Omblog.net
Blog Home
By Month
Recent Entries

Send email to omblog.net
Here are some links that we like:
DailyKos
Talking Points Memo
Huffington Post
Current TV -TYT
The Young Turks
Sam Seder
Oliver Willis
Maddow Blog
Cliff Schector
Bob Cesca
Hullabaloo
Media Matters
Dean Baker
Paul Krugman
Rober Reich
Jared Bernstein
Tax.com
Mahablog
Frank Schaeffer
FOKNews Channel
Eric Alterman
Glenn Greenwald
Political Correction
Matt Taibbi
Atrios
AlterNet
Ezra Klein
Kevin Drum
John Cole
Juan Cole
Matthew Yglesias
Firedoglake
Dome on the Range
Leftyblogs/Kansas
Leftyblogs/Missouri
Best of the Blogs
Firedup Missouri
Show Me Progress
BAGnewNotes
Baseline Scenario
Zero Hedge
Calculated Risk
The Big Picture
Tapped Blogs
TPM Muckraker
TPM Cafe
Talk To Action
Bartholomew 's Notes
Things You Wouldn't Know...
Rumproast
The Daily Beast
FAIR Blog
The Authoritarians
Bonddad Blog
FiveThirtyEight
Consumerist
Future Majority
ThinkProgress
Campus Progress
Center for American Progress
OurFuture.org
Crooks and Liars :
AFLCIOnow
Gun Guys
Jesus' General
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Max Blumenthal

Truthout
BuzzFlash.com
The Nation
AlterNet
News Hounds
Liberal Oasis
The Raw Story
American Rights at Work


Search this site powered by FreeFind
How is news coverage working for you? Pop Quiz: How Many soldiers have we lost this Month?

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)


legitgov

4more

sweetjesus

Jesus' General


Blog Home : December 2008 : 2008-12-29 to 2009-01-04

Blast From the Past

Remberring this Cover Story four years ago as this administration winds down.

(Go to URL for more.)

(Permalink)

Unions and Recessions

Ezra Klein

This is a nice point from The New York Times:

The argument against unions — that they unduly burden employers with unreasonable demands — is one that corporate America makes in good times and bad, so the recession by itself is not an excuse to avoid pushing the bill next year. The real issue is whether enhanced unionizing would worsen the recession, and there is no evidence that it would.

There is a strong argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions all the more important. Without a united front, workers will have even less bargaining power in the recession than they had during the growth years of this decade, when they largely failed to get raises even as productivity and profits soared. If pay continues to lag, it will only prolong the downturn by inhibiting spending.

I'd only add that the last great leap forward for unions was during World War II, and the last great expansion of the American middle class followed in its aftermath. In contrast, the most recent expansions -- which have largely occurred in the absence of unions -- have benefited America's rich.

Unions do not change economic growth, or at least there's little convincing evidence that they do. The countries with the world's highest growth rates -- the Nordic economies -- also have some of the world's highest rates of unionization. Denmark, Sweden, and Finland all approach 80 percent. Rather, unions change the distribution of economic growth. They direct more of it to the middle class and less of it to the executive class. The past few years have been an economy driven by the executive class. The question is whether that's what we want the next expansion to look like, also.

(Go to URL for more.)

(Permalink)

Nine Steps to Peace for Obama in the New Year

The following is a memo to Barack Obama from Deepak Chopra.

You have been elected by the first anti-war constituency since 1952, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected after promising to end the Korean War. But ending a war isn't the same as bringing peace. America has been on a war footing since the day after Pearl Harbor, 67 years ago. We spend more on our military than the next 16 countries combined. If you have a vision of change that goes to the heart of this country's deep problems, ending our dependence on war is far more important than ending our dependency on foreign oil.

(Go to URL for more.)

(Permalink)

Bigger Than Bush

Paul Krugman

As the new Democratic majority prepares to take power, Republicans have become, as Phil Gramm might put it, a party of whiners.

Some of the whining almost defies belief. Did Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, really say, "I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror"? Did Rush Limbaugh really suggest that the financial crisis was the result of a conspiracy, masterminded by that evil genius Chuck Schumer?

But most of the whining takes the form of claims that the Bush administration’s failure was simply a matter of bad luck - either the bad luck of President Bush himself, who just happened to have disasters happen on his watch, or the bad luck of the G.O.P., which just happened to send the wrong man to the White House.

The fault, however, lies not in Republicans’ stars but in themselves. Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party’s champion, to the Bush administration’s pervasive incompetence, to the party’s shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.

If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to "make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second."

Contempt for expertise, in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. "Government is not the solution to our problem," declared Ronald Reagan. "Government is the problem." So why worry about governing well?

(Go to URL for more.)

(Permalink)

2008-12-22 to 2008-12-28 «  » 2009-01-12 to 2009-01-18