Please remind Mr. Thune that SSA is an insurance contract that we paid into. The GOP borrowed from the Fund rather than raise taxes to cover the costs of Operation Iraq Liberation. It is time for the people to call in that loan!
The GOP has, indeed, since Ronald Reagan, shown tremendous lack of responsibility around managing/increasing the Federal Deficit. In particular, the GOP has repeatedly lied that "cutting taxes on the rich would pay for itself" by growing the economy. Deficit reduction upon cutting taxes has never, ever happened. Never. Quite the opposite has occurred.
In fact, under every Republican from Ronald Reagan through Trump, the deficit has positively soared as Republicans cut taxes while simultaneously increasing spending (usually for military contractor buddies or even worse, to fund mercenaries like Blackwater when they were deployed in Iraq (Blackwater was renamed but I cannot find the name now)).
Bush definitely grew the deficit profoundly with his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and his continuing tax cuts for the wealthy with the same lie about it paying for itself. Bush's lack of fiscal responsibility simply knew no bounds. None.
However, apparently, regarding the Social Security "Trust" fund, Bush pretty much was in line with all Presidents where those bonds are relevant. See the above top link.
Below is a Graph of the Federal Deficit showing how fiscally irresponsible our government has been, post Jimmy Carter, especially under Republicans. It also shows that Jimmy Carter, who was demonized as a big spender by Reagan, was extremely fiscally responsible continuing to pay down WW II and Vietnam war debt his entire Presidency.
Carter was the very last President to be fiscally responsible in the USA in my lifetime. Sadly, a blowhard, BS artist, from California, Reagan, managed to beat Carter because America, including me, had been inundated with right wing propaganda that was all lies.
I read Robert Reich's letter daily. Today the conversation was about what the REAL issue is, regarding the railroad strike: inhumane treatment of workers by the railroads owners who are amassing tremendous amounts of money by halving the number of workers, who must then do the work of two people. They are "on call" much of the time, to come in at a moment's notice, and are never free to schedule in a doctor's appointment or a child's school event. They have NO paid sick leave. That is their "demand" in this strike. And yet it is they, not the gigantic railroad corporations, who will be causing "catastrophic financial costs to our nation" if they strike. How easy it is to pull the wool over a nation's eyes. One of the readers wrote, "It should be renamed 'trickle UP' economics." How right he is. Once Reagan got into office, the great decline of the middle class began. He was a terrible President.
Thank you. This has been worker abuse for a long time. Now it's worse.
Why aren't reporters screaming this from the rooftops? Why does the profiteering of huge companies get no attention? When is the press going to do its job?
The fact that no RR worker (that I know of) has been interviewed on MSM speaks volumes about where narratives originate, and where the lobbying, election donations, and other forms of bribery flow from. Let me say that the economy in this country is transported on the backs of the Working Class, who are consistently taken for granted. The mantra in this crisis has been higher pay to solve the problem, which is a deflection from the true needs of these RR workers. But profits, which are being bumped up by Precision Scheduled Railroading, (Google it) , minimally-sized crews, and the low water levels in the Mississippi River which is disrupting freight shipping, all these pressures to increase profits are put on the workers to absorb. I note that so far, BNSF is not participating in PSR, probably because it is privately owned. To any workers out there, I extend my sympathies, my prayers, and my hopes that you prevail. Your mental and physical health is more valuable to you and your families than a container of consumables. I am a former union officer.
That is a brilliant observation: no RR worker has been interviewed on MSM to my knowledge. So it's no wonder we never hear the "other side" (i.e., the human side) of the story, only the side of the very few (i.e., the wealthy). I really appreciate your pointing this out. CRUCIAL to this story.
Thanks kd, you get it! I want to amend my comment above:
'Your mental and physical health is more valuable to you and your families and to us as a society than a container of consumables. I am a retired union officer, but never gave up my union beliefs.
So, could not the Dems in Congress have done more to make the case for the unions?
Could not the WH have put pressure in other ways on the RR companies to change their tune?
Could not the President have intervened?
I am not saying the answers to any of those questions are necessarily yes or that you have the answer, but it strikes me that Congress has acted almost too quickly to 'salvage' the economy in spite of the genuine demands of the workers. A strike may be averted but nothing appears to have been done for the workers, once again.
The problem is not simply the railroads carrying consumer goods that we can do without, but also essentials like chlorine to make water safe. This is a situation where the Ds are between a rock and a hard place.
Elsewhere I read a comparison of the scheduled train strikes in the UK, which we had to plan around last August. We had to chose our travel day and took the only train available. No trains running on strike days. These strikes continue, and they are having some effect getting concessions from management.
I have read articles in The New York Times that have interviewed rail-workers and leaders of the unions. Excerpts from a couple of its articles have been posted here. There may be other publications that have done so as well, which I have not researched.
I think the press has done an OK job at this point.
The problem is, right wing propaganda has seeped into almost all walks of American life and most Americans think the railroad workers are overpaid with too rich retirement programs and too easy jobs.
That Reagan drumbeat against unions has continued my whole life. We all have some thoughts along the lines of, hey, those guys are well paid, get plenty of paid time off already, so what if they have to work hard?
Right? Many, many Americans have been poisoned against worker fairness, good pay, good time off and fair treatment.
It all ties in to good ol' "rugged individualism" -- a myth that plays so neatly into the hands of corporate interests that it's no surprise that they support it in every way they can. Republicans are the worst, of course, but it's always worth paying attention to where Democratic officeholders get their financial support -- and I'm not talking just about Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. The ranting against the Democratic Party's "far left" often comes from those who are more or less in thrall to big money. (Not to mention -- calling anything on the U.S. political spectrum "far left" is ridiculous.)
Gee Bill remember when Covid was the enemy? Way back when my daughter and son in law were still married? Oh by the way he managed to hang on to his job with the railroad while his marriage crashed as he went to work because he was afraid of being fired. Yes he felt that staying employed was more important than the fact that they both suffered through Covid infections, never admitting to family and friends they were infected. We all suffered through the subsequent nervous breakdowns and divorce which ensued. Especially my two young granddaughters. They were unable to keep the house, or to even afford the escalating cost of rentals. Currently my daughter lives in a camper in one of America’s instant new camper cities. Yes welcome to the new prosperity engendered by corporations seeking profits. It is the newest Republican business acronym CSP. From employee of the year to the biggest train wreck of their lives overnight. The girls are bearing the cost bravely. You know stiff upper lip and all even for grade schoolers. Go railroad. Fortunately former son in law was able to land a rich white woman who rescued him and keeps him for a pet. At least one American success story emerges from the wreckage. Thank god he is a Republican.
So very sorry to read this, Pat! Sending strength and good wishes to your daughter and grandchildren! I hope the ex is at least sharing some of his good fortune with his children!!
Sooo very sorry, Pat. the true cost of corporatocracy is born by needless suffering of real people and their families. Certainly there are lots of true horror stories like this. And of course, your daughter and those precious children bear the brunt. Sooo sorry, Pat.
Yes Suz-an. It is not any of our first rodeos. While someone goes to Tahiti, someone else pays the bill. Those who don’t understand that it will come home to them …. and that is why we stand.
I also thoroughly disliked him as our CA governor—his admin policies hollowed out mental health support and state-sponsored support of what used to be CA’s jewel in the crown—our higher ed system (community colleges, State Colleges/Universities & the UC system). I was gobsmacked when he was elected POTUS & knew no good could come of it. I’m tired of celebrity politicians—tho there are some (Zelensky!) who have the chops (maybe the US does too, I just don’t know who). I voted for Carter twice & thought him a really good and decent man (still do)—a true public servant (a high calling IMHO).
Yes, Jimmy Carter was, and is, a truly fine man. President Carter spent two years of his term negotiating for the release of the 60 American diplomats being held as hostages in Iran. They were released on the day of Reagan's inauguration -- and he was given -- and took -- all of the credit for that. Made me sick.
It's possible that Republicans on the negotiation team were holding up the process to make it look bad for President Carter then allowed the negotiations to "magically" solved by Reagan. (I don't have any proof-just a theory.)
Carter kept working for the hostages’ release until Inauguration Day, going without sleep. Afterwards he visited the freed hostages in the hospital where they were being checked out. Most of them loved him.
Yes, Reagan took credit. Stunning propaganda coup.
Check Wiki. I think your suspicion is right. Like Nixon screwing over Johnson by having an agreement in place, should he win the US election, we’d sign a peace accord. Reagan pulled the same BS with Iran. “We’ll work a deal after I’m elected”type thing and “Presto!”, hostages on a plane coming home.
"U.S. government officials are in high dudgeon again this time over Iran’s audacity in naming an ambassador to the United Nations who allegedly played a minor role in the 1979-81 crisis in which 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days in Iran. But the same U.S. officials ignore the NOW OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE [caps mine]that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush helped extend the hostages’ suffering to gain an edge in the 1980 election."
Mike, there is, ultimately, a freedom in tearing the veil from your eyes and gazing “on the real”. We all get snookered sometimes in our lives….what is the saying?….”once you know better, you do better”. I think your experience could be of help to others wandering in the wilderness.
I agree Barbara. I also disliked him as our CA governor for all the things you stated and more. He should have stuck to pitching Boraxo on Death Valley Days!
I also voted for Carter twice and he is truly one of my heroes. That Reagan took credit for the hostage release in Iran was a low point for me.
Agree with everything you said, Barbara! Carter was a mensch who literally got railroaded. He will go down as one of the most important historical figures in America.
Yes, but, it is all good right? Because, Railroad Corporation's profits are at an all time high and the single largest stockholder of those Railroad's, Warren Buffet, is getting richer by the minute. Correct?
Plus, don't forget those huge management bonuses that are paid out because RailRoads are running "lean". Great stuff, right?
So what if we have too few employees doing too much on tight schedules that don't even allow calling in sick with the Coronavirus?
It's all good in Amurca.
Capi_DUH_lizm is the bomb, yes?
Just make sure there are enough prisoners in Angola to work the cotton fields this Spring and we are all good. Right? Because, in Louisiana it is LEGAL to run a slavery operation on that old Plantation as long as you have been arrested for 2 oz of Marijuana and tossed in Angola for 3 years.
Yes please. Along with internet providers, health care...my list is long. The complaint will be that they will become clumsy bureaucracies. But what do we have now? Money grubbing bureaucracies.
Actually, Medicare has a much lower overhead than private insurance companies. Although there might be "clumsiness", this would take the profit motive out of the equation, while providing good jobs with benefits. Most European and some Asian countries function quite well with either fully nationally owned, or at least subsidized service industries, like transportation, healthcare, etc.
J. Nol - you are quite right. And look at the UK for the dysfunction that ensues when almost everything in sight is sold off to the highest bidder. Thanks to the Thatcher policies, railways, water, electricity and other vital utilities were sold off, bought by companies who promised to invest in infrastructure and so on. The result, 35-40 years on? Sewage being pumped out in rivers and on beaches, electricity prices up and up (not just due to war, oil and so on), the railways are in a mess, the Tories are doing much to downgrade the health service so they have a pretext to privatize to their buddies, and...and.... the list goes on.
Sorry for the rant! Over my career I worked in both large private and public sector organizations and they share the same bureaucratic clumsiness, while the greed in the former took more from the public good than the corruption in the latter ever did.
I feel sick to my stomach. I drank the kool-aide that averting the strike was the right thing to do because of all the harm it would cause to so many ordinary people. Now my left-over hippie self is crying out - this treatment of the workers is evil. Let the strike happen so that there will be pressure to fix this. And the rest of me is so confused.
But then I read Robert Hubbell's take on the decision. He raised the question, " whether a strike now that would impose $2 billion in daily losses to the economy and cause the loss of 700,000 jobs is an appropriate way to secure a benefit for 115,000 rail workers." Also the House passed the second bill for 7 sick days for the workers (they had asked for four). So now it's the GOP in the Senate who could pass this. I can't believe it but I think I'm more moderate than I was in the 60's.
I read the link you sent. The bottom line is whether the richest of the rich can get by with inhumane working conditions for their workers, by blackmailing the rest of us with "this is what WILL happen to our nation, UNLESS you make the strikers go back to work!" As my history teacher in high school used to put it, it appears that the Democrats are "between the devil and the deep blue sea" on this one.
it's pretty hard to choose what you believe is the truest, most honorable path when you don't get the whole story... don't blame yourself, Chaplain Terry. find the sources who are truly here to give us accurate and complete info... and make a living doing that. different from profits only FIRST-LAST-ALWAYS...
I too, have taken a few steps towards being a moderate but not quite there yet, thankfully. I loved the 60’s and early 70’s, my hippie years. I see the struggle of the strikes as good vs. evil. It’s always the little guy who gets shat upon. Always!
Kool-aide, indeed. BTW, I thought as you did until I read Reich's article. Really shameful that we can't get that very basic information from the major -- commercial -- news sources.
I agree about the news sources. I posted my next thoughts on the decision in a reply to my own post after I read Robert Hubbell's take on this. Sure are no easy answers!!!
God, (Universe, Source, Non-physical, Yaweh, Allah et al) willing, that's only going to be for two years. I'm learning a bit about taking the longer view of what it means to protect and defend a democracy "in order to form a more-perfect union" and guarantee "certain unalienable rights." It's a life-long responsibility for each generation. We just need to learn how to get that lesson across. It only took me 77 years!
Thanks for the link. My grandfather was a railroad union organizer. He's probably spinning in his grave. I'd like to see his ghost haunting Buffet and company, screaming through their dreams.
You nailed it. This is being discussed in the "fringe" (i.e., critical of capitalism) media, but most of the mainstream (i.e., economically clueless) media seem to have missed that the railroad owners held the workers and the country hostage and the administration caved because the consequences could have crashed the economy. Intervention should have happened long before it got this bad -- and as at least a few observers have said, If the railroads are this crucial to the national economy, they should be nationalized.
I didn't know that Reich had run for governor of Massachusetts! I do recall his use of that term. (I think the word "bubble" has good connotations, however. And "trickle" up is inaccurate; it's more like an explosion. We need to think of a better phrase. Any ideas?)
What the railroad companies are doing is the usual corporate greed. It is unfortunate that we depend so much on what the railroads bring us. I understand both the workers and what the Ds are doing at this moment. It's clear to me that Ds would rather not do this as well. Pressure should be brought on railroad companies to change, but I am not sure how to do that.
It is not unfortunate that we depend so much on the railroads. I would argue that we need to move more goods over the rails to (try to) address climate change. Get more long-haul trucks off the roads.
To get the railroads to change, nationalize them. This is not unprecedented. They were nationalized for a short time in WW I because the railroads were not up to the task of meeting the nation's needs.
*Threatening them* with nationalization might achieve something, but basically I agree. When negotiations fail (usually because the owners have the upper hand), the strike, or at least the threat of a strike, is the workers' best weapon. If national interests (economy and/or security) put a strike out of the question, then government must intervene to level the playing field at least somewhat. Oversight or regulation might do it, but nationalization should absolutely be considered.
Warren Buffett may be an astute investor, but you do not want to work for him, not for BNSF, not for Berkshire Hathaway Energy, no way. I got the lowdown from a guy from MidAmerican Energy who lived through the acquisition by Buffett and Co.
Mike, the GOP has always called the Democrats tax and spend Democrats. The truth is that it has been necessary to raise taxes to fix what the Republicans broke during their times in the majority. The morbidly wealthy don't want to pay their fair share, while a two income family of four has to work hard to cover their expenses. Stuart Stevens says Republicans' talking points were always lies. Since he helped write those talking points, he should know. Thank you for your excellent comment.
BTW: "Blackwater was an American private military company founded on December 26, 1996[2] by former Navy SEAL officer Erik Prince.[3][4] It was renamed Xe Services in 2009 and known as Academi since 2011 after it was acquired by a group of private investors.[5] In 2014, Academi merged with Triple Canopy, a subsidiary of Constellis Group.[6][7] Later Academi was fully integrated into parent company and therefore now operates under the name Constellis."
How easy it seems to be for these members of the House--who are making a six-figure yearly income--to call for cuts and changes to the pitifully small fixed stipend which is the only income many seniors receive. Cruelty really is the point.
Wouldn't it be wonderful (and fair) if our federal politicians were required to pay into Social Security while in office so that THAT would be their retirement fund when they retired - just like the rest of us. Maybe they'd be a little more protective of THEIR investment fund. (And it would save our country lots of money, as well, on their benefits package.)
Regardless of how you or I may feel about how the Republicans are threatening Social Security, the majority of current civilian federal employees pay into Social Security and will be entitled to Social Security retirement benefits. Any member of Congress who began employment on or after January 1, 1984 is part of the FERS pension plan and is subject to the same rules as non-federal workers with regard to Social Security withholdings and retirement benefits. Only those members of Congress who were part of the previous pension plan (CSRS) are not eligible for Social Security. (https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/fedgovees.html)
I haven't really thought through why the Republicans chose to characterize Social Security benefits as an entitlement and why those of us who receive Social Security benefits allow this misrepresentation. We paid into the system from every paycheck for many years, so how can that be defined as some kind of unearned entitlement?
Social Security pays out money to people who are no longer able to sell labor or goods on the market: mostly seniors and disabled people.
Free marketeers don't care that we paid into it. The fact that money is being paid to anyone who is "not working"--according to the extremely narrow definition of work that satisfies market conditions--chaps their hide.
Nevermind that most of the ultrarich do far less productive work than anyone else, including many disabled and/or retired people I know! Our current iteration of the Calvinist/protestant work ethic knows only one indicator of moral worth: wealth. If you do not already have it, you obviously don't deserve it.
Of course this is ridden with contradictions. But critical thinking. the barest modicum of which would reveal most of them in about thirty seconds' worth of reckoning, is also immoral because it threatens (patriarchal) authority.
I am so done with all this and have been since even before Reagan was elected.
As amazing as it is to me being cruel to a lot of Republicans does seem to be their point. I guess they equate that with the rush of power over people.
They seem to still believe in the boot strap theory, and the idea that if you don't "make it" then something must be wrong with you. They believe that the individual is at fault. Many of them being White, and male, thus born with privilege, and then if they were middle class or at least not impoverished in their early years, seem to be without empathy or understanding that the system was skewed in their favor from the beginning.
The larger issue is the Republicans' dogma of smaller Federal Government and larger States's rights. This expands to any and all Federal Programs such as Social Security and Medicare. It was Reagan who promoted the welfare queen stigma, levied a tax on Social Security and preached small Government. The Republicans favor the wealthy corporations over the average American. They are addicted to their theory of trickledown economics.
Intertwined in all of this is the cultural aspect of racism, misogyny and nationalism. A new addition to this mix is the rise of fascism. Fascism has always percolated in the background, but we are witnessing an ascendance at this time.
I don't get too attached to the white male privilege narrative. It reduces things to too small an equation. White male privilege could be a result of the aforementioned mindset of the Republicans not the cause.
I disagree with the concept that privilege is "too small an equation". I think that it is the foundation for our culture. It is what allows things like the "cultural aspect of racism, misogyny, and nationalism" (with a healthy attraction to fascism) to flourish.
My right to vote was only granted via amendment to the Constitution in the 20th century. Please do not discount the very foundational aspects of white male privilege, especially with its additional trappings of Christian, heterosexual, and cisgendered adding to that privilege.
This. We are a nation founded on white male supremacy. Until extremely recently, women have not been considered fit for political, philosophical, or any other type of public discourse, and this reaches back more than 2000 years. Which means the idea is prior, in many ways, to the Western tradition as we know it, but that tradition derives in part from ancient Greece and earlier Mediterranean civilizations whose histories get more obscure the further back one tries to look. In Athens women were considered more like children than fully developed adults.
Not particularly ironically, Freud thought much the same, although he did allow some surprisingly talented women to become psychoanalysts later in his career. The more things change..
There is plenty of fact based evidence to show that the expansion of the Federal gov from 1930 to 1970 coincided with the rise of the (mostly white) middle class.
FHA, GI Bill, and a whole host of other welfare giveaways to ( mostly white men) occurred during the expansion of the federal gov.
Since Republican policy has taken hold the (mostly white) middle class has shrunk dramatically.
But. Republicans cling to their dogma. Great word.
Pulling one's self up by the bootstraps is physically impossible. That is what the adage was intended to mean. Bootstraps are on the heel end of footwear and are useless for anything but putting on one's shoes. Another lie used to demean struggling people.
An Annuity that we HAVE TO PAY INTO! Thune needs to move North of the Border ...
AND, We the People need to eliminate the FICA Tax Cap that gives High Earners a Free Pass on Paying in all that their Income level should pay. Currently, those earning $147,000 (ironically, a Congressional Salary) do NOT have to pay FICA Taxes on any Income over that amount.
Think of how much a Pro Athlete or Bank President are getting as a Freebiew!!
That question was always on my mind when I used to run payroll!! This REpub idea (do they really know better) regarding SS & Medicare that its some kind of "payroll tax" is asinine & untrue, of course. At the time I did payroll, FICA was .765% of gross pay - OUR pay NOT a tax we owed! And that same percentage was paid by our employer TOWARDS OUR SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE! I'm guessing MSM maybe doesnt understand that & as I said, these politicians either/or dont understand it or dont give a S___t. Which is more likely,. And if noone calls them on it???????????????????
Spot on. Not only wages should be taxed, but "income" from investments and some of the other trappings that I (as a lowly hourly wage worker) have no concept of.
Right on, for sure. We, your Washington neighbors, are dumb enough to think a state income tax is a terrible burden. Of course, a 10.1% sales tax is "just the thing" - to shaft the poor.
I'm with you on that, but it would require a Washington Constitutional Amendment, or a Supreme Court of Wa. Ruling that income is not really income ...
More and more, Republicans rely on magical thinking. And as with Wile E. Coyote when he runs off a cliff and suddenly looks down, reality is soon to dawn.
Youre right BUT that just makes it more important that the cap is raised to include the people who likely wont NEED SS but still will be entitled (love that word) to it.
Bravo for pointing out that important fact. Reminding Republicans who they are is an important function. They are the party of Citizens United. They have only to look at the successes of Scandanavian economies to recognize that central planning can be both democratic and take care of people instead of corporations.
When a politician says “privatization” i hear “I am getting funds from a corporation that would like to take over public funds for profit and I can help.”
Please remind Mr. Thune that SSA is an insurance contract that we paid into. The GOP borrowed from the Fund rather than raise taxes to cover the costs of Operation Iraq Liberation. It is time for the people to call in that loan!
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/aug/03/facebook-posts/did-george-w-bush-borrow-social-security-fund-war-/
The GOP has, indeed, since Ronald Reagan, shown tremendous lack of responsibility around managing/increasing the Federal Deficit. In particular, the GOP has repeatedly lied that "cutting taxes on the rich would pay for itself" by growing the economy. Deficit reduction upon cutting taxes has never, ever happened. Never. Quite the opposite has occurred.
In fact, under every Republican from Ronald Reagan through Trump, the deficit has positively soared as Republicans cut taxes while simultaneously increasing spending (usually for military contractor buddies or even worse, to fund mercenaries like Blackwater when they were deployed in Iraq (Blackwater was renamed but I cannot find the name now)).
Bush definitely grew the deficit profoundly with his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and his continuing tax cuts for the wealthy with the same lie about it paying for itself. Bush's lack of fiscal responsibility simply knew no bounds. None.
However, apparently, regarding the Social Security "Trust" fund, Bush pretty much was in line with all Presidents where those bonds are relevant. See the above top link.
Below is a Graph of the Federal Deficit showing how fiscally irresponsible our government has been, post Jimmy Carter, especially under Republicans. It also shows that Jimmy Carter, who was demonized as a big spender by Reagan, was extremely fiscally responsible continuing to pay down WW II and Vietnam war debt his entire Presidency.
Carter was the very last President to be fiscally responsible in the USA in my lifetime. Sadly, a blowhard, BS artist, from California, Reagan, managed to beat Carter because America, including me, had been inundated with right wing propaganda that was all lies.
https://zfacts.com/national-debt/
Note, the comments below the graph are all true, albeit, inflammatory.
I read Robert Reich's letter daily. Today the conversation was about what the REAL issue is, regarding the railroad strike: inhumane treatment of workers by the railroads owners who are amassing tremendous amounts of money by halving the number of workers, who must then do the work of two people. They are "on call" much of the time, to come in at a moment's notice, and are never free to schedule in a doctor's appointment or a child's school event. They have NO paid sick leave. That is their "demand" in this strike. And yet it is they, not the gigantic railroad corporations, who will be causing "catastrophic financial costs to our nation" if they strike. How easy it is to pull the wool over a nation's eyes. One of the readers wrote, "It should be renamed 'trickle UP' economics." How right he is. Once Reagan got into office, the great decline of the middle class began. He was a terrible President.
Thank you. This has been worker abuse for a long time. Now it's worse.
Why aren't reporters screaming this from the rooftops? Why does the profiteering of huge companies get no attention? When is the press going to do its job?
The fact that no RR worker (that I know of) has been interviewed on MSM speaks volumes about where narratives originate, and where the lobbying, election donations, and other forms of bribery flow from. Let me say that the economy in this country is transported on the backs of the Working Class, who are consistently taken for granted. The mantra in this crisis has been higher pay to solve the problem, which is a deflection from the true needs of these RR workers. But profits, which are being bumped up by Precision Scheduled Railroading, (Google it) , minimally-sized crews, and the low water levels in the Mississippi River which is disrupting freight shipping, all these pressures to increase profits are put on the workers to absorb. I note that so far, BNSF is not participating in PSR, probably because it is privately owned. To any workers out there, I extend my sympathies, my prayers, and my hopes that you prevail. Your mental and physical health is more valuable to you and your families than a container of consumables. I am a former union officer.
That is a brilliant observation: no RR worker has been interviewed on MSM to my knowledge. So it's no wonder we never hear the "other side" (i.e., the human side) of the story, only the side of the very few (i.e., the wealthy). I really appreciate your pointing this out. CRUCIAL to this story.
Thanks kd, you get it! I want to amend my comment above:
'Your mental and physical health is more valuable to you and your families and to us as a society than a container of consumables. I am a retired union officer, but never gave up my union beliefs.
NPR has interviewed a couple of rail workers who laid out the abuse. No paid sick leave, etc.
It's interesting that it is a non-profit media source who did the interviews. That speaks volumes about the "MSM".
The union leader for the track workers (Tony Cardwell?) was interviewed on PBS Newshour last night.
Ed,
So, could not the Dems in Congress have done more to make the case for the unions?
Could not the WH have put pressure in other ways on the RR companies to change their tune?
Could not the President have intervened?
I am not saying the answers to any of those questions are necessarily yes or that you have the answer, but it strikes me that Congress has acted almost too quickly to 'salvage' the economy in spite of the genuine demands of the workers. A strike may be averted but nothing appears to have been done for the workers, once again.
The problem is not simply the railroads carrying consumer goods that we can do without, but also essentials like chlorine to make water safe. This is a situation where the Ds are between a rock and a hard place.
I think presidential/administrative actions are in the works. Senate is also proposing a bill to mandate sick time.
Elsewhere I read a comparison of the scheduled train strikes in the UK, which we had to plan around last August. We had to chose our travel day and took the only train available. No trains running on strike days. These strikes continue, and they are having some effect getting concessions from management.
Thank you Michael, here is tge best source I know of regarding your question: https://www.uschamber.com/security/supply-chain/fact-sheet-timeline-of-railroad-labor-negotiations - hope this helps with clarification.
I have read articles in The New York Times that have interviewed rail-workers and leaders of the unions. Excerpts from a couple of its articles have been posted here. There may be other publications that have done so as well, which I have not researched.
Yea, they are out there. And I agree that they shouldn’t be difficult to find!
Bill,
I think the press has done an OK job at this point.
The problem is, right wing propaganda has seeped into almost all walks of American life and most Americans think the railroad workers are overpaid with too rich retirement programs and too easy jobs.
That Reagan drumbeat against unions has continued my whole life. We all have some thoughts along the lines of, hey, those guys are well paid, get plenty of paid time off already, so what if they have to work hard?
Right? Many, many Americans have been poisoned against worker fairness, good pay, good time off and fair treatment.
It all ties in to good ol' "rugged individualism" -- a myth that plays so neatly into the hands of corporate interests that it's no surprise that they support it in every way they can. Republicans are the worst, of course, but it's always worth paying attention to where Democratic officeholders get their financial support -- and I'm not talking just about Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. The ranting against the Democratic Party's "far left" often comes from those who are more or less in thrall to big money. (Not to mention -- calling anything on the U.S. political spectrum "far left" is ridiculous.)
except basically NO time off... not even for family emergencies
You are right! And how SICK is that?!
Gee Bill remember when Covid was the enemy? Way back when my daughter and son in law were still married? Oh by the way he managed to hang on to his job with the railroad while his marriage crashed as he went to work because he was afraid of being fired. Yes he felt that staying employed was more important than the fact that they both suffered through Covid infections, never admitting to family and friends they were infected. We all suffered through the subsequent nervous breakdowns and divorce which ensued. Especially my two young granddaughters. They were unable to keep the house, or to even afford the escalating cost of rentals. Currently my daughter lives in a camper in one of America’s instant new camper cities. Yes welcome to the new prosperity engendered by corporations seeking profits. It is the newest Republican business acronym CSP. From employee of the year to the biggest train wreck of their lives overnight. The girls are bearing the cost bravely. You know stiff upper lip and all even for grade schoolers. Go railroad. Fortunately former son in law was able to land a rich white woman who rescued him and keeps him for a pet. At least one American success story emerges from the wreckage. Thank god he is a Republican.
So very sorry to read this, Pat! Sending strength and good wishes to your daughter and grandchildren! I hope the ex is at least sharing some of his good fortune with his children!!
What an awful situation.
Heartbreaking. I’m so sorry.
Sooo very sorry, Pat. the true cost of corporatocracy is born by needless suffering of real people and their families. Certainly there are lots of true horror stories like this. And of course, your daughter and those precious children bear the brunt. Sooo sorry, Pat.
Yes Suz-an. It is not any of our first rodeos. While someone goes to Tahiti, someone else pays the bill. Those who don’t understand that it will come home to them …. and that is why we stand.
Independent press DOES do its job. MSM is part of ruling corporatocracy... so what else do we expect?
I also thoroughly disliked him as our CA governor—his admin policies hollowed out mental health support and state-sponsored support of what used to be CA’s jewel in the crown—our higher ed system (community colleges, State Colleges/Universities & the UC system). I was gobsmacked when he was elected POTUS & knew no good could come of it. I’m tired of celebrity politicians—tho there are some (Zelensky!) who have the chops (maybe the US does too, I just don’t know who). I voted for Carter twice & thought him a really good and decent man (still do)—a true public servant (a high calling IMHO).
Yes, Jimmy Carter was, and is, a truly fine man. President Carter spent two years of his term negotiating for the release of the 60 American diplomats being held as hostages in Iran. They were released on the day of Reagan's inauguration -- and he was given -- and took -- all of the credit for that. Made me sick.
It's possible that Republicans on the negotiation team were holding up the process to make it look bad for President Carter then allowed the negotiations to "magically" solved by Reagan. (I don't have any proof-just a theory.)
I have absolutely no question about it. Papa Bush, from what I know, was a major player in that scam.
Carter kept working for the hostages’ release until Inauguration Day, going without sleep. Afterwards he visited the freed hostages in the hospital where they were being checked out. Most of them loved him.
Yes, Reagan took credit. Stunning propaganda coup.
Check Wiki. I think your suspicion is right. Like Nixon screwing over Johnson by having an agreement in place, should he win the US election, we’d sign a peace accord. Reagan pulled the same BS with Iran. “We’ll work a deal after I’m elected”type thing and “Presto!”, hostages on a plane coming home.
Here's your proof, Barbara
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/09/reagan-bush-ties-to-iran-hostage-crisis/ Robert Parry (2014)
"U.S. government officials are in high dudgeon again this time over Iran’s audacity in naming an ambassador to the United Nations who allegedly played a minor role in the 1979-81 crisis in which 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days in Iran. But the same U.S. officials ignore the NOW OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE [caps mine]that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush helped extend the hostages’ suffering to gain an edge in the 1980 election."
Sadly. I bought it that Reagan had made it happen.
Mike, there is, ultimately, a freedom in tearing the veil from your eyes and gazing “on the real”. We all get snookered sometimes in our lives….what is the saying?….”once you know better, you do better”. I think your experience could be of help to others wandering in the wilderness.
I agree Barbara. I also disliked him as our CA governor for all the things you stated and more. He should have stuck to pitching Boraxo on Death Valley Days!
I also voted for Carter twice and he is truly one of my heroes. That Reagan took credit for the hostage release in Iran was a low point for me.
Agree with everything you said, Barbara! Carter was a mensch who literally got railroaded. He will go down as one of the most important historical figures in America.
Barbara. Completely agree
kdsherpa,
Yes, but, it is all good right? Because, Railroad Corporation's profits are at an all time high and the single largest stockholder of those Railroad's, Warren Buffet, is getting richer by the minute. Correct?
Plus, don't forget those huge management bonuses that are paid out because RailRoads are running "lean". Great stuff, right?
So what if we have too few employees doing too much on tight schedules that don't even allow calling in sick with the Coronavirus?
It's all good in Amurca.
Capi_DUH_lizm is the bomb, yes?
Just make sure there are enough prisoners in Angola to work the cotton fields this Spring and we are all good. Right? Because, in Louisiana it is LEGAL to run a slavery operation on that old Plantation as long as you have been arrested for 2 oz of Marijuana and tossed in Angola for 3 years.
We might also remember, that many of our retirement funds have railroad stock as well.
And, Warren Buffett took a significant position.
Indeed, Berkshire Hathaway owns BNSF, one of the largest rail carriers.
So sad, and so true...
This is why some of these companies should be nationalized, so that the workers become federal employees with all the benefits that go with it.
Yes please. Along with internet providers, health care...my list is long. The complaint will be that they will become clumsy bureaucracies. But what do we have now? Money grubbing bureaucracies.
Actually, Medicare has a much lower overhead than private insurance companies. Although there might be "clumsiness", this would take the profit motive out of the equation, while providing good jobs with benefits. Most European and some Asian countries function quite well with either fully nationally owned, or at least subsidized service industries, like transportation, healthcare, etc.
J. Nol - you are quite right. And look at the UK for the dysfunction that ensues when almost everything in sight is sold off to the highest bidder. Thanks to the Thatcher policies, railways, water, electricity and other vital utilities were sold off, bought by companies who promised to invest in infrastructure and so on. The result, 35-40 years on? Sewage being pumped out in rivers and on beaches, electricity prices up and up (not just due to war, oil and so on), the railways are in a mess, the Tories are doing much to downgrade the health service so they have a pretext to privatize to their buddies, and...and.... the list goes on.
Sorry for the rant! Over my career I worked in both large private and public sector organizations and they share the same bureaucratic clumsiness, while the greed in the former took more from the public good than the corruption in the latter ever did.
Agree
Like the lowest minimum wage in the country? There are enough bureaucracies now.
I feel sick to my stomach. I drank the kool-aide that averting the strike was the right thing to do because of all the harm it would cause to so many ordinary people. Now my left-over hippie self is crying out - this treatment of the workers is evil. Let the strike happen so that there will be pressure to fix this. And the rest of me is so confused.
But then I read Robert Hubbell's take on the decision. He raised the question, " whether a strike now that would impose $2 billion in daily losses to the economy and cause the loss of 700,000 jobs is an appropriate way to secure a benefit for 115,000 rail workers." Also the House passed the second bill for 7 sick days for the workers (they had asked for four). So now it's the GOP in the Senate who could pass this. I can't believe it but I think I'm more moderate than I was in the 60's.
https://open.substack.com/pub/roberthubbell/p/unfinished-business?r=eznl2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I read the link you sent. The bottom line is whether the richest of the rich can get by with inhumane working conditions for their workers, by blackmailing the rest of us with "this is what WILL happen to our nation, UNLESS you make the strikers go back to work!" As my history teacher in high school used to put it, it appears that the Democrats are "between the devil and the deep blue sea" on this one.
except it's not. the RRs are holding ALL of us hostage for their profits... pretty simple when you get down to it.
it's pretty hard to choose what you believe is the truest, most honorable path when you don't get the whole story... don't blame yourself, Chaplain Terry. find the sources who are truly here to give us accurate and complete info... and make a living doing that. different from profits only FIRST-LAST-ALWAYS...
I too, have taken a few steps towards being a moderate but not quite there yet, thankfully. I loved the 60’s and early 70’s, my hippie years. I see the struggle of the strikes as good vs. evil. It’s always the little guy who gets shat upon. Always!
Kool-aide, indeed. BTW, I thought as you did until I read Reich's article. Really shameful that we can't get that very basic information from the major -- commercial -- news sources.
I agree about the news sources. I posted my next thoughts on the decision in a reply to my own post after I read Robert Hubbell's take on this. Sure are no easy answers!!!
No easy answers in the short term, that's for sure -- unfortunately...
Wait and Watch - might soon see new laws and regulations requiring corporations to provide sick time.
Do you think so, given that the House is in repugnicant hands?
God, (Universe, Source, Non-physical, Yaweh, Allah et al) willing, that's only going to be for two years. I'm learning a bit about taking the longer view of what it means to protect and defend a democracy "in order to form a more-perfect union" and guarantee "certain unalienable rights." It's a life-long responsibility for each generation. We just need to learn how to get that lesson across. It only took me 77 years!
Yes, HCR readers, please read Robert Reich’s substack letter today for another point of view on the wisdom, or lack there of, of Biden’s intention to avert the strike. https://open.substack.com/pub/robertreich/p/the-one-thing-you-need-to-know-about?r=f159s&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Thanks for the link. My grandfather was a railroad union organizer. He's probably spinning in his grave. I'd like to see his ghost haunting Buffet and company, screaming through their dreams.
Yes, Robert Reich’s insights can be a useful antidote to HCR’s rosy outlook on the economy.
No one gets into the details as much or as well as Robert Reich. I agree with him 100%.
You nailed it. This is being discussed in the "fringe" (i.e., critical of capitalism) media, but most of the mainstream (i.e., economically clueless) media seem to have missed that the railroad owners held the workers and the country hostage and the administration caved because the consequences could have crashed the economy. Intervention should have happened long before it got this bad -- and as at least a few observers have said, If the railroads are this crucial to the national economy, they should be nationalized.
When Bob Reich ran for governor of Massachusetts he spoke often of bubble-up economics.
I didn't know that Reich had run for governor of Massachusetts! I do recall his use of that term. (I think the word "bubble" has good connotations, however. And "trickle" up is inaccurate; it's more like an explosion. We need to think of a better phrase. Any ideas?)
Or maybe “suck up economics.”
Now THAT, I like!
What the railroad companies are doing is the usual corporate greed. It is unfortunate that we depend so much on what the railroads bring us. I understand both the workers and what the Ds are doing at this moment. It's clear to me that Ds would rather not do this as well. Pressure should be brought on railroad companies to change, but I am not sure how to do that.
It is not unfortunate that we depend so much on the railroads. I would argue that we need to move more goods over the rails to (try to) address climate change. Get more long-haul trucks off the roads.
To get the railroads to change, nationalize them. This is not unprecedented. They were nationalized for a short time in WW I because the railroads were not up to the task of meeting the nation's needs.
This might be a solution....but I can hear the s word already.
yes, imagine that ... for the benefit of everyone. (oh noooo.... we certainly can't have that!)
*Threatening them* with nationalization might achieve something, but basically I agree. When negotiations fail (usually because the owners have the upper hand), the strike, or at least the threat of a strike, is the workers' best weapon. If national interests (economy and/or security) put a strike out of the question, then government must intervene to level the playing field at least somewhat. Oversight or regulation might do it, but nationalization should absolutely be considered.
Warren Buffett may be an astute investor, but you do not want to work for him, not for BNSF, not for Berkshire Hathaway Energy, no way. I got the lowdown from a guy from MidAmerican Energy who lived through the acquisition by Buffett and Co.
Mike, the GOP has always called the Democrats tax and spend Democrats. The truth is that it has been necessary to raise taxes to fix what the Republicans broke during their times in the majority. The morbidly wealthy don't want to pay their fair share, while a two income family of four has to work hard to cover their expenses. Stuart Stevens says Republicans' talking points were always lies. Since he helped write those talking points, he should know. Thank you for your excellent comment.
"morbidly wealthy", what an interesting description. The ones they are killing, of course, are the rest of us.
Agree!!
Thanks, Mike S.
BTW: "Blackwater was an American private military company founded on December 26, 1996[2] by former Navy SEAL officer Erik Prince.[3][4] It was renamed Xe Services in 2009 and known as Academi since 2011 after it was acquired by a group of private investors.[5] In 2014, Academi merged with Triple Canopy, a subsidiary of Constellis Group.[6][7] Later Academi was fully integrated into parent company and therefore now operates under the name Constellis."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(company)
I have questioned why dems do not use the chart which contradicts their line of Republican economic prowess.
Good links, thanks for posting them.
Excellent information. Thank You.
How easy it seems to be for these members of the House--who are making a six-figure yearly income--to call for cuts and changes to the pitifully small fixed stipend which is the only income many seniors receive. Cruelty really is the point.
Wouldn't it be wonderful (and fair) if our federal politicians were required to pay into Social Security while in office so that THAT would be their retirement fund when they retired - just like the rest of us. Maybe they'd be a little more protective of THEIR investment fund. (And it would save our country lots of money, as well, on their benefits package.)
Regardless of how you or I may feel about how the Republicans are threatening Social Security, the majority of current civilian federal employees pay into Social Security and will be entitled to Social Security retirement benefits. Any member of Congress who began employment on or after January 1, 1984 is part of the FERS pension plan and is subject to the same rules as non-federal workers with regard to Social Security withholdings and retirement benefits. Only those members of Congress who were part of the previous pension plan (CSRS) are not eligible for Social Security. (https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/fedgovees.html)
I haven't really thought through why the Republicans chose to characterize Social Security benefits as an entitlement and why those of us who receive Social Security benefits allow this misrepresentation. We paid into the system from every paycheck for many years, so how can that be defined as some kind of unearned entitlement?
Social Security pays out money to people who are no longer able to sell labor or goods on the market: mostly seniors and disabled people.
Free marketeers don't care that we paid into it. The fact that money is being paid to anyone who is "not working"--according to the extremely narrow definition of work that satisfies market conditions--chaps their hide.
Nevermind that most of the ultrarich do far less productive work than anyone else, including many disabled and/or retired people I know! Our current iteration of the Calvinist/protestant work ethic knows only one indicator of moral worth: wealth. If you do not already have it, you obviously don't deserve it.
Of course this is ridden with contradictions. But critical thinking. the barest modicum of which would reveal most of them in about thirty seconds' worth of reckoning, is also immoral because it threatens (patriarchal) authority.
I am so done with all this and have been since even before Reagan was elected.
Yes, yes, and YES!
As amazing as it is to me being cruel to a lot of Republicans does seem to be their point. I guess they equate that with the rush of power over people.
They seem to still believe in the boot strap theory, and the idea that if you don't "make it" then something must be wrong with you. They believe that the individual is at fault. Many of them being White, and male, thus born with privilege, and then if they were middle class or at least not impoverished in their early years, seem to be without empathy or understanding that the system was skewed in their favor from the beginning.
The larger issue is the Republicans' dogma of smaller Federal Government and larger States's rights. This expands to any and all Federal Programs such as Social Security and Medicare. It was Reagan who promoted the welfare queen stigma, levied a tax on Social Security and preached small Government. The Republicans favor the wealthy corporations over the average American. They are addicted to their theory of trickledown economics.
Intertwined in all of this is the cultural aspect of racism, misogyny and nationalism. A new addition to this mix is the rise of fascism. Fascism has always percolated in the background, but we are witnessing an ascendance at this time.
I don't get too attached to the white male privilege narrative. It reduces things to too small an equation. White male privilege could be a result of the aforementioned mindset of the Republicans not the cause.
I disagree with the concept that privilege is "too small an equation". I think that it is the foundation for our culture. It is what allows things like the "cultural aspect of racism, misogyny, and nationalism" (with a healthy attraction to fascism) to flourish.
My right to vote was only granted via amendment to the Constitution in the 20th century. Please do not discount the very foundational aspects of white male privilege, especially with its additional trappings of Christian, heterosexual, and cisgendered adding to that privilege.
This. We are a nation founded on white male supremacy. Until extremely recently, women have not been considered fit for political, philosophical, or any other type of public discourse, and this reaches back more than 2000 years. Which means the idea is prior, in many ways, to the Western tradition as we know it, but that tradition derives in part from ancient Greece and earlier Mediterranean civilizations whose histories get more obscure the further back one tries to look. In Athens women were considered more like children than fully developed adults.
Not particularly ironically, Freud thought much the same, although he did allow some surprisingly talented women to become psychoanalysts later in his career. The more things change..
Dogma is exactly the right word.
There is plenty of fact based evidence to show that the expansion of the Federal gov from 1930 to 1970 coincided with the rise of the (mostly white) middle class.
FHA, GI Bill, and a whole host of other welfare giveaways to ( mostly white men) occurred during the expansion of the federal gov.
Since Republican policy has taken hold the (mostly white) middle class has shrunk dramatically.
But. Republicans cling to their dogma. Great word.
Pulling one's self up by the bootstraps is physically impossible. That is what the adage was intended to mean. Bootstraps are on the heel end of footwear and are useless for anything but putting on one's shoes. Another lie used to demean struggling people.
I love this. Thanks for posting this.
J. Nol, you've hit the nail on the head. And you cannot ever refer to white male privilege without being called an "angry racist and sexist" person.
Yes, and the irony is that they too will be eligible for SS.
As an aside TL I notice the fly that was in the room yesterday has disappeared.
Way past time
An Annuity that we HAVE TO PAY INTO! Thune needs to move North of the Border ...
AND, We the People need to eliminate the FICA Tax Cap that gives High Earners a Free Pass on Paying in all that their Income level should pay. Currently, those earning $147,000 (ironically, a Congressional Salary) do NOT have to pay FICA Taxes on any Income over that amount.
Think of how much a Pro Athlete or Bank President are getting as a Freebiew!!
That question was always on my mind when I used to run payroll!! This REpub idea (do they really know better) regarding SS & Medicare that its some kind of "payroll tax" is asinine & untrue, of course. At the time I did payroll, FICA was .765% of gross pay - OUR pay NOT a tax we owed! And that same percentage was paid by our employer TOWARDS OUR SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE! I'm guessing MSM maybe doesnt understand that & as I said, these politicians either/or dont understand it or dont give a S___t. Which is more likely,. And if noone calls them on it???????????????????
Spot on. Not only wages should be taxed, but "income" from investments and some of the other trappings that I (as a lowly hourly wage worker) have no concept of.
Right on, for sure. We, your Washington neighbors, are dumb enough to think a state income tax is a terrible burden. Of course, a 10.1% sales tax is "just the thing" - to shaft the poor.
I'd support an income tax if there was a credible countermeasure to eliminate the sales tax and never bring it back.
I'm with you on that, but it would require a Washington Constitutional Amendment, or a Supreme Court of Wa. Ruling that income is not really income ...
Yeah, not likely to happen.
I bet that ‘regulation” passed swiftly!
More and more, Republicans rely on magical thinking. And as with Wile E. Coyote when he runs off a cliff and suddenly looks down, reality is soon to dawn.
Although that may be true, many of us will get back way more than we paid in because of increased longevity.
Youre right BUT that just makes it more important that the cap is raised to include the people who likely wont NEED SS but still will be entitled (love that word) to it.
Bravo for pointing out that important fact. Reminding Republicans who they are is an important function. They are the party of Citizens United. They have only to look at the successes of Scandanavian economies to recognize that central planning can be both democratic and take care of people instead of corporations.
When a politician says “privatization” i hear “I am getting funds from a corporation that would like to take over public funds for profit and I can help.”
I love when I learn something here that I didn't know...and should! Thank you Paul!!
Mr. Thune is another rat from South Dakota who is totally tone-deaf. It must be something in the air there among Rs.