Obama Warns Of Danger To Social Security -- from The GOP. Say What?

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/weekly-address-obama-warns-danger-soc

In Weekly Address, Obama Warns Of Danger To Social Security -- from The GOP. Say What?
Susie Madrak
Sunday Aug 15, 2010

In Obama's weekly address, he warns about Republican leaders who want to privatize Social Security, saying he'd thought that the Wall Street crash would have put that debate to rest.

This is classic sleight of hand, and might be one of the most cynical political moves I've seen. Because, as you already know from reading C&L, the imminent threat to Social Security right now is from the administration -- and its pet Catfood Commission.

It's not as if this is a big secret to anyone who works in the District. But everyone's agreed to act as if it's otherwise, because activists believe pretending the current attack on Social Security is coming from the Republican leadership will create such an uproar that the administration will back off from their plans -- and not incidentally, get the base motivated to turn out for the mid-term elections.

It might work. But it seems to me that such a deeply dishonest strategy is not only an insult to the voters, it encourages the kind of "bipartisan", split-the-difference policies of the president, and has the potential to backfire in a major way.

And it raises another question: Namely, if bloggers sacrifice transparency to the strategic goals of the Democratic leadership, why should anyone listen to us -- about anything? What is our role? Is it our job to use dishonesty to help Democrats get elected? I thought that was what made us different from the right wing: We don't abuse the readers' trust:

But GOP leaders are not pressing for privatization. The idea proved so unpopular when President George W. Bush proposed it in 2004 that Congress, then led by Republicans, never took it up. The concept lives on in a budget proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, but only a handful of GOP lawmakers have signed on to that measure. And, in the aftermath of the worst shock to the financial system since the Great Depression, many Republican lawmakers would just as soon see the idea forgotten.

Meanwhile, a coalition of 60 liberal groups and advocates for the elderly, including the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org, are predicting a different threat to Social Security: the possibility that a bipartisan deficit commission created by Obama will propose slashing benefits to help dig the nation out of debt.

Coalition members plan to buttonhole lawmakers as they campaign for reelection this fall, demanding that they sign a pledge to oppose any cuts to program entitlements, such as raising the retirement age.

"Over the coming weeks and months, we're making sure every politician is put on notice: If you're looking to raise the retirement age, you should be looking to retire in November," said Nita Chaudhary, campaign director at MoveOn.org.

Such an effort could make the work of the deficit commission far more difficult. Commission members from both parties view Social Security as a prime opportunity for compromise -- far easier to address than, for example, an overhaul of the tax system -- and say they want to stabilize the program's finances.

But forging a bipartisan compromise is likely to require cost-cutting as well as higher taxes. House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) have both suggested raising the retirement age, and leading economists and budget experts have strongly advocated it as a cost-cutting solution. The commission is also studying less dramatic options, such as changing the way inflation is measured for the purpose of adjusting benefits and slowing the rate of increase in benefit payments for better-off retirees.

As an aside, you'll notice the Post reporters (having already accepted the Village wisdom) don't even mention any dispute as to whether Social Security cuts are, you know, actually needed.

Unions Members March, Demand Bankers ‘Fix The Mess’

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-29/unions-members-march-demand-bankers-fix-the-mess-correct-.html

Unions Members March, Demand Bankers ‘Fix The Mess’
April 29, 2010
By Holly Rosenkrantz

April 29 (Bloomberg) -- AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka led thousands of labor-union protesters in a march on Wall Street, chanting that investment banks must “fix the mess that you made” by paying more taxes and lending more money.

“It’s time for special taxes for bank bonuses,” Trumka said today at a rally outside City Hall that began after floor trading ended at the New York Stock Exchange. “When you engage in rampant and risky speculation, you are going to pay your fair share in taxes.”

The rally caps a drive by the nation’s largest organization of labor unions called the “Make Wall Street Pay” campaign. Protesters, some dressed as pirates, today held signs saying “Break Up Megabanks” and “Hey Big Banks -- Less Bail, More Jail.” Rallies have targeted Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the most profitable securities firm, and the five biggest U.S. banks.

Trumka started the march yelling “Let’s let Wall Street hear us, all the way down to the bull” at Bowling Green, the scheduled end point for the protest.

Police estimated more than 7,500 people gathered in the park south of City Hall, before the crowd headed south past the stock exchange carrying signs reading “Reclaim Our Democracy” and “Hold Banks Accountable.”

“They are tax dodgers, they aren’t putting anything back into the community,” said Otis J. Loweryberg, 84, a former International Business Machines Corp. worker in Delaware. “They only think about self -- self-motivation, self-preservation. How do these guys go home at night when people have no food on the table.”

‘Fed Up’

Wayne Usilton, 63, a former Chrysler Corp. worker from Delaware, said he joined more than 40 other union members from his state for the event traveling by bus to the event.

“The average person on Main Street is just fed up with big business and Wall Street manipulation,” Usilton said.

Brendan Plunkett, 46, a corporate bond trader, was heading home to Essex Falls, New Jersey, as the marchers walked down Broadway.

“If they care so much about the country, they should go to work and be productive and stop with the protests,” he said. “It’s all nonsense to me, and it always will be.”

The AFL-CIO, the 11-million-member labor federation, is urging Congress to impose a transaction tax on securities trading to help cover the $900 billion cost for a government jobs program they want lawmakers to create.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has said he opposes the transaction tax, though Trumka told reporters today it is picking up interest within the Obama administration. “We talk about it all the time,” Trumka said. “The conversation is getting better and more analytical.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobbying group, opposes the tax, which it says would hurt more than bankers.

“Wall Street must create” and “not destroy real lives, real hopes, real dreams,” Trumka said. “The bankers, the brokers, and big shots on Wall Street must understand.”

--With assistance from Esme E. Deprez and Moira Herbst in New York. Editors: Steve Geimann, Romaine Bostick

To contact the reporter on this story: Holly Rosenkrantz in New York at hrosenkrantz@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Liebert at lliebert@bloomberg.net.

Officials say SEIU president is stepping down from post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041300017.html

Officials say SEIU president is stepping down from post
By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Andrew L. Stern, the most politically influential and controversial union official in the country, is preparing to resign his position as president of the Service Employees International Union, a union official and a senior Democratic official said Monday.

Diane Sosne, the head of an SEIU chapter in Seattle, e-mailed her colleagues at midday Monday to alert them to Stern's imminent departure.

"Last night I received confirmation that Andy Stern is resigning as President of SEIU," she wrote. "He has not yet made a public announcement; we will share the details as we become aware of them." Sosne's e-mail was first reported by Politico late Monday; The Washington Post also obtained a copy of it.

Asked to comment Monday night on Sosne's remarks, SEIU spokeswoman Michelle Ringuette instead released a statement that Stern would address "increasing speculation regarding [his] intention to step down as president... in 2012" later this week, when the union's executive committee meets in Washington.

The Democratic official confirmed that Stern intends to step down from his presidency. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid irritating union officials.

Stern, 59, took the helm of SEIU in 1996, succeeding his mentor John Sweeney after he left to assume the presidency of the AFL-CIO federation. But in 2005, Stern sent shock waves through the labor movement when he took SEIU out of the AFL-CIO and created a rival federation with several other unions, including the Teamsters.

Stern argued at the time that the AFL-CIO had become too complacent and not aggressive enough about organizing new workers to stem its membership decline. Many supporters of organized labor responded by hailing Stern as a potential savior of the movement, and for several years SEIU posted membership gains as most private sector unions continued to shrink.

Meanwhile, his political sway grew in Washington, where the cerebral and media-savvy leader is often at the forefront of fighting for items high on his membership's agenda, such as health-care reform. Since President Obama's election, he has been among the most frequent visitors to the White House in the past year, and Obama named him to his new deficit commission.

But while Stern's stock has grown in some quarters, he and SEIU have come under increasing criticism, including from some of his former supporters.

The federation he created, Change to Win, has had limited success in charting a new course for labor, and some of its member unions have decided to return to the AFL-CIO.

SEIU's membership growth has slowed, and critics have noted that some of its biggest gains in recent years were less the result of shoe-leather organizing and more the result of deals with major employers or politicians -- including former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

The union has been enmeshed in several vicious internecine battles, including a hugely expensive clash during the past year with chapter leaders in Northern California. Stern has also been deeply involved with the nasty divorce of UNITE-HERE, the hotel and garment workers union.

Stern, along with the leaders of the AFL-CIO, has so far failed to fully capitalize on the Democratic takeover in Washington. The unions' top priority, legislation to make it easier to organize workers, is stalled, and unions conceded on several of their top priorities in the health-care debate.

Staff writer Philip Rucker contributed to this report.

Obama meets with AFL-CIO

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/jan2010/heal-j13.shtml

Obama meets with AFL-CIO to push for cost-cutting health care overhaul
By Jerry White
13 January 2010

With popular opposition to the administration’s health care plan growing, President Obama held a private White House meeting with leaders of the US trade unions Monday to shore up support for corporate-backed measure, which will roll back health care for tens of millions of working and retired people.

A new CBS poll released Tuesday showed support for the bill has fallen to an all-time low of 35 percent. Nearly half the respondents criticized the legislation for failing to “regulate the insurance industry.”

Among those attending the meeting with Obama was the new AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Teamsters President James P. Hoffa, and Gerald McEntee of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Trumka described the event as a “meeting of friends trying to solve problems.”

The union executives reportedly urged Obama to trim back the unpopular proposal to tax the health care plans of millions of workers with employer-paid benefits. Obama shrugged off their pleadings and told the officials he continued to support the tax, which is included in the Senate version of the health care bill.

Speaking about the meeting, a senior administration official told the New York Times, “The president was very clear that he thinks this [tax] is a critical part of bringing down costs in the long term and bending the curve.”

The premise of the tax is that large numbers of workers and their families are enjoying outrageously luxurious “Cadillac” benefits that must be slashed in order to reduce the costs of health care for everyone. While the tax will be levied on insurance companies, it is understood by everyone involved that the cost will be passed on to ordinary workers, in the form of higher premiums and co-pays, while encouraging employers to sharply reduce their coverage or drop it altogether.

The tax underscores the real meaning of “health care overhaul.” It is not aimed at expanding medical coverage but cutting costs for the government and corporate America. This is exactly what the administration did to auto workers and their families at GM and Chrysler, including retirees who lost dental and optical coverage as part of the forced bankruptcy and restructuring of the two companies.

The plan will impose a 40 percent excise tax on any health care plans that exceed $8,500 a year for individuals and $23,000 for families. This would tax the benefits of 31 million people—most of whom are not union members. At the same time, it would affect one quarter of all union members with employer-paid medical benefits.

The imposition of the tax is a reversal of Obama’s campaign pledges. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced Republican opponent John McCain for his plan to tax health care benefits as income. The Democratic president also pledged not to support any new taxes on the “middle class.”

According to the Times, “Some union officials, resigned to the likelihood that a final measure would include the tax, are pressing the White House to raise the threshold at which it would kick in.”

An analyst cited by the newspaper pointed to the fact the under the Senate bill thresholds will rise anyway, in line with the Consumer Price Index. However, health care costs and premiums are rising at a much faster rate than the CPI, meaning the plans of many more ordinary workers would quickly fall under the category of “high cost” and be subjected to the excise tax.

Prior to the meeting, Trumka addressed a gathering of the National Press Club, where he made certain criticisms of the plan, but made it clear that the AFL-CIO would continue to support the bill regardless.

In his remarks, Trumka indicated that workers on picket lines and workplaces around the country expressed their anger, not only with the health care plan—which many saw as a “benefit to insurers, pharmaceutical giants and irresponsible employers”—but the indifference of the government to the impact of rising unemployment and home foreclosures.

Workers, Trumka said, believed the government was only looking after the “wealthy elites” and Wall Street speculators. His primary concern was that this growing opposition might hurt the Democratic Party by reducing turnout in the 2010 elections.

He warned the Democrats that it was “political suicide” not to address double-digit unemployment, and that despite the best efforts of the AFL-CIO, the indifference of the Democrats to the plight of workers would subject them to the “scorn of the people” and open the door to an electoral defeat on the scale of the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress.

Referring to that period, Trumka said, “there was no way to persuade enough working Americans to go to the polls when they couldn’t tell the difference between the two parties. Politicians who think that working people have it too good—too much health care, too much Social Security and Medicare, too much power on the job—are inviting a repeat of 1994.”

Despite his criticisms, Trumka reasserted the total support of the trade union apparatus for the Democratic Party. He made the absurd claim that the Obama administration, an instrument of the financial elite, could be “encouraged” to create jobs, challenge Wall Street speculators and lessen social inequality.

Trumka also praised Obama as the first president in a long time who “sees the positive role of unions,” a reference to the administration’s use of the AFL-CIO to batter down the resistance of workers to mass unemployment, wage cuts and other concessions.

Asked by a reporter if his criticisms of the excise tax meant the union federation would oppose the bill, Trumka made it clear the AFL-CIO would support the measure anyway. “Bringing health care to everyone is too important to get this far and then say we are going to quit.”

McCainonomics

http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/03/25/mccain-mortgage-crisis-victims-are-too-lazy-to-keep-their-homes/

McCain: Working Families to Blame for Mortgage Mess
Posted By Seth Michaels On March 25, 2008
[1]

Across the country, the collapse of the housing market has created a [2] crisis of foreclosures that is dragging down the economy. Finding a fair solution for this mess should be a top priority of the next president.

So presidential candidate Sen. [3] John McCain must have a plan to address the crisis, right? Not so. In fact, the Republican from Arizona blames the millions of America’s working families who have lost their homes. They, says McCain, caused the economic downturn.

Of those 80 million homeowners, only 55 million have a mortgage at all, and 51 million are doing what is necessary—working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets—to make their payments on time. That leaves us with a puzzling situation: How could 4 million mortgages cause this much trouble for us all?

It’s just another example of how McCain—by his own admission—“never really understood” the economy. (McCain now denies he said that; who wouldn’t, running for president?) In the face of the nationwide crisis brought on by predatory lending, stagnant wages and vast wealth inequities, McCain says it’s the fault of home owners.

McCain compounded the outrage of his comments by making them before a California audience. California has been hit hard by the housing crisis. The state has the second-highest foreclosure rate in the country, with more than 57,000 foreclosures in January—120 percent higher than in January 2007.

McCain, and the lobbyists who run his campaign, has raked in money from the banks and mortgage lenders whose irresponsibility helped create the crisis. So he can’t point the finger at them—he needs the campaign cash. Meanwhile, although he hasn’t shown up in the Senate too often to vote in recent months, in 2005 he [4] voted against a bill to discourage predatory lending.

(Check out [5] Think Progress on McCain’s record of denying assistance to home owners.)

Union members, who understand what McCain stands for, aren’t letting him get away with it. While McCain and his wealthy supporters held a $1,000-a-plate private fundraiser [6] yesterday in La Jolla, more than 50 union members from the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council gathered outside to educate people about McCain’s record. The California events follow similar actions in [7] Pennsylvania, [8] New Hampshire and [9] Missouri, all part of the AFL-CIO’s nationwide [10] McCain Revealed campaign to get the word out about McCain’s anti-worker record.

McCain’s failure to offer real solutions to the housing crisis is part of his anti-worker votes on [11] health care, [12] trade, [13] taxes and more.

As writer [14] Ed Kilgore notes, “McCainonomics” is equivalent to “You’re on your own.”

…the GOP candidate thinks those suffering from the housing crisis had it coming. Yeah, that’s right: after laying out McCain’s commitment to corporate tax cuts and a tax-credit based initiative to encourage individual health insurance, he goes on at some length excoriating those who would take action on the housing crisis, and setting forth strict conditions for participation in existing housing relief programs. Market forces will apparently take care of the problem one way or another.

It may take a while, but Americans troubled by the economy and the housing crisis will eventually get the message that John McCain’s idea of economic leadership is pretty much limited to high-end and corporate tax cuts, free trade agreements, an attack on appropriations earmarks, and whatever he means (beyond his support for Bush’s Social Security privatization scheme) by “entitlement reform.”

California’s union members will keep up the effort to confront McCain on economic issues. They rallied today outside a McCain event in Newport Beach and will gather tomorrow at McCain fundraisers in Los Angeles, Pebble Beach and San Francisco.
_____________________________________
Paid for by the AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education (COPE) Political Contributions Committee, [15] www.aflcio.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

URLs in this post:
[1] Image: http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain.cfm?source=mccainrevealed
[2] crisis of foreclosures: http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/03/11/time-to-save-families-and-stop-foreclosures/
[3] John McCain: http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain.cfm
[4] voted against: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00022
[5] Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/25/mccain-housing-speech/
[6] yesterday: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/politics/15692894/detail.html
[7] Pennsylvania: http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/03/17/pennsylvania-union-members-mccain-has-supported-every-bad-trade-deal/
[8] New Hampshire: http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/03/12/mccain-o-nomics-warmed-over-bush/
[9] Missouri: http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/03/11/mortgage-crisis-fuels-missouri-working-families-at-mccain-event/
[10] McCain Revealed: http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain.cfm
[11] health care: http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/02/21/mccains-health-care-plan-higher-taxes-less-coverage/
[12] trade: http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/03/17/pennsylvania-union-members-mccain-has-supported-every-bad-trade-deal/
[13] taxes: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/tax_agenda.html
[14] Ed Kilgore: http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2008/03/mccainomics_youre_on_your_own.php
[15] www.aflcio.org: http://www.aflcio.org/

The Unfairness of America's Bankruptcy Laws

http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/09/the_unfairness_of_americas_ban.html

Sirotablog
Real-world wisdom from outside the beltway.
Friday, September 7, 2007
The Unfairness of America's Bankruptcy Laws

Remember how a few years ago Congress passed a bill trying to turn people who go bankrupt into indentured servants to the credit card industry? Big surprise - that same harsh bankruptcy treatment is not applicable to big corporations. Apparently to Congress, what's good for Americans isn't good for Corporate America.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/09/07/corporate-bankruptcy-laws-unfair-need-to-be-overhauled/

Corporate Bankruptcy Laws Unfair, Need to Be Overhauled

Posted By James Parks On September 7, 2007 @ 3:22 pm In Legislation & Politics

Air Line Pilots President Capt. John Prater, right, and United Steelworkers Vice President Fred Redmond prepare to testify before a congressional hearing on corporate bankruptcies.

When Kim Townsend’s employer, the Hastings Manufacturing Co., faced financial problems, the 350 workers agreed to millions of dollars in concessions, forgoing raises they had just negotiated, paying part of their health care costs and giving up a paid holiday. But that was not enough.

Eventually the company declared bankruptcy and was taken over by a new owner who demanded even more concessions to keep the doors open. Townsend, chief steward for UAW Local 138 in Hastings, Mich., told a congressional panel yesterday:

We had to agree to pay most of our health care costs. For example, it now costs us $300 a week to get family coverage. We also had to agree to cut our sickness and accident benefits in half, from 26 weeks to 13 weeks, and to reduce the amount of time you were covered by health care while out on sick and accident from six months to 30 days.

The new owner also forced retirees to pay for their own health care coverage.

Townsend was one of five union witnesses who testified yesterday before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law on the need to overhaul the nation’s corporate bankruptcy laws.

Retired United Steelworkers member [1] Steve Skvara, who attended the hearing, but did not testify, knows the anguish workers forced out by bankruptcy face. At the AFL-CIO Presidential Candidates Forum in Chicago, he told the candidates:

After 34 years with LTV Steel, I was forced to retire because of a disability. Two years later, [2] LTV filed bankruptcy. I lost a third of my pension, and my family lost their health care. Every day of my life, I sit at the kitchen table across from the woman who devoted 36 years of her life to my family, and I can’t afford to pay for her health care.

What’s wrong with America and what will you do to change it?

Skvara is not alone. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that more than 200,000 retirees and dependents lost their health coverage between 2002 and 2003 as a result of the bankruptcies of just two companies: LTV Steel and Bethlehem Steel.

Over the past decade, the nation’s bankruptcy laws [3] have become completely unbalanced. Companies are using laws that were created to protect workers in times of economic stress to force workers to pay the cost of business failure.

AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka said:

Today the bankruptcy system has become effectively a device for the wholesale transfer of wealth from workers to other creditors. It has become a system that exploits workers’ vulnerabilities rather than seeking to create a balance between workers and other creditors.

When many of the nation’s airlines filed for bankruptcy after Sept. 11, 2001, they routinely rejected contracts and used the bankruptcy laws to gut employee wages, pensions and working conditions and cut jobs. For example, [4] Air Line Pilots President Capt. John Prater said a typical pilot at United Airlines endured two rounds of concessions that included a 30 percent pay cut, a second pay cut of 12 percent, harsher work rules, less job security and a terminated pension plan. Yet the airline’s CEO received a compensation package last year worth [5] more than $40 million.

He called on Congress to overhaul the corporate bankruptcy process to limit when a bankrupt company can break a union contract and to ensure equitable treatment of employees and executives in the process.

Greg Davidowitch, United Airlines Master Executive Council president for the [6] Flight Attendants-CWA, said if the current system was fair:

it would not allow massive bonuses and incredible compensation packages for the very executives who took these companies into bankruptcy in the first place, and who then inflicted massive pay cuts on the workers under color of law.

I implore you to fix the bankruptcy law before there is any more devastation. Put an end to management abuses and their use of the bankruptcy laws as just another business tactic to cut costs and line their own pockets.

[7] United Steelworkers Vice President Fred Redmond cited his own experience at an aluminum plant in McCook, Ill., which declared bankruptcy, and said Congress should enact laws that restore balance between company needs and workers’ rights, respect the role of collective bargaining and assign higher priority to meeting obligations to employees and retirees.

But it was Townsend who summed up the need for reform best when she told the committee:

The current bankruptcy law seems unfair. The net effect of the bankruptcy proceedings (at Hastings Manufacturing) is that the business didn’t change at all. The new owners just got rid of the union contract and the obligations to the company’s retirees. I think the law needs to be changed so that workers and retirees have some bargaining clout when we are negotiating in bankruptcy. And it needs to be changed to provide greater protection for wages, pension and health care benefits.

Article printed from AFL-CIO Weblog:
http://blog.aflcio.org/

URLs in this post:
[1] Steve Skvara: http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/09/03/this-labor-day-steve-skvara-speaks-for-americas-workers
[2] LTV filed bankruptcy: http://www.usw.org/usw/program/content/3032.php
[3] have become completely unbalanced: http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/04/24/abusing-bankruptcy-it’s-ok-if-you’re-a-corporation/
[4] Air Line Pilots: http://www.alpa.org/
[5] more than $40 million: http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/07/16/uniteds-ceo-rakes-in-40-million-while-airline-staff-pensions-sink
[6] Flight Attendants-CWA: http://www.afa-cwa.org/
[7] United Steelworkers: http://www.uswa.org/