While I disagree with many of the opinions of the author and do not enjoy patrisanship and gridlock, there is one fatal flaw upon which Mr. Klein relies upon.
Specifically, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she will energize more Republicans to vote against her, regardless of their nominee. Her negatives are so high that she could do for the Republicans what none of their candidates could-- to mobilize millions of evangelicals and victims of Clinton Fatigue to get off the couch and vote for the GOP nominee that they don't really support.
There is a reason why red-state Democratic senators from ND, SD, MO, NE, and red state female Democratic Governors from AZ and KS have all endorsed Obama-- they know that he has the coattails to sweep commanding Democratic majorities into office up and down the ticket.
To suggest that Obama--a product of Cook County/Chicago politics and a sitting US Senator-- is a "novice" or otherwise pollyanish about how politics work is just plain foolish. You can't rise from Chicago community organizer to State Senator to US Senator to a front runner in the Democratic Presidential primary as we approach Super Tuesday without having a tough hide and the ability to throw an elbow when it's necessary.
Obama's appeal to our better angels is what will usher in Democrat majorities. The only thing that could save the Republicans would be the nomination of Hillary Clinton by the Dems.
While I would always like to get a $600 check from the government, I have my doubts about the stimulative value of the rebate.
Our national debt is 9 Trillion dollars, financed by borrowing primarily from China. The idea behind the rebate is to get people to spend that money and stimulate the slowing economy through their spending.
Lower income recipients will use it to pay heating bills and the money will end up in the pockets of the Saudi Arabians. Others will use it to pay down their balance on the credit card, bettering their asset to debt ratio and generating a bit of $$$ for Citibank but not priming the economic pump.
But most middle income families who have kept their debt in check will use it to buy a TV, computer or other consumer electronics. All of these are made in China.
So from where I sit, it looks like the federal government is borrowing from the Chinese so we can stimulate the American economy by buying Made in China consumer goods with our rebate checks. Stimulative??????
Seems to me that economic stimulation can be more immediate by extending unemployment benefits, raising the income limit on food stamps, and providing aid to state and local governments to provide services in this time of increasing demand for public assistance, unemployment compensation, WIC, food stamps, and the like. This would lighten our state and local tax burden for these programs. And the food stamp and unemployment recipients would spend that money immediately on food (primarily made in America) to meet their immdeiate needs.
Long term, we need a trade policy to create good paying jobs at home instead of the Bush policy of subsidizing their export. We need a President who values work more than he worships wealth.
Thomas seems to be the embodiment of the old saying by Harry Truman that any jackass can kick down a barn door but it takes a carpenter to build one.
I am an Obama supporter and a John Edwards admirer. Perhaps if Thomas spent a month in the 9th Ward of New Orleans (like John Edwards did) volunteering to rebuild houses for the victims of Hurricane Katrina he could sharpen his dormant carpentry skills. Might even end up becoming a Democrat.
So the paid mouthpiece of the right-wing Heritage Foundation is worried about the rights of workers?? Ray Charles could see through this.
In opinion polling almost 70% of Americans who work in non-union settings say they wish they had a union on the job. Why then are there only 13% of workers who have a union?
Because the rules governing representation elections provide aid and comfort to employers who don't want their employees to have union rights.
In almost every union organizing campaign workers are illegally fired, and the only damages they can collect are lost wages minus outside earnings, which takes them 5-10 years to oollect through lengthy and expensive adminsitrative and legal proceedings. Employers view this as an inexpensive way to defeat the workers' efforts at securing union rights.
The Employee Free Choice Act levels the playing field. I can sign a card to join the Knights of COlumbus or the Rotary Club (or the Republican Party, for that matter). This legislation would allow me to similarly join a union by signing a card, or not join by not signing a card. But this would make joining a union a workers' choice independent from the currently successful threats and intimidation that employers resort to when they get to "campaign" against the workers' choice. And that's the real reason that employer mouthpieces are piously criticizing this legislation, not out of any concern whatsoever for insuring the protection of "employee rights".
Remember-- the same employers who fire union supporters pay the salary of the author of this editorial. Level the playing field. Support teh Employee Free Choice Act. Support candidates for federal office who share this view and we can give working people a little more power on the job.
Posted on February 4 at 9:40 a.m.
While I disagree with many of the opinions of the author and do not enjoy patrisanship and gridlock, there is one fatal flaw upon which Mr. Klein relies upon.
Specifically, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she will energize more Republicans to vote against her, regardless of their nominee. Her negatives are so high that she could do for the Republicans what none of their candidates could-- to mobilize millions of evangelicals and victims of Clinton Fatigue to get off the couch and vote for the GOP nominee that they don't really support.
There is a reason why red-state Democratic senators from ND, SD, MO, NE, and red state female Democratic Governors from AZ and KS have all endorsed Obama-- they know that he has the coattails to sweep commanding Democratic majorities into office up and down the ticket.
To suggest that Obama--a product of Cook County/Chicago politics and a sitting US Senator-- is a "novice" or otherwise pollyanish about how politics work is just plain foolish. You can't rise from Chicago community organizer to State Senator to US Senator to a front runner in the Democratic Presidential primary as we approach Super Tuesday without having a tough hide and the ability to throw an elbow when it's necessary.
Obama's appeal to our better angels is what will usher in Democrat majorities. The only thing that could save the Republicans would be the nomination of Hillary Clinton by the Dems.
Posted on January 31 at 4:58 p.m.
While I would always like to get a $600 check from the government, I have my doubts about the stimulative value of the rebate.
Our national debt is 9 Trillion dollars, financed by borrowing primarily from China. The idea behind the rebate is to get people to spend that money and stimulate the slowing economy through their spending.
Lower income recipients will use it to pay heating bills and the money will end up in the pockets of the Saudi Arabians. Others will use it to pay down their balance on the credit card, bettering their asset to debt ratio and generating a bit of $$$ for Citibank but not priming the economic pump.
But most middle income families who have kept their debt in check will use it to buy a TV, computer or other consumer electronics. All of these are made in China.
So from where I sit, it looks like the federal government is borrowing from the Chinese so we can stimulate the American economy by buying Made in China consumer goods with our rebate checks. Stimulative??????
Seems to me that economic stimulation can be more immediate by extending unemployment benefits, raising the income limit on food stamps, and providing aid to state and local governments to provide services in this time of increasing demand for public assistance, unemployment compensation, WIC, food stamps, and the like. This would lighten our state and local tax burden for these programs. And the food stamp and unemployment recipients would spend that money immediately on food (primarily made in America) to meet their immdeiate needs.
Long term, we need a trade policy to create good paying jobs at home instead of the Bush policy of subsidizing their export. We need a President who values work more than he worships wealth.
Posted on January 31 at 8:13 a.m.
Thomas seems to be the embodiment of the old saying by Harry Truman that any jackass can kick down a barn door but it takes a carpenter to build one.
I am an Obama supporter and a John Edwards admirer. Perhaps if Thomas spent a month in the 9th Ward of New Orleans (like John Edwards did) volunteering to rebuild houses for the victims of Hurricane Katrina he could sharpen his dormant carpentry skills. Might even end up becoming a Democrat.
Posted on January 18 at 12:03 p.m.
So the paid mouthpiece of the right-wing Heritage Foundation is worried about the rights of workers?? Ray Charles could see through this.
In opinion polling almost 70% of Americans who work in non-union settings say they wish they had a union on the job. Why then are there only 13% of workers who have a union?
Because the rules governing representation elections provide aid and comfort to employers who don't want their employees to have union rights.
In almost every union organizing campaign workers are illegally fired, and the only damages they can collect are lost wages minus outside earnings, which takes them 5-10 years to oollect through lengthy and expensive adminsitrative and legal proceedings. Employers view this as an inexpensive way to defeat the workers' efforts at securing union rights.
The Employee Free Choice Act levels the playing field. I can sign a card to join the Knights of COlumbus or the Rotary Club (or the Republican Party, for that matter). This legislation would allow me to similarly join a union by signing a card, or not join by not signing a card. But this would make joining a union a workers' choice independent from the currently successful threats and intimidation that employers resort to when they get to "campaign" against the workers' choice. And that's the real reason that employer mouthpieces are piously criticizing this legislation, not out of any concern whatsoever for insuring the protection of "employee rights".
Remember-- the same employers who fire union supporters pay the salary of the author of this editorial. Level the playing field. Support teh Employee Free Choice Act. Support candidates for federal office who share this view and we can give working people a little more power on the job.