Tuesday, March 8, 2011
PS TO LAST POST
Here's a link to a very reasonable and educated take on the whole phony brouhaha the right has stirred up about FDR being against public sector unions (and a great indication of how well the right has won so many propaganda battles is to Google FDR and public unions to see an endless list of rightwing misrepresentations of the whole topic, and more "liberal" and centrist sources falling for it!).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
You forgot to mention Meany, Carter and the 78 congress.
Oh my goodness, there are exceptions to the rule! Can you believe that sometimes winter days are really cold with lots of snow? That means global warming doesn't exist of course! And if a union person doesn't agree with everything another union person says or does, oh my, unions must not exist! et-endless-and-ridiculously-cetera.
Here is a brilliant supposition followed by FDR's actual words. Which should carry more weight; a supposition or the "Happy Warrior's" own words.
-------------------------------
A labor historian explains: Roosevelt opposed government unions, but by the '50s he would have changed his mind
---------------------------------
FDR
He wrote this on the subject in 1937: “Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government ... . [T]he process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”
It's time to come off the storybook page and into the real world. Whether working for the government or not, they are wage earners with families to support and collective bargaining is appropriate and correct, the great American way.
Hmmm. The right objects to the left's use of Thomas Jefferson's assertion that there should be "a wall between church and state" saying that those actual words aren't in the Constitution but are actually from a letter he wrote—then uses some words edited out of a letter FDR wrote to support policies he wasn't alive to see proven beneficial! Selective "bargaining" indeed!
(the assumption is always that the reams of rightwing propaganda that either distorts, misrepresents or outright lies about history are the only source of "facts" while any more centrist or even god forbid leftist iteration of the actual facts of history, especially if more nuanced, are to be treated as either nonexistent or harbingers of a "communist" "socialist" fascist" "Kenyan" "terrorist" "Muslim" etc. (take your pick) plot to destroy whatever the right has decided this week is crucial to their image of what makes our country exceptional (which means that it adheres to rightwing ideology rather than the broader principles upon which it was founded and which have contributed to making it more free, more just, and more—dare I say it—reasonable)
By God, I think we have the basis for a political discussion. We have a set of facts on which the left and the right differ as to their interpetation. It is grand to live in America and enjoy the freedoms which are denied to so many of our fellow human beings.
I had the pleasure of listening to a conservative Republican speaker go off on limited government and how whats happening in Wisconsin and New Jersey is the right path. Instead of watching this type of dialogue on Fox Uusually kluaghing or yelling at the TV) I found it very engaging right in front of my face at a client meeting. I agree with some of what Christie is trying to do I just dont think you have to trample over the unions and collective bargaining to get it.
Brian,
Not sure what part of Christie's work you are a fan of, but the "fiscal responsibility" stance is a phony pose. There are two parts to any budget: revenue and spending. How can Christie or Walker feign seriousness when the budget shortfalls they preside over were made seriously worse by their own tax breaks? They are masking their true intent with bs "fiscal responsibility". If a business is selling a product at a loss, it has to raise prices. Taxes need only increase a tiny amount to offset the shortfall. No discussion of fiscal responsibility can be taken seriously if it only focuses on the spending side.
Jim,
While one can argue about how FDR would feel about public sector unions, one can't change the fact that poor private sector pay has made the union pay look better than it actually is. Your wife is overpaid for her work load? I doubt you really believe that.
Miles,
Your statement is a bit naive. If a business is losing money, it can raise prices and sell less(most likely with fewer employees) or it can cut costs and possibly sell more. Technology, has been an illustration of the benefit of cutting costs, selling more and better products with increasing employment and markets. Business is not a zero sum game. The unfortunate part of the technology story, is that most of the manufacturing is taking place overseas because of the unfriendly business climate in the US.
The top rate in NJ is just under 9%plus the individual 35% federal rate. NJ also has one of the highest property tax rates in the country. It is a big world, and business naturally looks toward areas that welcome business, which has not been the case in NJ or the US under Obama. So Miles, in order to pay increased wagew and benefits in NJ, you suggest raising taxes which will make the state even more non competitive which will add to the exodus of business and wealthy individuals.
"If a business is selling a product at a loss, it has to raise prices. Taxes need only increase a tiny amount to offset the shortfall." Miles
Miles, I would normally delete the comment above because once again it is full of misrepresentations, and outright lies. But let's just say this, when the tax rate in New Jersey was higher under previous administrations, the New Jersey economy was doing better and businesses and rich people weren't fleeing the state, but for most of those years were actually moving here. As I have pointed out numerous times but notice the rightwinger(s) don't address this, Christie has only been concerned with busineeses that have supported his and other rightwing Republican campaigns and policies. That's why the train tunnel was stopped and the funds redirected to more highways (oil anyone?) and why he has stopped tax breaks for TV and movie companies wanting to use Jersey for their locations, but not stopped tax breaks for...oil anyone? Etc. And if the only criterion for businesses was where they could make the highest profits no matter the consequences, which it all too often unfortunately has been, then we all may as well just sign everything we own and will make in the future over to the wealthy greedy rightwingers (notice the leftwingers among the wealthiest believe higher taxes on them is necessary and correct ala Warren Buffet or George Soros etc.) who will not be satisfied until all impediments to their profiteering are eliminated. That's why the Koch family has been financing rightwing propaganda since FDR recognized that working people should have rights too, etc.
Jim,
My statement should have been more precise. I should have said "if a business is selling a product at a loss, one option for making that product profitable is to raise the price of the product". You naively equate higher prices with less product sold. That relationship is not always a given. Most importantly though, you confuse and mislead with distortions. There is a spending and revenue side to ANY budget solution. Christie and Walker are not engaged in budget rescue, they are demolishing what is left of a system they despise.
Post a Comment