| Omblog.net | |||
|
Blog Home By Month Recent Entries
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
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
|
Blog Home : December 2008 : 2008-12-29 to 2009-01-04
Remberring this Cover Story four years ago as this administration winds down.
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.
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.
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?
| ||