RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley Impress Labor Leaders Print
Monday, 10 August 2015 11:52

Galindez writes: "The Iowa Federation of Labor, the Hawkeye state's leading labor coalition, held their annual presidential forum last week. Four of the five Democratic Party candidates participated, with Hillary Clinton unable to attend because of fundraisers already scheduled in California."

Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)


Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley Impress Labor Leaders

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

10 August 15

 

he Iowa Federation of Labor, the Hawkeye state’s leading labor coalition, held their annual presidential forum last week. Four of the five Democratic Party candidates participated, with Hillary Clinton unable to attend because of fundraisers already scheduled in California. Senator Bernie Sanders also was not able to attend in person, but he participated from Washington and received the most enthusiastic response from the hundreds of Iowa labor leaders who participated.

The format of the event included three-minute opening statements followed by eight questions from a panel of four labor leaders that included the president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka. Each candidate then gave a 10-minute closing statement. The candidates appeared one at a time in the order decided by a random draw. Each candidate was asked the same eight questions.

Lincoln Chafee

The first candidate introduced was former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee. Chafee, who was a Republican senator before being an Independent governor, seemed out of place. Richard Trumka praised his honesty, but clearly Chafee won’t be getting many if any endorsements from organized labor. Chafee missed the mark on both questions from Trumka. On the minimum wage, Chafee believes different communities should have different minimum wage levels based on the cost of living. On trade, Chafee awkwardly said he would support the TPP only because he doesn’t like to be a flip-flopper. Since he supported CAFTA he must be for the TPP. Huh?

The peacenik in me likes his focus on ending war, but I have not once seen Lincoln Chafee make a coherent case for why he is running for president.

 

Martin O’Malley

Martin O’Malley faired much better than Chaffee. O’Malley was quick to support raising the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour and opposed the TPP. He also showed a grasp of issues important to labor, unlike Chaffee, who didn’t seem to understand a couple of the questions. O’Malley has always reminded me of an old school labor candidate in the mold of Dick Gephardt. Trumka thanked O’Malley for his years of service to working people. He delivered a forceful speech that included programs that would create jobs, like transitioning the country to renewable, sustainable energy. In any other election cycle, O’Malley would be the type of candidate labor would back, but this time he has to overcome a longtime champion of labor issues, Bernie Sanders.

 

Jim Webb

Jim Webb was more comfortable addressing the union leaders than Chafee but his positions were not as strong as those of Sanders or O’Malley. Webb shared Chafee’s position on the minimum wage. Hillary Clinton has also said that $15 dollars an hour might not be appropriate everywhere. I would love to ask Webb, Chafee, and Hillary Clinton where they could raise their family on less than $15 an hour. Webb was better on the TPP; he wants the process delayed because of a lack of transparency. I again didn’t see much fire in the belly of Webb, but at least he has a coherent argument for why he should be president, something lacking from Lincoln Chafee.

 

Bernie Sanders

The room had three large-screen TV’s and since Bernie Sanders thought there might have been votes in Washington, he was streamed in. The crowd rose to its feet and cheered when Bernie was announced. Of all the candidates, Bernie and the panelists seemed to be old friends. Bernie called Richard Trumka “Rich” and Trumka called Bernie “Bern” and thanked him for being a warrior for working people his whole career. The panelists joked a few times that they were asking tough questions for Bernie, when in fact if Bernie had just given his stump speech he would have answered all eight questions. In fact in Bernie’s answer to the first question, he answered the second question as well. The crowd loved Bernie’s response to the panel and his closing statement. Bernie showed a deeper understanding of the issues important to labor than any of the other candidates. It was very clear that he has championed the issues of working people his whole career.

Following the event I spoke with Richard Trumka, who told me he thought it was conceivable that the National AFL-CIO would endorse a candidate before the primaries begin. Trumka wished that Hillary Clinton had attended, but did not rule out that she could get the endorsement. However, he said it would be difficult if she didn’t come out against the TPP and in support of $15 dollars an hour. When I pressed Trumka on her positions on the TPP and the minimum wage, he refused to say they would be a deal breaker. He said it was unfair to ask him the question because the decision is not his, that rank and file union members would be polled before any endorsement.

The million-dollar question is will labor stay on the fence to avoid losing a seat at the table with the eventual nominee, or will they take a stand and support the candidate who would make the president for labor? In 1992 labor stayed on the fence until Bill Clinton wrapped up the nomination. If you remember, we got NAFTA after that Clinton’s election. I think it would be smart for unions to help put a candidate over the top who will be a “warrior” for workers rather than worry about maintaining relations with a candidate who will give us the TPP.



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: If Secretary Clinton Wants More Debates, We'll Get Them Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15102"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 10 August 2015 10:24

Sanders writes: "Did you watch last night’s Republican presidential debate? If you are one of the wealthiest people in this country, then you had ten candidates talking about your needs for two hours."

Bernie Sanders, Democratic presidential candidate, packed the Moda Center in Portland to capacity on August 9, 2015. (photo: Randy L. Rasmussen/The Oregonian)
Bernie Sanders, Democratic presidential candidate, packed the Moda Center in Portland to capacity on August 9, 2015. (photo: Randy L. Rasmussen/The Oregonian)


If Secretary Clinton Wants More Debates, We'll Get Them

By Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News

10 August 15

 

id you watch last night’s Republican presidential debate?

If you are one of the wealthiest people in this country, then you had ten candidates talking about your needs for two hours.

But in the entire time I watched, I saw very little discussion about the issues important to most American families. There was no talk about climate change and clean energy, raising wages and providing healthcare for all Americans, criminal justice reform and the undermining of the Voting Rights Act, and nothing at all about the crushing burden of student debt.

And when they did talk about campaign finance reform and the billionaire class buying candidates and elections, it was the butt of a Donald Trump joke.

We need to be discussing issues facing working families at a debate hosted by trade unions. We need to discussing climate change and environmental issues at a forum hosted by the environmental community. We need to be discussing civil rights issues and racial injustice at a forum sponsored by civil rights groups. We need to be discussing gay rights at a forum hosted by the LGBT community. In other words, more discussion, more debate is good for the Democratic Party and good for the American people.

I know, and you know, that the best chance for this country is to discuss the issues that matter. Republicans aren’t going to do it, so we need more Democratic debates — more than the four scheduled by the Democratic National Committee before the Iowa Caucuses.

And I know that if Secretary Clinton wants more debates, we’ll get them.

Here’s what I did hear a lot about last night: I heard a group of ten Republicans on stage longing for a return to the days of George W. Bush. The return to more war and tax breaks for the rich, and less jobs and health insurance for most American families.

Do they remember the two wars George Bush put on the credit card?

I do. Some of us voted no.

Do they remember the 800,000 jobs a month we were hemorrhaging when Bush left office?

I do. Some of us voted against the policies that led us there.

The American people deserve more debates — debates about how we got to where we are today, and how we move this country forward. And if all the candidates running for the Democratic nomination, especially Secretary Clinton, call for more, then we’ll get them.

We are at a moment of truth. We need to face up to the reality of where we are as a nation, and the best ways to move forward.

Thank you for standing with me.



Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Outrageous Ascent of CEO Pay Print
Monday, 10 August 2015 08:26

Reich writes: "For the last thirty years almost all incentives operating on American corporations have resulted in lower pay for average workers and higher pay for CEOs and other top executives."

Robert Reich. (photo: Richard Morgenstein)
Robert Reich. (photo: Richard Morgenstein)


The Outrageous Ascent of CEO Pay

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

10 August 15

 

he Securities and Exchange Commission just ruled that large publicly held corporations must disclose the ratios of the pay of their top CEOs to the pay of their median workers.

About time.

For the last thirty years almost all incentives operating on American corporations have resulted in lower pay for average workers and higher pay for CEOs and other top executives.

Consider that in 1965, CEOs of America’s largest corporations were paid, on average, 20 times the pay of average workers. 

Now, the ratio is over 300 to 1.

Not only has CEO pay exploded, so has the pay of top executives just below them. 

The share of corporate income devoted to compensating the five highest-paid executives of large corporations ballooned from an average of 5 percent in 1993 to more than 15 percent by 2005 (the latest data available).

Corporations might otherwise have devoted this sizable sum to research and development, additional jobs, higher wages for average workers, or dividends to shareholders – who, not incidentally, are supposed to be the owners of the firm.

Corporate apologists say CEOs and other top executives are worth these amounts because their corporations have performed so well over the last three decades that CEOs are like star baseball players or movie stars.

Baloney. Most CEOs haven’t done anything special. The entire stock market surged over this time. 

Even if a company’s CEO simply played online solitaire for thirty years, the company’s stock would have ridden the wave.  

Besides, that stock market surge has had less to do with widespread economic gains that with changes in market rules favoring big companies and major banks over average employees, consumers, and taxpayers.

Consider, for example, the stronger and more extensive intellectual-property rights now enjoyed by major corporations, and the far weaker antitrust enforcement against them. 

Add in the rash of taxpayer-funded bailouts, taxpayer-funded subsidies, and bankruptcies favoring big banks and corporations over employees and small borrowers.

Not to mention trade agreements making it easier to outsource American jobs, and state legislation (ironically called “right-to-work” laws) dramatically reducing the power of unions to bargain for higher wages.

The result has been higher stock prices but not higher living standards for most Americans.

Which doesn’t justify sky-high CEO pay unless you think some CEOs deserve it for their political prowess in wangling these legal changes through Congress and state legislatures.

It turns out the higher the CEO pay, the worse the firm does.

Professors Michael J. Cooper of the University of Utah, Huseyin Gulen of Purdue University, and P. Raghavendra Rau of the University of Cambridge, recently found that companies with the highest-paid CEOs returned about 10 percent less to their shareholders than do their industry peers.

So why aren’t shareholders hollering about CEO pay? Because corporate law in the United States gives shareholders at most an advisory role.

They can holler all they want, but CEOs don’t have to listen. 

Larry Ellison, the CEO of Oracle, received a pay package in 2013 valued at $78.4 million, a sum so stunning that Oracle shareholders rejected it. That made no difference because Ellison controlled the board.

In Australia, by contrast, shareholders have the right to force an entire corporate board to stand for re-election if 25 percent or more of a company’s shareholders vote against a CEO pay plan two years in a row.

Which is why Australian CEOs are paid an average of only 70 times the pay of the typical Australian worker.

The new SEC rule requiring disclosure of pay ratios could help strengthen the hand of American shareholders.

The rule might generate other reforms as well – such as pegging corporate tax rates to those ratios.

Under a bill introduced in the California legislature last year, a company whose CEO earns only 25 times the pay of its typical worker would pay a corporate tax rate of only 7 percent, rather than the 8.8 percent rate now applied to all California firms.

On the other hand, a company whose CEO earns 200 times the pay of its typical employee, would face a 9.5 percent rate. If the CEO earned 400 times, the rate would be 13 percent.

The bill hasn’t made it through the legislature because business groups call it a “job killer.” 

The reality is the opposite. CEOs don’t create jobs. Their customers create jobs by buying more of what their companies have to sell.

So pushing companies to put less money into the hands of their CEOs and more into the hands of their average employees will create more jobs.

The SEC’s disclosure rule isn’t perfect. Some corporations could try to game it by contracting out their low-wage jobs. Some industries pay their typical workers higher wages than other industries.

But the rule marks an important start.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Fails to Back Up Misogynist Slurs With Anti-Woman Proposals, Rivals Say Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Sunday, 09 August 2015 14:12

Borowitz writes: "Tempers flared in the aftermath of Thursday night's Republican debate, as rival candidates accused the billionaire Donald Trump of failing to back up his misogynist slurs with concrete and workable anti-woman proposals."

Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. (photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)
Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. (photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)


Trump Fails to Back Up Misogynist Slurs With Anti-Woman Proposals, Rivals Say

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

09 August 15

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."

empers flared in the aftermath of Thursday night’s Republican debate, as rival candidates accused the billionaire Donald Trump of failing to back up his misogynist slurs with concrete and workable anti-woman proposals.

Florida governor Jeb Bush and Wisconsin governor Scott Walker led the charge, as both of them asserted that Trump’s sexist rhetoric paled in comparison with their own strong records of opposition to women’s rights.

“As governor of Florida, I defunded Planned Parenthood,” Bush said. “Donald Trump is good at creating misogynist sound bites, but I’ve actually rolled up my sleeves and gotten things done.”

Governor Walker piled on, touting his own anti-woman achievements during his time in office. “In Wisconsin, I used my power as governor to repeal a law supporting equal pay for women,” he said. “No offense to Mr. Trump, but nothing on his résumé compares with that.”

The attacks by Trump’s rivals seemed to sting the hotheaded billionaire, who hit back hard on Friday. “When it comes to coming up with solid anti-woman solutions, I do not intend to be lectured by Jeb Bush and Scott Walker,” he said, noting that the wall he intends to build on the border with Mexico would keep out many women.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
When Oppression Is the Status Quo, Disruption Is a Moral Duty Print
Sunday, 09 August 2015 14:07

Newsome writes: "I'm struck by the way society can commemorate the movement of the past while condemning the movement of the present. Or how it can continually celebrate social progress in the most abstract of ways while ignoring the realities of what is required for social progress to occur."

Demonstrators protest in front of the police station in Ferguson, Missouri. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Demonstrators protest in front of the police station in Ferguson, Missouri. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)


When Oppression Is the Status Quo, Disruption Is a Moral Duty

By Bree Newsome, The Root

09 August 15

 

History teaches us that legislative action rarely happens without organized protest. This is why the Black Lives Matter movement is so essential today.

hen rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets.” —Alabama clergymen’s letter to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. April 12, 1963

“You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. ... It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.” —From Letter From a Birmingham Jail, by Martin Luther King Jr., April 16, 1963

I visited the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site for the first time two weekends ago while in Atlanta for a wedding. I sat in the pews of the original Ebenezer Baptist Church listening to recordings of King speaking on racial and economic injustice, words just as applicable to the present moment as they were 50 years ago.

I walked along the reflecting pool—a mausoleum surrounded by the kind of poverty and urban blight King was fighting to end at the time of his assassination in 1968—and watched people toss coins into the water and pose for photos in front of the tombs of King and his wife, Coretta.

I saw posters celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act—although the Voting Rights Act itself didn’t survive intact for 50 years but was gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013.

I viewed photos of activists receiving nonviolent-resistance training at the Highlander Center in Tennessee. I thought of a similar photo that exists of myself with a group of modern activists, many of whom were in Cleveland at that moment attending the Movement for Black Lives Convening. I paused to scroll through my Twitter feed and saw that attendees of the convening in Cleveland had just been pepper-sprayed by a cop. An anger that had been slowly rising within me during my visit finally boiled over.

I’m struck by the way society can commemorate the movement of the past while condemning the movement of the present. Or how it can continually celebrate social progress in the most abstract of ways while ignoring the realities of what is required for social progress to occur. Lyndon B. Johnson’s signing of the Voting Rights Act happened only because there were black Americans refusing to comply with oppression, creating disruption and posing direct challenges to the United States’ racial caste system.

In 1963, Birmingham, Ala., was one of the most segregated cities in the United States of America. Black citizens faced brutal racial and economic oppression. If they protested, they faced violence from police and local authorities. To ask, “Was the Birmingham campaign of 1963 really necessary?” seems like a ridiculous question to most people today.

Yet some of those very same people whose 20-20 hindsight never fails them seem blind to the present. They ask why Black Lives Matter protesters staged die-ins at the malls, disrupting America’s high holy shopping season, or why they blocked traffic on the highways. Do they pause to “express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations”? Instead of asking why young black people are interrupting white people at brunch, perhaps we should be asking why equal protection under the law is not a real thing.

In 2015, St. Louis remains one of the most segregated cities in the United States of America. According to Richard Rothstein’s study “The Making of Ferguson,” black citizens there have faced brutal racial and economic oppression for decades, including the following:

... zoning rules that classified white neighborhoods as residential and black neighborhoods as commercial or industrial; segregated public-housing projects that replaced integrated low-income areas; federal subsidies for suburban development conditioned on African-American exclusion; federal and local requirements for, and enforcement of, property deeds and neighborhood agreements that prohibited resale of white-owned property to, or occupancy by, African Americans; tax favoritism for private institutions that practiced segregation; municipal boundary lines designed to separate black neighborhoods from white ones and to deny necessary services to the former; real estate, insurance, and banking regulators who tolerated and sometimes required racial segregation; and urban renewal plans whose purpose was to shift black populations from central cities like St. Louis to inner-ring suburbs like Ferguson.

On Aug. 9, 2014, Michael Brown, an 18-year-old, unarmed black teenager, was shot and killed by a white police officer named Darren Wilson in a place where black citizens are routinely harassed by cops to generate revenue for the city coffers. Brown’s body was left on full display in the street for hours. The officer involved was not arrested.

When residents objected, police responded with canine units, rifles, tanks and tear gas. Journalists were arrested, protesters were thrown in jail, residents were teargassed in their own front yards. Yet we must explain why there was an uprising in Ferguson? How much longer must we wait for justice? Why must we wait at all?

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union, arguing, “We of the South contend that slavery is right.” The Confederacy was formed in the belief that African Americans should remain in a perpetual state of bondage. For over a hundred years, the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacists waved the Confederate battle flag as a sign of nonsurrender as they continued to terrorize and murder black Americans.

In 1961, at the height of the civil rights movement, the all-white South Carolina Legislature voted to raise the Confederate battle flag above the Statehouse. Black residents protested it for the next 54 years.

In June 2015, a white supremacist entered Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., and massacred a local civil rights leader and eight parishioners during Bible study. The state refused to lower the flag even as these victims of a hate crime were laid to rest. Yet instead of asking the state of South Carolina why it took 54 years of protest and a massacre to ultimately remove a hate symbol from its Capitol, James Tyson and I had to explain why we removed the flag ourselves instead of waiting longer. How much longer must we wait for justice? Why must we wait at all?

Some seem to think we’ve reached a point in time where the right to vote has replaced the need to disrupt the system—although the right to vote itself has yet to be secured. Rights are signed into law by the legislature, but history shows that the legislative pen moves in accordance with the pressure of organized protest and disruption in the streets.

This moment requires bold action and disruption of business as usual for the same reasons it was required in Birmingham in 1963. We easily become blind to what we see every day. The continued oppression and brutalization of black life is so normalized that we’re taught to wait and be patient, as though liberation is an inevitable by-product of the passage of time. It’s not and it never has been.

The political establishment cannot praise King with one breath while condemning modern civil disobedience in the next breath. If we are wrong now, King was wrong then. If King was right then, we are right now.

History will remember the Ferguson uprising as a moment of awakening. This small suburb—which many of us might not have ever heard of were it not for the events of August 2014 and the existence of social media—is a microcosm of America. We looked at Ferguson and saw that Ferguson is everywhere. There can be no more waiting for the passage of time to do what only we can do by taking a stand via direct action. When oppression is the status quo, disruption is a moral duty.

The movement lives.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 2378 2379 2380 Next > End >>

Page 2377 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN