Capitalism; Dead, Alive, and Broken
copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org For but a moment, whilst the Group of 20 [G20] met in London's ancient financial capital, ,"The City," the roars of remorse, could be heard. Words of woe had been whispered in hushed tones for quite some time. Scholars spoke of various possibilities on occasion. Whether Senior Economic Fellows from various think-tanks thought a system to be dead, alive, or near doomed, there was perhaps a bit of agreement. "I see what you mean. It is broken," Economist Mark Thoma mused more than a year ago. |
America adopted and advanced a system that was unsustainable.. More than once, "systemic failures" revealed the folly of free enterprise principles. Nonetheless, worldwide people were convinced to purchase damaged goods and premises. Yet, as Journalist Professor, Robert Jensen contends, "most notably those in the business world and their functionaries and apologists in the schools, universities, mass media, and mainstream politics" do not want to admit that this is so.
Wanted; Dead or Alive
The evidence is everywhere. What was a question rarely uttered, "Is Capitalism Dead?" has become a statement, or perhaps the dream of those who have been severely affected by this most devastating downturn.
Wealthy watch breathlessly as stock markets crash. Banks fail. Blue Chip companies crumble. Foreclosures flourish, and people, those once thoughtprosperous, pour out onto the avenue in search of a job, or some sense of stability.
Perhaps, that is why, average citizens felt a need to break the silence, to speak of the broken Capitalist system. In the shadow of powerful and prosperous Presidents and Prime Ministers, who gathered together for the G20 Conference, 4,000 demonstrators pleaded, not for pity, but for relief from a fiscal system that requires poverty.
Frustrated and forlorn by an attitude that fosters further advancement of free market principles, at least in the United Kingdom, dissenters shouted in disgust. It would not be wise to work within an economic structure that changed the global culture in ways that ultimately brought international institutions down.
On a fateful day, early in April a young girl in the crowd, Aeyla Windridge pleaded. I want "the death of Capitalism." The twelve-year-old spoke to what Heads of State had not for centuries. "Capitalism isn't in crisis, capitalism is the crisis," so said another activist.
Recovery, Reinvestment, and Rescue
Few of the principal players, those who represented the twenty participant countries were willing, or able to acknowledge the free market theory is flawed. Most of the prominent Heads of State were, and continue to be, content with sanguine assessments. Up to 85 percent of global gross national product comes from the shores of but a score of countries. Eighty [80] percent of world trade comes from these territories. Americans, who might be thought of as the authors of Capitalism, saw and see no reason to change the status quo, at least not substantially.
Borrow and spend had worked well in the past for the superpower, or so the US government attempted to advocate. While the President poses this philosophy cannot stand, America must move away "from an era of borrow-and-spend to one where we save and invest," in the same breath, the Chief Executive who represents the country that gave birth to free enterprise, endorses the framework, just as those who preceded him did. (Please peruse the text What Ever Happened to Free Enterprise, By Ronald Reagan)
Capitalism, the Obama Administration states, was not the cause of the planet-wide monetary collapse. Only greed, excesses, and a lack of regulations brought about the demise of the dollar, and the rate of exchange. As he addressed other world leaders in attendance at the G20 Conference President Obama conceded, "the crisis began in the United States. I take responsibility even if I wasn't even president at the time." However, Mister Obama contends all countries must be accountable for this massive macro-breakdown. America's Chief Executive proposes plans intended to strengthen a Capitalist structure.
In his April 4, 2009 Action to Address to the Global Economic Downturn, President Obama encouraged more regulations in an attempt to expand a consumer-based Capitalist theory. With little regard for how the American way of life, which the President does not apologize for, cripples common, people throughout the world, Mister Obama declared.
"(W)e know that the success of America's economy is inextricably linked to that of the global economy. If people in other countries cannot spend, that means they cannot buy the goods we produce here in America, . . . if we continue to let banks and other financial institutions around the world act recklessly and irresponsibly, that affects institutions here at home as credit dries up, and people can't get loans to buy a home or car, to run a small business or pay for college.
Ultimately, the only way out of a recession that is global in scope is with a response that is global in coordination."
One is reminded of why, in earlier years, no one spoke vociferously of the crisis that is Capitalism. Ordinary people were busy. For centuries, regular folks worked day and night only to bring home a nominal paycheck. Even in prosperous nations, people could barely afford to put food on the table. People took trivial jobs just to secure shelter. Millions felt forced to pursue professional paths that offer few rewards. The only goal for the average Joe and Jane was to stay afloat. Few have had the time or energy to protest their circumstances, or what the powers-that-be had and have imposed internationally. Today, and in the past, worldwide economic slavery has sufficed. That is until now.
Lest the President and Prime Ministers elsewhere forget, in the States, and abroad, people are out of work. The promise of an ownership society,where "people, from all walks of life," would open the door of their private residence and say, "Welcome to my home" proved to be but a myth. The pledge of plump stock portfolios for everyone through Capitalism was a claim never substantiated. Contrary to the oft-voiced assurances, the American Dream could be achieved anywhere on Earth If people only invested in a free market economy, this current fiscal crisis has shown the world, words were but wishes promoted by the prosperous.
Regardless of how average people are punished by a fiscal formula that requires there be poor people, the current President intends to preserve the Capitalist principles that govern a global economy. While Mister Obama may not profess a commitment to an "ownership society," he too wishes to encourage people to possess what they cannot afford.
Broken Beyond Benevolence
In contrast, more than a few Economists have begun to contemplate the wisdom of a system based on constant consumption. Experts in monetary movements examine, What went wrong and, rather more importantly for the future, what did not. Other statistician who study the social science of fiscal affairs suggest there is ""Good Capitalism, (and) Bad Capitalism." Certainly, no matter the belief, with cause, "Capitalism is under fire."
William Pfaff, the author of eight books on American foreign policy, international relations, and contemporary history has pondered the depths of a paradigm profoundly broken. Mister Pfaff offers a perspective less limited than the simpler theories often presented by Administrations and Academics. The observer of intercontinental issues writes . . .
The essential question is, what capitalism are we talking about? Since the 1970s, two fundamental changes have been made in the leading (American) model of capitalism.
The first is that the "stakeholder," post-New Deal reformed version of capitalism (in America) that prevailed in the West after World War II was replaced by a new model of corporate purpose and responsibility.
The earlier model said that corporations had a duty to ensure the well-being of employees, and an obligation to the community (chiefly but not exclusively fulfilled through corporate tax payments).
That model has been replaced by one in which corporation managers are responsible for creating short-term "value" for owners, as measured by stock valuation and quarterly dividends.
The practical result has been constant pressure to reduce wages and worker benefits (leading in some cases to theft of pensions and other crimes), and political lobbying and public persuasion to lower the corporate tax contribution to government finance and the public interest.
In short, the system in the advanced countries has been rejigged since the 1960s to take wealth from workers, and from the funding of government, and transfer it to stockholders and corporate executives.
There is ample evidence to support the author's contention. In 1970, the recipient of a Nobel Memorial Prize on Economic Sciences, Milton Friedman, encouraged an emphasis on corporate earnings. A culture that creates a vibrant community, Friedman insisted is counter to "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits"
Decades later, his disciples of sorts, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, each implemented plans that increased earned income for the influential and decreased available dollars for the already disadvantaged. Policies designed to protect and promote an American entrepreneurial taxonomy, or Capitalistic interests, were proposed as a means to spread democracy. Planet-wide, people and economic practices were transformed.
The second change that has taken place is globalization. The crucial effect of this for society in the advanced countries is that it puts labor into competition with the poorest countries on earth.
We need go no further with what I realize is a very complex matter, other than to note the classical economist David Ricardo's "iron law of wages," which says that in conditions of wage competition and unlimited labor supply, wages will fall to just above subsistence.
There never before has been unlimited labor. There is now, thanks to globalization - and the process has only begun.
The variance is vast. Those who have possess so much. The portion of population that owns little, have far less than even an average individual might imagine. The wealthy cannot conceive of a life where food might be the most valuable commodity. A world in which water is worth more than gold seems unthinkable to those who thrive in "civilized" communities, Yet, this reality may come to towns in a Capitalist country. Indeed, in some American communities, this truth appears today.
Nonetheless, agreements secured at the G20 summit ensure the adoption of a debt-driven American-style "democracy." An arrangement, in which all are not created equal, will continue to be the practiced and preferred economic system planet-wide. People will once again forget assessments presented less than a decade ago.
Many of the radicals leading the protests may be on the political fringe. But they have helped to kick-start a profound re-thinking about globalization among governments, mainstream economists, and corporations that, until recently, was carried on mostly in obscure think tanks and academic seminars.The reassessment is badly overdue. In the late 20th century, global capitalism was pushed by leaps in technology, the failure of socialism, and East Asian's seemingly miraculous success. Now, it's time to get realistic. the plain truth is that market liberalization by itself does not lift all boats, and in some cases, it has caused damage to poor nations. What's more, there's no point denying that multi-nationals have contributed to labor, environmental, and human rights abuses as they pursue profits around the globe . . .
(After a ten-year expansion of market capitalism around the world, as of the year 2000) The World Bank figures the number of people living on a $1 a day increased to 1.3 billion, over the past decade.
The extremes of global capitalism are astonishing . . . If global capitalism's flaws aren't addressed, the backlash could grow more severe.
Indeed, the repercussions have been relentless. Near a century of consumption, solely for the sake of profits, has weakened the world. The current fiscal crisis reveals Capitalism was never the cure for what ails the people on this planet. Persistent poverty, and the threat of increased insolvency, born out of a free enterprise system is an expense few, if any, can afford. One need only look at the Capitalism and what it has wrought. Avaricious individuals may acknowledge one reaps what one sows. Independently, or collectively, as a global community anyone might come to understand, "If my brother is poor, I/we too will suffer. Ultimately, I/we will pay for the poverty I/we accept."
Without such a realization, and inspired by the spirit of an individualism that has flourished amongst free-marketers, people may, as President Obama proclaimed. Worldwide, or here at home, we "want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that [has] been missing." However, it is not another glorious "morning in America." Nor is it a beautiful day in most neighborhoods. Were the clouds to clear, globally people might avow, authentically, there need be an actual new dawn. It is time to dream of economic structures that have never been.
The majorities in the States, and throughout the globe, are no longer silent. Common folks have spoken. Capitalism is broken. It is not wanted, dead or alive.
Sources for economic and empathetic structures . . .
- Is Capitalism Dead? No. By William Galston. National Public Radio. March 11, 2009
- Is Capitalism Dead? Maybe. By J.D. Foster. National Public Radio. March 11, 2009
- Is Capitalism Dead? Yes. By Alan Reynolds. National Public Radio. March 11, 2009
- I See What You Mean, It Is Broken, By Mark Thoma. Economist View. January 24, 2008
- 'The World As We Know It Is Going Down', By Marc Pitzke. Spiegel International. September 18, 2008
- Systemic Failure: Capitalism "Lays An Egg," By Stephen Lendman. SteveLendmanBlog. March 2, 2009
- Capitalism Under Fire, By William Pfaff. The International Herald Tribune. 30 March 2006
- Is Capitalism Dead? The Washington Post. October 20, 2008
- Recession Pain, Even in Palm Beach, By David Segal. The New York Times. April 12, 2009
- Blair: Global economic fallout is nation's major threat. Cable News Network. February 12, 2009
- The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, By Milton Friedman. The New York Times Magazine. September 13, 1970. Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company.
- Colorado bank biggest US bank failure of 2009. AFP. April 10, 2009
- Slump Humbling Blue-Chip Stocks, By Mark Healy. The New York Times March 6, 2009
- U.S. foreclosure filings rise in February, By Lynn Adler. Reuters. March 12, 2009
- In Defense of Income Inequality, By Peter Schwatrz. Capitalism Magazine. March 28, 2009
- Congressional Finance Chair Discusses U.S. Economy. NewsHour. September 3, 2007
- Disowned by the Ownership Society, By Naomi Klein. The Nation. January 31, 2008
- The End Of American Capitalism? By Anthony Faiola. The Washington Post. October 9, 2008
- The G-20 and the Future of Capitalism - Part I, By Jeffrey E. Garten. Yale Global. March 30, 2009
- President Obama's News Conference; Transcript. The New York Times. March 24, 2009
- Century of Self.
- Story of Stuff. By Annie Leonard. The Sustainability Funders and Tides Foundation.
- Address by Governor Ronald Reagan, Installation of President Robert Hill, Chico State College. May 20, 1967
- What Ever Happened to Free Enterprise, By Ronald Reagan. Ludwig Von Mises Memorial Lecture at Hillsdale College. November 10, 1977
- 12-Year-Old Protester: 'Death of Capitalism.' By F. Brinley Bruton. MSNBC News. April 1, 2009
- Capitalism Under Fire, By William Pfaff. The International Herald Tribune. 30 March 2006
- Global Capitalism, Can it be made to work better? By Pete Engardio with Catherine Belton. Business Week. November 6, 2000
- Obama's G-20 confession: "I take responsibility." By Marc Hujer, Wolfgang Reuter, and Christoph Schwennicke. Salon. April 7, 2009
- Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama Weekly Address, The White House. Saturday, April 4, 2009
- Globalization: A Reference Handbook, By Justin Ervin, Zachary A. Smith. 2008
- Capiatlism at bay, What went wrong and, rather more importantly for the future, what did not. The Economist. October 16, 2008
- "Good Capitalism, (and) Bad Capitalism," By David Wessel. Wall Street Journal. Economist's View. May 10, 2007
- Drinking water costs lots of dollars. MarketPlace. March 17, 2009
- Analysis: Obama takes 'morning in America' mantle. Cable News Network. February 25, 2009
- A Different Sort of Red America, By Tobin Harshaw. The New York Times. April 10, 2009
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 12, 2009 at 12:00 AM in American Dream, American Family, American Jobs, Americana, Art of Loving, Have or Be, Business, Capitalism and Competition, Civics, Communities, Competitive Production, Consumption and Conservation, Corporate Profits, Debt and Defense, Democracy or Monopoly, Economics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bailouts Blaze; Exuberance Explodes
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Never spend your money before you have it.
~ Thomas Jefferson
I, however, place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Tis Sunday, September 28, 2008. The weather is warm and word on the streets is warmer. Fire from Hades, fervor, and fury heat the debate heard on the streets and in the halls of Congress. Businesses fail. Banks do too. Bailouts are planned and these too falter. Those in the White House are red hot with concern. People in Treasury Department and within Secretary Henry Paulson's office sense the burn. Many fear they too will be scorched. The flames are intense on the Hill. Yet, on American avenues many feel, while inflamed by the rhetoric, chilled at the prospect that this immediate need for a bailout is but a hoax or perchance, just hype.
Citizens in this country have been lied to too often; particularly, the public believes, the current Administration has been irresponsible with facts and finances. Candidates and Congress have delivered a fair share of untruths. Tycoons, most accept, fudge the numbers. Countless conclude, there is no one, in government, or in corporate offices, they can trust. Hence, when confronted with the claim, American taxpayers must bailout Wall Street, most say, and what of Main Street? What of me?
The electorate fumes. Even the apathetic are steamed. Big-businesses will receive bailouts while the poor wallow in economic waste. What is a person to do?
History might tell us we can do nothing. Rome burned and Nero fiddled. That is often the case when people are provided with fruits of folly in hopes they might forget financial woes. "The fundamentals of the economy are (still) strong," is uttered to appease Americans and perchance, those throughout the globe.
Today, and throughout this week we might recall the recession, the correction that preceded the perceived bump. The year was 1929, near four score ago. The month was October, and the date was the 27th. While America had realized many fiscal depressions in years prior, none was as the crash heard on that solemn Thursday afternoon. Few expected what amounted to a sonic boom. The smoke rose from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. The fire on that day singed portfolios and people. The rumbles and rubble reminded many of the ruins of Pompeii. Some could not bear the high temperature of an explosive economy.
At first, economists and leaders thought this was a mild bump, perhaps merely a correction of the market, or in any case, no worse than the recession the nation suffered after World War I.Numbers soon proved the optimists incorrect. The depression steadily worsened. By spring of 1933, when FDR took the oath of office, unemployment had risen from 8 to 15 million (roughly 1/3 of the non-farmer workforce) and the gross national product had decreased from $103.8 billion to $55.7 billion. Forty percent of the farms in Mississippi were on the auction block on FDR's inauguration day. Although the depression was world wide, no other country except Germany reached so high a percentage of unemployed.
The poor were hit the hardest. By 1932, Harlem had an unemployment rate of 50 percent and property owned or managed by blacks fell from 30 percent to 5 percent in 1935. Farmers in the Midwest were doubly hit by economic downturns and the Dust Bowl. Schools, with budgets shrinking, shortened both the school day and the school year.
The breadth and depth of the crisis made it the Great Depression.
No one knew how best to respond to the crisis.
Nor does anyone today. On boulevards and in banks, citizen question why do we need a bailout for big-businesses. What of the common folk? Who will or has ever assisted the little guys and gals. All these questions and more are apt. Where were the regulators, and what ever became of regulations?
No one wondered, not even those in the well-educated Middle Class when they could cash in on high home prices. Few fretted when it was easy to secure a loan. Brokers and borrowers could live in the lap of luxury when no one was watching the safe or our fiscal security.
It was fun, to burn billions, while it lasted. Now, as Americans sit on piles of ash, once called McMansions or glorious abodes, too many millions weep for what they were happy to have wrought. Credit card companies call and demand; they must collect on the debt. Americans whimper. "I cannot pay." My foundation, my funds were burned when all was set ablaze.
When life was good Americans bought the oratory from the Oval Office. People purchased businesses, stocks, bonds, clothing, and any capital that could boost a sense of wellness. Americans spent . . . it all, and on what. Inflated images. Irrational exuberance was contagious. It spread as a wild fire in a forest full of tinder dry trees. Yet, now the Bush's are bare. Everyone has his or her hand out. "Alms for the poor" is not the cry. "Alms for the rich is what citizens are told will help. People read.
Bailout failure 'will cause US crash’
The US stock market could suffer a devastating crash with shares losing a third of their value this week if Hank Paulson’s financial bailout plan fails, US Treasury officials have warned.By Tim Shipman in Washington and Edmund Conway
Telegraph
28 September 2008, 10:14AM BSTThe financial system could face a meltdown of 1929 proportions unless US politicians succeed in their efforts for a $700bn rescue scheme, experts added.
The warning came as Republicans and Democrats met in Washington for a rare weekend debating session to attempt to seal agreement on the contentious plan, aimed at preventing a long-lasting recession in the US.
Officials close to Paulson are privately painting a far bleaker portrait of the fragility of the global economy than that advanced by President George W Bush in his televised address last week.
One Republican said that the message from government officials is that “the economy is dropping into the john.” He added: “We could see falls of 3,000 or 4,000 points on the Dow [the New York market that currently trades at around 11,000]. That could happen in just a couple of days.
“What’s being put around behind the scenes is that we’re looking at 1930s stuff. We’re looking at catastrophe, huge, amazing catastrophe. Everybody is extraordinarily scared. It’s going to be really, really nasty.” . . .
Peter Spencer, economic adviser to the Ernst & Young Item Club, said: “This is the time you have to bail people out and ask questions later. It is very difficult to see how the US banking system would survive without that.
This has the potential to make 1929 look like a walk in the park.”
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said: “We hope sometime [Sunday] evening we can announce some kind of agreement in principle. We may not have another day.”
Rebel Republicans - who see Paulson’s proposals as socialism by the back door - were warned they will be responsible for causing an “amazing catastrophe” if they continue to oppose the plans, which would see taxpayers buy up the bad debts of failing banks. Instead they want an insurance scheme for banks, which would spread the cost to private enterprise.
Would it be that insurers could ensure, people will not do as they have done and ignore all cautions. In the past, professors preached, "Remember the Alamo," Today, teachers beckon, "Recall the demise of American International Group (AIG)," an insurance company who fell only a week ago.
A person considered a prominent and extremely prosperous investor attempted to teach the world of what no one wished to see. Early in May 2008, Entrepreneur, Berkshire Hathaway Chairman, Warren Buffett warned us the winds from the warm blaze would scorch all life on the planet today. He said in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, we are in for a "long, deep recession," "Perhaps not in the sense that economists would define it. But the people are already feeling the effects. It will be deeper and last longer than many think."
Sadly, Few heard him. People were off shopping. Most paid for purchases with fire. Sales, while robust, were often transactions that led to greater debt. For decades now, people have preferred to buy now and pay later. Only now do Americans experience an economic pinch.
Awestruck by the economic wreckage, people ask why. Why me? Why now; and a few astute monetary masters say, "Why not?" Economists wonder why is it that humans do not learn from history. People look back after they are burned. The question might not be what caused the fire or the frenzy. That answer is easily found. Humans, flawed and filled with the foible of avarice wish to accumulate what they cannot afford. Perchance, the query could be, who or how often will people pursue a bailout? When will debt not be an option and when will humans guard against avariciousness?
References for Fiscal Resources . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on September 28, 2008 at 01:00 PM in Bush 43 Administration, Business, Capitalism and Competition, Congress and Bush, Corporate Criminals, Corporate Profits, Economics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Let the Bailouts Begin
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Tis true. For days, if not weeks, months, or years the country has been in a state of financial crisis. Americans experience what it means when the President of the United States says he will act boldly. Economically, he has been brazen. Our current Chief Executive unabashedly embraces businesses, just as he had in his private pursuits before he entered the Oval Office. Bush policies allow corporations to run free. If need be, he says, as he did early on in his Administration, Let the bailouts begin.
Today the need to extend financial relief to American corporations is far more dire than it had been in the past. Estimates place the figure at 1.8 Trillion dollars; that is trillion. with a "T."
Conservative calculations state the amount needed as $700 billion. However, several say that appraisal only refers to an aspect of the aid, the shaky assets now on the books of financial firms. As he reflected on the exact amount to be paid out and the delicate balancing act of bailouts, Thomas A. Renyi, former chairman of Bank of New York Mellon, said, "Psychologically, it's very, very important." What is said and done must be amenable to the people, big and small.
What George W. Bush and his Administration have done was in accord with the desires of the few; the millionaires and billionaires were pleased. Enterprise has always been the way of entrepreneurs. The others, the masses did not realize how the decisions might matter to them. As long as the plebs worked as economic slaves had for eons, no questions would be asked. Workers believed in the American dream. Doubt rose only when the size of bailouts grew. Now, in September 2008, what began as a bailout or two has emerged. Americans are faced with an enormous nightmare. However, this need not be a surprise. Citizens of this country might instead inquire, are they willing to compromise the future. Americans could also consider the question; can the United States economy continue to survive on credit.
As of last week, people pondered as they had not before. Countless considered American history and how each Administration altered financial stability.
It seemed the poor, the wage earners, and the salaried associates poured their hearts and souls into work. None realized substantive reward. Nonetheless, for the most part the populace was content. Everyday people paid taxes. Yet, the public received few services. Under the direction of President Bush, the blood sweat and tears of American labor went mostly to the levies that were and perhaps will be lent to those who earned billions in profits.
In recent years, rich business owners manufactured only liabilities. Still, their securities were preserved by a business friendly President Bush.
For decades, as deregulation flourished, more so since Bush, the American people lived on credit, as did the conglomerates. The difference being, with George Walker Bush in the Oval Office, businesses had a friend on Pennsylvania Avenue who would help them out. Those who reside on Main Street did not. There was no one to turn to if you were among the working people. Yet, a conversation has begun. Recent talk of greater bailouts for bankrupt businesses reminds Americans of what they hoped would pass without fanfare; recession, depression, financial despair.
Since George W. Bush and his corporate cronies came into power, average Americans have experienced one economic catastrophe after another. Budgetary surpluses realized in the 1990s were depleted. Monetary gains for the Middle Class are but a myth. Perchance, in the past an individual could realize an increased income. However, that was then, pre-President George W. Bush. Today, economically, the United States has failed. Earlier in the year, a Los Angeles Times poll concluded 75% blame Bush’s policies for an economy gone badly. The American Research Group, Incorporated states, at present, George W. Bush's Overall Job Approval is at an all time low. Eighty-two percent (82%) say the national economy is getting worse. Countless cannot imagine that is possible.
As President Bush and his appointees protect the nation from monetary doom, banks file for bankruptcy. Bear Sterns, one of the largest global investment banks and brokerage firms, finally buckled under pressure, after two brushes with near death. Billions of dollars in toxic mortgage-backed debt could no longer be erased from the books. Liabilities could not be hidden from view. Arrears ultimately appear, if not in ledgers, in the effect it has on an affluent culture gone wild with irrational exuberance. The corporate love of cash has created what America now experiences as a crash.
Businesses benefited from the Bush budget. Decrees of deregulation allowed for imbalance. Income inequity became common. The public struggled to save greenbacks. Most, in what was once the Middle Class had adequate access to the dollars they needed.
Currently, Americans can barely count on a regular paycheck. Permanent employment is thought to be a luxury of the past. Companies are strapped for cash as are employees. Some, in the richest nation on the planet, are barely able to survive. The common folk are fearful of what might happen if the economy sinks further into a doldrums. People run to banks only to withdraw their holdings. They sense the fiscal boom has gone bust.
In July 2008, there was little time to indulge. The lazy days of summer did not calm those with substantive concerns. Only George W. Bush, his family, and friends found solace in the statement, "The fundamentals are strong." Presidential candidate, John McCain's use of the words only hours ago did nothing to quell the concern citizens in this country have felt for too long. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, envisions a generation will be lost in the struggle to recover. He writes in the The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush, The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy.
Average Americans understood this. They knew they could not rest. The poor and those far from prosperous realized they had reason to act. In droves, people ran to retrieve their assets. IndyMac, a large mortgage bank, was seized by Federal regulators. The second-largest bank failure in United States history occurred after anxious customers attempted to claim their deposits. A massive run on the bank left the financial institution short of reserves. George W. Bush sat tight, safe in the sanctuary of the Oval Office.
One business after another collapsed. Conglomerates crumbled. Corporations tumbled. The people in the middle were taxed. Most of the news coverage focused on the fiscal devastation companies felt. Men and women without jobs, people who were fearful of an eminent foreclosure read of the monster mortgage firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Federal Reserve pledged to provide as much as $100 billion for each of these ill-fated establishments. Stunned, John and Jane Does said nothing. They only wondered why no one made funds available to them. Few thought the President would come to their aid. Visions of the victims of (name a recent calamity) raced through the heads of those hurt by an economic crisis.
Then, security firms stepped into the mix of mergers and mega-moneyed bailouts. Lehman Brothers, another global investment bank declared itself in a state of crisis. This firm also concluded they would file for bankruptcy. On this occasion, historians affirmed, this liquidation was the largest in United States history. The company founded in 1850 had flourished. Now, it was said to have perished. However, as death waited at the door, some associates did not feel they could rest in peace.
The staff in Britain was furious when they learned Lehman Brothers’ colleagues in the New York office were expected to share in a $2.5 billion bonus bonanza. Associates in the United Kingdom were told they would be paid just until the end of the month. Perhaps, wealth is not meant for everyday workers. A spokesman for the Trade Union Congress, the national trade union centre in the Great Britain, which represents the vast majority of organized workers surmised: "It looks like those that will suffer the most from the Lehman Brothers collapse are those at the bottom of the corporate chain while many of those at the top will be looked after."
The Union representative went on to reflect; junior staffers would suffer. "Few may have sympathy for the red braced bonus receivers but there will be many more lowly staff facing real hardship." A British employee of Lehman Brothers mused only those in the United States are saved from financial ruin; however, in truth, even in America, those without remain without.
Since eons, personnel do not prosper whether they live here in the States or abroad. Ordinary people feel the pain corporations complain of. If the cost of doing business climbs, the consumer is required to pay the price.
Health care premiums have increased by over 80 percent. . . . Premiums are rising twice as fast as wages and inflation. . . . The number of uninsured Americans has increased every year since President Bush took office, from 39.8 million in 2000 to a record high of 46.6 million in 2005. (1) . . .Gas prices have climbed over $3 a gallon. Prices at the gas pump have jumped 107 percent from $1.47 per gallon the week President Bush took office in January 2001 (3) to $ 3.05 in the latest week of energy price data. (4) . . .
Housing affordability has reached a 15-year low. In 2006, housing affordability reached its lowest level since 1991. (9) According to the Washington Post, “the scarcity of affordable housing is a deepening national crisis, and not just for inner-city families on welfare. The problem has climbed the income ladder and moved to the suburbs, where service workers cram their families into overcrowded apartments, college graduates have to crash with their parents, and firefighters, police officers and teachers can’t afford to live in the communities they serve.” (10)
The tragedies did not end. On September 15, 2008, Merrill Lynch, expressed a fear. Might this company suffer the same fate as Lehman. Merrill Lynch tycoons moved quickly. The company sold itself to Bank of America for $50 billion. Many mused; the transaction was quite a steal. However, few were relieved. Americans, now savvy soothsayers said, what would be next.
Less than twenty-four hours passed before there was news. September 16, 2008, was a typical day for Americans. However, that changed when The Federal Reserve agreed to rescue the American International Group. The United States government was slated to control an 80 percent stake in the insurer. Yes, even Insurers seek assurance from the Administration when they cannot pay their bills. Only citizens cannot come to the White House with claims.
The American people are the Insurer under George W. Bush. The people are expected to bailout every business, and they do. Yet, now, the load, the loans have become too great a burden to bear. Americans are angry. Most feel powerless. For too long they have stayed silent. No one seems to know what to say anymore. Perhaps it is too late to protest or proclaim. Yet, fortunately some one has.
Senator Bernie Sanders reflected upon the Hard Truths About the Bailouts, or the ultimate bailout. This week, the Bush Administration pledged to pay seven hundred billion to one trillion in taxpayer dollars to businesses that engaged in dubious credit practices, and the Vermont Senator voiced his trepidation.
Sanders Op-Ed: Billions for Bailouts! Who Pays?
By Senator Bernie Sanders
September 19, 2008The current financial crisis facing our country has been caused by the extreme right-wing economic policies pursued by the Bush administration. These policies, which include huge tax breaks for the rich, unfettered free trade and the wholesale deregulation of commerce, have resulted in a massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthy.
The middle class has really been under assault. Since President Bush has been in office, nearly 6 million Americans have slipped into poverty, median family income for working Americans has declined by more than $2,000, more than 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance, over 4 million have lost their pensions, foreclosures are at an all time high, total consumer debt has more than doubled, and we have a national debt of over $9.7 trillion dollars.
While the middle class collapses, the richest people in this country have made out like bandits and have not had it so good since the 1920s. The top 0.1 percent now earns more money than the bottom 50 percent of Americans, and the top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The wealthiest 400 people in our country saw their wealth increase by $670 billion while Bush has been president. In the midst of all of this, Bush lowered taxes on the very rich so that they are paying lower income tax rates than teachers, police officers, or nurses.
Now, having mismanaged the economy for eight years as well as having lied about our situation by continually insisting, “The fundamentals of our economy are strong,” the Bush administration, six weeks before an election, wants the middle class of this country to spend many hundreds of billions on a bailout. The wealthiest people, who have benefited from Bush’s policies and are in the best position to pay, are being asked for no sacrifice at all. This is absurd. This is the most extreme example that I can recall of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.
In my view, we need to go forward in addressing this financial crisis by insisting on four basic principles:
(1) The people who can best afford to pay and the people who have benefited most from Bush’s economic policies are the people who should provide the funds for the bailout. It would be immoral to ask the middle class, the people whose standard of living has declined under Bush, to pay for this bailout while the rich, once again, avoid their responsibilities. Further, if the government is going to save companies from bankruptcy, the taxpayers of this country should be rewarded for assuming the risk by sharing in the gains that result from this government bailout.
Specifically, to pay for the bailout, which is estimated to cost up to $1 trillion, the government should:
a) Impose a five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers. That would raise more than $300 billion in revenue;
b) Ensure that assets purchased from banks are realistically discounted so companies are not rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can recover the amount they paid for them; and
c) Require that taxpayers receive equity stakes in the bailed-out companies so that the assumption of risk is rewarded when companies’ stock goes up.
(2) There must be a major economic recovery package which puts Americans to work at decent wages. Among many other areas, we can create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and moving our country from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. Further, we must protect working families from the difficult times they are experiencing. We must ensure that every child has health insurance and that every American has access to quality health and dental care, that families can send their children to college, that seniors are not allowed to go without heat in the winter, and that no American goes to bed hungry.
(3) Legislation must be passed which undoes the damage caused by excessive de-regulation. That means reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were ripped down in 1999. That means re-regulating the energy markets so that we never again see the rampant speculation in oil that helped drive up prices. That means regulating or abolishing various financial instruments that have created the enormous shadow banking system that is at the heart of the collapse of AIG and the financial services meltdown.
(4) We must end the danger posed by companies that are “too big too fail,” that is, companies whose failure would cause systemic harm to the U.S. economy. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. We need to determine which companies fall in this category and then break them up. Right now, for example, the Bank of America, the nation’s largest depository institution, has absorbed Countrywide, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, and Merrill Lynch, the nation’s largest brokerage house. We should not be trying to solve the current financial crisis by creating even larger, more powerful institutions. Their failure could cause even more harm to the entire economy.
The words ring so true. Several, too many, or most have not spoken of what caused them great distress in recent years. The public accepts and allows this Administration to run rampant. The electorate acknowledges what is reality for them only when in seclusion. American people have become apathetic. However, the statistics scream out and a Senator shrieks. Perhaps it is time to ask, can citizens of this country permit this latest proposed policy to stand. Might it be time to face the financial crisis, or will more days, weeks, months, or years go by. Will the people remain passive and agree to another bailout, bigger than any other has been?
Might Americans again adopt the refrain, "Let the Bailout begin," or will the people ponder their own fate first and declare it is time for a complete change. Could it be time to embrace other than a free market mentality and the plans of a President who put us into this precarious situation. Will the commoner and the conglomerate submit to the counsel of Senator Bernie Sanders and say, we must no longer rely on credit to survive. The United States is at a turning point. Might the average American chose to state, "Let the Bailouts end!" "Lets us balance our books!"
Sources For Financial Security and Strife . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on September 22, 2008 at 09:00 PM in Bush Dynasty, Business, Corporate Criminals, Corporate Profits, Democracy or Monopoly, Economics, Failure, Inequality in America, Policy, Wall Street Week | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Reality of Recession, Depression, Dollars, and No Sense
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
He is ninety years young. Born in 1918, Alexander recalls the Great Depression. He understands why some thought the Bush Forty-One years were worse than the days after the crash in 1929, although no one ever admitted to that. Now, near two decades later, denial of economic despair remains intact. Alex wonders if only history paints a truer picture. Possibly, when he was but a boy, people did not accept that the crash was the big one. In retrospect do we realize . . . Alex wonders aloud; in recent months, each evening he dreams of realities that were during what was defined as the most dramatic, worldwide economic downturn.
As an adult, perchance, life looks different. Alex remembers back in the day of George Herbert Walker Bush the economy crawled. Records showed an annual growth rate of a mere one percent (1%). Unemployment steadily rose. Homelessness was prevalent. While Americans experienced an economic crisis, former President Bush remained resolute. He promised to be fiscally prudent Miser Bush's commitment to caution served colossal corporations and affluent stockholders well Alexander, was among the latter. He appreciated the cautious demeanor of a President dedicated to business. For Alex and others invested in the market economy under Bush 41, life was good.
Today, however, with Bush 43 in the White House, Alex worries. He reads the newspaper, and realizes how unsettled he feels. The current President declares the State of the Union is strong, The stimulus package has helped to fuel fiscal stability. Americans need not fret. Yet, Alexander does. Words printed on a page in a noted periodical do not reassure this long time investor. As a citizen, Alexander is not confident that all is well. He believes a crisis is imminent. In truth, Alex thinks America, is already immersed in a financial free fall.
This life-long investor sees the price of stocks plummet, The Dow Jones Industrial Average slips daily. Alex muses of how the current President tells him the economy is strong. Alexander is no longer elated by a bump in returns. Nor is he reassured when the President or his people tell the nation there is no inflation. A quick glance at the front page of any day's newspapers tells Alex we are already in a recession, or worse.
Woes Afflicting Mortgage Giants Raise Loan Rates, Losses Mount, and Airlines Plan Steeper Spending Cuts. Mortgage Crisis Reverses Tide of Urban Renewal. Yet, none disturbed Alex, or perhaps made more sense to him than the article that appeared on July 23, 2008, Bank Investors Redefine Bad News.
Can the bad news for banks get any worse?After the last week brought another round of woeful quarterly results from the industry, capped by news on Tuesday of multibillion-dollar losses at the Wachovia Corporation and Washington Mutual, that question is nagging banking executives and their investors.
Kenneth D. Lewis, the chief executive of Bank of America, insisted this week that the industry was turning the corner, after his company reported a mere 41 percent drop in profit. Many investors seem to see signs of hope in red ink that once would have shocked them.
Alexander sighed. He thought of how, terms are given new meaning, Money lost can be considered a gain. Alex marveled. As a shareholder, the frequent depositor is well aware of how psychology moves a market. He also comprehends the role of reverse psychology. Nonetheless, when a deficit, huge, and unprecedented becomes a expansion, the way financial institutions use words seems ridiculous.
But it has now been a year since the credit crisis erupted, and, so far, the optimists have been proven wrong time and again. Skeptics say it could take years for banks to recover from the worst financial crisis since the Depression. And even when things do improve, the pessimists maintain, banks’ profits will be a fraction of what they were before.There are many reasons for caution. Home prices continue to decline, and defaults are accelerating on a wide range of loans. As lenders struggle, loans are becoming even more scarce for hard-pressed consumers and companies. That, in turn, could slow any recovery in the broader economy.
For now, at least, some investors seem to have become so inured to the bad news that results that would have once been viewed as disastrous are now seen as good, or even great. The sober phrase often used on Wall Street to describe solid corporate results — “better than expected” — has been replaced by “not as bad as feared.”
Not as bad or indeed worse. As Alex pondered the news in the paper, as he assessed his own portfolio, the reveries flowed as a quickly as water in a river might. Thoughts of his youth flash through his mind. Alexander could not forget the bank crashes, the limited amounts of cash on hand, the confusion, and all the troubles a lack of currency caused. One phrase from today's paper rolled around in his head.
“We are resetting expectations for bank profitability, and we are re-exploring what our expectations should be going forward,” said Christopher Whalen, managing partner of Institutional Risk Analytics. “We are redefining bad.”
Still and reflective, Alexander contemplated what he thought awful as a child. Once prominent professionals, are now beggars on the street. Factory doors bolted shut. Suicides, or talk of hopelessness, and helplessness, in a society once gleeful have become normal. Alex reflected on the realization he had in his youth. He understood the more things change the more they stay the same.
When Alex was a young man, people believed, in America, the avenues were paved in gold. They were not. Filth filled each boulevard. Today, in the land of milk, honey, and opportunity, the same is true. Roads are riddled with words that paint a picture of prosperity. Yet, on Wall Street and Main Street, in 2008, people suffer. The public is economically and perhaps emotionally down in the dumps and dejected. Financially people are low on funds; feelings are lower. Citizens in this "affluent" country have few real resources. Indeed, recent reports state, Most Americans will outlive savings. Alexander knows this to be true. He has watched as many of his friends turned from prosperous to paupers. This ninety-year young man, with his pulse on the market muses. The people are as the economy and still no one is willing to say we are beyond a Recession; we are in a Depression.
Sources for Documentation on Dollars and No Sense . . .
- George H.W. Bush. The Presidents. American Experience.
- Dow Jones up 50 pts; Nasdaq down 30 pts. Business Standard. July 19, 2008, 10:54 IST
- Woes Afflicting Mortgage Giants Raise Loan Rates, By Vikas Bajaj. The New York Times. July 23, 2008
- Losses Mount, and Airlines Plan Steeper Spending Cuts, By Micheline Maynard. The New York Times. July 23, 2008
- Mortgage Crisis Reverses Tide of Urban Renewal. By Lori Montgomery. Washington Post. Tuesday, July 22, 2008; Page D01
- Bank Investors Redefine Bad News, By Eric Dash. The New York times. July 23, 2008
- Most Americans will outlive savings. Marketplace. July 14, 2008
- Echo of First Bush: Good Economy Turns Sour, By Sheryl Gay Stolberg. The New York Times. January 28, 2008
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 22, 2008 at 12:50 PM in Bush 43 Administration, Business, Economics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
United Auto Workers Are Everyman; The American Experience
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
The morning broke. There was a momentary blip in the air as broadcasters spoke of the pending United Auto Workers potential strike. Was the short and sweet General Motors walkout the topic of discussion, or perhaps, the work stoppage at Chrysler was the focus. No matter; neither was of interest to Jack, a corporate executive. He received word from his accountant hours earlier; health care costs are too high. We must cut benefits. Perhaps it would be better if we eliminate a large portion of the workforce. Certainly, that would save us much money. The company must consider the stockholders. Individual buyers and brokers look at earnings and expenses.
Richard, a man that rose through the ranks, currently holds the title of Vice President in a well-known organization. His company is up for sale. Potential buyers will scrutinize the books. Every penny, nickel, and dime must be accounted for. He too was summoned. In his case, the President called. Employee medical expenses must be slashed. We can no longer offer life insurance. This business already purged the employees they could afford to lose. Workers wages are exceedingly low. That helps to make this company competitive. Richard recalls, years ago, he chose to work for this institute because of the benefits. Even then, he knew how valuable remuneration was. How might he endorse such a reduction or loss?
Bethany slept soundly, more so than she had before. Yesterday, she went to the doctor for a routine examination. Her tests were clear. A clean bill of health was delivered. That was wonderful. The results calmed her mind; indeed, she was elated. In the immediate, she was comforted by the knowledge she had health insurance. An indemnity would cover the bill. She said this aloud; for most of her adult life, she had no health care coverage.
Marion, a woman Bethany met in the waiting room, spoke of her concerns. She diligently punched a time clock for forty years. Marion is a retired member of the city staff. Possibly, she was a state employee, communications worker, a retail associate, or a salesperson. Maybe her hours were not logged in a conventional manner; nonetheless, she worked hard for decades. Perchance, Marion is a Mom. While she and Bethany sat, each expectant of their test results, they chatted.
Marion mentioned the change in her circumstance. With the new Medicaid "donut hole' as she called it, she could barely keep up. Routine examinations were now a luxury. She feared a thirty-five dollar co-pay. The funds seemed excessive. Bethany shared her saga. Only twelve months earlier, she had no insurance. Three tests were required. The total cost was close to a thousand dollars. For her, thirty-five greenbacks would have been a welcome fare.
Shelia chimed in. This lovely lady, also adorned in a medical gown offered she and her husband own a same business. Medical costs and coverage for their few employees is a concern that escalates daily. Often, the couple thinks to move from one insurer to another. However, in the past when they had, they realized no rewards. Shelia shutters, sighs, and then inquires, "How long have each of you been here today." She notes, my appointment was scheduled for two, Post Meridian. Now, near three hours later I sit.
The three women look at each other and exclaim. This is health care in America? The conversation continued. All were exasperated and excited to have an opportunity to speak. Marion mused as talk of health care turned to politics, and minutes were but a blur, "Now that we have solved all societal ills." Of course, they had not. Union strikes were not discussed.
Jack, Richard, Bethany, Marion, Sheila, and her husband are not employees of General Motors, Chrysler, or Ford Motor Company, another corporation we will hear about in the near future. Yet, each is affected by the circumstances that concern the United Auto Workers. They are all Middle America.
We all have our tales, our sagas, and situations. However, sadly, we see our own lives as separate from the anxieties of others. They are not. We are united, whether we are member of a labor Union or not. We are citizens of the United States.
For many decades, in this country, the cry was heard, "As goes General Motors, so goes the nation." While the prominent automaker is but half the company it was only years ago, it remains archetypal. What occurs within General Motors is emblematic and endemic.
Two weeks after GM laborers partook in a two-day walkout, and then agreed to terms of their new contract, a six-hour strike against automaker Chrysler began. It too was less than significant for most Americans. At least that is what journalists told us. The mantra on the morning of October 10, 2007 was Chrysler is now a privately owned company. Therefore, its woes will not affect the stock market, which, as we know, is the true economic driver.
As reports of a possible job-stoppage streamed across the screen, and announcers screamed of the possibility in the early morn, "average" Americans were reminded, they need not fear. Portfolios were safe. The implication was, and is, stockholders are important. Investors matter. Laborers do not; they are but a insignificant commodity.
In recent years, we have heard the hoopla; more Americans own stocks than had in the past. Everyone is invested in the market. The economy is strong and has been for decades. Currently, laws favor financial planning. Life for Americans is far better than it has ever been. Less than a decade ago, we read . . .
In 1998, 52 percent of Americans owned shares in public companies or equity mutual funds, either directly in their own accounts, or indirectly in retirement and trust accounts. This percentage was four times higher than in 1980, when only 13 percent of Americans owned stock. By the end of the century, more than half the population were capitalists in some sense.
Many factors contributed to the broadening of stock ownership. New pension laws shifted many employees’ pensions to the new 401(k) plans, most of which are invested in stocks. Mutual funds made it easier and cheaper to start investing. Federal law deregulated brokerage commissions. On-line investing facilitated stock purchases by reducing both paperwork and commissions. Finally, after almost twenty years of unprecedented prosperity, many Americans had significant wealth with which to invest in equities.
However, even then, working stiffs did not prosper as polished "professionals" might have. Richard may have increased his income. He might have invested in a healthy portfolio. The authentically affluent such as Jack, certainly reaped some capital gains. There is little doubt; this entrepreneur likely increased his worth greatly. Nonetheless, as in years past, prosperity was not equally shared.Approximately half the population still pinched pennies and tied their purse strings tightly. Bethany, Marion, and Sheila were perhaps among those that struggled. Dispensable, discretionary income was but a dream, the American Dream not realized. Life may have looked good for those that control the message and wish to promote further speculation. , the silent near majority knew then as they do now . . .
Dow's all-time high inconsequential for most Americans
By Sylvia Allegretto.
Economic Policy Institute
December 11, 2006Much attention was paid last week to the Dow Jones recovery to its prior peak level first reached in 2000. It is important to put this milestone into perspective for average working families. Fostered by the constant focus and widespread attention given to the performance of the stock market, conventional wisdom has it that everyone in the United States is heavily invested in the stock market. However, the data tell a different story.
The most recent triennial data from the Survey of Consumer Finances show that the historically increasing trend in the shares of all households owning any stock reversed course from just over half in 2001 (51.9%) to just under half in 2004 (48.6%)1—the first such decline on record (Figure A ). In 2004, only about a third of Americans had stock holdings, valued at more than $5,000.
The distribution of stocks, by value, is highly tilted to the wealthiest Americans as shown in Figure B. In 2004, the wealthiest 1% owned 36.9% of all stocks, while the next 9% owned 41.9%. Hence, the wealthiest 10% controlled about 80% of all stocks while the bottom 90% owned just over 20%. Given the starkness and persistence of inequality in stock holdings, there is no reason to think those in the bottom 90% are doing any better today.
Those that were at the bottom in the 1990s remain there. Some sunk further into oblivion. Indeed, in the twenty-first century, the poor fell further than they imagined possible. Their hopes and dreams dashed. Few manual laborers see a home in their future. They worry; they do not believe they can provide an adequate education for their offspring. Putting food on the table has become a priority. The impoverished were not in the physician's office with the three women. They could not afford to be.The Middle Class, or those that once were among the median population, also sink lower and lower. Caught in the vacuum of a downward spiral, formerly comfortable Americans fear falling down the dark hole. The darkness of the drain is in sight. In recent years, as the market races to all time highs, the decline downward accelerates for all but the corporate tycoon. Magnates prosper and plan to build their profits; Jack absolutely is.
Please consider the Chrysler Corporation and the company that purchased this organization months ago, Cerberus Capital. While circumstances differ essentially, the basic motivation is the same, big bucks. General Motors may be slightly more patient in their pursuit of ample profits and earnings; nonetheless, each company considers financial interest more than those of the workers.
"GM is a classic automotive firm," McAlinden said. "They're in it for the long haul, and they produced a long-haul UAW agreement, that says 'We're going to save money on this agreement, but it's going to take four years to roll out and we're going to do it with a lot of new product.'"
Chrysler, on the other hand, was recently bought by Cerberus Capital, a private investment company that buys other firms, restructures them and then tries to sell them or take them public for a healthy profit.
"Cerberus is a private equity firm, who in the past hasn't really taken over a company to increase its product line," McAlinden [Sean McAlinden, a Michigan auto analyst] said.
If perchance Cerberus Capital were interested in the car industry, the likelihood that they would cater to the needs and concerns of the workers is not high. Consider a morning with Jack or his accountant. Chief Executives, in America, do not wish to negotiate. Capitalist cohort Ronald Reagan ensured entrepreneurs would not have to do more than the minimum. During the Reagan reign, in the 1980s, labor laws were re-interpreted. Legislation favored business owners. Richard Hurd, professor of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University spoke of a lack of incentive for employers to talk to disgruntled workers in recent decades. Moguls are legally able to stonewall employees; only a semblance of good-faith is required. Employers merely need to come to the table and talk, nothing more.Magnates are in truth, in the driver's seat. Professor Hurd muses; today, we have one-tenth the strikes we had in the past. This Cornell experts expounds, globalization has lessened the power of employees. Americans can no longer afford to strike. Thus, today's workers, at least in the manufacturing industry have become cautious. They do not wish to challenge the company. They fear a loss of personal savings. More importantly, laborers are anxious, they will not have a job, if they leave, even for a moment.
In the past ten years, strikes have become creative vehicles. Protests are announced far in advance. The strategy is tactical. There is no incentive for the employer to make a quick change, such as hiring a new staff. Intentionally picketers hit the pavement for a day or two. Grievances are expressed. The intent of a walkout is meant only to send a message, Few hear the more subtle communication, or appreciate the endeavor.
Jessica Kelly, a twenty-one year old thinks people on strike are "over zealous." She believes walkouts are "not the proper way to handle a situation." Miss Kelly considers a picket line, a stampede, not an appropriate means of expression. Jonathan Yates, states, "It is just posturing." He concludes, "No one really cares about stopping work. They almost like they are just following up on their Union commitment." Yates states, "I think the Union largely exists for its own sake."
Apparently, in 2007, the Union, or the need to fight for fair wages and benefits is a dated concept. The populace is convinced; strikes serve no purpose. Unions are corrupt. They are but another Big Business and indeed, they are or will be if the recent trends are realized.
UAW dissidents argue against ratifying GM deal
By Nick Carey
Reuters.
Friday, September 28, 2007; 10:48 AMGrand Rapids, Michigan (Reuters) - Gregg Shotwell says that by agreeing to a new contract with General Motors Corp (GM.N) the United Auto Workers has ceased to be a union.
"The UAW is now a corporation," he said, sitting on the back porch of his home in a leafy neighborhood of Grand Rapids, Michigan. "It has become UAW Incorporated."
Shotwell says he is one of a large number of UAW members, angry at the union for the groundbreaking contract it concluded with the top U.S. automaker this week. The pact would shift health-care costs away from the struggling company and create a lower tier of wages for new hires.
Those health-care costs -- if the contract is ratified by GM's 73,000 hourly workers -- would be managed in a UAW-administered trust fund that would have more than $30 billion in cash and other assets.
"There are a lot of people who are disgusted with what they've done," Shotwell said.
This is only one aspect that concerns workers. Those that care about more than their stock portfolios see it differently. Months ago, stock analyst speculated the adoption of a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association Trust [is] Unlikely To Cover All Future Health Care Obligations For Big Three Automakers.
Morgan Stanley analyst Jonathan Steinmetz on Tuesday told investors that negotiations next month between the United Auto Workers and the Big Three automakers could result in a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association trust that covers some, rather than all, of their future retiree health care obligations, the Detroit Free Press reports (Higgins, Detroit Free Press, 6/20).
At the time of this assessment, another labor expert voiced his opinion. Harley Shaiken, a professor at the University of California-Berkeley, said, "I think it is going to be a hard sell. It is not out of the question, but there will be a lot of resistance to it." Perchance there was, then, or at least in the minds of many. However, desperation over time changes much. Perspectives are easily altered when job security is on the line, the assembly line. Shaiken explained, "The goal of the UAW leadership is clear. They want to provide as secure as possible a route for health care for the members. If they feel a VEBA will do that, they may be more open" (Detroit Free Press, 6/20).Possibly, Union leaders presented a persuasive argument. Workers, financially strapped in an economic era that rewards only the top one percent, could not take the risk. The threat of temporary or permanent unemployment was one individuals, and families, felt they could not endure.
Many General Motors employees were aware of the Caterpillar situation. Caterpillar Corporation employees chose a similar option years ago. They too thought the funds would be managed well and last for decades. However, they soon found themselves in dire straights.
GM-UAW contract causes deja vu moment for Caterpillar retirees
Associated Press.
September 27, 2007Peoria, Ill. (AP) — Retired Caterpillar Inc. workers say they can't help but view a tentative contract deal hammered out between General Motors Corp. and the United Auto Workers with skepticism given their own bitter experience.
A key element of Wednesday's tentative agreement, which led the union to call off a two-day strike by the 74,000 workers it represents, is the Volunteer Employee Beneficiary Association.
VEBA, as the program is called, is a trust established by a company and union to pay for or defray health insurance costs for retirees.
A hard-fought contract deal hammered out between Caterpillar and the UAW in 1998 also included a VEBA trust funded by $32.3 million the UAW had set aside into special training and overtime accounts.
That VEBA trust, however, was depleted in just six years.
"God, did we get stuck," Caterpillar retiree Stan Valentine told the (Peoria) Journal. "Initially the VEBA worked OK, but it just got eaten up by the astronomical rise in medical insurance (costs)."
As a consequence, around 20,000 Caterpillar retirees now have no choice but foot the bill for much of their medical costs.
What is a worker or a retired employee to do? Bethany spoke of her situation. She had nowhere to turn for financial assistance when in need of medical care. In retirement, Marion realizes a similar distress. In an Industrialist country, investors are more far important than workers. People are but a byproduct of production. They can be replaced. Employees are dispensable. Money moves the nation. Humans that toil to survive cannot be bought and sold; thus, they are presumed to be worthless. The creatures that build the cars are costly. It seems those in other professions are considered an unwanted expense as well. Ask the communication workers.
Embarq Locals Protest Termination of Retiree Health Care
August 23, 2007Embarq members and retirees in six states will hold demonstrations this Saturday to protest the company's announcement that it will terminate retiree health benefits for Medicare-eligible pensioners.
The cuts average more than $2,000 per year for every retiree and dependent affected, and, "They will have an even greater impact on families with acute medical problems who rely on expensive prescriptions," said Telecommunications Vice President Jimmy Gurganus. "This will be devastating to many people, especially for longer term retirees who haven't seen a pension increase in years and are struggling on meager fixed incomes."
Embarq, Sprint's former local phone operation, which was spun off last year, announced it would drop its $500 annual subsidy for Medicare premiums as well as supplemental coverage that pays partial medical costs when Medicare payments are below 80 percent of treatment expenses. Embarq also is capping life insurance for retirees at $10,000, a substantial cut for many.
At demonstrations in North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey and Oregon on Aug. 25, Embarq retirees – joined by local politicians and labor leaders in many locations – are set to tell the news media how the cutbacks would cripple their incomes and keep them from being able to afford needed treatments and drugs.
Many echoed Sandra Muntis of Elida, Ohio, who wrote to her local describing the situation of her husband, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, and her own struggle with diabetes and ulcers. Without supplemental health care from Embarq, "we could not afford procedures requested by physicians to keep us in good health," such as colonoscopies, tests for prostate cancer and others, she said.
About 14,500 retirees and dependents, both management and union, would be affected. Embarq says it will save $30 million a year from the cuts.
Save the almighty buck. Sanction the free-enterprise system that, in all its compassion, leaves people behind. Human beings become ill. They are easily injured. Health Care is expensive and corporations say they do not wish to absorb the costs. Thirty million dollars a year saved. That is the priority.Consumers, in this free market forget how they contribute to the cycle. They, the average buyer, craves low costs too, regardless of what this might mean. When the Big Three fret of medical expenses, we, the common folk forget, Big Businesses pass the cost onto the customer. "Woe is me" is quite a claim when we, those that purchase poorly made domestic or foreign products, those that pollute the environment, and encourage the notion of built-in obsolescence, propagate a profit driven margin.
Wal-Mart CEO defends low-cost imports
At conference, Lee Scott cites retailer's business model, says some customers don't have 'the economic luxury of making a broader social statement.'
October 12 2007: 8:07 AM EDTRogers, Ark. (AP) -- Chief Executive Lee Scott defended Wal-Mart's reliance on low-cost imports Thursday against what he called emerging economic nationalism.
Scott told a retailing conference he would like to stock more American-made goods but that Wal-Mart's business model is based on offering the lowest price for consumers who cannot afford to spend more.
Scott was answering a question from an audience member who wanted to know if Wal-Mart would buy more U.S.-made products to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of global transport and to bring manufacturing jobs back from places like China.
"Right now, the way it works, our model is 'We sell for less.' If we put products out there and we have to sell them for more because our competitors are sourcing more efficiently and more effectively for the same quality of product, our model doesn't work. We cannot be at a price disadvantage," Scott said.
"Lest anybody forget, 20 percent of Wal-Mart's customers don't have a checking account and they do not have the economic luxury of making a broader social statement," he told a conference of the Center for Retailing Excellence, part of the University of Arkansas' Sam M. Walton Business College.
And so it goes. Medical bills are calculated into the price of a vehicle, clothing, communication services, college tuition, as are wages, and pensions. Carmakers remind us, these overheads must be reduced if sales are to increase.Chrysler, just as General Motors, and Ford, needs to be competitive. So too does Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, your corner market, your neighborhood retailer, the drycleaner, the bicycle shop, the bakery, and even the local bank. All must appear attractive. They react to the market. The law that governs each in this Industrialist Mecca is "supply and demand."
Customers and investors alike concur; they will only buy when a company shows itself to be strong. While the definitions may be nuanced, essentially, they are the same. Give me the best bang for my buck, even if it means that Mom and Pop will be out on the street without a penny to their name.
Why might we ask are workers willing to settle so quickly. How can we explain a reduction in labor strikes, or a reluctance to ask for fair and decent wages? Why are we willing to let retirees wallow in despair and ignore the reality that soon, we will be among them.
American workers are desperate; more than money, they crave stability. The little things, food, shelter, clothing to protect the body from the elements, and good health, are all most people long for. Equal opportunities are welcome, or at least an equitable education might be nice. However, at this juncture, residents of this great nation are happy to settle for the smallest slice of the pie. We heard the tearful cry during the General Motors industrial action.
UAW officials said the 73,000 UAW members who work at about 80 U.S. facilities for the nation's largest automaker didn't strike Monday over what many thought would trip up the talks: A plan to shift the retiree health care burden from the company to the union. They said they also didn't strike over wages.
They said union members walked out because they want GM to promise that future cars and trucks such as the replacement for the Chevrolet Cobalt small car or the still-on-the-drawing board Chevrolet Volt plug-in electric car will be built at U.S. plants, preserving union jobs.
United Auto Workers, please understand the American Dream is not found in an assembly line mentality. Such a dream is wrought with strife. General Motors alone illustrates this truth. The once powerful workforce is half of what it once was. A new snazzy steel or aluminum design will not create other than it has. As long as we continue down this path and do not dare to take a detour, nothing will change. Economist and former blue-collar stiff Barry Bluestone understands this."By and large, they are looking for answers to the wrong question," said Barry Bluestone, an economist and labor expert at Northeastern University in Boston. "They are fighting over the same things they were fighting over 50 years ago."
Bluestone is no stranger to the auto industry. His father, Irving Bluestone, 91, was the lead negotiator for the UAW with General Motors during the 1960s and '70s. As a college student, Barry Bluestone worked summers on an auto assembly line. And as an economist, he has documented the importance of unions in creating the American middle class.
Back in the early 1990s, father and son wrote a book, "Negotiating the Future," in which they argued that both unions and companies had to move their focus from dividing the pie to expanding it. That meant putting aside the rigid notion that the role of unions was to fight for better wages and benefits, and the role of management was to run the company, they wrote. To remain competitive, companies had to engage the energies, creativity, and commitment of their workers. And that process required a different approach to collective bargaining.
Perchance such a notion might be embraced in the work environment as well. Bluestone addresses such a need. He understands what some Japanese corporations do. The principles of Kaizen, consideration for the people, the process, and consistent improvement, can be fruitful and bring personal and professional fulfillment.When people passionately pursue their endeavors health and welfare is improved. Possibly, the American Dream is achieved for one and for all. When a proud populace lives as the Constitution elucidates, we establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. When we honor society as a whole, when individuals are revered and valued happiness is more than a pursuit.
Imagine the reduction in stress related illness and injury if we all loved our work. If our careers enabled us to have a creative outlet that served the community, ah, how lovely life might be.
I suspect a street-paver, proud of his work stops to show his son or daughter what he has done to contribute to society. An electrician pleased with what she did speaks volume. She shares her successes. She installed the best sound system the Performing Arts Center has ever heard. People tell their friends and family of their triumphs, what they created that felt good and meaningful to them.
A teacher talks of the lives he changed. A retailer recalls the customer that came to the store everyday, only for the quality of the companionship. A restaurateur reiterates, his clientele came for the ambiance. The way the chef could put together a meal . . . hum waaah! The stories of success and satisfaction are innumerable when workers are allowed to be creative and feel committed.
As Bluestone acknowledges, this wasn't a wholly original idea, but one that had been a favorite of the left wing of the labor movement in the 1940s and championed by the UAW's own Walter Reuther until 1950, when he surrendered the dream of industrial democracy for the more fetching and immediate dream of a middle-class life for blue-collar workers.
That grand bargain, known as the Treaty of Detroit, served both sides well until the early 1980s, when foreign competition began to render it unsustainable. And yet, in the 25 years since, very little has changed in the collective bargaining process.
During the late 1980s, there were some successful experiments with Total Quality programs borrowed from Japan. And General Motors had some early success with its new-age Saturn division. But according to Ruth Milkman, a labor expert at UCLA, worker involvement was never really embraced by either the unions or management and never allowed to rise beyond production issues on the factory floor. As long as oil prices remained low and SUV profits high, neither union nor management seemed to care.
The environment has changed, but the labor relations remain much as they were in 1950 . . .
Faced with the folly of many decisions, people are hesitant to move down the road less traveled. Americans would rather drive their gas-guzzlers and gather no moss than contemplate change. They fear that if they stop and examine their lives they may have to accept that what we do and have done for decades is not viable.
The battle over job security is also emblematic.
With more than a quarter of GM's 73,000 unionized workers set to retire in the next few years, any job reductions that result from falling sales or increased productivity should be able to be handled through attrition. But the union is also worried that this might not be the case if the company decides to outsource entire functions.
By now, it should be apparent that the wrong way to handle this legitimate concern is to prohibit all layoffs, plant closures, or outsourcing. The right way would be to leave those out of the labor contract but give workers a real voice in those decisions and a financial stake in making the right ones.
Getting there would be hard. It would require not only new mechanisms and procedures, but a much higher degree of trust and respect.
But it would be a more hopeful sign if this strike were about hammering out a new model for labor-management relations rather than merely preserving job guarantees that no company can -- or should -- provide.
Might we dare imagine, that if we were truly happy in our endeavors, we might be healthier. Over time, many of us would want to pursue a dream that now, we do not have the courage to consciously desire. Change sends chills up and down the spines of most. The idea of an unexpected, unwanted, an unwarranted job loss makes us shiver. The prospect of happiness, doing what we love, creatively, with commitment, we cannot phantom what that possibility might bring.Jack may seem to have success; yet, he as many Chief Executives understand he cannot continue as he has. Perhaps he will walk hand-in-hand with Steve Burd, Chairman and C.E.O. of Safeway supermarkets, who now advocates for Universal Health Care, or he might join a broader coalition.
Richard remembers what once was his truth. He sought employment with an organization that provided generous benefits. Now, will he have the courage to truly propose what even Presidential candidates only indicate is a necessary possibility, a Single Payer Universal Health Care plan. Will his upper management position yield the power to persuade.
Bethany understands what is like to be without. Will her time with an indemnity be short-lived as corporations crumble under the weight of health care cost, wages, and the misery a business experiences when they must be accountable to the market.
Marion put in her time. Currently, she resides in a nation that does not have time for her. How might she fare. In the future. Sheila, her husband, you, and I might be better served if we dreamt of what we never did before. Perhaps a paradigm shift, while a popular idiom was never tried. Until it is, we cannot know what is true. Might we embrace the worker more than the market. Perchance we could care for people, cover families, and create a culture where people are valued and valuable.
I leave the decision to you dear reader. Do we take the road less traveled or continue to see the USA in a Chevrolet, one whose cost continues to be too dear.
Health Care, Pensions, Stocks, What Bonds Us . . .
- 73,000 workers walk in nationwide GM strike, By Chris Isidore. Cable News Network. September 24, 2007
- Stockholders. The First Measured Century. Public Broadcasting Services. 1998
- New Chrysler Contract Hinges on Jobs, Health Care, By Frank Langfitt. Morning Edition. October 11, 2007
- Chrysler sold in unprecedented auto deal. By James R. Healey, Sharon Silke Carty, Chris Woodyard and Matt Krantz. USA Today. May 14, 2007
- UAW Wins Job Security Guarantees in Deal, By Tom Krisher and Dee-Ann Durbin. The Associated Press. Sun Herald.
Friday, September 28, 2007; 3:25 PM
- pdf UAW Wins Job Security Guarantees in Deal, By Tom Krisher and Dee-Ann Durbin. The Associated Press. Sun Herald.
Friday, September 28, 2007; 3:25 PM
- UAW dissidents argue against ratifying GM deal, By Nick Carey. Reuters. Washington Post.
Friday, September 28, 2007; 10:48 AM
- pdf UAW dissidents argue against ratifying GM deal, By Nick Carey. Reuters. Washington Post.
Friday, September 28, 2007; 10:48 AM
- The Wrong Reason To Strike. By Steven Pearlstein. Washington Post.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007; 11:00 AM
- The Wrong Reason To Strike, By Steven Pearlstein. Washington Post. Wednesday, September 26, 2007; Page D01
- pdf The Wrong Reason To Strike, By Steven Pearlstein. Washington Post. Wednesday, September 26, 2007; Page D01
- Contract Details. Washington Post. Saturday, September 29, 2007; Page D01
- Some GM Workers Uneasy About Health-Care Shift, By Sholnn Freeman. Washington Post.
Saturday, September 29, 2007; Page D01
- pdf Some GM Workers Uneasy About Health-Care Shift, By Sholnn Freeman. Washington Post.
Saturday, September 29, 2007; Page D01
- Chrysler Reaches Tentative Deal With UAW Union. Reuters. The New York Times. October 11, 2007
- Chrysler Workers Wary of New Contract. Associated Press. The New York Times. October 11, 2007
- pdf Chrysler Workers Wary of New Contract. Associated Press. The New York Times. October 11, 2007
- Today's Impression of the Picket Lines. All Things considered. October 11, 2007
- U.S. Workers Strike Less Often Than in Past. All Things considered. October 11, 2007
- Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association Trust [is] Unlikely To Cover All Future Health Care Obligations For Big Three Automakers, Analysts Say. Medical News Today. June 22, 2007
- pdf GM-UAW contract causes deja vu moment for Caterpillar retirees. Associated Press. Michigan Live. September 27, 2007
- Embarq Locals Protest Termination of Retiree Health Care, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC. August 23, 2007
- Wal-Mart CEO defends low-cost imports. Cable News Network. October 12, 2007
- Wal-Mart a Good Place to Shop But Some Critics Too . The Pew Research Center. December 15, 2005
- What’s the One Thing Big Business and the Left Have in Common? By Jonathan Cohn. The New York Times. April 1, 2007
- pdf What’s the One Thing Big Business and the Left Have in Common? By Jonathan Cohn. The New York Times. April 1, 2007
- Business Coalition Sets Sights on Universal Health Insurance. California Healthline. May 7, 2007
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on October 12, 2007 at 11:00 PM in American Dream, American Jobs, Americana, Business, Current Affairs, Dreams Live and Die , Economics, General Motors, Health, Health Care, Health Insurance , Kaizen, Looking at Life, Medicare, Quality of Life, Wal-Mart, Wall Street Week | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
America; World Superpower?
< 
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Americans are proud of their place in history. Those residing in this nation [for the most part] are prosperous. Even citizens of lesser means have more than those in other countries. We, the people often speak of the quality that is America. Our educational institutions are excellent. Health care here is said to be the best in the world. Goods and services could not be better. That is why we often hear “Buy American.” In the United Sates, we take care of our people, physically, intellectually, and emotionally. Americans are financially fat and happy. This country is great! We are known throughout the globe as a, no, the one and only superpower.
However, this label may be indicative of a nation that sits on its laurels and has for far too long. In educating our children America lags further and further behind.
U.S. falls in education rank compared to other countries
In health care, while we excel at much, we are nowhere near the best. Indeed, the health care we provide is barely average. If we consider the cost, the total dollars spent to heal a hurting the public, or prevent serious illness, this nation ranks poorly. The United States does not offer the best of medical care. Indeed, our system leaves much to be desired.
By Elaine Wu
U-Wire
Story posted: 10-04-2005 07:07The United States is falling when it comes to international education rankings, as recent studies show that other nations in the developed world have more effective education systems. In a 2003 study conducted by UNICEF that took the averages from five different international education studies, the researchers ranked the United States No. 18 out of 24 nations in terms of the relative effectiveness of its educational system.
The Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation working toward high a performance Health System, created a National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance. This was first-ever in-depth study of health care. Researchers monitored health care outcomes, quality, access, efficiency, and equity and placed the findings in one report.
The results indicate that America's health system falls far short of what is attainable, especially given the resources the nation invests. Across 37 indicators of performance, the U.S. achieves an overall score of 66 out of a possible 100 when comparing actual national performance to achievable benchmarks. Scores on efficiency are particularly low.
American also no longer has the goods. Manufacturing in the United States is down. What we do produce is not always appreciated. People may say buy American; yet, often they speak of built-in obsolescence when discussing America machinery. Thus . . .Executive Summary
Once upon a time, it was taken as an article of faith among most Americans that the U.S. health care system was simply the best in the world. Yet growing evidence indicates the system falls short given the high level of resources committed to health care. Although national health spending is significantly higher than the average rate of other industrialized countries, the U.S. is the only industrialized country that fails to guarantee universal health insurance and coverage is deteriorating, leaving millions without affordable access to preventive and essential health care. Quality of care is highly variable and delivered by a system that is too often poorly coordinated, driving up costs, and putting patients at risk. With rising costs straining family, business, and public budgets, access deteriorating and variable quality, improving health care performance is a matter of national urgency.The Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System has developed a National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance (see the table below for scores on 37 key indicators). The Scorecard assesses how well the U.S. health system is performing as a whole relative to what is achievable. It provides benchmarks for the nation and a mechanism for monitoring change over time across core health care system goals of health outcomes, quality, access, efficiency, and equity.
The table summarizes U.S. average rates on 37 indicators, their benchmark comparison rates typically those achieved by the top 10 percent of countries, states, health plans, hospitals, or other providers and the U.S. average score, calculated as the ratio between U.S. performance and benchmark rate. In just a few instances, the benchmarks represent targets, rather than achieved top performance. The sources of the benchmarks are shown in the table.
Some major findings include:
Long, Healthy, and Productive Lives: Total Average Score 69
The U.S. is one-third worse than the best country on mortality from conditions "amenable to health care" that is, deaths that could have been prevented with timely and effective care. Its infant mortality rate is 7.0 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared with 2.7 in the top three countries. The U.S. average adult disability rate is one-fourth worse than the best five U.S. states, as is the rate of children missing 11 or more days of school because of illness or injury.Quality: Total Average Score 71
Despite documented benefits of timely preventive care, barely half of adults (49%) received preventive and screening tests according to guidelines for their age and sex.The current gap between national average rates of diabetes and blood pressure control and rates achieved by the top 10 percent of health plans translates into an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 preventable deaths and $1 billion to $2 billion in avoidable medical costs.
Only half of patients with congestive heart failure receive written discharge instructions regarding care following their hospitalization.
Nursing home hospital admission and readmission rates in the bottom 10 percent of states are two times higher than in the top 10 percent of states.
Access: Total Average Score 67
In 2003, one-third (35%) of adults under 65 (61 million) were either underinsured or were uninsured at some time during the year.One-third (34%) of all adults under 65 have problems paying their medical bills or have medical debt they are paying off over time. And premiums are increasingly stretching median household incomes.
Efficiency: Total Average Score 51
National preventable hospital admissions for patients with diabetes, congestive heart failure, and asthma (ambulatory care sensitive conditions) were twice the level achieved by the top states.Hospital 30-day readmission rates for Medicare patients ranged from 14 percent to 22 percent across regions. Bringing readmission rates down to the levels achieved by the top performing regions would save Medicare $1.9 billion annually.
Annual Medicare costs of care average $32,000 for patients with congestive heart failure, diabetes, and chronic lung disease, with a twofold spread in costs across geographic regions.
As a share of total health expenditures, U.S. insurance administrative costs were more than three times the rates of countries with the most integrated insurance systems.
The U.S. lags well behind other nations in use of electronic medical records: 17 percent of U.S doctors compared with 80 percent in the top three countries.
Equity: Total Average Score: 71
On multiple indicators across quality of care and access to care, there is a wide gap between low-income or uninsured populations and those with higher incomes and insurance. On average, low-income and uninsured rates would need to improve by one-third to close the gap.On average, it would require a 20 percent decrease in Hispanic risk rates to reach benchmark white rates on key indicators of quality, access, and efficiency. Hispanics are at particularly high risk of being uninsured, lacking a regular source of primary care, and not receiving essential preventive care.
Overall, it would require a 24 percent or greater improvement in African American mortality, quality, access, and efficiency indicators to approach benchmark white rates. Blacks are much more likely to die at birth or from chronic conditions such as heart disease and diabetes. Blacks also have significantly lower rates of cancer survival.
U.S. manufacturing jobs fading away fast
If there are fewer industrial jobs in America, in what sectors do we excel. Surely, you may say, this country is technologically savvy.
By Barbara Hagenbaugh,
USA TodayRochester, N.Y. - Charles Seitz remembers when Rochester was a bustling manufacturing town. Now, all the 58-year-old unemployed engineer sees is a landscape of empty buildings.
"There's nothing made here anymore," the former Eastman Kodak employee says, his eyes welling with tears as he talks about his struggle to find a new job. "Wealth is really created by making things. I still adhere to that."
It's a situation that's been playing out across the country for decades but has received increased attention in recent years.
Fifty years ago, a third of U.S. employees worked in factories, making everything from clothing to lipstick to cars. Today, a little more than one-tenth of the nation's 131 million workers are employed by manufacturing firms. Four-fifths are in services.
The decline in manufacturing jobs has swiftly accelerated since the beginning of 2000. Since then, more than 1.9 million factory jobs have been cut about 10% of the sector's workforce. During the same period, the number of jobs outside manufacturing has risen close to 2%.
Many of the factory jobs are being cut as companies respond to a sharp rise in global competition. Unable to rise prices and often forced to cut them companies must find any way they can to reduce costs and hang onto profits.
Jobs are increasingly being moved abroad as companies take advantage of lower labor costs and position themselves to sell products to a growing and promising market abroad. Economy.com, an economic consulting firm in West Chester, Pa., estimates 1.3 million manufacturing jobs have been moved abroad since the beginning of 1992 the bulk coming in the last three years. Most of those jobs have gone to Mexico and East Asia.
I invite you to take this survey. Test Your High Speed Internet IQ. Consider where the United Sates ranks in the world of cyberspace. Then, if you are able, stand tall and proud, as you say, 'I am an American.'
Please Peruse the Sources, Resources, and References. Familiarize Yourself with the Homeland . . .
- A League Table of Educational Disadvantage in Rich Nations. United Nations Children's Fund. November 2002
- pdf A League Table of Educational Disadvantage in Rich Nations. United Nations Children's Fund. November 2002
- U.S. falls in education rank compared to other countries. By Elaine Wu. Kapi'o Newspress. October 4, 2005
- The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems. www.geographic.org.
- Commonwealth Fund
- Why Not the Best? Results from a National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance. The Commonwealth Fund The Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System. September 20, 2006 | Volume 34
- The U.S. Health Care System; Best in the World or Just the Most Expensive. Bureau of Labor Education. University of Maine. 2001
- Ranking nations' healthcare: US isn't No. 1. A first-ever comparison of healthcare quality could give more impetus to change the US private-public system. By Alexandra Marks. The Christian Science Monitor. May 5, 2004
- Poverty spreads, Census Bureau says 1.3 million more slipped into poverty last year; health care coverage also drops. Cable News Network. August 26, 2004: 1:54 PM EDT
- Americans less happy today than 30 years ago: study. Reuters. Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34AM EDT
- Americans Views of U.S. Automobiles: Japanese Cars Better. CBS News Poll January 9, 2006
- Test Your High Speed Internet IQ.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 1, 2007 at 01:53 PM in American Dream, American Jobs, American Patriotism, Americana, Business, Economics, Education, Health Care, Labor, Employment | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
War of Words. Bloggers, Broadcasters, Rappers Code of Ethics
Oprah on Imus (Public forum with Russell and others) 2© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
In this tome, I am not advocating autocratic censorship. I ask each of us to look within and consciously choose an empathetic ethical code."There is a problem." However, Americans do not agree what the problem is. Sexism, racism, homophobia, violence, or the words we use to promote such social ills. For weeks, language has been in the news, on the blogs, in the airwaves, and in music-industry executives meeting rooms. Free speech is the topic in question, as is the power of words. As children, we learned that "Sticks and stones may break our bones; but names will never hurt me." In fact, the opposite is true. Words and the inferences can cause greater, and more last injuries than twigs or rocks might. The body heals far better than the heart does.
After receiving numerous death threats, blogger Kathy Sierra called on the blogosphere to confront the culture of cruelty in cyberspace. This active author and public speaker, fears for her life. Missus Sierra recently canceled public speaking engagements and suspended her site. On her weblog, Kathy Sierra writes . . .
If you want to do something about it, do not tolerate the kind of abuse that includes threats or even suggestions of violence (especially sexual violence). Do not put these people on a pedestal. Do not let them get away with calling this "social commentary," "protected speech," or simply "criticism."
For weeks, Missus Sierra has been immobilized. After becoming the focus of ample threats, inclusive of a post that featured a picture of her next to a noose, she stated . . ."I have cancelled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard, I will never feel the same. I will never be the same."
The police are investigating the harassment and the blogosphere is blazing. Discussions of how women are treated online are fueling a fire. While, on her own site, Creating Passionate Users, Kathy Sierra receives much support, there are those that think her call for civility and courtesy is ridiculous.In Death threats and blogging, by the famous Kos condemnation of a proposed code was evident.
[T]he rantings of a lunatic. For my part, I've gotten my fair share of such vile emails. Some of them have threatened my children. One or two actually crossed the line into "death threat" territory. But so what? It's not as if those cowards will actually act on their threats. For better or for worse, this isn't a country in which media figures -- even hugely controversial ones -- are routinely attacked by anything more dangerous than a cream pie.
This dictum on Daily Kos was posted on April 12, days before an angry aggressor, Cho Seung-Hui avenged those he loathed at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The shooter's rants were his truth. His threats proved to be powerful. Cho Seung-Hui may not have sent his last package in a timely manner. Nevertheless, he did warn and alarm many years before he carried out this horrific and planned deed.Email makes it easy for stupid people to send stupid emails to public figures. If they can't handle a little heat in their email inbox, then really, they should try another line of work. Because no "blogger code of conduct" will scare away psycho losers with access to email.
Words can be wicked. They are often used as weapons. Expressions wound a heart and soul; they hurt. Yet, we excuse these repeatedly. Mel Gibson declared, "I am not anti Semitic" after a tirade that was terribly intolerant. This was not the Directors first show of fury against Jews. Nevertheless, it was excused. It did promote momentary concerns.
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called Gibson's apology "unremorseful and insufficient." Prominent Hollywood talent agent Ari Emanuel called for an industry boycott of Gibson in a blog posted Monday.
Nonetheless, money ruled. His next movie "Apocalypto," distributed by The Walt Disney Company received rave reviews, even from periodicals that some consider Progressive. The almighty buck may not reduce bigotry. Actually, it may help to create it."At a time of escalating tensions in the world, the entertainment industry cannot idly stand by and allow Mel Gibson to get away with such tragically inflammatory statements," he wrote. "People in the entertainment community, whether Jew or gentile, need to demonstrate that they understand how much is at stake in this by professionally shunning Mel Gibson and refusing to work with him, even if it means a sacrifice to their bottom line.
"There are times in history when standing up against bigotry and racism is more important than money."
In recent years, [Mel Gibson] has turned his attention to producing films and TV shows through his Icon Productions. The hundreds of millions of dollars he made producing the 2004 film "The Passion of the Christ" has given the star the ability to finance his own films, giving him a measure of independence from the major studios.
Some "artists" using racial slurs make millions. They defend their right to do so. Many or most apologize. However, there is skepticism. Why are they contrite. Can a heart change in a moment or is cash their concern.When Michael Richards railed against Blacks in his audience, he was quite impassioned. His "hate speak" seemed infinitely sincere. Smears spewed; slights slammed, all said with sincerity. These affronts fell trippingly off his tongue. The comedian apologized while explaining, "I am not a racist." The response was "Really?" It is difficult to know whether Michael Richards has or will recover from such a blunder or the unbelievable statement, "I'm not a racist, that's what's so insane about this."
Will Don Imus be deeply effected by his debacle? The debate continues. Again, cash was cut off, at least temporarily. Imus was apologetic and ashamed, perchance more so after advertisers raised the volume on this discussion. Ultimately Don Imus lost his battle. The major television and radio networks that carried the Don Imus Show felt they could no longer support him. The load was too great; the rewards realized too little. Don Imus had become a distraction.
Executives at CBS and MSNBC saw where the numbers were heading. They may well have been genuinely disgusted by Imus' reference to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos," but their decision to dump him had little to do with moral outrage. They simply did the math. They'll miss the millions they would have earned from Imus' show, but they stood to lose even more if they let him stay on the air, and so he was toast.
However, unlike Don Imus who justifies his antics as comedy, and whose money is or was tied to corporate sponsors, there are the rappers. They too are coming under attack.Free speech, meet free enterprise.
For political prominents, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Bruce Gordon enough is enough. These gentlemen want the smears to end. These Black leaders think even Black on Black rubs need to be eliminated from our common language. Two wrongs do not make a right. Racism, bigotry, and misogyny cannot be defined differently depending on who exhibits such behavior. Reverend Al Sharpton is calling on the Federal Communications Commission to punish artists and announcers alike for advocating violence in word and deed.
In 2005, this issue was fresh and addressed. Then, a member of rap group, The Game was wounded during a shooting outside a New York hip-hop radio station. The cause was clear; another hip-hopper, 50 Cent was on the air criticizing The Game. Tempers flared. The effect of word weaponry was realized. The rest is rap or American history. After this volatile event, civil rights leader Al Sharpton . . .
The founder of the National Action Network emphasized in the letter: "We cannot sit silently by while young Americans feel that shootings and bloodshed is now synonymous with success and celebrity. We understand you're in the business of making money, but it cannot be at the expense of polluting the cultural outlook of young Americans."
However, two years later, rappers again speak to their creativity, just cause, and the need to communicate their concerns.Rappers reason they are poets; they please the people. Although admittedly, not all the people. The recent allegations of racial and misogynistic rhetoric against Don Imus amplified a too often delayed or dissuaded discussion. Is it proper to demean women or people of other ethnicities. Might a poet use his or her artistic licenses? Is it just when an performer uses racial slurs, or vile vernacular against one of their own? Today, USA Today reported . . .
Imus fallout: Music execs discuss rap lyrics
Again, we stand still. Money moves mountains; yet, capital does not necessarily change minds. We think, and act on our beliefs. When people profess their deepest, darkest chauvinistic values, spirits are often broken. Lives can be lost.NEW YORK (AP) — In the wake of Don Imus' firing for his on-air slur about the Rutgers women's basketball team, a high-powered group of music-industry executives met privately Wednesday to discuss sexist and misogynistic rap lyrics.
During the furor that led to Imus' fall last week from his talk-radio perch, many of his critics carped as well about offensive language in rap music.
The meeting, called by hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons' Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, was held at the New York home of Lyor Cohen, chairman, and chief executive of U.S. music at Warner Music Group. The summit, which lasted several hours, did not result in any specific initiative.
Organizers billed the gathering as a forum to "discuss issues challenging the industry in the wake of controversy surrounding hip-hop and the First Amendment." Afterward, they planned to hold a news conference at a Manhattan hotel to discuss "initiatives agreed upon at the meeting." But by early afternoon, the news conference was postponed, because the meeting was still going on.
After the meeting ended, it was unclear whether there would be another one. Simmons' publicist released a short statement that described the topic as a "complex issue that involves gender, race, culture and artistic expression. Everyone assembled today takes this issue very seriously."
Although no recommendations emerged, the gathering was significant for its who's-who list of powerful music executives.
Rappers know this as do bloggers. Suffering students are realizing that words, written or spoken cannot be ignored. The common folk and tycoons agree; yet, they disagree. This is evident when we listen to recent Oprah Winfrey town-hall meeting. Hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons of Hip-Hop Summit Action Network stated his beliefs . . .
"We're talking about a lot of these artists who come from the most extreme cases of poverty and ignorance ... And when they write a song, and they write it from their heart, and they're not educated, and they don't believe there's opportunity, they have a right, they have a right to say what's on their mind," he said.
I wonder; might our number one concern be the hearts and minds of all humans, men, women, Black, White, Yellow, Brown, Red, and Jew, Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians too. Whether we are born in poverty or into wealth, we are human. We hurt; we bleed. We can love; however, as long as our language degrades another, love will not survive. Perhaps, neither will we. I am reminded of the phrase, "race riots," or "the war against women." I fear the folly of expressing emotions in a manner that kills heart, mind, body, or soul. I prefer the words, "May peace be with you my brother and my sister.""Whether it's our sexism, our racism, our homophobia or our violence, the hip-hop community sometimes can be a good mirror of our dirt and sometimes the dirt that we try to cover up," Simmons said. "Pointing at the conditions that create these words from the rappers ... should be our No. 1 concern."
For me, a code of ethics need not be written or etched in stone; it must be lived because we believe in love, peace, and tranquility.
The Rap and Resources . . .
- Blog death threats spark debate. BBC News. March 27, 2007
- Death threats and blogging, By Kos. Daily Kos. April 12, 2007
- Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic remarks cited in official police report, By Jeremiah Marquez. Associated Press. SFGate. July 31, 2006
- Daily Kos
- Imus fallout: Music execs discuss rap lyrics USA Today. April 18, 2007
- Officials Knew Troubled State of Killer in ’05, By Shaila Dewan and Marc Santora. The New York Times. April 18, 2007
- pdf Officials Knew Troubled State of Killer in ’05, By Shaila Dewan and Marc Santora. The New York Times. April 18, 2007
- Apocalypto, By Peter Travers. Rolling Stone. November 21, 2006
- Jews, Mel Gibson, War. Rehabilitating Hatred, By Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
- Sharpton Asks FCC to Regulate Rap By Tracy L. Scott. Free Press. March 25, 2007
- Rev. Al Sharpton asks FCC to punish violent rappers. Jet. April 11, 2005
- Oprah on Imus (Public forum with Russell and others) 2 YouTube.
- 'Kramer' Apologizes, Says He's Not Racist. CBS News. November 21, 2006
- 32 killed in gun rampage at Virginia university, By John M. Broder. International Herald Tribune. April 16, 2007
- Imus vs. free enterprise, By Kevin Nance. Chicago Sun-Times. April 17, 2007
- pdf Imus vs. free enterprise, By Kevin Nance. Chicago Sun-Times. April 17, 2007
- Sharpton complains to FCC about rap music. USA Today. March 25, 2005
- National Action Network (NAN).
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 19, 2007 at 12:00 AM in "Take me as I am!", Abuse, Advertising, Aggression, Americana, Black Men, Bloggers Unite, Business, Civil Disobedience, Civil Rights, Communities, Communities and Communication , Consumption and Content, Corporate Profits, Current Affairs, Daily Kos, Discussion, Economics, Emotional Intelligence, Ethics, Ethics and Profits, Manipulated Media, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga , Philosophy, Racial Discrimination, Social Order Teaches , Standards in Society, Violence, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Price of Paper or Plastic
Plastic Bags - JUST SAY NO! By againstthetide © copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert In 1957, America changed. The first baggies and sandwich bags were introduced to a prospering public. A year later, poly dry cleaning bags begin to compete with the traditional paper. By 1966, American shoppers were packing their produce in plastic sacks. In 1967, the message was solid, the public sure. The psyche throughout the States was transformed and we all knew it. Mister McGuire, from The Graduate, said it for all of us, in a word, "Plastics!" Today plastic consumes us, the consumer; however, cities such as San Francisco are proposing a change. It may no longer be paper or plastic. Compostable is a serious consideration.Investing in plastics was logical a half a century ago. Nowadays, while profitable, petroleum products cause a multitude of problems.
[A]n estimated 180 million plastic bags are distributed to shoppers each year in San Francisco. Made of filmy plastic, they are hard to recycle and easily blow into trees and waterways, where they are blamed for killing marine life. They also occupy much-needed landfill space.
Although the sheer textile seems more sanitary it may be less so. Early on, the use of synthetic fibers was considered the saving grace. Entrepreneurs and environmentalists thought man-made wares would eliminate the deforesting of the planet. However, this petroleum product has proven itself to be anything but a solution to ecological hazards. Actually, plastics have added to our waste and wasteful ways.What we use to dispose of our garbage creates more trash. Essentially, items are no longer reusable. We have become a throwaway society. For the sake of convenience and an ill-perceived idea of cleanliness, we are destroying our natural resources and dirtying the planet.
Thankfully, late in March 2007, the city of San Francisco decided to do something about this situation. They said "No" to plastic, or at least the bags.
The city's Board of Supervisors approved groundbreaking legislation Tuesday to outlaw plastic checkout bags at large supermarkets in about six months and large chain pharmacies in about a year.
Perhaps, they will. After all, San Francisco is following the lead of foreign cities. Internationally, there is a movement to ban or discourage the use of plastic bags. The environmental effects are of great concern in countries from Ireland to Australia. Similar legislation was introduced in Scotland three years ago, the United Kingdom also discussed taking action years ago. On March 2, 2007, the British nation finally took action. However, details are still pending. Also belatedly, but bravely, the avant gardé city by the Bay approved a ban weeks ago.The ordinance, sponsored by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, is the first such law in any city in the United States and has been drawing global scrutiny this week.
"I am astounded and surprised by the worldwide attention," Mirkarimi said. "Hopefully, other cities and other states will follow suit."
Under the legislation, which passed 10-1 in the first of two votes, large markets and pharmacies will have the option of using compostable bags made of cornstarch or bags made of recyclable paper. San Francisco will join a number of countries, such as Ireland, that already have outlawed plastic bags or have levied a tax on them. Final passage of the legislation is expected at the board's next scheduled meeting, and the mayor is expected to sign it.
Still, all is not well. As is typical, retailers remind those that care about the environment, there will be a price to pay.The grocers association has warned that the new law will lead to higher prices for San Francisco shoppers.
Compostable carriers may be costly; however, I believe these parcels are invaluable. We have been paying for convenience and low cost containers with our lives for years. Although the compostable sack may be expensive initially, production and use of these is worth the investment. It is essential that we endow in the future. The waste that we create daily now does not serve us for more than a moment."We're disappointed that the Board of Supervisors is going down this path," said Kristin Power, the association's vice president for government relations. "It will frustrate recycling efforts and will increase both consumer and retailer costs. There's also a real concern about the availability and quality of compostable bags."
Power said most of the group's members operating in San Francisco are likely to switch to paper bags "simply because of the affordability and availability issues."
The ubiquitous plastic shopping bag, so handy for everything from toting groceries to disposing of doggie doo, may be a victim of its own success. Although plastic bags didn't come into widespread use until the early 1980s, environmental groups estimate that 500 billion to 1 trillion of the bags are now used worldwide every year.
Yet, businesses think that is fine. In 2004, the Earth Resource Foundation proposed a twenty-five [25] cent tax be charged on plastic bags used in the state of California. In 2003, the California Legislative Branch scrapped a three [3] cent levy on plastic shopping satchels and cups. Retailers and plastic manufacturers worked in opposition to the measure. Money talks, as do industrialists. It is easier and cheaper to commit to the status quo than it is to change. Minor adjustments might be made. Place the onus on the people. Persuade the public to be more involved; that may work.Critics of the bags say they use up natural resources, consume energy to manufacture, create litter, choke marine life, and add to landfill waste.
"Every time we use a new plastic bag they go and get more petroleum from the Middle East and bring it over in tankers," said Stephanie Barger, executive director of Earth Resource Foundation in Costa Mesa, Calif. "We are extracting and destroying the Earth to use a plastic bag for 10 minutes."
The plastics industry took a "proactive stance" by working with retailers to encourage greater recycling, rather than "putting on taxes to address the problem," said Donna Dempsey, executive director of the Film and Bag Federation, a trade association for the plastic bag industry.
Imposing tariffs would take its toll on the industry. State imposed duties have decreased the use of plastic parcels in other countries. The American Bag alliance knows sales will slip. For them, a compulsory tax would be disastrous. Particularly when we consider that consumers in other nations where the tariff was obligatory, have not complained.The tax proposals are loosely modeled on Ireland's "PlasTax," a levy of about 20 cents that retail customers have had to pay for each plastic bag since March 2002. The use of plastic bags in Ireland dropped more than 90 percent following imposition of the tax, and the government has raised millions of dollars for recycling programs.
While the reduction of bags is great and it is vital that we begin where we can, there are other considerations.Similar legislation was introduced in Scotland last month and is being discussed for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Consumers seem agreeable to giving up the bags, said Claire Wilton, senior waste campaigner at Greenpeace-UK.
"There certainly hasn't been an angry uprising of shoppers (in Ireland) saying we want our bags for free," Wilton said. "I think a lot of people recognize they are wasteful. That's why they try to save them to use again, although they often forget to bring them with them when they shop."
In Australia, about 90 percent of retailers have signed up with the government's voluntary program to reduce plastic bag use. A law that went into effect last year [2003] in Taiwan requires restaurants, supermarkets and convenience stores to charge customers for plastic bags and utensils. It has resulted in a 69 percent drop in use of plastic products, according to news reports.
One of the key concerns is litter. In China, plastic bags blowing around the streets are called "white pollution." In South Africa, the bags are so prominent in the countryside that they have won the derisive title of "national flower." The plastics industry says the solution to bag litter is to change people, not the product.
Granted, mankind is responsible. S/he is liable for more than the little bags that fill our land, the air, or the sea. Currently, it is impossible to escape the impact of plastic on American life. Decades ago, glass bottles were replaced with plastic. Cardboard storage boxes, were thought buggy and dirty; plastic was a clean alternative. Clay pots, once used to propagate plants, are porous, and better for a thirsty, thriving, growing seedling; however, currently these are less popular. As Mister McGuire might say, "Plastics.""Every piece of litter has a human face behind it. If they are a harm to the environment in terms of visual blight, then people need to stop littering," said Rob Krebs, a spokesman for the American Plastics Council.
Furniture is plastic. Picture frames, eyeglasses, and "silverware," are all made of plastic. Even our clothing is polyester; in other words, plastic. The solid metal car bumper years ago could withstand impact. It protected the people inside the vehicle. Today, if an automobile moving three-miles an hour was to crash into another object, the impending accident could cause thousands of dollars of damage. Why might this be? Plastic.
A child's swing, once wooden and wonderful is now plastic. I am familiar with this childhood toy for I love to move backward and forward while seated in the sky. In decades past, I may experience an occasional splinter. In recent years, with thanks to the prevalence of petroleum products, the motion is uncomfortable. My skin is pinched; it sticks to the surface "fabric." Sweat forms; ultimately the moisture becomes an irritant, just as the oft-heard phrase, "Plastic, or paper" might be to some.
If I were to choose, "compostable" would be my preference. I trust the cost of production will decrease as the use of biodegradable bags increases. The more manufacturers invest in machinery to make this product, the better the price. Overtime, I believe we can eliminate the use of plastic bags.
Nevertheless, I still ponder the problem. As I sit at my computer, type on a plastic keyboard, use an artificial "mouse," and watch a screen encased in a fake frame, I trust that the banning of bags will only begin to address an ever-increasing environmental issue.
A Sack Full of Fuel . . .
Plastic bags by the numbers
180 million
Roughly, the number of plastic shopping bags distributed in San Francisco each year.2 to 3 cents
Amount each bag costs markets, compared with anywhere from 5 to 10 cents for a biodegradable bag.
This figure will change as we alter our focus.4 trillion to 5 trillion
Number of nondegradable plastic bags used worldwide annually.430,000 gallons
Amount of oil needed to produce 100 million nondegradable plastic bags.Source: S.F. Department of the Environment; Worldwatch Institute
Bags of Resources . . .
- Great Moments in Plastic Bag History. The Film and Bag Industry.
- Where Do I Get Compostable Bags? SF Environment. City & County of San Francisco
- The Basics - Polymer Definition & Properties. PlasticResources.com.
- PlasticResources.com. American Chemistry Council®
- Plastic Products. The Dow Chemical Company.
- San Francisco First City To Ban Plastic Bags, Supermarkets and chain pharmacies will have to use recyclable or compostable sacks, By Charlie Goodyear, San Francisco Chronicle.Wednesday, March 28, 2007
- pdf San Francisco First City To Ban Plastic Bags, Supermarkets and chain pharmacies will have to use recyclable or compostable sacks, By Charlie Goodyear, San Francisco Chronicle.Wednesday, March 28, 2007
- Plastic left holding the bag as environmental plague, Nations around world look at a ban. By Joan Lowy. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Wednesday, July 21, 2004
- pdf Plastic left holding the bag as environmental plague, Nations around world look at a ban. By Joan Lowy. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Wednesday, July 21, 2004
- UK Retailers Agree To Cut Plastic Bag Use. By StopGlobaWarming.org.
- S.F. First City To Ban Plastic Shopping Bags, By Charlie Goodyear. San Francisco Chronicle. SF Environment. City & County of San Francisco. March 28, 2007
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 11, 2007 at 11:30 AM in Business, Cleanliness. Godliness., Consumers Rights, Consumption and Conservation, Corporate Profits, Economics, Environment, Ethics and Profits, Facts or Fictions, Humans, Self-Destructive, Nature, Nature or Nurture, Oil, Price of Petroleum, Standards in Society | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Representative George Miller Speaks on Employee Free Choice Act
Rep. Miller Closes Debate - The Employee Free Choice Act
Will workers be given the choice the law provides? Might they act on a right that has was enforced seventy years ago? Will we as a nation continue to allow employers to deny citizens their Constitutional right to speak? Can we stand by while laborers are arbitrarily punished for asserting their rights?
Can we in good conscious continue to allow employers to eliminate pensions and other benefits? Must workers accept reduced wages, longer hours, and less consideration without discussion? Will grown men and women be dismissed from their place of employ if they try to increase security in the workplace? Will we as a nation permit employers to seek retribution, religiously, if an employee tries to organize? We have. Hundreds of thousands of workers were punished for attempting to unionize. Today, we must ask, ''Why does an adult man cry when he speaks of his job.' Representative George Miller tells us.
Chairman Miller Floor Statement On The Employee Free Choice Act Thursday, March 1, 2007
Ultimately, after a glorious speech such as this, the House did approve the Employee Free Choice Act. This Legislation Would Strengthen America's Middle Class by Helping Workers Bargain for Better Pay, Benefits. However, as I share that statement I acknowledge that many disagree. Some see Unions as another big business. I appreciate that there have been abuses. Yet, I trust as Aesop shared in his fable Bundle of Sticks, "Union gives Strength."WASHINGTON, DC -- Below are the prepared remarks of Rep. George Miller (D-CA) for today's debate on the Employee Free Choice Act, H.R. 800. Miller, the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, is the sponsor of the legislation. The House will be voting on the bill later today.
***
Mr. Speaker,
We all know that workers in the U.S. are among the most productive workers in the world. Yet, for far too long, they have not been reaping the benefits of their hard work.For years and years now, many workers have found themselves working harder and harder just to stay in place. And many more have been losing ground financially despite their work.
This is troubling enough on its own. But what makes it even more troubling is that, over the last several years, our economy has been growing. The stock market is doing well. Corporate profits are high.
Consider the facts.
Since 2001, median household income has fallen by $1,300. Wages and salaries now make up their lowest share of the economy in nearly six decades.
The number of Americans who lack health insurance has grown by 6.8 million since 2001, to 46.6 million, a shocking record high.
The number of Fortune 1000 companies that have frozen or terminated their pension plans has more than tripled since 2001.
Indeed, the middle class itself has shrunk. Over 4 million more Americans have joined the ranks of the poor since 2001.
And meanwhile, corporate profits make up their largest share of the economy since the 1960s.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of explanations for the growing inequality in our economy. Congress' failure to raise the minimum wage for 10 long years is an obvious example. But perhaps the most significant explanation is that workers' rights to join together and bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions have been severely undermined.
Today, when workers want to form a union, their employers can force them to undergo a National Labor Relations Board election process. That process is broken, because it allows irresponsible employers to harass, coerce, intimidate, reassign, and even fire workers who support a union.
Take the example of Ivo Camilo. Mr. Camilo is from Sacramento, not far from my district. For 35 years, he worked for at a Blue Diamond Growers plant in Sacramento. In 2004, and he several dozen coworkers sought to form a union. For that, Mr. Camilo was fired. After 35 years of service, Blue Diamond tossed Mr. Camilo out on the street, just because he wanted a union.
The same thing happened to Keith Ludlum when he supported union representation for him and his coworkers at a Smithfield foods plant in Tar Heel, North Carolina. Mr. Ludlum, a veteran of the first Gulf War, was fired in 1994 because he wanted a union. It took him 12 years of litigation to get his job back.
What happened to Mr. Camilo and Mr. Ludlum happens with distressing frequency in this country. In 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers were receiving back pay from employers that had committed unfair labor violations.
Earlier this year, the Center for Economic and Policy Research estimated that employers fire one in five workers who actively advocate for a union. A December 2005 study by American Rights at Work found that 49 percent of employers studied had threatened to close or relocate all or part of the business if workers elected to form a union.
And Human Rights Watch has said, "[F]reedom of association is a right under severe, often buckling pressure when workers in the United States try to exercise it."
Corporate executives routinely negotiate lavish compensation packages on their own behalfs, but then they deny their own employees the ability to bargain for a better life.
This debate is about restoring workers' ability to choose for themselves whether or not they want a union. To make that happen, the Employee Free Choice Act does three things.
First, it says that when a majority of workers sign cards authorizing a union, they get a union. The legislation requires the National Labor Relations Board to develop model authorization language and procedures for establishing the validity of signed authorizations.
The legislation does not take away workers' ability to have a National Labor Relations Board election instead of majority sign-up if that's what they want. It gives them the choice. If 30 percent sign cards saying they want a union and petition the Board for an election, they get an election. But, if a majority of workers sign cards saying they want a union and they want recognition now, they get a union.
This majority sign-up is not a new idea. Under current law, when a majority of workers sign cards authorizing a union, then they can have a union if their employer consents to it. But instead of consenting, employers often reject the employees' choice and force them through an NLRB election process that is dramatically tilted in the employer's favor. The Employee Free Choice Act would simply take this veto power away from employers. Under current law, it's the employer's choice that matters. Under the Employee Free Choice Act, it's the employees' choice that matters.
Majority sign-up has a proven track record for reducing coercion and intimidation. In cases where responsible employers, like Cingular Wireless, have permitted their employees to form a union through majority sign-up, both sides have praised the process for increasing cooperation and decreasing tension.
Second, the legislation increases penalties against employers who fire or discriminate against workers for their efforts to form a union or obtain a first contract.
Under current law the National Labor Relations Board is required to seek a federal court injunction against a union whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that the union has violated the secondary boycott prohibitions in the National Labor Relations Act.
Under this legislation, the Board must seek a federal court injunction against an employer whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that the employer has discharged or discriminated against employees, threatened to discharge or discriminate against employees, or engaged in conduct that significantly interferes with employee rights during an organizing or first contract drive. The legislation authorizes the courts to grant temporary restraining orders or other appropriate injunctive relief.
Employers found to have discharged or discriminated against employees during an organizing campaign or first contract drive must pay those workers three times back pay, instead of the simple back pay required under current law. Employers found to have willfully or repeatedly violated employees' rights during an organizing campaign or first contract drive would receive civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation.
Under current law, remedies are limited solely to make whole remedies: back pay (minus any additional interim wages the employee did or should have earned), reinstatement, and notice to that the employer will not engage in violations of the National Labor Relations Act. Many employers conclude that, even if caught, it is financially advantageous to violate the law and pay the penalties rather than to comply.
And third, the legislation provides for mediation if an employer and a union are engaged in bargaining for their first contract and are unable to reach agreement within 90 days. After 30 days of mediation, the dispute would be referred to binding arbitration. Under current law, employers have a duty to bargain in good faith, but are under no obligation to reach agreement. As a result, a recent study found that 34 percent of union election victories had not resulted in a first contract.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of shamefully misleading claims from the critics of this bill. Those critics claim that they have workers' best interests at heart, and that they are trying to protect democracy.
Yet their claims are belied by the fact that some of the nation's leading workers' rights and pro-democracy organizations support this bill, including Human Rights Watch, Interfaith Worker Justice, and the Drum Major Institute among many, many others.
These are organizations that are dedicated to the mission of improving the lives of American workers. I can tell you that if this bill would do the kind of harm that its critics claim it would, then these respected organizations would not be supporting it today.
I want to close by just reminding people how much is at stake here.
We can continue on our nation's current path, where our society grows more and more unequal and polarized. If we stay on the same path, then our middle class will keep getting squeezed, and will struggle to pay for just the basic necessities of life, like housing, healthcare, education, and transportation.
We can stay on that path, or we can go in a new direction. We can ensure that every American worker gets his or her fair share of the benefits of a growing economy.
To strengthen America's middle class, we have got to restore workers' rights to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.
After all, union workers earn 30 percent more, on average, than non-union workers. They are much more likely to have retirement and health benefits and paid time off.
I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 800 so that we can finally start to reverse the middle class squeeze and create an economy that benefits all Americans.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
A corporation will not profit for long if producers are discontent. Physical and emotional stress takes a toll. Health care needs and costs are, in part, a reflection of a society that is ill. Laborers breathe life into the marketplace; if we ignore this fact, no one will be fat and happy, not even the employer. A business cannot survive with out staff. A nation will not thrive when employees are treated as enemies.
The floor is open for debate. You may wish to share your experience of Unions. Here, you have the freedom to speak without reprisal.
References for your review . . .
- Rep. Miller Closes Debate - The Employee Free Choice Act YouTube.
- Representative George Miller
- Chairman Miller Floor Statement On The
Employee Free Choice Act Committee of Education and Labor.
- House Approves Employee Free Choice Act. Committee of Education and Labor.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on March 3, 2007 at 01:24 AM in American Jobs, Business, Communities, Communities and Communication , Corporate Profits, Economics, Labor, Employment, Lawbreakers, Unions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Texas Mandates STD Vaccination for Elementary Age Schoolgirls
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Please view this Gardasil Commercial. Does this preparation protect the young and naïve? Might this drug cause undetermined side effects? What might these be? Societal effects may be as daunting as physiological. You decide.I share this information only to stimulate thought and discussion. I am baffled when a Governor acts against his own interests and supposed beliefs. Texas Governor Rick Perry is a conservative Christian. He avidly opposes abortion and strongly disagrees with policies that encourage the use of embryonic cells in stem-cell research. This Southern Governor considers the religious right his political base; he depends on their votes and continued support. Without these God-fearing persons residing in the Lone Star state, the Governor cannot function as he does.
Yet, Friday, Governor Perry seems to acted against the will of his people. He imposed a law that would mandate cervical cancer vaccines for very young girls. Sixth graders, ages eleven and twelve [11 and 12] would receive inoculations, protecting them against a sexually transmitted disease.
Perry chose to bypass the legislative branch and invoke an executive order. Thus, the Governor avoided voices that he knew would object to his action. His signing did not draw the attention a Bill going through Congress might have.
By employing an executive order, Perry sidestepped opposition from conservatives and parents' rights groups who fear such a requirement would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way Texans rear their children.
The Texas Governor states there is no difference between a vaccine used to protect sexually active individuals from diseases transmitted through intercourse and a polio vaccine.Starting in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade -- generally ages 11 and 12 -- will have to receive Gardasil, Merck & Co.'s new vaccine against strains of the human papillomavirus.
In Illinois, the same practice is being proposed. Last week this procedure was recommended in a Senate Bill. If passed, eleven and twelve [11 and 12] year old schoolgirls would receive the required vaccination by the 2009 school year.
One might wonder why this is happening. As I often say, "I know nothing with certainty." I only offer what I do understand.
Mr. Perry’s action, praised by health advocates, caught many by surprise in a largely conservative state where sexual politics is often a battleground.
Under this Texas program, girls and young women, between the ages of nine [9] and twenty-one [21] if eligible for public assistance would receive the injection for free.The second-term Governor, recently re-elected explained, “Requiring young girls to get vaccinated before they come into contact with HPV is responsible health and fiscal policy that has the potential to significantly reduce cases of cervical cancer and mitigate future medical costs.”
Human Papillomavirus [HPV,] affects 20 million people nationally. One in four 15-to-24-year-olds is afflicted with this disease. Human Papillomavirus is the nation’s most common sexually transmitted malady. According to Governor Perry's statement, Texas has the second-highest number of women with cervical cancer. In the Lone Star State alone, there were nearly 400 deaths last year. Clearly, the Governor has reason for concern. Yet, other issues boggle the average Joe, or Jane's mind.
Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil for girls. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group of female state legislators nationwide.
I looked further for other sources of information. I discovered parents could opt out of the program. However, this is not the source of consolation for many.Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's lobbyists in Texas is Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law is a state director for Women in Government.
Perry also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.
Upon reading this I felt a need to know more. I thought Merck had been through enough. In Texas alone a jury ruled, Merck negligent.Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit objecting to the vaccine on religious or philosophical reasons. Even with such provisions, however, conservative groups say such requirements interfere with parents' rights to make medical decisions for their children.
The federal government approved Gardasil in June, and a government advisory panel has recommended that all girls get the shots at 11 and 12, before they are likely to be sexually active.
The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil — at $360 for the three-shot regimen — were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects.
Merck spokeswoman Janet Skidmore would not say how much the company is spending on lobbyists or how much it has donated to Women in Government. Susan Crosby, the group's president, also declined to specify how much the drug company gave.
Jury: Merck negligent
However, Merck did state their plans to appeal the decision. Still they may have problems in other states. In reading this, I conclude as Merck does, perhaps they are free to do as they have done before, stimulate profits at the expense of people.
Merck blamed for death in Vioxx suit; jury awards $253 million in damages. Drug giant to appeal.
August 22, 2005: 12:33 PM EDT
By Aaron Smith, CNN/Money staff writerNEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Merck has been held liable by a Texas jury in the first lawsuit involving its former blockbuster drug Vioxx, in a case that could have a profound effect on thousands of other cases filed against the company.
Plaintiff Carol Ernst has won her lawsuit in Texas Superior Court in Angleton, which blames Vioxx for the 2001 death of her husband, Robert Ernst, a 59-year-old marathon runner and Wal-Mart worker who was taking the arthritis painkiller at the time of his death. Ernst died of a heart attack.
The verdict held Merck liable for the death. Jurors voted 10-2 in favor of Ernst.
The jury awarded more than $250 million in total damages -- $24 million to Carol Ernst for mental anguish and loss of companionship, and $229 million in punitive damages. Ernst's Houston-based lawyer, Mark Lanier, said the punitive-damages figure was based on "the money Merck made and saved by putting off their product label changes."
Lanier had been seeking $40.4 million in damages, and after the verdict, Lanier said that he expected the punitive-damages award to be reduced according to Texas law.
"Justice is a beautiful thing, isn't it?" Lanier told reporters following the verdict.
N.J. court revives Vioxx lawsuit
I continued to consider the case of the schoolgirls. "Women in Government" the organization associated with Governor Rick Perry's Chief of Staff's mother-in-law, at first blush seems to be a well meaning group.
Ruling reinstates lawsuit that aims to force Merck to fund medical monitoring program for past Vioxx users.
January 17 2007: 5:39 PM ESTCHICAGO (Reuters) -- A New Jersey appeals court has revived a lawsuit that sought to force drugmaker Merck & Co. Inc. to fund a medical monitoring program for patients who took the painkiller Vioxx.
The state appellate court ruled on Tuesday that N.J. Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee's decision to dismiss the lawsuit was premature and failed to give the plaintiffs the opportunity to prove legally accepted claims.
The appeals court said in a 26-page opinion that it was not expressing an opinion on the ultimate viability of the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs in the case sought a court-administered medical screening program, funded by Merck (Charts) that would provide medical and diagnostic tests for each member of the class to detect potential heart problems arising from exposure to Vioxx.
"There is no medical science supporting the plaintiffs' position that they need to be monitored for cardiovascular conditions two years after Vioxx was voluntarily taken off the market," Merck attorney Ted Mayer said in an e-mailed statement.
Mayer said Merck is considering its options, including asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
"Almost every court in the country has rejected class action treatment of medical monitoring claims because each plaintiff's claim needs to be evaluated individually," he said.
Deutsche Bank analyst Barbara Ryan said the ruling just means the case has been sent back to the lower court for a ruling.
If Merck is required to fund a medical monitoring program, Ryan said she doubted many former Vioxx users would take advantage of it because of the inconvenience and the low risk of suffering a heart attack if they had taken Vioxx only briefly.
Women In Government is a national 501(c)(3), non-profit, bi-partisan organization of women state legislators providing leadership opportunities, networking, expert forums, and educational resources to address and resolve complex public policy issues.
Why might they work in tandem with Merck to vaccinate young girls? I searched page after page hoping to better understand the motivation of this foundation. Some say, follow the money. Thus, I did. The list of "sponsors" revealed much and confused me more. Some of their associates I hold in high regard. I am indifferent to others. Merck was once honored in my family. My grandfather, a pharmacist, recalls Merck was originally a distributor of fine chemicals. Initially, they engaged in important medical research. Now, I do not know. Please peruse and ponder. Please tell me what you think.Women In Government leads the nation with a bold, courageous, and passionate vision that empowers and mobilizes all women legislators to effect sound policy.
Current Sponsors
I will verbalize no assessment though I am interested in yours. Please share your thoughts on this story. Do elementary schoolgirls need a required vaccine, protecting them against sexually transmitted diseases? Might Governor Perry have proposed the possibility and asked for a dialogue. Will his constituents be pleased and is he concerned? If Rick Perry is demonstrating compassion, whom might it be for?2 Red Hens
3M Pharmaceuticals
Abbott
Adeza Biomedical
AEP-SWEPCO
Allergan, Inc.
Altria Corporate Services, Inc.
Alzheimer’s Association
American Diabetes Association
Amgen
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation
Arkansas Electric Cooperatives, Inc.
Astellas Pharma US, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Bayer HealthCare
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont
Bobby Hogue & Associates
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Bose Treacy Associates
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation
Catalis
C-Change
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Foundation
CVS/pharmacy
DaimlerChrysler
Digene Corporation
Digital Healthcare, Inc.
Discovery Health Channel
Duke Energy
Edison Electric Institute
Electronic Data Systems
Eli Lilly and Company
Entergy Arkansas
Exxon Mobil
Glaxo Smith Kline
Highland Campus Health Group
Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc.
Ice Miller LLP
Indiana Health Care Association
Indiana Ophthalmology Association
Indiana State Chiropractic Association
Indiana State Medical Association
Indiana Statewide Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives
Insight Communications
Johnson & Johnson
KWK Management Group, LLC
Lumina Foundation for Education
Managed Health Services
McDonald’s
Merck & Company, Inc.
Michigan Association of Health Plans
Mullenix & Associates
National Hemophilia Foundation
National Life Group
Nellie Mae Education Foundation
Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Novo Nordisk, Inc.
Ohio Hospital Association
Pepco Holdings, Inc.
Pfizer, Inc.
PhRMA
Procter & Gamble
Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, LLC
Roche Diagnostics Corporation
Sanofi Aventis
Schering-Plough Corporation
Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
State Farm Insurance
Third Wave Technologies, Inc.
Verizon Communications
Wal-Mart
Ward Health Strategies
WellPoint, Inc.
Wholesale Beer Distributors of Arkansas, Inc.
Wyeth PharmaceuticalsIs the Illinois State Senate seeking inoculations for the innocent because they wish to be benevolent?
Why drives Merck and the Women in Government. Are their visions disparate? Please share your thoughts me. What motivates any of us? This question is not rhetorical. I really wish to understand.
References for Reflection . . .
- Texas Is First to Require Cancer Shots for Schoolgirls, By Ralph Blumenthal. Boston Globe. New York Times. February 3, 2007
- Texas governor orders anti-cancer vaccine for schoolgirls. USA Today. February 2, 2007
- Gardasil Commercial. YouTube.
- Texas orders STD shot for girls Sixth-graders will be vaccinated starting in '08, By Liz Austin Peterson. Chicago Sun Times. February 3, 2007
- Jury: Merck negligent Merck blamed for death in Vioxx suit; jury awards $253 million in damages. Drug giant to appeal. By Aaron Smith. Cable News Network, Money. August 22, 2005
- N.J. court revives Vioxx lawsuit Ruling reinstates lawsuit that aims to force Merck to fund medical monitoring program for past Vioxx users. Cable News Network, Money. January 17, 2007
- Women In Government
- Women In Government Sponsors
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 3, 2007 at 11:00 AM in Americana, Business, Discussion, Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Ethics, Ethics and Profits, Health, Health Care, Medical Science, Politics, Question Everything, Teach The Children, Women | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
