Letters From an Angry Consumer and EFCA Supporter

Which side are you on, boy? (3.00 / 6)

Which side are you on?

---

by: priceman @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 14:18:45 PM CST

I´m stickin´to the Union (3.00 / 6)

---

by: peacock @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 16:06:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Me too (3.00 / 4)

---

by: priceman @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 17:10:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It´s all so "convenient", isn´t it? (3.00 / 5)

This "financial crisis".

What do we get?

1) Monopolies in just about every sector imaginable, banks, retail outlets, manufacturers...

2) Union busting and even in non-unionized sectors, loss of wages and benefits (vacation, pension, health care)...

and ....

Yáll can add on to the list.

This is even happening in unionized Denmark where a story today was that the slaughterhouses were asking the employees to go along with a reduction in wages to keep their jobs.

Sounds "rational" doesn´t it?

On the other hand is there anything "rational" about the "financial crisis"? I find it irrational. Not the effects as to what is happening. But I see this "chicken little" thing happening that IS causing the sky to fall.

Am I the only one who is thinking that or am I crazy?

---

by: peacock @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 16:17:18 PM CST

Using the financial crisis they created as a convenient excuse (3.00 / 5)

Indeed, we are in the Super Gilded Age, yet when someone starts talking about progressive values and actions such as trust busting they are labeled by the consolidated media as "an irresponsible angry outlandish candidate" or one of the many terms they used to describe John Edwards and before him FDR and even more so Huey Long(who I hear nothing but bad things about, but most of what he said was true and even though he was corrupted in some ways to try to get things done, he still did more good than harm influencing FDR to be more progressive along the way).

Wow, that is a disturbing and surprising development in Denmark. I seriously doubt it's the wages that are causing any problems, like the BS excuse about wages and the UAW as it is 10% of their overall costs, I believe. Like I reference here, how could higher productivity which backs the investment for higher wages up, be a liability? And they say it's the worthless toxic paper assets transferred from account to account that we need to worship. Oh, I get it. Speaking of pensions, as soon as Greenspan's deregulated derivatives as well as other laws like Gramm Leach Bliley and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act were put on the books, thus deregulating investment banks which hold these pensions and allowed them a bigger share of the market to back these pensions up with bad mortgages as well as other toxic debt, that is what is at the cause of the credit crisis. No real goods that you can see and feel; manufacturing real goods and getting paid for that work thus creating real incentive in a real economy for real work is not even close to being at fault in the financial crisis.

It's when even some respected economists on the left as well as the right treat finance and credit like a religion instead of thinking pragmatically on what has worked since the New deal and what didn't before then, causing the need for the New Deal; as when even if our currency is not backed up by the working economy for the workers of the workers, and by the workers then it's just all paper printed out for this Madoff economy that has me mad, so I'm going off.

You're not crazy. Worshiping Wall Street is crazy, even if  one considers himself a "financial expert." Listening to the "experts" is what got us into this mess; not the unions.

---

by: priceman @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 17:09:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Anyone who studies history and economics thoughtfully (3.00 / 6)

supports unions. Thank you for a good, solid posting.

By the way, I proudly voted for Walter Mondale, who firmly supported unions, for president. Mondale also was right about a national daycare program and early childhood education.  

Abstinence programs breed hypocrites.

---

by: OklahomaVoter @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 22:50:56 PM CST

I agree. I'm glad you liked it, OklahomaVoter (3.00 / 5)

And I'm proud of you for doing so. Mondale did have the strong union support and he was very right about those issues. He did also win one of those debates. It's a shame that people were being controlled by their fear of the "Evil Empire" and their belief that they were being protected by a magical Star Wars space shield which was as much of a fantasy as the movie.  It also sucks, electorally and for our country, that voters weren't able to separate Mondale from Carter in their minds even though we also know that the utter malaise of his reputation is unfair, but he still suffers form it even though if we listened to him, we wouldn't be in the energy crisis we are in.

Reagan was probably the second worst President ever.

Good for you. I would have voted for Mondale too.  

---

by: priceman @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 23:28:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Something that just came to mind (3.00 / 4)

If Arlen Specter breaks ranks again then EFCA should go through the Senate next time.

"Democracy only works when we claim it as our own" -Bill Moyers

---

by: Eddie C @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:03:41 AM CST

Only if ALL Democrats hold the line. (3.00 / 4)

We have to worry about the Arkansas Democrats (who represent Wal-Mart HQ) and the Nelson boys, who are not exactly staunch progressives.  All they really have to do is not filibuster, though.  They could still vote no in the end as long as they allow the vote in the first place.

The bad news is that my Representative and two Senators are in the minority.  The good news is that my Representative and two Senators are in the minority.

---

by: CLLGADEM @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:36:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Indeed we do have to worry about Arkansas Democrats.. (3.00 / 4)

and the Nelson boys. I hate the House of Lords for Millionaires, I mean Senate. You know, the ironic thing is that we would be better off if Republicans were successful in eliminating the filibuster like they were threatening to during the debate about ending the war with timetables and the surge before 2006 when they were still the majority. I wish they would have and that it was signed into law.

We don't seem to use it for anything. FISA? No. Stopping bills to fund the war? Nope.

It's a shame that didn't happen.

---

by: priceman @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 16:40:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Weeeellll........ (3.00 / 2)

...not so fast.  Without the filibuster, Social Security would have been privatized, and immigration reform that would have redefined inhumanity would be law right now.  It isn't that Democrats didn't use the filibuster - they just didn't use it nearly enough.  

Yes, Democrats might be in a stronger position now without the filibuster, but think how much worse things would be now if they hadn't had it from 1/03-1/07.

The bad news is that my Representative and two Senators are in the minority.  The good news is that my Representative and two Senators are in the minority.

---

by: CLLGADEM @ Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 07:57:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe so (3.00 / 2)

but everyone was against that, even AARP who pushed for privatized Medicare, so there was no real acceptance of that platform even with Bush thinking he had a mandate afterward to do so. He wasn't fooling anyone with that one. However, you're right that the filibuster was important there.

But anyway, I am half kidding, it's just that I don't think it's fair that any Senator regardless of the population of where he is from can block important legislation, and we would be in a better position if we didn't have it, because we are at the brink at the moment, and Democrats didn't use it enough or hardly at all(The innocent bystander myth was used to pretend they couldn't use it to stop funding the war even though they have power of the purse). I think the rules for a filibuster should be looked at again if anything else, because it's undemocratic that any one senator can throw a filibuster fit, because he hates unions or whatever; there's a difference between  trying to block people from changing the social safety net to steal Social Security and just wanting to throw an ideological tantrum which happens all too much with the Republican party. There should have to be a good reason.

From my memory, that immigration reform bill was a Democratic platform and Republicans except for Bush were against it, because they said it had amnesty, even though it did not. I was against it, because it did seem cruel as if every immigrant family is going to cough up $5,000 to stay right away, but I believe Republicans killed that bill.

Things probably would be a lot worse, but I'm thinking in hindsight terms, because I don't like the way the Senate was set up and it's disregard for Democracy, like I don't like the electoral college, so who knows how much better things would be, if there wasn't the 60 vote rule in association with the filibuster and if there wasn't the electoral college for that manner in my opinion looking back in hindsight.

i don't think we are going to b able to get anything done unless Obama stages a big PR war from the bully pulpit like Brain Schweitzer does as Governor in Montana for a progressive platform on energy, ending the war(Republicans will use the filibuster to stop him from doing so. Another loss) or investing in infrastructure(Republicans will filibuster that too, because to them more tax cuts is always the answer.)

It might of served us well in some ways considering, but it will also eventually be our downfall if Obama doesn't pull out his inner LBJ and twist arms and drag everyone kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

---

by: priceman @ Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 14:53:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Check the bottom of the thread for my reply..OOPS! n/t (3.00 / 2)

The bad news is that my Representative and two Senators are in the minority.  The good news is that my Representative and two Senators are in the minority.

---

by: CLLGADEM @ Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:53:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bil Nelson is good on it, Ben Nelson is sketchy. (3.00 / 3)

Also, I've heard that Arlen Specter has said he likely won't be the only Republican to support EFCA when the time comes.  This could end up with 61-62 votes, or just provide a cushion if Blanche Lincoln decides to back out.

- 5.38, - 5.90        Deus mihi iustitiam dabit.

---

by: cjallen @ Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 08:20:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's possible (3.00 / 4)

Obama will have to use the bully pulpit to make it happen to put that pressure there to counteract any attempts at a filibuster. He needs to employ the tactics of Governor Brian Schweitzer in Montana in how he pressures the State Senate by illuminating how much time is being wasted with these filibusters to the public who hates this sort of thing, and so then there is considerable pressure to bring it up for a vote; a standoff happens then enough Republican Senators break with the party so everyone can go home.

We have to win the PR war, though, to get a national perception of what is happening and what is at stake in the U.S Senate to have this same kind of pressure so they can't kill this like they killed the big 3 bailout just to attack organized labor without blinking. It will be a tough fight and we must fight it on all these fronts and this is where we will found out if Obama has any true Progressive Bona fides left in him considering his promise here. It will be a betrayal of all voters if this doesn't happen.

---

by: priceman @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 16:34:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

somewhat off topic--a call for assistance, help me out (3.00 / 3)

i support unions, all good progressives support unions, but i'm a musician by training and an environmental activist by impulse.  i don't have the total understanding of the history (thanks for the info in this diary) and i certainly don't have the connections.

so, a call for assistance--i'm helping to lobby my rep in congress, the loverly mr. hoyer, to make sure they enact climate change legislation--green jobs, the works.

but, he's saying to us that they need to hear from certain groups of people, who i'm assuming have stood in the way of a green revolution in the past.  he listed catholics, hunters, and labor.

the labor thing took me for a loop.  the idea of unions being against us, doesn't make much sense to me.  hoyer's reasoning was that labor was upset because many of the jobs are in "dirty" industries, and they are afraid of losing their work, and are lobbying against climate change resolutions.

if anyone is a union member or knows some leadership there, we will need a good coalition to push for green jobs.  in particular, i'm thinking that the steel unions should be not against us, as they were in maryland last years, but with us...we'll need those wind turbines, and steel is one of the best materials to make them with...if only they weren't made in denmark or some other country...

and of course, we're into getting funding for the re-training of workers into the green industries we're creating, which will help out a lot.

i'm in md dist. 5.  if anyone has knows who i should be connecting with, or if you can help a girl out, send me an email.  i'd like some good company the next time i show up to hoyer's office.  

progressives and environmentalists will stand up for the unions...can i ask for some union folks to stand up with us?

---

by: kenshin @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 13:26:01 PM CST

Steny Hoyer has spent considerable time attacking progressives lately (3.00 / 2)

as well as the "left." So I take what he says with a huge grain of salt and it's not labor that is standing in the way of a green economy. i used to wonder about such things, too, because there were those rumors about the UAW not wanting to build green cars, but that's not true as they don't make those decisions. The CEOs of the big three do. I would ask Mr. Hoyer why he feels he needs to attack progressives and the left and why he adamantly is against prosecuting Bush for anything.

If Labor was in the way, why would they have overwhelmingly supported Obama and other Democrats(who clearly advertise a green economy and Obama has supported stupid crap like clean coal, but on the other hand he's also hinted that the coal industry's days are numbered and they would lose considerable amounts of capital) and worked to get him elected? He wouldn't be there without the support of organized labor, which is a pragmatic reason for him to pass the EFCA, because otherwise he will be a one term president. Obama has also promised to pass it.

To answer your question. The unions are on board. Steny Hoyer is not and he's making excuses for himself not committing fully to a green infrastructure revolution. Otherwise he wouldn't be spouting a center right narrative. I think we should work to pressure him and eventually vote him out of office if eh doesn't change his ways, because these excuses he is giving are disingenuous and I would advise you to call him out.

I know how it is, though. I live in a Right to Work state and my Representatives are not sellout Democrats, but are anti-labor stupid Republicans like John Cornyn and Kay bailey Hutchinson. My Representative  in the house Al green is cool, though, and yes he's all for a green revolution and HR 676 among other things.

Anyway, thanks for the comment and I hope that helps.

---

by: priceman @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 16:20:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i'm on to hoyer, oh believe me (3.00 / 2)

but i certainly don't mind bringing in whomever he wants to see and have them say in his face what he needs to do to adequately represent his constituents.  if he wants to hear from cross-dressing mormon dwarves, i'll just get out my contact book and call up some old friends.  if wants to hear from labor, so be it.  but i don't have the connections with labor.

here in maryland, there was a last-minute play (i think heavily influenced by the chamber of commerce, but i may be wrong) where the steel union ran against the climate change bill we had in maryland.  they were worried about the availability of coal, as it is used in the steel-smelting process.  this year, we've made sure they are with us...

i'd rather simply work on getting hoyer out of office, but pressuring him hard now is not totally a waste of breath, it should make things easier.  donna edwards is right next door, and so are some others nearby who are on board with climate change action, so hoyer should vote with the block...or face the consequences of looking like the odd-man out.  it should be obvious that he's simply no longer representing his constituents, if he keeps voting the opposite of the other surrounding progressives.

getting together the coalition is also not a waste of time.  let's face it, the little old ladies show up to the anti-war protests, the tree-hugging hippies show up to the climate change rally, and so forth...we're always acting in our own little separate groups.  progressives do a great service in bringing these groups together, in common cause.

what if environmentalists showed up to congress, demanding that they help the auto unions and steel workers, insisting on the american electric and hybrid car production, and US production of wind turbines?  ooo, giving me some ideas...thanx for the reply and listening to me rant...

---

by: kenshin @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 21:33:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

eureka! (3.00 / 2)

and just to prove your point some more, priceman, thanx for the diary!:

Green activists find new ally in US unions

Foster said unions and green groups have waged joint lobbying efforts nationwide for laws increasing energy efficiency and promoting renewable energies, and they have teamed up for numerous court battles against companies that violate workers' rights and environmental standards.

For example, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club have endorsed the Employee Free Choice Act, a union-backed bill that would protect workers' rights to join unions. The Sierra Club has mobilized members to write to their Congress members to support the bill.

Abraham Breehey, a senior union official, said workers are starting to shake off their belief that green energy spells doom rather than opportunity.

Breehey pointed to the case of a group of Indiana blacksmiths who recently struck a multimillion dollar deal to produce a new hammer for heavy-duty work in building wind turbines.

That "was a light bulb moment, and we realized that there must be more examples where job opportunities on their face might not seem like green jobs but end up being part of the green economy," said Breehey, of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers.

---

by: kenshin @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 21:45:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Awesome! :D (3.00 / 1)

Wonderful edition to the diary, kenshin! This is great news and I imagine this alleviates the problem in your state and many others and bodes well for the EFCA thus adding a wonderful edition to this diary.

Thank you, kenshin. I have learned a great deal from your postings here.

---

by: priceman @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 22:14:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ahh, I see (3.00 / 2)

I see what you mean, now.

I'm thinking it was, because the Chamber of Commerce state by state and nationally is very averse to change. They hated Edwards with a passion and promised to spend millions against "anti-establishment candidates and they are also involved with tort reform measures to limit consumer rights and to make sure corporate personhood stays.

Anyway, you're right. They was some fear mongering in your state regarding less coal for steel in association with their jobs that worked(and Ai think your guess is right, though I'm not absolutely sure either, but as you laid out there will be plenty of demand for steel in this green economy so I don't see what the problem was. It's good they are on board, thoguh Steel workers everywhere else seem to be more immune to that kind of fear mongering as John Edwards received much of his ferocious support by Steelworkers in Iowa and he was never for clean coal or anything like that.

Go figure. Unfortunately as I have read, this tactic is readily used when those like the Chamber of Commerce have nothing else to defeat union, though there was still significant (maybe other) union support for that bill.

http://www.mdlcv.org/index.php...

Unfortunately, by not passing the Global Warming Solutions Act, the General Assembly missed a huge opportunity to put Maryland at the forefront of a "green" economy solution to a problem that's not going away. They also let down tens of thousands of Marylanders from all different walks of life - including business leaders, faith communities, students, labor groups, and health advocates - who have been demanding action on this important issue.

It wasn't only that, though I admit I don't know as much about your state's legislative activities as you do, but it seems as if there was a "poison pill" amendment that did even more damage as far as it passing.

Global Warming Solutions Act (SB 309/ HB 712)

Update: Unfortunately, the bill was weakened by a "poison pill" amendment on the Senate floor. Debate on the bill continued into the closing hours of the session when it was ultimately killed in the House Economic Matters committee.

Anyway, I'm glad they are on board now, and that you are on to Steny Hoyer. And I like rants; I go on them a lot, so feel free/ :D

Thanks for clarifying, kenshin.

---

by: priceman @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 22:09:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

priceman, you should become a Lobbyist! (3.00 / 3)

for the People, of course!



In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act -- George Orwell

---

by: jamess @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 20:53:18 PM CST

lol. thanks, jamess! (3.00 / 3)

And that is an important distinction. There's just more of the bad kind of lobby, so there is that rightful connotation. If only labor was a lobby that had access to legislation authoring like the pharmaceutical lobby did with their ripoff Medicare Prescription bill. Then we would be see some real progress all around, though I think if Congressional Democrats, even corporate ones, are smart, they will support the EFCA if they don't want to be swept away like Democrats were in 94 because of the same lackluster efforts.

Thanks again, jamess! :D

---

by: priceman @ Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 21:22:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Absolutely! (3.00 / 2)

I am a firm believer in President-elect Obama's vigorous and avid use of any and all arm-twisting techniques to advance progressive policies.  The one-Senator blocking tactics need to go, no question, whether it's appointments or legislation.

My take on immigration is a little different.  Immigration reform failed because there was no proposal, from any side, left, right, center-left, center-right that had the support of any coalition of 60 Senators.  Some Democrats voted against final passage as well (I'm pretty sure Claire McCaskill and John Tester were among them, though that's from memory).

In the end, I think the three-fifths rule to cut off debate should stay in place.  It'll be a pain the butt for a while, but I do not want to see that potential brake against a potentially disastrous slide off the cliff (like the one we've nearly experienced - you correctly point out that we are at the brink) go away.

The bad news is that my Representative and two Senators are in the minority.  The good news is that my Representative and two Senators are in the minority.

---

by: CLLGADEM @ Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:51:50 AM CST

He needs to wield LBJ's "treatment" power (3.00 / 2)

Like I said I was half kidding and we are kind of stuck with it now, like we are stuck with the electoral college, but appointments are important and so is legislation, but I think there should be better guidelines and a better process for the rules regarding why a said Senator blocks legislation, because any Senator from any state who may not be that educated or populated may think to himself, "I don't see why we need infrastructure; I don't even know what that is and I hate Democrats so I filibuster," and I guess in that way I have problems with it and find it undemocratic in a way like the electoral college, though it is enshrined in our Constitution.

I think it should be refined, that's all, as in not all senators are created equal in their reasoning and there should be a real reason besides, "I hate unions." But it does help that we have Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown as Senators who have that power. I guess partly I also worry that it will be too late for this country as far as global warming is concerned and our Great Depression coming if the big 3 are not bailed out in a meaningful way that protects the workers in the UAW and our future as far as our green infrastructure before we get 60 votes. Lots of people will die by murder by spreadsheet, too. Democrats also didn't use the filibuster against the Medicare Prescription D bill when they should have, but it's their fault also, I know, for not using the power there.

Yeah, though all of the major players in our party supported it, there was criticism from the right and left and some Democratic senators voted against it as you say, but also there were many poison pill amendments from Republicans about "AMNESTY!"  even though they are apparently too stupid to look that worked up in a dictionary, an other which didn't help the process though Feingold's amendment was good. Coughing up 5 gs is not amnesty. I'm actually surprised this wasn't a bigger issue in the campaign, but I'm also glad, because as demographics favor us, Republicans will either have to change their ways or get voted out eventually. I just wish that day was sooner rather than later and that we had that magic 60.

That and the House of Lords for Millionaires is going to be the obstacle to any meaningful health care reform, Democrats and Republicans(I hate Schumer for that reason) and holding corporations accountable as their lobbyists continue to buy legislation splitting our party up.

Obama better press and press hard for the EFCA, because if not, the hubris will be too bitter of a pill to swallow considering he is a co-sponsor and that he promised to sign it into law and that is a matter of public record.

---

by: priceman @ Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 16:20:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]