In Praise of Labor – Labor Day 09.02.13

[This was submitted to the Valdosta Daily News 08.29.13 as an LTE]

For years I have been hoping to see something in the Valdosta Daily Times on Labor Day that honors and extolls working men and women, as the holiday was intended. Sadly, for years I’ve been disappointed, when nary a word has been written in the paper in praise of labor, and its importance to our community, country and way of life.

Nothing gets done in this world, but that it’s done by a working person. It’s working men and women of every stripe that are the real producers and “makers” in this country, and always have been. It was the labor of working men and women that built this country into the greatest economy the world has ever seen.

Labor Day was established as a national holiday by Congress in 1894, and signed into law by President Grover Cleveland. According to the Department of Labor’s website, “the form for the celebration was outlined in the first proposal of the holiday – a street parade to exhibit to the public "the strength and esprit de corps of the trade and labor organizations" of the community, followed by a festival for the recreation and amusement of the workers and their families.” Sounds like a good time to me. When was the last time we had something like this? Maybe we should try it.

Labor Day has been sapped of its meaning in recent decades. Instead, it’s promoted as “the unofficial end of summer.” The three day weekend is mostly celebrated with retail sales and family barbeques. That is, if family members, workers, actually get the day off anymore. As it happens, thousands of our neighbors will be working this Labor Day. They won’t get to enjoy the holiday like most.

So let me give a shout out to all working people: to servers, cooks, dishwashers, maids, landscapers, carpenters, framers, roofers, sheet rockers, electricians, plumbers, farmers, sales people, police, firefighters, teachers, janitors, auto workers, steel workers, miners, truckers, mechanics, stewards, clerks, military, nurses, med techs, IT people, CSRs, field hands, and since I’m running out of breath and space, all the myriad other things workers do to make this economy go. They deserve to be honored, respected, and well compensated for their labor.

When I get off work this Labor Day, and it’s “Miller Time,” I’ll raise my glass and drink a toast to all of you. I hope you will, too. As the Good Book says, “The workman is worthy of his hire.”

Republicans and Obamacare

Congressional Republicans are stomping their districts during their summer recess, and other conservatives criss-crossing the nation in a campaign to overthrow their hated Obamacare. I'm not going to defend the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, what conservatives have dubbed Obamacare. My problem is that they are so vehemently opposed to it, even though this Act was hardly a liberal, let alone socialist, concept. In fact it was modeled on the very Republican Bob Dole's plan of the mid-nineties, and the last Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's plan he implemented while governor of Massachusetts. It was not so much a Democratic Party idea. What is so socialist about requiring people to buy health insurance from private companies? Seems like a boondoggle for the insurance companies to me.

The problem is, and has been for over sixty years, the way we pay for healthcare in this country. After WWII, European countries instituted some form of a national health care system. Eisenhower instituted it in Germany and MacArthur in Japan. You can hardly accuse these distinguished generals of being socialists or commies. The Republicans in Congress effectively blocked Harry Truman's attempt at bringing a national health care system here. Consequently, we had a system in which insurance was employer based, people had to get their insurance through their employer. As a result, American companies were put at a disadvantage versus their foreign competitors that didn't have to foot the bill for their employee's health insurance. It was done a different way.

We only need to look at the comparative health care statistics between countries to see we are paying twice as much for our healthcare in this country than all other advanced industrialized countries in the world. Yet our results are near the bottom in nearly every category. We are paying more and getting less.

Anyone who has delved into the labyrinth of the medical system, has realized how fractured and nonsensical the system is. Yet even those with supposed business acumen tend to want to preserve the status quo, rather than make the necessary changes that would bring order out of the chaos, and remedy the inefficiencies that add to the cost.

I believe health care is a basic human right. If we have the rights to, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," we can have none of these without our healthcare needs met. Healthcare is not a system where the free market can kick in, except at the level of our primary care doctor. After that, when we need more specialization, we're  at the mercy of our needs and primary doctor's network. When my primary doctor sees something that needs it, recently is was for phlebitis and swollen veins in my legs, he referred me to a specialist in that particular part of medicine. I talked once to someone that pushed the idea that it's up to the individual to decide his healthcare needs. I responded, I don't have the requisite knowledge to make that decision, and it's not like I'm not intelligent. I'm not a doctor., I do not have the necessary training and knowledge to judge a doctor's skill or diagnosis. The point is, when my health needs serious attention, I can only be at the mercy of my doctor(s). I can really only pray (s)he's good and knows what (s)he's doing. So far it's worked, and I'm thankful.

In our employer-based insurance system, I am subject to what my employer provides me, with my co-pay deducted from every check. Regarding the previously mentioned veins, the insurance company refused to cover the $3000 cost, even though my doctor used the phrase, "ticking time bomb." One would think, because I spend so much time on my feet doing my job, the company would cover it, but no. I won't even get into them not covering my visits to the cancer center. Pre-existing condition, don't you know. I'm an over five year cancer survivor.

This would not happen in a single payer system, Medicare for all. I have no problem paying a dime on the dollar of my income, if I can simply go and get my needs taken care of.  They can even charge a reasonable co-pay for the visit or procedure. I do have major problems with people making boatloads of money off our illnesses, but are not bringing anything to the table in terms of being an actual provider of healthcare.

Our New Overlords

As a proud American, I have no problem with promoting American jobs, that is, good paying jobs. The loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs is due to globalization. Until we start making things again, the economy is in a heap of trouble. However, our corporate overlords seem to have agreed to turn the U.S. into a third world country, as long as they continue to make big bucks. These people care not for the country. They see it only as something to have its wealth extracted for themselves. I call them the new aristocracy.

http://crooksandliars.com/richard-rj-eskow/corporations-colonize-us-trade-de

My Father and Solar Power in Lowndes County

My father was a civil servant. He had to pass a civil service exam to become an employee of the City of Detroit to go to work for the Public Lighting Commission, a municipal entity that was tasked with providing electricity to light the city's street lights. He was a trained engineer, who's last job was to run a power plant. Here's a photo of Mistersky Power Plant that my father ran a shift overseeing electrical production (It had six smokestacks when I was growing up and it burned coal. They changed to gas in the early seventies.).

My father made less than his private sector peers for working in the public sector. He traded it off for the security of knowing that if he did his job, he was assured of a job. My father did his job well. He was able to live the American Dream as one who had it pretty rough during the Depression. He was able to retire at sixty two with a decent pension. Even though it was barely five years later when he passed away, I was glad that he'd had that time to do pretty much whatever he wanted.

What's all that have to do with Lowndes County, Georgia? Right now, all the people and businesses and institutions of Lowndes County are dependent on Georgia Power to provide their electricity. If you'll just let your mind remember what it's like when the power goes out, you can see what part Georgia Power plays in our lives. Our lives and civilization literally run on electricity, and without it, just like pulling the plug, our lives come to an abrupt halt. How secure do you feel knowing that your entire lifestyle relies on some faceless corporation that sees Lowndes County as some miniscule piece in their grand scheme of things, while they extract tens of millions of dollars a month from us?

Why should we people of Lowndes County have to be dependent upon some giant corporation that couldn't care less about us here beyond what fees they can extract, when we can be self-sufficient in electrical production if we wanted to be? We could probably not just be self-sufficient, but actually a net exporter of electricity. Econ 101 taught me, the way to wealth is to produce something. Just like the City of Detroit, the City of Valdosta , or the County of Lowndes, could come together and produce our own electrical energy for ourselves, and it would be cheaper and more secure than if we simply trust in Georgia Power.

Unfortunately, an archaic Georgia state law from 1973 stands in the way of a municipal entity, that is, the citizens of some city, attempting to provide their own power. I assume it applies to a county effort. I don't know what your idea of freedom is, but being subject to the whims of Georgia Power is not my idea. Why isn't this considered tyranny?

The Story of Bain Capital and Mitt Romney

David Stockman is hardly a radical leftist, He was budget director from 1981-1985 for President Ronald Reagan, when he left the White House because he knew Reaganomics wasn't working. He also spent a lot of time in the private equity business, the same thing Mitt Romney was doing at Bain Capital.

Check out this article at The Daily Beast by Stockman. He eviscerates the myth Romney pushes that because of his business experience he knows what to do to get the economy going better than Obama. Stockman answers:

Except Mitt Romney was not a businessman; he was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses. He did not build enterprises the old-fashioned way—out of inspiration, perspiration, and a long slog in the free market fostering a new product, service, or process of production. Instead, he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt, gussy them up as reborn “roll-ups,” and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale—the faster the better.

This was Mitt's business model. What were his results?

Accordingly, Bain’s returns on the overwhelming bulk of the deals—67 out of 77—were actually lower than what a passive S&P 500 indexer would have earned even without the risk of leverage or paying all the private-equity fees. Investor profits amounted to a prosaic 0.7X the original investment on these deals and, based on its average five-year holding period, the annual return would have computed to about 12 percent—well below the 17 percent average return on the S&P in this period.

By contrast, the 10 home runs generated profits of $1.8 billion on investments of only $250 million, yielding a spectacular return of 7X investment. Yet it is this handful of home runs that both make the Romney investment legend and also seal the indictment: they show that Bain Capital was a vehicle for leveraged speculation that was gifted immeasurably by the Greenspan bubble. It was a fortunate place where leverage got lucky, not a higher form of capitalist endeavor or training school for presidential aspirants. [Emphasis mine]

Then Stockman goes on,

The startling fact is that four of the 10 Bain Capital home runs ended up in bankruptcy, and for an obvious reason: Bain got its money out at the top of the Greenspan boom in the late 1990s and then these companies hit the wall during the 2000-02 downturn, weighed down by the massive load of debt Bain had bequeathed them. In fact, nearly $600 million, or one third of the profits earned by the home-run companies, had been extracted from the hide of these four eventual debt zombies.

He goes on to describe a number of Bain deals. My takeaway is this: Mitt Romney was not your classic capitalist. Someone with a good idea for a product that brings it to market and makes boucou bucks. He's no Steve Jobs. Mitt Romney practiced a form of vulture or parasitic capitalism, all designed to channel tens of millions to his personal wealth. There was never any regard for the workers (and their lives) of the companies he trashed.

How could this man have any idea what it takes if the goal is increased number of good paying jobs in America?

Newt Gingrich: Scumbag Exemplar

Filed under "Holy Crap! Can You Believe the Audacity!":  Newt Gingrich came to the defense of Mitt Romney's remarks that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama because they're on the dole.

“You have people who had extraordinary opportunities in the most open society in the world who explain how they’re victimized and government should take care of them. It’s the heart of the Obama majority, people who would like someone to take care of them.”

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1oeGq) 

This, from one of the greatest con men of all time. He was actually able to rise to Speaker of the House of Representatives before it was found out how corrupt he was, after which he was hounded out of office - he'll say resigned and didn't run again.

Hey Newt! Here's a concept I'd like for you to wrap your head around: The problem is not that we aren't smart enough, or skilled enough, the problem is  that the jobs aren't there. You Republicans always side with management, I understand, that's who finances your campaigns. But just Fuck You if you think we want to be dependent and not profitably exercise our talents and skills. That is just some arrogant bullshit reminiscent of the English and French aristocracy or the American Robber Barons. It's not what I get from our founding fathers.

Mitt Romney: American Aristocrat

Mother Jones obtained recording of Mitt Romney at a private fundraiser. It's truly revealing. This is what he says to his own people when he thinks no one else is listening. 

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the President no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it... These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect.

There are so many things wrong with this, one hardly knows where to start. The 47 percent meme has been popular lately with Republicans. I would wager that at least 25 points of that 47 are families in which the deductions for mortgage and dependents and the child tax credit zeroes out their tax liability. The rest have no income tax liability because they don't make enough. They are the working poor. Don't forget though, that all these people pay over seven and a half cents on every dollar they do earn into social security and medicare. Mitt Romney's social security and medicare liability? Something like 0.00003 cents on every one of his [un]/earned dollars.

Then he goes on to say:

I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their own lives.

How positively condescending and insulting! However, this has always been the go-to justification of the rich for their wealth, everyone else is just too lazy, only they have the proper work ethic.

Mitt is the quintessential aristocrat, along with Lady Ann - at least, our American version of it. For all their professed adherence to our Founding Fathers, it doesn't dawn on them that it was the idea of monarchy, and the aristocratic system that supported it, that the FF's fought against. I've felt for a long time now that our present day Republicans have more in common with the Tories than the Revolutionaries.