I get a right chuckle whenever I hear someone say Obama is a socialist. He's barely a democrat, more conservative than Saint Ronny ever was, and the real truth about this election? Obama and Romney are the same. They play up their supposed differences in these "debates" but when it comes down to policy and which group they'll fuck the hardest, it will always be the group that has historically been fucked the hardest: the poor. Both parties do the bidding of their corporate masters, neither is progressive, it's all about the great big sellout. You'll be ok as long as you remain silent...or until you have something or do something that calls their attention to you. Regardless, you don't get a say in your future. You are a statistical subroutine.
Showing posts with label coverage cuts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coverage cuts. Show all posts
Friday, October 26, 2012
Obama Uncensored: Rightwing Centrist Tax Cut Plan?
I get a right chuckle whenever I hear someone say Obama is a socialist. He's barely a democrat, more conservative than Saint Ronny ever was, and the real truth about this election? Obama and Romney are the same. They play up their supposed differences in these "debates" but when it comes down to policy and which group they'll fuck the hardest, it will always be the group that has historically been fucked the hardest: the poor. Both parties do the bidding of their corporate masters, neither is progressive, it's all about the great big sellout. You'll be ok as long as you remain silent...or until you have something or do something that calls their attention to you. Regardless, you don't get a say in your future. You are a statistical subroutine.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
The Plan to Gut Social Security
Behind Obama’s Fake Recovery
Last week’s dismal “data dump” has ended all talk of a strong
recovery in the US. Retail sales, factory output, jobless claims,
consumer confidence, business investment and existing home sales are all
down sharply indicating that the US economy is decelerating and may be
headed for recession.
The Obama administration was warned repeatedly that activity would slow when the $800 billion fiscal stimulus (ARRA) ran out and net government spending became a drag on growth.
But Obama’s chief economics advisor, Lawrence Summers, shrugged off these warnings in order to keep the economy sputtering along at half-speed. Summers figured that bigger deficits and slower growth would create the rationale for slashing entitlement spending and crushing organised labor (particularly, public unions) In other words, the economy is weak, because the policy was designed to make it weak. Mission accomplished.
Not everyone in the Obama administration played along with this scam. Economist Christina Romer, for example, wanted the stimulus to be $1 trillion more than was eventually approved by Summers. That’s what she figured it would take to kick-start the growth engine and put tens of millions of unemployed Americans back to work. Here’s the story from Huffington Post’s Sam Stein:
Summers had a different agenda altogether. What he wanted was exactly what he got, a slow, underperforming economy with high unemployment and huge deficits. Does anyone really think that an economist with Summers’ impressive education and experience could be $1 trillion off in his calculations? (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was eventually whittled down to $787 billion) It’s ridiculous. Summers wanted a flagging economy so he could torpedo Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These were the targets from the very beginning.
As for Obama, well, he probably figured that the $800 billion fiscal package would be enough to carry him over the finish-line in the 2012 elections, but not so big that it would subvert the goals of his chief economics advisor who was beholden to Wall Street and big business. In truth, Obama wanted the same thing as Summers, a justification for attacking the meager programs that keep the elderly and vulnerable from destitution.
Neither Summers nor Obama anticipated the downturn in China or the severity of the crisis in Europe both of which have weighed heavily on growth in the US and around the world. Here’s how Nouriel Roubini summed it up in a recent article on Project Syndicate:
On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal announced that the “Fed Moves Closer to Action”. The news ignited a short rally, but soon faded. Confidence in the Fed is at its nadir. Another round of bond buying (QE3) might give equities a temporary jolt, but no one believes it will change the overall direction of the market or lead to an economic rebound. Interest rates are already at historic lows, so stuffing the banks with more reserves will neither increase lending or reduce unemployment. It is an exercise in futility. The Fed is at the limits of its effectiveness.
The current slowdown could have been avoided or at least mitigated had the Obama team followed Romer’s recommendation and provided the fiscal stimulus that was needed.
Now–due to political gridlock in congress–a second round of stimulus is out of the question which means the economy will continue its downward trend.
So, what should Obama do?
For starters, he should take a page out of FDR’s Depression handbook and hire more public workers. Here’s a clip from an article by economist Marshall Auerback who details some of the programs that Roosevelt implemented:
Skip all the red-tape connected to infrastructure and gov job’s programs and just rehire the people who got their pink slip after the crash. The money spent on jobs would more than pay for itself by raising state revenues and boosting economic activity by many orders of magnitude.
Have you seen a graph of how many (state and local) jobs have been lost under Obama? It’s shocking! Take a look:
We need to get these people back to work so they can feed their families and pay the bills. If we can afford $11 trillion to bail out crooked bankers, we can certainly afford a measly $300 mil for hard-working middle class families. It’s just a matter of priorities.
Economist Dean Baker has posted an article on his blog that supports my general thesis that Obama is planning to cut Social Security etc following the election. Here’s an excerpt from the post:
The Obama administration was warned repeatedly that activity would slow when the $800 billion fiscal stimulus (ARRA) ran out and net government spending became a drag on growth.
But Obama’s chief economics advisor, Lawrence Summers, shrugged off these warnings in order to keep the economy sputtering along at half-speed. Summers figured that bigger deficits and slower growth would create the rationale for slashing entitlement spending and crushing organised labor (particularly, public unions) In other words, the economy is weak, because the policy was designed to make it weak. Mission accomplished.
Not everyone in the Obama administration played along with this scam. Economist Christina Romer, for example, wanted the stimulus to be $1 trillion more than was eventually approved by Summers. That’s what she figured it would take to kick-start the growth engine and put tens of millions of unemployed Americans back to work. Here’s the story from Huffington Post’s Sam Stein:
“…members of the president’s economic team felt that if they were to properly fill the hole caused by the recession, they would need a bill that priced at $1.8 trillion — $600 billion more than was previously believed to be the high-water mark for the White House.
The $1.8 trillion figure was included in a December 2008 memo authored by Christina Romer (the incoming head of the Council of Economic Advisers) and obtained by Scheiber in the course of researching his book.
“When Romer showed [Larry] Summers her $1.8 trillion figure late in the week before the memo was due, he dismissed it as impractical. So Romer spent the next few days coming up with a reasonable compromise: roughly $1.2 trillion,” Scheiber writes.”The idea that Summers rejected Romer’s plan as “impractical” is pure public relations.
Summers had a different agenda altogether. What he wanted was exactly what he got, a slow, underperforming economy with high unemployment and huge deficits. Does anyone really think that an economist with Summers’ impressive education and experience could be $1 trillion off in his calculations? (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was eventually whittled down to $787 billion) It’s ridiculous. Summers wanted a flagging economy so he could torpedo Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These were the targets from the very beginning.
As for Obama, well, he probably figured that the $800 billion fiscal package would be enough to carry him over the finish-line in the 2012 elections, but not so big that it would subvert the goals of his chief economics advisor who was beholden to Wall Street and big business. In truth, Obama wanted the same thing as Summers, a justification for attacking the meager programs that keep the elderly and vulnerable from destitution.
Neither Summers nor Obama anticipated the downturn in China or the severity of the crisis in Europe both of which have weighed heavily on growth in the US and around the world. Here’s how Nouriel Roubini summed it up in a recent article on Project Syndicate:
“…the first-half growth rate looks set to come in closer to 1.5% at best, even below 2011’s dismal 1.7%. And now, after getting the first half of 2012 wrong, many are repeating the fairy tale that a combination of lower oil prices, rising auto sales, recovering house prices, and a resurgence of US manufacturing will boost growth in the second half of the year and fuel above-potential growth by 2013.
The reality is the opposite: for several reasons, growth will slow further in the second half of 2012 and be even lower in 2013 – close to stall speed.”Global growth is pretty much deteriorating everywhere; China, India, Japan, Brazil, emerging markets. The eurozone is particularly concerning as ongoing bank runs in the south accelerate increasing the likelihood of a full-blown banking system collapse. The uncertainty is reflected in 10-year US Treasuries which have seen yields drop to record-lows in the last week. The flight to safety has intensified as frightened investors try to get their money out of Europe to avoid the deepening crisis and possible breakup of the 17-member monetary union.
On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal announced that the “Fed Moves Closer to Action”. The news ignited a short rally, but soon faded. Confidence in the Fed is at its nadir. Another round of bond buying (QE3) might give equities a temporary jolt, but no one believes it will change the overall direction of the market or lead to an economic rebound. Interest rates are already at historic lows, so stuffing the banks with more reserves will neither increase lending or reduce unemployment. It is an exercise in futility. The Fed is at the limits of its effectiveness.
The current slowdown could have been avoided or at least mitigated had the Obama team followed Romer’s recommendation and provided the fiscal stimulus that was needed.
Now–due to political gridlock in congress–a second round of stimulus is out of the question which means the economy will continue its downward trend.
So, what should Obama do?
For starters, he should take a page out of FDR’s Depression handbook and hire more public workers. Here’s a clip from an article by economist Marshall Auerback who details some of the programs that Roosevelt implemented:
“[Roosevelt’s] government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York’s Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown. It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country’s entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.”Or Obama could allocate $300 billion per year to rehire the 650,000 teachers and other state and local workers who’ve been laid off since the crash. That would be the easiest thing to do.
Skip all the red-tape connected to infrastructure and gov job’s programs and just rehire the people who got their pink slip after the crash. The money spent on jobs would more than pay for itself by raising state revenues and boosting economic activity by many orders of magnitude.
Have you seen a graph of how many (state and local) jobs have been lost under Obama? It’s shocking! Take a look:
We need to get these people back to work so they can feed their families and pay the bills. If we can afford $11 trillion to bail out crooked bankers, we can certainly afford a measly $300 mil for hard-working middle class families. It’s just a matter of priorities.
Economist Dean Baker has posted an article on his blog that supports my general thesis that Obama is planning to cut Social Security etc following the election. Here’s an excerpt from the post:
“The plan is that we will get the rich folks’ deal regardless of who wins the election….The deal that this gang … is hatching will inevitably include some amount of tax increases and also large budget cuts. At the top of the list… are cuts to Social Security and Medicare. ….
Social Security amounts to 90 percent or more of the income for one-third of seniors. For this group, the proposed cut in benefits would be a considerably larger share of their income that the higher taxes faced by someone earning $300,000 a year as a result of the repeal of the Bush tax cuts on high income earners…
(“The One Percent Want Your Social Security and Medicare and Steven Pearlstein Is Trying to Help”, Dean Baker, CEPR)There it is in black and white. Obama is just as committed to gutting Social Security as Romney. The only difference is that he’s a better pitchman. Much better.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Medicare and the Usual Suspects
Hatchet Jobs By the Washington Policy Gang
By DEAN BAKER
The film Casablanca features one of the greatest moments in movie history. With Humphrey Bogart standing with a smoking pistol over the body of the dead Gestapo major, Claude Rains, in the role of the French colonel tells his troops: "the major has been shot, round up the usual suspects."
Unfortunately the Washington policy gang is busy following Claude Rains' instructions. The nation is drowning in endless accounts of how the huge deficit will sink the economy and the country. These accounts invariably feature stories of a Congress addicted to spending and a nation that wants government benefits that it doesn't want to pay for.
This story has nothing to do with reality as all budget analysts know. The explosion of the budget deficit in the last three years is a response to the plunge in private sector demand following the collapse of the housing bubble. If the budget deficit were smaller, we would simply have less demand and fewer jobs.
Paul Ryan did his best to lay out the long-term story as clearly as possible with his plan to privatize Medicare. The analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that Ryan's plan would hugely increase the cost of health care to seniors. Under the Ryan plan a Medicare equivalent policy is projected to cost almost half of a median 65-year old retiree's income by 2030. It would soon exceed the income of most retirees as health care costs outpace income growth.
However most of the additional burden projected for retirees is not the result of cost shifting from the government. The vast majority of the additional burden that the CBO projected for retirees comes from the higher cost of private insurance compared with the government-run Medicare system. The additional cost as a result of adopting Ryan's privatized system is more than $30 trillion over Medicare's 75-year planning horizon.
To put this in perspective, CBO's projected increase in the cost of buying Medicare equivalent insurance policies through the private sector is roughly six times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall. The projected shortfall in Social Security has sent thousands of politicians screaming about devastating burden on our children. How would we describe something that is six times as large as this devastating burden, a sum that is just under $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country?
The CBO analysis should have led every budget reporter in the country to point out the enormous cost savings that Medicare provides relative to private insurers. They should have been pointing out that the country will face an enormous burden from exploding health care costs if it does not fix its health care system. And, that the Medicare system is an important part of the solution.
However it seems that no budget reporters – not a single reporter at the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or any other major news outlet – picked up on this central point in the analysis from the CBO. Instead they talked about the plan as a question of whether people preferred a government guarantee or would rather have individuals rely on themselves and the market to obtain health care in their old age. The $30 trillion price tag in the form of added waste was altogether missing in the reporting.
Perhaps this should not be surprising. After all, reporters at major news outlets are better known for what they miss than what they catch. The vast majority of them bought President Bush's nonsense about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the Iraq War. While the Bush administration's accounts were presented with due solemnity, the voice of skeptics was rarely heard.
Similarly, there was almost no reporting on the $8 trillion housing bubble, the collapse of which has given us the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Instead we were given the assurance from Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and the rest that everything was OK. Instead the news outlets told us to worry about the budget deficit – back when it was just 1.0 percent of GDP.
Incredible as it may seem, the national press corps is almost completely ignoring a report from the government's main source of budget projections. Rather than telling people that the Ryan plan to privatize Medicare means transferring tens of trillions of dollars from taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries to private insurers and the health care industry, they spread drivel about the issue being a matter of whether people like the government or the market.
This fits the usual suspects story. The choices are between those who prefer the government and those who prefer the market. But as every viewer of Casablanca knows, the real choice is between those who want to redistribute tens of trillions of dollars to insurance and health care industry and those who don't. Preferences for the government or the market have nothing to do with it.
By DEAN BAKER
The film Casablanca features one of the greatest moments in movie history. With Humphrey Bogart standing with a smoking pistol over the body of the dead Gestapo major, Claude Rains, in the role of the French colonel tells his troops: "the major has been shot, round up the usual suspects."
Unfortunately the Washington policy gang is busy following Claude Rains' instructions. The nation is drowning in endless accounts of how the huge deficit will sink the economy and the country. These accounts invariably feature stories of a Congress addicted to spending and a nation that wants government benefits that it doesn't want to pay for.
This story has nothing to do with reality as all budget analysts know. The explosion of the budget deficit in the last three years is a response to the plunge in private sector demand following the collapse of the housing bubble. If the budget deficit were smaller, we would simply have less demand and fewer jobs.
Paul Ryan did his best to lay out the long-term story as clearly as possible with his plan to privatize Medicare. The analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that Ryan's plan would hugely increase the cost of health care to seniors. Under the Ryan plan a Medicare equivalent policy is projected to cost almost half of a median 65-year old retiree's income by 2030. It would soon exceed the income of most retirees as health care costs outpace income growth.
However most of the additional burden projected for retirees is not the result of cost shifting from the government. The vast majority of the additional burden that the CBO projected for retirees comes from the higher cost of private insurance compared with the government-run Medicare system. The additional cost as a result of adopting Ryan's privatized system is more than $30 trillion over Medicare's 75-year planning horizon.
To put this in perspective, CBO's projected increase in the cost of buying Medicare equivalent insurance policies through the private sector is roughly six times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall. The projected shortfall in Social Security has sent thousands of politicians screaming about devastating burden on our children. How would we describe something that is six times as large as this devastating burden, a sum that is just under $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country?
The CBO analysis should have led every budget reporter in the country to point out the enormous cost savings that Medicare provides relative to private insurers. They should have been pointing out that the country will face an enormous burden from exploding health care costs if it does not fix its health care system. And, that the Medicare system is an important part of the solution.
However it seems that no budget reporters – not a single reporter at the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or any other major news outlet – picked up on this central point in the analysis from the CBO. Instead they talked about the plan as a question of whether people preferred a government guarantee or would rather have individuals rely on themselves and the market to obtain health care in their old age. The $30 trillion price tag in the form of added waste was altogether missing in the reporting.
Perhaps this should not be surprising. After all, reporters at major news outlets are better known for what they miss than what they catch. The vast majority of them bought President Bush's nonsense about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the Iraq War. While the Bush administration's accounts were presented with due solemnity, the voice of skeptics was rarely heard.
Similarly, there was almost no reporting on the $8 trillion housing bubble, the collapse of which has given us the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Instead we were given the assurance from Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and the rest that everything was OK. Instead the news outlets told us to worry about the budget deficit – back when it was just 1.0 percent of GDP.
Incredible as it may seem, the national press corps is almost completely ignoring a report from the government's main source of budget projections. Rather than telling people that the Ryan plan to privatize Medicare means transferring tens of trillions of dollars from taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries to private insurers and the health care industry, they spread drivel about the issue being a matter of whether people like the government or the market.
This fits the usual suspects story. The choices are between those who prefer the government and those who prefer the market. But as every viewer of Casablanca knows, the real choice is between those who want to redistribute tens of trillions of dollars to insurance and health care industry and those who don't. Preferences for the government or the market have nothing to do with it.
Monday, September 6, 2010
A Labor Day Commitment to the Common Good
Saturday, September 4, 2010 by Creators.com
by Jim Hightower
America's corporate chieftains must love poor people, for they're doing all they can to create millions more of them.
They're knocking down wages, offshoring everything from manufacturing jobs to high tech, reducing full-time work to part-time, downsizing our workplaces, busting unions, cutting health care coverage and canceling pensions - while also lobbying in Washington to privatize Social Security, eliminate job safety protections, restrict unemployment benefits, kill job-creating programs and increase corporate control of our elections.rece
It's said that the poor and the rich will always be among us. But nowhere is it written that the middle-class will always be there. In fact, it is a very recent creation in our society (and an unavailable dream for most people in the world). America's great middle class literally arose with the rise of labor unions and populist political movements in the 1800s, finally culminating in democratic economic reforms implemented from the 1930s into the 1960s.
Social Security, wage AND hour laws, collective bargaining rights, unemployment compensation, the GI Bill, the interstate highway program, civil rights laws, Medicare, Head Start - and more - provided the national framework necessary to sustain a middle class for the American Majority.
This essential framework was not "given" to us by corporate executives and politicians - indeed, they sputtered, spewed and fought every piece of it tooth and nail. Rather, it came from union-led grassroots movements, organizing for structural change.
This Labor Day, we see corporate executives and their politicians relentlessly dismantling that framework, piece by piece - and we see the middle class disappearing and poverty rising with each dismantled piece. But as labor icon Joe Hill said just before he was executed by Utah authorities for his unionizing activities, "Don't mourn, organize." It's time for working families to organize again for the revitalization of the middle class.
Who'll take a stand these days for restoring America's founding ethic of the common good?
You won't get this leadership from Washington - and damned sure not from those in the corporate suites who're ruthlessly pushing an ethic of uncommon greed, saying to the middle class, "Adios, chumps."
Instead, look to places like Williamson, a town in upstate New York.
This is apple country, home to a sprawling Mott's apple processing plant. Generations of families have worked at this plant, and there had not been a labor dispute in over 50 years. But the Mott family is long gone - and so is the sense of shared purpose that had unified owners and workers.
In 2008, Mott's became a subsidiary of Dr. Pepper Snapple, a giant Texas conglomerate that also owns 7Up, Hawaiian Punch and dozens of other brands. DPS, as it's known, is doing very well, having banked a record profit of half-a-billion dollars last year. But its honchos apparently missed that basic kindergarten lesson about sharing. Indeed, the new owners introduced themselves to the area by eliminating the company's annual summer picnic, the children's Christmas party and other community-building touches.
Then, this March, DPS bosses abruptly demanded pay cuts averaging about $3,000 per worker, while also slashing pensions and hiking employee costs for health care. Why? Because they asserted that Mott's 300 workers were paid more than others in the area and should simply lower their standard of living accordingly. This from a corporation that paid its CEO $6.5 million last year! Adding insult to injury, the plant manager called workers "a commodity like soybeans" that can easily be replaced. Take the cuts - or else, demanded DPS.
The workers chose "else." As we celebrate Labor Day at the beach or at backyard barbeques, they are on a strike for middle-class survival that's now in its fourth month.
This is not just about them, but about what kind of country America will be. If DPS succeeds in knocking down these skilled, experienced, loyal workers, other profitable corporations will follow. The Mott workers are taking a courageous stand for the middle class and our country's commitment to economic justice. To stand with them, go to www.ufcw.org.
by Jim Hightower
America's corporate chieftains must love poor people, for they're doing all they can to create millions more of them.
They're knocking down wages, offshoring everything from manufacturing jobs to high tech, reducing full-time work to part-time, downsizing our workplaces, busting unions, cutting health care coverage and canceling pensions - while also lobbying in Washington to privatize Social Security, eliminate job safety protections, restrict unemployment benefits, kill job-creating programs and increase corporate control of our elections.rece
It's said that the poor and the rich will always be among us. But nowhere is it written that the middle-class will always be there. In fact, it is a very recent creation in our society (and an unavailable dream for most people in the world). America's great middle class literally arose with the rise of labor unions and populist political movements in the 1800s, finally culminating in democratic economic reforms implemented from the 1930s into the 1960s.
Social Security, wage AND hour laws, collective bargaining rights, unemployment compensation, the GI Bill, the interstate highway program, civil rights laws, Medicare, Head Start - and more - provided the national framework necessary to sustain a middle class for the American Majority.
This essential framework was not "given" to us by corporate executives and politicians - indeed, they sputtered, spewed and fought every piece of it tooth and nail. Rather, it came from union-led grassroots movements, organizing for structural change.
This Labor Day, we see corporate executives and their politicians relentlessly dismantling that framework, piece by piece - and we see the middle class disappearing and poverty rising with each dismantled piece. But as labor icon Joe Hill said just before he was executed by Utah authorities for his unionizing activities, "Don't mourn, organize." It's time for working families to organize again for the revitalization of the middle class.
Who'll take a stand these days for restoring America's founding ethic of the common good?
You won't get this leadership from Washington - and damned sure not from those in the corporate suites who're ruthlessly pushing an ethic of uncommon greed, saying to the middle class, "Adios, chumps."
Instead, look to places like Williamson, a town in upstate New York.
This is apple country, home to a sprawling Mott's apple processing plant. Generations of families have worked at this plant, and there had not been a labor dispute in over 50 years. But the Mott family is long gone - and so is the sense of shared purpose that had unified owners and workers.
In 2008, Mott's became a subsidiary of Dr. Pepper Snapple, a giant Texas conglomerate that also owns 7Up, Hawaiian Punch and dozens of other brands. DPS, as it's known, is doing very well, having banked a record profit of half-a-billion dollars last year. But its honchos apparently missed that basic kindergarten lesson about sharing. Indeed, the new owners introduced themselves to the area by eliminating the company's annual summer picnic, the children's Christmas party and other community-building touches.
Then, this March, DPS bosses abruptly demanded pay cuts averaging about $3,000 per worker, while also slashing pensions and hiking employee costs for health care. Why? Because they asserted that Mott's 300 workers were paid more than others in the area and should simply lower their standard of living accordingly. This from a corporation that paid its CEO $6.5 million last year! Adding insult to injury, the plant manager called workers "a commodity like soybeans" that can easily be replaced. Take the cuts - or else, demanded DPS.
The workers chose "else." As we celebrate Labor Day at the beach or at backyard barbeques, they are on a strike for middle-class survival that's now in its fourth month.
This is not just about them, but about what kind of country America will be. If DPS succeeds in knocking down these skilled, experienced, loyal workers, other profitable corporations will follow. The Mott workers are taking a courageous stand for the middle class and our country's commitment to economic justice. To stand with them, go to www.ufcw.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)