FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Organized Labor’s Default

by ANN ROBERTSON and BILL LEUMER

While the U.S. media has been obsessed with the in-fighting between Democrats and Republicans, as well as the recent government shutdown and the global/domestic ramifications of a possible government default, little attention has been paid to a looming disaster confronting working people: Obama is again threatening to cut “entitlement” programs, meaning Social Security and Medicare.

Here is how he put it in a recent CNBC interview in the course of answering questions: “But we still have some challenges in terms of our long-term health care spending on Medicare in particular.” And later in the interview he added: “It is important for us to deal with our long-term entitlement spending.” Knowing that these cuts are incredibly unpopular among the vast majority, Obama chose oblique language rather than being straightforward, as is typical among politicians. But we know from past admissions on his part that he is talking about cuts.

In order to appreciate the significance of Obama’s current threat it is helpful to keep in mind the larger, surrounding context. The Democrats, for example, without putting up a fight, have already made significant concessions at the expense of working people around the current budget. They signaled their willingness to accept the austere level of funding proposed by the right-wing Republicans – roughly 18 percent below what the Democrats originally proposed. This means that there will be less money available to fund public education and infrastructure projects, both of which would benefit working people, the first in terms of enhancing public education, the second in terms of construction jobs.

But the even larger context within which these events must be framed concerns the growing inequalities in wealth, which are surging. According to The New York Times, in the 1990s the richest 1 percent received 45 percent of all new income; during the next decade they received 65 percent. And now it has jumped to 95 percent.

With wealth being concentrated more and more at the top, the rich can use their vast resources to lobby government officials for policies that make the rich even richer. And not surprisingly, they have done exactly this by convincing politicians to lower their tax rates.

As Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, reported, for example: “From the 1940s until 1980, the top income-tax rate on the highest earners in America was at least 70 percent. In the 1950s, it was 91 percent. Now it’s 35 percent. Even if you include deductions and credits, the rich are paying a far lower share of their incomes in taxes than at any time since World War II. The estate tax (which hits only the top 2 percent) also has been slashed. In 2000 it was 55 percent and kicked in after $1 million.”

Rather than trying to reduce inequalities in wealth, which undermine democracy and shred the social and moral fabric that holds people together, Obama is proposing to throw fuel on the fire with his entitlement cuts. He refuses to raise income taxes on the rich, as he indicated in the same interview. He is prepared to ignore the fact that the poverty rate among senior citizens is on the rise, thanks in part to their increased medical expenses. And despite the fact that Social Security is a major factor keeping many seniors above the poverty line, Obama is prepared to cut both it and Medicare. This is a reflection of the power that the 1 percent can wield, thanks to their vast financial resources.

In other words, the rich have declared class war on the rest of us. While Democrats give plenty of speeches in support of programs and policies that would support working people, their actions speak louder about where they stand in this war.

Meanwhile, the AFL-CIO, whose official task is to defend working people, at best is sending mixed messages, and at worst has abandoned its members and joined the opposition. On its blog it has announced: “Working people need to bring our own pressure. Our message is clear – repeal the sequester… No cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Protect food aid for the poor. And create jobs and raise hundreds of billions of dollars to invest in our future by ending all tax subsidies for outsourcing.” (September 30, 2013)

Yet just a few days later, the same AFL-CIO author announced, after calling for higher taxes on the rich and after denouncing the proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare being peddled by “extremist” Republicans, whom he describes as deeply dependent on Wall Street money: “And that’s why people need to tell the president, ‘stand tall, we are with you.’” Significantly, the author failed to mention Obama has rejected higher income taxes on the rich and has on numerous occasions expressed willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare, and is also “deeply dependent” on Wall Street money.

Here is how The New York Times described Obama’s relation with Wall Street (June 12, 2011, “Obama Seeks to Win Back Wall St. Cash”):

“A few weeks before announcing his re-election campaign, President Obama convened two dozen Wall Street executives, many of them longtime donors, in the White House’s Blue Room… The event, organized by the Democratic National Committee, kicked off an aggressive push by Mr. Obama to win back the allegiance of one of his most vital sources of campaign cash — in part by trying to convince Wall Street that his policies, far from undercutting the investor class, have helped bring banks and financial markets back to health… And Mr. Obama will return to New York this month to dine with bankers, hedge fund executives and private equity investors at the Upper East Side restaurant Daniel.”

With the most cursory glance at all the financial relations between Wall Street, Obama, and the Democratic Party, it becomes patently obvious that the AFL-CIO has embraced a completely self-defeating strategy: support the very people who are attacking you. There is no acknowledgement by the AFL-CIO that Obama and the Democrats are also on the take when it comes to Wall Street money. And there can be little wonder that working people have suffered so many defeats during the past four decades with this kind of incoherent strategy.

Until organized labor takes a clear stand in favor of working people in this raging class war, as opposed to trying to straddle some inconsistent middle position, working people will continue to watch their standard of living decline while the 1 percent continue their all-out offensive.

We should insist that organized labor take an unambiguous position in defense of working people, act independently of the politicians by mobilizing working people and their community allies, and stage massive demonstrations demanding that the government raise taxes on the rich, reject any cuts to Social Security and Medicare, create a federal jobs program that would put millions back to work, and allocate more money to education and social programs so that poverty can be completely eliminated.

Real wars require that two opposed sides battle each other. Thus far, thanks to organized labor’s default, we have been experiencing a massacre.

Ann Robertson is a Lecturer at San Francisco State University and a member of the California Faculty Association.

Bill Leumer is a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 853 (ret.). Both are writers for Workers Action and may be reached at sanfrancisco@workerscompass.org.

 

Ann Robertson is a Lecturer in the Philosophy Department at San Francisco State University and a member of the California Faculty Association. Bill Leumer is a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 853 (ret.). Both are writers for Workers Action and may be reached at sanfrancisco@workerscompass.org

February 09, 2016
Andrew Levine
Hillary Says the Darndest Things
Paul Street
Kill King Capital
Ben Burgis
Lesser Evil Voting and Hillary Clinton’s War on the Poor
Paul Craig Roberts
Are the Payroll Jobs Reports Merely Propaganda Statements?
Fran Quigley
How Corporations Killed Medicine
Ted Rall
How Bernie Can Pay for His Agenda: Slash the Military
Kristin Kolb
The Greatest Bear Rainforest Agreement? A Love Affair, Deferred
Joseph Natoli
Politics and Techno-Consciousness
Hrishikesh Joshi
Selective Attention to Diversity: the Case of Cruz and Rubio
Stavros Mavroudeas
Why Syriza is Sinking in Greece
David Macaray
Attention Peyton Manning: Leave Football and Concentrate on Pizza
Arvin Paranjpe
Opening Your Heart
Kathleen Wallace
Boys, Hell, and the Politics of Vagina Voting
Brian Foley
Interview With a Bernie Broad: We Need to Start Focusing on Positions and Stop Relying on Sexism
February 08, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Privatization: the Atlanticist Tactic to Attack Russia
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Water War Against the Poor: Flint and the Crimes of Capital
John V. Walsh
Did Hillary’s Machine Rig Iowa? The Highly Improbable Iowa Coin Tosses
Vincent Emanuele
The Curse and Failure of Identity Politics
Eliza A. Webb
Hillary Clinton’s Populist Charade
Uri Avnery
Optimism of the Will
Roy Eidelson Trudy Bond, Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner, Jean Maria Arrigo, Brad Olson, and Bryant Welch
Preserve Do-No-Harm for Military Psychologists: Coalition Responds to Department of Defense Letter to the APA
Patrick Cockburn
Oil Prices and ISIS Ruin Kurdish Dreams of Riches
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange, the UN and Meanings of Arbitrary Detention
Shamus Cooke
The Labor Movement’s Pearl Harbor Moment
W. T. Whitney
Cuba, War and Ana Belen Montes
Jim Goodman
Congress Must Kill the Trans Pacific Partnership
Peter White
Meeting John Ross
Colin Todhunter
Organic Agriculture, Capitalism and the Parallel World of the Pro-GMO Evangelist
Ralph Nader
They’re Just Not Answering!
Cesar Chelala
Beware of the Harm on Eyes Digital Devices Can Cause
Weekend Edition
February 5-7, 2016
Jeffrey St. Clair
When Chivalry Fails: St. Bernard and the Machine
Leonard Peltier
My 40 Years in Prison
John Pilger
Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter
Garry Leech
Terrifying Ted and His Ultra-Conservative Vision for America
Andrew Levine
Smash Clintonism: Why Democrats, Not Republicans, are the Problem
William Blum
Is Bernie Sanders a “Socialist”?
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
We Can’t Afford These Billionaires
Enrique C. Ochoa
Super Bowl 50: American Inequality on Display
Jonathan Cook
The Liberal Hounding of Julian Assange: From Alex Gibney to The Guardian
George Wuerthner
How the Bundy Gang Won
Mike Whitney
Peace Talks “Paused” After Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo 
Ted Rall
Hillary Clinton: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Gary Leupp
Is a “Socialist” Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign
Vijay Prashad
The Fault Line of Race in America
Eoin Higgins
Please Clap: the Jeb Bush Campaign Pre-Mortem
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail