"Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" is all the talk but where are the jobs?

Please note: Send me your questions at: amaki000@centurytel.net
Bookmark this blog post because I will be answering your questions often.

"Jobs, jobs, jobs" is all the talk coming out of Washington and from the State Houses as well as being all the hype from the over-paid "economists" and media pundits.

There isn't a single politician running for office who doesn't promise "jobs, jobs, jobs;" but, what happened to the idea the United States government is responsible for maintaining "full employment?" 

Question:

How come the words "full employment" never appear in what Robert Reich is writing? (See below: Why jobs must be our goal now)

Question:

Do you hear Barack Obama talk about his responsibility for "full employment?"

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

This on-line book (Full Employment Act of 1945) available for downloading for free may be of interest to you:

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

(Note: If the above link does not work you will have to copy and paste the link into your browser. I can not emphasize enough how important it is for anyone concerned about jobs and unemployment to read this transcript of the hearing--- which includes the Act itself--- the "Full Employment Act of 1945")

This link above is to the entire transcript of the Congressional Hearing on the original Full Employment Act of 1945 which includes the actual Act brought forward by liberal populist, Wright Patman---

 

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, Texas
Died: March 7, 1976, Bethesda
Party: Democratic Party

We have to ask why Obama's supporters aren't pushing for the enactment of this "Full Employment" legislation today?

  

All we get from Wall Street's politicians in the Democratic and Republican parties is "talk, talk, talk" instead of "jobs, jobs, jobs."

The working class needs its own political party just like labor in Canada has the New Democratic Party. 

Without a strong, vibrant and active Communist Party made up of grass roots activists and rank-and-file workers defending the interests of the working class in the streets and in the electoral and legislative arenas; a Communist Party providing the catalyst for real change with movement building while pushing for the broadest possible working class and all people's united action we will not be able to win full employment here in the United States.

Consider organizing a Communist Club in your neighborhood, where you work or go to school.    

It will be up to left wing working class rank-and-file activists together with liberals, progressives and leftists finding common ground and a "meeting of the minds" to bring forward and advance "Full Employment" legislation; no political party or organization is going to do this unless pushed even though the American people expect this from their government.

Wall Street reactionaries from the Chamber of Commerce to the National Association of Manufacturers united to defeat the "Full Employment Act of 1945" as the United States government was carrying out political repression against working class activist as Republicans and Democrats acted in collusion bringing forward the most reactionary and anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act intended to criminalize and destroy the Communist Party USA.

Common sense tells us working people without jobs are going to be poor; this is so basic it shouldn't have to be stated.

"Jobs, Jobs, Jobs;" but what happened to the idea embodied in the defeated "Full Employment act of 1945" 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 and his fellow Democratic Party economists--- among them: Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker and their "linguist" George Lakoff--- are wrong to focus solely on "jobs" without bringing forward the need for the United States government to be responsible for "full employment;" our goal, the goal of the working class movement, must be to get the United States government to assume its responsibility to the American people for maintaining a "full employment economy" just like the immensely popular liberal populist United States Congressman from Texas, Wright Patman, proposed.

Check out what Robert Reich has written below at the very time the Wall Street Journal made the dire prediction above.

Does anyone really believe we can solve the problem of unemployment in this country unless the United States government assumes its responsibility to the American people for "full employment?"

The United States government is going to have to create millions of jobs by re-establishing proven government programs like WPA, CCC and C.E.T.A.

How we pay to create these jobs is an equally important question which people have the right to have answers to:

1. End the wars and occupations which will yield huge "peace dividends."

2. Tax the rich; tax corporate profits; tax Wall Street transactions.

Another huge benefit derived from "full employment" is Social Security will be placed on a solid financial footing; as long as everyone pays in, everyone will get from Social Security what they are entitled to receive in benefits--- plus, we can reduce the age at which people can retire while increasing the benefits to provide pensioners with real living incomes... this, too, will create more jobs as aging workers retire, young workers find a place in the workforce.

We will derive numerous other benefits from "full employment" which include reducing crime and pushing all wages up instead of having this huge pool of unemployed people dragging wages down. Workers will have maximum power in their places of employment which will assure the protection of rights and a decent standard of living for everyone.

The best union-busting and strike-breaking weapon Wall Street has is this huge pool of unemployed labor.

Check out the budget priorities of Obama and the Democrats. These budget priorities are not conducive to creating "full employment;" in fact, such priorities squandering the wealth of our nation on militarism and wars can only lead to making most Americans poor because wars kill jobs just like they kill people:

http://nationalpriorities.org/

No; as Robert Reich is suggesting, the American people should not have to pay an increase in Social Security taxes; but, more importantly--- and the point Robert Reich refuses to bring forward--- is that the American people should not have to pay these "war taxes" for militarism and wars most people in this country don't even want. What happened to democracy of "We, the People?"

We have a government working for Wall Street instead of a government working for the American people.

What more proof do we need of this than the wrong-headed budget priorities combined with the fact this government with Democrats and Republicans at the helm shirk their responsibility to the American people in refusing to maintain "full employment."

These politicians want our votes; shouldn't working people at least get jobs in return for our votes?

"Full employment" is all about governmental accountability to the people.

"Full employment" is all about peace and democracy.

"Full employment" is all about the most fundamental human right of all--- the right to a job at a real living wage.

Alan L. Maki
Co-Chair,

Lake-of-the-Woods Communist Club

 
 

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.

__________________
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/

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.