Though President Obama and 73 percent of voters strongly support a new public health insurance plan that can compete with private insurers equally and transparently within an insurance exchange, some lawmakers have indicated that a public plan may not be part of the final reform legislation.
Jason Pye is blaming the unions for the U.S. Automakers problems.
Only problem with that story is that its wrong...
Economist Dean Baker on foreign cars:
many of these cars were built in unionized factories in Japan, South Korea, and Germany. Unions didn't keep foreign manufacturers from producing high-quality popular cars in these countries. Even when these companies set up shop in the U.S. they have been able to work well with unions. Toyota operated a plant in California where the workers were represented by the UAW for decades (it may still be open).
And Christopher Martin reminds us that Detroit's Problem: It's Health Care, not the Union
Two contentions - that foreign automakers in the U.S. have received no government help, and that union workers are grossly overpaid-are either misleading or completely untrue.
First, let's start with government assistance. It's easy to forget that there are government subsidies other than the ones asked for in Congressional hearings. For foreign automakers such as Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes, and BMW, the better way of wringing out public subsidies is to get Southern states to battle for your plants by offering a bevy of tax abatements, infrastructure projects, and even employee recruitment, screening and training. According to the Center for Automotive Research at the University of Michigan, between 1998 and 2003, the Southern states paid out an average of $87,700 in "government help" per nonunion auto job created-an average of $143 million per facility-compared to $50,180 per job created in the haplessly unionized North.
The second contention - that the unionized autoworkers of the north are grossly overpaid - is misleading. In fact, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), one of the opponents of the bailout, encouraged the deception. The Chattanooga Times Free Press reported the Senator "said the automakers pay their rank-and-file employees an average of $70 to $74 an hour, including benefits, while foreign automakers pay an average of $42 to $44 an hour." The quote, repeated nearly everywhere in the news media over the past few weeks, obscures the situation.
Only a very few news organizations - Jonathan Cohn at the New Republic and David Leonhardt at the New York Times, among the few-bothered to break it down. As it turns out, the base wages are fairly close - about $29 an hour for Detroit's three automakers, and about $26 for the foreign automakers in the U.S. What nearly every Republican politician and news report fails to mention, though, is that wages in Detroit are already dropping. The UAW gave major concessions to GM, Ford, and Chrysler in 2005 and 2007, setting a new second tier starting wage at $14. This lower wage will continue to decrease the base wage cost going into the future.
Another difference in North vs. South autoworker wages is benefits. Adding in things like healthcare, training, vacation, and overtime, Big Three autoworkers make about $55 compared to about $46 for nonunion workers. True enough, unionized workers do better here. But a big part of this expense is healthcare.
Healthcare also is part of the largest difference between North and South: what the industry calls "legacy costs" - the pensions and health care of retirees. The foreign auto companies currently don't have these costs, since they've been operating in the U.S. for only about 25 years or less, and have few retirees. But, the Big Three have more than a million retirees and their families to cover. Corker and others unfairly lump this into average wage costs and arrive at something over $70 an hour.
There are many reasons to oppose unions.
For instance they raise wages for working people (union and nonunion) in this country: here, here, here
Creating a stronger middle class... a horrible thing to say the least...
If these companies made bad business decisions... (which wasn't helped by our country's health care crisis) why not blame management rather than the guy on the line?
Let me also say that I think a blanket guarantee without some kind of seizures will just fuel a vast — and justified — populist rage.
I just realized one of the reasons you might want a Republic that is (ever so slightly) detached from the popular will--doing things that are necessary but unpopular and/or misunderstood by the general population who can't possibly be expected to become experts in all sorts of areas of expertise.
So the question is how detached? And who are the experts?
While Lindsey Graham was behaving like a 6-year-old on the Senate floor and Pete Sessions was studying passages in his Taliban handbook, Mr. Obama and his aides were assessing what's achievable in terms of stimulus legislation and how best to get there.The leadership is refreshing because I think it leads to good government, which will help end some of the apathy and frustration of nonvoters... which is vital to have in a healthy democracy--which for better or worse is something to desire.
I'd personally like to see a more robust stimulus package, with increased infrastructure spending and fewer tax cuts. But the reality is that Mr. Obama needs at least a handful of Republican votes in the Senate to get anything at all done, and he can't afford to lose this first crucial legislative fight of his presidency.
The Democrats may succeed in bolstering their package somewhat in conference, but I think Mr. Obama would have been satisfied all along to start his presidency off with an $800 billion-plus stimulus program.
Caroline Kennedy, whose main qualification is that she is the daughter of a former womanizing President, wants to be named to the New York Senate seat. That journalists, opinion makers, and ordinary citizens do not laugh in her face at the very idea tells us everything we need to know about the oligarchy in America.Amen... this hero worship nonsense has done great harm to our democracy.
FDR's and LBJ's fascist tendencies are the reason we have entitlements, and the United Auto Workers' fascist tendencies are the main reason the auto companies are failing. We blame CEOs, and exonerate unionized workers, because CEOs make "excessive" amounts of money, while workers are, well, working. But we never stop to think that CEOs have a lot of talent, education, and jobs that require hard work and much more stress than working on an assembly line. The advantage of being on the left is that you don't have to think or put forth any effort to be considered compassionate.
The Democratic Paradox
Mouffe, Chantal. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso, 2000. I finished reading this on Wednesday, and it was a complete pleasure. Mouffe is strong on reasoning and low on jargon. She's committed to reviving a radical politics, but she's not given to raving and gnashing her teeth. On the contrary! She focuses closely on the way plurality works in the world -- if you say you want a democracy, you have to be ready to deal with the realities of diversity (or classically, a plurality). A "people" does not become a unified, undifferentiated mass even when they agree on something. In every agreement (or consensus), there must be disagreement (or exclusion). She takes Habermas to task (as have others, of course) for imagining an "ideal speech situation" -- well, not for imagining it, but for arguing as if it could be made real.
Mouffe also writes sensibly about the tension (or conflict) between equality and liberty (which I tend to characterize as the conflict between rights and responsibilities). She situates the conflict in the framework of the paradox that is the subject of this book, placing the equality argument with the radical left, and the liberty argument with the "liberals" -- who in the U.S. we would call the libertarians today, I think.
Mouffe also argues the flaws in the "third way," especially as it has played out in contemporary British politics.
These two programs are cause for serious concern and it is irresponsible of our leaders, Republicans and Democrats, to keep avoiding the issue. But like Sullum says, there is no political will to take it up and we'll pay the price in the long run.I hate the corruption, red tape, and slowness of a Republic. Our founding fathers consciously put slow reform as a top priority... but I don't seriously believe we won't do something about the health care crisis within the next 10 years or address social security funding between now and 2041. I may be cynical about government but I'm not that cynical.
Social Security's current annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures will begin to decline in 2011 and then turn into rapidly growing deficits as the baby boom generation retires.
Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2019 and Social Security reserves in 2041.Not exactly top priority in the way of "major drains on the budget" (i.e. the Iraq war boon-doggle)
Medicare's financial status is even worse. This year Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be made up from general revenues which pay for interest credits to the Trust Fund.
The Medicare Report shows that the program could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years by an immediate 122 percent increase in the payroll tax (from 2.9 percent to 6.44 percent),
Again it is all about personal responsibility ....BUT the government with its arrogance and stupidity on the economy have made it all but impossible for the average citizen and I am talking about those who hold legal citizenship to plan,save and execute a workable plan to save for their own future.incoherent conception of government and market systems. Also I disagree on the question of representation of the population. Social security and medicare are very popular programs. If you believe in democracy in some form or fashion it is an obvious truism that you support fixing not gutting these plans. From the tone of the comments i'll infer this person does not. Difference of opinion. Also note that they state "legal citizenship" therefore this person obviously is not a proponent of free market theory so some of the easy fixes will not be on the table for him. Free flow of labor, as noted above, is an important step in the demographic crisis involved in this issue.
principles of justice would be manifest in a society premised on free and fair cooperation between citizens, including respect for liberty, and an interest in reciprocity.back to the commentor...
In the state of nature, it might be argued that certain persons (the strong and talented) would be able to coerce others (the weak and disabled) by virtue of the fact that the stronger and more talented would fare better in the state of nature. This coercion is sometimes thought to invalidate any contractual arrangement occurring in the state of nature. In the original position, however, representatives of citizens are placed behind a "veil of ignorance", depriving the representatives of information about the individuating characteristics of the citizens they represent. Thus, the representative parties would be unaware of the talents and abilities, ethnicity and gender, religion or belief system of the citizens they represent. As a result, they lack the information with which to threaten their fellows and thus invalidate the social contract they are attempting to agree to.
I'm not really sure what this means.
We have a government that is out of control and will not change its ways of stupidity and waste until the citizens see the food from their table going to feed the do nothings in Washington.
When are we going to demand Washington,Atlanta and in my case McDonough stop the wasteful,non essential spending habits they are so fond of?once again these are popular programs. Therefore the bums in DC actually are--this in situation--representing the people. So it can't possibly be nonessential spending. Again if you don't accept my two theoretical premises this will not logically follow.
allows you to see what the projected U.S. budget deficit would be, as a percentage of GDP, if the United States had the same per person health care costs as any of the countries in the list below, all of which enjoy longer life expectancies than the United States. All of the other budget assumptions are the ones used by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which form the basis for the scary deficit numbers in IOUSA. Each country is listed with its life expectancy in parentheses.
compares current-law Social Security benefits to the Bush Plan based on "Progressive Indexing" and the 2005 State of the Union proposal, which includes private accounts paid for by 4 percentage points of the employee's payroll tax
The Washington Post ombudsman and others claim that the media was too kind to Obama and hard on John McCain. This superficial analysis is both wrong and misleading. Wrong because you had a candidate that was forcefully embracing the policies of George W. Bush while the nation spiraled into one of its darkest moments in its history. The idea that the press should not exert sharp criticism of such a candidate reflects the kind of tepid pandering that has become the hallmark of mainstream corporate media.
And misleading because the real problem is not the media favoring one candidate over another, but rather its utter failure to practice critical journalism. Turn on your television or radio, and it's 24/7 horserace political coverage, partisan shouting matches, and salacious crap. There is no effort to tell voters the difference between the candidates' rhetoric and reality, how their proclamations match their voting records, and what their policy proposals would actually do. While there were a few notable moments when news outlets actually did this during the campaign, they were few and far between.
Olbermann and Maddow's increased popularity is moving the range of debate on cable from center-right to left-right, but radio is still overwhelmingly right-wing, and the changes at MSNBC fall far short of a comprehensive, long-term solution to thecrisis of journalism. Newsroom layoffs mount across television, radio and newspapers, and omission has become the greatest threat. There is virtually no in-depth coverage and analysis on television of Iraq and Afghanistan, poverty, the environment and the other critical issues facing working Americans. And despite the explosion of the Internet, 45% of American homes still have no high speed Internet, while some 65% of Americans still cite TV as their primary news source.
Charges of liberal bias continue to strike such fear in the hearts of corporate news editors and producers, that they continue obsessive contortions to present both sides of every debate -- not from a factual perspective, but from a partisan one. Even if one side of an argument is clearly true, today's Wolf Blitzer, Charlie Gibson or Brian Williams - and even NPR and PBS - dare not say it (such as the economic bailout being a corrupt boondoggle for banking fatcats) and suffer the wrath of the right wing noise machine, and pressure from their corporate bosses. In today's media environment, the truth becomes irrelevant.
Take a walk through rural Ohio as I did this Election Day, and working-class voters are watching Fox, reading empty newspapers running on a bare-bones staff, and listening to radio's right-wing hate-fest. In today's media environment, we must face the fact that if not for the financial crisis and a disastrous GOP vice-presidential pick, this election might well have been McCain's.
So the incoming president is excellent on media policy, and his election allows media reform advocates to move from defense to offense. However, as Obama inherits a severe economic crisis, two wars, and myriad other problems, it will be too easy for media issues to get pushed down the to-do list. And the well-financed lobbyists from the phone, cable and broadcasting companies who supported Obama's candidacy are expecting a return on their investment. As well they should: if you look back at the history of Democratic presidents and media policy, there have been many disappointments, and cause for us to be as cautious as we are optimistic.
Here's a quick list of the top policy reforms to watch in 2009 for anyone who shares my disgust with news coverage, sky-high cable and phone bills, and the other maladies brought by a media system dominated by the likes of Comcast, Disney, AT&T, General Electric, Verizon, News Corporation and Time Warner:
Getting super-fast, open/neutral, affordable Internet to every home and business in America, urban and rural, rich and poor - Internet that will allow every website to be a television or radio network... a complete game changer.
Reversing consolidation of media ownership through tougher broadcast license requirements and incentives for more independent, diverse and local radio, television and print outlets.
Dramatically increasing funding for public media: for PBS and NPR, as well as community radio and television, and other noncommercial outlets. This includes policies that better protect public media from undue political pressures.
Now that the champagne has been put away, it's time to realize that while disastrous members of Bush & Co. are heading towards the exits, the disastrous members of mainstream media remain firmly in place. Ignore the problem at your - and the nation's - peril.
