You Won't Believe These Suez Canal Conspiracies
3 years ago
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Climate change by the numbers: The worst is yet to come
Climate change by the numbers: The worst is yet to come
click
snip
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” President Obama announced back in January at his second-term inauguration. Thus began another year of steady climate change, continued pollution of the atmosphere and half-hearted attempts at changing the world’s dire trajectory.
By many measures, 2013 wasn’t particularly extreme: it it wasn’t the hottest we’ve ever seen; its storms, by and large, weren’t the most devastating. Much of what occurred can best be seen as a sign of things to come. Droughts, believed to be exacerbated by climate change, will become more widespread. Wildfires are expected to get bigger, longer and smokier by 2050. Twelve months, after all, is but a short moment in Earth’s history. Only in the future, looking back, will we be able to recognize the true significance of many of this year’s big numbers:
click
snip
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” President Obama announced back in January at his second-term inauguration. Thus began another year of steady climate change, continued pollution of the atmosphere and half-hearted attempts at changing the world’s dire trajectory.
By many measures, 2013 wasn’t particularly extreme: it it wasn’t the hottest we’ve ever seen; its storms, by and large, weren’t the most devastating. Much of what occurred can best be seen as a sign of things to come. Droughts, believed to be exacerbated by climate change, will become more widespread. Wildfires are expected to get bigger, longer and smokier by 2050. Twelve months, after all, is but a short moment in Earth’s history. Only in the future, looking back, will we be able to recognize the true significance of many of this year’s big numbers:
7: Where 2013 ranks among the warmest years in history, according to the World Meteorological Association. Tied with 2003, the ranking is based on the year’s first nine months, during which average temperatures were 0.86°F above the 1960-1991 global average.
If memory swerves: The 1 percent laughs last, as Wall Street wins again
If memory swerves: The 1 percent laughs last, as Wall Street wins again
click
snip
Later that day, in a climate of almost complete panic, Merrill Lynch — the nation’s third-largest investment bank, which had fed at the same trough — managed to find shelter in the arms of Bank of America. By the next day, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department announced that they were saving AIG, the mammoth insurance company that had transformed itself into a stealth hedge fund. As for actual hedge funds, more than 700 of them collapsed in the subsequent four months. And Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the last two investment-banking leviathans, desperately registered themselves as “bank holding companies” and threw themselves upon the mercy of the all-forgiving Fed.
It was the unavoidable explosion after decades of deregulation and willful blindness. A kind of waste product had been deliberately moved through the bowels of a hundred shady mortgage outfits. It was then gilded by delusional ratings agencies and sold to the world by the most respected names in finance. Bribery and deceit and crazy incentives had been the laxatives that pushed this product down the pipe; money and bonhomie and reassuring economic theory had been the sedatives that put the regulators to sleep.
The industry would supervise itself, we were told — and we believed it. Instead our economic order turned out to be wobbly, even rotten. The great banks looked insolvent. The great capitalists looked like criminals.
click
snip
Later that day, in a climate of almost complete panic, Merrill Lynch — the nation’s third-largest investment bank, which had fed at the same trough — managed to find shelter in the arms of Bank of America. By the next day, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department announced that they were saving AIG, the mammoth insurance company that had transformed itself into a stealth hedge fund. As for actual hedge funds, more than 700 of them collapsed in the subsequent four months. And Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the last two investment-banking leviathans, desperately registered themselves as “bank holding companies” and threw themselves upon the mercy of the all-forgiving Fed.
It was the unavoidable explosion after decades of deregulation and willful blindness. A kind of waste product had been deliberately moved through the bowels of a hundred shady mortgage outfits. It was then gilded by delusional ratings agencies and sold to the world by the most respected names in finance. Bribery and deceit and crazy incentives had been the laxatives that pushed this product down the pipe; money and bonhomie and reassuring economic theory had been the sedatives that put the regulators to sleep.
The industry would supervise itself, we were told — and we believed it. Instead our economic order turned out to be wobbly, even rotten. The great banks looked insolvent. The great capitalists looked like criminals.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Friday, December 27, 2013
Coast Guard wants barges to ship fracking water : Stltoday
Coast Guard wants barges to ship fracking water : Stltoday
click link
snip
"We expect that shale gas wastewater can be transported just as safely," said Jennifer Carpenter, of American Waterways Operators, a trade group based in Washington, D.C.
Environment America, a federation of 29 state-based groups, strongly disagrees. The group said in a statement that it gathered 29,000 comments opposed to the proposal from people around the country. Courtney Abrams, the clean water program director for the group, urged the Coast Guard to "reject this outrageous proposal."
Extracting natural gas trapped in shale formations requires pumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of water, sand and chemicals into the ground to break apart rock and free the gas. Some of that water, along with large quantities of existing underground water, returns to the surface, and it can contain high levels of salt, drilling chemicals, heavy metals and naturally occurring low-level radiation.
The Marcellus Shale formation, underlying large parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and some neighboring states, is the nation's most productive natural gas field. Thousands of new wells have been drilled there since 2008, and hundreds of millions of gallons of wastewater needs to be disposed of each year.
Some states, such as Texas and Ohio, have many underground waste disposal wells. But Pennsylvania has only a few, meaning the leftovers have to be shipped elsewhere.
click link
snip
"We expect that shale gas wastewater can be transported just as safely," said Jennifer Carpenter, of American Waterways Operators, a trade group based in Washington, D.C.
Environment America, a federation of 29 state-based groups, strongly disagrees. The group said in a statement that it gathered 29,000 comments opposed to the proposal from people around the country. Courtney Abrams, the clean water program director for the group, urged the Coast Guard to "reject this outrageous proposal."
Extracting natural gas trapped in shale formations requires pumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of water, sand and chemicals into the ground to break apart rock and free the gas. Some of that water, along with large quantities of existing underground water, returns to the surface, and it can contain high levels of salt, drilling chemicals, heavy metals and naturally occurring low-level radiation.
The Marcellus Shale formation, underlying large parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and some neighboring states, is the nation's most productive natural gas field. Thousands of new wells have been drilled there since 2008, and hundreds of millions of gallons of wastewater needs to be disposed of each year.
Some states, such as Texas and Ohio, have many underground waste disposal wells. But Pennsylvania has only a few, meaning the leftovers have to be shipped elsewhere.
'Senator From Walmart' Hired By Monsanto, Scores Big In Post-Senate Life
old one. note: uswa opposed her in primary. good to see she is doing well.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Retired Steelworkers honor Jane Becker with scholarship fund | The Labor Tribune
Retired Steelworkers honor Jane Becker with scholarship fund | The Labor Tribune:
click link
snip
click link
snip
Retired Steelworkers honor Jane Becker with scholarship fund
GIVING BACK: Retired Steelworker Virginia Ohlen (left) returns her drawing winnings to the SOAR scholarship fund, to the delight of Chapter President Jeff Rains and Recording Secretary Dorothy Asbury.
– Labor Tribune photo
– Labor Tribune photo
By CARL GREEN
Illinois Correspondent
Pontoon Beach IL – It was a time of great pride for Metro East Steelworkers when one of their own, George Becker, was elected the union’s international president in 1993.
Becker served through 2001, and he remains highly regarded for leading the union through mergers, reorganization, tough bargaining and safety improvements, years after his death in 2007.
But people here have also been proud of the efforts of his wife, Jane Becker, who died on July 19, 2013. She was an organizer and mentor for union and political workers, was active with charities, and played a vital role in helping to found Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees (SOAR), the national retirees group.
GEORGE
BECKER
BECKER
So at its well-attended Christmas luncheon on Dec. 9 at the Venice Social Club in Pontoon Beach, the Retirees’ Local Chapter 7-34-2 honored Jane Becker by naming its scholarship program for her, just when the program is in an expansion mode.
The group’s scholarship chairman, Norma Gaines, said she thinks of Jane Becker whenever the group gets together each month.
“A lot of the people remember her efforts to form SOAR,” Gaines said. “It was an idea that was a long time in coming.”
Having the group has been important to members, she said. “Everybody still likes to see each other. It’s a great thing.”
One retired Steelworker, Bob Means, stood up at the luncheon to recall Jane Becker’s kindness when Means and his wife moved to Pittsburgh in 1984 to work for the international union staff.
JANE
BECKER
BECKER
“We didn’t know anyone there or what to do,” Means recalled. “Jane took us under her wing a
How the U.S. Government Can Follow Its Own Advice to Be a Responsible Consumer - Labor is Not a Commodity
How the U.S. Government Can Follow Its Own Advice to Be a Responsible Consumer - Labor is Not a Commodity
click link
- See more at: http://laborrightsblog.typepad.com/international_labor_right/2013/12/how-the-us-government-can-follow-its-own-advice-to-be-a-responsible-consumer.html#sthash.0sdkvVkR.dpuf
- See more at: http://laborrightsblog.typepad.com/international_labor_right/2013/12/how-the-us-government-can-follow-its-own-advice-to-be-a-responsible-consumer.html#sthash.0sdkvVkR.dpuf - See more at: http://laborrightsblog.typepad.com/international_labor_right/2013/12/how-the-us-government-can-follow-its-own-advice-to-be-a-responsible-consumer.html#sthash.0sdkvVkR.dpuf
click link
How the U.S. Government Can Follow Its Own Advice to Be a Responsible Consumer
By Bjorn Skorpen Claeson, International Labor Rights Forum
Today, the New York Times reports child labor, blocked fire exits, unsafe buildings, forced overtime and a range of other illegal, unsafe, and abusive conditions for garment workers in factories in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Haiti, Mexico, and Thailand. These factories have at least one thing in common: the United States government is a customer. That means these abuses take place with the support of our tax dollars and are carried out in our names. It also means the Obama administration “flouts its own advice” to private sector companies to use their purchasing power to improve working conditions in overseas garment factories.
Because the U.S. government is the world’s single largest buyer it could create a significant push for safe and decent working conditions in supplier factories across the globe by practicing what it preaches. How would it do that?
Today, the New York Times reports child labor, blocked fire exits, unsafe buildings, forced overtime and a range of other illegal, unsafe, and abusive conditions for garment workers in factories in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Haiti, Mexico, and Thailand. These factories have at least one thing in common: the United States government is a customer. That means these abuses take place with the support of our tax dollars and are carried out in our names. It also means the Obama administration “flouts its own advice” to private sector companies to use their purchasing power to improve working conditions in overseas garment factories.
Because the U.S. government is the world’s single largest buyer it could create a significant push for safe and decent working conditions in supplier factories across the globe by practicing what it preaches. How would it do that?
How the U.S. Government Can Follow Its Own Advice to Be a Responsible Consumer
By Bjorn Skorpen Claeson, International Labor Rights Forum
Today, the New York Times reports child labor, blocked fire exits, unsafe buildings, forced overtime and a range of other illegal, unsafe, and abusive conditions for garment workers in factories in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Haiti, Mexico, and Thailand. These factories have at least one thing in common: the United States government is a customer. That means these abuses take place with the support of our tax dollars and are carried out in our names. It also means the Obama administration “flouts its own advice” to private sector companies to use their purchasing power to improve working conditions in overseas garment factories.
Because the U.S. government is the world’s single largest buyer it could create a significant push for safe and decent working conditions in supplier factories across the globe by practicing what it preaches. How would it do that?
Today, the New York Times reports child labor, blocked fire exits, unsafe buildings, forced overtime and a range of other illegal, unsafe, and abusive conditions for garment workers in factories in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Haiti, Mexico, and Thailand. These factories have at least one thing in common: the United States government is a customer. That means these abuses take place with the support of our tax dollars and are carried out in our names. It also means the Obama administration “flouts its own advice” to private sector companies to use their purchasing power to improve working conditions in overseas garment factories.
Because the U.S. government is the world’s single largest buyer it could create a significant push for safe and decent working conditions in supplier factories across the globe by practicing what it preaches. How would it do that?
How the U.S. Government Can Follow Its Own Advice to Be a Responsible Consumer
By Bjorn Skorpen Claeson, International Labor Rights Forum
Today, the New York Times reports child labor, blocked fire exits, unsafe buildings, forced overtime and a range of other illegal, unsafe, and abusive conditions for garment workers in factories in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Haiti, Mexico, and Thailand. These factories have at least one thing in common: the United States government is a customer. That means these abuses take place with the support of our tax dollars and are carried out in our names. It also means the Obama administration “flouts its own advice” to private sector companies to use their purchasing power to improve working conditions in overseas garment factories.
Because the U.S. government is the world’s single largest buyer it could create a significant push for safe and decent working conditions in supplier factories across the globe by practicing what it preaches. How would it do that?
Today, the New York Times reports child labor, blocked fire exits, unsafe buildings, forced overtime and a range of other illegal, unsafe, and abusive conditions for garment workers in factories in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Haiti, Mexico, and Thailand. These factories have at least one thing in common: the United States government is a customer. That means these abuses take place with the support of our tax dollars and are carried out in our names. It also means the Obama administration “flouts its own advice” to private sector companies to use their purchasing power to improve working conditions in overseas garment factories.
Because the U.S. government is the world’s single largest buyer it could create a significant push for safe and decent working conditions in supplier factories across the globe by practicing what it preaches. How would it do that?
Monday, December 23, 2013
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Obamacare gains steam
Obamacare gains steam
click link
snip
A total of more than 1 million people have enrolled since Oct. 1, Obama said at his end-of-the-year press conference. That’s a jump from Nov. 30 when just 365,000 had signed up for private insurance in the new federal and state markets offering subsidized coverage.
“That is a big deal,” Obama said of getting coverage for uninsured people. “That’s why I ran for this office.”
Separately, officials said 3.9 million people have qualified for government health care through the law’s Medicaid expansion. Even so, it’s too early to say that the health care rollout has turned the corner.
HealthCare.gov was down for part of the day Friday, as technicians attempted to fix an error that occurred Thursday night when the site was undergoing routine maintenance, officials explained.
click link
snip
A total of more than 1 million people have enrolled since Oct. 1, Obama said at his end-of-the-year press conference. That’s a jump from Nov. 30 when just 365,000 had signed up for private insurance in the new federal and state markets offering subsidized coverage.
“That is a big deal,” Obama said of getting coverage for uninsured people. “That’s why I ran for this office.”
Separately, officials said 3.9 million people have qualified for government health care through the law’s Medicaid expansion. Even so, it’s too early to say that the health care rollout has turned the corner.
HealthCare.gov was down for part of the day Friday, as technicians attempted to fix an error that occurred Thursday night when the site was undergoing routine maintenance, officials explained.
Shocking new trend: Conservative economists who don’t want to gut Social Security
Shocking new trend: Conservative economists who <em>don’t</em> want to gut Social Security
click link
snip
Instead, a fairly serious discussion ensued. Well-respected economists on both sides of the aisle agreed it would not be hard or costly to shore up benefits for the poor by as much as 10 or 15 percent, which would markedly improve their quality of life. While no specific commitment was made on where this discussion would go next, it was a sign that the entitlement reform debate is moving beyond just cuts and austerity.
“I have argued for a more far-reaching reform, similar to what you have in New Zealand or the U.K., where every retiree receives a flat benefit at the poverty level. The idea is that you take poverty among [America’s] seniors, which today is at 9 percent, down to zero percent,” said Andrew G. Biggs, an American Enterprise Institute scholar who was the head of Social Security research in the George W. Bush administration.
“On top of that, if you want to have a benefit above poverty, we need to sign people up for employer-sponsored plans or IRAs or something along those lines,” Biggs continued. “Social Security—I’m not going to say that it does not cut poverty. Clearly it does.”
Some of Biggs’ other ideas did not sit well with progressive economists, such as saying that benefits for middle-income earners were more than sufficient and could be cut, as well as suggesting it was a bad idea to raise taxes on wealthier Americans to better fund Social Security. But after years of threatened cuts to entitlements by the GOP and championed by Wall Street titans who want to avoid higher taxes, a serious discussion about updating the safety net was seen as a striking development.
click link
snip
Instead, a fairly serious discussion ensued. Well-respected economists on both sides of the aisle agreed it would not be hard or costly to shore up benefits for the poor by as much as 10 or 15 percent, which would markedly improve their quality of life. While no specific commitment was made on where this discussion would go next, it was a sign that the entitlement reform debate is moving beyond just cuts and austerity.
“I have argued for a more far-reaching reform, similar to what you have in New Zealand or the U.K., where every retiree receives a flat benefit at the poverty level. The idea is that you take poverty among [America’s] seniors, which today is at 9 percent, down to zero percent,” said Andrew G. Biggs, an American Enterprise Institute scholar who was the head of Social Security research in the George W. Bush administration.
“On top of that, if you want to have a benefit above poverty, we need to sign people up for employer-sponsored plans or IRAs or something along those lines,” Biggs continued. “Social Security—I’m not going to say that it does not cut poverty. Clearly it does.”
Some of Biggs’ other ideas did not sit well with progressive economists, such as saying that benefits for middle-income earners were more than sufficient and could be cut, as well as suggesting it was a bad idea to raise taxes on wealthier Americans to better fund Social Security. But after years of threatened cuts to entitlements by the GOP and championed by Wall Street titans who want to avoid higher taxes, a serious discussion about updating the safety net was seen as a striking development.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
These 7 corporate rip-offs will make you want to scream
These 7 corporate rip-offs will make you want to scream
click link
snip
1. Corporations Profit from Food Stamps
It’s odd to think about billion-dollar financial institutions objecting to cuts in the SNAP program, but some of them are administrators of the program, collecting fees from a benefit meant for children and other needy Americans, and enjoying subsidies of state tax money for services that could be performed by the states themselves. They want more people on food stamps, not less. Three corporations have cornered the market: JP Morgan, Xerox, and eFunds Corp.
According to a JP Morgan spokesman, the food stamp program “is a very important business to JP Morgan. It’s an important business in terms of its size and scale…The good news from JP Morgan’s perspective is the infrastructure that we built has been able to cope with that increase in volume..”
2. Crash the Economy, Get Your Money Back. Die with a Student Loan, Stay in Debt.
The financial industry has manipulated the bankruptcy laws to ensure that high-risk derivatives, which devastated the market in 2008, have FIRST CLAIM over savings deposit insurance, pension funds, and everything else.
click link
snip
1. Corporations Profit from Food Stamps
It’s odd to think about billion-dollar financial institutions objecting to cuts in the SNAP program, but some of them are administrators of the program, collecting fees from a benefit meant for children and other needy Americans, and enjoying subsidies of state tax money for services that could be performed by the states themselves. They want more people on food stamps, not less. Three corporations have cornered the market: JP Morgan, Xerox, and eFunds Corp.
According to a JP Morgan spokesman, the food stamp program “is a very important business to JP Morgan. It’s an important business in terms of its size and scale…The good news from JP Morgan’s perspective is the infrastructure that we built has been able to cope with that increase in volume..”
2. Crash the Economy, Get Your Money Back. Die with a Student Loan, Stay in Debt.
The financial industry has manipulated the bankruptcy laws to ensure that high-risk derivatives, which devastated the market in 2008, have FIRST CLAIM over savings deposit insurance, pension funds, and everything else.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Take that, Paul Ryan! Elizabeth Warren beats back Social Security plot
Take that, Paul Ryan! Elizabeth Warren beats back Social Security plot
click link
snip
The Overton Window has shifted! At least in the case of Social Security.
The Overton Window — named for the late Joseph P. Overton of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy — is the frame through which acceptable options for public policy are viewed at any given time. Options that are outside of the frame (or “outside the box,” to use another metaphor) are deemed unworthy of consideration or mention by the bipartisan establishment, no matter how compelling those options may actually be. The Overton Window tends to be positioned by the owners and bureaucrats of the major media, who tend to share an elite consensus with politicians and the donors who fund them.
Until recently, in discussions of the future of Social Security the Overton Window was positioned to exclude any discussion of raising, rather than cutting, Social Security benefits. For the last generation, the range of permissible opinion with respect to the program — which most Americans depend on for nearly all of their income in old age — ranged from conservatives who wanted to abolish Social Security altogether, to press-anointed “progressives” and token Democrats who merely wanted to cut Social Security benefits. The option of maintaining scheduled Social Security benefits, and paying for them with higher taxes, was considered unworthy of discussion by the guardians of Overton Orthodoxy, both in the press and in the two major parties. As for expanding Social Security benefits — why, that’s crazy talk!
It’s safe to say that, within the bipartisan oligarchy, the alleged need to cut Social Security remains the consensus. But the Overton Window has shifted just a little to the left, and the idea of expanding Social Security, hitherto invisible through the frame, is now in the public field of vision.
click link
snip
The Overton Window has shifted! At least in the case of Social Security.
The Overton Window — named for the late Joseph P. Overton of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy — is the frame through which acceptable options for public policy are viewed at any given time. Options that are outside of the frame (or “outside the box,” to use another metaphor) are deemed unworthy of consideration or mention by the bipartisan establishment, no matter how compelling those options may actually be. The Overton Window tends to be positioned by the owners and bureaucrats of the major media, who tend to share an elite consensus with politicians and the donors who fund them.
Until recently, in discussions of the future of Social Security the Overton Window was positioned to exclude any discussion of raising, rather than cutting, Social Security benefits. For the last generation, the range of permissible opinion with respect to the program — which most Americans depend on for nearly all of their income in old age — ranged from conservatives who wanted to abolish Social Security altogether, to press-anointed “progressives” and token Democrats who merely wanted to cut Social Security benefits. The option of maintaining scheduled Social Security benefits, and paying for them with higher taxes, was considered unworthy of discussion by the guardians of Overton Orthodoxy, both in the press and in the two major parties. As for expanding Social Security benefits — why, that’s crazy talk!
It’s safe to say that, within the bipartisan oligarchy, the alleged need to cut Social Security remains the consensus. But the Overton Window has shifted just a little to the left, and the idea of expanding Social Security, hitherto invisible through the frame, is now in the public field of vision.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Tea Party congressman warns Salon: Another shutdown may be coming!
Tea Party congressman warns Salon: Another shutdown may be coming!
click link
snip
By a 332-to-94 vote Thursday night, the House passed a budget deal that – despite taking money from federal workers’ pockets and leaving long-term unemployed in the lurch – was staunchly opposed by major right-wing groups. Among the critics was Tea Party stalwart and Kansas congressman Tim Huelskamp, whom Boehner kicked off the Budget Committee in an alleged purge last year. In an interview before the vote, Huelskamp charged that the deal “doesn’t avoid a government shutdown,” told Salon he hears rumors Boehner’s retiring, and skewered Paul Ryan’s response to right-wing attacks on the deal he brokered. A condensed version of our conversation follows.
Congressman Ryan described this as an agreement that “does not raise taxes, that does reduce the deficit and produces some certainty and prevents a government shutdown.” Why do you disagree with his assessment?
click link
snip
By a 332-to-94 vote Thursday night, the House passed a budget deal that – despite taking money from federal workers’ pockets and leaving long-term unemployed in the lurch – was staunchly opposed by major right-wing groups. Among the critics was Tea Party stalwart and Kansas congressman Tim Huelskamp, whom Boehner kicked off the Budget Committee in an alleged purge last year. In an interview before the vote, Huelskamp charged that the deal “doesn’t avoid a government shutdown,” told Salon he hears rumors Boehner’s retiring, and skewered Paul Ryan’s response to right-wing attacks on the deal he brokered. A condensed version of our conversation follows.
Congressman Ryan described this as an agreement that “does not raise taxes, that does reduce the deficit and produces some certainty and prevents a government shutdown.” Why do you disagree with his assessment?
Friday, December 13, 2013
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Hidden disaster in new budget: Demonic plot to raid pensions
Hidden disaster in new budget: Demonic plot to raid pensions
click link
snip
2013 has not been a pleasant year if you work for the federal government. You’ve been subject to pay freezes, furloughs and shutdowns. One of you got yelled at by a Tea Party Republican at the World War II memorial. And if Congress passes the budget deal announced Tuesday night by Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray – a big if – you will get a final Christmas present: You’ll have to pay more into your pension, an effective wage cut that just adds to the $114 billion, with a “B,” federal employees have already given back to the government in the name of deficit reduction.
The deal between House and Senate negotiators Ryan and Murray would reverse part of sequestration for 2014 and 2015, itself a major source of pain for federal workers. But negotiators want to pay for that relief in future years, with the overall package cutting the deficit by an additional $23 billion. And one of the major “pay-fors” is an increase in federal employee pension contributions. President Obama’s 2014 budget included such a proposal, which would have raised the employee contribution in three stages, from 0.8 percent of salary to 2 percent. Congress had already made this shift for new hires; the Obama proposal would affect all workers hired before 2012.
That proposed increased contribution translated to a 1.2 percent pay cut, and a total of around $20 billion in givebacks over 10 years. Negotiators were pressured by the powerful Maryland Democratic delegation, including Minority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen and Senate Appropriations Committee chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, into softening the blow on federal employees, many of whom live in their districts. According to Sen. Murray, the increase in contributions now equals about $6 billion over 10 years. But negotiators traded some of the cuts to federal employee pensions with different cuts to military pensions, also totaling $6 billion. So whatever the occupation, people who work for the government will bear the brunt of the pain.
click link
snip
2013 has not been a pleasant year if you work for the federal government. You’ve been subject to pay freezes, furloughs and shutdowns. One of you got yelled at by a Tea Party Republican at the World War II memorial. And if Congress passes the budget deal announced Tuesday night by Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray – a big if – you will get a final Christmas present: You’ll have to pay more into your pension, an effective wage cut that just adds to the $114 billion, with a “B,” federal employees have already given back to the government in the name of deficit reduction.
The deal between House and Senate negotiators Ryan and Murray would reverse part of sequestration for 2014 and 2015, itself a major source of pain for federal workers. But negotiators want to pay for that relief in future years, with the overall package cutting the deficit by an additional $23 billion. And one of the major “pay-fors” is an increase in federal employee pension contributions. President Obama’s 2014 budget included such a proposal, which would have raised the employee contribution in three stages, from 0.8 percent of salary to 2 percent. Congress had already made this shift for new hires; the Obama proposal would affect all workers hired before 2012.
That proposed increased contribution translated to a 1.2 percent pay cut, and a total of around $20 billion in givebacks over 10 years. Negotiators were pressured by the powerful Maryland Democratic delegation, including Minority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen and Senate Appropriations Committee chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, into softening the blow on federal employees, many of whom live in their districts. According to Sen. Murray, the increase in contributions now equals about $6 billion over 10 years. But negotiators traded some of the cuts to federal employee pensions with different cuts to military pensions, also totaling $6 billion. So whatever the occupation, people who work for the government will bear the brunt of the pain.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Friday, December 6, 2013
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Sorry, neoliberals: Inequality is driven by greed, not technology
Sorry, neoliberals: Inequality is driven by greed, not technology
click link
snip
His argument echoes the conventional wisdom in economics, formulated by Lawrence Katz and Claudia Goldin, that skill-biased technological change can explain most of the increase in inequality. The premise is that technological developments have favored college-educated workers over unskilled labor, thereby increasing inequality. Since it was formulated, SBTC has drawn criticism. A 2002 paper by David Card first drew attention to potential holes in the explanation: a short period of stabilization in wage inequality in the 1990s during a technological boom and the failure to explain wage gaps between men and women as well as blacks and whites. A 2012 paper by Daron Acemoglu and David Autor noted other failures in the theory, namely that it could not explain the divergence in incomes that had occurred among skilled workers and why the real median wages could decline during a period of increasing productivity.
Now, Lawrence Mishel, Heidi Shierholz and John Schmitt have released a new study that questions SBTC as an explanation for increasing wage inequality. Mishel et al. argue that “job polarization,” the premise that more jobs have been created in low-wage sectors and high-wage sectors, thus driving wage inequality, doesn’t actually explain the problem. On the one hand, high-wage occupations have not significantly expanded their share of the workforce since 2000. On the other, low-wage jobs have not increased as a total share of employment since 1979.
click link
snip
His argument echoes the conventional wisdom in economics, formulated by Lawrence Katz and Claudia Goldin, that skill-biased technological change can explain most of the increase in inequality. The premise is that technological developments have favored college-educated workers over unskilled labor, thereby increasing inequality. Since it was formulated, SBTC has drawn criticism. A 2002 paper by David Card first drew attention to potential holes in the explanation: a short period of stabilization in wage inequality in the 1990s during a technological boom and the failure to explain wage gaps between men and women as well as blacks and whites. A 2012 paper by Daron Acemoglu and David Autor noted other failures in the theory, namely that it could not explain the divergence in incomes that had occurred among skilled workers and why the real median wages could decline during a period of increasing productivity.
Now, Lawrence Mishel, Heidi Shierholz and John Schmitt have released a new study that questions SBTC as an explanation for increasing wage inequality. Mishel et al. argue that “job polarization,” the premise that more jobs have been created in low-wage sectors and high-wage sectors, thus driving wage inequality, doesn’t actually explain the problem. On the one hand, high-wage occupations have not significantly expanded their share of the workforce since 2000. On the other, low-wage jobs have not increased as a total share of employment since 1979.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)