Rocky Anderson is moving the Justice Party to the right.

Busy night tonight; phone has been ringing off the hook with calls from people wanting to know what happened at this evening's National Steering Committee of the Justice Party meeting... same old crap working people are always subjected to by these well-heeled politicians. This is my post which explains things. I got all kinds of calls like this one which I posted my response to in the Justice Party forums:

Wow! that was quick. Just got a call from Sally Robbins in Superior, Wisconsin who has, like a lot of people, been following this discussion.

http://justiceparty.websitetoolbox.com/post/Full-Employment-requires-more-than-repeating-the-words-quotJobs-Jobs-Jobs.quot-6149484

Sally is asking me why I am no longer a member of the Justice Party and its National Steering Committee.

Another good question.

Let's just say me and Rocky Anderson don't see eye-to-eye on where he wants to take the Justice Party and the controversy centers around the progressive ideas I have been posting and commenting on here.

Rocky Anderson for quite some time has been peddling this thinking that the Minimum Wage figures can just be pulled from a hat for political expediency without considering cost of living factors and apparently he doesn't have the stomach or the moral and political courage to take on our Wall Street enemies who reap super profits from paying workers poverty wages.

Rocky can post the contents of our e-mail exchanges on this issue if he so chooses. I think it would make for some pretty good transparency.

Rocky thinks it is appropriate we should all be working for poverty wages. He has proposed the Minimum Wage should be a miserly poverty wage of $10.00 an hour without any connection to cost of living factors--- although he does agree with me that the Minimum Wage should be indexed to inflation; but, most importantly, he is opposed to making the government legislatively responsible for maintaining full employment.

So, this evening we had this argument out at the meeting of the National Steering Committee--- and, wouldn't you know what happened? Us progressives lost the battle.

I don't want to place words in Rocky Anderson's mouth so he is welcome to come on here and explain his position in his own words lest he accuses me of distorting his position.

If I am wrong regarding his position on full employment and the minimum wage at least people can read for themselves his own views--- after all, it isn't me running for public office. If we have his position here in writing then we have some accountability should he ever again be elected to public office.

Fair enough?

How about it Rocky?

You have been reading this post and the comments and responses very closely... like they say: Rocky Anderson, come on downnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!

And if Rocky Anderson wants to deal with any other problems he has with me I would suggest he start another forum topic about any of that and I will be happy to respond to his post/s.

But, let's try to stay on topic here under this post--- full employment, the Minimum Wage, cost of living and standard of living and how these dirty imperialist wars--- including one of the very dirtiest imperialist wars Rocky supported... that savage U.S. led N.A.T.O. war against the people of Yugoslavia--- which, like all these dirty imperialist wars killed people while killing our jobs.
__________________
Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

Notice: I am no longer a member of the Justice Party or the Justice Party's National Steering Committee

58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763

E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

This is an excellent article so my comments are meant to add to it and not disparage it in any way. I re-print the entire article below.

Even if It Enrages Your Boss, Social Net Speech Is Protected

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Published: January 21, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/technology/employers-social-media-policies-come-under-regulatory-scrutiny.html?_r=1&

This is the comment I posted on Steven Greenhouse's FaceBook page:

Stating a policy and enforcing that policy are two very different things as any worker knows. Just look at the "Family Leave Act." The United States Department of Labor flatly refuses to enforce it. Here in the state of Minnesota the State of Minnesota itself is harassing and firing its own employees who avail themselves of the "Family Leave Act" and the United States Department of Labor does nothing.

It has taken SIX years for the United States Department of Labor just to get the State of Minnesota to place the required signage up in its places of employment with workers who avail themselves of the act being harassed to no end facing all kinds of suspensions and harassment. 

Now, pose the question:

What will happen to employees if they make posts on the internet complaining they are being harassed and bullied by an employer because they availed themselves first of the Family Leave Act and then they get harassed or fired because they post about this on the Internet?

Do you really think an employee who gets no help from Obama's U.S. Department of Labor affirming their right to Family Leave is going to risk posting about this problem on the Internet knowing Obama's NLRB is there to protect them?

I don't think so.

Words on paper are such nice things in this country--- one would think the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights would have had such basic and simple problems avoided...

But, then again, all you need is a good expensive lawyer because your high paid union officials think fighting a case or even filing a grievance is too much work.

And where does this leave a casino worker employed in the hideous Indian Gaming Industry working in a loud, noisy, smoke-filled casino being paid poverty wages without any rights under state or federal labor laws... and with mainstream media so beholden to these employers for advertising revenue the problems are taboo to even discuss in our great big wonderful bastion of democracy.

Try posting what I have just written and Steven's excellent article on your FaceBook page if you work in one of the more than 350 casino operations comprising the Indian Gaming Industry and see what happens.

Go see your member of congress or a state legislator? Ya, sure; you betcha--- those people bribed by the National Indian Gaming Association who helped its co-chair get off assault charges for beating his wife unconscious because she came home late.

Come on people... let's enter the real work-a-day when you can get a job world of the working class.

Yes; it is very good all this is printed on paper; but...

Alan L. Maki

Director of Organizing,

Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

 From the New York Times

Even if It Enrages Your Boss, Social Net Speech Is Protected

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Published: January 21, 2013 128 Comments

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• GOOGLE+
• SAVE
• E-MAIL
• SHARE
• PRINT
• SINGLE PAGE
• REPRINTS
• 

As Facebook and Twitter become as central to workplace conversation as the company cafeteria, federal regulators are ordering employers to scale back policies that limit what workers can say online.

Enlarge This Image

Brendan Bannon for The New York Times

Rafael Gomez, a lawyer for Hispanics United of Buffalo, said the group would appeal an N.L.R.B. decision in favor of employees.

Enlarge This Image

Brendan Bannon for The New York Times

Mariana Cole-Rivera, formerly of Hispanics United of Buffalo, was fired along with four co-workers after Facebook posts.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (128) »

Employers often seek to discourage comments that paint them in a negative light. Don’t discuss company matters publicly, a typical social media policy will say, and don’t disparage managers, co-workers or the company itself. Violations can be a firing offense.

But in a series of recent rulings and advisories, labor regulators have declared many such blanket restrictions illegal. TheNational Labor Relations Board says workers have a right to discuss work conditions freely and without fear of retribution, whether the discussion takes place at the office or on Facebook.

In addition to ordering the reinstatement of various workers fired for their posts on social networks, the agency has pushed companies nationwide, including giants like General Motors, Target and Costco, to rewrite their social media rules.

“Many view social media as the new water cooler,” said Mark G. Pearce, the board’s chairman, noting that federal law has long protected the right of employees to discuss work-related matters. “All we’re doing is applying traditional rules to a new technology.”

The decisions come amid a broader debate over what constitutes appropriate discussion on Facebook and other social networks. Schools and universities are wrestling with online bullying and student disclosures about drug use. Governments worry about what police officers and teachers say and do online on their own time. Even corporate chieftains are finding that their online comments can run afoul of securities regulators.

The labor board’s rulings, which apply to virtually all private sector employers, generally tell companies that it is illegal to adopt broad social media policies — like bans on “disrespectful” comments or posts that criticize the employer — if those policies discourage workers from exercising their right to communicate with one another with the aim of improving wages, benefits or working conditions.

But the agency has also found that it is permissible for employers to act against a lone worker ranting on the Internet.

Several cases illustrate the differing standards.

At Hispanics United of Buffalo, a nonprofit social services provider in upstate New York, a caseworker threatened to complain to the boss that others were not working hard enough. Another worker, Mariana Cole-Rivera, posted a Facebook message asking, “My fellow co-workers, how do you feel?”

Several of her colleagues posted angry, sometimes expletive-laden, responses. “Try doing my job. I have five programs,” wrote one. “What the hell, we don’t have a life as is,” wrote another.

Hispanics United fired Ms. Cole-Rivera and four other caseworkers who responded to her, saying they had violated the company’s harassment policies by going after the caseworker who complained.

In a 3-to-1 decision last month, the labor board concluded that the caseworkers had been unlawfully terminated. It found that the posts in 2010 were the type of “concerted activity” for “mutual aid” that is expressly protected by the National Labor Relations Act.

“The board’s decision felt like vindication,” said Ms. Cole-Rivera, who has since found another social work job.

The N.L.R.B. had far less sympathy for a police reporter at The Arizona Daily Star.

Frustrated by a lack of news, the reporter posted several Twitter comments. One said, “What?!?!?! No overnight homicide. ... You’re slacking, Tucson.” Another began, “You stay homicidal, Tucson.”

The newspaper fired the reporter, and board officials found the dismissal legal, saying the posts were offensive, not concerted activity and not about working conditions.

The agency also affirmed the firing of a bartender in Illinois. Unhappy about not receiving a raise for five years, the bartender posted on Facebook, calling his customers “rednecks” and saying he hoped they choked on glass as they drove home drunk.

Labor board officials found that his comments were personal venting, not the “concerted activity” aimed at improving wages and working conditions that is protected by federal law.

N.L.R.B. officials did not name the reporter or the bartender.

(Page 2 of 2)

The board’s moves have upset some companies, particularly because it is taking a law enacted in the industrial era, principally to protect workers’ right to unionize, and applying it to the digital activities of nearly all private-sector workers, union and nonunion alike.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (128) »

Brian E. Hayes, the lone dissenter in the Hispanics United case, wrote that “the five employees were simply venting,” not engaged in concerted activity, and therefore were not protected from termination. Rafael O. Gomez, Hispanics United’s lawyer, said the nonprofit would appeal the board’s decision, maintaining that the Facebook posts were harassment.

Some corporate officials say the N.L.R.B. is intervening in the social media scene in an effort to remain relevant as private-sector unions dwindle in size and power.

“The board is using new legal theories to expand its power in the workplace,” said Randel K. Johnson, senior vice president for labor policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce. “It’s causing concern and confusion.”

But board officials say they are merely adapting the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, enacted in 1935, to the 21st century workplace.

The N.L.R.B. is not the only government entity setting new rules about corporations and social media. On Jan. 1, California and Illinois became the fifth and sixth states to bar companies from asking employees or job applicants for their social network passwords.

Lewis L. Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, said social media rights were looming larger in the workplace.

He said he was disturbed by a case in which a Michigan advertising agency fired a Web site trainer who also wrote fiction after several employees voiced discomfort about racy short stories he had posted on the Web.

“No one should be fired for anything they post that’s legal, off-duty and not job-related,” Mr. Maltby said.

As part of the labor board’s stepped-up role, its general counsel has issued three reports concluding that many companies’ social media policies illegally hinder workers’ exercise of their rights.

The general counsel’s office gave high marks to Wal-Mart’s social policy, which had been revised after consultations with the agency. It approved Wal-Mart’s prohibition of “inappropriate postings that may include discriminatory remarks, harassment and threats of violence or similar inappropriate or unlawful conduct.”

But in assessing General Motors’s policy, the office wrote, “We found unlawful the instruction that ‘offensive, demeaning, abusive or inappropriate remarks are as out of place online as they are offline.’ ” It added, “This provision proscribes a broad spectrum of communications that would include protected criticisms of the employer’s labor policies or treatment of employees.” A G.M. official said the company has asked the board to reconsider.

In a ruling last September, the board also rejected as overly broad Costco’s blanket prohibition against employees’ posting things that “damage the company” or “any person’s reputation.” Costco declined to comment.

Denise M. Keyser, a labor lawyer who advises many companies, said employers should adopt social media policies that are specific rather than impose across-the-board prohibitions.

Do not just tell workers not to post confidential information, Ms. Keyser said. Instead, tell them not to disclose, for example, trade secrets, product introduction dates or private health details.

But placing clear limits on social media posts without crossing the legal line remains difficult, said Steven M. Swirsky, another labor lawyer. “Even when you review the N.L.R.B. rules and think you’re following the mandates,” he said, “there’s still a good deal of uncertainty.”

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs... We will never back down.

I hope everyone will take ten minutes to listen to what Richard Trumka, the President of the AFL-CIO, has to say about jobs for all.

Trumka backed a job killing warmonger for president and has repeatedly backed down under pressure from the Wall Street bullies. He has also failed to draw the conclusion that wars kill jobs just like they kill people and that as long as we are squandering the wealth of our Nation on militarism and wars we won't have the resources to create jobs. With that said, this is one of those cases where we should take his advice and do what he says instead of doing the wrong things he has done like supporting Obama--- if Trumka would only stand up and not back down, wouldn't he make one heck of a candidate to run for president on a real working class based people's party ticket?

He keeps saying he doesn't agree with many of the things the Democrats do so he really should run himself.

Anyways, we are going to be hearing a lot of talk about "jobs, jobs, jobs" from Obama and all these politicians the next week or so as we celebrate the King Holiday; what we will not be hearing anything about is the responsibility of the United States government for creating full employment with real living wage jobs. Who will raise this issue? You and me. Talk to your friends, neighbors and fellow workers about the need to make the United States government accountable to the American people for full employment. What better opportunity to raise this issue than when these politicians place the focus on "jobs, jobs, jobs."

For some talking points check out my post here and the comments and discussion:

http://justiceparty.websitetoolbox.com/post/Full-Employment-requires-more-than-repeating-the-words-quotJobs-Jobs-Jobs.quot-6149484

Now listen to Richard Trumka...

We Will Never Back Down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCvFlyOWazU

Trumka: We Will Never Back Down

www.youtube.com

Richard L. Trumka President, AFL-CIO addresses United Steelworkers Constitutional Convention, August 17, 2011

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. provided us with a lot to think about.

Coming up in February is Black History Month:

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in honoring W.E.B. DuBois:

"We cannot talk of Dr. Du Bois without recognizing that he was a radical all of his life. Some people would like to ignore the fact that he was a Communist in his later years.

It is time to cease muting the fact that Dr. Du Bois was a genius and chose to be a Communist. Our irrational, obsessive anti-communism has led us into too many quagmires to be retained as if it were a mode of scientific thinking."

A comment on the status of working class education...

It never ceases to amaze me the way these "progressives" for Obama write about things. Here is something from a publication which claims to be "left:"

"As for GOP Gov. John Kasich-still haunted by a 2010 declaration that "we need to break the back of organized labor" - all focus on his end is on gearing for a probable toss-up re-election campaign. With his approval ratings still well under 50%, he can't afford to lose any votes, particularly from the 30% of union members who tend to vote Republican, unless they have good reason not to."

Why would 30% of the union members in Ohio ever have any reason to vote Republican?

Doesn't this tell us something about the piss-poor job the "leaders" of organized labor who support Obama are doing when it comes to educating workers?

here in Minnesota the leaders of the teachers' union have actually initiated a caucus with in their union for Republican teachers. These same "leaders" endorsed the most right wing Minnesota Republican State Senator, Tony Cornish.

All of this helps to confuse, rather than educate, working people.

But not only is there this confusion being sown; simultaneously workers are strengthening the power of the very politicians who they have to fight in order to defend their rights and their livelihoods.

Never mind these labor "leaders" lacking the very basics of class consciousness, they don't even have any common sense.

Is Marco Rubio "moving left?"

The Obama supporting Campaign for America's Future ran this headline today on their website:

"Rubio Moves Left On Immigration"

Now, really; does anyone believe that even though Marco Rubio may be re-framing the issue of immigration in order to get votes that he is moving "left?"

This proves that both the Democrats and Republicans on every single issue are only concerned with framing issues in a demagogic way in order to get votes because when it comes to actually creating legislation and casting votes for legislation the only thing that ends up standing--- no matter what any of these politicians have said--- is what serves Wall Street's interest in maximizing profits.

Marco Rubio, just like Obama, is your typical demagogue.

Both are political leaders who seeks support by appealing to popular desires no matter how anti-labor, racist and reactionary, and the most vile and bigoted prejudices rather than using rational argument.

What would a rational working class perspective be in relation to immigration?

The answer is very simple:

Labor should have the same easy right in crossing borders that is extended to capital.

Why should the rights of workers in seeking a better life be curtailed when the "right" of capital to profit roams free?

And the only reason most working people even contemplate leaving their home countries is because Wall Street's drive for maximum profits has treated them like dog shit on their high-priced fancy shoes--- exploiting and repressing them.

The mainstream media has peddled the most fantastic lies misrepresenting both the typical middle class living standards and the biggest lie of all about how "free" we are in this country.

And now we are supposed to resent our fellow workers who are only seeking what we want: a decent life.

And for this we are supposed to view our fellow workers--- but not free roaming capital, which we are supposed to ignore along with its rapacious barbaric consequences--- as criminals.

Three women members of the progressive PKK murdered.

Progressives around the world are mourning the deaths of the three courageous women members of the PKK.

Have you noticed few media have reported that the PKK is the Kurdistan Workers' Party?

I know a number of members and leaders of the Kurdistan Workers' Party.

I participated in a demonstration organized by members of the PKK in Montreal where the Montreal police beat the hell out of everyone including the women and small children being pushed by their mothers in strollers.

A group of cops charged towards me as they were swinging their billy-clubs clubbing little kids trying to get to me when a cop leading this attack on peaceful protestors demanding the release of Abdullah Öcalan shouted out through the loudspeaker: Leave that guy carrying the black briefcase alone--- don't hurt him, he is an American.

I guess these racist bastards called cops thought because of my darker complexion I must have been a Kurd, too.

One reason why Abdullah Öcalan, a hero and leader of the Kurdish people, is still in prison in Turkey--- held under the most inhumane conditions--- is because he reads the views of Professor Immanuel Wallerstein whose views I frequently post hee on my blog and post on facebook.

Like the brutal Montreal police, most likely acting on orders of some kind of joint CSIS and the CIA taskforce, who viciously attacked a peaceful demonstration that was predominantly women and their children, I have no doubt it was this same sleazy grouping who murdered these three leaders of the progressive Kurdistan Workers' Party.

No doubt Barack Obama had the names of these three women on his "hit list."

Shameful and disgusting. Very sad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21050162

Socialist Insight w/ Stewart Alexander

by AirAmarteifioRadio

Mon, January 14, 2013 06:00 pm Central Time

Call in to speak with the host

(718) 664-6436

upcoming

Alan L. Maki will be the guest.  
"The Obama Presidency and the American Left"
The program will discuss issues involving labor, immigration, health care, women issues, economics, human rights, civil rights, issues concerning people of color, education and much, much more. This will be a very exciting program!!
 

Stop Obama's swindle from, and destruction of, Social Security.

Is Obama preparing to start the destruction of Social Security? I think he is.

Is there anything we can do? I think there is while building towards the creation of a powerful people's movement unwilling to put up with what Obama and the Democrats are trying to shove down our throats at the same time.

In spite of what is written below, I think Richard Trumka and the 50-plus "leaders" of the unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO are preparing to "cover Obama's and the Democrats' backside" just as they did with ditching single-payer.

The "coalition" of some 300 organizations under the leadership of the AFL-CIO now working to "defend" Social Security is pretty much the same coalition whose leaders undermined the huge single-payer universal health care movement.

Here is their website: http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/

Here are the member organizations:

http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/about/coalition

I think what we need to do is secure e-mail addresses for each of these organizations insisting they survey and poll their members before agreeing to any cuts in Social Security; we need to let these "leaders" know they are accountable to their members NOT Obama and the Democratic Party.

We need to publicize the letters and communications we send to these "leaders" all over the place including on their FaceBook pages, through Linked In and on their own and members' blogs and websites.

We need to express the need for not just the "leaders" to use press conferences as the "action" of choice; but insist it is the responsibility of these "leaders" to involve the members of their organizations in massive and raucous defense of Social Security.

The members of these organizations which are members of this coalition need to be kept informed by us because their "leaders" intend to abandon them.

This is how we coerce accountability.

We need a letter signed by thousands insisting Social Security benefits be improved and the age lowered, not raised.

We need to insist there be no "chained CPI;" that Social Security must reflect what is required for a decent standard of living with constant increases including cost of living increases.

We need to insist Congress repays the more than two-trillion dollars it has "borrowed" from the Social Security Trust Fund leaving behind nothing but IOU's we can all see they have no intent to repay.

This money has been squandered on these dirty wars by these crooked and corrupt Wall Street politicians. This is nothing but theft. This money was taken from the American people to fund Social Security not to be used as interest free loans to finance wars and boon-doggles enriching Wall Street vultures and parasites.

Will Obama cave on Social Security? Obama is the one who raised the issue of cuts to Social Security in the first place which was tantamount to feeding the Republicans bloody, red meat.

And this "coalition" was created to give its consent to Obama and the Democrats. The "leaders" of this coalition are nor carrying out the mandate of their members who want no part of any kind of cuts to Social Security. These "leaders" are posturing as defenders of Social Security in order to save face with their members. It is all a big fraud just like the theft of over two-trillion dollars from the Social Security Trust Fund which Obama is now trying to force workers to repay.

Alan L. Maki


Will Obama Cave on Social Security?

    With chained CPI a likely part of any debt
    ceiling deal, outraged progressives are
    organizing in advance

By Josh Eidelson
Salon
January 12, 2013

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/12/will_obama_cave_on_social_security/?source=newsletter

A top official at the nation's largest union federation
slammed a Social Security cut proposal that's been
floated by President Obama, but stopped short of
calling it a deal-breaker in the next round of budget
wars.

"We remain strongly opposed" to chained CPI, AFL-
CIO government affairs director Bill Samuel told
Salon. "It's a very substantial benefit cut."

"Chained CPI" is a proposed alternative method of
calculating cost of living adjustments, which would
reduce future increases in Social Security benefits.
Samuel said that for many seniors on fixed incomes,
even "the current system may not be adequate." He
called the claim that chained CPI could be
implemented in a way that would be fair to such
retirees "sort of ludicrous."

Obama has repeatedly touted chained CPI as an
aspect of a potential "Grand Bargain" with
Republicans to reduce the deficit. In a "Meet the
Press" interview aired on Dec. 30, the president
highlighted it both as an example of his willingness
to make concessions to the GOP and part of his
"pursuit of strengthening Social Security for the
long-term."

The same day that interview aired, Republicans
reportedly dropped their insistence on including
chained CPI in the scaled-down so-called fiscal cliff
deal, signaling they expect it to be part of a larger
deficit deal in the next few months. So, it appears,
does Obama. Can labor stop them?

"The White House has signaled many times they're
very open to this concept, which puts us in a very
precarious situation," said Eric Kingson, a co-chair
of Strengthen Social Security. That coalition, whose
300-some member groups include the AFL-CIO and
some of its largest unions, supports increasing
Social Security benefits and opposes chained CPI,
which Kingson called "a disguised benefit cut."

Kingson and fellow co-chair Nancy Altman told
Salon they would recommend that the Strengthen
Social Security coalition oppose any overall deficit
deal that includes chained CPI. Altman, whom the
AFL-CIO is urging Obama to nominate as Social
Security commissioner, said, "I think we would
certainly have the view that there should be a line
in the sand that should not be crossed." But she
noted that individual coalition members would
"have to weigh a lot of things" in deciding whether
their own groups would also support torpedoing an
overall deal over chained CPI.

No member of that coalition is more prominent than
the AFL-CIO, the federation of 56 unions that played
a major role in reelecting the president. So will the
AFL-CIO pledge to oppose any deficit deal that
includes chained CPI? "I'm not going to answer
that," said Samuel. "That's theoretical. I expect we
will remain opposed to chained CPI."

Samuel said that the federation's overall priorities in
any budget deal are the same ones it pushed during
the "fiscal cliff" fight: raising taxes on the top 2
percent of Americans and averting cuts to Medicare,
Medicaid and Social Security. In a follow-up email
to Salon, Samuel added that it was "very unlikely"
that the AFL-CIO would support any deal that
included safety net cuts.

The AFL-CIO's strategy for the current budget wars
will be a topic of discussion at its Executive
Committee meeting on Wednesday.

National Nurses United executive director RoseAnn
DeMoro, one of 53 members of the AFL-CIO
Executive Council, said the federation needs to take
a hard line. "I think they should borrow some
cement from the building trades and draw a line in
the sand and keep it there ." she told Salon. "It
would be unconscionable for the AFL-CIO to
maintain a position of any type of wiggle room with
respect to that." DeMoro said that the varying
politics of its affiliate unions make the AFL-CIO "a
mixture of a whole lot of different forces," but said it
"needs to separate itself from the Democratic Party
and stand on its own."

The AFL-CIO drew a bright line early in the fiscal
cliff showdown. In an interview the day after
President Obama's reelection, AFL-CIO president
Richard Trumka told Salon that the federation
would oppose any fiscal cliff deal that didn't fully
end the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent, or
included any cuts to entitlements (chained CPI
included). But on Dec. 20, after Obama was widely
reported to have offered Speaker John Boehner a
"Grand Bargain" including chained CPI, Trumka
told the Huffington Post's Sam Stein that while "we
oppose the cuts," "Obviously I want to look at the
whole deal before we make any decision."

On New Year's Eve, hours before the Senate voted to
approve a deal that had no entitlement cuts but
extended Bush tax cuts on family incomes up to
$450,000, Trumka weighed in with a series of
critical tweets, including "its not a good #fiscalcliff
deal if it gives more tax cuts to 2 percent and sets
the stage for more hostage taking." (According to
Samuel, those tweets were meant to indicate that
"we were concerned about the direction the deal was
taking.") But in an emailed statement the next day,
Trumka called the deal "a breakthrough in
beginning to restore tax fairness," and said it
"achieves some key goals of working families."
However, he said, "lawmakers should have listened
even better."

Asked whether that deal had met the minimum
standards Trumka outlined in November, Samuel
said, "I think it depends how you count this, but it
came awfully close." He said that further tax
increases on the top 2 percent will be necessary. But
he touted the absence of entitlement cuts, the
extension of unemployment benefits, and Obama's
success in "breaking through the decades-long
Republican opposition to raising taxes." Samuel
said he believes Obama "did the best he could,
given the circumstances."

What's next? According to the AFL-CIO, in the two
months following Election Day, the federation
mobilized tens of thousands of people for
demonstrations supporting taxing the top 2 percent
and opposing benefit cuts, and generated over
15,000 phone calls. Samuel said the AFL-CIO will
"continue, and maybe even accelerate or ramp up"
such efforts over the coming weeks, with a
particular focus on the President's Day recess.
Samuel said he was optimistic that, once outcry
mounts over GOP hostage-taking on the debt
ceiling, Obama would be able to avoid making any
concessions in exchange for raising it. Instead,
Samuel predicted that the main deal-making will
revolve around the looming sequester cuts and the
coming expiration of government funding.

Samuel said he believes that pressure from the AFL-
CIO and its allies has succeeded in taking other
entitlement cuts, like raising the eligibility age for
Medicare, "off the table." As for chained CPI, he said,
Obama "clearly doesn't have the strong visceral
reaction against it that we do. But I think he
believes it's a pretty tough measure, and my
assumption is he wouldn't push it unless he was
getting something pretty significant in return" from
Republicans. Samuel said that increasing public
opposition to chained CPI could reduce the
willingness of the president, as well as Democrats
and Republicans in Congress, to put it on the table.
While it's already "pretty unpopular," he said, "we
have to make it a proposal that is unacceptable to
the public."

"We have a healthy degree of concern," said Samuel.
"One would have to going into this fight - it's not
going to be easy. Our record so far suggests that we
can be successful."

--
Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell: 651-587-5541

Primary E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net
E-mail: alan.maki1951mn@gmail.com

Blog: http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Taco Ball and Obamacare.

You know, it never ceases to amaze me how parasitic capitalism has become.

Obamacare has spun an entirely new industry while boosting the profits of one more "philanthropist."

A couple of Obama's biggest "bundlers," fundraisers," have started a new "small business venture." Apparently just what Obama had in mind when he said he was going to help small business create jobs.

Well, this innovative bunch who supported Obamacare has launched a new small business, a consulting business, which for a handsome fee, teaches small businesses how to avoid getting out from under the "high cost of Obamacare."

One of their first clients was Taco Bell:

http://www.nationofchange.org/taco-bell-franchise-cuts-worker-hours-avoid-giving-them-health-coverage-under-obamacare-1357661958

But, wait; it is not only this consulting firm making big bucks from this scheme.

Check out who wrote this "expose."

"Scott Keyes is an investigative researcher for ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund."

Notice; in this article there is no criticism at all of Obama and the Democrats who intentionally placed these loopholes in the legislation for the corporations to get out from under the "burden" of Obamacare.

The Center for American Progress was one of the leading organizations that cobbled together a coalition supporting Obamacare with the intent of derailing the single-payer universal health care movement--- an outfit which, under the guise of "liberalism" opposes any discussion about the need for a National Public Health Care System; an outfit which has advised the Physicians for a National Health Program that "private delivery of health services is required 'because the American people want their doctor-patient relationship to remain intact'" and they used red-baiting to drive the point home working through scumbags like Joel Clemmer of the Minnesota Progressive Democrats of America.

As an aside... this same coalition that was created to kill the single-payer movement and is trying to use red-baiting to stifle discussion about National Public Health Care; this coalition has now transformed and morphed itself into another coalition: Strengthen Social Security. Again with the Center for American Progress and the Century Foundation sitting in the background providing the direction--- or, more properly: the sell-out.

But wait; it gets even better... top executives of Taco Bell are contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama's Inaugural Events just as they did to his election, and re-election, campaigns.

And how will Obama's die-hard supporters respond to all of this?

"Stop picking on the president."

Oh, and by the way; the legal consulting to these corporations seeking to evade paying health care benefits to employees is coming from one of the top attorneys from Brownstein-Hyatt-Farber-Schreck. Don't know who they are? Do a google search: "Frank Schreck and the Democratic Party;" "Brownstein and AIPAC."

Check this out:

Rob McKay (major Democrat donor, Taco Bell heir, and McKay Family Foundation President):

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/05/deep-pocketed-democratic-donors.html
McKay also bankrolls--- guess who? Yup; the Center for American Progress.

McKay is the guy who sucked SEIU into these so-called "living wage campaigns" pushing the poverty wage of ten dollars an hour as a way for businesses to evade union organizing campaigns. Here is a billionaire pushing a $10.00 an hour poverty wage off on workers as a "living wage" when $10.00 an hour has nothing at all to do with any cost of living factors... and his investments in Taco Bell will grow as management schemes to get out of paying health care costs!

And people fall for this shit.

new banners to promote my blog.

I have a few new banners for promoting my blog... click to enlarge; watch for my displays at gatherings, demonstrations, forums--- when you see my displays stop to chat.

The "conscience of a liberal" or Obama apologist?

Here we go again; more confusion created using words and confusing "class."

Krugman http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/that-bad-ceiling-feeling/ referring to forthcoming confrontations with the Repubs after his “fiscal cliff” cave:

“The only thing that might save this situation is the fact that Obama has to be aware just how much is now riding on his willingness to finally stand up for his side; if he doesn’t, nobody will ever trust him again, and he will go down in history as the wimp who threw it all away.”

Always the "hope" brought forward by these over-paid, well-heeled muddle-headed upper-middle class economists and intellectuals confusing which side Obama is on.

Here is how Krugman confuses "class"--- which side are you on?:

"...finally stand up for his side;..."

Obama was, and remains, on Wall Street's side. Obama never was, and isn't, and never will be, a "President of the people."

Krugman is a Nobel recipient just like Obama--- Paul Krugman awarded for economics; Barack Obama awarded for peace.

This entire gaggle of muddle-headed upper-middle class intellectuals intent is to provide us with nothing in the way of suggested legislation directed towards the urgency of solving the pressing problems being experienced by working people whose lives can only be characterized as a crisis of everyday living.

How convenient that these muddle-headed well-heeled middle class economists and intellectuals from Paul Krugman to Dean Baker to Joe Stiglitz to Robert Reich all guided in the language provided by George Lakoff would be the agents of confusion, a confusion whose intent is to prevent and disrupt any grassroots and rank-and-file initiatives to challenge Wall Street for power.

Let's be very clear on this point: We need to free ourselves from Wall Street's two-party trap not for the purpose of defeating the candidates like Obama brought forward; we need to understand that in creating alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans what we will be doing is challenging Wall Street for political and economic power.

In order to accomplish freeing ourselves from this two-party trap we will have to challenge the thinking of these apologists for the Democrats like Paul Krugman by being able to sort out the "kernels of truth" they use to package their deceit in.

Krugman even defines himself as being "The Conscience of A Liberal" when in fact his ideas serve the neo-liberal agenda packaged very deceptively to appear to be "liberal" so as to sow confusion.

Look at this article (Part 2) and Krugman's preceding article (Part 1):

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/perspective-on-the-deal/

Krugman is talking about the budget, deficits and debt--- BUT, what does he intentionally omit?

The huge portion of the budget directed towards militarism and wars.

How does any honest economists or intellectual omit any reference or discussion to what is more than half of the budget?

Also missing is any discussion of creating full employment.

If we want to get rid of "that bad ceiling feeling" we are going to have to fight for peace and full employment.

In order to guide our struggles we need working class ideas aware of "class" because when all is said and done, this is a class struggle in which we have to challenge Wall Street for political and economic power; otherwise we are in for endless imperialist wars paid for with our jobs, our lives, our rights and our livelihoods.

We now have over 50,000 closed mines, mills and factories and more jobs being moved to cheap labor markets daily with the only expanding industry being Goodwill Industries.

Is this the future you want for your families?

"Jobs, jobs, jobs" is all the talk but what happened to the idea the government is responsible for maintaining "full employment?"

How come the words "full employment" never appear in what Robert Reich is writing?

Check this out; seems to me Robert Reich's beloved Obama could do at least as good as Wright Patman:

This on-line book available for downloading for free may be of interest:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015081304209;seq=10;view=1up

This is the hearing on the original Full Employment Act of 1945 which includes the actual act.

Wright Patman



John William Wright Patman was a U.S. Congressman from Texas in Texas's 1st congressional district and chair of the United States House Committee on Banking and Currency.

Born: August 6, 1893, Hughes Springs
Died: March 7, 1976, Bethesda
Party: Democratic Party

How come all you Obama supporters aren't pushing this legislation today?

"Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" but what happened to the idea that the United States government is responsible for maintaining "full employment?"

This is from the Wall Street Journal:

"Prospects for a stronger upturn, at least in the first half of 2013, remain slim. Many economists worry about losing even more ground, especially as lawmakers launch a potentially risky political battle this winter over raising the federal debt ceiling. The U.S. economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.6% from 1950 through 1999 but has since slowed to less than 2% ... Since the recession ended 3½ years ago, economists have been divided over long-run growth prospects after the downturn pushed millions of Americans out of the labor force. Looking forward five to 10 years, the argument goes, annual U.S. growth may reach a ceiling of 3% and unemployment could settle at a rate above the 5.7% annual average recorded during the last half of the 20th century." 

--Wall Street Journal, Jan 4, 2013

Without the United States government becoming responsible for "full employment" in this country where does this leave working people? In poverty.

Robert Reich is wrong; our goal must be to get the United States government to assume its responsibility to the American people for maintaining a "full employment economy" just like United States Congressman from Texas, Wright Patman proposed.


Why Jobs Must Be Our Goal Now

By Robert Reich
blog
January 3, 2013

http://robertreich.org/post/39656182596

The news today from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
is that the U.S. job market is treading water. The
number of new jobs created in December (155,000),
and percent unemployment (7.8), were the same as
the revised numbers for November.

Also, about the same number of people are looking
for work (12.2 million), with additional millions too
discouraged even to look.

Put simply, we're a very long way from the job
growth we need to get out of the gravitational pull of
the Great Recession. That would be at least 300,000
new jobs per month.

All of which means job growth and wage growth
should be the central focus of economic policy, not
deficit reduction.

Yet all we're hearing from Washington -- and all
we're likely to hear as Republicans and Democrats
negotiate over raising the debt ceiling -- is how to
cut the deficit.

The typical American worker's paycheck will drop
this week because his or her Social Security tax will
rise, from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent. That's
nonsensical.

We need to put more money into the pockets of
average workers, not less. The first $25,000 of
income should be exempt from Social Security taxes
altogether, and we should make up the difference by
eliminating the ceiling on income subject to Social
Security taxes.
__________

Robert B. Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public
Policy at the University of California at Berkeley,
was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton
administration.

Full Employment

All these Democrats and Republicans keep talking about "jobs, jobs, jobs."

The more they talk about jobs the more unemployment we get.

With so much talk about "jobs, jobs, jobs" I find it impossible to understand why none of these politicians will talk about what is required to create a "full employment economy."

"Full employment"--- does anyone dare to talk about it lest they be called a "red?"

Check it out what happens in this country when any politician dares to talk about "full employment."

If you would like to look into this a little further I would encourage you to check out the transcript of the hearings held on the "Full Employment Act of 1945:"

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015081304209%3Bseq%3D10%3Bview%3D1up

1945 was the very last time any politician in this country dared to advocate for a "full employment economy" talking about how a job is a right.

I suggest we need to begin a vigorous debate in this country about the need to mandate "full employment" through legislation.

Any form of government and/or economic system that can't assure "full employment" for its people doesn't deserve to exist. This is just plain old common sense.

Will Roy Roberts be running for Mayor of Detroit?

Stranger things have happened.

Roy Robert's friend, Barack Obama, got re-elected.

The fiscal cliff.

Everyone seems to be commenting on this "deal" that "avoided the fiscal cliff." So I guess I will comment, too.

Well; it's a corrupt political system created by a rotten economic system with a bunch of Wall Street chosen politicians wheeling and dealing behind our backs. They are trying to save capitalism in its most barbaric and cannibalistic stage of imperialism and there is no light at the end of the tunnel because the cliff collapsed just as they made their way through the tunnel leaving everyone except the 1% behind to suffer the consequences of a system on the skids to oblivion; a system that should have been replaced years ago--- a system that survived only because McCarthyite political repression hammered Wall Street's opposition: we, the people.

It's the backroom wheeling and dealing we haven't heard about presenting the real danger because in our so-called "democracy" that is more myth than reality, the austerity measures Obama and the Republicans agreed to are coming down the pike from behind us as we are all looking the other way trying to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

A system broken beyond repair; a lousy deal for everyone except the Wall Street 1% and no end of wars financed with austerity in sight.

No need to worry though; the over-paid well-heeled upper middle class muddle-headed intellectuals pretending to be liberals, progressives and leftists are convincing everyone to go out into the streets--- not to protest like the Greeks--- but to celebrate Obama's re-election victory... and the cost of the shindig is being put on our tab.

And what do these over-paid well-heeled upper middle class muddle-headed intellectuals pretending to be liberals, progressives and leftists tell us hoping we won't spoil Obama's re-election "victory" celebration? The deal could have been worse.

"Worse" is what is coming as a result of this "deal."

A good deal for Wall Street; a bad deal for the rest of us.

The Wall Street bankers will smile as they take away your home and tell you to "have a good day."

CWA’s Cohen: Can Labor and Allies Create an ‘American Spring?’

This was the comment I added to an article which appeared in In These Times that was an interview with Larry Cohen, the President of the CWA.

Link:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/WORKING/ENTRY/14257/CWAS_COHEN_CAN_LABOR_AND_ALLIES_CREATE_AN_AMERICAN_SPRING/

I wonder why Cohen isn't bringing forward the demand for full employment in line with the "Full Employment Act of 1945?"

Larry Cohen has been a big Obama booster and supporter. He and this coalition of his which is mobilizing the "leadership" while leaving out the memberships raises some important concerns.

Obviously if these 70 organizations mobilized their memberships around a real progressive agenda with peace and full employment at the very top Obama's and the Democrats' "feet would be held to the fire."

Has anyone noticed all these preparations are being made for celebrations surrounding Obama's second inauguration yet all of these "progressive for Obama" who have chastised us for not building the movements required that would supposedly "holdObama's feet to the fire" to force him to do what is right and just by the American people; these people aren't doing anything to make sure
these "celebrants" have to consider an alternative to Obama's Wall Street agenda of wars abroad paid for with austerity measures shoved down our throats?

These 'progressives for Obama" are not insisting these wars and occupations end so we can reap a "peace dividend."

These "progressives for Obama" are not organizing any kind of "people's lobby" to insist on peace and full employment--- why aren't they insisting Obama bring forward the "Full Employment Act of 1945" that was never passed since this legislation contained what Franklin Roosevelt was trying to achieve?

Here is a little history in a capsule as to what happened with "The Full Employment Act of 1945;"

The bill centered major powers and responsibilities in the presidency. In cases where the private sector failed to provide full employment, the bill directed the president to prepare a program of federal investment and expenditures to close the gap. The president would review federal programs on a quarterly basis and alter their rate as he considered necessary to assure full employment. The Senate passed this bill in September 1945 by an overwhelming vote of 71 to 10.

Critics in the House charged that the bill contained within it the seeds of paternalism, socialism, and even communism. They claimed that the bill jeopardized the existence of free enterprise, individual initiative, and business confidence by vesting of power in the federal government and the president. It was predicted that the Full Employment Act would lead to excessive government spending, a dangerous concentration of power in the presidency, and crippling inflation.

This criticism led the House to remove or dilute several substantive and forceful passages in the Senate bill. For example, the basic commitment to employment as a human right was taken out, two sections on presidential discretionary powers were deleted, the original goal of full employment was whittled down to "maximum employment," and, instead of the federal government assuring government, it would only "promote" it. Moreover, the specific reliance on public works and federal loans as instruments of economic recovery was replaced by the noncommittal phrase "all practicable means."

The resulting declaration of policy in the Employment Act of 1946 stated that the federal government, assisted by industry, labor, and state and local governments, was responsible for coordinatingplans, functions, and resources for the purpose of creating and maintaining conditions—consistent with the free enterprise system—that would offer "useful employment opportunities, including self-employment, for those able, willing, and seeking to work, and to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power.

If you would like to look into this a little further I would encourage you to check out
the transcript of the hearings held on the "Full Employment Act of 1945:"
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015081304209%3Bseq%3D10%3Bview%3D1up

Reading the transcript of this hearing is a real eye-opener.

We need a "people's lobby" to push for peace and a full employment economy.

We need a new progressive working class based people's political party backed up by a powerful "people's lobby" advocating full employment through peace in order to challenge Wall Street for power.

By advocating the creation of "an American spring," Larry Cohen does think we should be challenging Wall Street for power; doesn't he?

Now is the time to break free from Wall Street's two-party trap.

What ever happened to the "Peace Dividend?"

Cohen doesn't even mention the word "peace" in conjunction with jobs just like he omits the need for full employment.

Cohen must understand the connection between unemployment, militarism and wars; doesn't he?

Did this "coalition" discuss the need for peace in order to free the resources of this country to create jobs and full employment?

Unemployment suppresses wages; full employment pushes all wages up--- why aren't Cohen and other union leaders pointing out that peace is the path to full employment?

If Larry Cohen, Leo Gerard and Richard Trumka could free themselves from "thinking Democratic" perhaps they could lead the working class into the struggle for peace and full employment this would put an end to all this "concession bargaining" and strengthen the hand of labor. Probably add some numbers to labor's dwindling ranks, too. And put an end to all this scabbing like we have here in the Red River Valley where American Crystal Sugar Company has locked out 1,300 workers who refused "the final offer" and brought in scabs hired from among the unemployed to take the jobs of these workers.

Peace and full employment should be labor's answer to Obama' wars and austerity measures.

Full employment would solve any problems with Social Security, too--- everyone pays in; everyone gets what they are entitled to out.

Peace and full employment are never mentioned by Larry Cohen--- what gives? And since Cohen never mentioned peace and full employment; why didn't Moberg ask?

Of course, nothing is preventing Larry Cohen from speaking up by placing his comments on peace and full employment here. This article is meant for stimulating dialog and discussion; is it not?

It would also be interesting to hear Larry Cohen's and the AFL-CIO's thoughts on "Idle No More;" the Canadian Labour Congress has provided insight and solidarity in this struggle and so should U.S. unions--- including the AFL-CIO.

Interesting, also, David Moberg didn't ask Cohen for his thoughts regarding the proposed merger between the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) and the CEP (Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada).

But, then again, Moberg didn't ask Cohen if U.S. labor needs its own political party like labor in Canada has with the socialist New Democratic Party.

Like myself, Larry Cohen was one of the founders of U.S. Labor Against the War; one would expect that Cohen would be able to articulate how peace and full employment are inseparably connected.

If unemployed workers want jobs they are going to have to fight for a "peace dividend."

Has anyone noticed that Barack Obama's proposed 2013 budget with massive funding for wars and militarism is in direct opposition to what a progressive agenda requires?

http://nationalpriorities.org/

Obama claims the war in Iraq has ended; yet, the cost of this war in Iraq continues to grow; why?

http://costofwar.com/

The American people are paying for these dirty imperialist wars with unemployment when peace would enable us to create a full employment.

Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council