Powered By Blogger

Monday, August 15, 2011

Not "Just Any Democrat", Progressive Democrat!!

What's the Real Lesson of Wisconsin for Progressives?

by: Amy Dean, Truthout | News Analysis
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

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.

Sunday, August 14, 2011

A Thought Provoking Challenge

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

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.
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.

Saturday, August 13, 2011



ThinkProgress Logo


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


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.

Friday, August 12, 2011

Republican Superstars


ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

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]
     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!