As I noted in my previous post, even before the winds died down in his home state, Oklahoma  Republican Sen. Tom Coburn insisted that additional disaster relief approved by Congress must be “paid for” by cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. Coburn even defended his insistence on further slashing the federal budget to pay for emergency aid by invoking the children pulled from the rubble of two schools in Moore, OK.

The truth is, the federal government currently has about $11.6 billion in disaster aid relief. So, Oklahoma will likely get the disaster relief it needs, without further cuts to offset federal spending on recovery and rebuilding. But if Coburn sincerely believes this kind of spending should be “paid for” with cuts elsewhere, he can start in his own state.

Here are a couple of ideas.

Oil Subsidies

Oil is a huge part of Oklahoma’s economy. In fact, the energy sector accounts for 9.5 percent of Oklahoma’s gross state product, and 4.6 percent of the state’s non-farm labor force. It’s also an important source of revenue that funds everything from education to transportation in Oklahoma.

However, by the time you factor in tax breaks the state gives to the industry, big oil pays almost no state taxes in Oklahoma. According to the Oklahoma Policy institute, that’s about $645 million in tax breaks and rebates.

The oil and gas industry is unquestionably vital to Oklahoma’s economy. The energy sector accounts for nearly 9.5 percent of Oklahoma’s gross state product and employs 4.6 percent of the state’s nonfarm labor force.1 Although the state economy has diversified to some extent since the oil bust of the 1980s, our economic prosperity remains closely tied to the fortunes of the energy industry.

Revenue from oil and gas production is also a vital component of the state’s tax system. It provides the funding to educate our children, protect our communities, maintain our transportation grid, and assist those in need. Oklahoma assesses a 7 percent gross production tax on oil and gas extraction, except when prices fall below a certain floor. However, several production methods, including horizontal drilling and deep-well drilling, benefit from tax rebates and credits that lower the tax rate to just 1 percent for horizontally-drilled wells and 4 percent for deep wells.

These tax breaks were enacted when these drilling techniques were new and relatively risky. Today they are standard industry practice with far fewer risks. As a result, oil and gas production has shifted increasingly towards horizontal and deep well drilling, and the cost of these tax breaks has skyrocketed.

The state paid out or accrued $645 million in tax rebates and credits to the industry over the latest 3-year period (FY 2010 – FY 2012). Most of the credits – $537 million – went to producers of horizontal wells. Without legislative action to change course, the cost of these credits will continue to grow exponentially in coming years, reducing the resources available to fund core public services.

Cost was cited as one reason why so few homes and schools in the areas it hardest by the tornado had no storm shelters or safe rooms. The mayor of Moore, OK said that a small, sunken shelter might coast about $4,000. So, Oklahoma has given the oil industry enough in tax breaks to but over 160,000 such shelters.

Farm Subsidies

In 2010, about 27,000 people collected $81 million in farm subsidies as direct payments. Most collected less than $1,000, but six farms received more than $100,000. It’s probably a safe bet that Oklahoma legislators who rail against spending — but collect millions of dollars from the federal government — got some of the biggest checks from the government.

Roughly two dozen state lawmakers – some who have railed against government spending – have collected federal farm subsidies in recent years, either directly or through payments to spouses, a Tulsa World investigation found.

Some legislators who received payments are among the largest subsidy recipients in their communities. Others are not primarily farmers, and instead work as doctors or attorneys.

At least three state legislators apparently violated Oklahoma law by failing to report the payments to the Ethics Commission, according to statements of financial interest.

The lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans, have received a combination of crop, disaster and conservation subsidies from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

… The USDA paid at least 22 Oklahoma lawmakers or their spouses a total of $3.8 million since the mid-1990s, the World found.

That $3.8 million is another 950 or so tornado shelters, by the way. And since Oklahoma farmers are willing to take some some federal cuts, why not take them up on it?

This is what we came up with after just a bit of research today. Digging deeper might turn up even more.

Republicans have. How much disaster aid could these cuts pay for? It’s a moot question where Republicans are concerned.  The GOP would rather coddle the rich and take food stamps away from 2 million Americans — or cancel subsidized school lunches for 200,000 low-income children, and cancel unemployment insurance for millions of Americans.

Republicans like Tom Coburn would rather tax the poor and cut away the safety net — ostensibly to address a deficit that has already shrunk considerably since the Bush era — than ask the 1 percent, and corporate “people” the oil industry, to pay their share of taxes, which would be more than enough to offset or “pay for” disaster relief and then some.

Republicans would have us believe that American can’t afford to offer relief to those victimized by disaster, and aid poor, feed the hungry, help the jobless, heal the sick, etc. Republicans want Americans to believe we have to choose between these things; that in order to do one we must do less of the other.

In a sense, Sen. Corburn does have point, there are some things we could benefit from cutting, right in Coburn’s state.

In the latest round of atrocities committed by conservatives, Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee sent to the House floor a farm bill on Wednesday that offers little food for families while dishing out corporate subsides. In protest, organizational leaders and activist met with elected officials on Capitol Hill to demonstrate opposition to cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps).

The proposed $21 billion in cuts to SNAP would cause nearly 2 million low-income Americans—among them people with disabilities, children, seniors and struggling parents— to lose an average of $90 per month. The bill also axes funding for nutrition education and eliminates program performance bonuses.

A new report, set to be released in the “Social Service Review” next month, reveals that in 2011 an estimated 1.65 million families lived on less than $2 a day per person; this figure includes 3.55 million children. How do these individuals survive in America on a Third-World income? The report finds they rely on the social safety nets that caught millions as they were falling because of the recession. This is also the same net that deficit hawks seek to whittle away at. As the wealthiest and most powerful nation, it is downright dirty that we let anyone go hungry and fail to provide for those in need.

Benefits already average less than $1.50 a day for each meal. You try living on that (I have, it’s called the Food Stamp Challenge). Although meager, SNAP is still our nation’s first line of defense against hunger. Rep. Barbara Lee, (D-Calif.) professed that when she was a single mother, food stamps “were a bridge over troubled water while I was struggling.”

Who will feel this funding void? “If divided evenly across Feeding America’s national network of food banks, every food bank would have to provide an additional 4 million meals each year for the next ten years, and that is just not possible,” said Bob Aiken, president and CEO of Feeding America. “There is no way that charity would be able to make up the difference. We are already stretched thin meeting sustained high need, and we simply do not have the resources to prevent hunger in all of the families who would be impacted by these cuts.”

At a time when 50 million individuals are hungry, 17 million being children, “we should be talking about how we improve and expand SNAP,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. His view is not only supported by research, such as that of a recent Institute of Medicine report that finds the program needs to be strengthened, but also by the majority of Americans. Seven in 10 voters say that cutting food stamp funding is the wrong way to approach deficit reduction. The Alan Simpson-Erskine Bowles deficit commission didn’t even recommend cutting SNAP to reduce the deficit. It is also important to note that just this week the CBO said the “deficit disaster” is now solved for the next 10 years.

Yet, Republicans continually ask our most vulnerable to pay while safeguarding corporations and bankers. “The pattern that is happening here is really diabolical.” said the passionate Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. Although she is a representative of the nation’s wealthiest state, one in seven children go to bed hungry in her district.

“If you think this is the right path, you don’t live in the same America I do!” said Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio.

Aside from the moral imperative, the SNAP program helps our economy and is fiscally responsible. In 2011, SNAP lifted nearly 4 million Americans out of poverty, including 1.7 million children and 280,000 seniors. Economist at Moody’s Analytics and the Department of Agriculture estimate that for every $1 spent on SNAP benefits, there is an economic return of $1.73 to $1.79. Inflicting more hunger on our nation worsens health, causing higher health cost that the taxpayer will have to pick up, and reduces our educational outcomes.

Feeding our nation while spurring our economy is a vision we all should be able to agree on. No one wants to live on welfare; people want jobs. Until our government can actually put in place policies that will produce jobs, the least we can do is make the wise investments in programs like SNAP, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to support the economic recovery and future success of financially struggling Americans.

Here comes a surprise. Who is the country’s biggest creator of low-wage jobs? Watch this video to see.

From Good Jobs Nation:

Our economy is shifting from good-paying middle-class jobs to low-wage jobs. Even as we finally get a monthly jobs report that shows the country creating enough jobs for all the people entering the workforce (but not enough to put the long-term unemployed back to work) we learn that far too many of these jobs are low-wage jobs in retail, food service, etc… and zero in manufacturing.

Our government should be the role model, providing good jobs with good pay and good benefits — including good public-employee pensions. If we shift to using contractors that pay low wages we are telling businesses that this is the way they should do business as well.

Report Explains How Privatization Hurts Working Class

Today Demos released a report that showed how “our tax dollars are funding low-wage work and fueling inequality.”

“We find that nearly two million private sector employees working on behalf of America earn wages too low to support a family, making $12 or less per hour,” or about $24,000 a year, the report said. The companies they work for – many of which “are providing their executives with exorbitant compensation” – are beneficiaries of the effort to privatize what have traditionally been public-sector jobs.

“Nationwide, a family of four trying to subsist on $24,000 a year hovers near the poverty level. Even a single worker with no dependents would find no room in a basic budget for health coverage, a retirement nest egg, or building emergency savings,” the report notes.

Authors Amy Traub and Robert Hiltonsmith conclude that President Obama could address this by issuing an executive order “requiring federal agencies to take all possible steps to raise workplace standards and ensure that companies comply with applicable labor and employment laws” and by identifying contracted jobs that can be done more efficiently and effectively by public sector employees.

The Senate campaign in Massachusetts will be close and hard fought.  Ed Markey, the winner of the Democratic primary, knows he has to run a bare-knuckled, knock down, full bore campaign to win.  So it is notable that one of the first appeals to his supporters is to enlist them in telling the president that they oppose his proposal to cut Social Security benefits through the so-called chained CPI.   Markey clearly realizes the president’s proposal is electoral poison — and wants to get ahead of any Republican effort to link him to the president on this issue.  Democrats across the Congress would do well  to take note.  Here’s the Markey letter

What does it mean to be an American? What does it mean to be an American corporation? An article in the Wall Street Journal the other day should trigger questions like these.

WSJ: Domestic-Based Multinationals Hiring Overseas,

Multinational companies based in the U.S. boosted their global work forces in 2011 almost entirely by hiring workers overseas, underscoring the slow growth in the U.S. job market.

… The paltry hiring at home reflects where multinational companies are focusing their attention. Stronger economic growth in overseas markets in Asia and Latin America is driving their expansion, reinforcing their shift toward cheaper labor or closer access to customers.

The U.S. parents of multinational firms account for about one-fifth of total private U.S. employment. Since 1999, employment by U.S. multinationals is down by 1.1 million inside the U.S., while it is up by 3.8 million overseas.

The hiring by American companies is not happening in the U.S. At the same time these companies are holding $1.7 trillion of profits outside of the country, away from their own shareholders and our economy to avoid their taxes, while pushing to dramatically lower the taxes they pay us – and even to get out of paying any taxes at all on money they make outside of the country!

Why Do We Have Corporations?

Why do We the People even have laws that allow corporations and give them special benefits? The answer obviously is for our common benefit — why else would we do it? The corporate form of a business enables the company to easily obtain capital from investors, in order to accomplish large-scale projects that benefit us. To encourage this we give these entities special privileges. For example, we limit liability which means the investors are not held liable for the actions of the company – they won’t lose more than their investment if the company gets sued for some reason. We provide a system that helps them obtain financing, insurance, market liquidity and all kinds of things to help those investors get a good return on their money.

Benefit: We the People want railroads, but it takes a lot of money to build and operate a railroad. And our system wants private companies to do the work of building and operating railroads instead us just doing it ourselves. So we set up a way for a private company to gather investment from lots of people.

Why Do We Want “American” Corporations?

Why don’t we just contract with any old corporation that comes along to get things done for us? Who cares what country these entities are from? Why should we as a country want to encourage and support our American corporations? Because American corporations make money for us. That is the whole point.

Other countries see themselves as countries, and compete with us as a country, for their benefit and the benefit of their people. As much as some of us might want a world in which we all cooperate and share and have “free trade” and other ideals and dreams, the fact is that other countries understand themselves as countries. Companies and industries located in other countries are operated to benefit their people. Their governments give them special benefits to help them compete with our companies. And then they are taxed so their country can have good schools and infrastructure and all the rest of the benefits of the modern world, for them.

And if we do not respond in kind, then their people end up better off at the expense of our people.

As long as other countries operate for the benefit of their people, it is our job to keep up our end of the bargain as it exists and operate as a country for the benefit of our people. This means that we support our companies, and expect them to bring the money they make back here, and share the returns with us.

We The People Used To Understand Who Is The Boss

We the People (used to) understand that these companies exist for our common benefit and (used to) expect certain things back from these corporations. We (used to) expect them to provide high-quality products and services and not engage in fraud and trickery. We (used to) expect them to provide a safe and fair work environment with good wages and benefits. We (used to) expect them to be good citizens that benefit the communities where they operate. And our laws and enforcement (used to) make sure they operated that way – for our common benefit.

These understandings and expectations have disappeared. An Apple executive articulated the new corporate understanding to The New York Times. He said giant multinationals like Apple “don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems.” And to prove it, American corporations are holding $1.7 trillion in profits outside the country – just sitting there – rather than bringing that money home, paying the taxes due and then paying it out to shareholders or using it to “create jobs” with new factories, research facilities and equipment.

We The People Have Forgotten

Citizens, elected officials and corporate management have forgotten why we have corporations and who they are supposed to serve. We have instead developed a system in which corporations exist for their own sake, doing anything they want to do, and doing these things only to enrich the few who own and manage them.

There is no longer an understanding and expectation that these entities – creations entirely of We, the People — are supposed to exist for the common good of We, the People. They no longer try to provide high-quality goods and services. They no longer feel they must avoid fraud and trickery – and without enforcement of rules are able to gain advantage over others that do not operate this way. They no longer provide a safe and fair work environment with good wages and benefits. They are not good citizens that benefit the communities and country where they operate.

They are no longer under the control of We the People.

Are American Multinationals Really American?

For all intents and purposes giant “American” multinational corporations have transformed into entities with completely different interests from their American workers, customers, communities, citizens and government. These corporations are no longer operating in the interest of America or any country, while claiming the benefits of being American corporations (when it suits them.)

For example, the giant American multinational corporations are now set up and structured to avoid paying taxes here, or to any country. They set countries against each other in their hunt for low-wage labor, subsidies and advantages in markets.

Some companies are even “American” when it suits them, and not “American” when it does not. The post, Unraveling The Romney/Bain Tax Story drew on a New York Times report, Offshore Tactics Helped Increase Romneys’ Wealth. From the post:

Why is part of the same company set up based in Delaware, and part in the Cayman Islands or Luxemburg or Bermuda? Because the functions of the American-based company are those functions that avoid taxes on foreign entities, and the functions of the Caymans-based part are the functions that would have to pay US taxes if it was in the US. But in reality it is the same company — except for tax purposes! Here is the explanation of the foreign-based parts, from the Times article:

Had those funds been set up in the United States, the Romneys and other American investors would probably have been subject to certain federal taxes for their ownership of “controlled foreign corporations.” Setting up the funds in the Caymans allowed them to avoid those taxes.

Here is an explanation of the American-based parts,

Another appeal of offshore funds is that they help private equity attract investment from deep-pocketed big institutions like pension funds and university endowments. While these are generally tax-exempt, they are liable for taxes on “unrelated business taxable income” if they put money in funds that use debt financing to make investments.

So why aren’t they all just foreign-based? Why do they need to have an American-based part? One reason is that making the loans that run up the debt that enables these companies to get the interest deductions (more tax avoidance) would incur income taxes if the loans came from a foreign entity,

Beyond their tax advantages, however, offshore funds controlled by American money managers can also create new tax problems. Those funds are limited in their ability to make loans without triggering corporate income taxes — an issue for Sankaty funds. Therefore, they usually have a parallel domestic fund that makes the loans, holds them for a period before selling a portion to the offshore fund, a practice known as “season and sell.”

And, of course, the American-based entities enable the low “carried interest” tax rate that hedge fund managers enjoy. The company paying Romney can’t be foreign-based,

So-called carried interest, the cut of a fund’s investment gains earned by its managers, enjoys a favorable tax treatment. But under I.R.S. rules, carried interest cannot be derived from a corporation, like the offshore blockers used by Sankaty.

The American-based entities can buy American companies without incurring “foreign-based” obligations. Then the foreign-based entities can avoid the taxes that the American-based buyers of companies would have to pay. And the foreign-based investors can be in the foreign-based parts of the company, avoiding US tax obligations. Also American entities like pension funds can avoid US taxes they would otherwise have to pay.

To put it another way, the same company can pretend it is US-based when that is what it needs to be, and foreign-based when that is what it needs to be.

What Can We Do?

First of all, we want and need corporations, for the reasons outlines above. For our common benefit, to accomplish large-scale projects, and as a result to bring shared prosperity to our citizens.

But we have to be the boss of them. We have to understand again that We the People set up this system of corporations for our common benefit. (Why else would we set up these things?) And we have to again call ourselves a country.

Can we align the interests of these giant corporations with our national, American interest? If we cannot, they should be stripped of their American corporate privileges and be required to do the same things as other entities that are not wedded to the national interest. And then We the People can build and support American companies that are.

—–

Follow me and CAF on Twitter:

The “rebranding” of the Republican party crashed headlong into reality again yesterday. The setting was Upper Senate Park on Capitol Hill.  The occasion was a FreedomWorks’ rally for the purpose of introducing what FreedomWorks is calling its “New Fair Deal.”

I was assigned to cover the rally, and what I there illustrated why the odds are against the GOP pulling off a desperately needed makeover. But I saw enough to show me that Democrats can’t afford to get comfortable, because there’s a chance Republicans could just about pull it off.

The turnout was far less than the  1,000 activists FreedWorks said would descend on Capitol Hill. By my estimate there were maybe a couple hundred people there by the time I arrived at the rally (just as the final  strains of “The Star Spangled Banner” were fading.)  I guess the offer of free bus rides wasn’t enough. (Or maybe tea partiers objected in principle to any “free ride”? I know, I know,.But it was worth a shot.)

I was intrigued that  FreedomWorks was sufficiently recovered from its recent troubles to attempt an event like this. I had the tiniest hope that I would hear something new from the conservative movement this time.

But what I got was “old wine in new skins.” The “New Fair Deal” that I guess is supposed to be the conservatives answer to the New Deal, is really the same old stale deal that the GOP has repeatedly failed to sell to voters.

The “New Fair Deal” has four very basic components.

• “Ending corporate handouts”
• “Simplifying” the tax code by closing loopholes
• “Balancing” the budget
• “Empowering” Americans by making Social Security and Medicare optional

Some of this stuff might have sounded good, if I hadn’t listened to the speakers flesh out the points above.

• “Ending corporate welfare” turned out to be about ending investment in green jobs, and alternative energy, and actually protecting or even increasing “corporate handouts” to the coal and oil industries (with enough references to Al Gore and Solyandra to keep the crowd interested.
• “Simplifying the tax code” turned out to be another version of an old favorite on the right: the flat tax. In this case, that means simplifying thing to the point where we have just two rates: 12 percent and 24 percent. Not much was said about corporation paying no taxes at all, but there was plenty about the number of Americans who don’t earn enough to pay federal income taxes. Guess which will be paying up under the “New Fair Deal.”
• “Balancing the budget” comes down to the usual cuts to everything that conservative hate. And that leads to the next and final point.
• “Empowering” Americans by making Social Security and Medicare optional, means making the kind of cuts to both programs that conservatives have longed to make for years. For Social Security, this probably means “private accounts” that are about as safe and reliable as your 401(k). For Medicare, it probably means vouchers.

The whole thing is packaged in about 10 bills.

What’s to get the party faithful fired up? The New Fair Deal consists of 10 bills, which will include:

Cuts to a wide array of subsidies, with alternative energy companies, sugar growers, and high-speed rail all to get the ax. A conservative alternative to Obamacare. A “flat tax” system. A private savings option for Social Security. Tax reform to broaden the tax base.

(There’s a rich irony in the name. President Truman offered the original Fair Deal in the late 1940s, a program that not only looks like a mid-20th century version of President Obama’s current agenda but is widely credited with launching the long-running liberal drive to universal health care, opposition to which inspired FreedomWorks and the tea party movement to begin with in the summer of 2009.)

Largely, the policies are mostly echoes of longstanding conservative rallying cries, although there are some new wrinkles such as a minimum 1 percent income tax (a nod to the 47 percent of Americans, made famous by Mitt Romney, who don’t pay federal income taxes) alongside two tax brackets around 10 percent and 25 percent.

What’s different is the language these tea party activists are using to describe it.

Republicans have the same problem that they’ve always had. The GOP is selling what nobody wants, except the party’s base.

It’s not just marriage equality, and it’s not just “generation X and Y” voters either. Republicans are out of step with the majority of Americans and the emerging American electorate on a wide range of issues.

• A majority of Americans want a path to citizenship in any immigration reform, but Republicans can’t quite embrace the idea.
• A majority of voters across all age brackets believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but the Republican party platform calls for the banning of all abortion.
• An overwhelming majority of Americans, 77 percent, want America to use more renewable energy; only one third agree with the Republican party’s denialist position on climate change.
• In poll after poll after poll, a majority of Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy to reduce deficits. Even a majority of the wealthy support raising taxes on themselves. Try getting Republicans to even consider closing a few tax loopholes.
• Likewise, a majority of Americans oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare — even among Republicans — but the GOP won’t even consider a deal that doesn’t cut both.
• Surveys show that the real mandate of the 2012 election was job creation, but Republicans have never met a jobs bill they didn’t kill. Meanwhile, the Republicans cheer the job-killing austerity of sequestration.

Lacking a truly new message, Republicans are savvy enough to find new messengers. I was surprised to see that the first two speakers at the rally were not only women, but an African American woman and a Latina — both of whom spoke with a diverse tableau of young people standing silently behind them.

That was the extent of the change, however. Not only was the diversity on stage the not reflected in the audience, but the decidedly economic focus of the messages from the stage were offset by the signs, t-shirts, and audience responses that were equally concerned with social issues.

From what I saw, the GOP is walking the same old walk,  and talking only slightly updated talk.

The voters in the diverse coalition that rewarded president Obama with reelection, and Democrats with gains in the the Senate and the House, did not vote as they did because of “bribes” or “gifts.” They made judgements based on how government had helped them, and thus would help others, because they believed that’s what government should be about “addressing the needs and desires of people.”

If Republicans think that these groups were merely put off by your “tone,” you guys are fooling yourselves even more than you want to fool voters. Your “tone” in this election only confirmed what women, youth, and minority voters suspected all along. Without a record of even attempting to address their concerns through policies that jibe with your principles, these voters will see right through you.

Your walk won’t match your talk, and it will show. Voters will know that you’re still not that into them, and they won’t be remotely into you.

The “New Fair Deal” is the same old, stale deal from the same old GOP. Can’t say I’m surprised.

I can’t say I’m comforted either. If Democrats keep trashing their own brand, and their “New Deal” legacy as well, they could give the GOP just enough room to pull this off.

Take a look at the 2013 Edition of the website called Executive PayWatch from the AFL-CIO. This site, active since 1997, helps drive awareness of the huge wage gap between CEO pay and the average employee. Compare your pay to the pay of top executives. Heck, you might even make more than they do! (Hint: you don’t.)

According to the AFL-CIO, “since 1982, the CEO versus worker pay gap has jumped from 42 times more than the average rank-and-file worker to 2012’s record 354 times greater. In real dollars, a CEO of a Standard and Poor’s 500 Index company averaged $12.3 million a year in total compensation, while the average rank-and-file worker earned $36,654.”

The new 2013 edition of Executive PayWatch:

…unveils several new features this year, including:

• The retirement multimillion-dollar nest eggs of the leading Business Roundtable CEOs—the same group that wants to cut Social Security benefits;
• The records of 40 of the largest mutual funds and their votes on CEO pay proposals for the companies in which they invest;
• The CEO to worker pay gap around the world; and
• Trends in CEO pay.

As in past years, visitors to PayWatch can compare their pay and benefit package to that of a CEO, search the CEO pay database and take action to rein-in CEO pay.

Executive PayWatch also looks at:

• CEO Pay and You
• Trends in CEO Pay
• CEO-to-Worker Pay Gap in the U.S.
• Pay Ratios Around the World
• CEO Pay Data Sources
• Business Roundtable’s Nest Eggs
• Fix the Debt CEOs’ Offshore Profits
• Mutual Funds & CEO Pay

Infographic

Also, take a look at the great infographic at Executive PayWatch.

Some Sample Tweets

1 CEO makes 354x what the average worker makes. How does your pay stack up to #CEOpay? www.paywatch.org #p2

The gap between U.S. #CEOpay and worker pay is by far the widest in the world. Learn more: www.paywatch.org #p2

Hey CEOs: Want to ‘@FixTheDebt’? Pay your taxes. www.paywatch.org #CEOpay is out of control #p2

In 1980 CEOs made 42x the avg. blue collar worker. In 2012 CEOs made 354x the avg. worker: www.paywatch.org #CEOPay

—–

Follow me and CAF on Twitter:

If you were stuck on the Washington beltway during the evening rush hour yesterday, you might have suspected that the Washington Metro area’s crumbling beltway had already begun to collapse. Fortunately, yesterday’s gridlock wasn’t the result of a beltway collapse or another busted water main. (It was an ordinary accident.) But without more investment in transportation infrastructure, the day may come when the roads we rely on crumble under our wheels.

While there are many things wrong with the president’s budget, investment in transportation infrastructure is one thing Obama’s budget comes close to getting right.

Back in late March, the Washington Post reported that the Capital Beltway is crumbling. At over 50-years-old the Capital Beltway may be suffering from potholes, crumbling pavement and an eroding underbed, but it won’t be allowed to collapse. Too many “Very Important People” rely on it. But it’s representative of the condition of countless roads and highways Americans rely on.

Now, 210 million U.S. drivers, and the commerce on which they rely, are riding on baby-boom-generation roadways, which like the boomers themselves are no longer so steady and sound.

As reality sinks in, states have moved to raise taxes to fix their roads before it’s too late.

… “There’s too much money spent on just patching, on the quick fix, rather than the long term, and eventually it’s going to catch up on us,” said Edward G. Rendell, former Philadelphia mayor and Pennsylvania governor who now heads an infrastructure advocacy group.

It’s catching up now.

Nearly a third of the nation’s major roads need significant repair or replacement, with a far higher percentage in the busiest urban areas. In Washington and its suburbs, it soars to 62 percent.

Forty-two percent of urban roadways suffer from congestion, costing an estimated $101 billion in wasted time and gasoline each year, according to a study released earlier this month by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Like many of the warnings about the need for investment of trillions of dollars to salvage America’s aging infrastructure system, the bottom-line number is so huge that it is difficult for most people to digest.

The president’s budget goes some way towards repairing our transportation infrastructure, with a 50.2 percent increase in the Transportation budget, which includes $50 billion in spending to pay for fixing the nation’s roads, bridges, transit systems, etc. Most of that, $40 billion, would go to the “Fix-It-First” investments Obama touted in his State of the Union address, which would not only put people to work but ensure that urgent repairs to are made roads and nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges.

This is pretty much what the president has proposed before, only to have Congress reject it. And while the president’s 2014 budget promises to offset investment in fixing our roads, bridges, etc., with savings elsewhere in the budget, the administration is already being accused of “punting” and “vagueness” on the question of paying for investment in transportation infrastructure. Never mind that the

That’s probably because nobody wants to utter the “T word”: taxes. Republicans in Congress will almost certainly resist any kind of tax increase to pay for kind of infrastructure investment necessary to keep America rolling, and insist on drastic cuts in some other vital area. The Obama administration itself has nixed paying for transportation infrastructure by increasing the gas tax or enacting a vehicle miles traveled tax.

But we’re already paying. We’re already being taxed to pay for repairing our roads. As the Post article notes, states governments are already increasing taxes to fix their roads before a catastrophic collapse occurs. Maryland (which contains most of the Capital Beltway) and Virginia just passed tax increases to pay for repairs to deteriorating roadways.

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), we also pay about $101 billion in time and gasoline spent on crumbling, congested roadways. We’re also paying about $67 billion per year, or $324 per motorist, on repairing wear and tear caused by rough roads. (Washington drivers pay about $578 per year.) That’s not counting the $8 billion in addition costs to freight transportation to get good to market, which we pay for at the cash register.

Not that the president’s budget would solve all of these problems. While it goes further than anything that’s come out of Congress, the president’s budget falls short of the $79 billion annual increase in investment the ASCE says is needed to just to maintain our roads and highways in their current condition. Still, it may be enough to keep America on the road a little while longer.

The corporate/conservative effort to gut the country’s labor-law enforcement continues at full steam. Senate Republicans are blocking NLRB Board confirmations. Republican judges blocked the the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from operating until the Senate confirms Board members. Today House Republicans are moving on a bill to just shut the NLRB down.

People vs Concentrated Power

Unions mean higher wages, benefits and safer working conditions for working people. This means “labor” — i.e. you (unless you own a big company) — gets a share of the benefits of our economy. This is because unions partially (only partially) balance the power difference between individuals and giant corporations.

One person against great wealth and power rarely stands a chance. That is why We, the People formed our government of, by and for the People. We, the People acting together (collectively) can used to be able to fight back against the concentrated power of great wealth.

Similarly, when individual people come up against the concentrated power of the giant corporations alone, they are at their mercy. One person saying, “Please, Sir, can I have a raise?” doesn’t cut it. But dozens or hundreds or thousands of people acting together is collective power, which balances the equation to some degree. (Except when “trade” deals enable the giant companies to ship jobs our of the country, pitting low-wage, exploited workers against American workers, and say, “Shut up or we’ll move your job out of the country, too.”)

The right to form a union, bargain collectively and engage in legitimate union activities without fear of retaliation or intimidation is the law of the land, and Wall Street and the large corporations don’t like it one bit. Not one bit at all.

NLRB And The Law

Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) in 1935. It’s the law.

Take a look at Section 1 of the NLRA. In summary, it states that it is the position the position of We the People, (a.k.a. government,) that lack of bargaining power by workers against corporations leads to Depressions (we call them recessions now) — the result of depressed purchasing power. And it leads to strikes, which disrupt commerce. Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to encourage collective bargaining.

According to NLRB :

The NLRA protects the rights of employees to:

Form or join a union

Bargain collectively for a contract that sets wages, benefits, hours, and other working conditions

Discuss wages, working conditions or union organizing with co-workers or a union

Act with co-workers to improve working conditions by raising complaints with an employer or a government agency

Strike and picket their employer, depending on the purpose or means of the action

Choose not to join a union or engage in union activities

Organize coworkers to decertify a union
If employees choose a union as their bargaining representative, the union and employer must bargain in good faith in a genuine effort to reach a binding agreement setting out terms and conditions of employment. The union is required to fairly represent employees in bargaining and enforcing the agreement.

Employers may not:

Prohibit employees from discussing a union during non-work time, or from distributing union literature during non-work time in non-work areas, such as parking lots or break rooms

Question employees about their union support or activities in a manner that discourages them from engaging in that activity

Fire, demote, transfer, reduce hours or take other adverse action against employees who join or support a union or act with co-workers for mutual aid and protection, or who refuse to engage in such activity

Threaten to close their workplace if employees form or join a union

Promise or grant promotions, pay raises, or other benefits to discourage or encourage union support

Prohibit employees from wearing union hats, buttons, t-shirts, and pins in the workplace except under special circumstances

Spy on or videotape peaceful union activities and gatherings

Union Power Decline Means Wage Decline

Fighting labor-law enforcement so the big companies can act with impunity (and fighting for other restrictions on unions like “right-to-work” laws in the states) is about one thing and one thing only: driving down the wages and benefits that working people receive.

Trade agreements and weakening of labor laws has resulted in weakened unions. The result of weakened unions is explained in the post 40% Of Americans Now Make Less Than 1968 Minimum Wage,

The chart shows that wages used to go up as productivity went up, but in the 1970s they decoupled. Productivity kept going up but wages stagnated.

That is what happened when trade agreements broke the ability of unions to ask for a fair share of the proceeds. Businesses started moving jobs out of the country to low-wage, “business-friendly” non-democracies, and said to people who wanted raises “shut up or we’ll move your job out of the country, too.” This “decoupled” productivity increases from potential wage increases.

So the benefits of our economy started going to just a few people, instead of being spread around. The post, Is This Where The (Middle-Class) Money Went? tells that story:

Now, here’s another chart. This chart shows that financial-sector and non-financial-sector compensation used to rise together, but in the late 70′s / early 80′s they decoupled. Financial-sector compensation took off, while non-financial-sector compensation did not.

Recent Timeline

January, 2010, Republicans continue to prevent NLRB nominees from confirmation. NY Times, Labor Panel Is Stalled by Dispute on Nominee,

For two years, the board, which polices the labor laws governing unionized workers and unionization drives, has limped along with just two members, rather than its full complement of five, leaving many cases unresolved because of a 1-to-1 deadlock.

January, 2010, Republican Supreme Court says NLRB can’t rule without 3 Board members. Think Progress: Labor Board Hobbled By Senate Obstruction Has Hundreds Of Cases Invalidated By Supreme Court,

Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court invalidated more than 500 cases decided by the National Labor Relations Board. For more than two years, the five person board only had two sitting members, due to Congressional obstruction of its nominees, and the Court decided that the two-person board did not have legal authority to issue rulings.

February, 2010, Senate Republicans block NLRB nominees: U.S. Senate Filibuster Blocks Becker Nomination to NLRB.

January, 2012, Obama (finally) makes recess appointments to get NLRB functioning, Obama’s Recess Appointments: It’s Called Governing,

Republicans have been blocking confirmation of the President’s nominees to government agencies, the courts, even keeping ambassadors from being confirmed. They are not objecting to the nominees themselves, they are trying to keep the government from operating as it is supposed to. Klein calls all of this this “loophole-driven minority obstruction.” People are calling this “nullification.” “Nullification” was the pre-Civil War “states rights” practice of Southern states simply ignoring federal laws. The Republicans are again engaging in nullification, on behalf of the 1%.

In particular, Republicans were blocking nominations to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in order to prevent these agencies from doing their job enforcing laws protecting people from scams and exploitation in exchange for a cut of the take from the scams and exploitation.

January, 2013, Republican judges rule that recess appointments are unconstitutional,

President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board violated the Constitution, a federal court of appeals ruled today, also raising questions about Obama’s pick for head of the Consumer Financial Protection Board.

The court called the appointment of three members to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 “an unconstitutional act,” because it took place when the Senate was in an “intrasession” recess, rather than an “intersession” recess.

Now:

Politico: Obama tries to fill out NLRB,

President Obama named three nominees to the National Labor Relations Board on Tuesday in an effort to fill out the five-member, bipartisan board that has become the center of a dispute over recess appointments.

… “With these nominations there will be five nominees to the NLRB, both Republicans and Democrats, awaiting Senate confirmation,” Obama said in a statement. “I urge the Senate to confirm them swiftly so that this bipartisan board can continue its important work on behalf of the American people.”

Reuters, House committee debates bill to pause NLRB,

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives is considering a bill that would stop the board from taking official action until either the Supreme Court rules on the D.C. Circuit’s decision or the Senate confirms a quorum of the NLRB.

WaPo, Obama nominates new NLRB members as House threatens to halt board actions,

The status of the board has been in limbo since a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in January that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority by appointing three of its members while lawmakers were on break in January 2012, thus bypassing the usual Senate confirmation process.

The House is expected to vote on legislation this week that would prohibit the board from issuing decisions until the fate of Obama’s so-called recess appointments is known.

So this battle continues. Republicans, working for the giant corporations, are trying to nullify US labor law in order to keep our wages and benefits down. They are filibustering nominees to the NLRB and their “judges” are acting in unison to keep the NLRB from operating. We are all living the results. Our economy is living the results. Will we let them succeed?
–

Follow me and CAF on Twitter:

It looks like President Obama is still open to negotiations with Republican economic terrorists.  Details of the president’s budget, set to be released April 10th, show that he will offer significant spending cuts to so-called “entitlement programs”- like Social Security and Medicare – in hopes of attaining a “grand” budget bargain with Congressional Republicans.

The plan replaces the sequester with other spending cuts, and increases revenues by $580 billion.  In a move that is sure to infuriate progressives and many Democrats, the president will propose lowering cost-of-living increases to Social Security benefits.  This is insane.  Instead of asking the wealthiest in our country to pay the same percentage of their income towards our social safety net, the President thinks that the elderly, disabled, and veterans should bear the burden of Republican austerity.

Our nation has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, and economic terrorists shouldn’t be the exception.  We must stand together to preserve our social programs.  Tell Congress and the President that we won’t stand for balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.  Sign the petition at no-cuts.com.

Originally posted at Thom Hartmann.