Why Gas is so Expensive
at the Pump

"There is no more debate. Excessive speculation is a major reason oil prices have risen so sharply," Sen. Bernie Sanders said, referring to U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission data he recently released. The data reveals Wall Street speculators played a major role in driving up the price of a barrel of oil to $147 in 2008. During the rampant oil speculation, regular unleaded gas in Vermont hit a record $4.09 a gallon, causing financial hardship for many Vermonters.

"While making this confidential information public may have upset Wall Street oil speculators, the American people have a right to know exactly what caused gasoline prices to skyrocket to more than $4 a gallon back in the summer of 2008," Bernie said. "This report clearly shows that Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other speculators on Wall Street dominated the crude oil futures market causing tremendous damage to the entire economy."

Speculation is rampant again, and – no surprise – gas prices have soared over the course of the last year. This week, gas in Vermont cost 90 cents more than one year ago. "There is little doubt that the same speculators who caused gasoline and heating oil prices to unnecessarily spike in 2008 are playing the same games again in 2011. This is simply unacceptable and must not be allowed to continue," Bernie said.

Bernie called on federal regulators to meet in an emergency session to crack down on speculators and provide needed relief for motorists and for people who heat their homes with heating oil. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission was required by the new Wall Street reform law to stop excessive speculation by January, but the regulators have ignored that new law. In a letter, Bernie called on the CFTC to "finally do what the law mandates and end excessive oil speculation."

Read Bernie's letter to the CFTC »
Document: Read the confidential report revealing rampant oil speculation »
Watch Bernie on The Ed Show on MSNBC »
Read more in the International Business Times »

Legislative Update : Bernie introduced the End Excessive Oil Speculation Now Act of 2011 that would force the CFTC to impose strict limits on the amount of oil speculators can trade in the commodity and futures markets. The bill has eight co-sponsors.

Disappointing

Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal

POSTED: August 24, 11:17 AM ET

President Barack Obama

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

A power play is underway in the foreclosure arena, according to the New York Times.

On the one side is Eric Schneiderman, the New York Attorney General, who is conducting his own investigation into the era of securitizations – the practice of chopping up assets like mortgages and converting them into saleable securities – that led up to the financial crisis of 2007-2008.
On the other side is the Obama administration, the banks, and all the other state attorneys general.
This second camp has cooked up a deal that would allow the banks to walk away with just a seriously discounted fine from a generation of fraud that led to millions of people losing their homes.
The idea behind this federally-guided “settlement” is to concentrate and centralize all the legal exposure accrued by this generation of grotesque banker corruption in one place, put one single price tag on it that everyone can live with, and then stuff the details into a titanium canister before shooting it into deep space.
This is all about protecting the banks from future enforcement actions on both the civil and criminal sides. The plan is to provide year-after-year, repeat-offending banks like Bank of America with cost certainty, so that they know exactly how much they’ll have to pay in fines (trust me, it will end up being a tiny fraction of what they made off the fraudulent practices) and will also get to know for sure that there are no more criminal investigations in the pipeline.

This deal will also submarine efforts by both defrauded investors in MBS and unfairly foreclosed-upon homeowners and borrowers to obtain any kind of relief in the civil court system. The AGs initially talked about $20 billion as a settlement number, money that would “toward loan modifications and possibly counseling for homeowners,” as Gretchen Morgenson reported the other day.

The banks, however, apparently “balked” at paying that sum, and no doubt it will end up being a lesser amount when the deal is finally done.

To give you an indication of how absurdly small a number even $20 billion is relative to the sums of money the banks made unloading worthless crap subprime assets on foreigners, pension funds and other unsuspecting suckers around the world, consider this: in 2008 alone, the state pension fund of Florida, all by itself, lost more than three times that amount ($62 billion) thanks in significant part to investments in these deadly MBS. 

So this deal being cooked up is the ultimate Papal indulgence. By the time that $20 billion (if it even ends up being that high) gets divvied up between all the major players, the broadest and most destructive fraud scheme in American history, one that makes the S&L crisis look like a cheap liquor store holdup, will be safely reduced to a single painful but eminently survivable one-time line item for all the major perpetrators.

But Schneiderman, who earlier this year launched an investigation into the securitization practices of Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and other companies, is screwing up this whole arrangement. Until he lies down, the banks don’t have a deal. They need the certainty of having all 50 states and the federal government on board, or else it’s not worth paying anybody off. To quote the immortal Tony Montana, “How do I know you’re the last cop I’m gonna have to grease?” They need all the dirty cops on board, or else the whole enterprise is FUBAR. 

In addition to the global settlement, Schneiderman is also blocking an individual $8.5 billion settlement for Countrywide investors. He has sued to stop that deal, claiming it could “compromise investors’ claims in exchange for a payment representing a fraction of the losses.”
If Schneiderman thinks $8.5 billion is an insufficient, fractional payoff just for defrauded Countrywide investors, then you can imagine how bad a $20 billion settlement for the entire industry would be for the victims.
In that particular Countrywide settlement deal, it looks like Bank of New York Mellon, the New York Fed, Pimco and other players negotiated on behalf of defrauded investors. They told the Times they were happy with the deal, but investors outside the talks told Gretchen they weren’t happy with the settlement.
Schneiderman apparently listened to those voices instead of the Mellon-Fed-BofA crowd, which infuriated the insiders who struck the actual deal. In a remarkable quote given to the Times, Kathryn Wylde, the Fed board member who ostensibly represents the public, said the following about Schneiderman:

It is of concern to the industry that instead of trying to facilitate resolving these issues, you seem to be throwing a wrench into it. Wall Street is our Main Street — love ’em or hate ’em. They are important and we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to support them unless they are doing something indefensible.

This, again, is coming not from a Bank of America attorney, but from the person on the Fed board who is supposedly representing the public!
This quote leads one to wonder just what Wylde would consider “indefensible,” given that stealing is pretty much the worst thing that a bank can do — and these banks just finished the longest and most orgiastic campaign of stealing in the history of money. Is Wylde waiting for Goldman and Citi to blow up a skyscraper? Dump dioxin into an orphanage? It’s really an incredible quote.
The banks are going to claim that all they’re guilty of is bad paperwork. But while the banks are indeed being investigated for "paperwork" offenses like mass tax evasion (by failing to pay fees associated with mortgage registrations and deed transfers) and mass perjury (a la the “robo-signing” practices), their real crime, the one Schneiderman is interested in, is even more serious.
The issue goes beyond fraudulent paperwork to an intentional, far-reaching theft scheme designed to take junk subprime loans and disguise them as AAA-rated investments. The banks lent money to corrupt companies like Countrywide, who made masses of bad loans and immediately sold them back to the banks.
The banks in turn hid the crappiness of these loans via certain poorly-understood nuances in the securitization process – this is almost certainly where Scheniderman’s investigators are doing their digging – before hawking the resultant securities as AAA-rated gold to fools in places like the Florida state pension fund.
They did this for years, systematically, working hand in hand in a wink-nudge arrangement with clearly criminal enterprises like Countrywide and New Century. The victims were millions of investors worldwide (like the pensioners who saw their funds drop in value) and hundreds of thousands of individual homeowners, who were often sold trick loans and hustled into foreclosure when unexpected rate hikes kicked in.
In a larger sense, even the (often irresponsible) people who simply bought more house than they could afford were victims of this scam. That's because in many of these cases, credit simply would not have been available to those people had the banks not first discovered a way to raise vast sums of money dumping crap loans on an unsuspecting market.
In other words: if Bank of America hadn’t found a way to sell worthless subprime loans as AAA paper to the Chinese and the Scandavians in May, you can be sure that it wouldn’t be going back to Countrywide in June to lend out more money for more subprime loans.
And Countrywide, in turn, wouldn’t then have been sending masses of reps out into the ghettoes to offer juicy home loans to undocumented immigrants and refis to confused old ladies on social security.
This is as bad as white-collar crime gets. But to Wylde, it doesn’t rise to the level of being “indefensible.” Until they do something worse than this, we apparently should support the banks, and make sure they don’t have to pay more than a fraction of what they made off of this kind of crime.
What is most amazing about Wylde’s quote is the clear implication that even a law enforcement official like Schneiderman should view it as his job to “do everything we can to support” Wall Street. That would be astonishing interpretation of what a prosecutor's duties are, were it not for the fact that 49 other Attorneys General apparently agree with her.
In Schneiderman we have at least one honest investigator who doesn’t agree, which is to his great credit. But everyone else is on Wylde’s side now. The Times story claims that HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan and various Justice Department officials have been leaning on the New York AG to cave, which tells you that reining in this last rogue cop is now an urgent priority for Barack Obama.
Why? My theory is that the Obama administration is trying to secure its 2012 campaign war chest with this settlement deal. If Barry can make this foreclosure thing go away for the banks, you can bet he’ll win the contributions battle against the Republicans next summer.
Which is good for him, I guess. But it seems to me that it might be time to wonder if is this the most disappointing president we’ve ever had.

Congressional Black Caucus

U.S. Politics

  

Obama’s Black Backlash

Aug 19, 2011 9:07 PM EDT

Exasperated with the first African-American president, the Congressional Black Caucus says it’s time to emulate the Tea Party. Patricia Murphy on its vow to adopt get-tough tactics.

     With a stinging budget defeat behind them and unemployment in the black community soaring to 16 percent, members of the Congressional Black Caucus say they’re done waiting for Barack Obama to fight their battles for them. Instead, the 43 African-American lawmakers say they’re taking matters into their own hands and will carry the fight to Tea Party Republicans, whom they blame for Obama’s latest lurch to the right.

      “The Tea Party discovered something. That is if they organize, if they talk loud enough, if they threaten, if they register to vote and elect a few people, they can take over the Congress of the United States,” said Rep. Maxine Waters. “They called our bluff and we blinked. We should have made them walk the plank.”

     Waters was speaking in Atlanta, a stop on the CBC’s five-city job fair and town-hall tour now making its way across the country. On the same day Obama left Washington for a 10-day Martha’s Vineyard vacation, eight caucus members hosted a crowd of nearly 5,000 out-of-work Georgians who had flocked to event for the rare chance to meet recruiters from companies that can actually hire them.

Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters considers the summer of 2011 "a defining moment" and says the Tea Party "called our bluff and we blinked.", Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP Photo

     The scene outside the event told the story of the black community, whose jobless rate is more than 50 percent above the national average and spikes as high as 39.2 percent for young African-Americans. Dressed in dark suits, knotted ties, and shined leather shoes, men and women stood for up to five hours in a line that stretched four and five people deep as it snaked and switched back across the Atlanta Technical College campus. Some held umbrellas against the Georgia sun, while most fanned themselves with a few fresh resumes. Once inside, they could visit booths set up by prospective employers, smile, shake hands, and hope to make an impression. At least, many said, it was something to do.
     “The people want us to fight. They want us to stand up,” Waters said. “We are going to be insistent that what comes out in September is going to reflect the experiences that we have had.”

At the town-hall meeting that followed the fair, Waters and other CBC members told 200 or so attendees that everyone, from members of Congress to folks in the seats, needed to start doing more or suffer the consequences at the hands of Tea Party–aligned Republicans back in Washington.

     Waters called the summer of 2011 a “defining moment” for her and the African-American community, especially as Capitol Hill’s new supercommittee gears up to slash federal spending further this fall.

“The people want us to fight. They want us to stand up,” Waters said. “We are going to be insistent that what comes out in September is going to reflect the experiences that we have had.”

     Looking back on the summer, several CBC members acknowledged that the freshman class of Tea Party Republicans had out-hustled, out-shouted, and out-organized them as the Aug. 2 default deadline neared. In the end, President Obama chose between allowing the country to go into default and signing onto a deal with deep cuts to domestic spending but no tax increases, despite liberal insistence that more revenues were needed.

     “It was the Tea Party and the radical right, the right of the right, that hijacked the Republican Party,” said Rep. John Lewis, a veteran of the civil-rights movement. “They wanted to destroy this president. They made a decision to make him a one-termer, and that’s what it was all about.”

     Lewis joined two thirds of the black caucus in voting against the budget deal, warning that the trigger mechanism in the bill will gut Medicare and Medicaid if the evenly divided supercommittee deadlocks and automatic spending cuts kick in.

     Rep. Cedric Richmond, one of a handful of freshman Democrats elected in 2010, said he voted for the deal to avoid a national default. “I didn’t want to vote for it, but I didn’t want to take castor oil when I was sick either,” he said.

     In an interview with The Daily Beast, Richmond called the House GOP and Tea Party members in particular “sinful” for holding the American economy over a barrel to get the spending cuts they wanted.

“They won because they are organized, they are monolithic, and they are willing, I think, to obstruct the success of the country to win the next election,” he said. “That is what I find to be sinful, with so many people unemployed.”

Denier Rick Perry Takes $11 Million from Big Oil, Then Claims Climate Scientists ‘Manipulated Data’ For Money

By Joe Romm on Aug 17, 2011 at 5:44 pm

If you look up chutzpah in the dictionary, there is a picture of Rick Perry.  Perry has received millions of dollars from Big Oil to push its pro-pollution, anti-science agenda:

So what does Perry do when a questioner points out that the National Academy of Sciences and observed data utterly disagree with his disinformation on climate change?   He simply asserts with no evidence that a “substantial number” of climate scientists have “manipulated data” for money, as TP Green reports.  Here’s the background and the video:

At the Politics and Eggs breakfast in Bedford, NH, Perry was questioned by Jim Rubens, a former New Hampshire Republican legislator and technology investor, who noted that the National Academy of Sciences, which has advised presidents since its founding by Abraham Lincoln, has concluded that global warming is caused primarily by fossil fuels.“If observed scientific data and the National Academy of Sciences are both wrong on an issue involving thousands of scientists, and an issue as prominent as global warming,” Rubens asked, “doesn’t this call into question the entire science discovery process that forms the foundation of a hundred years of America’s technological preeminence?”
“You may have a point there,” Perry replied, arguing that “there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects”:

You may have a point there, because I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized. I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly or even daily scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes our climate’s changed, they’ve been changing ever since the earth was born. But I do not buy into a group of scientists who have in some cases found to be manipulating this information.
And the cost to the country and the world of implementing these anti-corbon programs is in the billions if not trillions of dollars at the end of the day. And I don’t think, from my perspective, that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money still on a scientific theory that has not been proven, and from my perspective, is being put more and more into question.

Watch video shot by ThinkProgress’ Travis Waldron:

Global warming has indeed been politicized by the fossil-fuel industry and the tea party extremists — but the degree of politicization is unique to this country, which should tell you all you need to know about its source (see National Journal: “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones”).
Anyone who knows actual scientists knows that they don’t do things for the money.  Indeed, it is quite safe to say very few become scientists if money is among the top things they are interested in.  In fact, virtually nothing is more important to a scientist than his or her professional reputation, which can be maintained only by doing research that can be reproduced by others.
It is understandable why Perry would project onto scientists the motivations of the pro-pollution politicians and lobbyists he hangs out with.   Virtually nothing is more important to them than money and the influence of its buys, which can be maintained only by making crap up.
It is understandable, perhaps, but not forgivable, since the health and well-being of our children and grandchildren and countless future generations –  billions of people — are at stake.

Political MoJo

 Ohio Gov. John Kasich: Hey Unions, Let's Make a Deal on My Bargaining Ban ByAndyKroll|WedAug. 17, 2011 1:39 PM PD

ProgressOhio/Flickr

     With the dust barely settled on Wisconsin's slate of summer recall elections, a backlash to Gov. Scott Walker's attack on union bargaining rights, Ohio Gov. John Kasich wants his state's unions to cut a deal on his anti-union bill, known as SB 5.

     Kasich asked union leaders on Wednesday to compromise with him on changes to SB 5 and back off a referendum on the bill scheduled for this fall. As the Columbus Dispatch reports, Kasich, one of the most unpopular governors in America, told labor unions to "set aside political agendas and past offenses" and cut a deal, a move he said would be in the "best interest of everyone, including public employee unions."

Unions rejected Kasich's olive branch. A spokeswoman for We Are Ohio, a group of labor unions spearheading the SB 5 referendum, said Republicans "can repeal the entire bill or join us in voting no on Nov. 8," adding, "We’re glad that Governor Kasich and the other politicians who passed SB 5 are finally admitting this is a flawed bill."
Here's more from the Dispatch:

The governor said the offer stems from him being a "believer in talking," and not out of "a fear we are going to lose." Kasich asked for a delegation of 10 public employee union leaders to talk Friday with state officials.
Fellow Republicans William G. Batchelder, Ohio House speaker from Medina, and Senate President Tom Niehaus of New Richmond, joined the governor at this afternoon’s press conference.

Confronted At Town Hall, Romney Falsely Claims Raising Payroll Tax Cap Wouldn’t Strengthen Social Security

By Travis Waldron on Aug 17, 2011 at 6:55 pm

ThinkProgress filed this report from Berlin, New Hampshire.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) was confronted at the Iowa State Fair last week for indicating that, as president, he would not support lifting the income cap on taxes used to finance Social Security (currently, income above $106,800 is exempt).
Romney was again asked about his plans today in New Hampshire, where a questioner asked him why he supported raising the retirement age instead of raising the payroll tax cap. Romney reiterated that raising the cap amounted to a tax increase he would not support, and falsely claimed that it wouldn’t “begin the solve the problem” facing Social Security’s long-term viability:

ROMNEY: What I want to do is make sure Social Security is there for your generation.
ATTENDEE: By raising the retirement age, though?
ROMNEY: There are two ways we could go, you can tell me your choice. One is we can keep Social Security –
ATTENDEE: Raise the cap.
ROMNEY: That doesn’t begin to solve the problem. [...] My guess is [people] are going to say, give me lower benefit growth but don’t raise my taxes.

Watch it:

Upon Romney’s proclamation that raising the cap on income taxed for Social Security purposes would not “begin to solve the problem,” the woman presented evidence backing up her claim, telling him that raising the cap would ensure the program’s solvency for at least 75 years. Romney responded, “I don’t agree with your numbers.” He then guessed that Americans would rather face benefit cuts than an increase in the amount of income taxed, despite poll numbers showing that an overwhelming majority of Americans are opposed to benefit cuts.
But whether Romney agrees with the numbers is moot because the questioner’s evidence is correct. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, fully eliminating the cap without increasing benefits would create a long-term surplus for Social Security and would indeed ensure its solvency for at least 75 years. None of the other “solutions” Romney proposed — means testing benefits, changing the way benefits are calculated, or raising the retirement age — would strengthen the program so substantially without drastically cutting benefits.
Romney is, however, correct in one way: raising the cap on the amount of income taxed for Social Security purposes does not begin to solve the problem. Instead, it solves the problem altogether.

The Smooth Look of Corporatist, Secessionist and Racist

      Don't be fooled by the well manicured, every hair in place, smooth, slick look. It's the same thing we have to remind our sons and daughters. When looking for a mate they often look for the best looking person they can find. The problem is that a lot of the times is that person is all sight and no substance. The picture you're seeing now tells the same story.

     Mr. Perry has called Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and public education unconstitutional. And no doubt, he  he probably agrees with Mitt Romney that corporations are people, too. There's nothing more that the corporations would like better than to add the money from these programs to their profit margins.Cutting education programs and hiking college tuitions are also a good way to ensure that the middle class continues to shrink, further dividing the "haves" from the "have nots". Which group do you think Mr. Perry will fall into? Which group will you fall into? 

     It was just over one year ago that he was speaking about the state of Texas seceding from the Union, which would be unconstitutional. But now he wants to be president of the same union that he wanted to secede from. Would he not fly around the country in Air Force 1 or the Presidential helicopter? Would he not move into the White House? Woyuld he just shut down government? Just exactly what is it that he's saying?

     In recent years, there have been many in the south who have refused to see the resurgence of racism in the south. Whether they want ot admit or not, it is true. It began to make a comeback during the Bush and Cheney campaign at the height of rhe Rush Limbaugh talk show era. Governor is affiliated with the neoconfederate group Sons Of Confederate Veterans of which some members are outright racists. Just listen to the hate filled and poisonous speech that comes out of his supposedly Christian mouth. Just because they disagree with him, he has called the president's patriotism into question and has not only suggested the fed chairman treacherous and treasonous but has suggested that some harm should come to him. Do these words match his Christian confession? I'm just sayin'.

      Some how that doesn't seem presidential to me. Remenber, all that glitters ain't gold. Look a little deeper at Gov. Rick than his boyish good looks and tailored suits. Oh! and by the way, what will he do with all those unlimited corporate $ millions that he is receiving. Atta boy, Rick!

Not "Just Any Democrat", Progressive Democrat!!

What's the Real Lesson of Wisconsin for Progressives?

Friday 12 August 2011

by: Amy Dean, Truthout | News Analysis

(Photo: Matt Baran / Flickr)

Despite coming up short of retaking control of the Wisconsin Senate, Tuesday's recall elections sent a clear signal to conservative politicians who are using false pretenses to slash social safety nets, scapegoat public employees and immigrants and take away the rights of working people. The message: Beware. The public will no longer accept your abuses of power. 

The fact that there were recall elections at all meant that voter anger overcame the typical inertia of off-cycle, special elections. Contrary to conventional assumptions, turnout in some areas was nearly 60 percent. Democrats were victorious in recalling two Republican senators and they were competitive in every single recall district, which is even more significant given the fact that when Obama carried Wisconsin by 14 points in 2008, Democrats did not win any of these seats. In fact, the GOP carried those districts with 55 percent.

Democrats may have won just two more seats, but they should not see that as the end. It should just be the beginning. Beyond the message sent at the polls, I believe we need to concern ourselves with another question: What lessons will labor and its community allies take away from these recall races? This question is vital. We miss a key opportunity if we measure our success based only on Election Day results and not also on our ability to build permanent progressive infrastructure at the state and local levels.

Currently, many things are going well on that front. Under the umbrella of an impressive political action committee called We Are Wisconsin (WAW), a coalition of unions, community groups and outraged citizens in the state have joined together to undertake voter education, grassroots lobbying and media advocacy activities. While progressives are often fractured, this organization has demonstrated an admirable degree of coordination among varied groups.

WAW is also innovative because of its independence from the Democratic Party. Labor and its allies have built a field operation functioning outside of party structures. They have raised money independently, tying funds first and foremost to progressive values, not to individual candidates. They have done so with a mission not solely of supporting any candidates who put a "D" next to their names, but rather of promoting an agenda that stands up for civil rights, essential public services and the ability for people to have a voice in their workplaces. Short of nominating candidates on their own ballot line, they have operated very much like a separate party in their campaign around the state senate recalls.

The question for WAW, now that the recall elections are over, is where to go from here. Thus far, the coalition has primarily - and necessarily - waged defensive fights, battles around the state budget and around ousting conservative senators who aided Gov, Scott Walker's power grab. But now, they have an opportunity to build in a more proactive way.

Their challenge is taking the impressive work they've done so far in building community-labor alliances and making sure it does not fall apart now that the polls are closed. Their challenge is to become more than just a conventional electioneering operation and instead, looking to the future, create a real organizing program on the ground.

Over the past several months, the focus of WAW has understandably been the recall election. But, already, they have planted seeds of what should be a strong, ongoing organization. They have gone door to door and talked with countless Wisconsinites. They have asked neighbors to vote, but also to get engaged in opposing the assault on workers' rights and defending the middle class. If done right, the energies of Election Day can be channeled into an organizing program that will continue to advocate for working people in the state. There will be a loud voice helping to ensure that politicians "do the right thing" once in office.

The people working most closely with the organization recognize that it would be a shame for WAW to disintegrate and then have to be recreated for the 2012 election cycle. Their challenge is to convince a wider set of allies to stay invested for the long haul. Inevitably, the operation will lose some funding, staff and attention when the high-profile recalls are over. To lessen the potential for a wholesale shutdown, those of us outside Wisconsin must continue to extend our support and enthusiasm. We must continue to spread the word that this is a fight that affects us all - and that it is not over.

Within the state of Wisconsin, public-sector unions will have to face the responsibility of rebuilding their own organizations. The need will be to convince officials in these unions that maintaining an investment in their neighborhoods through community issues is not a distraction from internal union organization or from building political power. Rather it is an essential asset in these tasks. Community-labor involvement and worker organizing cannot be seen as "either/or" options; they must be recognized as mutually beneficial.

A "day after" evaluation of the recall efforts should go beyond the traditional analysis of races and districts where campaigning was or was not successful. It should involve assessing how many future leaders were cultivated out of door-to-door mobilizations and how these people could be integrated into a long-term political operation. The product of such a review should include plans for leadership development, outreach and organizing connected to local and statewide issues. It should mean developing, among leaders and activists, a shared analysis, a shared vision and, ultimately, a shared program that people can take into 2012. Working for the future, together, is the best way for this newborn coalition to demonstrate that all of the work of the past months was not a one-time occurrence, but something that has the potential to be a positive force in shaping the future of Wisconsin politics.

The people of Wisconsin have made amazing progress in taking back their state. Yet, they still have plenty of work ahead of them to build a model for a new kind of political action based on independence, values and collaboration. All of us have an interest in seeing this model built - so we can defend the interests of working people from future attacks and we can take the offensive in advancing them.

A True American Patriot!

Warren Buffett calls for higher taxes for US super rich

• 'Mega-rich get extraordinary tax breaks'
• Investor says move needed to tackle US debts
• Strong Tea Party opposition to tax rises

•   

Warren Buffett, at the 2010 meeting of his Berkshire Hathaway investment group, says that billionaires like himself have been 'coddled' by Congress. Photograph: Nati Harnik/AP

The days of 'coddling' America's super-rich with low taxes must end if its debt problems are ever to be solved, according to billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

Buffett has called on US politicians to impose higher taxes on his fellow wealthy Americans, who he says are currently indulged with an unfairly generous tax regime. Writing in the New York Times on Monday, Buffett argued that the richest members of US society are not making a fair contribution to repairing the country's finances.

"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks," wrote Buffett, whose personal fortune was estimated at $50bn (£30bn) by Forbes this year.
"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places," the 80-year old investor added.
Buffett, a long-time critic of the US tax system, has calculated that he handed over 17.4% of his income as tax last year – a lower proportion than any of the 20 other people who work in his office.

Under the debt ceiling deal agreed in Washington, a "super committee" of 12 congressmen and senators must find $1.5tn worth of savings and cuts to help cut America's national debt. Tax rises are hugely unpopular with elements within the Republican party, with the Tea Party movement adamant that America should balance its books by cutting public spending.

Buffett argues that this super-committee should raise the tax rate paid by those earning more than $1m a year, including earnings from capital gains which are currently taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. Those raking in upward of $10m a year could then pay even more.

The package of tax cuts brought in by President George W Bush are set to expire at the end of 2012, although they could be extended. Many of the leading Republicans who hope to challenge Barack Obama at the next presidential election have argued for lower taxation to stimulate the US economy.

On Saturday Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, argued that it was an "injustice" that almost a half of all Americans currently pay no federal income tax.

"Spreading the wealth punishes success while setting America on a course for greater dependency on government," Perry argued as he announced his bid for the 2012 Republican nomination.

It was not clear whether Perry hopes to increase the percentage of US citizens paying federal income tax by bringing more of them into better-paid jobs, or by lowering the income tax threshold. Either way, Buffett argues that the US political class should be looking at the other end of the spectrum. As he put it: "My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."

Another Democratic Capitulation!

Next Stop: Train Wreck

Friday 12 August 2011

by: William Rivers Pitt, Truthout | Op-Ed

Sen. Jon Kyl, (R-Arizona), left, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) walk to the Senate floor to vote on a plan to increase the debt ceiling, on Capitol Hill in Washington, July 31, 2011. (Photo: Philip Scott Andrews / The New York Times)

Trouble with you
Is the trouble with me
Got two good eyes
But we still don't see
Come round the bend
You know it's the end
The fireman screams
And the engine just gleams...
- Robert Hunter

     And so here we are, at the next stage of this comic opera/disaster movie/smash-and-grab robbery known as the "debt-limit crisis." Leadership in both the House and Senate have tapped the twelve members who will make up the so-called "Super-Committee," which will be responsible for coming up with a plan to cobble together $1.2 trillion in spending cuts by Thanksgiving.

     It is a motley crew, to be sure. The Republican side of the equation is comprised of Senators Rob Portman (Ohio), Jon Kyl, (Arizona), and Patrick Toomey (Pennsylvania), along with Representatives Fred Upton (Michigan), Jeb Hensarling (Texas) and Dave Camp (Pennsylvania). To a man - and note well that Republican leadership selected a racially and sexually homogenized crew for this - they are hard-liners who will likely not budge when it comes to tax revenues. Kyl is a boon companion of GOP Senator Mitch McConnell, Toomey was once president of the far-right group Club for Growth, and Portman used to be budget director for none other than George W. Bush. Each and every one of these men has taken Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge, which bodes very ill for any revenue enhancements making it into the deal.

The Democratic side of things is comprised of Senators John Kerry (Massachusetts), Patty Murray (Washington), and Max Baucus (Montana), along with Representatives Xavier Becerra (California), Chris Van Hollen (Maryland), and James Clyburn (South Carolina). Progressives will probably be able to live with the chosen House members, but the Senators picked by Harry Reid have given rise to a great degree of consternation on the left. Baucus, in particular, caused a chorus of groans from progressive circles, but ironically enough, it may very well be Murray and Kerry that progressives have the most to worry about. Ari Berman of The Nation explains:

      At first glance, Kerry and Murray have been reliably liberal votes within the Democratic caucus, while Baucus is viewed with grave suspicion by progressive Democrats. He's been dubbed "K Street's Favorite Democrat" by yours truly, enabled much of the Bush administration's agenda, and notoriously bungled the handling of the healthcare reform, watering down the bill and stalling the process in favor of GOP votes that never materialized. More than anyone else, Baucus is responsible for the continued unpopularity of the healthcare bill today.

     Yet, paradoxically, Kerry and Murray could be more problematic than Baucus on the super-committee. Both Kerry and Murray signed a letter in March calling for a "grand bargain"deal, modeled after the Bowles-Simpson Commission, that would include "discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform." Kerry has continued to advocate for such a grand bargain, most recently on Meet the Press, and both he and Murray represent states with major defense interests, which makes it unlikely they'll vote to significantly curb defense spending. As chair of the DSCC, Murray is also responsible for raising buckets of money from corporate America and embarrassingly solicited campaign cash in June from the Koch brothers.

     Baucus, on the other hand, voted against the Bowles-Simpson plan, saying "we cannot cut the deficit at the expense of veterans, seniors, ranchers, farmers and hard-working families." Specifically, Baucus said he opposed the commission's recommendations to turn Medicare into a voucher program, raise the retirement age of Social Security and cut healthcare benefits for veterans. It's hard to believe, but today Baucus might be to the left of Kerry and Murray on economic policy.

Great.

      This whole thing is a farce, a train wreck waiting to happen. Given the composition of this "super-committee," only a few possible outcomes are foreseeable, none of them any good. The best-case scenario will have this group bang out significant cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, along with some revenues raised either through new taxes (highly unlikely) or the closing of tax loopholes (only slightly more likely). Knowing what we know about these people, about GOP tactics, and about the recent shoddy history of Democratic fealty to the New Deal, a more likely outcome will involve GOP hostage-taking on the issue of taxes, followed by a capitulation by Democrats on deeper cuts to the social safety net.

If no deal can be struck, the recently-passed debt limit "deal" will cause immediate, massive across-the-board cuts to everything from Medicare to defense spending, something these people will hopefully try to avoid. If history is any guide, the GOP members of this "committee" will hold fast to their no-taxes pledge, and drive the whole process to the edge of ruin, full in the knowledge that they will only need one Democratic vote to get what they want.

     Put this whole mess up on the big board at the MGM Grand in Vegas, and the line would probably be 50-1 that working people, sick people and the elderly are, once again, about to take it on the chin. Perhaps more galling than the seemingly evident outcome of this farce is the fact that the whole process flies in the face of Constitutional law. Nowhere in that document does it give Congress the power to supercede the established process of legislating through full committees and sub-committees, and after all is said and done, the whole thing could wind up being thrown out by the courts if a legal challenge is brought against the "super-committee's" final conclusions. Nothing good will come of this, I fear. A great deal of bad, however, almost certainly will.

A Thought Provoking Challenge

Can Unions Break From the Democrats? What a Real Declaration of Independence Would Mean

Thursday 26 May 2011

by: Amy Dean, Truthout

Richard Trumka at the Power Shift 2011 rally, April 19, 2011. In a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Trumka called for a labor movement focused on workers and families, not political candidates. (Photo: linh.m.do)

On May 20, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) President Richard Trumka issued a warning to those Democratic candidates who rely on labor's resources when running for office but hold social movements at arm's length once in office: become champions for working families, he told them, or don't assume that unions will be there for you in the future.

In a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Trumka stated, "What workers want is an independent labor movement that builds the power of working people - in the workplace and in political life."

The role of this "independent" labor movement, he added, "is not to build the power of a political party or a candidate. It is to improve the lives of working families and strengthen our country."

Implicitly putting do-nothing Democrats on alert, he said, "It doesn’t matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside - the outcome is the same either way. If leaders aren’t blocking the wrecking ball and advancing working families' interests, working people will not support them. This is where our focus will be - now, in 2012, and beyond."

Striking Independent

So, what do these types of statements mean for working families and for progressive movements?

Undoubtedly, Trumka's speech is a positive sign. Rhetoric is often an important precursor to action. Unless we're willing to start talking about approaching our political program in a manner more strategic than "bankroll the lesser-evil candidate," we'll always be beholden to a Democratic Party that drifts ever further to the right.

However, to move beyond rhetoric and make an independent stance a reality, we need to do three things.

First, we have to be clear about what we want. Telling politicians that they must be champions for labor cannot mean that we present them with a laundry list of the legislative priorities of each AFL-CIO affiliate and call that an agenda. Too often, politicians merely use such lists as talking points, giving lip service to labor goals without truly embracing a pro-union vision.

Unions should instead come together around larger imperatives. In order to demand a higher standard of accountability from elected officials, we must establish a consensus definition amongst ourselves of what it means to stand with the labor movement. This definition, first and foremost, should be based on reaffirming collective bargaining as an effective way to improve wages and living standards in America.

This is a fundamental issue. Whether collective bargaining rights are reinforced through the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) or through some other mechanism is a secondary question. The important point is that politicians embrace the idea that workers' organizations have a vital role to play in the stewardship and governance of the economy.

With this principle established, we must assert the need to expand collective bargaining beyond the models that prevailed in the industrial economy of the mid-20th century. Our economy has transformed in critical ways in recent decades. So many of the community members who came out to support public employees in Wisconsin would not be able to form a union at their jobs. Passing EFCA and ensuring card check recognition procedures might help for those in traditional workplaces. But those who are freelancers, independent contractors or otherwise have nontraditional work arrangements would still be left out. Demanding that politicians stand with organized labor should entail reforming labor law so that we can bring in all of those who are now excluded.

Read more "Walking the Walk" columns from author, activist, social entrepreneur and labor veteran Amy Dean.

In addition to making greater demands on politicians, we will also have to challenge ourselves to make these excluded workers a core part of our political vision. This will require us to reach out beyond our existing membership. It will mean expending political capital to uphold the rights of all employees, not merely trying to defend the increasingly narrow slice of the workforce covered under current collective bargaining agreements.

Training Candidates in Advance of Elections

Secondly, our rhetoric of independence must be backed by the creation of local training programs, through which the labor movement and its community allies educate prospective candidates about our movements. This does not mean convening candidates to lecture them about pet legislative initiatives. Rather, it should be oriented toward establishing an entirely different type of relationship.

Candidates know that labor is the biggest game in town on the Democratic side of the aisle in terms of political donations and on-the-ground support for getting out the vote. Therefore, they have a sense that union support is obligatory if they are going to get elected. The difficulty is that the processes that different unions have for endorsing candidates are uncoordinated and diffuse, allowing candidates to get away with making vague promises that are rarely fulfilled. Worse yet, it makes politicians think that they can win support by brokering a few special deals for specific groups of workers - even if they spend the rest of their time in office advancing policies that undermine the middle class as a whole.

When we allow this type of dealmaking, we only reinforce the public perception of unions as narrow special interest groups. And we leave a much more basic problem unaddressed: the right wing has done a tremendous job of painting both unions and government as impediments to the free market. As a result, many people - elected officials included - no longer look to unions to be part of the solution when it comes to building a healthy economy. Quite simply, we have been shut out of the ideological debate.

To reverse this trend, we need to be able to thoughtfully make the case that the labor movement has been a vital force in the creation and maintenance of the American middle class. We must start to engage candidates before we ever make formal endorsements and educate them to see progressive social movements as indispensable partners in generating public policy. Only by doing this can we build an informed constituency of elected leaders who will understand the importance of collective bargaining in a democratic society, and who will commit themselves to expanding it.

More Than One Election Cycle 

Third, we have to be prepared to carry out a new political strategy from more than one election cycle.

With their attacks at the state level, the right has successfully put us on the defensive. Wisconsin is a key case in point. Many people are claiming the popular uprising in that state as a victory for the labor movement. Certainly, the fact that so many community members came out to support public employees was an exciting development, showing the potential for unions to build broad-based alliances. But we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that the situation is anything but dire. While Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker did not manage to implement a wholesale rollback of collective bargaining rights, he did secure a partial one.

In Wisconsin and elsewhere, even if we stave off right-wing assaults through recall drives and other efforts, conservatives will have succeeded in diverting our focus and our resources. Our opponents will win a war of attrition unless we go on the offensive and begin to elect champions for working people.

To carry out a long-term strategy, we have to be prepared to give up our current illusion of influence. Too often, we are charmed by access. We are invited to sit on White House roundtables, or we are impressed that top officials will answer our calls. But what has this gotten us? If anyone has doubt about why simply electing more Democrats will not be enough for the labor movement to thrive - let alone survive - they need only to look at the track record under our past three Democratic presidents. Pro-union legislation and labor law reform failed under President Carter. It was never seriously considered under President Clinton. And EFCA was dead on arrival under President Obama.

We cannot keep making excuses for elected officials, saying that the "political will" necessary for them to do their jobs was not present. Political will begins with us. If we want a different result in the future, we must begin to do politics differently. And that means getting serious about putting force behind our declarations of independence.

Rick Perry Says Social Security and Medicare Are Unconstitutional

Rand Paul Rushes To Romney’s Defense: ‘All Of Us Are Corporations’

 During a campaign stop at the Iowa State Fair yesterday, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) vociferously defended tax breaks for corporations by declaring that “corporations are people.” Though Romney’s assertion was widely mocked – corporations cannot vote, cannot be sent to prison, and clearly lack all human anatomy – the former Massachusetts governor has not backed down in the face of withering criticism.

Now, another GOPer says Romney was actually spot on: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).
ThinkProgress asked Paul about Romney’s comments prior to the Republican presidential debate in Ames. Paul rushed to the former governor’s defense, arguing that Romney was correct in his equivalency between man and mega-company. “I think we’re all corporations,” Paul said. “All of us are corporations.” The Tea Party senator later went on to blur the lines further between corporations and people by declaring, “They’re us. They’re the middle class”:

KEYES: What did you make of Mitt Romney’s statement today that “corporations are people”?
PAUL: Corporations are collections of people. I think we’re all corporations. To say we’re going to punish corporations like they’re someone else. All of us are corporations.
KEYES: Do you think that was basically in line with what he was saying?
PAUL: You think about, if you own a retirement fund, you have a 401k, everybody who has a 401k has parts of corporations, so in a sense we are.
KEYES: I think people might argue that corporations can’t be sent to jail.
PAUL: I think those arguments can be made, but I think the fact that a lot of times people want to vilify corporations, saying they’re someone else, that they’re these other rich people. They’re us. They’re the middle class. We all own parts of corporations.

Watch it:




It’s unsurprising that Paul would side with corporations. In the past, Paul has expressed his affection for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was quick to defend BP during its high-profile act of corporate irresponsibility, and during the 2010 campaign, complained that disabilities laws are unfair to the business owner.
A quick glance at Paul’s campaign fundraising finds major contributions from corporations like Koch Industries, AT&T, and Exxon Mobil. Still, as one of the original Tea Party senators, Paul’s defense of corporations flies in the face of the populist movement he purports to represent.
Corporate lobbyists have also played a major role in Romney’s presidential campaign. Indeed, a Huffington Post investigation found that thus far in 2011, Romney has received more campaign cash from lobbyists than the rest of the Republican field combined. As Romney barnstorms the country with his message that “corporations are people,” Paul’s busy watching out for Romney’s flank and making sure people understand that people “are corporations” as well.

Republican Superstars

Economy

 

VIDEO: Romney Angrily Confronted In Iowa For Defending The Rich

Bachmann Claims S&P 'Proved Me Right' -- S&P Disagrees

McConnell In 1990: 'Everyone Should Pay Their Fair Share, Including The Rich'

Likely GOP Presidential Contender Rick Perry Thinks Medicare, Medicaid, And Social Security Are Ponzi Schemes

By Zaid Jilani on Aug 12, 2011 at 10:50 am

It is widely expected that Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) will be announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination to be president of the United States this weekend.
In the past, Perry has staked out extreme views on a number of economic issues. Last year, he called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” and claimed that Americans who are children today will never receive their benefits. He also used this same smear for the Medicaid and Medicare programs.
In an interview with Newsweek’s the Daily Beast last fall that was just published today, Perry expanded further on his belief that these programs are Ponzi schemes:

INTERVIEWER: In Fed Up!, you criticize the progressive era and the changes it produced: the 16th and 17th Amendments, Social Security, Medicare, and so on. I understand being against these things in principle—of longing for a world in which they never existed. But now that they’re part of the fabric of our society, do you think we should actually do away with them?
PERRY: I think every program needs to stand the sunshine of righteous scrutiny. Whether it’s Social Security, whether it’s Medicaid, whether it’s Medicare. You’ve got $115 trillion worth of unfunded liability in those three. They’re bankrupt. They’re a Ponzi scheme. I challenge anybody to stand up and defend the Social Security program that we have today—and particularly defend it to a 27-year-old young man who’s just gotten married and is trying to get his life headed in the right direction economically. I happen to think that the Progressive movement was the beginning of the deterioration of our Constitution from the standpoint of it being abused and misused to do things that Congress wanted to do, and/or the Supreme Court wanted to implement. The New Deal was the launching pad for the Washington largesse as we know it today. And I think we should have a legitimate, honest, national discussion about Washington’s continuing to spend money we don’t have on programs that we don’t need.

A Ponzi scheme is an economic arrangement where the money paid into the system by later entrants is paid right back out as benefits to earlier entrants. None of these social insurance programs that Perry mentioned fit this definition. They benefit those who pay into them with guaranteed benefits. One has to wonder if Perry will be able to get away with maligning these popular programs on the campaign trail.

Americans Need To Work!

Put 15 Million Back to Work Fixing $2.2 Trillion in Infrastructure: the Works Progress Administration

  

by: Barbara G. Ellis Ph.D., Truthout | Op-Ed

  

     Perhaps all is not lost for the republic's economic future, even  as it's laeders let this nation hurdle towards the abyss of the Great Depression II. An immensely successful, sensible and practical solution is being signaled by increasingly thunderous shout-outs from prominent people: pundits Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, Rich Lowry, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, filmmaker Michael Moore and two new web sites[1] - not to mention millions of voters with long memories and the friends and families of the nation's 15,000,000 unemployed.

     Their solution? Resurrect the phenomenally successful Works Progress Administration (WPA) of 1935-1943. It put food on the table, kept a roof overhead and put spending money in the pockets of nearly nine million jobless. They built everything from roads, bridges, dams and utility systems to schools and hospitals. They staffed libraries and taught more than a million adults and 90,000 draftees how to read.[2]

Also see: "The President's Jobs Plan (Not)"

     Why not a WPA-II? We do have that civilian army of 15,000,000 unemployed, which could tackle the $2.2 trillion dollars of vital work needed by 2014 on our ramshackle infrastructure system.

     Unlike the untold billions spent today - almost unquestioningly - on foreign wars and occupations and economic aid and infrastructure, the WPA's annual $2 billion budget was scrutinized by bitter enemies in Congress for every nickel it squeezed from the Treasury and for any whiff of abuse.[3] But today, 72 percent of Americans are demanding the US get out of Afghanistan altogether and 84 percent oppose getting further into the conflict in Libya. The US Conference of Mayors voted on June 20 to stop funding wars and "bring war dollars home" to meet crucial domestic needs such as infrastructure.[4] If the administration and Congress wants to win in 2012 - and obey these anti-war, anti-empire-building commands - charity could finally begin at home.

     Because President Obama could scarcely ignore the eye-popping 10.2 percent unemployment rate back in 2009, he did what every nervous, overwhelmed leader does to either stall a politically dangerous action or look blameless if that action goes awry: he appointed a blue-ribbon group to study the problem.

His White House Jobs Summit was a "listening" session for ideas from 130 distinguished invitees: corporate and small-business owners, four big-city mayors, union leaders and academics. They were promised he would "immediately" push the best suggestions. One of the six recommendations was for instant pump-priming by hiring the jobless to fix infrastructure.[5] Obama ignored it, proving to House black leaders, progressives, national columnists and millions of unemployed that the Summit was a "publicity stunt" and his soaring, seemingly sincere words were hot air.[6]

     In other calamitous eras, Roman emperors warded off unemployment riots by conscripting youth and sending them to far-off, endless, foreign wars and by providing grain and bloody circuses, to keep the jobless diverted from life's unspeakable realities.[7] These leaders had no compunctions about dipping deep into the treasury to fund monumental public-works programs to save their thrones. Their senates might have grumbled, but most wanted to retain power and money - and their lives.[8]

     America now stands on the same brink Rome's emperors and senators did, but its president and political leaders are fiddling away the solution that could prevent the nation from plummeting over the edge. And they are doing so thanks to the same kind of financial cabal that counseled President Herbert Hoover that "prosperity was just around the corner" - right up to the Crash of 1929 and Hoover's 1932 defeat by Roosevelt.

     Worse for Obama's overly optimistic re-election plans are his rote, fatuous statements that only private industry and small businesses - given grants or a few tax incentives - can solve America's unemployment crisis. His theatrical earnestness has become as unbelievable as his June 13 declaration to workers at a North Carolina lightbulb factory, where he called joblessness the nation's "single most serious economic problem" - and then continued, with a straight face:

I won't be satisfied until working families feel like they're moving forward again, that they're progressing again. That's what drives me every day when I walk down to the Oval Office - you, your families, your jobs, your dreams and everything it takes to reach those dreams.

Reich called it "fluff:" "Doesn't the White House get it? The President has to have a bold jobs plan, with specifics ... a WPA ..."

     The president, however, could retort that he was trying. He'd set up yet another blue-ribbon group, the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. He said it had a board of "leaders who have decades of experience in running some of America's best businesses," plus union leaders and academics. None were from the ranks of the jobless or staff from unemployment offices.

     Interestingly, it's entirely possible that one of the sticking points in Obama's pallid July drawdown from Afghanistan of 5,000 troops - instead of the expected 100,000 -  has been concern that any reduction of the military anywhere will only add thousands to the unemployment lines. Too many people remember 1975, when unemployment was at 8.5 percent - almost 8 million people. Or 1983, when it was 9.7 percent, or over 10.7 million workers. Thousands of Vietnam veterans were in those lines, either because they couldn't find work or were emotionally unfit for the workplace.

     Today, thousands of civilians are in the same physical and emotional shape as those despondent Vietnam and Gulf War veterans - and entertaining deadly remedies (alcohol, drug addiction, suicide, violence) as they become the latest statistics from the Bureau of Labor.

     Nearly 14 million Americans are unemployed and 8.5 million are desperately clinging to part-time work. The worst hit, accounting for 822,00 people, are in their 40s and 50s. After fruitlessly pursuing any kind of job for over two years, they have given up on looking - and on any future.

Most can't spare dwindling savings for trade schools or college to change fields or upgrade skills and they know that even recent graduates can't find jobs. Those deciding to start a business have been unable to get small start-up loans because banks are either hoarding reserves or fearing inexperienced, first-time entrepreneurs may cost them collateral if they fail.

     Fortunately for Obama and law-enforcement legions, nobody has begun to organize the army of unemployed into overthrowing an unresponsive government, as was beginning to happen when Roosevelt became president in 1932. Nor have the unemployed turned ugly individually, perhaps because they're told to be perpetual optimists, or because of learned helplessness about "fighting the system."

     While unemployment was earning ho-hums from Obama and political leaders within and outside Congress, so was the nation's rapidly disintegrating infrastructure. It seemed the problem would continue to be ignored unless the very floors of the White House or the Capitol collapsed or the runways at Washington's airports cracked.

     The latest report from the nation's premier engineering experts, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), estimated that such Congressional disinterest has caused damaging consequences so extensive that $2.2 trillion will be required by 2014 just to meet current demands. That estimate was prior to the June tornado that tore up an estimated $75 million worth of roads, bridges and public structures in Joplin, Missouri[9] and the rampaging Mississippi and Missouri rivers wracking up $4 billion to $9 billion in repair work.[10] Communities affected by Katrina and the BP oil catastrophes still await billions for infrastructure work - and this year's hurricane season has just started.

     The ASCE gave the nation's infrastructure an overall grade of "D." Its report cited cracking levees, a quarter of the nation's existing bridges sagging, leaking pipes losing billions of gallons of drinking water per day, aging sewers releasing human waste into rivers and lakes, horrendous traffic congestion and air and water pollution. Paramount among the report's five major solutions was increasing federal leadership in infrastructure.

     Obama and most of Congress have ignored the report, even though ASCE furnishes much of the structural engineering expertise for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Worse, Congress is actually mulling a long-term, 31 percent cut to infrastructure appropriations. The terrible irony is that billions could be available to cover that $2.2 trillion for infrastructure without depending on the political whims of a president or Congress.

     For years, billions have been lavished on foreign economic aid - principally infrastructure - especially in this last decade. From 2001 to 2009, taxpayer monies have been spent on economic aid to 161 countries, including Uganda (over $2 billion); Somalia (over $7.3 million); and, incredibly, Russia (nearly $6.7 billion). Media coverage showcasing foreign road-and bridge-building projects and state-of-the-art schools and clinics has begun to outrage American audiences stuck with broken-down counterparts in their own backyards.

     Another federal big spender in those countries has been the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), whose chief function has always been to open foreign doors for American business - a mission that should, seemingly, be the job of those businesses or of the US Chamber of Commerce.[11]

Then, there's the mother lode of foreign-aid outlays delivered almost unquestioningly to Iraq and Afghanistan. By April, the wars/occupations alone had cost taxpayers over $806 billion and $444 billion, respectively, according to the Congressional Service Report. Unaccounted billions of that $1.3 trillion have been spent, allegedly, to win the hearts and minds of the locals for repair and replacement of infrastructure destroyed by American air and ground power. Nobody at the Pentagon or Department of State seemed to remember that the guilt-driven and expensive effort in Vietnam - the Strategic Hamlet Program - didn't win either objective. The thousands of Peace Corps projects, like those military goodwill deeds - from schools and clinics to water systems - require the locals have the time, money or interest to operate and maintain those public works. Most don't.

     What Roosevelt wouldn't have done for a fraction of such largesse for the WPA. To understand the current enthusiastic drum beating to resurrect the WPA requires a brief history of the program during the Great Depression. Roosevelt faced the same double dilemma Obama faces: vast unemployment and fractured infrastructure. But Obama is not facing Roosevelt's fear that agitators would organize the nearly 25 million unemployed to bring off a Russian-style revolution more destructive than the original. Like those practical Roman emperors, Roosevelt saw that a huge and vitally needed public-works program would be cheaper and more constructive than stamping out bloody riots around the country. Millions of workers would instantly boost local economies and, subsequently, provide welcome tax revenues to municipalities and states.

     And so, on May 6, 1935, Roosevelt faced down opponents in Congress, leaders of both parties, the rich and powerful and business and industry. He signed Executive Order 7034, immediately launching the WPA with a well-prepared team. His aides arm-twisted Congress into providing the initial $1.4 billion, hinting that it would stop the Socialists and Communists because millions would rush to join the WPA's minimum-wage jobs. Most governors were delighted because, for a token participation sum, they got to select projects that their states desperately needed, but could not afford.

Roosevelt was proved right about the economic boost to workers, towns and states. In the seven years of the WPA's existence - at a cost of $13.4 billion - almost every city and hamlet received some kind of project. It was to become the largest public-works program in history and it exemplified the greatest economic turnaround the world has ever known!