upton did not return calls for comment. A PAMPERED INDUSTRY In January, Obama previewed his 2012 budget proposal during his State of the Union address . “I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies,” he said. “I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own.” The line got a laugh, and then Obama pointed out the trade-offs of giving public support to a powerful private interest: “Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.” he said. With the actual budget proposal came more details: a list of tax breaks that, if eliminated, would generate $43.6 billion of additional revenue over the next 10 years. Two of the biggest breaks date back nearly a century, to a time when a young, untested industry needed incentives to drill. The API, after adding in the cost of some other proposed measures (including reinstating Superfund taxes and repealing two accounting gimmicks that would affect other industries as well), concluded that Obama’s FY 2012 proposed budget could cost the oil and gas industry $90 billion over the next decade . The loss of subsidies would affect the industry’s bottom lines, but would hardly, as Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex), recently suggested , start driving companies out of business. That’s because Obama was right; the oil companies are doing just fine. The big five — BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell — made a combined total profit of nearly $1 trillion over the past decade, with ExxonMobil clearing $31 billion in profits this past year alone. And it’s hardly the case that the oil industry needs added incentives to drill. Former oilman George W. Bush made that point as clearly as anyone when he leveled with members of the American Society of Newspaper Editors in a 2005 address: “I will tell you with $55 [a barrel] oil we don’t need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore,” he said. “There are plenty of incentives.” Slocum, of Public Citizen, concurs: “With prices around $100 a barrel, it is asinine to suggest that $4 to $6 billion a year collectively is driving decisions about whether or not to pursue extraction opportunities in the U.S.,” he said. “It is market prices that are driving investment decisions.” While the oil industry warns that repealing the subsidies — in addition to costing jobs — would lead to higher gas prices, that too is hardly evident. Fuel costs largely reflect the price of oil, and that price has little to do with how much it costs to produce it. According to a U.S. Energy Information Administration survey , between 2007 and 2009, major U.S.-based oil companies spent an average of $29.31 to produce a barrel of oil. About one third of that amount went for extraction and taxes, and two thirds for exploration and development — precisely why those companies are making such a killing when prices are $100 a barrel or more. Rather than production costs, the price of oil is set by the global market, and is affected by multiple factors. Those can include financial speculation and geopolitical fears that lately have been causing wild price swings. The repeal of a few billion dollars in subsidies isn’t enough to make more than a small ripple in an approximately $3 trillion-a-year global market. Blumenauer argues that subsidies aren’t appropriate for any well-established industry. Instead, he says, they should be used to support developing ones. “What’s happened over the years, as the oil industry matured, as the giants consolidated into global players, and as the price of oil has been on a pretty steady upward trajectory — with some hiccups along the way — is that there ceased to be any rationale for providing these tax subsidies other than they were in the code and they benefited some of these companies.” By contrast, he points out: “The rationale for providing tax subsidies for emerging technologies and energy sources now makes perfect sense for solar, wind, and geothermal — where helping them come to scale would help provide a better balance to our energy choices.” Oil and gas subsidies don’t appear to wash with the general public, either. In a February NBC/ Wall Street Journal poll that proffered suggestions for things that might be cut or eliminated as a way to reduce the current federal budget deficit, “eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries” was considered acceptable by a whopping 74 percent of Americans. Nearly 50 percent called it “totally acceptable.” The only policy proposals that were more popular were raising taxes on the rich, eliminating earmarks, and canceling unnecessary weapons systems. The API says it has gotten very different signals from people.. Durbin said API’s own polls show otherwise. “If you ask people, ‘Should we take away unfair advantages to Big Oil,’ then of course they’ll say yes,” he said. “If you ask a straight question, as we do… you get a much different answer.” API’s poll question asked “Do you support or oppose increased taxes on America’s oil and natural gas industry?” ENERGY GIANTS ANTE UP With so much public opposition, why do subsidies remain? You might as well ask why there is no carbon tax, or why there was no significant reform legislation passed after the BP oil spill. The answer is that one of the many things the industry can do with its fat pocketbook is hire a veritable army of sharp lobbyists and back them up with big wads of cash in the form of campaign donations and spending. The end result is that the industry has a remarkable ability to get its way on Capitol Hill. According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ website, the oil and gas industry has spent more than $1 billion on lobbying since 1998, including a jaw-dropping $147 million just last year . For comparison’s sake, $147 million is about equivalent to the total budget of 100 congressional offices . That’s more than the $103 million spent in 2010 by the financial service industry, another potent lobbying force — but considerably less than the $240 million spent by the pharmaceutical industry. Among major industries, Opensecrets.org ranked Big Oil fifth in terms of lobbying dollars spent, behind only Big Pharma, electric utilities, business associations and insurance. The oil and gas industry used its $147 million to employ 788 individual lobbyists in 2010 — some 500 (or almost two thirds) of whom, according to Opensecrets.org, are former federal employees who came through the revolving door particularly well versed in the ways of government. All told, that’s well more than one oil and gas lobbyist per member of Congress out there on the Hill arming allies with talking points and briefing books, spinning the undecided and pressuring the opposition. And there’s more of them every year. Consider the trendlines . As recently as 2004, the oil and gas industry spent about $52 million a year in lobbying; by 2009, that figure was up to $175 million — or a 300 percent increase in just five years. The industry backs up its extraordinary lobbying effort with lavish spending on political campaigns. Candidates associated with oil and gas companies made about $15 million in direct campaign donations during the 2010 mid-term election cycle ($26 million during the 2008 presidential cycle). The industry was also responsible for more than $10 million in donations through its political action committees , or PACs, in the 2010 cycle. The trendlines are notable here, as well. In the early ’90s, oil and gas campaign spending favored Republicans over Democrats by about a 2 to 1 margin: For every $1 the industry gave to Democrats, it gave Republicans $1.78. But starting in the 1996 election cycle (think Al Gore), that changed dramatically. Now, for every $1 the industry gives Democrats, it gives Republicans about $3.35. Among the top oil and gas industry donors in the 2010 cycle, Koch Industries and ExxonMobil head the list. And Opensecrets.org’s top 20 list of oil and gas money recipients is 4 to 1 Republican. In addition to contributions to individuals and PACs, there’s the whole new world of spending opportunities opened up by recent Supreme Court rulings that essentially blew a hole through the post-Watergate campaign finance laws. Super PACs are groups that can now accept unlimited contributions, though they must disclose their contributors. Opensecrets.org calculates that companies with interests in the energy sector combined to give more than $5.6 million to Super PACs in the 2010 cycle. Former Bush political guru Karl Rove’s American Crossroads group, for one such Super PAC. It spent $21 million on political advertising in the 2010 cycle; oil and gas interests contributed just over $3 million of that amount. The recent court rulings also opened the way for nonprofit groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns — and unlike the Super PACs, they don’t have to disclose their donors. All they have to do is report how much they spent. These groups , led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, reported $140 million in campaign spending in the 2010 cycle, the vast majority of which went to support conservative causes. There’s no way to know how much of that money came from Big Oil. Adding yet more firepower to its lobbyists’ arsenal, API announced last month that it will start funding political campaigns directly through a new PAC of its own — in addition to what its member organizations give already. “API is very focused on making sure that we have a voice in policy debates,” said its spokesman, Durbin. “We’re always looking at ways to improve the way we do our jobs here. This just adds one more tool to leverage our ability to get the point across about the critical nature of this industry.” One more thing: According to another study by the Center for Responsive Politics, oil and gas industry holdings are some of the most popular investments among lawmakers and their spouses, and in recent years have grown in value, offering a bundle of potential conflicts of interest problems. “Without question, among all the different industries that lobby the federal government, that make campaign contributions, oil and gas is right at the top of the top,” said CRP’s Dave Levinthal. “They can invest incredible resources into the political process that make so much of a difference in Washington, at the cost of a fraction of a faction of their haul.” And it’s not just the breadth of their efforts — it’s the ferocity and the effectiveness. Last month, one of the House’s nine freshmen Democrats, Rep. William Keating of Massachusetts, tried to tack a subsidy repeal onto a continuing budget resolution. He failed, by a 73 vote margin , with not a single Republican voting in favor and 13 Democrats voting against the measure. Keating said he considers that vote a testament to the power of the oil and gas lobby. “It’s incredible to me. It would be my Exhibit A,” he said. “Because we’re sitting here in the midst of a budget deadlock, we’re sitting here cutting Head Start programs, police, fire, border security, reading teachers — we’re sitting here cutting the basics, and there’s just this refusal to even consider subsidies for the oil companies.” There’s no business or economic argument for them, Keating said. “These are profitable businesses right now. This isn’t a situation where you’re trying to provide capital for businesses that need it, or trying to provide assistance to get a small business off the ground. It’s not for economic development. It’s not for job creation. It’s not to enhance the middle class. So why is it there?” The answer, Keating said, has to be the industry’s political clout. “I used to be a district attorney. Many times you begin an investigation by eliminating everything else. So I’ve been trying to eliminate every other possible reason, and I’m left with that.” The money the industry spends influencing legislation and elections looks enormous — until you compare it with what it buys. “If you look at $4 billion [in subsidies] annually, compared to say $200 million for lobbying and campaign spending,” said Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, “that is a 20-to-1 payoff.” And maintaining subsidies is only a small part of what the oil industry lobby has accomplished. Last session, the industry also blocked cap-and-trade legislation and staved off any action in response to the BP oil spill. Right now, it’s fully occupied trying to defund the Environmental Protection Agency and roll back regulations across the board. UNBREAKABLE TAX BREAKS Two of the big tax breaks Obama wants to roll back were created generations ago to provide incentives for what was then a nascent industry. One, which covers the “expensing of intangible drilling costs,” is a nearly 100-year-old credit intended to help make up for the losses associated with all the “dry holes” that were a common occurrence back then. Modern extraction science has made them something of a rarity. The other sweetener, called the “percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells,” dates back to 1926. (See this Congressional Research Service report for more details.) As anachronistic as those two seem today, it’s the third big tax break Obama wants eliminated that may be even more outrageous: a massive giveaway jammed into a 2004 bill that was supposed to create manufacturing jobs. Back in 2004, the World Trade Organization had repeatedly declared American export tax incentives illegal, so Congress set out to replace them with an income tax deduction for domestic manufacturing. The oil and gas industry managed to get its nose under that tent flap. John Buckley , a former Democratic chief tax counsel for the House Ways and Means Committee, remembers exactly how it happened. “That was Bill Thomas,” Buckley said, referring to the California Republican and then-chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and a great friend of the oil industry. “It was that simple.” Oil and gas companies were specifically precluded from taking the export subsidy Thomas’s bill was replacing. “So it was hard to justify,” Buckley said. But Thomas rammed it through nonetheless. Thomas, who now works at the K Street lobbying and law firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, could not be reached for comment. When Democrats retook the House three years later, they mounted a serious effort to repeal oil and gas subsidies. H.R. 6, the sixth in a series of promised bills, was known at the time as the ” Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act of 2007 .” It passed the House by a vote of 264 to 163 — including 36 Republicans. But by the time it made it out of the Senate and was signed into law by Bush — some 11 months later — it was known as the ” Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ” — in which the big oil subsidies lived on. Despite considerable Republican support, the bill couldn’t get 60 votes in the Senate as long as it included the subsidy repeal — which, as in Obama’s current proposal, was paired with tax breaks for renewable energy sources. The second of two cloture votes was particularly close (59 to 40) and only failed because two Democrats — Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania — voted with Big Oil. Once the repeal provisions were jettisoned, the bill passed overwhelmingly . The lesson of that vote — and the Senate’s failure to take up the hard-fought cap and trade legislation passed by the House in 2009 — combined to make last session’s House Democrats more wary of angering oil interests for the sake of legislation that would eventually be scrapped. “It was very difficult to be able to produce a majority for something that wasn’t going anyplace in the Senate,” Blumenauer explained. Democrats this session have formally introduced legislation in both Houses to repeal the subsidies. A House bill co-sponsored by Blumenauer, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and others aims to cut about $40 billion in oil and gas subsidies over five years. It follows the general outlines of Obama’s plan, but would leave the subsidies intact for small, independent companies. A Senate bill introduced by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and others would eliminate about $20 billion in subsidies over ten years. There are two conceivable ways there might be some movement in the near future: Obama could demand some revenue increases as part of a larger deficit-reduction deal with Republicans. Alternately, some Democrats hope the oil subsidy issue will draw attention from some Tea Party Republicans the same way ethanol subsidies have. So far, however, there are no signs of movement on either front. Keating said the issue transcends party lines — or at least it ought to. “I’m not going to say it’s just a partisan issue — although by definition, having no one on the Republican side vote for it would qualify,” he said. “This should be something that everyone agrees to, regardless of what party. So if there’s Democrats that wouldn’t cut here, then they’re in the same position of trying to justify something that’s not justifiable.” Ben Schreiber, a climate and energy tax analyst for Friends of the Earth, sees a moment of reckoning ahead. “As we see deeper and deeper budget cuts, and people are more aware of what they’re losing, the reality of billions of dollars in handouts to the oil and gas industry is going to be less and less palatable,” he said. “It’s one thing in a vacuum, but when it comes to a question of educating our children or billions in tax breaks for the oil industry, that choice becomes much harder.” “Ultimately, what would really make a difference would be long-term campaign finance reform,” said Weiss, the energy expert at the Center for American Progress. “Because if you remove Big Oil’s money from the electoral system, then you’ve reduced one of their major pressure points. “Short of that,” he said, “it’s going to be public outrage about high gasoline prices.” Public Citizen’s Slocum was more prescriptive. “For there to be any change, Democrats will need to make their public case much more assertively,” he said. They will need to start pounding away with populist messages about high gas prices, and making sure the public makes the connection that, “Hey! The oil companies ought to pay their fair share,” he said. Slocum’s conclusion: “It’s going to take a counter to the American Petroleum Institute.” ************************* Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail , bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed , follow him on Twitter , friend him on Facebook , and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

Read the full article →

One In Four Working Baby Boomers Say They’ll Never Retire, Survey Finds

April 5, 2011

WASHINGTON — Baby boomers are starting to retire, but many are agonizing about their finances and believe they’ll need to work longer than they had planned, a new poll finds. The 77 million-strong generation born between 1946 and 1964 has clung tenaciously to its youth. Now, boomers are getting nervous about retirement. Only 11 percent say they are strongly convinced they will be able to live in comfort. A total of 55 percent said they were either somewhat or very certain they could retire with financial security. But another 44 percent express little or no faith they’ll have enough money when their careers end. Further underscoring the financial squeeze, 1 in 4 boomers still working say they’ll never retire. That’s about the same number as those who say they have no retirement savings. The Associated Press-LifeGoesStrong.com poll comes as politicians face growing pressure to curb record federal deficits, and budget hawks of both parties have expressed a willingness to scale back Social Security, the government’s biggest program. The survey suggests how politically risky that would be: 64 percent of boomers see Social Security as the keystone of their retirement earnings, far outpacing pensions, investments and other income. The survey also highlights the particular retirement challenge facing boomers, who are contemplating exiting the work force just as the worst economy in seven decades left them coping with high jobless rates, tattered home values and painfully low interest rates that stunt the growth of savings. “I have six kids,” said Gary Marshalek, 62, of South Abington Township, Pa., who services drilling equipment and says he has repeatedly refinanced his home and dipped into his pension to pay for his children’s college. His inability to afford retirement “sounds like America at the moment,” Marshalek said. “Sounds like the normal instead of the abnormal.” Marshalek was among the 25 percent in the poll who say they plan to never retire. People who are unmarried, earn under $50,000 a year, or say they did a poor job of financial planning are disproportionately represented among that group. Overall, nearly 6 in 10 baby boomers say their workplace retirement plans, personal investments or real estate lost value during the economic crisis of the past three years. Of this group, 42 percent say they’ll have to delay retirement because their nest eggs shrank. Though the first boomers are turning 65 this year, the poll finds that 28 percent already consider themselves retired. Of those still working, nearly half want to retire by age 65 and about another quarter envision retiring between 66 and 70. Two-thirds of those still on the job say they will keep working after they retire, a plan shared about evenly across sex, marital status and education lines, the survey finds. That contrasts with the latest Social Security Administration data on what older people are actually doing: Among those age 65-74, less than half earned income from a job in 2008. “I’m going to keep working after I retire, if nothing else for the health care,” said Nadine Krieger, 58, a food plant worker from East Berlin, Pa. Citing $50,000 in retirement savings that she says won’t go far, she added, “We probably could have saved more, but you can’t when you have a couple of kids in the house.” About 6 in 10 married boomers expect a comfortable retirement, compared with just under half of the unmarried. Midwesterners are most likely to express confidence in their finances. “I’m a good planner,” said Robert Rivers, 63, a retired New York State employee in Ravena, N.Y. He still works seasonally for the federal government and collects a modest military pension. A recreational pilot, he says he has scaled back his lifestyle by flying and driving less. “I’m spending money I have, not spending it and trying to repay it,” he said. Among boomers like Rivers who plan to continue working in retirement, 35 percent say they’ll do so to make ends meet. Slightly fewer cite a desire to earn money for extras or to simply stay busy. Excluding their homes, 24 percent of boomers say they have no retirement savings. Those with nothing include about 4 in 10 who are non-white, are unmarried or didn’t finish college. At the other end, about 1 in 10 say they have banked at least $500,000. Those who have saved at least something typically have squirreled away $100,000, with about half putting away more than that and half less. Despite the worries and dearth of savings cited by many, only about a third of boomers say it’s likely that they’ll have to make do with a more modest lifestyle once they retire. Only about 1 in 4 expect to struggle just to pay their expenses. Financial experts say such expectations are often not realistic. “Most families have to make a significant adjustment from their working lives to their retirement years,” said financial planner Sheryl Garrett, who runs the Garrett Planning Network. Ads that show silver-haired couples strolling off into the sunset do not represent the typical retirement, she added. The AP-LifeGoesStrong.com poll was conducted from March 4-13 by Knowledge Networks of Menlo Park, Calif., and involved online interviews with 1,160 baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Knowledge Networks used traditional telephone and mail sampling methods to randomly recruit respondents. People selected who had no Internet access were given it for free. ___ AP Polling Director Trevor Tompson, Deputy Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta and AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report. ___ Online: Array

Read the full article →

Vishakha N. Desai: Asia Needs More Women Leaders

April 1, 2011

As the center of gravity of the global economy moves east, Asia needs to recruit more women for leadership positions across the public and private sectors. But how can they break through more glass ceilings and climb corporate ladders? And, once there, what will they bring to the table? Some of the region’s most influential women are confronting these challenges as they share their experiences and wisdom at Asia Society’s “Women Leaders of New Asia” summit in Singapore this week. There are real moral imperatives for making sure more women reach the very top. But there is also a bottom line: It’s simply makes good business sense. Women often make the majority of financial and consumer decisions in Asian families. They work out what to buy for the home, what school to send their children to, where to go for vacation and so on. This alone behooves companies to have women in senior positions to understand better the purchasing habits and financial power of women. But there are deeper reasons for women to assume more leadership responsibilities. And, much of it comes from unexpected quarters, namely culture and tradition. The Western concept that reason should operate above all else dates back to the Age of the Enlightenment. Now some modern research suggests that this runs counter to how our brains actually function. For instance, in his new book, the New York Times ‘ David Brooks points to the importance of emotions, intuitions, perceptions, genetic dispositions and unconscious longings in all sorts of decision-making — momentous, inconsequential and in between. I contend that the holistic traditions of Asia — from India to Indonesia and China to Korea — are based on strong mind/body and reason/intuition relationships. We can thank those deep cultural values for much of the success Asian societies have had building their economies and chasing the materialistic dream of wealth and better lifestyles. This is where Asian women can do more. They are, more often than not, the keepers of age-old traditions in families and communities. So, now is the time for more women to take on the mantle of leadership and infuse these cultural nuances into the broader narrative of the geo-economic power shift to Asia. To do so would build a valuable legacy for future generations. It must be said that there has been much progress in the advancement of women. The female talent pool is growing fast as women graduate from universities in large numbers in many Asian countries. Singapore has an impressive record. Elsewhere, around 47% of graduates in China are women and the figure is 50% in India. Of those female graduates in China, 65% say they have high ambitions and expect to follow professional careers. In India the figure is 85%. It would be an enormous waste of human talent if one-half of the population was under-utilized, particularly as governments and businesses try to modernize and boost their competitiveness. But, alas, women are still a rarity on corporate boards, in senior management teams and top government positions in Asia. While more well-educated women are entering the workforce than ever before, social taboos and family pressures mean many are leaving in droves after reaching mid-level management positions. There are many other hurdles to female advancement. Younger women have few opportunities to be mentored by senior women in a strategic way. And, it’s also hard for some to get back into the workforce after a hiatus during their childbearing years. It’s no surprise, for instance, that some women in Singapore and elsewhere are delaying marriage and even opting not to have children. We hope to bridge some of these gaps at this week’s summit. We are building a strong network of women leaders and learning about best practices in the public and private sectors. This is not simply a nice idea whose time has come. This is something we can ill-afford to ignore.

Read the full article →

Richard Kirsch: Andrew Cuomo Tramples His Father’s Vision for America

March 31, 2011

I just left the New York State Capitol, where demonstrators were streaming into the building to protest Andrew Cuomo’s state budget. The budget gives tax breaks to millionaires in a state loaded with them while making devastating cuts to education in the poorest school districts. The demonstrators plan to spend the night at the Capitol, inspired by the example of protesters against Republican Governor Scott Walker. Did someone really say that Andrew was not only a Democrat, but Mario Cuomo’s son? In 1984, Mario Cuomo thrilled Democrats across the nation with a visionary speech that denounced President Reagan’s portrait of America as a “shining city on a hill.” Mario Cuomo told Reagan, “Mr. President you ought to know that this nation is more a ‘Tale of Two Cities’ than it is just a ‘Shining City on a Hill.’” What more appropriate description could there be of New York, which boasts the biggest gap between the rich and poor of any state in the nation, than a tale of two cities? Mario Cuomo went on to use words that could be a direct indictment of his son’s budget. He said Reagan’s philosophy was to “make the rich richer, and what falls from the table will be enough for the middle class and those who are trying desperately to work their way into the middle class.” Instead, he urged the president to listen to Americans like “a woman who had been denied the help she needed to feed her children because you said you needed the money for a tax break for a millionaire.” Mario Cuomo laid out the task for Democrats in the 1984 election: “We must convince them that we don’t have to settle for two cities, that we can have one city, indivisible, shining for all of its people.” And he asserted, “We speak for young people demanding an education and a future.” While New York faces a budget crisis — and budget cuts are inevitable — Andrew Cuomo has chosen to emulate Reagan rather than his father. As the New York Times wrote in a March 20th editorial : Just extending the surcharge on New York’s highest earners through 2012 would add an estimated $1.2 billion in revenue to the upcoming budget and $4 billion the following fiscal year. Without that surcharge and other targeted tax increases, Mr. Cuomo’s proposed cuts in education and other vital services will inevitably be deeper and more painful than necessary, harming both individuals and the foundation for the state’s future economic growth. The choice is most stark when it comes to education. As the Times pointed out: For instance, Mr. Cuomo wants to withhold a $1.2 billion payment due to poor school districts under a 2006 court order. If the Legislature agrees, it will be the second year in a row that the ordered payment is not made. And it will further widen an already unconscionably wide gap between rich and poor school districts. The editors at the Times highlighted the injustice of that gap in another editorial a few days later, in which they compared two school districts, echoing Mario Cuomo’s portrait of two cities. In wealthy Syosset, which offers almost 30 Advanced Placement courses to children who graduate to Ivy League schools, Cuomo proposed to cut $212 per student. In upstate Ilion, which has one AP class and where one-third of the students qualify for the school lunch program, Cuomo’s budget cut $688 per student. The buzz around Albany is that this is all about Andrew Cuomo’s insatiable desire to be president based on a strategy of being a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. At the same time that Cuomo has insisted on giving tax breaks to the rich, he’s begun pressing the State Legislature to legalize gay marriage. His father’s moving address was based on unifying people, saying, “Remember that, unlike any other Party, we embrace men and women of every color, every creed, every orientation, every economic class.” His son seems to have put his finger in his ears after “orientation.” But then, the wealthy Democratic donors who are spending millions of dollars to push Cuomo’s budget plan don’t hear that well either. One courageous New York Senator is rejecting the calculus that civil rights will trump economic rights. Manhattan Senator Thomas Duane, an openly gay champion of marriage equality, will vote against the budget. But where are the rest of New York’s Democrats, who control the State Assembly and make up 48% of the State Senate? Only seven Democratic assemblymembers had the guts to buck the Democratic governor and vote against the budget bill that will lower tax rates for the rich. A handful of Democratic senators will join them. The rest are captive of Albany’s craven “let’s make a deal” politics that seems to strip state legislators of the courage to do what is right. In 1984, Mario Cuomo told the nation that: The difference between Democrats and Republicans has always been measured in courage and confidence. The Republicans — The Republicans believe that the wagon train will not make it to the frontier unless some of the old, some of the young, some of the weak are left behind by the side of the trail. “The strong” — “The strong,” they tell us, “will inherit the land.” We Democrats believe in something else. We democrats believe that we can make it all the way with the whole family intact, and we have more than once. Mario Cuomo seems to have lost one of his own family members along the way. Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 .

Read the full article →