Dignity and decency is alive and well in many workplaces because Michigan is a free bargaining state which allows working people to collectively negotiate contractual rights and benefits.
Free Bargaining has wrought better and equal pay regardless of ones gender.
Free bargaining has established better treatment of employees regardless of ones gender.
Free bargaining has tempered the "whims" of the boss.
Free bargaining has provided better benefits for working families. I am deeply grateful for these union negotiated benefits which have allowed me to provide for my family.
Dignity and decency is in peril in Michigan because of those who want to undermine and destroy free bargaining here.
Using the catchy frame "right to work", a coalition of well funded organizations have kept up the drum beat to make Michigan a "right to work" state. There is a possibility they will "buy" enough signatures (paying upwards of $2.50 each) to put this proposal on this fall's ballot to be voted upon.
Stay tuned...
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
Anti-Union Rhetoric Being Ratcheted Up
The assault on Unions continued today in the shape of the right wing crying foul over what is perfectly legal for all workers EXCEPT for state employees. Payroll deduction, what is considered the easiest and most effective way of collecting contributions, has been off limits to state employees to this point. A proposal brought forth by the state employee unions would allow state workers the option of using the voluntary method of contributing just like all workers at private companies are allowed to use.
To absolutely no ones surprise, the right wing is up in arms over this issue. Extreme right-wing think tank the Mackinac Center for Public Policy has come out against the proposal, which follows their long tradition of anti-union rhetoric. The Michigan chamber of commerce was also in lock step with the right wing talking points. Robert LaBrant, the chamber's general counsel and senior vice president for political affairs said the proposal would bring partisan politics into state government employment and then proceeded to say that the unions should seek to alter the status quo legislatively. A bill to allow the payroll deduction has been passed by the Democrat-controlled House but is unlikely to win approval in the Senate, where Republicans are in control. No doubt LaBrant will be unable to cover his shock that partisan politics has crept into the Republican controlled Senate!
You can read more about the issue at the Detroit News.
To absolutely no ones surprise, the right wing is up in arms over this issue. Extreme right-wing think tank the Mackinac Center for Public Policy has come out against the proposal, which follows their long tradition of anti-union rhetoric. The Michigan chamber of commerce was also in lock step with the right wing talking points. Robert LaBrant, the chamber's general counsel and senior vice president for political affairs said the proposal would bring partisan politics into state government employment and then proceeded to say that the unions should seek to alter the status quo legislatively. A bill to allow the payroll deduction has been passed by the Democrat-controlled House but is unlikely to win approval in the Senate, where Republicans are in control. No doubt LaBrant will be unable to cover his shock that partisan politics has crept into the Republican controlled Senate!
You can read more about the issue at the Detroit News.
Two Very Differing Views (Part 2)
In my last post I touched on the dramatic differences in the two recent debates and what different mindsets the Republicans and the Democrats have. Here are a few more examples of the polar opposites that we have to choose from.
TRADE:
BIDEN(D) - Every new trade agreement -- and I voted against them all since CAFTA, including CAFTA -- every new trade agreement should have built into it what we all talk about. We talk about environmental standards and labor standards, but we talk about it in terms of preserving jobs here, which is important. But it's also about human rights. How are we possibly helping a third world country, a developing country by signing an agreement with them knowing that they're going to exploit workers, they're going to exploit their own citizenry either with -- by polluting their lungs or their drinking water and/or putting them in a position where they're getting paid a couple bucks a week?
GIULIANI (R) - And the reality is NAFTA has been a good thing. I was concerned about NAFTA, and I became convinced, watching it, that it's actually helped us.Our percentage of exports, percentage of our GDP, has gone up dramatically, from something like 9 percent to 11 percent. It's brought more jobs to America.
EDWARDS (D) - But if you look at what's happened with American trade policy -- you asked about China a few minutes ago. Look at what America got: big corporations made a lot of money, are continuing to make a lot of money in China.But what did America get in return? We got millions of dangerous Chinese toys. We lost millions of jobs.
… It is so important that we stop allowing these corporate powers and corporate profits to run America's policy, whether it's trade policy, how we engage with China.This is not good for America. It's not good for American jobs. And it's not good for working people in this country.
THOMPSON (R) - Well, I think free trade and fair trade is the backbone of our economy. I think it's been just as good for us as it has Mexico.
MCCAIN (R) - I'm the biggest free marketer and free trader that you will ever see.
To get at another subject here are some excerpts on the ENVIRONMENT:
The Republicans were asked this question; “I would like to see a show of hands. How many of you believe global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity?”
The question actually drew some audible murmuring from the crowd and the candidates began looking at one another to see if they should actually raise or not raise their hands. Then Fred Thompson spoke
THOMPSON: You want to give me a minute to answer that?
Moderator: No, I don't. THOMPSON: Well, then I'm not going to answer it.
Mitt Romney actually applauded Thompson for not participating!
To their credit both McCain and Giuliani both took fairly decent stands on the issue while Romney poo-poo’d the thought of the U.S. taking a leadership role on solving the problem.
As you can guess the Democrats were full of ideas and concern over the global warming problem and spoke at length without hesitation. I HIGHLY doubt there would have been any delay for anyone on the Democratic side to raise their hands if they had been issued the same question as the Republicans had. Sen. Clinton even made light of the Republicans and spoke for the entire stage in this exchange;
CLINTON: Carolyn, do you want to ask us to raise our hands about global warming?WASHBURN (the moderator): I wasn't...(LAUGHTER)CLINTON: It didn't get a very good response from Republicans yesterday.(LAUGHTER)WASHBURN: I wasn't doing that today.CLINTON: But we all want to be on record. (LAUGHTER)We believe in it.(LAUGHTER)We think it's a real problem.
There were several other strange and disturbing Republican responses to questions such as Fred Thompson’s attack on unions;
When asked what the biggest obstacle was standing in the way of education his response:
The biggest obstacle, in my opinion, is the National Educational Association, the NEA.
Alan Keyes made an ass of himself (as usual) and even caused the moderator to say out loud “sheesh” DURING one of his tirades. Both of the transcripts are available online; Democrat. Republican.
TRADE:
BIDEN(D) - Every new trade agreement -- and I voted against them all since CAFTA, including CAFTA -- every new trade agreement should have built into it what we all talk about. We talk about environmental standards and labor standards, but we talk about it in terms of preserving jobs here, which is important. But it's also about human rights. How are we possibly helping a third world country, a developing country by signing an agreement with them knowing that they're going to exploit workers, they're going to exploit their own citizenry either with -- by polluting their lungs or their drinking water and/or putting them in a position where they're getting paid a couple bucks a week?
GIULIANI (R) - And the reality is NAFTA has been a good thing. I was concerned about NAFTA, and I became convinced, watching it, that it's actually helped us.Our percentage of exports, percentage of our GDP, has gone up dramatically, from something like 9 percent to 11 percent. It's brought more jobs to America.
EDWARDS (D) - But if you look at what's happened with American trade policy -- you asked about China a few minutes ago. Look at what America got: big corporations made a lot of money, are continuing to make a lot of money in China.But what did America get in return? We got millions of dangerous Chinese toys. We lost millions of jobs.
… It is so important that we stop allowing these corporate powers and corporate profits to run America's policy, whether it's trade policy, how we engage with China.This is not good for America. It's not good for American jobs. And it's not good for working people in this country.
THOMPSON (R) - Well, I think free trade and fair trade is the backbone of our economy. I think it's been just as good for us as it has Mexico.
MCCAIN (R) - I'm the biggest free marketer and free trader that you will ever see.
To get at another subject here are some excerpts on the ENVIRONMENT:
The Republicans were asked this question; “I would like to see a show of hands. How many of you believe global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity?”
The question actually drew some audible murmuring from the crowd and the candidates began looking at one another to see if they should actually raise or not raise their hands. Then Fred Thompson spoke
THOMPSON: You want to give me a minute to answer that?
Moderator: No, I don't. THOMPSON: Well, then I'm not going to answer it.
Mitt Romney actually applauded Thompson for not participating!
To their credit both McCain and Giuliani both took fairly decent stands on the issue while Romney poo-poo’d the thought of the U.S. taking a leadership role on solving the problem.
As you can guess the Democrats were full of ideas and concern over the global warming problem and spoke at length without hesitation. I HIGHLY doubt there would have been any delay for anyone on the Democratic side to raise their hands if they had been issued the same question as the Republicans had. Sen. Clinton even made light of the Republicans and spoke for the entire stage in this exchange;
CLINTON: Carolyn, do you want to ask us to raise our hands about global warming?WASHBURN (the moderator): I wasn't...(LAUGHTER)CLINTON: It didn't get a very good response from Republicans yesterday.(LAUGHTER)WASHBURN: I wasn't doing that today.CLINTON: But we all want to be on record. (LAUGHTER)We believe in it.(LAUGHTER)We think it's a real problem.
There were several other strange and disturbing Republican responses to questions such as Fred Thompson’s attack on unions;
When asked what the biggest obstacle was standing in the way of education his response:
The biggest obstacle, in my opinion, is the National Educational Association, the NEA.
Alan Keyes made an ass of himself (as usual) and even caused the moderator to say out loud “sheesh” DURING one of his tirades. Both of the transcripts are available online; Democrat. Republican.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Two Very Differing Views
I recently had time to watch a small portion of the G.O.P. presidential debate on 12/12/07. I was shocked by what I heard! I realize that there are people who have VERY, VERY different views than me, but I was shocked by how far apart the Republican mindset differs from the Democratic mindset, which held their debate on 12/13/07.
The first question in both debates centered on government spending; the Republicans were asked:
The comptroller general has said the U.S. faces a tsunami of debt that is a great threat to our national security. Do you agree our country's financial situation creates a security risk? And why or why not?
And the Democrats were asked:
We're going to start with a discussion about the financial situation facing our country, the single biggest issue Iowans of both parties said they wanted you to talk more about. Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year? If yes, how? If no, why not?
Similar question, worded so the candidates could cater to their respective bases, unbelievably different responses.
The Republicans answers included the following;
GIULIANI: First, we have to reduce government spending and we have to be very disciplined about that. And we have to do it by imposing spending caps on the civilian agencies and governments, 5 percent, 10 percent, maybe 15 percent. We have to say that we're not going to rehire half of the civilian employees that come up for retirement. Forty-two percent are coming up over the course of the next eight to 10 years. They should not be rehired. That would give us a $20 billion, $22 billion reduction. The other would even be higher.And then we have to reduce taxes. Right now, we should reduce the corporate tax. We should reduce it from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would be a major boost in revenues from the government. Most importantly, it would be a way of dealing with our fiscal policy in the same way that the Fed is dealing with our monetary policy, to create more liquidity. And then there are other taxes we should get rid of. We should get rid of the death tax and a whole group of others. But the first one should be the corporate tax.
FRED THOMPSON: It affects our national security, for one reason is because we're squeezing military spending. We're spending below historic norms under these circumstances for our defense, and we're spending twice as much for entitlements.
They catered to the “drown the government in the bathtub” crowd and didn’t address the fact that government spending grew by 33% in Bush’s first term alone! Then they moved on to the Paris Hilton crowd, who under the Republican reign have had their taxes slashed dramatically but are not yet sated. Thompson even suggests that we need to spend MORE on the military! OK, so maybe I haven’t been paying close enough attention to the Republican debates but I had no idea that the dialogue has gone this far over the edge!
Meanwhile back in reality….
BARACK OBAMA: Over the last seven years, what we've seen is an economy that's out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress.Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we've got growing inequality. And so people are working harder for less and they're seeing costs from everything from college education to health care to gas at the pump go up.So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education, we're investing in infrastructure, we're getting our trade deals structured so that they're fair, and that we are also ending the war in Iraq where we're spending $10 billion to $12 billion a month. That is money that can be applied back here at home for critical issues.Now, the fact is that we're not going to be able to do this unless we're able to overcome some of the special interests that have clogged up the system and created trillions of dollars worth of tax loopholes and tax breaks. We need to put those tax breaks and tax loopholes back into the pockets of hardworking Americans.
JOE BIDEN: Just by eliminating the war, eliminating the $200 billion in tax cuts that aren't needed for -- goes to the top one percent, if you add it all up, and by cutting somewhere in the order of $20 billion a year out of the military for special programs, from star wars, to a new atomic weapon, to the F-22, to the Nimitz-Class Destroyer, you can save $350 billion.That would allow me to do everything I want to do -- my priorities on education, health care and the environment -- and still bring down the deficit by $150 billion.It would cost less than half -- so, the Republicans are trying to sucker us into this, "You either have to balance the budget and do nothing to make people's lives better, or you're going to balloon the deficit." They have ballooned the deficit with their bad priorities.
JOHN EDWARDS: Well, first of all, what we have to do is get rid of the structural deficiencies in the American economy. And we have to create jobs, protect American jobs. We have to strengthen and grow the middle class, which is struggling mightily in this country today.And one of the reasons that we've lost jobs, we're having trouble creating jobs, we're having trouble growing and strengthening the middle class is because corporate power and greed have literally taken over the government. And we need a president who's will to take these powers on. It is the only way we're going to strengthen and grow the middle class, have universal health care, have a trade policy that actually works for American workers, have a tax policy that's not favoring big multinational corporations, but instead favors the middle class and working people.
EDWARDS also later added: Well, I just want to add one thing to what Governor Richardson just said. I think the truth of the matter is that the tax policy in America has been established by big corporations and the wealthiest Americans.That's why we have tax breaks for the top 1 percent and 2 percent. It's why the profits of big corporations keep getting bigger and bigger, while most working middle-class families are struggling.So what we ought to be doing instead is getting rid of these tax breaks for big -- the wealthiest Americans -- big tax breaks for companies that are actually taking American jobs overseas.This is insanity, when we're losing American jobs at the rate we are today. And then, on top of that, we need to help middle-class families. I have proposed specific ideas to help them save, to help them send their kids to college, and to make sure that thy can pay for child care. All of these things are aimed at making sure that we have -- that we strengthen the middle class, that we can pay for things like universal health care -- I mean, you can't have universal health care, to be honest with people, unless you have a way to pay for it, and this is how we pay for it.
CLINTON: Well, I think it's important that we recognize how people feel in Iowa and across America. They feel as though they're standing at on a trap door. They are one pink slip, one missed mortgage payment, one medical diagnosis away from falling through.I want to restore the tax rates that we had in the '90s. That means raising taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals. I want to keep the middle class tax cuts. And I want to start making changes that will actually save us money -- save us money in our Medicare budget, save us money for the average American.You know, during the '90s the typical Iowan family's income rose $7,000. We can get back to fiscal responsibility and economic growth again.
The difference to me was amazing! We really are living in 2 different worlds. The Democratic candidates spoke of ending the war (which would lower military spending), restoring the tax rates for the richest Americans that Bush cut, and even spoke of poorly designed trade deals. Almost the exact opposite as their Republican counterparts!
This post is already too long and if you made it here thanks for being patient! My intention was to cover several of the differences but the amount of nutty responses from the Republicans to the first question was surprising. The fact that the weird answers kept flying was even more disheartening! Stay tuned I will compare more differences soon!
The first question in both debates centered on government spending; the Republicans were asked:
The comptroller general has said the U.S. faces a tsunami of debt that is a great threat to our national security. Do you agree our country's financial situation creates a security risk? And why or why not?
And the Democrats were asked:
We're going to start with a discussion about the financial situation facing our country, the single biggest issue Iowans of both parties said they wanted you to talk more about. Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year? If yes, how? If no, why not?
Similar question, worded so the candidates could cater to their respective bases, unbelievably different responses.
The Republicans answers included the following;
GIULIANI: First, we have to reduce government spending and we have to be very disciplined about that. And we have to do it by imposing spending caps on the civilian agencies and governments, 5 percent, 10 percent, maybe 15 percent. We have to say that we're not going to rehire half of the civilian employees that come up for retirement. Forty-two percent are coming up over the course of the next eight to 10 years. They should not be rehired. That would give us a $20 billion, $22 billion reduction. The other would even be higher.And then we have to reduce taxes. Right now, we should reduce the corporate tax. We should reduce it from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would be a major boost in revenues from the government. Most importantly, it would be a way of dealing with our fiscal policy in the same way that the Fed is dealing with our monetary policy, to create more liquidity. And then there are other taxes we should get rid of. We should get rid of the death tax and a whole group of others. But the first one should be the corporate tax.
FRED THOMPSON: It affects our national security, for one reason is because we're squeezing military spending. We're spending below historic norms under these circumstances for our defense, and we're spending twice as much for entitlements.
They catered to the “drown the government in the bathtub” crowd and didn’t address the fact that government spending grew by 33% in Bush’s first term alone! Then they moved on to the Paris Hilton crowd, who under the Republican reign have had their taxes slashed dramatically but are not yet sated. Thompson even suggests that we need to spend MORE on the military! OK, so maybe I haven’t been paying close enough attention to the Republican debates but I had no idea that the dialogue has gone this far over the edge!
Meanwhile back in reality….
BARACK OBAMA: Over the last seven years, what we've seen is an economy that's out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress.Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we've got growing inequality. And so people are working harder for less and they're seeing costs from everything from college education to health care to gas at the pump go up.So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education, we're investing in infrastructure, we're getting our trade deals structured so that they're fair, and that we are also ending the war in Iraq where we're spending $10 billion to $12 billion a month. That is money that can be applied back here at home for critical issues.Now, the fact is that we're not going to be able to do this unless we're able to overcome some of the special interests that have clogged up the system and created trillions of dollars worth of tax loopholes and tax breaks. We need to put those tax breaks and tax loopholes back into the pockets of hardworking Americans.
JOE BIDEN: Just by eliminating the war, eliminating the $200 billion in tax cuts that aren't needed for -- goes to the top one percent, if you add it all up, and by cutting somewhere in the order of $20 billion a year out of the military for special programs, from star wars, to a new atomic weapon, to the F-22, to the Nimitz-Class Destroyer, you can save $350 billion.That would allow me to do everything I want to do -- my priorities on education, health care and the environment -- and still bring down the deficit by $150 billion.It would cost less than half -- so, the Republicans are trying to sucker us into this, "You either have to balance the budget and do nothing to make people's lives better, or you're going to balloon the deficit." They have ballooned the deficit with their bad priorities.
JOHN EDWARDS: Well, first of all, what we have to do is get rid of the structural deficiencies in the American economy. And we have to create jobs, protect American jobs. We have to strengthen and grow the middle class, which is struggling mightily in this country today.And one of the reasons that we've lost jobs, we're having trouble creating jobs, we're having trouble growing and strengthening the middle class is because corporate power and greed have literally taken over the government. And we need a president who's will to take these powers on. It is the only way we're going to strengthen and grow the middle class, have universal health care, have a trade policy that actually works for American workers, have a tax policy that's not favoring big multinational corporations, but instead favors the middle class and working people.
EDWARDS also later added: Well, I just want to add one thing to what Governor Richardson just said. I think the truth of the matter is that the tax policy in America has been established by big corporations and the wealthiest Americans.That's why we have tax breaks for the top 1 percent and 2 percent. It's why the profits of big corporations keep getting bigger and bigger, while most working middle-class families are struggling.So what we ought to be doing instead is getting rid of these tax breaks for big -- the wealthiest Americans -- big tax breaks for companies that are actually taking American jobs overseas.This is insanity, when we're losing American jobs at the rate we are today. And then, on top of that, we need to help middle-class families. I have proposed specific ideas to help them save, to help them send their kids to college, and to make sure that thy can pay for child care. All of these things are aimed at making sure that we have -- that we strengthen the middle class, that we can pay for things like universal health care -- I mean, you can't have universal health care, to be honest with people, unless you have a way to pay for it, and this is how we pay for it.
CLINTON: Well, I think it's important that we recognize how people feel in Iowa and across America. They feel as though they're standing at on a trap door. They are one pink slip, one missed mortgage payment, one medical diagnosis away from falling through.I want to restore the tax rates that we had in the '90s. That means raising taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals. I want to keep the middle class tax cuts. And I want to start making changes that will actually save us money -- save us money in our Medicare budget, save us money for the average American.You know, during the '90s the typical Iowan family's income rose $7,000. We can get back to fiscal responsibility and economic growth again.
The difference to me was amazing! We really are living in 2 different worlds. The Democratic candidates spoke of ending the war (which would lower military spending), restoring the tax rates for the richest Americans that Bush cut, and even spoke of poorly designed trade deals. Almost the exact opposite as their Republican counterparts!
This post is already too long and if you made it here thanks for being patient! My intention was to cover several of the differences but the amount of nutty responses from the Republicans to the first question was surprising. The fact that the weird answers kept flying was even more disheartening! Stay tuned I will compare more differences soon!
Monday, December 10, 2007
Beg Your Pardon
I apologize about the recent lack of activity but I am in the middle of Finals at school, the baby (and subsequently the family) is sick and work is very busy as well! I hope that with finals ending this week I will be able to devote more time to writing.
Thank you for your patience! (wish me luck!!)
Thank you for your patience! (wish me luck!!)
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Ron Paul=SCAB!
The G.O.P. dark horse Ron Paul crossed a picket line Dec. 4th so that he could get some face time and do some campaigning on the talk show “the view”. Kathy over at Blogging for Michigan caught this story and linked to a write up on the AFL-CIO’s blog.
What’s interesting is the number of Ron Paul “trolls” that have left comments bashing unions. (A troll is a person who combs the internet looking for spots to leave either positive comments for their cause or negative comments in defense of their cause, usually using neither logic nor facts to back up their case.) It would seem to me that if the Ron Paul supporters were really interested in helping their candidate they wouldn’t go to the AFL-CIO website and bash unions; they would try to sway opinion with concrete evidence that Ron Paul is NOT anti-union. I have seen evidence to the contrary and this recent episode only validates Ron Paul’s anti-union actions even further. So check out the comments and fire back if the feeling moves you!
What’s interesting is the number of Ron Paul “trolls” that have left comments bashing unions. (A troll is a person who combs the internet looking for spots to leave either positive comments for their cause or negative comments in defense of their cause, usually using neither logic nor facts to back up their case.) It would seem to me that if the Ron Paul supporters were really interested in helping their candidate they wouldn’t go to the AFL-CIO website and bash unions; they would try to sway opinion with concrete evidence that Ron Paul is NOT anti-union. I have seen evidence to the contrary and this recent episode only validates Ron Paul’s anti-union actions even further. So check out the comments and fire back if the feeling moves you!
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Energy Bill; First Glance Looks Good!
House Democrats outlined some points of the new energy bill that featured raised fuel economy standards for U.S. cars and trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The bill also contains language that would require all nonpublic utilities to use solar, wind or other renewable energy to produce 15 percent of their electricity.
The auto industry and labor finally signed on to the legislation after some language was added that would likely keep 17,000 jobs in the U.S. producing small cars. Another piece that helped usher the deal through was an extension of credits for flexible-fuel vehicles through 2014, with a phase-out through 2020. Speaker Pelosi said:
Michigan Rep. John Dingell and Speaker Pelosi have been working on this “compromise” for months. Dingell said the deal "prescribes standards that are both aggressive and attainable."
I have very briefly touched on the UAW and Rep. Dingell’s previous stance against raising CAFÉ standards and I am thrilled that they are both finally coming around. It is my opinion that by doing the big 3’s bidding (fighting CAFÉ standards for 32 years) the UAW and Dingell have done the big 3 a disservice. Had higher fuel standards been in place as recent as even a decade ago the big 3 would have been forced to address the giant gap in their lack of fuel-efficient cars. Looking at the current push by GM alone to develop fuel cell, hydrogen, hybrid and electric vehicles one can only wonder what they could have done with a mandate from congress.
Of course the Bush administration has promised a veto of this landmark legislation because it would cut into oil companies gouging of the American people. Thanks Dubyah! Without you who would stick up for big oil?
The auto industry and labor finally signed on to the legislation after some language was added that would likely keep 17,000 jobs in the U.S. producing small cars. Another piece that helped usher the deal through was an extension of credits for flexible-fuel vehicles through 2014, with a phase-out through 2020. Speaker Pelosi said:
"This landmark energy legislation will offer the automobile industry the
certainty it needs, while offering flexibility to automakers and ensuring we
keep American manufacturing jobs and continued domestic production of smaller
vehicles,"
Michigan Rep. John Dingell and Speaker Pelosi have been working on this “compromise” for months. Dingell said the deal "prescribes standards that are both aggressive and attainable."
I have very briefly touched on the UAW and Rep. Dingell’s previous stance against raising CAFÉ standards and I am thrilled that they are both finally coming around. It is my opinion that by doing the big 3’s bidding (fighting CAFÉ standards for 32 years) the UAW and Dingell have done the big 3 a disservice. Had higher fuel standards been in place as recent as even a decade ago the big 3 would have been forced to address the giant gap in their lack of fuel-efficient cars. Looking at the current push by GM alone to develop fuel cell, hydrogen, hybrid and electric vehicles one can only wonder what they could have done with a mandate from congress.
Of course the Bush administration has promised a veto of this landmark legislation because it would cut into oil companies gouging of the American people. Thanks Dubyah! Without you who would stick up for big oil?
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Hyman Roth's Dream
I like to believe that everyone has seen the Godfather trilogy. For those that haven't- lift the rock up off of yourself and crawl to your nearest rental store and get Godfather II (don't bother with III worst final installment of a trilogy ever).
I had never paid close enough attention to the scene on the balcony in Havana, Cuba. Even more important are the comments made by Hyman Roth. While I was watching it the other night I listened to his diatribe a bit closer. " In Cuba, we finally have a government who is friendly to business." He then goes on about how the hotels are swankier and how the government will put up half the money on some of their investments. The other characters on the balcony include heads of industry, mafia heads and Cuban servers who are basically treated as subhuman.
Roth goes on to say how the Cuban government has been helpful and calls them a partner. They eased import restrictions and lifted tariffs etc. These are some of the very trade issues we fight about today. The Godfather II was released in 1974. Another little interesting fact is that this time period also produced Trade Promotion Authority for President Nixon.
The most disturbing comment by Roth is when he talks about how much money they can make and use that money to elect the next president of the United States. Think abut it and look what's going on today. Bush was basically installed as president by these "captains of industry" because his supporters (and he himself) had so much money to manipulate and mislead the American voter into supporting this new compassionate conservatism when the real goal is to enrich his friends.
Now with Cuba out of the equation in this quasi fictional depiction ,we're left wondering "what next?" Does everybody remember the Dubai Ports World blow up a couple years ago? Thankfully Congress got pissed off enough about this national security implication of a business from a country that funds and harbors terrorists but national security is only one of the issues here.
The balcony scene is playing itself out as we speak. Only this time, it's in Dubai. Haliburton's decision to move a huge component of their operation to Dubai happened a bit under the radar. For those of you keeping score, VP Cheney is a major player in Haliburton and the corporation has obvious ties to the Bush family. Dubai creeps up on the pages of major economic publications like the economist and major luxurious dwellings are springing up in Dubai as well.
Fiction or reality? You decide for yourself. The next trade battles are around the corner with Colombia supposedly scheduled to be first. Colombia militias routinely execute trade unionists at the behest of corporations and the government. Hyman Roth's dream is becoming more of a reality and if we're not careful, we're all going to end up like the Cuban servants in Godfather II.
I had never paid close enough attention to the scene on the balcony in Havana, Cuba. Even more important are the comments made by Hyman Roth. While I was watching it the other night I listened to his diatribe a bit closer. " In Cuba, we finally have a government who is friendly to business." He then goes on about how the hotels are swankier and how the government will put up half the money on some of their investments. The other characters on the balcony include heads of industry, mafia heads and Cuban servers who are basically treated as subhuman.
Roth goes on to say how the Cuban government has been helpful and calls them a partner. They eased import restrictions and lifted tariffs etc. These are some of the very trade issues we fight about today. The Godfather II was released in 1974. Another little interesting fact is that this time period also produced Trade Promotion Authority for President Nixon.
The most disturbing comment by Roth is when he talks about how much money they can make and use that money to elect the next president of the United States. Think abut it and look what's going on today. Bush was basically installed as president by these "captains of industry" because his supporters (and he himself) had so much money to manipulate and mislead the American voter into supporting this new compassionate conservatism when the real goal is to enrich his friends.
Now with Cuba out of the equation in this quasi fictional depiction ,we're left wondering "what next?" Does everybody remember the Dubai Ports World blow up a couple years ago? Thankfully Congress got pissed off enough about this national security implication of a business from a country that funds and harbors terrorists but national security is only one of the issues here.
The balcony scene is playing itself out as we speak. Only this time, it's in Dubai. Haliburton's decision to move a huge component of their operation to Dubai happened a bit under the radar. For those of you keeping score, VP Cheney is a major player in Haliburton and the corporation has obvious ties to the Bush family. Dubai creeps up on the pages of major economic publications like the economist and major luxurious dwellings are springing up in Dubai as well.
Fiction or reality? You decide for yourself. The next trade battles are around the corner with Colombia supposedly scheduled to be first. Colombia militias routinely execute trade unionists at the behest of corporations and the government. Hyman Roth's dream is becoming more of a reality and if we're not careful, we're all going to end up like the Cuban servants in Godfather II.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
