democrats

Huffington Post…

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday night he would support legislation to end insider trading among members of Congress and saw no reason why the bill couldn’t become law this year. President Barack Obama called on Congress during his State of the Union address to swiftly pass legislation barring legislators from investing in companies whose business is affected by matters before the two chambers. “Well, I think people should have enough sense not to do it without legislation, but I will support legislation,” Reid told a handful of reporters after the speech. Could the bill become law this year? “I don’t see why it shouldn’t,” Reid said. Senate Republicans were glad to hear of Reid’s willingness to back the bill — or at least his inability to see how its demise might come about. “Oh good! I hope he schedules it for floor action,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said when told about Reid’s backing. Collins is the top-ranking Republican on the Senate committee that approved the legislation in question, the Stock Act. The committee chairman, Sen. Joe Lieberman, said he was glad to hear the president backs the bill. “I think [the bill's prospects] were helped by the president’s endorsement, but the bill came out of committee on a bipartisan basis,” said Lieberman (I-Conn). “It’s one of those things we can do to restore some trust and confidence in confidence.” The bill is casually referred to in the Capitol as “The 60 Minutes Act,” a reference to a report by the television program about a series of insider trades by members of Congress. At the time, I wrongly reported that 60 Minutes’ poor choice of targets for its report, and its clumsy attempt to connect specific trading to specific legislative action, set momentum for the bill back. Instead, in fact, the report propelled the legislation forward. Still, during Obama’s endorsement of the bill, the House floor was awfully quiet, belying the public offers of support. And Reid wasn’t exactly enthusiastic about embracing Obama’s expansion of the bill to block all lobbyists from bundling political contributions, and all bundlers from lobbying. “I don’t think he said that,” Reid said. “He talked about bundlers and he talked about lobbyists, I guess, or some bundlers are lobbyists, I guess. I don’t know. Nevertheless, it’s an easy bill to support. “I hope he brings it to the floor. I don’t see a lot of controversy there,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said.

Read this article:
Harry Reid Backs Obama’s Call For Congressional Insider Trading Ban

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Huffington Post…

Mitt Romney gave a sneak preview of a defense he plans to use against President Obama when it comes to the former governor’s tenure at Bain Capital, a “vulture capitalist” firm. Pressed by Newt Gingrich on his time as a private equity executive, Romney turned the question to Obama. “He’s been practicing crony capitalism,” Romney said of the president. “You’ve got to stop the spread of crony capitalism.” Crony capitalism isn’t a new charge to throw around, though using it to neutralize Bain is. Romney’s list of particulars included the auto bailout, Solyndra, appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Keystone XL pipeline. Only Solyndra could plausibly be considered crony capitalism, if the charge that the administration sent a $5 million loan guarantee to the solar panel company to take care of campaign contributors is accurate. The auto bailout and the NLRB examples, even in Romney’s own formulation, are at worst favors done for Big Labor, not crony capitalists. The pipeline, meanwhile, is backed by large elements of labor, while opposed by environmentalists, so it’s difficult to include it under a crony capitalism umbrella. Debates are a good place to work out messaging, and Romney appears to be trying out crony capitalism.

See the rest here:
VIDEO: Mitt Romney Defends Bain Capital Tenure, Tries Out ‘Crony Capitalism’ Charge

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Romney’s Offshore Investments Revealed

January 18, 2012

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney holds millions of dollars in offshore investments, a new report from ABC News finds. While it is unclear whether any of the investments provided specific personal tax benefit to Romney — a possibility that his camp has explicitly denied — the report nonetheless adds further support to an ongoing narrative that the presidential hopeful stands on a financial plane reserved only for the top flight of the elite. According to ABC News, Romney, a former executive at private equity firm Bain Capital who is projected to be worth upwards of $250 million, holds around $8 million of his personal wealth in as many as 12 funds based in the Cayman Islands. Romney also lists a separate investment, valued between $5 million and $25 million, placed on the same Caribbean island chain. ABC News reports that Bain holds some 138 shrouded offshore funds in the Cayman Islands alone. Romney’s campaign has maintained that such behavior is not unusual, and that Romney himself has paid all the appropriate U.S. taxes on his holdings within the accounts. From ABC News: Tax experts agree that Romney remains subject to American taxes. But they say the offshore accounts have provided him — and Bain — with other potential financial benefits, such as higher management fees and greater foreign interest, all at the expense of the U.S. Treasury. Rebecca J. Wilkins, a tax policy expert with Citizens for Tax Justice, said the federal government loses an estimated $100 billion a year because of tax havens. Reuters reported earlier Wednesday that Bain also held accounts harbored in places such as Bermuda, Ireland and Hong Kong, which could lead to further questions about Romney’s personal involvement in these holdings. Andrea Saul, a spokesperson for the Romney campaign, pushed back quickly after the ABC News report, taking exception to their characterization of the investments as “tax havens.” “ABC is flat wrong. The Romney’s investments in funds established in the Cayman Islands are taxed in the very same way they would be if those funds were established in the United States. These are not tax havens and it is false to say so,” she said in a statement. Romney has come under increasing scrutiny this week after first dancing around a question about his intent to release his tax returns at a debate, then dealing himself a one-two punch by announcing that he had paid “closer to the 15 percent rate” in taxes while simultaneously downplaying $374,327 in speaking fees as “not much.” On Wednesday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), one of his supporters, encouraged him to immediately release his returns to prove that nothing is amiss.

Read the full article →

Warehouse Woes: Workers Say They’re Losing Jobs For Speaking Up

January 18, 2012

Nearly a hundred warehouse workers in California who spoke up about alleged wage violations and unsafe working conditions fear they now may lose their jobs. The workers, most of whom load and unload goods destined for Walmart stores, filed a class action lawsuit in the fall against staffing company Rogers-Premier Unloading Services, their employer, and against Schneider Logistics, the company that’s contracted by Walmart to oversee the Riverside County warehouse. The workers contended that they often weren’t paid the legal minimum wage or overtime and were threatened with termination when they complained. Now, the workers say they’ve been notified by management that their jobs will be end on Feb. 24, when a contract between Rogers-Premier and Schneider apparently comes to a close. Erin Elliott, a spokeswoman for Schneider, said that the move was “solely the decision of Rogers-Premier” and that the company will no longer provide workers to the Schneider facilities in Elwood, Ill., or Savannah, Ga., either. Rogers-Premier did not respond to a request for comment. Daniel Lopez, who has been loading trucks at the warehouse since 2009, said he was notified both orally and in writing that his job would end next month. “They just asked us to stay on with them until that day,” said Lopez, 32. Problems at the warehouse first came to light in October, when the California labor department announced it had launched an investigation into alleged labor law violations. Two staffing operations at the facility were cited for not properly maintaining time records for their workers and hit with fines totaling more than $1 million. Six workers filed the class action lawsuit on the heels of the state inspections, alleging they were routinely short-changed on their paychecks and required to work in excessively hot conditions. Warehouses like the Schneider facility commonly use temporary workers who are paid low wages and labor without benefits. As HuffPost detailed in an article last month, allegations of wage theft and other workplace abuses are common at the warehouses in the Inland Empire area of Southern California, one of the largest distribution nexuses in the world. The workers at such facilities — many of whom are Latino immigrants — may be employed directly by small labor agencies, but they often move products for the benefit of mega-retailers like Walmart. Officials with Warehouse Workers United , an advocacy group leading a unionization effort in the Inland Empire, predict that the Rogers-Premier workers will ultimately lose their jobs because they spurred a state investigation and sued their employer. “Either they’re getting fired as retaliation or because the company can’t make any money” while under scrutiny from investigators, argued Sheheryar Kaoosji, an organizer with the group. “Either way, it shows a problem.” Some of the workers held a demonstration with members of Occupy Riverside outside the warehouse on Wednesday morning. The group is calling on Schneider to make sure that the workers find continued employment at the warehouse through another staffing firm. Schneider spokeswoman Elliott says, “If we have openings, we would deal with them in the ordinary fashion, through screening and hiring.” In the lawsuit filed in October, the workers contended that they “spend their workdays performing strenuous, unskilled physical labor in an environment where the temperature often exceeds 90 degrees.” When they questioned their paychecks, their bosses “routinely responded with threats of retaliation and actual retaliation, including by sending the inquiring workers home without pay, refusing to give them work the next day … and imposing other forms of discipline on them,” according to the lawsuit. Lopez said that there were times in 2009 when he worked double shifts several days in a row and never received overtime pay. He added that when he started at the warehouse he was paid at an hourly rate, but he was eventually switched to a “piece rate” under which he was compensated based on the number of trucks he loaded. In the lawsuit, the workers say that they were told their pay would rise under the piece rate plan, but that, in fact, it went down. Lopez said he has been looking for work at other warehouses, although he hasn’t had any luck yet. “Because we know our rights, we spoke up,” Lopez said. “And I’m glad we spoke up. We’re not going to have a job, but I don’t regret it.”

Read the full article →

Boehner Prepares To Do End-Run Around Tea Party

January 13, 2012

By Richard Cowan and Thomas Ferraro WASHINGTON–House Speaker John Boehner, hoping to spare fellow Republicans a second embarrassing defeat over payroll tax cuts, is prepared to navigate around rebellious Tea Party-aligned lawmakers to get a deal, according to congressional aides. Republicans in the House of Representatives got a public drubbing from critics within and outside the party in December for initially refusing to approve a Senate plan to extend the tax break for 160 million Americans through February. The party of lower taxes was left on the defensive, countering a barrage of criticism that its unwillingness to compromise threatened an effective tax hike on workers, potentially damaging the fragile economic recovery. Now, with Democratic and Republican negotiators preparing for a new round of talks in the coming days to extend the payroll tax cut for the rest of the year, Republican leaders are anxious to move quickly to get a deal, aides said. Party leaders fear another battle could distract from the more important task at hand – ousting President Barack Obama from the White House and winning majority control of the Senate in the November elections. They also want to neutralize an issue that Democrats already are using to their advantage in the presidential and congressional campaigns. “I think Boehner will seek a more accommodating approach to get a good percentage of Democrats to vote for it – even if it costs him a lot of House Republican freshmen,” one House Republican leadership aide told Reuters. “His instincts will be not to be so reliant on House Republican freshmen,” the aide added, referring to the 85 first-term congressmen. The freshmen, many of whom are aligned with the populist budget-slashing Tea Party movement, helped the Republican Party win control of the House in 2010 and have since proven stubbornly uncompromising in the debate over taxes and spending. Congress has until February 29 to agree on extending the tax cut, which would give the average middle-class family about $1,000 extra a year. Support has always been soft among Republicans for the payroll tax cut championed by Obama. They question its effectiveness in stimulating the economy and the wisdom of using revenues intended for the Social Security retirement program. But the political fallout from the December showdown with Democrats was so unpleasant for Republicans that some congressional aides now speculate that Republicans might push to accelerate a deal by January 24, when Obama gives his annual State of the Union address to Congress. BIGGER BILL/BIGGER PROBLEMS? Many Tea Party-aligned lawmakers in the House are bitter that Boehner ultimately caved to pressure and agreed to the two-month extension in December. When Boehner informed his caucus of his decision in a conference telephone call, rank-and-file members’ phone lines were muted in an effort to quell dissent. Some Tea Party lawmakers, however, see round two of the payroll tax cut negotiations as another opportunity to press their demands for cuts to unemployment benefits and some federal healthcare programs and a freeze on federal workers’ pay. Those are unlikely to be accepted by Democrats who feel they have the political upper hand. But in the end, Boehner is expected to settle for a deal that gets the job done even if he loses the support of scores of Republican freshmen. A senior Senate Republican aide said December’s drama might have even strengthened Boehner’s hand. Given that a conservative groundswell in late December to block the two-month payroll tax cut, against Boehner’s advice, “backfired in a big way,” some of those conservatives might now conclude that “Boehner knows what he’s doing” and fall into line with him. Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith would not address the potential divisions among Republicans. Instead, he noted “bipartisan support for extending payroll tax relief for a full year, extending and reforming unemployment benefits, and offsetting the cost with spending cuts, while there is bipartisan opposition to tax hikes.” Freshman Republican Representative Jeff Landry, a Tea Party favorite, said that while he favors cutting workers’ taxes, the payroll tax cut is “a terrible idea” because it taps revenues that are supposed to be dedicated to Social Security. Asked about Boehner’s strategy for getting the full-year extension through the House by February, Landry said: “I don’t know how he’s going to play it. I hope he does a better job than the last time.” Landry said he will look closely to see if and how the next payroll tax cut is paid for. That is where Tea Party-aligned lawmakers could again make things more complex on Capitol Hill. Many in Congress think this could be the first and last major bill to pass Congress in this election year, except for must-do spending measures to keep the government operating. Lobbyists are bombarding Congress for requests to add pet projects onto the payroll tax cut bill – mainly extending about $35 billion worth of tax breaks for businesses that expired on December 31. Those include a research and development tax credit and a shorter depreciation period retailers enjoyed for business improvements. While these tax incentives typically enjoy broad support in Congress, the lost revenues, amid huge budget deficits, likely will spark a loud debate over whether they must be paid for. Republicans have long argued that the cost of these kinds of tax breaks do not have to be offset, as they spur economic growth over the long run and pay for themselves. It is an idea many Democrats and economists have challenged as unfounded. Now, some fiscally conservative Republicans are joining in. “I think everything has got to be fully paid for. We can’t afford to increase the debt more or rob more money out of Social Security,” freshman Representative Jeff Denham told Reuters. (Editing by Eric Walsh) Copyright 2012 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Palin Blasts Romney For Not Releasing Tax Returns

January 12, 2012

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin suggested Wednesday that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney should release his tax returns, as well as records from his time at Bain Capital. “What I heard was a little bit what’s going on today is some inoculation of the candidate himself, the frontrunner, and what it is that he’s going to face when he comes up against Barack Obama. Nobody should be surprised that things about Bain Capital, and maybe tax returns not being released yet, and maybe some records not being as transparently provided to the public as voters deserve to see right now, don’t be surprised that’s all coming out today,” she told Sean Hannity Wednesday on Fox News. “Let’s get it out there, let’s hear the defense of the candidates who are being charged with some of this. It’s kind of like some come-to-Jesus moments for these candidates, and that’s good, that’s healthy.” In a December interview with NBC News , Romney said he has no plans to release his tax returns. “Never say never, but I don’t intend to do so,” he said. Though not required by law, most recent presidential and vice-presidential nominees have chosen to made their tax returns public, including Palin. Romney told the Des Moines Register editorial board that all of his income in the past 10 years is from dividends, interest and capital gains — all of which are taxed at a lower rate than personal income. Romney did not take a salary as governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. His wealth is estimated to be between $190 million and $250 million, according to financial disclosure reports. The Obama campaign has attacked Romney for not releasing his tax returns. “Why won’t Mitt Romney release his tax returns?” tweeted the @BarackObama account recently, liking to a DNC video. Palin also asked for more proof of Romney’s claim that he added ” over 100,000 jobs ” at Bain Capital. “I think what Gov. Perry is getting at is that Gov. Romney has claimed to create 100,000 jobs at Bain, and people are wanting to know, is there proof of that claim, and was it U.S. jobs created for U.S. citizens?” she said . Romney’s campaign says the figure comes from three companies Bain invested in: The Sports Authority, Staples and Domino’s. The figure does not include jobs lost at other companies Bain invested in. But more critically, it’s difficult to know what role Romney personally played in creating jobs, as opposed to the the role companies played themselves since the Bain investment.

Read the full article →

Al Checchi: Occupy America

January 8, 2012

Centered in the systemic abuse of the housing markets, the 2008 financial crisis was the culmination of the greatest financial swindle in human history. Yet three years later, little has been done to punish the offenders or prevent a reoccurrence. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, sponsored by two of the financial industry’s greatest apologists, accomplished little other than diversion. Most of the major institutional participants in the financial debacle continue to operate — many bolstered by hundreds of billions of dollars of federal financial support. Few of the individual perpetrators have been prosecuted. Some have quietly retired (including Dodd and Frank) or moved on to lesser profile positions. An extraordinary number continue to occupy high elected and appointed public office as well as prominent private sector board, advisory, and executive positions. That so many have gone unpunished or unrecognized and continue to hold positions of public and private trust is a sad commentary on our current state of justice and public morality. In 1990, financier Michael Milken was convicted of “parking” violations (aiding clients in hiding the amount of their ownership of public securities). He was sentenced to ten years in prison, banned for life from the securities industry, and fined $600 million. His firm Drexel Burnham Lambert was fined an additional $500 million and forced into liquidation. The government calculated the cost to the public of Milken’s crimes at $685,000. The 2008 housing meltdown produced multi-trillion dollar world-wide financial losses, devastated the retirement and savings accounts of tens of millions of families, and dimmed the economic prospects of a generation of young Americans. It involved dereliction of fiduciary responsibility, fraud, and corruption on an unprecedented scale. Yet, only a handful of people were prosecuted or even fired among those responsible — the legions of brokers, mortgage originators, investment and commercial banks, rating agencies, accounting and legal firms, federal and state regulators, elected and appointed federal, state, and local officials, and quasi public institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2010 the Tea Party had success mobilizing Americans unhappy with the state of the country but specifically concerned about the unsupportable expansion of federal government spending. Identifying elected officials in general as the principal cause and Democrats in particular as “the party of government,” the movement catalyzed an unprecedented congressional turnover (96 new Republicans against 10 new Democrats). While the country may benefit from clearing out some of this elected dead wood and more responsible budgeting may result, the acknowledged growth in government spending had precious little to do with creating the financial crisis that is the principal source of our national discontent. During the past year, the Occupy Wall Street movement hit closer to the mark by identifying the causal relationship between the 2008 financial crisis and the resulting financial and job losses, and diminished prospects for individual economic opportunity. Democrats were quick to embrace the movement presuming that Republicans as “the party of business” would be principally disadvantaged. However, Democrats have scrupulously avoided making more specific connections between the actions of the political class and the 2008 debacle. Having benefitted at least as much as Republicans from the patronage provided by the perpetrators of the crisis, Democrats as the principal advocates for increasing home ownership and lower community based lending standards could be vulnerable to charges of having instigated the crisis in the first place. Since both parties are equally culpable for failing to avoid the excesses that led to the 2008 meltdown, it appears that the 2012 election will be fought on safer ground. Democrats will shift the conversation away from the actions of the political class and the culpability of Wall Street and its enablers to the more traditionally hospitable terrain of class division. Issues of “income inequality” and “tax fairness” may or may not be political winners but will leave unaddressed the implications of our growing and unsupportable government deficits and do little to address the damage done by the financial crisis or our vulnerability to another one. Similarly Republicans will complain about the level of government spending and the need for less job killing regulation while avoiding the calamitous results produced by past unrestrained financial manipulation in the private sector. Washington has at last reached bipartisan agreement: neither party sees benefit from further investigating the causes of the crisis or making the substantive changes necessary to prevent a reoccurrence. The institutional structures that led to the 2008 crisis remain largely in place and many of the people most responsible maintain positions of power. After suffering multi trillion dollar financial losses in pensions and housing values, three years of multi-trillion dollar federal government deficits and the resulting loss of its AAA credit rating, the country is in far worse position to weather another crisis or honor its rising future benefit obligations. Unless we address the causes of our last crisis, root out the enablers and profiteers in both the private and public sectors who perpetrated it, and correct the imbalance in a government that spends close to twice what it collects, we won’t have much left worth occupying.

Read the full article →

Sporadic Health Insurance As Bad As No Health Insurance: Study

January 5, 2012

When it comes to preventative care, having on-and-off health insurance might be as bad as not having it all. A study of diabetics by the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research found that patients with breaks in their health insurance coverage were less likely to receive annual preventative tests , according to NPR. The patients avoided getting the tests just as much as someone with no health insurance at all. One reason could be that Americans without health insurance have to pay a small co-pay of five dollars — a sum that could add up for patients that require a bevy of tests on a small income , one of the lead researchers told NPR. Health care costs have weighed on Americans for years now, with rising costs becoming an accepted part of everyday life for many with chronic conditions. By 2008, Americans’ spending on healthcare was more than triple what they spent in 1990 , according to a separate Kaiser report. Overall, health care spending accounted for more than 15 percent of the U.S.’s gross domestic product by that time — one of the highest rates of industrialized countries. The struggle to afford health care was especially evident in 2010 when the total number of Americans with health insurance fell for the first time in over two decades, according to CNNMoney. The number of Americans without health insurance rose to 49.9 million that year , according to data from the Census Bureau. And that number may only be poised to rise. Government analysts expect the health care industry to comprise a fifth of the total U.S. economy by 2020 , or $13,710 for “every man, woman and child.” Fewer California employers offered health insurance to workers last year, according to the California Employer Health Benefits survey. Employees also saw the costs of their insurance plans rise and one-third of employers are considering shifting more of the costs to workers next year, the survey found. Lacking health insurance means that patients skimp on more than just preventative care. Southern states are less likely to have good dental hygiene, according to a September Gallup poll. More than 70 percent of the residents of the top states for dental care have health insurance compared to 56 percent for the bottom 10 states, the poll found. Still, even Americans who have health insurance may end being charged high rates for preventive care. The health care law that President Obama signed into law in 2010 requires most insurers to pay for preventive care, according to USA Today , but some procedures, which are initially billed as preventative — such as colonoscopies — can turn into diagnostic procedures , saddling the patient with the bill.

Read the full article →

Indiana: The Next Big Labor Showdown

January 4, 2012

WASHINGTON — When the Indiana General Assembly reconvenes for its 2012 session on Wednesday, one of the first items on its agenda will be the legislation known as “right to work,” which scores of labor supporters from around the state plan to protest. “We have encouraged members and other concerned citizens to come down and talk to their legislators one-on-one, and we expect that people will arrive and attempt to do that,” Indiana AFL-CIO President Nancy Guyott told The Huffington Post, noting that the organization is getting the word out through social media and old-fashioned word-of-mouth channels. Joint House and Senate committees will hold a hearing on right to work on Friday , although it’s not yet clear whether there will be a vote on the legislation that day. Speaker Brian Bosma (R) said he is planning to expend a significant amount of ” personal capital ” to quickly pass the legislation. Right-to-work laws bar unions from automatically collecting dues from workers’ paychecks at private companies. In states without right-to-work laws, workers at unionized companies generally have to pay the fees , even if they don’t support unionization. Supporters of right to work, including the GOP-controlled Indiana General Assembly and Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), argue that individuals should not be forced to support unions. But the unions note that they provide services and benefits for all employees, and it’s unfair for “free riders” to reap the rewards without contributing . Both sides of the fight are already airing ads pushing their position. It will be tough for labor supporters to show up en masse at the statehouse this week — although they’re still planning to try. On Friday, Indiana officials appointed by Daniels announced a limit on the number of people who can be inside the statehouse at one time. Democratic and labor leaders swiftly condemned the move as an attempt to quash dissent and reduce the size of public protests. Only 3,000 people are now allowed inside the building at one time. That number includes the 1,700 state employees who work there, meaning that just over 1,000 others will be able to assemble on a given day. Guyott said she has no estimate of the number of people who will turn out at the statehouse, but would be “surprise[d] if, during the first week, we didn’t have more folks than they intend to let in.” When asked what she thought would happen if more than the maximum number of visitors do show up and whether there could be arrests, Guyott replied, “I think the administration has made it clear that if too many people come to the statehouse, they’re going to turn citizens away. … It’d be interesting to try and arrest people for trying to talk to their legislators. I really don’t know what to put beyond them at this point.” Twenty-two states already have right-to-work laws. The most recent state to pass such legislation was Oklahoma in 2001. Supporters of right to work argue that it helps improve the business climate in a state, creating jobs and boosting the economy. “Local economic development officers testified that 25 to 50 percent of companies looking to create employment, whether through expansion or locating a new facility, just took Indiana and other non-right-to-work states off the table,” Bosma told the New York Times . “This is stopping employers from coming to Indiana . We need to deal with that.” Guyott and other labor leaders, however, argue it’s a pretext to weaken unions, which traditionally back Democrats. Randy Palmateer of the Northwestern Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council noted to the Post-Tribune of Northwest Indiana , for example, that Nevada, a right-to-work state, has the highest unemployment rate in the country . A March 2011 report by Notre Dame economist Martin Wolfson found no evidence that right-to-work laws increase workers’ incomes. Republicans in Indiana hold wide margins in both the House and Senate. They took up right-to-work legislation last year, but Democrats left the state to protest what their colleagues were doing, and the governor eventually urged the postponement of the bill . Thousands of Hoosiers turned out last February to protest the legislation.

Read the full article →

Bright Spots vs. Dark Clouds: Obama Seeks Right Tone On Economic Recovery

January 1, 2012

WASHINGTON — Bullish yet wary, President Barack Obama is highlighting recent economic bright spots while taking care not to overstate a recovery that still has not put millions back to work. His Republican rivals, in the face of late-arriving economic good news, are making slight adjustments themselves, arguing that Obama’s policies have been a drag on a recovery that could have taken hold sooner. The competing rhetoric reflects the positive indicators in areas ranging from retail sales and housing to unemployment and falling gas prices. All this has pushed up consumer confidence, a potential barometer of political attitudes. Even Congress and Obama managed to agree on a two-month payroll tax cut extension before leaving Washington for the holidays. But the economic signs could prove fleeting, as they were in the early spring when economist also detected upticks in activity only to watch them tumble. These new indicators may hold more promise. But a looming European debt crisis is casting a pall. No one is more aware of that risk than Obama. “We’ve got an economy that is showing some positive signs; we’ve seen many consecutive months of private sector job growth,” Obama said last week before departing for Christmas in Hawaii. “But it’s not happening as fast as it needs to.” For Obama, the danger is in promoting an economy that while, slowly recovering, has yet to reflect reality for millions of Americans, or in highlighting positive signs only to see them falter in 2012. For David Axelrod, the Obama campaign’s top political adviser, visions of a European financial meltdown are what keep him awake at night. “I think the American economy is gaining strength, I don’t think many would argue that point,” he said. “The imponderable is not about that, it’s really about these externalities and particularly Europe. Especially now that we’ve passed this threshold on the payroll tax cut and assuming that the Republicans in Congress don’t want to rerun that battle, the one big thing on the horizon is Europe.” Indeed, as the year ends on an up note, leading economists surveyed by The Associated Press expect the economy will grow slightly faster in 2012 – about 2.4 percent compared with the less than 2 percent annual growth that the economy is expected to register by the end of this year. But underscoring the political challenges facing Obama, these same economists don’t expect unemployment to drop much in a year from November’s 8.6 percent rate. The public’s economic outlook is improving. An Associated Press-GfK poll in December found that 37 percent of those questioned expect improvement in the economy in the coming year. It was the first time since May that the sentiment significantly outweighed the share saying the economy would get worse in the next year. This modestly rosy scenario is contingent on keeping any financial disruptions in Europe contained to the other side of the Atlantic. Obama has pressing European leaders, particularly German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, to act swiftly to avoid a wholesale debt crisis from taking hold. But Obama has few tools other than persuasion with which to influence an outcome. In a trend the Obama camp is sure to watch, the public is holding Obama more accountable for the economy. The AP-GfK poll found that the percentage who says Obama deserves little or no blame for the economy’s sluggishness has declined from 43 percent in October to 36 percent now. Republicans are watching, too. After months of asserting that conditions under Obama have worsened, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney this past acknowledged signs of improvement, but gave Obama no credit. “I think the economy’s getting better. I sure hope so,” Romney told CNN on Wednesday. “There’s never been a time when our economy has not recovered from recession. We will recover, but it will not be thanks to the president’s policies. It will be in spite of the president’s policies.” Republican pollster Wes Anderson, a veteran of congressional and presidential contests, says the first quarter of 2012 could lay down crucial markers that could affect the election results. “If the uptick in economic indicators that we’ve seen here this month continues into the next month at the same general pace, it will be an interesting race and it will be very close, and there will be an opportunity for Obama to win,” he said. “If economic conditions deteriorate at all, I think he’s done. “If they pick up significantly in the first quarter – I don’t know what that is, but something that is tangible for middle-class America – he probably gets re-elected,” Anderson said. The White House is ready to have the president maintain a high economic profile, showcasing his bailout of the auto industry as a concrete example of an administration policy that saved job. Beyond that, Obama’s team wants to portray the president as a champion of the middle class. “The battle is really over the long term because the Republicans have a fundamental theory that we can cut our way to prosperity – cut taxes for the wealthy, cut regulations, especially for Wall Street, and the economy will flourish,” Axelrod said. “We’ve tested that theory and it failed. Badly.” “This notion that he’s been there, we should fire him and we should go back to what we were doing before the crisis is not a very strong argument,” Axelrod said. “And obviously to the degree that the economy improves it becomes less of an argument.” Still, even economists friendly to the administration see contradictory signals in the end-of-year upswing. On the positive side, the number of people applying for unemployment benefits has dropped to the lowest level since April 2008. At the same time, November’s dip in unemployment from 9 percent to 8.6 percent was partly the result of frustrated workers leaving the labor force and no longer looking to be hired. The private sector is hiring, but states, school districts and local municipalities are shedding jobs. Also, despite an increase in consumer spending, Americans are not seeing real income growth. “For every positive indicator, there is an indicator on the other side that’s worrisome,” said Jared Bernstein, former chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden who’s now with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics whose data is often cited by Democrats and Republicans, said that for all the encouraging signs, the economy still faces drags. That includes deficit reduction measures that helped reduce the debt in the long term but could cost the economy 1 percentage point in growth next year. Washington politics poses its own challenges. “I don’t think 2012 is going to be a break out year for the economy,” he said. “It is an election year and there is going to be a fair amount of political acrimony back and forth. People in business are already on edge. It doesn’t take a lot for them to remain anxious and nervous.”

Read the full article →

Edward Flattau: It’s the Economy, Stupid

December 21, 2011

Recently, conservative radio talk show host Sean Hannity unwittingly promoted the idea of transforming our conspicuous consumption-oriented society into an environmentally sustainable one. Hannity would probably cringe at the thought, but if he had gone more than halfway during his broadcast, he would have ended up on the same wavelength with progressives, his arch ideological foes. In the midst of his daily monologue excoriating President Obama for the sluggish economy, Hannity paused long enough to commiserate with those who were too fiscally-strapped to buy the Christmas gifts they desired for their families. Don’t despair, he counseled, who needs all those expensive presents anyway? For gifts, he suggested that people write letters of endearment, compose poems, make something with a do-it-yourself kit, perform good deeds in behalf of loved ones, or set aside some quality time to spend together. These actions, he declared, would be much more appreciated and remembered in the long term than any acquisition of “stuff” during the holidays. Hannity’s recommendations for those down and out were on the mark as far as they went. He failed to close the circle as environmentalists have done by recognizing that this low impact consumptive pattern is desirable, and in the long term, ecologically imperative for all Americans, regardless of their financial status. Seventy percent of our current economy stems from our shopping for “stuff,” a ratio that makes the system environmentally unsustainable. Our materialistic addiction is depleting the planet’s finite raw materials at an alarming pace. Discarded items are filling our waste dumps instead of being recycled for repeated use. Renewable natural resources are being utilized at a faster rate than they can regenerate. If these trends continue unabated, future generations are in for a rough ride. To make matters worse, we are buying a lot of resource-intensive goods that we really don’t need, often can’t afford, and if we reflected at any length, actually don’t want. Our brief attention span with new products is cultivated by manufacturers who deliberately make the items short-lived (planned obsolescence) so that we are soon back in the hunt for another purchase. Does this mean we should forego gift giving? Shopping? Could a more environmentally sustainable economy replace the loss of conspicuous consumption revenue and just as importantly, give us a satisfying quality of life? The response to the first two questions is in the negative, to the third in the affirmative. We can’t suppress our acquisitive instinct. It is an elemental part of human nature. But it can be steered in an environmentally sustainable direction by tax incentives and disincentives, pricing items to reflect the cost of pollution damage incurred in their production, and employing education to inculcate the distinct advantages of qualitative over quantitative values. What would such a society look like? There would be a major shift away from consumer items built for one-time disposal. Goods would be manufactured for durability and eventual recycling, mimicking the basic modus operandi of nature. Whole new industries would open up to repair and reconstitute essential products The economy would rely more heavily on technological innovation as a catalyst. Expansion and maintenance of municipal and transportation infrastructures would be major sources of employment. Other sectors that would assume a larger role in the job creation picture would be agriculture and the labor intensive service and entertainment industries, ranging from education and health to arts and leisure. A cultural shift would gradually take place in which greater value would be attached to retention of knowledge and cultivation of high quality individual relationships than ownership of a closet full of designer clothes. Conservation would be embraced as a national status symbol, putting to rest any perception of it being a dressed-up version of deprivation. Poor Hannity never dreamed he was espousing the enemy camp’s framework for a restructured economy and cultural revolution. But no need to feel sorry for him. In the words of the 18th century bard Thomas Gray, “Ignorance is bliss.”

Read the full article →

Payroll Tax Cut Bill: House Rejects Senate Extension

December 20, 2011

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Tuesday rejected a Senate bill that would have prevented a payroll tax cut from expiring on New Year’s Day, saying they wanted a year-long extension or no extension at all. House Republicans accomplished that with a convoluted motion to reject a Senate compromise that would have extended the 2 percent payroll tax break for two months, voting 229 to 193 to send the measure to a conference committee. Seven Republicans voted with Democrats, and no Democrats crossed the aisle. They were Reps. Charles Bass (R-N.H.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.), Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.), Tim Johnson (R-Ill.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and Frank Wolf (R-Va.). Senate leaders also were hoping for a year-long deal, but sources told The Huffington Post that Republicans and Democrats could not agree on how to fund about half of the $200 billion needed to pay for the bill for a full year. The measure would also extend unemployment insurance benefits and would prevent a 27 percent cut to Medicare payments to doctors with a “doc fix” provision. Those also expire Jan. 1. So instead, the Senate voted 89 to 10 on Saturday for a two-month extension to buy time to bridge the gap. The upper chamber then recessed, apparently confident that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had the go ahead from House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to cut a deal. But Boehner’s members rebelled against the bill, even with 39 Senate Republicans backing it, and scrambled to oppose it. At first, the GOP had set a vote on the bill, but late Monday changed it to an unusual motion to reject the Senate compromise. If they had held the first vote, and it had passed, the bill would have gone straight to President Obama. But under the new version, House leaders accomplished their goal of sending the bill to a conference committee instead, even though Senate and House Democratic leaders insist they will not appoint members to the committee . Democrats argued that the parliamentary gymnastics were just a way to prevent a clear vote on a bill that they believe would pass. “The Republican majority in this House of Representatives is refusing — it is refusing to allow a vote in this House on the Senate bipartisan compromise,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). “What are they so afraid of? It is very clear that the Republican leadership is afraid that the same bipartisanship that took place in the Senate will take place right here in the House… otherwise we’d have a vote on it.” Republican leaders insisted they were preventing a vote to pass the Senate deal because approving a bill for just two months creates uncertainty. They cited a payroll business trade organization that said a two-month extension is problematic for electronically processed payrolls. And they contended that the sides were “90 percent” of the way to a deal, even though $100 billion separated the GOP and Democrats in the Senate. The original version of the House bill also adds a string of “poison pill” riders on top of the differences over funding. Democrats initially wanted to tax the rich to pay for the bill, but dropped that surtax in the compromise. “We need to come together in a responsible manner to find common ground,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Cantor and others argued that the Senate had only been interested in going on vacation. “We stand ready to work over the holidays to get this done,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas). “That’s the question, are you willing to work over the holidays, or are you not willing to work over the holidays,” Hensarling said, suggesting that Democrats need to watch Schoolhouse Rock to figure out how Congress’ conference committees work. Democrats didn’t buy it, and none budged to the GOP side, even though at least a handful usually do. “If you’re so sure of your argument, why not vote on the Senate bill?” asked Rep, Sander Levin (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee. “Because everything you said is a smokescreen,” he said. The House could still hold a separate vote directly on the Senate bill if GOP leaders relent. However, they seemed intent on trying to make the president or Democratic leaders blink on their position, and restart negotiations. Democrats insisted they would not budge, leaving the Senate bill as the only standing proposal. “It is unconscionable that Speaker Boehner is blocking a bipartisan compromise that would protect middle-class families from the tax hike looming on January 1st – a compromise that Senator McConnell and I negotiated at Speaker Boehner’s own request,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement just after the vote. “I would implore Speaker Boehner to listen to the sensible Senate Republicans and courageous House Republicans who are calling on him take the responsible path, and pass the Senate’s bipartisan compromise,” Reid added. “I have been trying to negotiate a yearlong extension with Republicans for weeks, and I am happy to continue doing so as soon as the House of Representatives passes the bipartisan compromise to protect middle-class families, but not before then.” President Obama stood by the Senate’s position, speaking from the White House soon after the vote. “Let’s be clear: Right now the bipartisan compromise that was reached on Saturday is the only viable way to prevent a tax hike on Jan. 1. It’s the only one,” Obama said, arguing that the Senate put aside disagreements on the remaining issues and “went ahead and did the right thing.” “I need the speaker and House Republicans to do the same. Put politics aside, put aside issues where there are fundamental disagreements, and come together on something we agree on. And let’s not play brinksmanship. The American people are weary of it.” Moments after Obama spoke, Boehner said no, adding that Obama should call the Senate back in. “I need the president to help out,” Boehner said, when informed that the president had asked for his assistance. “Our House GOP negotiators are here and are ready to work,” he added. “Now it’s up to the president to show real leadership.” “We have done our job,” Boehner said, and named conferees to the as-yet uncalled conference. To tell Congress how you feel about the bill, weigh in via PopVox.com Nine Poison Pills In The GOP Payroll Tax Extension Bill:

Read the full article →

Dems Find Silver Lining In GOP Opposition To Payroll Tax Deal

December 19, 2011

WASHINGTON — Many Democrats think House Republicans have given them an early political Christmas present by opposing the Senate deal to extend the middle-class payroll tax cut for two months . “Without a doubt, this is a gift,” a senior Democratic aide told HuffPost, predicting that if the House GOP kills the compromise, Democrats will hammer them relentlessly through the holidays and beyond for hurting the middle class. “If Republicans block this vote,” the aide said, “we are going to spend a month back in every member’s state talking about how we reached an overwhelming compromise to extend unemployment benefits and a middle-class tax cut, but that it was blocked by House Republicans, whose only concern all year has been keeping millionaires and billionaires from paying a penny more in taxes.” The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is so certain that GOP opposition to the deal is a political loser that it is already campaigning on that opposition, launching a website and a round of robocalls targeting 20 Republicans in swing districts. “If House Republicans block this bipartisan compromise it will be a middle class mugging of $1,000 from 160 million middle income Americans,” said DCCC Chairman Steve Israel in a statement. Democrats feel they are on especially strong ground because most of the GOP senators voted for the two-month extension of the 2 percent payroll tax break for salaries up to $110,000. Republicans in the Senate backed it because they’ve asked for all the measures in the deal, including language about the controversial Keystone XL pipeline that they insisted on. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate settled on a two-month deal because they could not agree on how to pay for a longer-term package that would cost about $200 billion. They figured that at least taxes wouldn’t immediately rise for middle-class workers, and lawmakers would have gained more time to deal with their disagreements over funding. But House Republicans have rebelled. They’re threatening to vote down the deal on Monday evening, arguing that it should have done more and run longer — a full year. “After 39 Republicans in the Senate voted for this compromise, House Republicans have the chance tonight to stop this $1,000 middle income tax hike from happening on January 1,” said Rep. Israel (D-N.Y.). “If they fail, their extreme partisanship will have cost Americans money.” For some of the robocalls, the DCCC employed opinionated Democratic strategist James Carville, including for a spot rolling out in the district of Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio). “Something remarkable happened this weekend — Democrats and Republicans in the Senate worked together to stop a $1,000 payroll tax hike on 160 million middle class families,” Carville says. “Sounds too good to be true? It is, if Representative Bob Gibbs doesn’t do the right thing and support it.” Also singled out are GOP Reps. Elton Gallegly (Calif.), Jerry Lewis (Calif.), Mike Coffman (Colo.), Bill Young (Fla.), Tom Rooney (Fla.), Kevin Yoder (Kan.), Tim Walberg (Mich.), Renee Ellmers (N.C.), Jon Runyan (N.J.), Michael Grimm (N.Y.), Mike Kelly (Pa.), Pat Meehan (Pa.), Mike Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Tim Murphy (Pa.), Kristi Noem (S.D.), Stephen Fincher (Tenn.), Joe Barton (Texas), Jaime Herrera Beutler (Wash.) and David McKinley (W.Va.). One senior Democratic aide, who would have preferred to have the issue resolved, nevertheless couldn’t believe Democrats’ political good fortune. “This is a great message in small markets throughout the country, where a $1,000 a year means something and where everyone knows someone who’ll be dropped off the unemployment rolls,” the aide said. “House Republicans are letting their egos cloud their judgment on this one.” Still, the DCCC’s counterpart, the National Republican Congressional Committee, tried to spin the argument its way, sending out a statement entitled, “Vacation, All House Dems Ever Wanted.” “House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi is leading her fellow Democrats to oppose any effort to prevent a tax increase on middle class families for one full year,” the NRCC argued, although voting down the Senate’s two-month deal actually raises the chance that taxes will go up Jan. 1 if the sides cannot agree. “It seems that while America’s families suffer in record poverty, all House Democrats want to do is take the easy way out and vote for a Senate-passed bill that raises taxes on middle class families in two months, just so they can go on vacation,” the NRCC argued.

Read the full article →

GOP Gives Christmas Gift To Big Coal, Endangers Miners

December 16, 2011

WASHINGTON — As House Republicans and Democrats patted one another on the back over their new spending agreement Friday, advocates for coal miners were dismayed to see that the budget bill expected to pass the Senate this weekend will delay new regulations meant to reduce black lung disease. The rider attached by the GOP pushes back a rule that would further restrict the amount of respirable coal dust allowed in a mine’s atmosphere and thereby reduce the amount of damage to miners’ lungs. Mining interests have strongly opposed the new rule, arguing that it will needlessly raise costs for coal companies, and they’ve found plenty of allies among anti-regulatory Republicans in Congress. The pending bill requires that the Government Accountability Office conduct an investigation into the methodology behind the Labor Department’s new rule. The coal dust rule then can’t go into effect until either the GAO’s report is released or 240 days have passed. The rider was first pointed out on the Coal Tattoo blog. Critics say the rider gives coal operators at least another 8 months to have unacceptably high levels of coal dust in their mines. “Including this language in the bill will have the effect of sentencing more miners to die a painful and premature death, choking on their last breath,” Phil Smith, spokesman for the United Mine Workers of America, said in an emailed statement. “That may not be what the lawmakers who slipped this into the legislation intended, but it will be the effect.” Democrats said that they managed to fend off more than a dozen GOP riders that could have undermined workplace safety, but that the coal dust regulation was something on which they had to compromise. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), chairman of the House subcommittee on health and labor, had sought to scuttle the new rule entirely . “We were able to block the most damaging part of the House proposal that would have prevented [the Mine Safety and Health Administration] from moving forward with issuing a final rule altogether,” a spokesperson for Sen. Tom Harkin (D.-Iowa) told HuffPost in a statement. “We would have preferred no bill language on this issue as we believe the science supporting the rulemaking is sound.” According to Harkin’s office, the new rule could still be implemented by the end of fiscal year 2012, despite the delay. With black lung disease on the rise in certain areas of Appalachia, government officials for years have recognized the need to reduce the levels of coal dust in mines. The rule now being considered by the Labor Department would cut in half a miner’s allowable exposure to coal-dust particles, potentially changing the way operators have to ventilate mineshafts. Justin Feldman, worker health and safety advocate at watchdog group Public Citizen, said he worries that the GAO report might open the door to further delay. “Afterwards, the industry will pressure them to reopen [public] comments and hold hearings on it,” he said. “And the number of miners who die of black lung is much higher than the number that die in Massey-type disasters,” referring to the 2010 explosion at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia. According to government data, some 10,000 miners have died from black lung disease in the last decade alone.

Read the full article →

Kimberly Freeman Brown: The Best and Worst Moments for Workers in 2011

December 16, 2011

What a year it’s been for workers! From Wisconsin to Washington, D.C., on the football field and the factory floor, we’ve seen unprecedented attacks on working families from big corporations and their friends in elected office. But what the folks behind these attacks didn’t anticipate was that their actions would ignite a movement — that the worst moments for workers in 2011 might just be the beginning of a great political awakening for the 99 percent. The Worst Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker strips public employees of their collective bargaining rights — Last spring, anti-worker legislators in Wisconsin rammed through a bill that strips the state’s public employees of their right to collectively bargain. After initially using the state’s fiscal challenges as the rationale for his bill, Gov. Walker publicly admitted that the collective bargaining repeal saved the state absolutely no money. This revelation affirmed that the nationwide attacks on public employees were solely designed to hurt workers and their unions — not balance the budget. SB 5 passes in Ohio — In early March, Ohio Gov. John Kasich signed Senate Bill 5 into law. The bill scaled back public employees’ ability to bargain together for better workplace conditions and improved safety, marking a major victory for the corporate-backed lawmakers playing politics at the expense of the 99 percent. Income inequality soars to new heights — In September, the Census Bureau reported that one in six Americans are living in poverty. Meanwhile, CEO pay has continued to skyrocket. The result? Income inequality that puts the United States on par with countries like Cameroon and Uganda. And recent studies show that the rise in inequality here in the U.S. is directly tied to declining union membership. Right-wing attacks on the NLRB endanger workers’ rights — Instead of creating jobs, GOP politicians in Congress spent the year launching more than 50 attacks on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the National Labor Relations Act — the only recourse workers have when their rights to form unions and bargain collectively are violated. These cynical political games have not only threatened employee safeguards , but the unprecedented overreach by lawmakers has jeopardized the fundamental American principle of due process. Amazon workers face sweatshop conditions — This fall, an investigative report revealed that employees at Amazon.com’s Breinigsville, Pa., warehouse had been working on their hands and knees at a frantic pace in temperatures so high that the company kept ambulances parked outside. Amazon has yet to address the core problems at the warehouse, including brutal working speeds and overuse of temporary employees, for whom organizing for better working conditions is extremely difficult. The Best The 99 percent fights back — With the attacks on workers escalating from Wisconsin to Washington, D.C., everyday Americans decided it was time to fight back. Beginning this fall, the Occupy Wall Street movement has succeeded in shifting the debate — highlighting the income inequality that puts our whole economy at risk and bringing our nation’s focus back to where it belongs: on the 99 percent. Ohio voters repeal SB 5 — Voters took a stand for workers on Election Day — striking down Ohio’s controversial Senate Bill 5 by a stunning margin of 61 percent to 39 percent. The victory restored collective bargaining rights for public workers throughout the state, and reenergized the middle-class Americans fighting back against anti-worker initiatives nationwide. NLRB rules help protect workers’ rights — This summer, the NLRB issued a rule that requires employers to display a free poster advising employees of their workplace rights. And just this month, the Board voted to approve a resolution that will help ensure a fairer union election process for workers. In this upside down economy, even this modest progress for employees is good news. IKEA workers gain a voice on the job — Despite IKEA’s reputation as a top notch employer in Europe, workers at IKEA’s Swedwood plant in Danville, Va., struggled for years with pay cuts, racial discrimination, and dangerous working conditions. But in late July, they voted overwhelmingly to form a union with the Machinists — a landmark victory for workers and a testament to the continued need for balance in America’s workplaces. NFL lockout ends — The long-awaited end of the NFL lockout this July wasn’t just good news for sports fans. For the tens of thousands of stadium workers and small businesses who depend on NFL football to make ends meet, the resolution of the lockout meant their jobs were safe. And for all of us, it was a powerful reminder of the benefits of workers standing together for respect and a voice on the job. What do you think were the best and worst moments for workers this year?

Read the full article →

Democrats Considering Dropping Key Demand In Payroll Tax Cut Fight

December 14, 2011

WASHINGTON — Democratic lawmakers are considering whether to jettison their demand for a millionaires’ surtax, which they had hoped to use to cover the cost of a Social Security payroll tax cut extension for millions of wage-earners, officials said Wednesday. No decisions had been made, the officials stressed. If party leaders go ahead, it would mark a concession to Republicans in the year-end standoff over the tax cut extension that President Barack Obama requested and leaders in both parties say they want. The officials declined to be identified by name because they were discussing legislative strategy. The disclosure came as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other leading Democrats went to the White House to meet with Obama. The subject of that meeting was not announced. The developments occurred one day after the Republican-controlled House approved legislation to extend the payroll tax cut, renew jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed and head off a threatened 27 percent cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients. Obama has threatened to veto the bill, in part because it also mandates the construction of an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas. However, Senate Democrats have been unable to advance an alternative measure, in large part because Republicans are almost unanimously opposed to higher taxes. In its most recent form, the Democratic plan would have slapped a 1.9 percent surtax on income over $1 million, raising an estimated $140 billion over a decade.

Read the full article →

Long-Term Jobless Eye Bleak Future As Unemployment Benefits End

December 11, 2011

WASHINGTON (Lucia Mutikani) – George Parks has been out of work for 21 months and his unemployment benefits will run out at the end of the month. At 60, he fears his prospects of getting a job are very slim, even though he has a degree in civil engineering and has vast experience in project management. A similar story is recounted by John Jones, 52, a fellow resident of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Jones lost his teaching job last July as the Pennsylvania state government tried to close a funding shortfall. Parks and Jones are among the nearly 7 million Americans receiving jobless benefits under seven different state and federal programs. Around a quarter of those will fall off the rolls in January if Congress does not renew an extended benefits program that expires at year end. Parks’ savings are almost exhausted and his house has lost more than 30 percent of its value, making it hard for him to seek job opportunities outside Pennsylvania. He has tried to market his management skills in manufacturing and the fast-growing field of health care, but has found them already overcrowded. “It’s really getting tight,” Parks told Reuters. “The ability to provide is really diminishing and it becomes more the ability to survive.” Parks is collecting $500 a week in unemployment benefits, a far cry from the $80,000 a year he made in his last job as a project manager in architecture and construction. Although his wife still has her teaching job, they are stretching to cover their monthly expenses, which include a $480 monthly car payment. Last month, they combined and refinanced their mortgage and home equity loan, lowering their payment to $1,600 a month from $2,175. Gone are the vacations and gym memberships. “Savings are pretty much gone, we are now into our 401(K) (retirement) money. I haven’t bought any clothing in a year and a half; my wife does buy stuff occasionally to be presentable at school,” said Parks. “We have taken no vacations. I just spoke to the gym about volunteering some of my time instead of having to pay for the gym membership.” Jones, who is married and has one child, used to make about $40,000 annually teaching . His wife has an hourly paid job. He declined to say how much he was collecting in unemployment benefits. “Before I lost my job we could go out and buy extra things for the house. Right now we do not have that option. We have to watch everything that we’re spending and buying,” said Jones. That includes foregoing dental check-ups. “Our savings are about gone and the benefits will be running out fairly soon,” Jones added. BENEFITS RUNNING OUT The Obama administration estimates that through the course of 2012, about 6 million people would lose federally funded unemployment benefits if Congress does not act. Currently, federal money ensures that the unemployed receive benefits for up to 99 weeks in states where joblessness is high. Ending the program would mean the newly unemployed would have to rely on state programs that usually last for only 26 weeks. Extended benefits have been renewed several times as the economy struggled to mount a vigorous recovery from the 2007-09 recession, the worst since the Great Depression. According to Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, the average unemployed worker receiving extended benefits gets just $296 a week. “That represents only 50 percent of the income needed to cover the most basic necessities of food, housing and transportation,” she said. The extended federal benefits have become a target in the fight over budget policy between Republicans and Democrats, and renewal is uncertain. Analysts warn that removing that cushion from the millions of unemployed would dampen the still-fragile economic recovery. “If the unemployed do not have money to spend, then spending in the economy is going to decline. Providing unemployment benefits is one of the effective ways to create jobs,” said Lawrence Mishel, head of the liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington. Analysts estimate that not extending benefits for the long-term unemployed could chip away as much 0.3 percentage point from GDP. NO STIMULUS FROM JOBLESS BENEFITS? Those opposed to extending the benefits, including the conservative Heritage Foundation, argue that they have failed to stimulate the economy and are instead encouraging recipients to continue seeking jobs that do not exist. Half the jobs lost during the downturn were in manufacturing and construction. Most of them are not going to be recovered. That is bad news for Brian Krady, another Lancaster County resident, who lost his job in August after 20 years in manufacturing. Krady, 47, is collecting $500 a week in jobless benefits that will extend for several more months. The Heritage Foundation says raising benefits to 99 weeks has increased the unemployment rate by 0.5 percentage point. “People are trying to find jobs similar to what they had previously, when those jobs completely don’t exist, so they will spend a good portion of their period unemployed looking for jobs that they are unlikely to find,” said James Sherk, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. “The only sound arguments for extended unemployment benefits are humanitarian.” DESPERATE TO WORK Jones and Parks bristle at the suggestion they are contributing to the high unemployment rate by staying on benefits for a long time. Both men have been actively looking for work with the help of the PA CareerLink of Lancaster County. The unemployment rate in the county is 6.1 percent, 2-1/2 percentage points below the rate for the nation as a whole. Jones said he has applied for more than 100 jobs since being laid off, and some of them outside education. “Most people don’t respond. I have gone to visit places, trying to get a job and you can’t even get past the front desk,” he said. “You can’t make a pitch, they just don’t want to talk to you. Right now I am looking to work. I don’t care what it is in.” Parks believes his age puts him at a disadvantage. “I believe I run into some age discrimination when I get an opportunity to interview. Things go well into the interview, it sounds like it will progress to the next stage,” he said. “In one case they asked for a background check and they just disappeared. This has happened three times,” said Parks. “You can’t blame the employer, if they can find somebody younger and cheaper, and there is a glut of employees there, why should they choose to go with an experienced, expensive worker?” The longer Parks and Jones remain unemployed, the dimmer their prospects of getting a job become as they lose skills and connections. About 43 percent of the 13.3 million unemployed Americans have been out of work for 27 weeks and more. “Most of the long-term unemployed are people who had pretty good jobs and these jobs were permanently eliminated,” said Harry Holzer, professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University in Washington. “If they exhaust their benefits … what are their options?” Already, the labor force participation rate — the percentage of working-age Americans either with a job or looking for one — is at 28-year lows. While many experts advocate retraining, especially for those who lost their jobs in construction and some sections of manufacturing, Holzer warned that will not necessarily help older unemployed workers like Parks. “For people who are in their 50s, it’s hard to go back and retrain. A 55-year-old with a brand new degree is less attractive than a 25-year-old with the same degree,” said Holzer. Analysts say some of the long-term unemployed could end up settling for lesser-paying jobs, but even those are in short supply. For every one job opening, there are about 4.6 people. “It means there are simply no jobs available for more than three out of four unemployed workers,” said the Economic Policy Institute’s Mishel. “In a given month in today’s labor market, the vast majority of the unemployed are not going to find a job no matter what they do.” (Reporting by Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Dan Grebler) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Swiss, U.S. Officials Inch Closer To Deal On Tax-Dodging Americans: Reports

December 11, 2011

ZURICH – Swiss and U.S. officials have met in recent days in Berne to try to end a long-running dispute over wealthy Americans using secret Swiss accounts to dodge taxes, and seem to be getting closer to a deal, two newspapers reported on Sunday. The fact that Michael Danilack of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service travelled to Berne for the first time to meet Swiss negotiator Michael Ambuehl was seen as a positive sign. “That shows the U.S. has a considerable interest in the negotiations and that a breakthrough seems possible,” an unnamed Swiss diplomat told the NZZ am Sonntag newspaper. Mario Tuor, a spokesman for the Swiss secretariat for international financial affairs, confirmed the talks had taken place, but declined to comment further beyond saying more negotiations were planned. The NZZ am Sonntag and the SonntagsZeitung newspaper said the negotiators were seeking a deal for the whole Swiss banking industry, as well as the 11 banks under formal investigation over allegations they assisted tax evasion. They include Credit Suisse (CSGN.VX), Julius Baer (BAER.VX) and Basler Kantonalbank (BSKP.S). The Swiss want the investigations dropped in return for payment of fines and the transfer of hundreds, or even thousands, of names of clients suspected of tax evasion but have been haggling over how to do this given strict bank secrecy laws. The SonntagsZeitung cited an unnamed source as saying negotiators are seeking two parallel deals, one for the 11 banks under investigation, and a separate one for the industry as a whole which would levy a punitive tax on undeclared assets. In 2009, Swiss authorities reached a deal for UBS (UBSN.VX) to pay a fine of $780 million to avert criminal charges, and ultimately agreed to allow the bank to reveal details of around 4,450 clients. Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Elizabeth Warren: ‘Karl Rove Is Not Telling The Truth’

December 9, 2011

Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren struck back at former Bush White House senior adviser Karl Rove Thursday, after an ad by the Rove-linked group Crossroads GPS attacked her for overseeing “bailouts that helped pay big bonuses for bank executives while middle-class Americans lost out.” “Congress had Warren oversee how your tax dollars were spent, bailing out the same banks that helped cause the financial meltdown, bailouts that helped pay big bonuses to bank executives while middle-class Americans lost out” says the narrator in the ad, referring to her position as chair of the congressional oversight panel on the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Crossroads GPS attacked Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School who has long advocated for financial reforms, last month for being too close to the Occupy Wall Street movement, directly contradicting the group’s most recent ad suggesting that she is too close to Wall Street. “I can’t find the right words to describe how wrong that is. Factually wrong and morally wrong,” said Warren of the ad to the Boston Herald . “Karl Rove is not telling the truth, and I think anyone who is not telling the truth shouldn’t be running ads in this race,” she continued. “Karl Rove was part of the inner circle when President Bush pushed for TARP bailouts,” she added. “Now he’s using Wall Street money to attack me for being too cozy with Wall Street? I was calling out Wall Street over the TARP bill from the beginning.” Warren’s panel wrote scathing reports about how the Treasury Department implemented the program. One report hit the Treasury Department for taking “no steps to use any of [the $700 billion rescue package] to alleviate the foreclosure crisis,” and that “raises questions about whether Treasury has complied with Congress’ intent that Treasury develop a ‘plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners,’” according to ABC News. She criticized bank bonuses in March 2010 : “I do not understand how it is that financial institutions could think that they could take taxpayer money and then turn around and act like it’s business as usual,” she said. “I don’t understand how they can’t see that the world has changed in a fundamental way, that it is not business as usual when you take taxpayer dollars.” A poll released Wednesday by UMass Lowell and the Herald found Warren leading Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) by a 49-42 margin. The survey suggested that early advertising both by Crossroads and the Warren campaign has mostly helped her — her name identification has gone up, while Brown’s approval rating fell from 53 to 45 percent. Read more about Warren’s career in the slideshow below:

Read the full article →

Unemployment Extension: ‘What Are They Waiting On?’

December 8, 2011

Kim Bullock of Las Vegas, Nev., said she lost her job with a telecom company almost exactly one year ago after her employer went bankrupt. Now she’s worried her unemployment insurance will run out before she finds a new job. Bullock said her yearlong search for work has resulted in several interviews, but no offers. “It’s just crazy because it seems like you have to put in 50 or 60 resumes just to get one callback, and then you’re competing with hundreds of other applicants,” Bullock said. She’s one of 6 million whose federal unemployment compensation would be cut short next year if Congress doesn’t reauthorize the benefits. And Bullock is one of several dozen jobless who’ve written HuffPost in the past week to say they are anxiously watching lawmakers for signs of a deal. Unfortunately for those people, instead of an agreement, on Thursday it seemed Congress was headed for a holiday showdown. While Democrats want a renewal of the benefits without strings attached, House Republicans are crafting a proposal that will reauthorize federal benefits programs and simultaneously slash benefits. Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the House committee that oversees jobless benefits, sharply criticized the nascent proposal. “While we don’t have all the details, in this case the devil is made plain in the general outlines of the Republican proposal,” Levin said in a statement. “The plan Republicans presented this morning would slash federal unemployment insurance by more than half, cutting by 40 weeks Americans’ eligibility for assistance — even as we continue to emerge from the worst recession in 80 years. Also very concerning are indications that Republicans may propose undermining access to regular state unemployment benefits in the future.” Spokesmen for key Republicans in the House declined to provide details to HuffPost, but CNN reported the benefits would be part of a package that includes both a continuation of a payroll tax cut that has provided an average of $1,000 for every working American this year and a so-called “doc fix” to prevent a 27 percent pay cut to doctors who treat Medicare patients. The measure would be paid for with a federal salary freeze, and it would also speed construction of the Keyston XL pipeline — provisions Democrats oppose. The GOP’s plan would shorten the maximum duration workers can receive federal unemployment benefits from 73 weeks to 33 weeks, CNN reported. Federal jobless benefits kick in for people who don’t find work before running out of state aid, which typically lasts 26 weeks. Part of that reduction presumably would come from allowing the federal “Extended Benefits” program — which supplies the final 20 weeks of aid for workers in states with high unemployment rates — to phase out in 2012, which will happen anyway unless Congress proactively changes federal law to allow states to remain eligible. The Republican plan could achieve further reductions by incorporating legislation passed by a House committee earlier this year that would allow states to redirect federal jobless funds from benefits to paying down state debt to the federal government. Also, according to reports, the GOP bill would allow states to drug test the jobless. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) introduced standalone legislation to do just that , though evidence of a drug epidemic among the jobless is hard to find. Most jobless would be eligible for more weeks of benefits under the GOP proposal than with no bill at all, though it was unclear how the new scheme would treat workers who’ve already used up a portion of their federal compensation. Kim Bullock said she’s received $398 per week since she lost her billing job with the telecom company last December. She said she’s got four kids whose ages range from five to 16, and that if she can’t find work before running out of unemployment, another family member will have to absorb her household. She worries she’d have to transfer her kids to a new school system. Already, she said, she’s holding back on even a small amount of Christmas shopping because of the uncertainty. “If I lose my unemployment there’s no way I’ll be able to make it,” she said. “What are they waiting on? Why do we have to wait in distress?”

Read the full article →

House Passes Bill Empowering Congress To Veto Executive Branch Rules

December 7, 2011

WASHINGTON — A bill that would give the controlling party of either chamber of Congress veto power over any major new regulation passed the House of Representatives Wednesday. The measure, dubbed the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny — or REINS — Act, would require Congress to sign off on any new rule estimated to cost more than $100 million. It passed 241 to 184, with a handful of Democrats crossing the aisle. The REINS Act is only the latest of a slew of bills aimed at peeling back regulations, which House Republicans have pushed for in the name of cutting red tape and freeing up businesses. The GOP sees the regulations as overbearing rulemaking by unelected bureaucrats. “Who do the regulators answer to? No one,” said Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) in debate on the House floor. “When the regulators go to work everyday, like most people go to work, their work assignment’s a little different,” Poe said. “In my opinion, they sit around a big oak table, sipping their lattes. They have out their iPads and their computers, and they decide, ‘Who shall we regulate today?’ And they write a regulation and send it out to the masses and make us deal with the cost to that.” Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.), argued that if Congress can stop rules in their tracks, businesses will flourish. “Poll after poll of small business owners, of medium-sized business owners — they will show you and tell you that major regulations are holding back their expansion and the ability of them to hire more workers,” Quayle said. The bill would effectively give either chamber a veto on a regulation because leaders could simply not put it on the calendar for a vote, and the rule would expire after 70 congressional working days. The Senate is unlikely to pass the measure. Opponents of the bill argue that there is actually no evidence that regulation is a drag on the economy. Although REINS advocates frequently point to an estimate that regulations cost business more than $1 trillion a year, opponents point to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office that found the benefits of regulations often outweigh their costs by spurring economic activity. Environmental advocates have been especially alarmed about the REINS Act because many environmental regulations fall into the “major” category, with their impact often exceeding $100 million in cost. They fear the measure is simply a way to let the Tea Party and special interests shoot down any new rule to protect the air and water. The Act’s opponents also note that it’s ironic the GOP legislative attempt comes during an administration that has promoted fewer regulations that the previous one, and that the regulations Congress wants to block stem from laws passed by Congress itself. Democrats cast the entire exercise as a partisan distraction from attempts to do something about the economy, including extending a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits that run out at the end of the year. “Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat — please to put a dollar in the workers’ hand,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said. “I urge my colleagues to vote no on this REINS Act, and to get to work to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for the American people.” “Only then will we increase demand in our economy, create jobs, promote economic growth and put money into the pockets of 160 million Americans,” Pelosi said. “Think of the difference that will make instead of putting forth legislation that has no impact on our economic growth is not in furtherance of job creation.” Michael McAuliff covers politics and Congress for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.

Read the full article →

Occupy Activsts Help Families From Evictions As Part Of National Occupy Our Homes Action

December 7, 2011

WASHINGTON — In the late evening on Tuesday, Brigitte Walker welcomed Occupy Atlanta onto her property in an effort to save her Riverdale, Ga., home from foreclosure. Walker, 44, joined the Army in 1985 and had been among the first U.S. personnel to enter Iraq in February 2003. “I wasn’t happy about it,” she told The Huffington Post early Tuesday afternoon, speaking of her deployment. “But it’s my call of duty so had to do what I was supposed to do. It was a very difficult duty. It was a very emotional duty.” Walker saw fellow soldiers die, get injured. She saw a civilian with them get killed. “It was very nerve-wracking,” she said. “It makes you wonder if you’re going to survive.” She was in Iraq until May 2004, when the shock from mortar rounds crushed her spine. Doctors had to put in titanium plates to reinforce her spine, which had nerve damage. Today her range of motion is limited, and she still experiences a lot of pain. She still struggles with post-traumatic stress disorder. Loud noises and big crowds are painful. The Fourth of July is difficult for her She settled in Riverdale, a town outside of Atlanta, after purchasing a house in 2004 for $139,000. She has a brother who lives in the area and enjoyed it when she would visit him. “It seemed peaceful and quiet,” she said. “That’s what I needed.” Her active duty salary covered the mortgage. But in 2007, the Army medically retired Walker against her wishes. “I thought I was going to rehab and come back,” she said. “But they told me I couldn’t stay in.” Walker now has to rely on a disability check. After retiring from the Army, Walker used up her savings, and then got rid of a car to help pay her monthly mortgage payment. “I didn’t have problems until they put me out of the military,” she said. “It was just overwhelming.” By April of last year, she was starting to fall behind on her mortgage. JPMorgan Chase — which owns Walker’s mortgage, according to an Occupy Atlanta press release — has since begun foreclosure proceedings. She said the bank is set to take her house on January 3. “Nobody is willing to help me,” Walker said. “Where are the programs to help vets like me? I know I’m one of many.” Enter Occupy Atlanta. “I’m very hopeful that it will help me save my home and allow Chase to give me a chance to keep my home,” Walker said, speaking of the Occupiers. She added that she’s willing to celebrate Christmas with the activists. “I guess,” she said with a laugh. “As long as it takes.” Hours before Occupy Atlanta joined Walker at her home, the activists organized protests aimed at disrupting home auctions at three area courthouses. At a Fulton County Courthouse, civil rights leader Dr. Joseph Lowery joined 200 demonstrators at the county’s monthly foreclosure auction. Across the country, activists associated with the Occupy movement and Occupy Our Homes reached out to families threatened by foreclosure and highlighted the crisis with marches, rallies and press conferences. “Occupy Wall Street started because of a deep need in our country to address the financial and economic crisis that’s been created by the consolidation of wealth and political power in our country,” said Jonathan Smucker, 33, an organizer with Occupy Wall Street in New York. “The foreclosure crisis, at least as much as anything else, illustrates the deep moral crisis that we are facing. It illustrates what you have when you have your whole political system serving the needs of the one percent.” Mothers spoke out on front lawns. In New York City, Occupy Wall Street marched through the streets of East New York. At the same time, Occupy groups were protesting home auctions in Nevada and New Orleans. In Seattle protesters tried to save a family from eviction . In all, activists took over vacant homes or homes facing foreclosures from being evicted in 20 cities. During the actions, the activists tried to keep the mood light. In Chicago they planned a house-warming party for a family moving into an abandoned home. To announce their presence in New York, protestes held a block party and, in a play on police tape, wrapped a home in yellow tape bearing the word “Occupy.” As the protest were taking place, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, released a new report that found an increasing number of American homes are going unused, a spike attributed to high foreclosure and unemployment rates. “According to Census Bureau data, nonseasonal vacant properties have increased 51 percent nationally from nearly 7 million in 2000 to 10 million in April 2010, with 10 states seeing increases of 70 percent or more,” the report read. “High foreclosure rates have contributed to the additional vacancies. Population declines in certain cities and high unemployment also may have contributed to increased vacancies.” Vacant homes can cause a number of problems for the communities their located in, the report noted: “Vacant and unattended residential properties can attract crime, cause blight, and pose a threat to public safety.” The need for action was obvious to Smucker. “People need a place to live,” he said. “People need to have homes. Kids need to be able to count on not having to move, having some stability in their lives. That’s something we can all agree on in this country.” Some of the most powerful stories came from the homeowners Occupiers targeted during the day’s events. One mother from Petaluma, Calif, held a press conference outside her home and discussed her struggle with foreclosure . An Oregon mother talked about her lose of a second job, cancer and bankruptcy at an event at her house. In Old Fourth Ward neighborhood of downtown Atlanta, Occupiers came to the Pittman family home. Carmen Pittman, 21, said the home has been the backdrop to every family function and holiday dinner as far back as she can remember. The ranch-style home had been in the Pittman name since 1953. “My every Christmas, my every Thanksgiving, my every birthday, my every dinner was in this house,” Pittman told HuffPost early this afternoon. “This was the base home. We could not stay away form this home. This home is my every memory.” Now she worries that the last memory she will have is the home’s foreclosure. Her grandmother had become too sick to deal with the ballooning mortgage, and never addressed the court papers that arrived in the mail. Shortly before she passed away, the family finally realized the home was being foreclosed on when they got a notice on the front door. They have had to scramble ever since. But on Tuesday, Pittman was feeling good about her prospects after the Occupy group had come to the house. “Maybe somebody heard my cries,” she said. “I’m full of sadness and joy. It’s like two mixed feelings at the same time.” Walker, the Iraq War vet, let the Occupy Atlanta activists set up tents on her property this evening. While her eviction date is still set for Jan. 3, she said she remained cautiously optimistic that her situation could change. “Everything’s fine,” she said. “Everything’s good. They have the tents set up outside. It’s awesome. I was a little nervous. But it’s awesome. I’m really hopeful and happy. I’m feeling really hopeful. I don’t feel like all is lost anymore.” Additional reporting by Arthur Delaney.

Read the full article →

Focus Turns To House After Senate Defeats Crucial Expiring Provision

December 2, 2011

WASHINGTON — Senate defeat of competing Democratic and Republican plans to extend a cut in the Social Security payroll tax has punted the issue to the House, where GOP leaders are facing ideological divisions within the party over whether to pass the tax holiday. The focus is on the GOP-controlled House after Senate votes Thursday exposed wide reluctance by Republicans to go along with the costly proposal – a centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s jobs agenda. As expected, Senate Republicans defeated Obama’s plan to extend the payroll tax cut through the end of next year while also making it more generous for workers. But in a vote that exposed rare divisions among Senate Republicans, more than two dozen of the GOP’s 47 lawmakers also voted to kill an alternative plan backed by their leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to renew an existing 2 percentage point payroll tax cut. A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Republicans weren’t planning on negotiating with Democrats before unveiling a payroll tax cut plan – and the spending cuts to pay for it – next week. But the Senate vote would seem to indicate that House Republicans will be hard-pressed to muscle a payroll tax cut through without Democratic support. And those votes could be hard to come by if the GOP plan contains spending cuts Democrats dislike. Many Republicans and even some Democrats say the payroll tax cut hasn’t worked to boost jobs and is too costly with the deficit requiring the government to borrow 36 cents of every dollar it spends. “I can’t find many people who even know that they’re getting it, OK?” said Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who opposed both plans. “So with that being said, we’re going to double down on something that we thought should have worked that didn’t work.” Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., said after Thursday night’s vote that previous tax rebates “stimulated little and increased the debt a lot” and that it would be better to simply cut spending than turn around and use spending cuts on stimulus-style tax cuts. The defeat of the competing Senate plans came as Boehner said for the first time that renewing the payroll tax cut would boost the lagging economy. Boehner also promised compromise on a renewal of long-term jobless benefits through the end of 2012. The payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits are at the center of a costly, politically-charged year-end agenda in which Democrats seem poised to prevail in renewing a tax cut that many Republicans back only reluctantly. But Republicans are insisting – in a switch from last year – that the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits be paid for by cutting spending. Both parties are seeking the political high ground as next year’s elections loom, with Democrats accusing Republicans of siding with the rich, and Republicans countering that Democrats were taxing small business owners who create jobs. The first payroll tax plan to fall was a Democratic measure that was at the heart of the jobs package Obama announced in September. It would cut the Social Security payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 3.1 percent next year and also extend the cut to employers, with its hefty $265 billion cost paid for by slapping a 3.25 percent surtax on income exceeding $1 million. Republicans and a handful of Democrats combined to kill the measure on a 51-49 tally that fell well short of the 60 votes required under Senate rules. For the first time, a Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, voted to support the millionaires’ surcharge. In a surprising result, Democrats and more than two dozen Republicans then voted 78-20 to kill the $120 billion GOP alternative that would have simply extended the existing 2 percentage point payroll tax cut, financed by freezing federal workers’ pay through 2015 and reducing the government bureaucracy. Republicans offered a simple one-year continuation of the existing law, jettisoning Obama’s call to deepen the cut to 3.1 percentage point on workers’ first $106,800 in earnings, while expanding it to cut in half employers’ Social Security contributions for their $5 million in payroll. To pay for the measure, Senate Republicans proposed freezing federal workers’ pay through 2015 – extending a two-year-freeze recommended by Obama – and reducing the bureaucracy by 200,000 jobs through attrition. The Democratic plan would give a worker earning $50,000 a more than $1,500 tax cut; the GOP plan would provide a $1,000 tax cut for such an earner. A two-income family making $200,000 would reap a $6,000-plus tax cut under the Democratic plan and a $4,000 tax cut under the GOP version.

Read the full article →

Newt Denies Global Warming

December 1, 2011

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on Wednesday said it’s unclear whether man-made global warming is real. “I believe we don’t know,” he told Fox News’ Sean Hannity in a Wednesday night interview. In 2008 Gingrich appeared in an ad with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging action on climate change. “We do agree that our country must take action to address climate change,” he said, sitting on a sofa with Pelosi in front of the U.S. Capitol. The former House speaker recently said that the ad was “the dumbest thing I’ve done in recent years.” Earlier in his career, Gingrich co-sponsored a 1989 bill stating that climate change was “resulting from human activities.” In the Hannity interview, Gingrich also outlined what he would do within the first hours of being president. “We would have about two hours after the inaugural address, we would stop and sign between 100 and 200 executive orders and presidential findings,” he said. “For example, the very first executive order we’ll sign will terminate all of the White House czars as of that moment. So they’ll all be gone. The goal is, by the time President Obama lands in Chicago, we will have dismantled about 40 percent of his government by signing a whole series of extensive orders. He also predicted an instantaneous economic recovery if President Barack Obama is voted out of office: “The economy starts to recover late on election night, when people realize Obama is gone. Literally that night, you’ll see businesses making hiring decisions. You’ll see investors making investment decisions. You’ll see folks going ahead with new startups who were waiting and with bated breath.”

Read the full article →

A Popular Alternative To Getting A Better Return On Investment

November 21, 2011

A retiree named Bob is confronting a dilemma many of his peers face: His nest egg is parked in safe cash investments, like certificates of deposit, and barely earning any interest. What can he do to get a better return? Laura Rowley looks at an increasingly popular alternative.

Read the full article →

WATCH: Chilling Video Of Students Confronting UC Davis Chancellor

November 20, 2011

A crowd of UC Davis students confronted chancellor Linda Katehi in the wake of an incident that occurred between protesters and campus police on Friday. According to reports , police unleashed pepper spray on a group of students protesers who were part of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Video footage of the protest shows that students were sitting quietly when police began to show off a can of pepper spray before dousing the students. Katehi held a press conference on Saturday to address the incident. Students began to surround the building in protest and she reportedly refused to leave amid safety concerns. Finally, the students cleared a path for her to exit. As she walked back to her car, surrounded by students, some began to ask her questions, which she mostly brushed off “Chancellor, do you still feel threatened by the students?” someone asked. She replied, “no” and a companion said that “we’ve asked for it to be a silent, respectful exit.” Katehi will address the students directly on Monday. The officers’ behavior has sparked outrage among the Occupy Wall Street and UC Davis communities. Two involved officers have reportedly been put on administrative leave and students have even called for the chancellor’s resignation . WATCH:

Read the full article →

Todd Hartley: I’m With Stupid: Wear These Clothes While You Kiss the Pope

November 19, 2011

I don’t know a whole lot about advertising. That may seem kind of pathetic considering I made all the ads for a real estate company for a few years, but that was pretty basic stuff: slap a picture of a house on the page, make up some nonsense about granite countertops and an open floor plan, and ship the ad off to whichever publication was running it. As far as real advertising goes, though, I don’t have much of a clue. I’ve always assumed the point of an advertising campaign was to project the image you wanted people to associate with your company or product. For example, in Gatorade ads thirsty people drink Gatorade, and in Nike ads people do athletic things while wearing Nike sneakers. I can understand that. Those ads make sense to me. I find myself more than a bit confused, however, when it comes to a recent ad campaign for the Italian clothing company Benetton. I’m sure the ads were probably conceived by some high-priced agency, and I imagine they’re considered very cutting-edge, but for the life of me I’m not sure what Benetton’s point is. The ads, in case you haven’t seen or heard of them, feature manipulated images of world leaders kissing. One of the ads shows President Obama locking lips with Chinese President Hu Jintao. Another has French President Nicolas Sarkozy sharing a smooch with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. There was another ad featuring Pope Benedict XVI kissing an Egyptian imam, but that one, to no one’s surprise, managed to tick a lot of people off and since has been pulled. Benetton, in its questionable wisdom, ran a huge banner of the pope-imam image near the Vatican last week but took it down after Vatican officials protested, rightfully pointing out that the ad demonstrated how “publicity can violate the basic rules of respect for people by attracting attention with provocation.” I don’t normally agree with the Vatican on most things, but in this case they’re absolutely right: It seems very obvious to me that Benetton just came up with the ad to try to get a rise out of people and garner some unwarranted publicity for itself. If you believe Benetton’s representatives, however, that was not at all what they were shooting for. According to them, the point of the ad campaign “was solely to battle the culture of hate in all its forms.” Seriously? Does Benetton really believe that showing the pope kissing an imam is going to battle hate? How, exactly? Benetton is an Italian company. Surely they must have known that showing an unflattering image of the pope was going to make Catholics around the world despise Benetton. I would consider that part of “hate in all its forms.” The dumbest part of this whole fiasco is that whoever came up with the ads didn’t even put much thought into the kissing pairs. If the Obama ad is supposed to speak to Americans, it doesn’t. Virtually no one in America has any idea who Hu Jintao is. If Benetton wanted to make a statement, they should have had Obama kissing Rush Limbaugh or John Boehner. And why was the pope kissing an imam? Shouldn’t an imam have been kissing a rabbi? If they really wanted to put the pope with his opposite number, he should have been pictured kissing Sinead O’Connor. Regardless, one thing that the ads definitely do not do is make anyone want to go out and buy Benetton clothing. I would have thought that would be the first priority of an ad campaign, but like I said, I don’t know much about advertising. No, what this really amounts to is a pathetic ploy by a fading company to thrust itself back into the public conversation. In that regard, one can hardly blame Benetton. Since 2000, the clothing manufacturer has seen its market capitalization dwindle from $5.8 billion to less than $1.2 billion. Desperate times call for desperate measures; hence Benetton’s stupid kissing ads. I guess, in one sense, I have to give Benetton some credit. The ads did, after all, manage to get people talking about the company, even if everything being said is negative. And the ads were somewhat successful at increasing brand awareness, at least as far as I’m concerned. I had no idea Benetton was still a company before this whole controversy flared up. I have no plans to buy any Benetton items, mind you, but at least now I know they still exist. Todd Hartley created the “North Dakota and Then Some!” ad campaign for Manitoba. It didn’t do very well. To read more or leave a comment, please visit zerobudget.net .

Read the full article →

Federal Board Rules Delta Didn’t Interfere In Union Vote

November 19, 2011

ATLANTA — Delta Air Lines Inc. says a federal board has upheld results from an election that blocked a union from representing its flight attendants. Delta said late Friday that the National Mediation Board rejected claims by the Association of Flight Attendants that the company interfered in the representation election last year. The union criticized the ruling, saying Delta unfairly pressured flight attendants to vote against representation and, in some case, supervisors made threats against union supporters. “This is not democracy, not in outcome nor process,” the union said in a statement. Delta said the ruling would let flight attendants from Delta and the old Northwest move ahead as a combined group. Vice president Joanne Smith said Delta would immediately begin raising pay for Northwest flight attendants to Delta’s hourly rates. The airline still faces claims of interference in union elections for customer service, cargo, reservation sales and other employees. It said it hoped for a similar ruling in those cases. Pilots were the only large group that was unionized at Delta when it bought Northwest. The combination of Delta and Northwest triggered elections to see whether Northwest unions would represent workers in the combined groups. The Association of Flight Attendants fell about 300 votes short out of more than 18,000 cast in its bid to represent the Delta employees. Delta is the nation’s second-largest airline company behind United Continental Holdings Inc. Delta shares rose 8 cents to close at $7.36.

Read the full article →

Senate Amendment Targets High-Interest Bank Loans To Soldiers

November 19, 2011

For nearly five years, federal law has set strict guidelines on risky loans doled out to members of the military, after numerous reports documented how payday lenders were preying on soldiers and saddling them with enormous debts. But traditional banks that are now offering payday loan-style products have been able to get around those laws, offering short-term loans with interest rates far above the 36 percent annual limits set for members of the military. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) introduced an amendment on Friday aimed at closing this loophole, which has been used by banks including Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank and Fifth Third Bank. The move will “ensure that lenders cannot evade the original purpose of the act by simply placing a different label on the same exorbitantly high-interest payday loans the act aimed to prohibit,” read a letter written Friday by retired Army Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, president of the Association of the United States Army, a military support group. Consumer advocates have long criticized payday loans, which often carry high interest rates and fees that can leave borrowers trapped in a long-term debt cycle, unable to pay off the original loan. A 2006 report from the Department of Defense documented how payday lenders and other high-interest operations were setting up shop outside of military bases, offering products to soldiers struggling to make ends meet on meager paychecks. High debts can directly impact a soldier’s career: privileges such as security clearances can be revoked, as a soldier could be viewed as susceptible to bribes from foreign governments. Congress stepped in with laws in 2006 that capped interest rates at 36 percent for certain loans to the military, including payday loans. But in recent years, many traditional banks have started to offer products that closely resemble payday loans. Known as “account advances,” such loans come with high fees that carry effective annual interest rates of more than 300 percent — $10 for every $100 borrowed at U.S. Bank and Fifth Third Bank, $7.50 for every $100 borrowed at Wells Fargo, according to a recent report from the National Consumer Law Center . The money is fronted to an account holder and then debited, along with the fees, when the customer gets the next direct deposit, regardless of whether there is enough money in the account to cover the loan. The 2006 military lending limits applied to traditional payday loans, but the Department of Defense did not prohibit such cash advances from traditional banks. As more traditional banks have turned to such payday loan products as a way to earn additional fees from customers, advocates for the military have called for the 36 percent caps to also apply. “It’s basically the same thing,” said Lauren Saunders, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center. “Traditional payday lenders take your paper check and hold that until your payday. The banks hold your money until your next deposit, and then have the right to grab it as soon as it comes in.” Wells Fargo, Fifth Third and U.S. Bank did not respond to requests for comment Friday. The amendment, tacked on to a Defense spending bill in the Senate, is not expected to come to a vote until after Thanksgiving.

Read the full article →

FIRST LISTEN: San Francisco’s Most Famous Rockers Pen Occupy Wall Street Anthem

November 17, 2011

Never one to step back from the ledge separating music and politics, Third Eye Blind frontman Stephan Jenkins has penned an ode to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Entitled “If There Ever Was A Time,” the San Francisco alt-rock mainstay’s newly released protest song kicks off with a bang–an audio clip taken from the gristly aftermath of a police-lobbed tear gas canister fracturing the skull of Iraq War veteran Scott Olsen at an infamous Occupy Oakland protest. (SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO) From there, the U.C. Berkeley valedictorian ( really ) says Zuccotti Park is everywhere and calls on the youth of America to take to the streets–all done in Third Eye Blind’s trademark glossy post-grunge style. The track can be streamed or downloaded on the band’s Facebook page . “I think college students are going to come to terms with the unfairness of student loans, the hallowing out of jobs from finance based capitalism, and the depletion of public wealth,” said Jenkins in a post on Third Eye Blind’s website . “When you take money out of politics, which is what Occupy Wall Street is about for me, you reverse these trends. This song is meant to encourage their participation. I hope we flood this movement with music.” Jenkins has long been outspoken politically and often embedded political messages in his songs. In a tongue-in-cheek blog post on Huffington Post San Francisco earlier this year, he advocated for Oracle billionaire Larry Ellsion to become the next Republican nominee for president. Here are the lyrics: if there ever was a time, it would be now is all I’m saying if there ever was a time to get on your feet and take it to the street cause you’re the one who’s getting played right now by the game they’re playing come on meet me down at Zuccotti park oh where are the youth, we need you now come speak the truth, come break it down where are the youth, we need you now if there ever was a time, it would be now to make the masters hear this if there ever was a time to get downtown and get non violent and fearless things only get brighter when you light a spark everywhere you go right now is Zuccotti park and news corps says you don’t have a plan well sit down man, i’ll tell you again the plan’s to stand together up to greed and a tear gas can in a veteran’s face won’t change the case (chorus) if there ever was a time, it would be now for the rest of us if there ever was a time it would be now cause money and power are incestuous a moment makes a movement or it fades out in the dark come on meet me down at Zuccotti park and i saw a sign in the oakland spring it said “occupy everything!” or by and for and off won’t mean a thing Listen to the track: Check out this video of Jenkins discussing the politics behind Third Eye Blind:

Read the full article →

Barney Frank Calls GOP Candidate A ‘Lobbyist And Liar’

November 17, 2011

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) sharply criticized former speaker of the House and Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich Wednesday, following comments Gingrich made in October suggesting the House member should be in jail for the economic crisis. “He’s a man with no ethical core whatsoever,” Frank told the Boston Globe . “There are a number of conservatives whom I respect. … Newt’s just never had any principles, so no I’m not surprised about this at all,” he said, referring to a report that Gingrich earned between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting work for Freddie Mac. A Gingrich spokesman confirmed to The Huffington Post that Freddie Mac paid roughly $30,000 per month for his “strategic advice,” but said the money went to Gingrich’s consulting firm, The Gingrich Group. Gingrich has denied that he was ever a lobbyist, but former Freddie Mac officials said his role was to build bridges between the company and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Frank also criticized Gingrich Wednesday to MSNBC’s Martin Bashir . “You talk about the ‘L’ word with Newt. Let’s be clear the two words apply to Newt: lobbyist and liar.” He added, “He was clearly there as a lobbyist. You don’t enhance your academic credentials by having been speaker. What you enhance is your value as a lobbyist.” Gingrich later criticized Frank on the Laura Ingraham show over the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. “I wasn’t speaker at the time, but Barney Frank was in Congress.” Frank has admitted that he was late in seeing the insolvency problems with Freddie Mac and its sister company, Fannie Mae, but also added that Republicans controlled the House between 1995 and 2006 (with Gingrich as speaker between 1995 and 1999) and, in his view, did not do anything. Gingrich suggested Frank and former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the two top Democrats behind Wall Street reform legislation, should be in jail for missing the financial crisis in an Oct. 11 debate. Frank responded at the time, “It’s interesting … this notion we caused the problem that started while they were in charge even by Gingrich’s standards is very odd.”

Read the full article →

Gingrich Denies Freddie Mac Accusations, Says "Random Strange Person" Attacking His Marriage

November 16, 2011

MASON CITY, IOWA — Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on Tuesday denied reports that his $300,000 contract with Freddie Mac in 2006 was paid to him so he would stop Republican lawmakers in Congress from dismantling the government-sponsored mortgage giant. “That’s not accurate,” Gingrich said of a Bloomberg report that quoted unnamed former Freddie Mac officials. “I do no lobbying of any kind, and I offered strategic advice and that’s all I do. I don’t go to the Hill. I don’t lobby in any way. I haven’t for the years I’ve left the speakership, period.” But former Speaker of the House Gingrich (R-Ga.) did not say if he warned Freddie Mac of a looming housing crisis — a defense he used when asked about his contract last week at a debate in Michigan. The Bloomberg story said Gingrich never warned Richard Syron, Freddie Mac’s CEO at the time, of such an issue. When asked if he had warned Freddie Mac about a housing bubble after he signed his contract with Freddie Mac in 2006, Gingrich said he did not know. “I have no idea what the dates were. I offered strategic advice over a period of time. I did no lobbying of any kind. And I’m very happy to offer people strategic advice if they come and ask my advice,” he said. Earlier Tuesday, The Huffington Post’s Amanda Terkel reached out to Freddie Mac for comment on what Gingrich did for the organization and whether or not, as he said, there was a confidentiality agreement preventing him from discussing the work. The housing giant declined to comment . Gingrich has railed previously against Democratic lawmakers he claims helped cause the housing crisis by using Government Sponsored Enterprises such as Freddie Mac to hand out home loans to borrowers who could not afford them. He added Tuesday that he does not believe GSEs are inherently a bad idea. “I personally think there are circumstances where Government Sponsored Enterprises are legitimate,” Gingrich said. “You go back and look at the transcontinental railroad, you look at rural electric coops — there are a lot of ways to organize activity in this country. So I was quite happy to talk about the GSEs, which was the question. But once you got into a cycle where people were literally giving mortgages to people with no credit at all, you don’t have to be much of a historian to know that’s not sustainable.” During the debate in Michigan last week, Gingrich said he wanted to privatize Freddie Mac and its sister organization, Fannie Mae. “It’s a good case for breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and getting much smaller institutions back into the private sector to be competitive and to be responsible for their behavior,” he said. Gingrich also told HuffPost that he was aware of a flyer being distributed in Iowa that attacked him for previous infidelities, an incident first reported by Politico , but he brushed it aside. “Look, this is a free society in which various random strangers can do many things,” he said. “And I think if you read the flyer, it was clearly written by a random strange person. I don’t worry very much about what happens in a free society.” The flyer purports to have been paid for by Iowans for Christian Leaders in Government. When asked a second time if he thought a political opponent or rival campaign had designed the flyer, Gingrich said, “It was worded too badly. None of the campaigns I know would have written it that badly.” Gingrich spoke with HuffPost after touring North Iowa Area Community College with his third wife, Callista. Callista Gingrich is mentioned in the flyer as a “young staffer” who carried on an extramarital affair with the then-House Speaker for several years before Gingrich divorced his second wife and married her. At one point during the tour, Callista Gingrich mentioned to a college instructor that she had spent 11 years “as a staffer” on the House Agriculture committee. “A lot of hearings,” she said, as Newt shot a sideways glance her direction.

Read the full article →

Obama Says No To World Summit Tradition

November 14, 2011

HONOLULU — Chinese President Hu Jintao in pastels and plumerias? Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sporting pineapples and palm trees? It didn’t happen. President Barack Obama on Sunday chose not to continue a tradition started by President Bill Clinton nearly two decades ago. Leaders at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Obama’s native Hawaii were photographed together in the customary, stodgy presidential wear – neckties and dark suits – not the casual, colorful Hawaiian aloha shirts that many were hoping to see them in. There wasn’t even a single floral lei. “I got rid of the Hawaiian shirts because I looked at pictures of some of the previous APEC meetings and some of the garb that appeared previously and I thought this might be a tradition that we might want to break,” Obama said late Sunday. “I suggested to leaders, we gave them a shirt and I promise you if they wanted to wear it that would have been fine but I didn’t hear a lot of complaints about breaking precedent.” Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard stood out by contrast with her white jacket and reddish blouse. The leaders smiled for the quick shot for a sea of photographers amid a backdrop of tropical trees and the blue Pacific Ocean. As the leaders walked toward the APEC photo platform, Chilean President Sebastian Pinera Echenique even asked Obama, “Where are the Hawaiian shirts?” “We are ending that tradition,” Obama replied. Heads of states have posed together in the traditional costumes of the host nation each year at APEC, often making it one of the lighter and memorable moments of the forum. The tradition began the last time the United States hosted APEC. In 1993, Clinton handed out bomber jackets for leaders to wear in their commemorative group photo in the Seattle area. The custom continued through the years: silk tangzhuang jackets in China; long, flowing hanboks in South Korea; ponchos in Peru and sailing jackets in New Zealand. To see leaders in aloha attire was a golden opportunity to market tourism-dependent, cash-strapped Hawaii. The shirts are a symbol of the multicultural history of Hawaii and widely accepted here for everyone from tourists sipping umbrella-adorned drinks beachside to bureaucrats in downtown. Obama hinted that he would skip the shirts at a dinner Saturday he hosted for the leaders. “Two years ago, when I was in Singapore and it was announced that we would be hosting the APEC Summit here in Honolulu, I promised that you would all have to wear aloha shirts or grass skirts,” Obama said. “But I was persuaded by our team to perhaps break tradition, and so we have not required you to wear your aloha shirts, although I understand that a few of you have tried them on for size, and we may yet see you in them in the next several days.” While the Asia-Pacific leaders didn’t don the shirts, there was plenty of aloha around. The APEC host committee had more than 2,000 special APEC aloha shirts made for volunteers. Some Honolulu police officers assigned to crowd control also wore aloha shirts. The shirts first emerged in Hawaii in the 1930s and became accepted business wear in the islands by the 1960s. Designs often carry patterns or fabrics representing many of the Asia-Pacific cultures found here and feature scenes of Hawaii. They have been worn for decades by celebrities and politicians visiting the islands, from Elvis Presley to Richard Nixon. Hu even wore a brown and green patterned one to a luncheon with Hawaii’s governor when he stopped here as China’s vice president in 2002. Obama, however, isn’t the first to skip the tradition. Last year, the host nation Japan skipped the ritual for the first time. Officials cited a tight schedule, and said tight-fitting traditional kimonos might not be suitable for a photo session. The leaders instead wore jackets, slacks, and shirts without neckties to their photo. All eyes will now be on next year’s APEC host, Russia, to see if it revives the tradition and dresses the leaders in rubashka shirts or ushanka fur hats. ___ AP White House Correspondent Ben Feller in Kapolei, Hawaii, contributed to this report. __ Follow Jaymes Song at http://twitter.com/jaymessong

Read the full article →

Robert Kuttner: The Superfluous Super Committee

November 14, 2011

Once again, we have a familiar soap opera. Will the Democrats save the Republicans from crashing and burning as a consequence of the Republicans’ own folly? In this case the soap opera involves the so called Super Committee of Congress. In August, in order to avoid taking responsibility for a default on the U.S. government debt, a needless crisis of their own making, the Republicans cut a deal under which a bipartisan committee of Congress had to come up with at least $1.2 trillion dollars of deficit cuts by November 23 (Happy Thanksgiving) or automatic cuts of the same amount would kick in beginning in 2013. While several Democrats on the Super Committee have been in their usual posture of bending over backwards to consummate a deal, Republicans, until this past week, were insisting that taxes could not be part of the bargain — thus killing any possible deal. Then Republicans began taking a closer look at what would happen if budget cutting went on auto-pilot as a consequence of their own handiwork. Hundreds of billions in military cuts would kick in, starting in 2013. And over a trillion dollars in Bush tax cuts, mostly for the rich, would expire. Sounds pretty good to me. So Republicans began backpedaling, incurring the wrath of Grover (The Enforcer) Norquist, and saying that they might accept some tax increases after all. The latest GOP proposal would cap individual tax deductions but also cut the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent. The Republicans claim that this would produce a net revenue increase of $500 billion. Democrats on the committee dismissed that as a revenue loser in the long run because it would also make permanent Bush tax cuts that otherwise expire at the end of 2012. However, several Democrats on the Committee were still holding out hopes for a last-minute deal. “We’ve got to be willing to probably make some folks mad on both ends of the political extreme,” Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia told CNN. “And you’ll know this super committee is getting close if you hear folks on both ends of the political extreme scream the loudest, because that will show that there’s actually movement being made.” (With spokesmen like Warner, remind me why we have a Democratic Party?) With 10 days to go, most Democrats on the committee are still holding out for progressive tax increases as key to the deal, but some are foolishly willing to put Social Security and Medicare and other program cuts on the chopping block. Please, people. Social insurance has nothing to do with the current economic crisis. The whole idea that the economy needs massive budget cuts, which would be a lead weight on a weak recovery, is a dumb idea. It was dumb when the Bowles-Simpson commission proposed it, and even dumber when fiscal conservatives in both parties went along with the automatic trigger mechanism. In September, President Obama finally got off the austerity kick and gave priority in his rhetoric to jobs. And guess what? His approval ratings finally started exceeding his disapproval ratings. The Super Committee needs to die of its own weight and its perverse policy assumptions. Its collapse will leave the Republicans exposed as a party with no plan for economic recovery other than more tax cuts for the rich and cuts in social insurance that most Americans value — leaving the whole question of what programs to cut and what taxes to raise as the proper subject of a 2012 election that Democrats could actually win. Here’s a better program. Raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. Use the proceeds for jobs and public infrastructure investment. Get some budget cuts out of military spending by ending two wars. My friend Chuck Collins of Wealth for the Common Good calculates that you can get about $4 trillion over a decade by five tax reforms: End the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Restore the estate tax. Add two new top brackets for millionaires taxing capital gains and dividend income as the same rate as salary income. Close loopholes that allow U.S. corporations to avoid taxation by booking income overseas. Add a financial transactions tax. Presto, $4 trillion over 10 years, without increasing taxes on the bottom 99 percent. That’s about the sum that austerity-mongers in both parties want for deficit-reduction. But imagine instead what that $400 billion a year might buy. Instead of using the money for deficit reduction, let’s invest some of it in a 10-year program to make U.S. infrastructure second to none and to put millions of Americans back to work. Let’s make the country energy-independent using renewables. Let’s declare a holiday on student debt until decent jobs materialize. Let’s have high quality preschool for every young child in America. Let’s refinance mortgages so that people can keep their homes. Doesn’t that beat deficit reduction, politically and economically? More people working will produce more revenue. If we want additional budget savings, let’s end two wars and cut other unnecessary military spending. If the election is fought over Democratic austerity versus Republican austerity, President Obama might limp to victory over a weak and fragmented GOP field, but the economy he inherits will be no prize. But if Democrats run as the party of the 99 percent versus the 1 percent, and the party of possibility versus penury, then they just might win a mandate worth having. I would not have written such a piece even two months ago, but the Occupy movements have opened up some new, heartening political space. The victories last Tuesday confirm that most people do not buy the union-bashing, belt-tightening vision for America. Ordinary people are leading, and change is in the air. As someone said , politicians need to get out of the way if they can’t lend a hand. Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His latest book is A Presidency in Peril .

Read the full article →

The Center for Public Integrity: As they lobby for a tax holiday, some big multinational players say they’ve got plenty of cash on hand

November 4, 2011

By John Aloysius Farrell and Aaron Mehta , iWatch News As select U.S. multinational corporations push for a tax holiday on a trillion dollars parked overseas, their own recent financial reports undermine the arguments they are making for preferential treatment on Capitol Hill. Proponents of the tax break for “repatriated” overseas earnings say that bringing the money home will give U.S. corporations an infusion of cash, stimulating investment and creating jobs. But an iWatch News survey of some major players in the tax repatriation debate found that corporations, far from being cash-starved, are sitting on billions of dollars of liquid assets. In new filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and conference calls with Wall Street analysts, some big players flatly say they don’t need the tax holiday. Firms like Microsoft and Oracle, Google and Apple have tens of billions in cash stashed offshore, and lots more here at home. “We currently do not intend nor foresee a need to repatriate these funds,” the Microsoft Corp. said in its latest quarterly report . “We expect existing domestic cash, cash equivalents, short-term investments, and cash flow from operations to continue to be sufficient.” Microsoft said it had $57.4 billion in cash and other liquid sources on hand, with $51 billion of that kept overseas. Though it rests in offshore accounts, the lion’s share of Microsoft’s money is already invested in U.S. assets. The firm says it has socked 83 percent of the billions it holds offshore in U.S. government securities, U.S. corporate bonds and U.S. mortgage-backed securities. The story was much the same at Google Inc., which reported its corporate coffers held $42.6 billion, with $20.2 billion of that stashed overseas. “Our intent is to permanently reinvest these funds outside of the U.S. and our current plans do not demonstrate a need to repatriate them,” Google said. “Our sources of funding will be sufficient to satisfy our currently anticipated cash requirements through at least the next 12 months.” Google and Microsoft are members of WIN America , a coalition of US multinationals and trade groups pushing for the tax break. The holiday could cost the U.S. Treasury as much as $80 billion , one reason why its prospects are mixed as Washington remains inundated by a lake of red ink. Yet 80 members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, have signed up as co-sponsors . Some 70 of those co-sponsors have received almost a million dollars in campaign contributions from WIN-affiliated companies since the start of 2009. WIN and its members have spent millions lobbying Congress, and employ dozens of lobbyists, to press for the tax break, iWatch News has reported. Need aside, the payoff could be huge. A similar tax holiday in 2004 cut the 35 percent corporate tax rate to 5.25 percent for repatriating companies. American firms face a 35 percent corporate income tax at home, but money earned overseas is taxed only by the country of origin until it is returned to the United States, at which time an additional tax is levied to make up any difference and restore the rate to 35 percent. If the rate was dropped to 5 percent, “the amount of corporate cash that would come flooding into the country could be…used for creating jobs, investing in research, building plants, purchasing equipment and other uses,” wrote John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco Systems, and Safra Catz, the president of Oracle Corp., in an op-ed last year in The Wall Street Journal . However, after a number of deductions and tax breaks are employed, the effective tax rate for U.S. corporations is often much lower. And critics of the repatriation proposal, pointing to a previous tax holiday in 2004 , say that the influx of cash will not create jobs, but will be spent instead to benefit shareholders and corporate executives, via higher dividends and stock repurchasing plans. “They should use the cash they already have here at home to invest in America rather than ask for still another break,” Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, told iWatch News . U.S. firms are flush with cash, analysts from the Heritage Foundation noted last month, and can easily borrow at bargain rates if they need to raise funds. “The repatriation holiday would have little or no effect on investment and job creation, the key to the whole issue, simply because the repatriating companies are not capital-constrained today,” the Heritage report said. “Any investment, any action that they would deem worthwhile today can be and is being financed by current and accumulated earnings.” Apple Inc. is a prime example. In its latest annual report , filed on Oct. 26, Apple noted record sales and profits, and plans to expand its network of retail stores and its lines of iconic products. But Apple does not need a tax break to finance its plans for expansion. The firm’s report shows that it is sitting on some $81 billion in cash and cash equivalents, up 60 percent during 2011. America’s education system, not taxes, is what keeps Apple from employing more Americans, according to a new biography of the late Apple founder Steve Jobs. Author Walter Isaacson recounts that Jobs told President Obama that the company employed 700,000 workers in China, instead of the United States, because of a lack of qualified American engineers. Other cash-rich firms have been acquiring new subsidiaries and letting go “redundant workers,” or distributing wealth to shareholders and corporate executives. Another prominent member of the WIN America coalition is Pfizer, the pharmaceutical firm that manufactures such popular products as Lipitor and Viagra. Speaking to Wall Street analysts on Tuesday, the firm’s executives were focused on slimming down its workforce, and buying back shares – not creating jobs. “We are…focused on shareholder value,” CEO Ian Read told the analysts. The company hopes to boost its dividends, and has spent $6.5 billion this year repurchasing shares of the company’s stock as part of an ongoing buyback program that it hopes will reach $9 billion this year. Meanwhile, the Pfizer executives said they cut 4,100 jobs in 2011, as part of an ongoing company-wide purge of redundant positions from recent acquisitions. Pfizer was the single biggest benefactor of the 2004 tax holiday, when it took advantage of a cut-rate “one time” 5.25 percent tax rate to bring back $37 billion from overseas. In a paper for the nonpartisan New America Foundation , cited by WIN America, economist Laura D’Andrea Tyson and two Berkeley associates say that the trickle-down effects from rewarding stockholders could be significant. Tyson and her colleagues acknowledge that 74 percent of the money brought back to the US in a tax holiday would probably be distributed to shareholders in the form of dividend payments or stock repurchases. But for every dollar returned to a stockholder, Tyson says, from 25 to 40 cents will be used by higher-income Americans to go shopping. The boost to the economy, when combined with direct hiring and investment, could ultimately lead to the creation of between 1.3 million and 2.5 million jobs. Tyson serves on the board of directors of Kodak, a member of the WIN America group. Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, serves as chairman of the New America Foundation. WIN America, when asked to comment, declined. Microsoft also rewarded shareholders. It spent $1 billion in the 90 days prior to its Sept. 30 report buying 38 million shares as part of its ongoing stock repurchase program. A similar tale was told by software giant Oracle. “Our current cash…will be sufficient to meet our working capital, capital expenditures and contractual obligation requirements,” Oracle reported to the SEC. And “we could fund any future acquisitions, dividend payments and repurchases of common stock or debt with our internally available cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, cash generated from operations, additional borrowings or from the issuance of additional securities.” Oracle is in the midst of an $8 billion stock repurchase program, and purchased 27.5 million shares for $823 million in the three months ending Aug. 31. It is paying dividends and has its own robust merger and acquisition strategy, which in recent years has led to thousands of layoffs. Though not as flush as Apple, Cisco Systems reported that it held $44 billion in cash, with $39.8 billion of that stashed overseas. The company used $6.8 billion last year to benefit shareholders in the latest stage of a long term $82 billion stock repurchasing plan. At the same time, Cisco said, it was paring its workforce by 6,500 employees to beef up its bottom line. Requests for comment, by phone to Microsoft and Pfizer and by email to Google, were not returned. Continue this story and read more investigations at iWatch News

Read the full article →

Jobs Message War Hits Fever Pitch As Obama Makes Case For Infrastructure Bill

November 2, 2011

WASHINGTON — The high political stakes of winning the debate on jobs was on prominent display Wednesday — and will be again Thursday — as both parties fought in multiple forums to convince Americans that the opposing side is doing nothing and playing politics. The Democrats’ marquee proponent was President Obama, who made the case for the Senate’s $60 billion infrastructure bill at an aging bridge connecting Washington to Virginia. Pointing to a recent CNN poll that found large majorities support federal spending to repair infrastructure and create jobs, Obama ripped the GOP for standing in the way. “When 72 percent of the American people support the ideas in this bill — 72 percent of Americans agree with this, Republicans, Democrats and independents — there’s no excuse for 100 percent of Washington Republicans to say no,” Obama said, noting that the bridge is structurally “deficient.” “That means that the Republicans in Washington are out of touch with Republican voters,” Obama said, hitting a note that Democrats think has struck a chord — and which Republicans answered aggressively. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pointed to 15 bills that the House has passed aimed at jobs, saying that every one of them was bipartisan, and that the Senate Democratic leadership is the only thing holding them up. “What we’re witnessing in Washington right now is two very different styles of governance: a Republican majority in the House that believes we should actually do something about the problems we face,” McConnell said in a floor speech that House leaders later distributed. He argued that action was blocked by “a Democratic Majority in the Senate that’s teamed up with the White House on a strategy of doing nothing — all for the sake of trying to score political points and spread the blame for an economy that their own policies have cemented into place.” “What we’re saying is let’s stop the political games,” McConnell added. “The problems we face are too serious to ignore.” Democrats scoffed at McConnell’s argument, saying the 15 bills were a bunch of small-bore gifts to lobbyists that will do little for the economy. “Who would believe that this hodgepodge of bills will do more for jobs than the traditional way we get out of recessions: infrastructure building,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. “Most of the ideas cited by the minority leader have next to nothing to do with jobs at all. Many of these ideas belong more on a lobbyists’ wishlist rather than any serious jobs agenda.” “Many of these bills are items that Republicans would be seeking to pass even if we were in a boom and had full employment,” Schumer added. “Many are just ideological priorities dressed up as job solutions — it’s laughable for the House leadership to act like these proposals would address the jobs crisis.” As evidence of political motive, Democrats again pointed to McConnell’s old vow to make Obama a one-term president. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared that much of the politics being played by Republicans is aimed at appeasing the extreme right and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. “Republicans have obstructed and opposed every Democratic effort to create jobs this year. How did they do that? Fear,” Reid said. “The truth is they are terrified to violate the infamous Grover Norquist tax pledge, even though they know Norquist is wrong, or if they don’t know, they should know.” “They’re in a thrall, my Republican colleagues,” Reid added. “They’re in submission to a man whose singular focus is keeping taxes low for the very, very, very wealthy no matter what the effect is on this nation. They fear his political retribution.” The Senate bill would raise its $60 billion by levying a 0.7 percent tax on earnings above $1 million, effectively targeting only the very rich. Republicans in turn sent out a statement accusing Reid of hypocrisy because he once opposed McConnell over a measure that affected revenue, arguing that the Senate shouldn’t vote on it because it was certain to die since revenue bills are supposed to come from the House. Reid had argued it had no chance of passing the House. “Strange that he will force a vote anyway [on the jobs bill],” said McConnell spokesman Don Stewart. “But don’t worry, it’s not political.” The jobs bill is scheduled to face a vote in the Senate on Thursday. The ongoing word war is likely to remain heated, with Democrats repeatedly invoking rhetoric from Occupy Wall Street , even though many in the party are reluctant to embrace it directly. Republicans also pointed to letters from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that oppose the Senate plan because of the tax. The Chamber argues that the wealthy already face various surtaxes, and that another 0.7 percent would only add to the burden. Obama also took a potshot at the House Republicans for spending time voting on a measure to reaffirm “In God We Trust” as the country’s motto . “That’s not putting people back to work,” Obama said. “I trust in God, but God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work.”

Read the full article →

State In No Rush To Pay Huge Backlog Of Unpaid Bills

October 22, 2011

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Don’t look for quick action to reduce Illinois’ huge backlog of unpaid bills, despite universal agreement among state leaders that the debt is unfair to businesses, charities and local governments that provide valuable services. Progress is blocked by fundamental disagreements on how to solve the problem and a lack of any sense of urgency among officials. Even with the Legislature’s fall session beginning next week, officials report little or no discussion of what can be done to pay the bills, which total billions of dollars. Gov. Pat Quinn did not list the issue among his top three priorities for the session – ending legislative scholarships, passing a revised gambling expansion and sustaining his veto of a “smart grid” energy system. The Senate’s top Republican doesn’t expect progress any time soon. The speaker of the House and president of the Senate say they’re waiting for signs of cooperation from Republicans. Sen. John Sullivan, a proponent of borrowing money to pay the backlog, said he won’t bother calling for a vote on his plan. “I see no reason to bring it up just to fail,” said the Rushville Democrat. While acknowledging the long odds, advocates for human service groups still plan to push for action, hopefully this fall but perhaps in January. They’re trying to build support for several options: borrowing, taking money out of special-purpose funds or simply devoting any extra income to the backlog. “It’s a moral, ethical obligation,” said Judith Gethner, director of Illinois Partners for Human Service. Officials are split, largely along party lines, into two camps on how to address the backlog. Many Democrats want to borrow by selling bonds and using the money to pay overdue bills. They maintain this would not be new debt. State government already owes vendors who can ill-afford to go without their money, they say, so it would simply be a matter of changing things so the state owes money to a different, more willing group – bond-buyers. “Debt restructuring is the very best way to have Illinois pay its bills immediately,” Quinn, a Democrat, said in an interview with The Associated Press. “Mainly the reason it hasn’t passed is politics. It isn’t policy,” he said. Not true, say those in the other camp. They say it’s bad management to pay for everyday government expenses by borrowing money over many years. They want to reduce the backlog gradually with money saved by cutting spending and with higher revenues that come in as the economy improves. Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, criticized Quinn for not doing more to overhaul government spending for the long run. “There is no plan here to dig out other than borrowing, and that is the wrong answer,” Radogno said. Any borrowing plan would require a super-majority for approval, meaning Democrats need at least a few Republican supporters. One of the few people with a foot in each camp is Treasurer Dan Rutherford, a Republican. In May, Rutherford sharply condemned the idea of taking on more debt and threatened to lobby credit-rating agencies to reject the borrowing if Illinois were to go that direction. But last month he told the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce that not paying bills is “criminal” and it might be feasible to borrow money to pay them. “For those of you that are owed money from the state of Illinois, I support the idea of looking at refinancing some kind of a package to take the burden of the debt load off of you and put it on the state,” Rutherford said. Republicans want to see major changes in government pensions and Medicaid. They predict the changes would save huge amounts of money, but they also acknowledge it would be a long process. In his spring budget address, Quinn proposed borrowing $8.7 billion over 14 years. Lawmakers essentially ignored the idea. In May, Sullivan proposed borrowing $6.2 billion for about half that amount of time. It failed 19-23. Key figures report almost no discussion of alternatives or compromises since then. Republican legislative leaders say the governor’s staff recently approached them about possibly supporting a $4 billion borrowing plan, but they rejected it. Sullivan said he has had no contact with the governor, or with the treasurer, and doesn’t know of anything likely to change the status quo in Springfield. Spokesmen for Senate President John Cullerton and House Speaker Michael Madigan, both Chicago Democrats, said they haven’t pursued the issue because there’s no sign Republicans are willing to cooperate. The size of the backlog varies. As of Sept. 8, it was just over $5 billion. Nearly half of that was more than a month old, and $1.4 billion was more than two months old. State government owed the money to businesses that provided food for prisons and gasoline for vehicles, to nonprofits that care for the disabled and protect abused women, to local governments that educate students and feed hungry children. Illinois raised income taxes dramatically this year. The money, along with budget cuts, was enough to bring revenue and spending into balance but not pay off the old bills So far, money is flowing into the treasury faster than anticipated in the state budget. But a weak economy means revenues could still dry up, warns the Legislature’s Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability. For now, what to do with the additional money is likely to be a major question for lawmakers meeting this month and next. Should Quinn’s plan to close facilities and cut jobs be blocked? Should canceled government raises be restored? Should overdue bills be paid off? Gethner, of Illinois Partners for Human Services, is lobbying for bills to be top priority. It won’t be easy, she said, but it’s still possible. “I’m certainly not 100 percent in the pessimistic camp,” Gethner said. ____ ____ Christopher Wills can be reached at http//:twitter.com/ChrisBWills

Read the full article →

Tea Party Leaders Dub Wall Street Movement ‘Human Sea Of Discontent’

October 7, 2011

WASHINGTON — Two Tea Party luminaries have some advice for the Occupy Wall Street crowd: get a message, and clean up your act. Not that Reps. Allen West (R-Fla.) or Steve King (R-Iowa) think OWS has anything legitimate to say, or that they sympathize at all with the anger that has been on display in protests from New York to California. Indeed, the lawmakers see the protests as artificial. “If they knew what their grievance was then maybe one could have some sympathy, but I can’t really identify their grievance,” King told The Huffington Post. West laughed when asked if he could identify at all with the protesters. “No, I don’t,” he said, adding that their movement was not genuine. “I don’t see what the point is, and I think it’s going to backfire because when you peel the onion back, you find out who’s behind it and who’s financing it — it’s not a true grassroots movement. It’s not a true statement.” Critics said the same thing of the Tea Party movement in its earliest days, pointing to funding and organization provided by well-funded groups like FreedomWorks. “FreedomWorks tried to come in then and capitalize on it,” West refuted. “The Tea Party is going to keep on whether FreedomWorks exists or not.” But aside from not being a real movement, and is spite of his charge that the protests are a creation of unions, West said one of the biggest problem of the Wall Street protesters is that they have no message. “I don’t know what these kids want. I mean, if they stand up and say ‘We want the end of capitalism, we hate corporations…,’” West said, trailing off into a chuckle. King also suspected unions are behind the movement, but found it far less amusing than West. “I look at the signs that are there — it’s a human sea of discontent,” King said, adding that he spotted anarchists in the crowds on TV. “This is the Left looking for a cause,” he said. He also added that he’s “seen no evidence” that the movement is organic. He did not buy that they were angered by the the lack of regulation that sparked the ongoing housing crisis. “Aren’t they volunteering to live in the street without housing right now? So it can’t be very important to them, I would think,” he said. King also argued that there is no other comparison to be made to the Tea Party, even though some of them were angry, too. “The anger of the Tea Party was because this government is spending too much money and it’s not operating within the bounds of the Constitution — that’s what ties the Tea Party together,” King said. “The differences we have are that I don’t know of any member of the Tea Party that’s been arrested,” he said. “They are a peaceful group of people that could just as well be the folks at my church picnic. “And they clean up after themselves. Let’s see what kind of mess Wall Street is when they leave,” King continued, before offering a few suggestions. “That’d be my advice to them if they want to be like the Tea Party: Don’t get arrested, and clean up after yourselves,” he said. “And by the way, see if you can find some constitutional underpinnings to support an argument — whatever it may be. I challenge them to do that.”

Read the full article →

Obama Demands That Congress Approve His Jobs Bill

October 1, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House and congressional Republicans just can’t agree on the best prescription for the economy, with President Barack Obama demanding passage of his $447 billion jobs bill and the GOP pushing to cut government red tape. Both efforts, the focus of competing radio and Internet addresses Saturday, face little chance of success as all-or-nothing proposals in a divided Congress. Three weeks after Obama submitted his legislation, the Democratic-controlled Senate has yet to consider it. “It is time for Congress to get its act together and pass this jobs bill so I can sign it into law,” he said in his Saturday address. The president has mounted a steady public campaign on behalf of his bill, trying to cast Congress and Republicans in particular as obstacles. With a populist flair, Obama has barnstormed across the country to prod Congress, so far to no avail. The stops have come in contested election states such as Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia, and the president has taken his message directly to the districts of leading Republicans. On Tuesday, he will go to the Texas district represented by GOP Rep. Jeb Hensarling, co-chairman of a special deficit reduction committee in Congress. In the Republican address, Rep. Morgan Griffith of Virginia made a pitch for legislation in the House that would reduce regulatory requirements on businesses. He cited rules affecting cement plants and restrictions on institutional boilers as examples of government overreaching. “For years, excessive regulations have been a source of frustration for businesses trying to stay afloat,” he said. “President Obama, who has said he’s willing to consider stopping excessive regulations, should call on the Democrat-led Senate to follow the House in passing these jobs bills,” he said. Obama’s public approval ratings have held steady in the low 40 percent range, but the public’s assessment of his handling of the economy has been significantly lower. Obama has tried to deflect responsibility to congressional Republicans, who together with congressional Democrats fare much worse than the president. Obama’s proposal would cut payroll taxes for workers and for businesses, lengthen jobless benefits, spend on public works projects and pay local and state governments to keep teachers, police and firefighters on the job. He has proposed paying for the legislation with targeted tax increases. They include limits on deductions taken by wealthier taxpayers, closing corporate loopholes and ending oil and gas subsidies. Republicans have said some of his proposals, such as the payroll tax cuts, are worth considering. But they object to spending proposals and flatly reject raising taxes to pay for them. Even some Senate Democrats have balked at the taxes Obama would raise. There are 51 Democrats in the Senate and two independents who typically vote with them and 47 Republicans. But it usually takes 60 votes to overcome procedural roadblocks and pass legislation. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate and an Obama ally, told a radio interviewer this past week that there were not 60 votes in the Senate now for Obama’s bill. “We can work on it,” Durbin said. “We should.” In his address, Obama said that “some Republicans in Congress have said that they agree with certain parts of this jobs bill. If so, it’s time for them to tell me what those proposals are.” Obama said that if people who listened to or watched his remarks feel the same way, “don’t be shy about letting your congressman know. It is time for the politics to end.” ____ Online: Obama address: www.whitehouse.gov GOP address: http://www.youtube.com/HouseConference

Read the full article →

Worker Activists Deliver Petitions Against Jobless Discrimination To Capitol Hill

September 21, 2011

WASHINGTON — Labor advocates delivered 250,000 petitions in support of an initiative to ban hiring discrimination against the jobless on Wednesday, handing them off to congressional Democrats in front of the Capitol. Progressive activist groups National Employment Law Project, USAction, Change.org, ColorofChange.org and CREDO Action, presented the signatures to Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), the original co-sponsors of bills that would outlaw the practice of making current employment a necessary prerequisite for job applicants (but wouldn’t make employment status a protected class like age, religion or sex). NELP, a worker advocacy group, has been documenting online job ads that say only applicants who are currently employed will be reviewed, a barrier to employment for the 14 million currently unemployed Americans. This type of language affects recent college graduates, older Americans and minorities disproportionally, Democrats say, because those demographics all have higher overall unemployment rates. “People want to work, we should not throw another stumping block in their way,” DeLauro said. “That’s what this legislation is about.” DeLauro said although there is no bipartisan support at this time, they’re hopeful legislative action will take place now that their original bill has become part of President Obama’s $450 billion jobs package. The members of Congress praised President Obama for supporting their legislation , but worried Republicans may use this a “convenient excuse” to hold back support for their bills to stop discriminating against the jobless. Already, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) took to the House floor to speak out against the idea as just creating another “protected class.” Johnson said much of Republican objection is politically motivated. “[Some Republicans] don’t want to see the president be successful.” He added the American people “are looking past the cynicism and they’re looking at their pocket books. … They want some action.” DeLauro said she would be pressing the Republican majority to hold hearings on the issue in the coming weeks in the House Education and Workforce Committee. While Indeed.com, the largest job board website, agreed to no longer allow postings that discriminate against the unemployed, CareerBuilder has continued to allow job ads with such language go up. When asked whether Republicans would oppose it as another government regulation, the Democrats shot back, arguing it was not a regulation. There would be no government inspectors going around, and it would cost no money to implement, they said. So far, DeLauro said 43 Democrats have cosponsored their bill in the House. She equated this practice to signs from a century ago that would’ve stipulated Irish, Italians, blacks, or other classes of people need not apply. “There’s no reason it shouldn’t be bipartisan.”

Read the full article →

‘Credible Strategy’ To Lower Debt Must Include More Revenue: IMF

September 20, 2011

(Rachelle Younglai) – Any effort by the United States to pare its massive public debt without bringing in more revenue and tackling expensive benefit programs will lack credibility, the International Monetary Fund said on Tuesday. To show U.S. creditors and markets the government is serious about reining in the country’s $14.7 trillion debt, the IMF said so-called entitlement programs, such as the Social Security retirement program, must be reformed. U.S. credibility “could suddenly weaken if sufficiently detailed and ambitious plans to reduce deficits and debts are not forthcoming,” the fund said. “Any credible strategy will need to include entitlement reforms and higher revenues. Widening tax bases by phasing out tax expenditures would be a good place to start,” it added. The Obama administration on Monday unveiled a $3.6 trillion deficit reduction plan that steers clear of Social Security and does not make structural reforms to the Medicare health care program for the elderly. At the same time, Republicans in Congress have made clear that they would oppose any plan that raises taxes. The IMF said current low U.S. interest rates reflect the significant goodwill the United States has earned from investors even though there are fundamental weaknesses in the country’s fiscal situation, suggesting Washington could see a reversal of fortune unless it puts a credible deficit reduction plan in place. Conventional fiscal indicators such as deficits and debt ratios are no better for the United States than in many European countries that currently face significant market pressure, the fund said. A special committee of U.S. lawmakers is grappling with how to cut at least $1.2 trillion from deficits over the next 10 years. The committee must come to agreement by late November or else deep spending cuts to domestic and military programs will automatically kick in. The Obama administration would count on tax revenues for about half of its proposed budget savings. The plan, which needs congressional approval to become law, includes a minimum tax rate for people earning more than $1 million a year, a proposal that has drawn heavy fire from Republicans. The IMF’s fiscal affairs director, Carlo Cottarelli, did not condone the proposal but said that it was a legitimate tax policy goal “to make sure that the burden of taxation is distributed fairly.” (Editing by James Dalgleish) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Unemployment Surpasses ‘The Economy’ As Country’s Biggest Concern: Gallup

September 15, 2011

It’s the unemployment, stupid, according to a Gallup poll released Thursday. Almost 40 percent of Americans said in September that unemployment or joblessness is the biggest issue facing the country, up from 29 percent in August, a Gallup Poll released Thursday shows. Americans now cite unemployment more than “the economy” as the nation’s most important problem, the report said. Not since last November has unemployment surpassed the economy as the top concern of Americans. U.S. employers added no new jobs in August as the unemployment rate held at 9.1 percent, the Labor Department reported earlier this month. And things aren’t poised to pick up any time soon, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office told a congressional committee earlier this week . Elmendorf said his non-partisan agency predicts the unemployment rate will hover at 9 percent through the end of next year. Though the unemployment rate has been high for months, politicians may finally be coming to the realization that it’s a top concern for voters, especially President Barack Obama, who submitted his American Jobs Act to Congress earlier this week. The bills aims to use a combination of spending and tax cuts to spur job growth. President Obama’s re-election hopes might hinge on how quickly he can get the nation back to work. Ronald Reagan is the only president since World War II to win re-election with an unemployment rate above 6 percent, according to Bloomberg . The jobless rate stood at 7.2 percent on Election Day in 1984. For their part, some prominent economists in the Obama camp seem to agree with the American public that creating jobs is the key to turning the economy around. Larry Summers, the former director of the White House National Economic Council, wrote in an op-ed in the Financial Times in June that boosting spending, borrowing and lending would help to turn the economy around by increasing demand and creating jobs. While some other economists are doubting the effectiveness of Obama’s plan, many small business owners say that if passed, the proposal would encourage them to hire . Still, the Gallup poll found that the plan may not be enough to convince Americans that Obama can handle the issue most important to them. More respondents said Republicans are better suited to handle the nation’s biggest problem than said Democrats could deal with the issue effectively.

Read the full article →

America’s Poorest States

September 15, 2011

From 24/7 Wall St.: The U.S. Census Bureau released two pieces of widely followed data Tuesday — one on poverty and the other on median income for 2010. The most interesting findings in this release were the state-by-state figures, especially when compared to national averages. A closer look at the statistics shows that a relatively small number of states suffer such widespread levels of low income and poverty that they skew the national numbers downward. The national poverty rate last year was 15.1%. That is up from 11.3% in 2000 and is the highest it has been since 1993. Over 46 million people lived below the poverty line in 2010. The cut-off for that line is households of four people who made under $22,314. The other troubling news was that median income per household nationwide was an inflation-adjusted $49,445. This is about the same as in 1989 and down 2.3% from 2009. Economists fear that Americans are not consumers. It is easy to tell why when their real income has been frozen in place for more than two decades. The problems of poverty and low income are as much local as national. The poverty rate is 21% in Mississippi. The state also has the lowest median income at $36,850. Mississippi is among the states with the worst education systems, highest obesity levels, highest unemployment, and lowest rates of health insurance coverage. The state is an economic black hole, and it shows in the way people suffer there. And, as is true with black holes, it is nearly impossible for the residents of Mississippi to escape their difficult financial situations. There is a dearth of federal programs that target specific states and cities based on local economic need. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed census data from all 50 states on median income, poverty rates, unemployment, and lack of health insurance. We then identified the ten states that have the lowest median income. We also looked at why low-income households are concentrated in these states and what, in some cases, has been done to reverse the difficult situations. These are the poorest states in America, according to 24/7 Wall St. :

Read the full article →

Harry Reid Calls GOP Senator ‘A Dictator’

September 14, 2011

WASHINGTON — A single Republican senator’s objections plus a procedural snarl could force another partial shutdown of the Federal Aviation Administration at the end of this week, potentially putting thousands of workers out of jobs and depriving the government of $30 million a day in uncollected airline ticket taxes. Senate rules don’t allow lawmakers to shift from the bill they’re currently working on, a disaster aid bill, to a stop-gap funding measure for the FAA and highway programs without the consent of all lawmakers, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is refusing to give his consent. Coburn wants to change the stopgap transportation bill that the House passed on Tuesday by eliminating highway program spending on bike paths, beautification projects and other so-called transportation enhancements. Without directly naming Coburn, Reid effective accused the GOP senator of acting like a “dictator” by insisting the rest of the Senate accept his amendment. “It’s a pretty good way to legislate around here, be a dictator and say either take this or leave it,” Reid said. “I’m convinced his issue would lose overwhelmingly. But he’s holding this legislation up, and we are in a position now legislatively that I can’t get … to this bill prior to Friday, when the FAA expires.” Republicans say the Senate could have passed the transportation bill in time if Reid hadn’t brought up the disaster aid bill first. Because Coburn and several other GOP senators also opposed bringing up that measure, Reid on Tuesday set in motion parliamentary procedures that would allow the Senate to pass the disaster aid bill by Saturday. Democrats are negotiating with Coburn, with Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., acting as a go-between. John Hart, a spokesman for Coburn, said earlier this week that the senator “believes we need to prioritize bridge repair over bike paths and will use procedural tools at his disposal to strip the enhancement requirements from the bill.” He declined Wednesday to elaborate on the senator’s position. A partisan standoff between House Republicans and Senate Democrats forced the FAA to partially shut down for two weeks this summer. Nearly 4,000 FAA workers were furloughed and more than 200 airport construction and safety projects halted, affecting tens of thousands of other workers. The government lost nearly $400 million in airline ticket taxes because airlines no longer had authority to collect the fees. Without congressional action, the FAA would face another partial shutdown on Friday, when its current operating authority expires. Authority for highway, transit and rail programs, as well as the federal gasoline and diesel taxes that provide the largest share of funding for the programs, are due to expire on Sept. 30. Long-term funding for the FAA expired in 2007 and highway programs in 2009. Both programs have been continued through a series of short-term extensions. The latest bill would be FAA’s 21st extension and the highway program’s eighth. Hart also said , “”The beautification mandate is an indefensible threat against public safety that forces states to prioritize bike paths over bridge repair,” he said.

Read the full article →

House Liberals Propose New Tax Hike For Rich

September 14, 2011

WASHINGTON — Nervous that Social Security seems under siege from all sides, congressional liberals on Wednesday proposed raising the payroll tax that funds the program, but only for people earning more than $250,000 a year. The legislation is designed to keep the pension program solvent for the next 75 years, which is the standard used by government actuaries, by putting an additional $6.5 trillion into the Social Security trust fund over that period. The plan also is intended to head off other efforts to overhaul the program or trim benefits, or to use its funds to help pay for debt reduction. “No more discussion about raising the retirement age, no more discussion about cutting benefits, no more discussion about privatization,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., one of the sponsors. With Republicans making opposition to tax increases their mantra, the measure seems to have little chance of enactment. Nonetheless, it gives liberals a chance to underscore their support for the widely popular program at a time when President Barack Obama has proposed cutting the payroll tax to help create jobs and GOP presidential contender Rick Perry, the Texas governor, has called its finances a “Ponzi scheme.” The bill’s sponsors noted that during his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama proposed raising the payroll tax on people earning over $250,000. He’s discussed the idea as president but has yet to offer legislation following through on it. Currently, workers and their employers each owe a payroll tax of 6.2 percent of a worker’s wages up to $106,800 a year. That tax would also be imposed on wages above $250,000 under the liberals’ plan. Other sponsors include Sens. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. In an effort to boost consumer spending and create jobs, Obama last week proposed paring the 6.2 percent payroll tax on employees to 3.1 percent next year and cutting the payroll tax for employers as well. He would replace the revenue Social Security would lose with money from the government’s overall budget. That plan has split liberals. Sanders said he opposes it because it would make Social Security more vulnerable to budget cuts. Boxer said she favors it because it would create jobs while protecting Social Security. In debt reduction talks between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, this summer, they discussed a plan to slow the growth of Social Security benefits that they never embraced. In 2005, President George W. Bush proposed letting recipients turn part of their Social Security nest egg into stock market investments. The idea went nowhere.

Read the full article →

Harlan Green: Where Is Harry Truman When We Need Him?

September 13, 2011

The U.S. economic outlook has “clearly” deteriorated this year, and the continued softness of economic indicators shows that the headwinds facing the country are even stronger than thought, Chicago Federal Reserve President Charles Evans said last Wednesday . “Conditions still aren’t much different from an economy still in recession,” said Evans, speaking at a seminar in London. Is there something we can do about it with our current President and Accommodator-in-Chief giving conservatives what they want, such as cancelling the new air quality regulations, without negotiating for something in return? Well yes. Bring back another “Give ‘em hell” Harry Truman, or have President Obama choose him as a model for how to weather the next year during an election season, instead of the “Give ‘em what they want” Barack we have known of late. “Give ‘em hell” Truman was given that nickname for a reason. During a 1948 campaign speech a supporter yelled out “Give ‘em Hell, Harry!” Truman replied, “I don’t give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it’s Hell.” The post-WWII economy was going through the same malaise as today. Federal debt had ballooned to 120 percent of GDP to pay for WWII (vs. 80 percent today), unemployment was high, and Republicans crying deficit reduction had triumphed in the 1946 Congress. “Republicans stand four-square for the American home–but not for housing,” he said during his 1948 campaign. “They are strong for labor–but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights. They favor minimum wage–the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all–but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine–for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing–but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think the American standard of living is a fine thing–so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Does all this sound terribly familiar, even to the Republican attacks against him? “The smear campaign on your President started in all its vile and untruthfully slanted headlines, columns, and editorials,” said Truman. “Hearst’s character assassins, McCormick-Patterson saboteurs all began firing at me, as did the conservative columnists and radio commentators. Not because they believed anything they said or wrote, but because they were paid to do it.” Truman was following one of FDR’s more well-known maxims: “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” Truman and the Democrats were alone in trying to keep the U.S. economy afloat, in other words. So instead of compromising with deficit hawks by cutting spending, he blasted the “do nothing 80th Congress of that time,” advocating Universal Health Care and extension of unemployment benefits. When the deficit hawks in Congress voted down those benefits — both ‘blue dog’ Democrats and Republicans, we might add — he was able to blame them for the continuing malaise. Then he upset heavily favored New York Governor Thomas Dewey in 1948 — it was one of the most famous comebacks in presidential history. “I have told the people that there is just one big issue in this campaign and that’s the people against the special interests. The Republicans stand for special interests, and they always have. The Democratic Party, which I now head, stands for the people — and always has stood for the people.” Why is this malaise dragging on so long? With some $2 trillion in cash sitting on S&P 500 corporations’ balance sheets, and profit margins the highest since WWII, employers are refusing to hire more workers. This is why there was zero (0) nonfarm payroll growth in August. It’s because businesses have been living in a bubble they are reluctant to leave. It is called supply-side economics, because of a succession of business-friendly administrations that believed the bulk of government benefits should be directed to business, rather than consumers. This was mainly in the form of tax breaks, which are of little benefit to consumers — most of whom pay a payroll tax that has never been cut. Business tax breaks are an indirect form of government support, but nevertheless result in reduced revenues. Yet consumers have been spending more as wages and salaries — 80 percent of the workforce — are rising and have been rising in fact since July 2009, the nominal end of the Great Recession. Consumer spending rebounded a sharp 0.8 percent after slipping 0.1 percent in June. By components, durables jumped 1.9 percent after declining 1.1 percent in June. Clearly, motor vehicle sales are up as the supply constraint related parts shortages from Japan is easing. So what is the lesson from “give ‘em hell, Harry”? Truman was not afraid to take on those who wanted to reduce government, when government was the only support for both businesses and consumers during tough times. “People are waking up that the tide is beginning to roll, and I am here to tell you that if you do your duty as citizens of the greatest Republic the sun has ever shone on, we will have a Government that will be for your interests, that will be for peace in the world, and for the welfare of all the people, and not just a few.” So the Obama the Accommodater has to turn into Obama the fearless Negotiator who is willing to attack his enemies, who are also the enemies of majority who have been hurt most by the Great Recession. Harlan Green © 2010

Read the full article →

Dems’ Fight For American Jobs Act Will Play Out Exclusively In Battleground States

September 12, 2011

Now that Congress will take up the debate over the American Jobs Act, President Obama and his supporters in the Democratic Party will embark on a campaign to promote the bill and fight for its passage. Will this fight be coming to your state? Well, ask yourself this: are your state’s electoral votes up for grabs in 2012? No? Well, probably not then. Over at the Plum Line, Greg Sargent reports that the Democrats are “ramp[ing] up [the] push to sell [the] American Jobs Act.” And in support of President Obama’s plan to head out on a mini-tour to promote the bill, the Democratic National Committee has produced the following advertisement: Interestingly enough, the DNC has chosen to highlight the part of Obama’s speech before a joint session of Congress that downplayed the election year drama. “The next election is fourteen months away,” Obama said. “And the people who sent us here — the people who hired us to work for them — they don’t have the luxury of waiting fourteen months.” But if Obama’s rhetorical play was to put “now” before “later” and suggest the Jobs Act needed deliberations that were disentangled from election year hype, the DNC is definitely thinking 14 months ahead. As Sargent notes, “The ads will run in select markets in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.” And what states did Larry Sabato identify as the battleground just last week ? “Seven super-swing states with 85 electors will determine which party gets to the 270 Electoral College majority: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18) and Virginia (13).” So the ads will run in Sabato’s swing states, plus the state hosting the Democratic National Convention. The unemployment rates for the states in which these ads will run are as follows: Colorado (8.5), Florida (10.7), Iowa (6.0), Nevada (12.9), New Hampshire (5.2), North Carolina (10.1), Ohio (9.0) and Virginia (6.1). By contrast, the ten states with the highest unemployment rates are Nevada (12.9), California (12.0), Michigan (10.9), South Carolina (10.9), District of Columbia (10.8), Rhode Island (10.8), Florida (10.7), Mississippi (10.4), Georgia (10.1) and North Carolina (10.1). [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .]

Read the full article →

Obama Pushes Medicare Cuts In Jobs Speech

September 9, 2011

WASHINGTON — In his jobs speech before Congress Thursday night, President Barack Obama appeared to call on congressional Democrats to cut Medicare, a politically toxic proposal that undercuts a previous Democratic campaign strategy. Obama pushed to cut Medicare during the debate over raising the federal debt ceiling, urging lawmakers from both parties to accept a “grand bargain” that involved cutting both Social Security and Medicare. Obama’s move upset congressional Democrats, who saw a proposal from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to radically cut Medicare as an attack ad opening going into the Nov. 2012 elections. House Republicans voted for the Ryan proposal en masse, just months after hordes of GOP freshmen were swept into office amid advertisements vowing to protect the hugely popular entitlement program. Democrats won an unexpected special election in New York earlier this year by attacking the Republican candidate, Jane Corwin, as an enemy of Medicare, based on her views on the Ryan budget plan. “Now, I realize there are some in my party who don’t think we should make any changes at all to Medicare and Medicaid, and I understand their concerns,” Obama said during his speech Thursday. “But here’s the truth. Millions of Americans rely on Medicare in their retirement. And millions more will do so in the future. They pay for this benefit during their working years. They earn it. But with an aging population and rising health care costs, we are spending too fast to sustain the program. And if we don’t gradually reform the system while protecting current beneficiaries, it won’t be there when future retirees need it. We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it. ” Medicare faces long-term problems due to the rising costs of health care, a uniquely American problem sparked by protections the U.S. government provides for health insurance companies and drug manufacturers. Obama’s health care reform bill attempted to lower those costs, but his call now to “reform” Medicare is sure to be interpreted as a call to raise the eligibility age for Medicare, something Obama urged during the debt ceiling debate to no avail. As Ezra Klein reported for the Washington Post on Wednesday, Obama is planning a separate deficit reduction package that liberal groups expect to include raising the eligibility age. Making this change for both Medicare and Social Security hits poorer participants in the programs hardest, since they are more likely to die at a younger age.

Read the full article →

FULL TEXT: Obama Outlines Jobs Plan In Joint-Congressional Address

September 9, 2011

President Barack Obama is delivering a speech to a joint session of Congress on Thursday night on his administration’s plan to create jobs and get Americans back to work. Below, full text of the president’s prepared remarks as released by the White House. Click here for live blog coverage on Obama’s proposal and address. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, and fellow Americans: Tonight we meet at an urgent time for our country. We continue to face an economic crisis that has left millions of our neighbors jobless, and a political crisis that has made things worse. This past week, reporters have been asking “What will this speech mean for the President? What will it mean for Congress? How will it affect their polls, and the next election?” But the millions of Americans who are watching right now: they don’t care about politics. They have real life concerns. Many have spent months looking for work. Others are doing their best just to scrape by – giving up nights out with the family to save on gas or make the mortgage; postponing retirement to send a kid to college. These men and women grew up with faith in an America where hard work and responsibility paid off. They believed in a country where everyone gets a fair shake and does their fair share – where if you stepped up, did your job, and were loyal to your company, that loyalty would be rewarded with a decent salary and good benefits; maybe a raise once in awhile. If you did the right thing, you could make it in America. But for decades now, Americans have watched that compact erode. They have seen the deck too often stacked against them. And they know that Washington hasn’t always put their interests first. The people of this country work hard to meet their responsibilities. The question tonight is whether we’ll meet ours. The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy; whether we can restore some of the fairness and security that has defined this nation since our beginning. Those of us here tonight can’t solve all of our nation’s woes. Ultimately, our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers. But we can help. We can make a difference. There are steps we can take right now to improve people’s lives. I am sending this Congress a plan that you should pass right away. It’s called the American Jobs Act. There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation. Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by both Democrats and Republicans – including many who sit here tonight. And everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything. The purpose of the American Jobs Act is simple: to put more people back to work and more money in the pockets of those who are working. It will create more jobs for construction workers, more jobs for teachers, more jobs for veterans, and more jobs for the long-term unemployed. It will provide a tax break for companies who hire new workers, and it will cut payroll taxes in half for every working American and every small business. It will provide a jolt to an economy that has stalled, and give companies confidence that if they invest and hire, there will be customers for their products and services. You should pass this jobs plan right away. Everyone here knows that small businesses are where most new jobs begin. And you know that while corporate profits have come roaring back, smaller companies haven’t. So for everyone who speaks so passionately about making life easier for “job creators,” this plan is for you. Pass this jobs bill, and starting tomorrow, small businesses will get a tax cut if they hire new workers or raise workers’ wages. Pass this jobs bill, and all small business owners will also see their payroll taxes cut in half next year. If you have 50 employees making an average salary, that’s an $80,000 tax cut. And all businesses will be able to continue writing off the investments they make in 2012. It’s not just Democrats who have supported this kind of proposal. Fifty House Republicans have proposed the same payroll tax cut that’s in this plan. You should pass it right away. Pass this jobs bill, and we can put people to work rebuilding America. Everyone here knows that we have badly decaying roads and bridges all over this country. Our highways are clogged with traffic. Our skies are the most congested in the world. This is inexcusable. Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us an economic superpower. And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America? There are private construction companies all across America just waiting to get to work. There’s a bridge that needs repair between Ohio and Kentucky that’s on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America. A public transit project in Houston that will help clear up one of the worst areas of traffic in the country. And there are schools throughout this country that desperately need renovating. How can we expect our kids to do their best in places that are literally falling apart? This is America. Every child deserves a great school – and we can give it to them, if we act now. The American Jobs Act will repair and modernize at least 35,000 schools. It will put people to work right now fixing roofs and windows; installing science labs and high-speed internet in classrooms all across this country. It will rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hit hardest by foreclosures. It will jumpstart thousands of transportation projects across the country. And to make sure the money is properly spent and for good purposes, we’re building on reforms we’ve already put in place. No more earmarks. No more boondoggles. No more bridges to nowhere. We’re cutting the red tape that prevents some of these projects from getting started as quickly as possible. And we’ll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it would do for the economy. This idea came from a bill written by a Texas Republican and a Massachusetts Democrat. The idea for a big boost in construction is supported by America’s largest business organization and America’s largest labor organization. It’s the kind of proposal that’s been supported in the past by Democrats and Republicans alike. You should pass it right away. Pass this jobs bill, and thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work. These are the men and women charged with preparing our children for a world where the competition has never been tougher. But while they’re adding teachers in places like South Korea, we’re laying them off in droves. It’s unfair to our kids. It undermines their future and ours. And it has to stop. Pass this jobs bill, and put our teachers back in the classroom where they belong. Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get extra tax credits if they hire America’s veterans. We ask these men and women to leave their careers, leave their families, and risk their lives to fight for our country. The last thing they should have to do is fight for a job when they come home. Pass this bill, and hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people will have the hope and dignity of a summer job next year. And their parents, low-income Americans who desperately want to work, will have more ladders out of poverty. Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job. We have to do more to help the long-term unemployed in their search for work. This jobs plan builds on a program in Georgia that several Republican leaders have highlighted, where people who collect unemployment insurance participate in temporary work as a way to build their skills while they look for a permanent job. The plan also extends unemployment insurance for another year. If the millions of unemployed Americans stopped getting this insurance, and stopped using that money for basic necessities, it would be a devastating blow to this economy. Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber have supported unemployment insurance plenty of times in the past. At this time of prolonged hardship, you should pass it again – right away. Pass this jobs bill, and the typical working family will get a fifteen hundred dollar tax cut next year. Fifteen hundred dollars that would have been taken out of your paycheck will go right into your pocket. This expands on the tax cut that Democrats and Republicans already passed for this year. If we allow that tax cut to expire – if we refuse to act – middle-class families will get hit with a tax increase at the worst possible time. We cannot let that happen. I know some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away. This is the American Jobs Act. It will lead to new jobs for construction workers, teachers, veterans, first responders, young people and the long-term unemployed. It will provide tax credits to companies that hire new workers, tax relief for small business owners, and tax cuts for the middle-class. And here’s the other thing I want the American people to know: the American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit. It will be paid for. And here’s how: The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next ten years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I’m asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act. And a week from Monday, I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan – a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run. This approach is basically the one I’ve been advocating for months. In addition to the trillion dollars of spending cuts I’ve already signed into law, it’s a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by making additional spending cuts; by making modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid; and by reforming our tax code in a way that asks the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share. What’s more, the spending cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right away. Now, I realize there are some in my party who don’t think we should make any changes at all to Medicare and Medicaid, and I understand their concerns. But here’s the truth. Millions of Americans rely on Medicare in their retirement. And millions more will do so in the future. They pay for this benefit during their working years. They earn it. But with an aging population and rising health care costs, we are spending too fast to sustain the program. And if we don’t gradually reform the system while protecting current beneficiaries, it won’t be there when future retirees need it. We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it. I’m also well aware that there are many Republicans who don’t believe we should raise taxes on those who are most fortunate and can best afford it. But here is what every American knows. While most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets. Right now, Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary – an outrage he has asked us to fix. We need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake, and everybody pays their fair share. And I believe the vast majority of wealthy Americans and CEOs are willing to do just that, if it helps the economy grow and gets our fiscal house in order. I’ll also offer ideas to reform a corporate tax code that stands as a monument to special interest influence in Washington. By eliminating pages of loopholes and deductions, we can lower one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Our tax code shouldn’t give an advantage to companies that can afford the best-connected lobbyists. It should give an advantage to companies that invest and create jobs here in America. So we can reduce this deficit, pay down our debt, and pay for this jobs plan in the process. But in order to do this, we have to decide what our priorities are. We have to ask ourselves, “What’s the best way to grow the economy and create jobs?” Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can’t afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? Right now, we can’t afford to do both. This isn’t political grandstanding. This isn’t class warfare. This is simple math. These are real choices that we have to make. And I’m pretty sure I know what most Americans would choose. It’s not even close. And it’s time for us to do what’s right for our future. The American Jobs Act answers the urgent need to create jobs right away. But we can’t stop there. As I’ve argued since I ran for this office, we have to look beyond the immediate crisis and start building an economy that lasts into the future – an economy that creates good, middle-class jobs that pay well and offer security. We now live in a world where technology has made it possible for companies to take their business anywhere. If we want them to start here and stay here and hire here, we have to be able to out-build, out-educate, and out-innovate every other country on Earth. This task, of making America more competitive for the long haul, is a job for all of us. For government and for private companies. For states and for local communities – and for every American citizen. All of us will have to up our game. All of us will have to change the way we do business. My administration can and will take some steps to improve our competitiveness on our own. For example, if you’re a small business owner who has a contract with the federal government, we’re going to make sure you get paid a lot faster than you do now. We’re also planning to cut away the red tape that prevents too many rapidly-growing start-up companies from raising capital and going public. And to help responsible homeowners, we’re going to work with Federal housing agencies to help more people refinance their mortgages at interest rates that are now near 4% — a step that can put more than $2,000 a year in a family’s pocket, and give a lift to an economy still burdened by the drop in housing prices. Other steps will require Congressional action. Today you passed reform that will speed up the outdated patent process, so that entrepreneurs can turn a new idea into a new business as quickly as possible. That’s the kind of action we need. Now it’s time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements that would make it easier for American companies to sell their products in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea – while also helping the workers whose jobs have been affected by global competition. If Americans can buy Kias and Hyundais, I want to see folks in South Korea driving Fords and Chevys and Chryslers. I want to see more products sold around the world stamped with three proud words: “Made in America.” And on all of our efforts to strengthen competitiveness, we need to look for ways to work side-by-side with America’s businesses. That’s why I’ve brought together a Jobs Council of leaders from different industries who are developing a wide range of new ideas to help companies grow and create jobs. Already, we’ve mobilized business leaders to train 10,000 American engineers a year, by providing company internships and training. Other businesses are covering tuition for workers who learn new skills at community colleges. And we’re going to make sure the next generation of manufacturing takes root not in China or Europe, but right here, in the United States of America. If we provide the right incentives and support – and if we make sure our trading partners play by the rules – we can be the ones to build everything from fuel-efficient cars to advanced biofuels to semiconductors that are sold all over the world. That’s how America can be number one again. That’s how America will be number one again. Now, I realize that some of you have a different theory on how to grow the economy. Some of you sincerely believe that the only solution to our economic challenges is to simply cut most government spending and eliminate most government regulations. Well, I agree that we can’t afford wasteful spending, and I will continue to work with Congress to get rid of it. And I agree that there are some rules and regulations that put an unnecessary burden on businesses at a time when they can least afford it. That’s why I ordered a review of all government regulations. So far, we’ve identified over 500 reforms, which will save billions of dollars over the next few years. We should have no more regulation than the health, safety, and security of the American people require. Every rule should meet that common sense test. But what we can’t do – what I won’t do – is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades. I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients. I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy. We shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards. America should be in a race to the top. And I believe that’s a race we can win. In fact, this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everyone’s money, let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own – that’s not who we are. That’s not the story of America. Yes, we are rugged individualists. Yes, we are strong and self-reliant. And it has been the drive and initiative of our workers and entrepreneurs that has made this economy the engine and envy of the world. But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. But in the middle of a Civil War, he was also a leader who looked to the future – a Republican president who mobilized government to build the transcontinental railroad; launch the National Academy of Sciences; and set up the first land grant colleges. And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set. Ask yourselves – where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways and our bridges; our dams and our airports? What would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges? Millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, had the opportunity to go to school because of the GI Bill. Where would we be if they hadn’t had that chance? How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided not to support the basic research that led to the Internet and the computer chip? What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result? No single individual built America on their own. We built it together. We have been, and always will be, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all; a nation with responsibilities to ourselves and with responsibilities to one another. Members of Congress, it is time for us to meet our responsibilities. Every proposal I’ve laid out tonight is the kind that’s been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past. Every proposal I’ve laid out tonight will be paid for. And every proposal is designed to meet the urgent needs of our people and our communities. I know there’s been a lot of skepticism about whether the politics of the moment will allow us to pass this jobs plan – or any jobs plan. Already, we’re seeing the same old press releases and tweets flying back and forth. Already, the media has proclaimed that it’s impossible to bridge our differences. And maybe some of you have decided that those differences are so great that we can only resolve them at the ballot box. But know this: the next election is fourteen months away. And the people who sent us here – the people who hired us to work for them – they don’t have the luxury of waiting fourteen months. Some of them are living week to week; paycheck to paycheck; even day to day. They need help, and they need it now. I don’t pretend that this plan will solve all our problems. It shouldn’t be, nor will it be, the last plan of action we propose. What’s guided us from the start of this crisis hasn’t been the search for a silver bullet. It’s been a commitment to stay at it – to be persistent – to keep trying every new idea that works, and listen to every good proposal, no matter which party comes up with it. Regardless of the arguments we’ve had in the past, regardless of the arguments we’ll have in the future, this plan is the right thing to do right now. You should pass it. And I intend to take that message to every corner of this country. I also ask every American who agrees to lift your voice and tell the people who are gathered here tonight that you want action now. Tell Washington that doing nothing is not an option. Remind us that if we act as one nation, and one people, we have it within our power to meet this challenge. President Kennedy once said, “Our problems are man-made – therefore they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants.” These are difficult years for our country. But we are Americans. We are tougher than the times that we live in, and we are bigger than our politics have been. So let’s meet the moment. Let’s get to work, and show the world once again why the United States of America remains the greatest nation on Earth. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. RELATED VIDEO:

Read the full article →

Patent Reform Refuses To Die, Congress Keeps Cashing In

September 7, 2011

WASHINGTON — The seemingly endless congressional circus known as patent reform still carries on. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced he would allow senators to submit amendments to the legislation later this week, after the bill clears a filibuster. The legislation, which the Senate approved in March by a vote of 95 to 5, is all but certain to clear that filibuster in a vote scheduled for Tuesday night. But those fresh amendments, however few in number, indicate that Congress will capitalize on the massive special interest melee surrounding the patent bill for as long as it can. Senators now claim to be tied up over an obscure provision in the bill known as “fee diversion” — something that has essentially become a matter of debate between Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s operations are funded by fees the office charges to patent applicants. Congress generally takes those fees and diverts a significant chunk of them to other government functions. The Senate version of the patent reform bill that passed this March allowed the PTO to maintain independent control of all the fees it collects. That raised concerns for House Budget Committee Chairman Ryan, who stripped the provision from the House version of the bill. “There’s still some political wrangling going on some of the finer points, but this bill just doesn’t do much,” says James Bessen, a lecturer at Boston University’s law school and a fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center on Internet and Society. The fee diversion provision has little to do with the original goals reformers had in mind when Congress began considering patent legislation during the first term of President George W. Bush. Since then, patent reform has roped in just about every corporate heavyweight on Capitol Hill , from multinational drug companies to Silicon Valley tech giants to Wall Street banks to Texas trial lawyers. And a year and a half after leaders from both political parties agreed to gut much of the bill’s basic substance, the certain-to-pass legislation has continued to draw attention from campaign donors. The Senate could have simply rubber-stamped the House bill and sent the legislation to the president’s desk. By refusing to do so, members of Congress get a few more chances to cajole those donors — each additional legislative step for the bill allows lawmakers to ask for another round of contributions. TROLL TRAUMA For years, tech companies have been bombarded by frivolous lawsuits from firms dubbed “patent trolls” — shadowy companies that don’t actually produce products, instead making money buying up patents and suing other companies for patent infringement. This troll business model depends on the tremendous volume of patents the PTO has approved over the years — some of them vague and bizarre — from the comb-over haircut to the concept of sending email over a cellphone. When armed with a vaguely defined patent, trolls can sue a company and often even win judgments. Reformers say the resulting system actively discourages innovation. Any time an inventor brings a new product to market, she may be accidentally infringing on a little-known, loosely defined patent, and find herself in court. Patent attorneys know this and intentionally tailor patent applications to include the broadest possible language, giving their owners the greatest capacity to sue in the future. As a result, the PTO grants a huge number of patents with boundaries that often go undefined until the patent owner goes through a lawsuit. That legal uncertainly leads many companies that are sued for patent infringement to settle out of court, often for tremendous amounts of money. But overhauling the patent litigation system by making it harder to sue or lowering infringement damages would have lessened the consequences for infringing on certain patents. And that could have threatened profits for pharmaceutical giants, so Pharma brought its lobbying weight to the patent reform table, and eventually defeated the Silicon Valley companies that favored patent reform, convincing both political parties to gut the proposed bill in March 2010 . “Our inability to lasso the patent problem will hog-tie our innovation as a country going forward, and this legislation, sadly, does not get the job done,” said Ed Black, President of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a lobbying group for tech firms. The patent litigation system broke down after Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) announced that Congress would not, actually, be overhauling it. The lack of substantive public policy change in the resulting bill may have even convinced some Silicon Valley companies to stop supporting it and instead begin using the unreformed patent litigation system to their advantage. Corporate behemoths like Oracle and Microsoft began filing patent-troll-style lawsuits against their competitors. This summer, a consortium of tech giants including Microsoft and Apple made a multi-billion-dollar bid to buy up a collection of patents owned by the bankrupt Canadian telecom giant Nortel. The move was an open assault on Google, which responded by inking a deal to purchase cell phone manufacturer Motorola — and its tremendous vault of patents. REFORM, REFORMED After jettisoning plans to overhaul patent lawsuits, Congress tasked itself with the far more modest goal of churning through the backlog of patent applications awaiting review from the Patent and Trademark Office — currently around 700,000 applications. The White House entered the fray, with President Barack Obama repeatedly insisting that the legislation will create jobs. Obama even enlisted economic adviser Austan Goolsbee for a brief explainer video in March. WATCH: Goolsbee proclaims that the main problem with the U.S. patent system is the length of time it takes to get a patent. It now takes about three years for a patent application to be approved, Goolsbee notes, and the economy would be more prosperous if that time were reduced. He says the Obama administration’s plan — otherwise known as the Leahy-Hatch compromise — will reduce that time by 40 percent. This would make America a better place to be an entrepreneur, Goolsbee declares, closing the video by saying, “We’ve got the greatest inventors in the world, and it’s time we give them the help they need to bring this country where it needs to be.” Lawmakers have deployed similar talking points. Speaking from the Senate floor Tuesday afternoon, Reid said the bill would “unlock the job-creating potential of each patent.” But critics say today’s patents are geared more toward their ability to generate lawsuits than their ability to generate jobs. “Just how many genuinely new ideas are there out there?” said Black. “People always use the example of Edison and the light bulb. Who really thinks that there are half a million light-bulb-type ideas every year?” THE FEE DIVERSION In addition to addressing fee diversion, the patent reform bill does two things: It creates a new process at the PTO for challenging patents after they have already been granted, and it changes the U.S. patent system from first-to-invent to first-to-file. The proposed PTO system is designed to provide a less costly arena than the federal court system for challengers to take on low-quality patents, but it is unlikely to be heavily used. If a company challenges a flimsy patent at the PTO and loses, after all, the patent owner has a potential target for its first patent infringement suit. The first-to-file switch simply makes it easier to resolve disputes when multiple people file the same patent. Under current law, if several people claim the same patent, the first person to invent the idea gets the patent (the U.S. is the only country with this patent system). Under the reform bill, the first person to file the application will win. This is not a conspiratorial sign-off on patent theft — stolen ideas still don’t get patents — but it does harmonize the U.S. system with the rest of the world’s patent laws. But the latest Senate patent scuffle doesn’t even directly deal with new processes at the PTO — it’s over how the office is funded and what happens its fees. Sen. Coburn is now hitting the op-ed pages over fee diversion, demanding the patent reform bill be killed unless the PTO is given total control over the fees it collects. “If Congress does not make this fix, President Obama should veto [the bill],” Coburn said in a Tuesday op-ed in the National Review . “Otherwise, he will be complicit in a scheme that is rigged to rob the very people we say we want to help — America’s job creators.” Of course, one way to slow the flood of patent applications and increase the PTO’s funding would be to simply raise some of the fees the PTO charges to patent holders. “Fees should just be a whole hell of a lot higher, especially renewal fees,” said Bessen, the Harvard fellow. “That would weed out a whole lot of garbage, but nobody seems to want to confront that simple reality.” Patents must be renewed every four years, and hefty renewal fees, Bessen notes, would discourage patent trolls from filing patents on unproductive inventions in hopes of cashing in through a future court proceeding. Fee increases are not included in the current bill.

Read the full article →