Hearing tonight in Duluth...

Hearing tonite...

I don't really see what the big deal is. So some mining companies want to dig a couple more holes in the ground. Big deal.

For over 100 years mining has been going on in Minnesota. No problems at all. People get their pay-checks and what pensions the mining companies decide to honor. There is a cancer cluster but it could be worse.

The mining companies bribe the politicians so they can abscond with the profits leaving behind massive poverty, pits and pollution.

It is called: Appalachia North... or, the Iron Range.

This has worked out good for everyone; why change things now?

Please, people... just learn to sit quietly, listen and suck in the lies from the mining companies and the politicians--- be nice! Minnesota Nice.

Be civil.

Being civil means holding your hat in your hands and keeping your mouth shut.

Come on, really. Listen to what the head of the Minnesota DNR has to say... he just wants Ducks Unlimited to end up with a new duck pond.

Come out to the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center (DECC) and tell the DNR what you think about PolyMet's mine plan.

Every time you hear the words "jobs, jobs, jobs" applaud loudly with the people the Chamber of Commerce is busing in.

Don't ask any questions about what happened to the pensions of workers employed by LTV or National Steel... this is past history; let bygones be bygones. Don't use the word "swindle" in relation to pensions because this would be a violation of ethical and civil conduct on the part of citizens towards mining company bribed politicians and public servants.

Leave babies at home; no crying or public breast-feeding allowed.

5:00 p.m. - open house
6:45 - 10:00 p.m. formal presentation and public comment period

The DNR has reserved the City Side Convention Center in its entirety for the public hearing. The Open House will be held in a number of spaces, and the public meeting will be held in the Lake Superior Ballroom on the 2nd floor.

Room 202 in the Harbor Side Convention Center is reserved by a number of groups to provide a space for conversation, coffee and to be a home base. Room 202 is about a 5 minute walk from the Lake Superior Ballroom on the Skywalk. You can find a map of the DECC at http://www.decc.org/cms/files/skywalk-3rdfloor.pdf

Does "cost-of-living" have anything to do with what the Minimum Wage should be?

This article below says organized labor is pushing for this $15.37 Minimum Wage in Los Angeles.

But, I wonder how many members of these unions would work for $15.37 and hour?

What is not mentioned in this article or any of the other articles coming out about the Minimum Wage is "cost-of-living."

And here is another little FACT no one seems to want to talk about:

It is next to impossible for a working class family living on a $30.00 an hour wage to get by in making ends meet without both husband and wife working PLUS huge credit card debts.

How can any union leader make the outrageous claim that $15.00 an hour is the edge of poverty in a high-cost to live city like Los Angeles.

Remember, these are the same union "leaders" who have been "negotiating" concession contracts since the mid-1960's.

A small group has come along, received MASSIVE publicity from the mainstream media calling for "15 or fight" and everyone jumps on this band-wagon without any discussion about what a real living wage actually is in comparison to "cost-of-living."

The millionaire "leaders" of organized labor have us in a mind-set where we are apparently willing to consider wages without considering "cost-of-living."

The left-wing leaders of organized labor who built the powerful industrial unions would never have so much as considered any discussion about  "wages" in isolation from "cost-of-living." I don't get it. Why are we willing to be led down this road when it comes to a discussion of the Minimum Wage by the very people who betray their own members?

Eliot Seide of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and other "leaders" of the Minnesota AFL-CIO have stated: "We aren't delivering a Minimum Wage of more than $9.50 an hour without collecting dues."

When I asked a leader of the United Steel Workers who makes over $80,000.00 a year working as a millwright at U.S. Steel's MinnTac operation where iron ore is mined and processed into taconite if he could live on $80,000.00 a year he told me, "With my wife working. But we are putting four kids through college and we have to pay for home repairs." Well, aren't these "cost-of-living" costs all working class families have?

If the truth be told, many union members are working under such piss-poor contracts they make so little they can't even co-sign the college loans for their children to get a higher education... and this goes for many members of the AFSCME here in Minnesota.

The employers paying the lobbyists to bribe these Democratic Party politicians to bring forward these proposals to keep the Minimum Wage a poverty wage understand "cost-of-living" very well yet they don't want "cost-of-living" to enter this discussion--- and for "good" reason from their vantage point.

We are also dealing with a federal government that operates like any typical crooked and corrupt employer who keeps one set of books for the owners, another for the tax man and another to show the union; hence we have the poverty guidelines established by the United States Census Bureau and the actual "cost-of-living," or Consumer Price Index as monitored and tracked by the United States Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics which maintains the real books.

Discussing "cost-of-living" in relation to wages became a victim to Joe McCarthy's and Hubert Humphrey's anti-Communist witch-hunts.

if we here in Minnesota use the same "reasoning" and "logic" being used in the article below and this small left-wing outfit in Seattle, we might as well settle for the Democrat's "generous" offer of $9.50 an hour since in terms of "cost-of-living" $9.50 will buy much more than $15.37 in Los Angeles, California; plus, we get the $9.50 without wasting any time organizing a fight--- a fight for a real living wage based on all "cost-of-living" factors.

Maybe we should just "settle" for the bones the Democrats are willing to toss our way?

Let the Democrats campaign behind the facade of "We are for living wages."

Let the Democrats "bait" the voters with rhetoric calling for "living wages."

Just remain silent as these Democrats pull a "switch" legislating another poverty wage.

Let the Democrats hire consultants paid hundreds of dollars an hour with our tax dollars to figure out why we have poverty.

Let the Democrats keep talking about "jobs, jobs, jobs."

Here in Minnesota the Democrats delivered a massive job creating program by legislating the Indian Gaming Industry into existence. An industry now employing 44,000 Minnesotans in loud, noisy, smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages without any rights under state or federal labor laws.

In campaign contributions and the many bribes between elections this "job creation program" has worked out well for the Democrats... not so well for the workers.

But, the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association has stood side-by-side with these Democrats led by Democratic State Senator Tom Bakk who boasts of his leadership role in the building trades unions who thinks $8.50 an hour is a pretty decent Minimum Wage.

So why not just forget all the bullshit and instead of becoming working class warriors for justice, let's just become advocates of compromise.

Governor Dayton is proposing a $9.50 Minimum Wage; Senate Leader Tom Bakk is at $8.50. The wimp leading the Democrats in the House just wants the issue resolved.

Okay... let's negotiate this like Eliot Seide or Shar Knutson, the leader of the Minnesota AFL-CIO would do in order to preempt an employer lockout. Let's play "Minnesota Nice" and remain "civil" about this. Let's just agree to settle the Minimum Wage at $9.00 an hour. This is still pretty good when compared to $15.00 an hour in LA or Seattle.

Why fight?

Maybe because justice requires a real living wage for working people based on all "cost-of-living" factors?

Why do we even waste time with left wing parties and organizations any more when class collaboration and betrayal to the Wall Street crowd is the way to go.

Go along, to get along. One hand out in front collecting union dues--- the other hand in back taking in bribes from the employers. This is the way Richard Trumka and the 55 millionaires on the AFL-CIO Executive Board have learned to go along to get along and they have done alright for themselves.

Why would we even expect the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party with the super-majority the working class handed them to deliver the LIVING WAGE they promised?

If $8.50, $9.00, $9.50 or $10.10 is a good enough wage for millions of working people it should be good enough for everyone... look for me next year at the Minnesota State Fair circulating a petition to set the pay of all public employees, government bureaucrats and elected public officials at whatever Minimum Wage Eliot Seide and the leaders of the Minnesota AFL-CIO are willing to accept on our behalf from the Democrats.

Anyways; the Minnesota Select Committee on Living Wage Jobs wants to hear from you about how you are getting along in life--- why not tell them instead of allowing a bunch of over-paid foundation flowers and millionaire union bureaucrats speak for you:

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:00 AM


Select Committee on Living Wage Jobs

Room: Local 49 Training Center, 40276 Fishtail Road, Hinckley, MN 55037

Chair: Rep. Ryan Winkler


Agenda: The committee will hear public testimony answering the question, "How is Minnesota’s economy working for you?"

To testify please contact Committee Administrator Matthew Bergeron at: matthew.bergeron@house.mn


Matthew Bergeron, J.D.
Committee Administrator
Health & Human Services Policy
Select Committee on Living Wage Jobs
MN House of Representatives
State Office Building #361
(651) 296-5413
Matthew.Bergeron@house.mn


Let these politicians know how Barack Obama's Wall Street war economy is working for you.

Alan L. Maki


For a "21st Century Full Employment Act for Peace and Prosperity" which would include a real living Minimum Wage.







Published on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 by Common Dreams
LA Takes the Lead With Highest Minimum Wage Proposal
As pressure mounts nationwide to raise minimum wage, LA could see historic victory

- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer
Los Angeles could soon be home to the highest minimum wage in the nation.


Three city council members in Los Angeles are set to propose a $15.37 hourly wage for hotel workers, a raise they'd like to see extended to workers throughout the city. (Photo: BobboSphere/cc/flickr)
An effort by local organizers that has now been taken up by several members of the city council is pushing for  a $15.37 hourly wage for hotel workers in the city.

Organizers with the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy have led the campaign Raise LA, which has fought for a living wage for hotel workers, for over a year. With the help of other groups in the area, the movement gained support from local communities and backing from more than 700 businesses across the city,according to the Huffington Post.

Now, three city council members, Mike Bonin, Nury Martinez and Curren Price, are drafting the proposal, which has "a decent chance of passing, given that 14 of the 15 city council members are Democrats and generally friendly toward labor," The Huffington Post reports.

And, if they succeed, there could likely be a push to extend that raise to workers throughout Los Angeles.

"I'd like to see it through the city of LA," Councilman Bonin told The Huffington Post. "We know it will improve lives. We know it will bring folks into the middle class. We know it will bring more money into the local economy."

"We would absolutely like to extend this to other industries," Maria Elena Durazo, chief of the county Federation of Labor, told the LA Times. The Federation of Labor also launched a campaign this week to raise city-wide minimum wages to $15, unveiling billboards across the city styled after green "city limits" signs, which read: "Los Angeles, City Limited, Poverty Wage Pop. 810,864."

Currently in Los Angeles, 46 percent of working people earn what the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor considers poverty wages—less than $15 an hour, according to a new study by the group.

"This is an economic apartheid," said Durazo. "LA won't prosper and attract business if 46 percent of working people aren't prospering."

The movement comes on the heels of a national fight for living wages, including the "Fight for Fifteen" movement led by fast-food workers across the country and an increase in strikes and protests for better working conditions by workers at big box retail stores such as Walmart.

Following a recent victory in SeaTac, Washington, where airport workers won a fight for a $15 minimum wage in November, a group by the name of '15Now Campaign' is bringing that fight to the national level.

Starting in Seattle, the group plans to pass a city-wide wage increase, with the extended goal of pressuring municipalities across the nation to do the same.

"A $15 minimum wage in Seattle will set an example that working people and unions across the country would likely be inspired to follow," the campaign said in their official announcement.

--
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/

Still no blitz against poverty from Dayton and Minnesota Democrats.

We have to ask why the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party with its super-majority is not using this veto-proof majority to defend and expand the rights and improve the living standards to the same extent Republicans in North Carolina are using their veto-proof super-majority to attack the rights and livelihoods of working people. Watch this and think about what the Minnesota Democrats could be doing, but aren't--- we need an explanation for their inaction because this inaction isn't any more acceptable than what these disgusting racist, right-wing, anti-labor Republicans in North Carolina are doing:

http://billmoyers.com/segment/north-carolina-battleground-state/ 

Minnesota Democrats have the opportunity to establish a real living Minimum Wage based on actual cost-of-living, indexed to inflation and periodically increased to provide a constantly improved standard of living for working people.

This would be the most important thing Democrats could ever do with their super-majority.

Why isn't everything progressives have been seeking being brought to reality by the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party?

We need to hold forums and workshops all over Minnesota to build the kind of movement required to advance our progressive agenda because Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton and his Democrats are as cowardly as North Carolina Republicans are viciously aggressive.

It is unfortunate that labor leaders here in Minnesota who can't organize their way out of a thin, wet paper bag who consider collective bargaining the art and science of delivering employers--- public and private--- nothing but concessions are now joining with these Democrats being bribed by employers to agree to one more poverty Minimum Wage.

There are two major sources of poverty:

1. Poverty wage jobs.

2. Workers without jobs.

This Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party has done nothing to change any of this.

When racism is coupled with poverty wages and unemployment this becomes a living nightmare for hundreds of thousands of people of color as real life living conditions on any northern Indian Reservation clearly provide proof.

Yet we still have a governor who refuses to make the enforcement of Affirmative Action mandatory by taking a very simple step of requiring proof of the enforcement of Affirmative Action before any public spending is allocated for bonding proposals requiring his final approval.

There is a very racist aspect and edge to those politicians in the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party and their front organizations like TakeActionMinnesota pushing for a $9.50 Minimum Wage because most people of color, especially Native Americans, have been forced by racist discrimination into the lowest paid jobs for generations.

These same politicians pushing for the Minimum Wage to continue being a poverty wage are the very same politicians who have blocked the enforcement of Affirmative Action.

Women, especially single mothers, are victims of discrimination, too, as long as the Minimum Wage remains a poverty wage.

The Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party with its super-majority, which doesn't look like it will last past the next election, has an opportunity to take a major step towards eradicating poverty in Minnesota by making the Minimum Wage a real living wage tied to all cost of living factors--- no worker should be expected to work for less.

Common sense tells us workers paid poverty wages are going to be poor.

The Democratic Party politicians and candidates are already out and about campaigning on a platform of "jobs, jobs, jobs" but the only jobs the DFL has created have been poverty wage jobs with a very few exceptions.

And Minnesota Democrats have not lifted a finger to stop the pension fund swindles of those employed in the taconite industry.

How is it these same Democrats can move the most heinous projects like peat mining and sulfide mining forward so quickly but can't work with the same rapidity when it comes to improving the lives of working people.

Give these Democrats and Republicans a piece of your mind--- if you can't attend in person, give them your thoughts in writing but share those thoughts with your friends, fellow workers and neighbors, too:

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:00 AM 

Select Committee on Living Wage Jobs

Room: Local 49 Training Center, 40276 Fishtail Road, Hinckley, MN 55037

Chair: Rep. Ryan Winkler

Agenda: The committee will hear public testimony answering the question, "How is Minnesota’s economy working for you?"

To testify please contact Committee Administrator Matthew Bergeron at matthew.bergeron@house.mn.

Matthew Bergeron, J.D.
Committee Administrator
Health & Human Services Policy
Select Committee on Living Wage Jobs
MN House of Representatives
State Office Building #361
(651) 296-5413
Matthew.Bergeron@house.mn

Committee members can be found here:

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/selectcommittees/LivingWageJobs.asp

Democrats campaigned on the promise they would bring Minnesotans a Minimum Wage that is a real living wage... as everyone knows, there is only one way to establish a living wage and that is by tying the Minimum Wage to All cost-of-living factors...

Look how quickly Dayton and the Democrats came into action to push a new Viking's Stadium down our throats with a blitzkrieg--- why isn't the exact same political muscle being flexed to bring forward a real living Minimum Wage that can be used as a model for the rest of the country?

Why don't we get the same action out of these Democrats when it comes to ending poverty?

-- 

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/

Tell these politicians working people need a real living Minimum Wage

Matthew Bergeron Matthew.Bergeron@house.mn via ww3.house.leg.state.mn.us

Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:00 AM      Select Committee on Living Wage JobsRoom: Local 49 Training Center, 40276 Fishtail Road, Hinckley, MN 55037
Chair: Rep. Ryan Winkler
Agenda: The committee will hear public testimony answering the question, "How is Minnesota’s economy working for you?"

To testify please contact Committee Administrator Matthew Bergeron at matthew.bergeron@house.mn.

Matthew Bergeron, J.D.

Committee Administrator

Health & Human Services Policy

Select Committee on Living Wage Jobs

MN House of Representatives

State Office Building #361

(651) 296-5413

Matthew.Bergeron@house.mn

Some thoughts from Podunk about "civility"

Unless your views support PolyMet and this dirty sulfide mining they really aren't wanted or appreciated. And, oh; the DNR and the company just happened to leave out the fact that most of the metals produced from these dirty sulfide mining operations are going to be utilized by the Military-Industrial Complex but they want us to believe the metals will be used for our "creature comforts" available only in a "civilized world." No mention of production for drone warfare. Please remain cool, calm and collected as you listen to the brainwashing you will be subjected to and don't anyone dare ask if the workers employed by PolyMet will be swindled out of their pensions the same way those employed in the taconite industry have been subjected to; don't ask questions about what the racist "Doctrine of Discovery" is all about since the Environmental Impact Statement doesn't bring it up. Never mind that with all the excellent environmental safeguards the mining companies have worked so diligently on in such a cooperative manner with the the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the federal EPA and that stalwart of environmental protection of our waters--- the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--- that we have ended up with every single ditch, stream, river and lake in Minnesota contaminated and polluted.

We all sat and listened as the U.S. Steel's MinnTac plant manager, a pack-sacker from Louisiana, stood before two-hundred people and told us about the pristine water available in MinnTac's "Clearwater Reservoir"--- what U.S. Steel calls its tailing's pond and how he would have no problem dipping his coffee cup into the water and taking a drink. However, when pressed to do this in front of us all he said he was sorry he couldn't oblige because U.S. Steel's policies prohibit public access to company property.

So, remember; treat these lying bastards nice. Be courteous and civil as they brainwash you into believing that PolyMet and sulfide mining is more about your good and well-being than for company profits.

I would write a "Letter to the Editor" in response to this corporate drivel but the Publisher of the Duluth News-Tribune has banned my Letters from being published--- apparently my failing to accept corporate lies and brainwashing violates the "rules of civility."

Besides; in the event that the freshwater aquifers are so severely polluted from this PolyMet "project;" we can depend on Nestle to provide us with our drinking water--- for a nice hefty price and their profit.

No need to ask why their are signs already posted at every public fishing access in Minnesota warning pregnant and nursing mothers against consuming fish caught from the lake--- the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has been looking after our best interests during the past 100 years of industrialization--- or at least this is what they were supposedly being paid to do.

Never mind that the Duluth News-Tribune is a corporate rag.

Oh, my; have I already lost my "civility?"

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/288499/ Published January 13, 2014, 12:00 AM

Our view: Insist on civility at PolyMet hearings

The coming chaos, fueled by years of pent-up emotions and expected to feature busloads of high-volume opposition, has been fully expected, ever since the trio of public hearings was announced to gather comments on the environmental review of a proposed PolyMet copper-nickel mine on the Minnesota Iron Range.
So who could blame Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Landwehr for making the rounds last week to urge civility and calm and to try to set a positive, productive tone for the meetings, the first of which is scheduled Thursday at the Duluth Entertainment Convention Center? Landwehr and staffers met with MPR, TV news reporters, Iron Range editors, the News Tribune and anyone else, it seemed, who’d listed to a plea for peace.
“The thing I want people to understand is this is not a referendum on mining. If you want to make your opinion known about mining, the capitol is the right place to do that. This is an analysis of the project, and what we’re looking for are people’s thoughts on the analysis,” Landwehr said during his meeting with the News Tribune, including members of the editorial board. “If you want to bring a bunch of people here to get up and say, ‘I hate mining,’ it’s not really going to help the process. … We want people to understand what the project is. I would argue that’s the primary purpose of these meetings, just to educate people on what the project is.”
So go get educated with information straight from the company about its plans. And ask all the questions you want during an opening two-hour open house. DNR, Pollution Control Agency, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other experts and scientists closely scrutinizing the project will be there with answers.
But think twice about just venting or spouting special-interest buzz phrases during the three-hour public-comment period.
“There’s a lot of misinformation being thrown around, which I think is unfortunate,” Commissioner Landwehr said. “We will benefit most if we have an informed, honest discussion about this and what’s in the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement).”
An example of misinformation is a charge that PolyMet will produce polluting acid mine drainage. But 70 percent of the rock being mined is low in sulfate, Landwehr said, and can’t produce the pollution. And the rest of the rock will be placed on a lined area where anything that runs off it can be collected and treated. This rock then will be dumped back into the mine and covered by water. Underwater, without air to mix with the water and sulfate, acid can’t be produced.
Another example is that waste from the PolyMet project will have to be treated forever. The EIS used 200-year and 500-year models. That doesn’t mean the site will pollute that long, according to company officials. Also, PolyMet will be required to set aside an adequate amount of money, upfront, to pay for any long-term cleanup. How much will be set aside will be determined during the permitting process. That’s still to come. Right now, the project is in the environmental-review process. The amount will be reevaluated every year and adjusted as necessary.
“If we ever get to a point in time where (pollution from the PolyMet site) can’t be handled, (it’ll be) because humanity changed, because World War Z came along and zombies took over. As long as there are people, there’ll be people to fix it,” Landwehr said.
Minnesota has some of the nation’s strongest environmental laws and financial-assurance regulations. With more than a century of experience, Northeastern Minnesotans know how to mine in a way that’s sensitive to the environment. The lengthy, thorough, years-long environmental-review process is assuring that copper-nickel mining will be done right here.
“There are a lot of people more interested in no mine than in a safe mine,” PolyMet President and CEO Jon Cherry told the News Tribune editorial board last week. “People don’t stop to think about, ‘Where does the metal come from that’s in my car?’ Do they think, ‘How’s electricity generated; how does the electricity get to the light switch when the lights come on?’ They don’t think about the copper wire. They don’t think about the power plants. They don’t think about the generators. And I think what they think more about is, ‘I don’t want this in my backyard.’ Well, that’s a different argument than, ‘Can this be done in an environmentally responsible manner?' "
The latter question is the question at the center of Thursday’s public hearing and the two hearings that’ll follow on Jan. 22 at Mesabi East High School and on Jan. 28 at St. Paul RiverCentre. Not whether there should be copper-nickel mining in Minnesota. It’s a legal activity. But how will it be done right. Let’s weigh in on that — even if by the busloads.
“It’s very important that everyone gets to express their view,” Cherry said of the upcoming meetings. “But just a reminder: It needs to be done civilly and respectfully. It doesn’t do either side any good to be obnoxious or over-the-top.”

 

Politicians prepare to shove the Trans-Pacific Partnership down our throats by choking us with more lies.

No bi-partisan agreement to raise the Minimum Wage to a real living wage, no bi-partisan support for a Full Employment Act, nor is there bi-partisan agreement to maintain extended unemployment benefits, no bi-partisan support to find out who is behind all these pension fund swindles--- but, when it comes fast-tracking the TPP; well this is a different story and it becomes all about "jobs, jobs, jobs."

Doesn't the way these politicians act make you wonder how much they really care about "jobs?"

No mention of "profits, profits, profits."

One would think the union "leaders" would finally draw the line in the sand and declare that they will not support any politicians who support the TPP.

Text of bill: http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/TPA%20bill%20text.pdf

http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=7cd1c188-87f1-4a0b-8856-3fc139121ca9

For Immediate Release
January 09, 2014

Contact:

(Baucus) Sean Neary/Lindsey Held	202-224-4515
(Hatch) Antonia Ferrier/Julia Lawless	202-224-4515
(Camp) Sarah Swinehart	202-224-4774

Baucus, Hatch, Camp Unveil Bill to Bring Home Job-Creating Trade Agreements

Finance, Ways & Means Leaders Team Up to Craft Bill to Deliver Trade Deals that Boost U.S. Exports, Create Jobs

WASHINGTON - Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) joined together today to introduce legislation that will establish strong rules for trade negotiations and Congressional approval of trade pacts, to deliver trade agreements that boost U.S. exports and create American jobs.
The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014 establishes 21st century Congressional negotiating objectives and rules for the Administration to follow when engaged in trade talks, including strict requirements for Congressional consultations and access to information.  Provided the Administration follows the rules, special procedures apply when moving a negotiated deal that satisfies the objectives through the Senate and House of Representatives.
“The TPA legislation that we are introducing today will make sure that these trade deals get done, and get done right.  This is our opportunity to tell the Administration – and our trading partners – what Congress’ negotiating priorities are,” Baucus said.  “TPA legislation is critical to a successful trade agenda.  It is critical to boosting U.S. exports and creating jobs.  And it’s critical to fueling America’s growing economy.”
“Every President since FDR has sought trade promotion authority from Congress because of the job-creating benefits of trade.  Renewing TPA will help advance a robust trade agenda that will help American businesses, workers, farmers and ranchers by giving them greater access to overseas markets,” said Hatch. “This bipartisan legislation helps meet the challenges of today’s competitive global economy and will play a key role in getting our nation out of years of economic stagnation by spurring economic growth and greater opportunity. From increasing protections for digital trade and data flows to enforcing strong U.S. intellectual property rights, this legislation will be instrumental to ensuring that our country’s current trade negotiations in Asia and Europe are a success and that these agreements meet the high-standards necessary for congressional approval.”
“The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act will give us the tools we need to move more job-creating trade agreements,” Camp said.  “This legislation will ensure that the Administration is following the rules and negotiating objectives that Congress has set out. In order to achieve the economic growth and job benefits that trade agreements can bring to the U.S., we must first pass strong, bipartisan TPA legislation.  I look forward to working with the Administration and with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to enact this bill.”
The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014 confronts many of the trade challenges facing the U.S. in the global marketplace, including: competition from state-owned enterprises; localization barriers to trade; and restrictions on cross-border data flows.  TPA-2014 updates labor and environment provisions to reflect recent trade agreements, as well as market access priorities for goods and services.  It strengthens oversight by Congress and the public by adding consultation and reporting requirements. TPA-2014 also provides for tougher, enforceable rules against barriers to U.S.  agriculture.  And for the first time, TPA-2014 sets out a clear directive on currency manipulation.
TPA-2014 also provides greater transparency and gives Congress greater oversight of the Administration’s trade negotiations.
Senators Baucus and Hatch and Congressman Camp called TPA a “vital tool” as the U.S. continues Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations as well as free trade agreement talks with the European Union (EU).  The two trade deals offer the U.S. landmark opportunities to boost exports. The TPP countries – which represent many of the fastest-growing economies in the world – accounted for 40 percent of total U.S. goods exports in 2012. And the EU purchased close to $460 billion in U.S. goods and services that same year, supporting 2.4 million American jobs.
In addition, the U.S. is negotiating the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) with 50 countries, covering about 50 percent of global GDP and over 70 percent of global services trade.  This agreement would create many opportunities for U.S. jobs in this critical sector.
Renewing TPA, which expired in 2007, is necessary to successfully conclude these negotiations.
The one page summary can be found here. The bill text can be found here.

###

After 50 Years, How To Move Forward In The War On Poverty

Note: My comment on this article is at the bottom.

 

After 50 Years, How To Move Foward In The War On Poverty

  http://ourfuture.org/20140108/fifty-years-on-moving-foward-in-the-war-on-poverty?utm_source=progressive_breakfast&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pbreak

 

January 8, 2014

Terrance Heath

 

Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson stood before Congress and declared war on poverty. His plans included broadening the food stamp program, extending minimum wage coverage, increasing education funding, and providing “hospital insurance” for older Americans. Johnson spoke of millions of Americans who lived on “the outskirts of hope,” and challenged the country to “replace their despair with opportunity.”

Contrary to conventional wisdom, American hasn’t lost the war on poverty. We stopped fighting it. It’s time to take up the challenge Johnson issued 50 years ago. We must not only renew the fight against poverty, but we must fight for jobs, livable wages, and economic growth that benefits all.

What Works

The war on poverty was successful. We have the numbers to prove it.

Critics of government anti-poverty efforts point to the current poverty rate as evidence of their failure. When Johnson stood before Congress, the national poverty rate was near 19 percent. After 50 years and trillions of dollars spent fighting the war on poverty, the national poverty rate is an unimpressive 15 percent.

Who can blame them? It’s simple. It’s also wrong. The poverty measure was established in 1963, and hasn’t changed since then. It only counts a family’s cash income before taxes, and doesn’t take into account anti-poverty programs that have lifted families out of poverty.

The Census Bureau solved this problem by introducing the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which factors in the effect of anti-poverty programs.  These Census statistics tell a different story: From 1963 to 1970, the poverty rate dropped from 22.6 percent to 12.6  percent — a staggering reduction, in just six years.

Poverty dropped substantially from the start of Johnson’s anti-poverty offensive. What made the difference? The very same “centralized, bureaucratic, top-down anti-poverty programs” that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) railed against this summer during a House Budget Committee hearing on the War on Poverty.

• A recent University of Chicago/Notre Dame paper by Bruce D. Meyer and James X. Sullivan, which looks at low-income families’ consumption rather than income, and accounts for the impact of anti-poverty programs found that:

• Poverty rates have declined steadily since the 1960s and 191970s, and dropped 12.5 percentage points since 1970.
• During the 1960s and 1970s, the tax code became friendlier to low-income families. Tax cuts for low-income Americans, combined with tax cuts for parents (the child tax credit) and the working poor (the Earned Income Tax Credit), accounted for a lot of the drop in poverty. In fact, the EITC pushed after-tax poverty down in the 1990s, and in 2011 kept 6 million out of poverty — including 3 million children.

A Columbia University study found that :

• Programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance have made huge difference in reducing poverty rates since the launch of the war on poverty.
• These safety-net programs have helped reduce the percentage of Americans living in poverty from 26 percent in 1967, to 16 percent in 2012.
• Without these safety-net programs, more Americans would be living in poverty today – 29 percent, compared to 27 percent in 1967.
• According to a study by the Agriculture Department, food stamps helped reduce the poverty rate by nearly 89 points during the recession.

Victories in the war on poverty show us what works. The decades that followed the war on poverty make it clear what doesn’t work.

What Doesn’t Work

“We fought a war on poverty,” Ronald Reagan famously said, “and poverty won.” America only fought a serious, well-funded war on poverty for a decade — even less, writes Michael Tomasky. In the 1970s, the war on poverty began losing steam, and money that might have funded the war on poverty was instead diverted to the war in Vietnam.

With presidency of Ronald Reagan, and rise of modern conservatism, the 1980s signaled a backlash against anti-poverty programs. The declining poverty rate plateaued, as the fates of anti-poverty programs ebbed and flowed. A new war, of sorts, began.

Ronald Reagan deployed the “welfare queen,” during his 1976 presidential campaign — an ’80s update of the Victorians’ “undeserving poor” in  blackface — as part of his mission to vilify welfare and welfare recipients, at the expense of black women living in poverty. It was the opening shot in what would become a full-fledged conservative “war on the poor.” Though mild when compared to present-day conservative rhetoric about the poor, it is echoed by every tea partier who mocks the poor and every conservative who blames the poor for their poverty.

In the 1990s, “welfare reform” presented conservatives with a model. Passed by a Republican Congress (with help from Democrats Who Should Have Known Better ™), and signed by a Democratic president, the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act marked a shift in the war on poverty. It ended welfare as an entitlement, placed a five-year limit on federal benefits, and block-granted programs to states.

Conservatives tout it as a success, but “welfare reform” was a “catastrophic success” at best. Welfare reform was only successful in getting people off the welfare rolls. Those who were kicked off the rolls either found jobs that paid too little, returned to welfare, or ended up with no income and few resources.

“Welfare reform” reduced the number of people receiving help, but did not reduce the number of people who needed government assistance. That’s the “success” on which Rep. Paul Ryan modeled his budget. It’s also the conservative model for “reforming” the programs of the war on poverty, from Medicaid to food stamps.

“Welfare reform,” in all its various forms, amounts to a surrender in the war on poverty.

Moving Forward

It’s too soon to declare victory in the war on poverty, but it’s also too soon to admit defeat. We are only halfway through this battle.

Without anti-poverty programs, nearly 24 million more Americans would be living in poverty. The poverty rate would rise to nearly 30 percent — almost double the current rate.

Antipoverty spending alone is not enough. These programs have been effective, but they have had to work even harder to address the challenges faced by the increasing number of people who are being denied the benefits of economic growth in today’s economy. Unless we address those economic realities, we’ll have to keep ratcheting up anti-poverty spending.

The war on poverty must be matched with a fight for a more equitable economy, that includes full employment, livable wages, and economic growth that benefits all.

• Livable Wages. Low-wage jobs keep incomes low. Half of all jobs in the U.S. now pay less than $35,000 per year. Many pay much less, leaving workers unable to afford food, shelter, transportation and medical care. Raising the minimum wage could lift 5 million out of poverty, and reduce the poverty rate for adults aged 18 to 64.
• Full Employment. Right now, there are three unemployed people competing for every job opening. Fighting for full employment must go hand-in-hand with fighting poverty. It will require major investment. But first, Democrats will to abandon complicity in prioritizing deficit reduction over job creation, and get over their fear of being labeled with “L Word.”
• Economic Growth. Full employment will require reviving economic growth, so that everyone who wants or needs a job can find one. Ending tax policies and trade agreements that make it easier for businesses and corporations to send jobs and money overseas might be a good place to start.

That poverty is still with us doesn’t mean we’ve lost. It means we have more work to do. The conservative response to poverty is to cut assistance and let the chips fall where they may. Progressives must to fight to preserve anti-poverty programs, and to create an economy that produces good jobs, full employment and livable wages – an economy in which everyone has opportunities to participate and to prosper.

My comment on the article:

Good article except there is only one way to determine what is poverty:

Do people have everything they are entitled to by birth as a human right? If we were to use the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights as our "measuring stick," poverty in this country would be much worse than what the U.S. Census Bureau implies.

Wages and any benefits derived must be considered against actual "cost-of-living" factors as tracked by the United States Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics which gives us a much better indication of living standards than do the figures coming from the U.S. Census Bureau.

It is like the United States government operates like a crooked and corrupt employer keeping two sets of books: one for the IRS the other for stock-holders. Some of these employers keep a third set of books to show the union at contract time.

We need a Minimum Wage that is a real living wage based on all cost of living factors.

At election time, politicians talk a good line about "jobs, jobs, jobs;" but, for all the talk, millions remain unemployed.

We are going to need a Full Employment Act which would require the president and Congress to work together to attain and maintain full employment if we ever hope to have full employment in this country. The Full Employment Act of 1945 was an example of such legislation; we need to revive calls for such advanced legislation--- call it the "21st Century Full Employment Act for Peace and Prosperity" because unless we end these dirty wars killing our jobs just like they kill people we will never have the resources for the kind of massive government job programs required that will put everyone to work at real living wages.

Here in Minnesota Democrats have a super-majority. Progressives from all over the country should be demanding and insisting that this Democratic super-majority here in Minnesota passes real living wage Minimum Wage legislation tied directly to all cost-of-living factors, indexed to inflation with periodic increases to improve the livelihoods and standard of living for all working people.

Let's get very specif with articulating just what is required to solve our problems in a progressive manner.

We have had enough of this George Lakoff crap of properly framed progressive policy directives enabling these politicians to campaign on the promise of enacting living wages and then once elected they pull this "bait and switch" bullshit on us by legislating "increases" in the Minimum Wage which leave the Minimum Wage remaining a poverty wage.

Extend Federal Unemployment Benefits NOW!!!!!!!!

Federal Unemployment Extension Benefits are necessary and needed by millions of workers as this rotten capitalist system continues to crumble.

I was part of the organization which launched the fight for these Federal Extensions back in the early 1970's.

Getting then Congressman Republican Gerald R. Ford to support this legislation was key since he was the leading Republican in the House. I led three delegations of unemployed people, rank-and-file labor activists and several elected union leaders to.

The Kent County Labor Council hired me to launch the fight to get Ford to support this legislation. In the end, Ford ended up backing our initiative as a result of a deal we made with him.

We never fought for the extension of unemployment benefits under the guise of keeping people out of poverty because we knew that unemployment benefits amounted to workers living in poverty. But, the extensions still help workers.

Today when the Democrats and the AFL-CIO leaders say they are fighting to extend unemployment benefits because it will "lift 1.7 million people out of poverty" this is an outright lie.

If they wanted to really "lift people out of poverty" with unemployment benefits they would have to launch a struggle for unemployment benefits to be based on all cost of living factors and just mentioning "cost-of-living" is something these millionaire labor leaders refuse to do because this would require a real working class struggle. it would take a struggle amounting to a lot more than a series of press conferences.

We are hearing all these properly framed progressive policy directives coming from the mouths of these millionaire labor leaders... words put into their mouths by self-serving Democrats.

These nice sounding phrases are:

"Lifting people out of poverty."

"We are for living wages."

"Jobs, Jobs, Jobs."

"We are for universal health care."

In the end what is the result?

The working class gets pushed and shoved deeper into poverty.

It is all about "bait and switch" politics.

Unemployed people will end up worse off then they were; instead of the Minimum Wage becoming a living wage it will remain a poverty wage; and the only jobs workers will get will be poverty wage jobs if they get any jobs at all; and Obamacare is all about enabling the insurance companies to pick the pockets of working people.

How much more are you willing to put up with?

Extend federal unemployment benefits now but stop playing games with words. Unemployment benefits as they are calculated now don't lift anyone out of poverty.

How can anyone paid a poverty wage be "lifted out of poverty?"

How dumb do these people think we are?

Question: How will a poverty wage of $10.10 an hour lift anyone out of poverty? This defies all common sense, logic and reasoning.

What we should be demanding is the Minimum Wage be based on all cost-of-living factors.

Once more we have millionaire labor "leaders" peddling Wall Street misinformation.

$10.10 Minimum Wage Would Lift 4.6 Million Out of Poverty, Study Says

As Congress debates the increase, a new study shows the real-world impact of raising hourly wages

By Eliana Dockterman @edocktermanJan. 02, 2014

Read more: Minimum Wage Raise Would Reduce Poverty by 5 Million | TIME.com http://nation.time.com/2014/01/02/10-10-minimum-wage-would-lift-4-6-million-out-of-poverty-study-says/#ixzz2pfna5fYy

http://nation.time.com/2014/01/02/10-10-minimum-wage-would-lift-4-6-million-out-of-poverty-study-says/

It is no wonder Time doesn't provide a link to this so-called "study."

If Congress were to go through with the plan backed by President Obama to raise the minimum hourly wage from $7.25 to $10.10, 4.6 million people would rise above the poverty line, a new study says.
The raise in minimum wage would reduce the poverty rate by as much as 1.7 percentage points according to a study by University of Massachusetts – Amherst economist Arindrajit Dube, who explains in his Dec. 30, 2013 report:

“Starting from the current 17.5% poverty rate among the nonelderly population, the estimate suggests a 1.7 percent reduction in the poverty rate from a 39 percent increase in the minimum wage as proposed in the legislation.”

In the long-term, the plan would reduce the ranks of the nation’s poor by 6.8 million, according to the Huffington Post.
Even with those impressive results, Dube pointed out that increasing the minimum wage isn’t the most direct way to fight poverty. Policies like the Earned Income Tax Credit and food stamps are more effective, he writes in the study.
[Huffington Post]

Read more: Minimum Wage Raise Would Reduce Poverty by 5 Million | TIME.com http://nation.time.com/2014/01/02/10-10-minimum-wage-would-lift-4-6-million-out-of-poverty-study-says/#ixzz2pfnOytOn

Duluth Forum next Saturday... January 11

A quick reminder that the Forum on "Building Progressive Political Power . . . " will be next Saturday,
January 11, 2014 at the Copper Top Church in Duluth, Minnesota.

Focus:  The basic question — the basic challenge — for us is to determine
             if we, from various persuasions on the progressive Left, can come together
             to organize around "issues" rather than "ideology" or "party" — as a way of building
             political power, influence, and credibility in the minds of the broader public.

Issues:  For starters, we're proposing to explore organizing around the following issues:
             1) a livable ("minimum") wage; 2) single payer health care; and 3) the indigenous
             and environmental communities' concerns about environmental protection, including
             sulfide mining, species extinction, and climate change.

Goals:     To collectively figure out . . .

             1.  how we, as progressives, can increase  our political power and influence
                 in Minnesota — by working within and/or outside the DFL.    All creative options
                 must be on the table.

             2.  how we can use "kitchen table," "lunch bucket," and "environmental sanity" issues
                  to recruit, organize, lobby, and achieve the legislation and policy decisions we need
                  for meeting the needs of Minnesotans and its environment.

             3.  how we can maintain momentum for pushing forth — for the long term.
            
Basics:  Saturday, January 11th, 11:00 a.m. to 4:00-ish.
             Please arrive early (10:30 - 10:50).  We hope to start on time.

             It'll be long day; jam-packed with short presentations.
             Coffee/tea/water and snacks will be available.
             Bring a bag lunch if you like.  The setting will be informal.
            
             Whole group deliberations also. 
             See latest revised schedule below.

Ground
Rules:    The agenda provides for the presentation of a wide array of ideas and opinion.

              Speakers are asked to respect their time limits (15 minutes).  Audience members need to
              be brief in their comments (2-3 minutes) so that we can accommodate the input of as many
              participants as possible..

              Presentations and discussion promise to be passionate and provocative. 
              Critical analysis and critique of ideas, policies, and programs are welcomed.
              Personal put-downs, insinuations, or innuendoes will be declared out of bounds.
              All discussion needs to be civil.

              Rev. Cathy Schuyler and Vern Simula will serve as co-facilitators. 

              Collectively, let's make this an enjoyable, profitable, and memorable day!

==========================
This is still a tentative agenda, open to some slight modifications to accommodate last minute scheduling changes.

11:00      Welcome/Opening/Overview   
11:15      Overview
11:30      Livable (minimum) Wage
12::00     Whole Forum Discussion

12:30      ====  BREAK  - 15 minutes    =====

12:45     Universal Single Payer Health Care for Minnesota       
1:15      Indigenous and Environmental Issues

2:45     ===== BREAK ================

3:00      How Do We Organize in Minnesota??            
4:30+    Closing

A book recommendation...

I would encourage workers to read the book: "Rebellion in the Unions, A Handbook for Rank and File Action" by George Morris... written back in the 1970's but still one of the best books on the topic around.

You can find this book very cheap on the internet.

Should Socialists and Communists engage in electoral struggles?

The election of a socialist to public office in this country is treated as some kind of novelty by both the mainstream media and most of the alternative and even left media; why?

This was my response to an article on a left wing web page and note I attached to it in an e-mail I sent out. A lot of people are being subjected to the lie that Socialists and Communists do not remain true once elected to public office in capitalist governments:

Socialists and Communists can, and more often than not, often do, "keep true" once elected to public office.

This has been proven time, and time, again. Examples are the socialist Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party, the most successful third party ever here in the United States. Even as Socialists and Communists were fighting tooth and nail at the national level, here in Minnesota they had the good common sense to figure out that if they worked together they could accomplish a great deal.

In more recent years there was the tremendous success of the Howard Pawley led socialist New Democratic Party majority government in Manitoba, Canada.

Fortunately, former New Democratic Party Premier Howard Pawley has written an excellent, honest, thought-provoking and informative book about his life in politics, "Keep True," which should be required reading for anyone involved in electoral politics. We have a great deal to learn about politics and the class struggle from our northern neighbors. We also have a great deal to learn from our own history which includes the incredible history of the socialist Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party.

If for no other reason, both the Pawley led NDP and the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party should be studied for the honest government that was delivered to the people of Manitoba and Minnesota. In addition to delivering honest and ethical governance with maximum citizen participation in the decision-making, both of these governments delivered huge reforms improving the lives of working people--- not to mention striking major blows against racist discrimination.

Many, many working class and progressive/left activists who become engaged in electoral struggles do remain true.

That there are also some who betray our struggles is just life--- no reason for us not to engage in electoral struggles as we fight in the streets, in our schools, our communities and places of employment for peace, social and economic justice.

We have seen and experienced first hand the betrayal of those on the left supporting Wall Street's imperialist warmonger--- Barack Obama. This has sown deep divisions in the progressive, left and working class movements which is proving to be a real challenge to overcome; but, this is the problem of our times, not whether or not we should be engaged in electoral struggles.

*****************

Note: I could have cited an untold number of Socialists and Communists who have run for public office--- and many who have won--- in both the United States and Canada to prove that most Socialists and Communists "keep true" once elected. I find, more often than not, that those who raise these questions about "if" we should be engaged in electoral activity, at least in some way, are just a tad dishonest since they are not providing a true picture of the electoral struggles in Canada and the United States. I could have provided the examples of Joe Zuken and Jacob Penner in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada or the long history of Coleman Young's election to public office. I think Jacob Penner may still be the holder of the record for the longest serving elected public official of any political party in North America--- Penner was continually elected and re-elected as the Communist Party of Manitoba-Canada's candidate. It is no secret to anyone that Coleman Young rose, not from the ranks of working class struggle--- but with the ranks of working class activists to become a state legislator and then Mayor of Detroit all the while carrying a Communist Party membership card.

There is nothing strange, nor unique, about Socialists and Communists being elected to public office here in the United States or Canada.

In fact,  had it not been for the decades of never-ending severe governmental repression brought on by Republican Joe McCarthy and Democrat Hubert H. Humphrey (the primary author of the vicious, undemocratic and fascist-like Communist Control Act), it can very reasonably be assumed we would have Socialists and Communists occupying many seats of political power in this country today. It is not our electoral system, as corrupt as it is, which prevents Socialists and Communists from being elected in large numbers today--- it is the failure of the left to defy government repression and intimidation which includes lies, smears and slanders from the corporate mass media.

Just a few months ago I met with a group of people in the Frank P. Zeidler Municipal Building in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to discuss creating a campaign for a "21st Century Full Employment Act for Peace and Prosperity. Zeidler and his Socialist Party have played a dominant role in Milwaukee politics for the better part of the 20th Century. No one wants to talk about this; why not?

Why is it that one can go into almost any school on Minnesota's Mesabi Iron Range and no one, including the history teachers, knows who John Bernard was? A Communist Congressman from the small mining community of Eveleth elected by the workers from the Iron Range on the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party ticket.

It is one thing to disagree with Socialists and Communists--- this is everyone's right in a democracy; however, it is quite another thing for these cowards who don't even dare to debate Socialists and Communists in the public square, to use the apparatus of government and the media to restrict the participation of Socialists and Communists in the political process and then go on to boast to the rest of the world that the United States is the world's greatest bastion of democracy.

I would also point out one very simple, basic and fundamental fact:

Unless Socialists and Communists lead the way in challenging Wall Street for political and economic power--- no such challenge will ever be made... think about that. 

To think that issues like peace, full employment, a living wage Minimum Wage, anti-scab and anti-lockout or the repeal of "At-Will Employment" legislation will even be discussed without bringing forward Socialist and Communist candidates for public office is very naive thinking.