Dydd Gwŷl Dewi Sant Hapus! (Happy St David's Day) make sure you're wearing your daffs and leeks!
Picture hat - tip to Mrs B
|
|---|
Monday, February 28, 2011
Bill Wakefield
Bill (seen in picture standing with white shirt addressing a housing strike committee meeting in 1999) was employed originally as a Gardener by the Council. He was also a fiery resident rep, staunch Royalist and upon his retirement, a vocal pensioner activist.
His passion and commitment to the interests of ordinary working people in East London will be missed.
(double click picture to bring up detail)
Excuse Me Dr. Barro, Your Ideology Is Showing
Economist Robert Barro has published this anti-union Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal today. Pretty predictably, he wants to blame the fiscal crisis in the states on unions. Is there actual empirical evidence that, as Barro puts it, " the structure of strong public-employee unions . . . helped to create the unsustainable fiscal situation."* It would be nice to see it. The reason why Barro presents none is that, as far as I know, there is none to present. Even an economist should be able to do better than that.
Barro does present some evidence that right-to-work laws promote economic development. There is no real surprise that right to work states attract more robust corporate activity than more union friendly states. Of course they do. Corporate investment go where they don't face any countervailing power. And what about relative wages and benefits in those states? I don't know the empirics in any detail, but I am wagering that there are pretty impressive distributive consequences of disallowing unions. (Have a look at this report from CNN for some initial warrant on that score.) Surely Dr. Barro wouldn't want to discount the massive inequalities that untrammeled corporate power (and markets are meant to be power free zones, no?) generate!
As a theoretical matter Barro presses the claim that "collective bargaining on a broad scale is more similar to an antitrust violation than to a civil liberty." Of course that requires that we ignore the power asymmetries that exist in virtually any labor negotiation between an employer and individual employees. The historical corollary of this theoretical complaint is that Barro seems to want us to head directly back to the late 19th Century, to a time when the state imposed atomization on the labor market and thereby enhanced the power of employers. In other words, Barro doesn't like the way democratic politics has reshaped labor markets by sanctioning collective bargaining. After all, the Wagner Act (1935) cleared Congress and was signed by Roosevelt.
In this essay Barro displays a problem to which economists are quite susceptible: they too readily allow their ideology - usually some facile version of libertarianism - to impede their analysis. We know in general terms what markets (there is no such thing as "the market" except in the world of right leaning ideology) require to work effectively. We know too that allowing collective action can offset biases that prevent effective functioning of markets in atomized settings. There are lots and lots of efficient market outcomes. There is no reason why we ought to opt for the most asymmetrical and unequal of those on offer. At least nothing Barro says here suggests that we should.
__________
* Since he is preoccupied with Wisconsin, is there any evidence that the public employee pension system is in trouble there? Barro implies that it is, but offers not a shred of evidence.
Barro does present some evidence that right-to-work laws promote economic development. There is no real surprise that right to work states attract more robust corporate activity than more union friendly states. Of course they do. Corporate investment go where they don't face any countervailing power. And what about relative wages and benefits in those states? I don't know the empirics in any detail, but I am wagering that there are pretty impressive distributive consequences of disallowing unions. (Have a look at this report from CNN for some initial warrant on that score.) Surely Dr. Barro wouldn't want to discount the massive inequalities that untrammeled corporate power (and markets are meant to be power free zones, no?) generate!
As a theoretical matter Barro presses the claim that "collective bargaining on a broad scale is more similar to an antitrust violation than to a civil liberty." Of course that requires that we ignore the power asymmetries that exist in virtually any labor negotiation between an employer and individual employees. The historical corollary of this theoretical complaint is that Barro seems to want us to head directly back to the late 19th Century, to a time when the state imposed atomization on the labor market and thereby enhanced the power of employers. In other words, Barro doesn't like the way democratic politics has reshaped labor markets by sanctioning collective bargaining. After all, the Wagner Act (1935) cleared Congress and was signed by Roosevelt.
In this essay Barro displays a problem to which economists are quite susceptible: they too readily allow their ideology - usually some facile version of libertarianism - to impede their analysis. We know in general terms what markets (there is no such thing as "the market" except in the world of right leaning ideology) require to work effectively. We know too that allowing collective action can offset biases that prevent effective functioning of markets in atomized settings. There are lots and lots of efficient market outcomes. There is no reason why we ought to opt for the most asymmetrical and unequal of those on offer. At least nothing Barro says here suggests that we should.
__________
* Since he is preoccupied with Wisconsin, is there any evidence that the public employee pension system is in trouble there? Barro implies that it is, but offers not a shred of evidence.
Presidents Day conclusion: Lessons for Barack Obama, 2012.
I hope you have enjoyed our extended Presidents Day walk down memory lane with the eleven one-term presidents who failed to win re-election, from John Adams through George H.W. Bush.
Click here to see the entire series:
(c) part III, the tenth, Jimmy Carter, and
So what was the pattern? How can Barack Obama avoid their mistakes?
History never repeats itself. Each situation, generation, and person is unique. But history does give clues to who we are and how we act. Barack Obama has shown himself a masterful politician with a strong organization. Facing 2012, for my own two cents, I see two key strengths and two key weaknesses:
First, Obama's strengths:
- Weak rival: A Republcan Party still in disarray (despite its 2010 gains) burdened with (a) an over-abundance with weak national candidates apparently too ego-driven to get out of the way (Palin, Gingrich, Romney, and the rest) and (b) a majority in the House of Representatives too ideological to keep itself out of trouble (government shutdowns, overreaching on social issues, so on);
- Strong personal good will: A lingering base of good will in the country among people who still see Obama as reasonable, helpful, centrist, and calm and who consider his 2008 election a historic achievement worth protecting.
Now the weaknesses:
- Some failures: Some serious leadership mistakes in the first two years, including (a) ceding too much initial control to Capitol Hill Democrats, letting Health Care eclipse economic policy, failing to take control on the budget deficit and (b) too often being dismissive of -- sometimes even hostile to -- his base, his friends, and his core supporters. Remember Plunket's credo from 1905 Tammany Hall: "The politicians who make a lastin' success in politics are the men who are always loyal to their friends, even up to the gate of State prison, if necessary...."
- The economy: An economy still broken from 2008 (despite fortunes spent trying to fix it), leaving millions still unemployed and under-employed and the country drowning in red ink, and still fragile enough to rise up and give us all another painful bite at some unexpected point. (Don't let the stock market fool you on this. That budget-busting tax-cut deal from last November can still come back to haunt.)
Best of luck to all the contestants. Happy Presidents Day.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Scoot Walker On Meet The Press
Gov. Scott Walker was on Meet The Press this morning for a really good discussion about his position in Wisconsin and it is well worth watching.:
Finally: The last one-termer, George H.W. Bush.
 |
| George H.W. Bush taking the oath from Chief Justice William Rehnquist on January 20, 1989. Onlookers include House Speaker Jim Wright, Senator Ted Stevens, boyish-lookingVice President Dan Quayle, and Bush's wife Barbara. |
Two years after becoming president, George H.W. Bush assembled and led a multi-national military coalition against Saddam Hussein in the first Persian Gulf War, successfully ejecting Iraq from Kuwait with minimal US casualties and a prompt exit. In its wake, April 1991, Bush's popularity soared to 89 percent, the 2d highest ever recorded by the Gallop Poll. (Click here for the historical numbers.) The highest score, 90 percent, would go to Bush's son George W. after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
But by June 1992, just one year later, Bush's poll number collapsed to 29 percent -- an amazing 60 point drop. A few months later, he lost his presidency to Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton.
What happened? How did all that popularity disappear? The lessons -- two of them -- are written in big red letters (literally):
- First, polls lie. And lying polls can lull a president into the politician's worst enemy - complacency.
- Second, budget deficits matter, sometimes more than wars.
By 1992, Bush had used his presidency to become an accomplished world leader, presiding over not just the Persian Gulf War but also the collapse of Soviet Russia and other Communist dictatorships and a quick invasion of Panama -- all handled cleanly.
Unfortunately for Bush, however, this was not quite the right mix for American politics. American votes elect American presidents -- not the world -- and global feats often play second fiddle to local issues. Republican conservatives never quite trusted Bush, who had famously referred to Reagan's tax cut plans in 1980 as "voodoo economics." Then add in a few headaches under Bush's watch like these--
- The collapse of the savings and loan industry, which required a clean-up costing taxpayers an estimated $500 billion, with scandals galore.
- The nomination to the Supreme Court of Clarence Thomas, the most controversial in modern history, complete with an ugly sex-harrassment scandal played out on national TV.
- Finally, in late 1991, a six-month economic recession pushing unemployment to 7.8 percent and Americans in poverty to 14.2 percent. Voters still felt pain into the 1992 campaign season.
 |
| Ross Period explaining the budget definit in 1992. |
During the 1980s, US federal budget deficits had ballooned -- a product of Reagan-era tax cuts combined with failure to control spending that caused national debt to triple during this era, from $900 billion to almost $3 trillion. (It still sounds quint next to today's mid-2011 debt of $13.5 trillion, but that's another story.)
Bush wanted to confront this problem, but he had tired his own hands during the 1988 campaign with his famous pledge: "Read my lips! New new taxes!" In the end, Bush broke this pledge and approved a $500 billion deficit reduction package in1990 that included tax hikes. Click here for more about the pledge.
Breaking the pledge was bad enough, but then came something worse: Ross Perot.
Perot, a cranky self-made Texas billionaire (founder of computer giant EDS), fed up with Washington incompetence, decided to launch his own self-financed independent presidential campaign in 1992 based on his own version of home-spun economic virtues: balanced budget, trade protection for US jobs, and direct town-hall-style democracy. Partial to CNN's Larry King, he came to interviews and debates armed with charts and graphs to explain just how badly the deficit was hurting everyone in the country.
Bush seemed lost in the crossfire, worsened by his disdain for what he called "the vision thing." Perot won 19.7 million votes (about 18 percent) -- the best popular-vote showing by any third-party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. This allowed Clinton to win with a 43% plurality. (See full results here.)
And that sky-high, 89 percent poll numbers after the Persian Gulf War? They simply melted -- like the wicked witch in the Wizard of Oz. They had been a mirage, what pollsters call a "rally around the leader" affect in times of crisis. They had only served to hide Bush's weakness and allow him to get caught flat-footed and out-hustled by hungry Democrats.
Stay tuned for the series finale -- lessons for Barack Obama in 2012. Coming tomorrow morning. I promise!!
West Ham MP Lyn Brown (with badly broken elbow)
Check out Lyn's column in the Newham Recorder here.
As Lyn herself admits it could have been a lot worse. I am sure that she enjoyed the supportive text I sent her as West Ham CLP agent saying she should take more care of herself in the future and not rush about. As Agent I am far too busy at the moment for a by-election!
:)
It was a shame that some local Newham Tories posted a typically sneering, misogynist and unpleasant post on their blog. But there you go - same old Tories, same old Nasty Party.
(Hat tip Picture - Newham Recorder)
Alison Weir at Sutton Library
Alison Weir, the author of numerous novels set in the Tudor period will be speaking about writing historical fiction at Sutton Library on Saturday 5 March at 8pm. Tickets cost a very reasonable £1.50 which cover refreshments and are available from the Sutton Library itself.
The event is part of World Book Day. Details of other events hosted by the borough on Saturday are here.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Greater London Labour Link Elections 2011
BODMER Joel, DAVY Mike, GRAY John
Standing for: National Labour Link Forum (Male seats) - Blue Ballot paper
BENTLY Lynn, COULING Louise, HANSON Gloria, SILVER Kim, VOLLER Rae
Standing for: National Labour Link Forum (Female seats) - Purple Ballot paper
We are all seeking election to represent the views of APF payers in the London Region at the National Labour Link Forum.
We support the link we have with the Labour Party, Labour in Government has delivered real improvements for our members, but, now we are in opposition we need to make sure that we influence the internal review and national rethink of policies that the Party is carrying out over the next 2 years.
To defeat this ConDem Tory Government in 2015 (or preferably long beforehand) we need to appeal to our core Labour vote. We therefore need to champion trade union issues and move our members concerns up the Party political agenda, using our influence to promote a manifesto that includes;
- Reinvestment in public services
- Defending pay and public sector pensions
- Access to housing for public sector employees
- A fairer taxation system
- Government policies that promote growth and jobs.
You want delegates who will be listened to and not be afraid to argue for change within the Labour Party but who also realise that the only alternative to making the Party electable is another dose of Clegg and Cameron.
It is vital that we ensure that Labour Link becomes more visible within the union. We need to encourage APF members to join local Labour Constituency Parties and be elected to positions of responsibility in order to further the progressive agenda.
Next year in London
ps Support Gloria Hanson as Delegate to 2011 Labour Party Conference as well!
Follow-Up on "Today, we are all Joan Miró" - On Art & Politics
Joan Miró. Plate 4 from the Black and Red Series, 1938.Image © 1998 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York/ADAGP, Paris.
A couple of days ago I posted some thoughts on this column at The Guardian by Jonathan Jones. In the piece Jones castigates "us" as being like Joan Miró who responded to the Spanish Civil War from afar rather than like George Orwell who went off to fight with the Republicans. Here are some more questions. Does art have to be activist to be political? The two are not the same, after all. Is "activist" even the best strategy? What would Jones make of the long series of paintings Robert Motherwell made over the course of decades, all entitled "Elegies for the Spanish Republic"?
Robert Motherwell. Elegy for the Spanish Republic, #126 (1965-75).Or what about another visual cut at fascism - Leon Golub's series of canvases on torture and interrogation? Are we even in a position to know - even post- Abu Ghraib - about, let alone intervene in, such practices? At least one can ask if we know enough detail to intervene in practices like those Golub depicts that we generally suspect are occurring.
Leon Golub. Interrogation II, (1980-81).More to the point, should we be criticizing artists like Golub, Motherwell, and Miró - holding them up for thinly disguised scorn - because they are not Orwell? After all, they "just" or "only" used their art to depict horrors and consequences. They didn't take up arms. And so ...?
And, of course, in an era where one's adversaries are likely enough to be mercenaries (ex-military paid, say, by Blackwater or its corporate offspring) or child soldiers (who are basically trained sociopaths) would taking up arms be anything other than more or less certain and largely pointless suicide? Jones would surely flinch at shooting down a twelve year old, even if the child were armed. And in that instant the boy would have shot Jones - to say nothing of you or I - for his trouble. The mercenary would've killed Jones before he had time to flinch. Nothing personal in this. But what is it that Jones expects of art?
Politics does not generally involve violence. And it cannot require intervention or action across time or space or absent some coordinated movement. Nor can it demand that essentially individual level activity like painting generate immediate, unambiguous action. That is the remit of the propagandist. The works I have lifted for this post are attempts to raise questions, provoke reflection, give voice to emotions and to do those things in response to violence and terror. It seems to me that we are in Miró's debt - and in Golub's and Motherwell's too. And it seems to me that Jones misses the point.
The next presidential one-termer: Jimmy Carter.
 |
| Jimmy Carter answering questions as president. |
Remember all the good feelings of optiimism and relief in January 1977 when Jimmy Carter was sworn in as president of the USA. (You guys not born yet, trust me on this.)
After the house-of-horrors presidency of "Tricky Dick" Richard M. Nixon - his enemies list, spying on his own staff, wiretaps of news reporters, his "plumbers unit," IRS audits of political enemies, plus Vietnam, the Cambodia invasion, the shootings at Kent State, and all the lying and deceit of Watergate that finally did him in (I won't pretend to be neutral about RMN) -- after all that, Jimmy Carter seemed a breath of fresh air, even after the interlude of Gerald Ford's relatively calm brief presidency.
Honest Jimmy, he came across as down-home and normal, truthful, grounded, at ease with his wife and cute little daughter, a peanut farmer, nuclear engineer, and Navy submariner, willing to get out of his car and walk on his own two feet during his inaugural parade. Carter was an "outsider" --a one-term governor from Plains, Georgia, with no taint of Washington experience. He promised to deliver "a government as good and honest and decent and compassionate ... as its people." And he said "I will never lie to you."
Sound slightly arrogant? Slightly smug? Like an accident waiting to happen? By 1980,barely three years later, Carter's popularity had plummeted, his poll numbers at around 20 percent -- close to Richard Nixon's own lowest point during Watergate.
[Full disclosure: At the time, in the late 1970s, I was a young staff lawyer for Republican Senator Chuck Percy (R-Ill.) on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee -- scene of much Carter-era action -- so I had a nice ring-side seat.]
To his credit, Carter compiled a pretty nice legislative record. He won major deregulations of the airlines, trucking, and natural gas prices, created the Energy and Education Departments, took major energy conservation steps and pushed through the Alaska Lands Act and bans on ocean dumping and strip mining. He negotiated peace between Egypt and Israel, pardoned Vietnam-era draft evaders, and won a treaty to return the Panama Canal to Panama (still a sore point with conservatives).
This was all good. Put it on the plus side of the ledger. Now for the rest ....
So what was the accident waiting to happen?
Almost from the start, things under Carter seemed chaotic, out-of control. In his first year as president, Carter's team stumbled into a first-rate scandal that forced the resignation of Carter's long-time crony and OMB Director, Bert Lance. After that, a veritable cascade of toubless followed --
- First, the economy sank into a swamp of high inflation, high interest rates, sagging markets, and low growth -- a new phenomenon called Carter "stagflation." Rubbing sand in the wound were repeated hikes in the price of oil (gasoline) dictated by the OPEC cartel of Arab countries. Then, in late 1979, the Hunt Brothers of Dallas, Texas, cornered the silver market, driving prices of silver and gold to historic highs before crashing in early 1980. No, the economic mess wasn't all Carter's fault. And to his credit, his Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker had plans to fix it. But there's more;
- Then, as things kept going wrong, Carter decided to closet himself for a week-long, high-profile secret enclave at Camp David after which he (a) first conducted a purge of his staff, sacking five cabinet secretaries, and (b) then followed it with a national televised speech in which he decried the country's "crisis of the spirit" - known to posterity as the "malaise" speech;
- Then, in late 1979, militants in Iran seized the US embassy there and held 52 American hostages for what would be 444 days. Carter ordered a military rescue (causing his Secretary of State Cyrus Vance to resign in protest) which failed because of a helicopter crash that, costing the lives of eight servicemen;
- Then came the late-1979 Russian invasion of Afghanistan, causing Carter to (a) cancel US participation in the 1980 Moscow Olympics (pissing off sports fans all across America) and (b) embargo grain shipments to Russia (causing US grain prices to tank, pissing off farmers all across America);
- Then, finally, just when he needed friends the most, came a revolt from within his own Democratic Party as Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) decided to challenge Carter for the 1980 presidential nomination. Carter beat him (he was, after all, an incumbent president), but only after an ugly fight.
(Carter managed to bungle even the debates. When third-party candidate John Anderson asked to participate, Reagan agreed and Carter refused. The debate when ahead with just Reagan and Anderson, and Carter's glaring absence make him again look petty and insecure.)
Lesson for Obama:
How to avoid being like Jimmy Carter? Obama, let's start with this: Please do not start thinking that you are better than everyone else. The minute you do, you're lost.
Here was Carter's trap: Being an "outsider" and painting yourself as "better than" Washington might make you popular in the short run, even win an election or two. But those same Washington "insiders" - most just as honest, decent, and civic-minded as you -- are the very people whose help you need to accomplish your goals, and whose friendship you need when things get tough. Living in a White House cacoon surrounded by old friends from back home does little good when issues get complicated.
Yes, partisanship today is out of conttrol. But the golden rule of Tammany Hall's George Washington Plunket from 1905 still holds today:: "The politicians who make a lastin' success in politics are the men who are always loyal to their friends, even up to the gate of State prison, if necessary...."
Jimmy Carter is celebrated today as an admirable former President. Since leaving the White House, he and his Carter Center have helped sooth dozens of world crises, wining him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. This, of course, very nice. But for now, the key fact about Carter is this: 1980 Electoral Votes- Ronald Reagan, 489; Carter, 49. (C-SPAN 2009 poll rank: 22.)
Next up, the final one-term president: George H. W. Bush.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Casey Maintains A Commanding Lead In Pennsylvania
According to a new poll (.PDF) Democratic Senator Bob Casey holds a commanding lead against all would be 2012 challengers:
H/T - SwingStateProjectBob Casey Jr. (D-inc): 50
Rick Santorum (R): 38
Undecided: 12Bob Casey Jr. (D-inc): 51
Charlie Dent (R): 32
Undecided: 17Bob Casey Jr. (D-inc): 48
Jim Gerlach (R): 34
Undecided: 17
(MoE: ±3.8%)
Levellers Day: Saturday 14 May 20111
"On 17 May 1649, three soldiers were executed on Oliver Cromwell’s orders in Burford churchyard, Oxfordshire. They belonged to a movement popularly known as the Levellers, with beliefs in civil rights and religious tolerance.
During the Civil War, they fought on Parliament’s side, had at first seen Cromwell as a liberator, but now saw him as a dictator. They were prepared to fight against him for their ideals and he was determined to crush them.
Over 300 of them were captured by Cromwell’s troops and locked up in Burford church. Three were led out into the churchyard to be shot as ringleaders, these three soldiers were executed on Oliver Cromwell’s orders in Burford churchyard, Oxfordshire.
In 1975, members of the WEA Oxford Industrial Branch went to Burford to reclaim a piece of history that seemed to be missing from the school books. They held a meeting in remembrance of the Leveller soldiers. The following year, Tony Benn came and read in the church and in each succeeding year, people have come to Burford on the Saturday nearest to 17 May, debated, held a procession, listened to music and remembered the Levellers and the importance of holding on to ideals of justice and democracy
Levellers Day is one of a family of events that celebrate and commemorate important dates in the history of the development of democracy in the United Kingdom. Together they create a focus for working people, socialists and the trade union and labour movement to come together and gain inspiration to carry forward their struggles into the future.
Durham Miners’ Gala 9 July, 20119 July, 2011
The Tolpuddle Martyrs’ Festival 15-17 July, 201115-17 July, 2011
Burston Strike School Rally 4 September, 20114 September, 2011
Women Chainmakers’ Festival –Black Country Living Museum 14-16 September, 201114-16 September, 2011"
Statistics
Statistics are unrelenting. Today the probabilities, small as they are, caught up with Susan and I and our hopes for the future. . . .
Asa Anthony Orr Johnson (13 November 2010 - 25 February 2011).
Update/clarification (27 February): In my sadness I fear I have mis-communicated. Asa was conceived last November (via IVF) and miscarried last week. Neither Susan nor I put much stock in the notion of an "unborn baby"; at just 17 weeks Asa was a promise as much as anything. But we had given Asa his name and our plans for the future had begun to orbit around the possibilities he held out. I am sorry to have mislead if I did; it was not my intent.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
"Today, we are all Joan Miró."
So says Jonathan Jones in this essay in The Guardian. In so doing he places a finger on the moralistic types who condemn violence and oppression but, when the chips are down, are unprepared not only "to fight for justice but also to face and tell the truth." Miró, it seems, fell into that category during the Spanish Civil War. I'll take Jones's word for that since I don't know the actual history. So, let's assume that Miró both could've taken up arms in the Republican cause and didn't.The hero of this piece is Orwell - the anti-Miró - who both set off to fight the fascists in Spain and (in Homage to Catalonia) frankly exposed the foibles and hypocrisies of the Republican coalition. I agree with Jones on the need to engage in politics not philanthropy or posturing. But I disagree that "fine words ... spoken in support of fine ideals" are necessarily empty or cheap. And I suggest too that it was difficult enough to set off to fight fascists in Spain - where it was relatively easy to tell the good guys from the bad. In many (perhaps not all) conflicts today the demarcation is murkier.
And the complicity is deeper too, I suspect. Mubarak, of course was our client; and so too was Saddam Hussein. Our Naval fleet, I believe, anchors in Bahrain. Ought we be taking up arms? Would doing so now be too late? Now, once the people in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya and lord knows where else have taken to the streets, should we be there providing armed protection? Just what is Jones suggesting? Is he trading moralism for delusion?
Alabama Legislators (Again?) Try To remove Racist Language From State Constitution
Alabama legislator Arthur Orr will sponsor legislation to remove the racist language from the 1901 Alabama Constitution:
Orr of Decatur said Thursday he will sponsor a proposed constitutional amendment to delete the outdated language that applies a poll tax for voting and requires separate schools for blacks and whites. Orr said the racist language can be used against Alabama by states competing for industrial projects. If his proposal clears the Legislature, it would have to be approved by voters in a statewide referendum.
Former Gov. Bob Riley and others endorsed legislation to do the same thing in 2004, but Alabama voters narrowly rejected it.
House GOP Caves And Begins Work On Continuing Resolution
The House GOP has begun pleading with its freshmen members to support a continuing resolution that offers $4 billion in cuts as a way to stave off a government shutdown:
House Republicans are drafting a two-week continuing resolution to keep the government operating after the current CR expires on March 4 and will file the bill on Friday, National Journal has learned.
The measure will contain about $4 billion in spending cuts and will merge cuts approved last week by the House and several taken from President Obama’s list of program terminations and savings. Three senior House GOP aides said the strategy is designed to avert a government shutdown and limit the ability of Senate Democrats and the White House to portray Republicans as unreasonable or inflexible.
Coming Soon to a Local Independent Music Store Near You
A new record by Buddy Miller and a bunch of his friends. You can find a little taste here - a cover of a George Jones tune. I posted about Buddy here a while back and things have not changed since then.
West Ham CLP AGM 2011
This was the sixth Labour Movement AGM I have attended so far this year. Hopefully the last! The meeting tonight was well attended, well run and pretty good humoured.
In the CLP Officers elections the Chair Conor McAuley was re-elected; Alan Griffiths re-elected unopposed as Secretary; John Saunders elected as Treasurer; Winston Vaughan elected as Ethnic Minorities Officer and Yetunde Muda as Womens's officer. Due to proportionality rules we were not able to elect some of the posts. We need more women to be nominated. This will be send back to wards and affiliates.
In the Functional Officer elections I was re-elected unopposed as Campaign Co-ordinator and Agent; John Whitworth as Political officer; David Christie as IT officer; Gerry Carlisle as Disabilities Officer and Kim Silver as Trade Union Liaison Officer (Kim who is on the UNISON NEC was elected 38:1!); Terry Paul as Assistant Secretary; Mas Patel as Assistant Agent; John Saunders as Premises manager and Fund Raiser (the 100 club - the ever so mysterious local Labour Party monthly tote) and Clive Furness as Social Secretary.
There was a contested election for auditors! We elected 2 delegates to Party Conference, Yetundee and James Beckles (and will hopefully also get a young member to attend).
The trade union delegates "had a huddle" and we elected delegates to EC (including myself) and Local Government Committee (LGC). West Ham nominations to LGC will be sorted out at the next GC.
At the end of the meeting we had an extraordinary meeting about Greater London Assembly election candidates 2012. Branches and affiliates had voted overwhelmingly to support the renomination of John Biggs, Nicky Gavron and Murad Qureshi as our candidates.
Wake Up Democrats! American Workers are Under Assault by Republicans
It is no surprise that Republicans across the country have taken aim on unions and done so in a concerted campaign. Nor is it a surprise that they have done so hypocritically, rationalizing their political agenda in terms of the need to address fiscal crisis in the states. What is also unsurprising - and no less disturbing - is that neither the unions nor the Democrats seem to have had a clue that this attack was in the offing. They were too busy hoping for the emergence of civil, bi-partisan politics. Is there a lesson here?
As I drove in this morning there were two useful segments on npr: the first confirmed the predictable, namely that the Obama administration is steering clear of controversy and hoping for a nice bi-partisan resolution to the labor conflicts in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio ... the second was an interview with a law professor who studies public sector unions and, guess what, they are not nearly the drag on the public budget or boon to selfish workers that the Republicans portray them as being. Surprised?
As I drove in this morning there were two useful segments on npr: the first confirmed the predictable, namely that the Obama administration is steering clear of controversy and hoping for a nice bi-partisan resolution to the labor conflicts in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio ... the second was an interview with a law professor who studies public sector unions and, guess what, they are not nearly the drag on the public budget or boon to selfish workers that the Republicans portray them as being. Surprised?
Next in the Pantheon of One-Termers: Herbert Hoover.
 |
| President Herbert Hoover with wife Lou Henry. |
[Click here for part I of this series, the first eight one-term presidents: John Adams to William Howard Taft.]
There's a dark little secret about Herbert Hoover. It's this: Other than four terrible years as president of the USA, Hoover led a terrific, admirable, productive life as a leading 20th Century progressive.
So why do so many people hate him? How did this fine, up-standing man end up getting blamed for the Great Depression of the 1930s?
When Barack Obama reached the White House in January 2009 -- just after the US economy had tanked again in the Financial Meltdown of 2008 -- we heard comparisons to 1932 from all sides. Obama friends tried to paint him as a new Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose 1930s New Deal used activist government to address the crisis and made him a Democratic hero, re-elected three times. Now, increasingly, opponents are trying to link Obama to FDR's predecessor Hoover -- the goat.
Obama, if you don't want to end up being tagged another Herbert Hoover, then listen up !
First, the disconnect: Before he became president, Americans admired Herbert Hoover. From Sanford University, Hoover went out and built a fortune as a geologist and mining engineer. He led gold and zinc-mining projects in Australia, China, and a dozen other countries while leaning multiple languages and writing two major engineering text books.
In 1914, when World War I erupted in Europe, Hoover organized the rescue of 120,000 Americans initially stranded there, then stayed in Europe to lead massive food relief efforts for Belgium and other suffering countries. When the US entered the War in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson called him home to lead the US Food Administration. After the War, Hoover returned to the battle scene to feed millions of more refugees in devastated Eastern Europe. Then he founded a center at Stanford University -- paid from his own pocket -- to study the War and its deadly effects on civilians.
People called him "the great humanitarian." Back home, he served eight years as a model Secretary of Commerce, leading a huge relief effort after terrible floods hit Mississippi in 1927. He won the presidency in 1928 by a landslide and, at his March 1929 inauguration, he talked about ending poverty and restoring a Teddy Roosevelt-Woodrow Wilson style progressivism.
Wall Street's stock crash came in October 1929 -- setting the stage for the Depression -- when Herbert Hoover had been President just seven months. Nobody blamed it all on him -- just like nobody blamed the 2008 financial meltdown on Barack Obama. The forces causing the 1929 crash had been building for years. And Hoover himself refused to just sit and let people starve -- the traditional US government response to Wall Street panics. During his term, he launched public works projects, lowered some taxes, prodded business leaders to keep workers on payrolls, started a Reconstruction Finance Corporation, so on, so forth.
After all, people thought, who could possibly be better prepared to face the crisis than "the great humanitarian," "the great engineer," Herbert Hover?
So what went wrong?
By the time Hoover ran for re-election in 1932, he had taken this initial good will and lost it almost totally, making himself a virtual public enemy in America. Crowds booed him, threw eggs and rotten fruit at his train and limousines. How did he make such a mess of things? Here goes--
First, failure matters. The truth is, very few economists in 1929 or 1930 really understood the developing financial collapse, let alone knew how to stop it. It was something new and would take years to figure out.
Hoover tried some new things, tried some old things, but nothing worked. Instead, the economy teetered, tottered, then sank. By 1932, banks were closing by the thousands, unemployment hit 24%, and panic spread. Some Hoover decisions directly fueled the disaster: the Smoot-Hawlety Tariff (signed over objections from economists), badly-timed attempts to balance the budget, a tax increase.
Hoover did not start the downturn, but three years of his "help" made it worse. Was this alone enough for a pink slip? Maybe not. But there's more.
Second, knowing what's going on matters: Yes, presidents should show optimism and confidence in a crisis -- but not at the cost of looking stupid and uninformed.
Faced with growing panic after the 1929 stock crash, Herbert Hoover came forth with a chorus of happy talk. "The crisis will be over in sixty days," he announced cheerily in 1930. "People will work harder, live a more moral life," added his Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. There were "definite signs that business and industry have turned the corner," the president repeated. (For your reading pleasure, click here for a longer list of wrong Hoover optimistic predictions from the period.)
People stopped trusting him and resented him for either not knowing or not doing his homework.
Third, caring matters: The "great humanitarian" of post-World War I Europe never delivered similar relief to the starving unemployed of 1930s America. Instead, in one dark episode, when a group of jobless World War I veterans came to Washington, D.C. seeking payment of a promised pension bonus (the "Bonus Army"), Hoover sent police and then army troops under General Douglas MacArthur to disperse them. A violent melee followed, resulting in two marchers killed and hundreds more injured. Hoover refused to reprimand MacArthur for the violence. (For a great read on this episode, see The Bonus Army (2004) by Paul Dickson and Thomas Allen)
Finally, personality matters: Hoover sank into frustration. “Economic depression cannot be cured by legislative action or executive pronouncement.” he lamented. His complaints sounded petty. His name became an insult. Shantytowns for homeless were Hoover-villes. "I'm the only person of distinction who has ever had a depression named for him," he later said, trying to make a joke of it.
Lesson for Obama:
Now, a word for Obama: Don't be fooled. Being smart does not itself make you a good president. Nor does being called a "great humanitarian." Crisis brings out the best and worst in people.
When things get frustrating, don't show it. As president, you are the country's face. Your confidence, optimism, and good nature -- magnified by TV -- matter as much as any 10-point economic program. But so too does your credibility, and as president the accuracy of your every word is constantly tested by events and "gotcha" pundits. So if prosperity is not around the corner, don't pretend it is, and don't gripe that it isn't.
And don't complain about being unappreciated. Whininess is the least attractive trait in any leader -- especially a president.
Our modern Great Recession of 2008 may not be over on time for the 2012 election, but Americans are smart enough to stick with a leader who shows he can finish the job. Choose good policies, then sprinkle in some strait talk, empathy, confidence, focus, and good nature. That, along with a promising economic report or two, can make the difference.
By the way, Herbert Hoover enjoyed a long and productive life after leaving the White House in 1933 -- living until 1964 when he was 90 years old. Harry Truman invited him to assist food relief efforts in defeated Germany after World War II. Hoover then led a two major federal Commissions on government reorganization (among the most successful ever), wrote three more books (including a best-seller on Woodrow Wilson), and managed the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
Still, most people remember him today only for the Hoover-villes, as the cranky, ineffective president who failed to address the Great Depression. (C-SPAN 2009 poll rank: 34.)
Next up: Jimmy Carter.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
"Women and the Global Economic Crisis" International Women's Day
In association with SERTUC Speakers:
Frances O’Grady Deputy General
Secretary, TUC
Yvette Cooper MP Shadow Home
Secretary and Shadow Minister for
Women and Equalities
Fatima Del Rosario Herrera Olea SITAG
(Agricultural Workers Union, Peru)
Margaret Browne Secretary of Women’s
Committee, Irish Congress of Trade
Unions and President of the Irish Bank
Officials Association
Pemba Lama Deputy General Secretary
of the General Federation of Nepalese
Trade Unions
On the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day the TUC will be highlighting the global fight back against the
disproportionate impact that the global economic crisis has had on women all over the world.
Women are more likely than men to be in vulnerable jobs, or to be unemployed, to lack social protection, and to have limited access to and control over financial resources. Women in both developed and developing countries are facing job cuts, loss of livelihoods, increased responsibilities in all areas of their life, and even an increased risk of violence.
As we in the UK fight savage, ideologically driven cuts that are hitting the women and the poorest hardest and hollowing out public services, we also stand in solidarity with our sisters around the world in their battles for equality and social justice.
Please RSVP to Tanya Warlock on twarlock@tuc.org.uk t: 020 7467 1357
INTERNATIONAL
WOMEN’S DAY
ANNIVERSARY
100TH
Photo: Dar Yasin/AP/Press Association Images
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
