EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Wisconsin Is Making the Battle Lines Clear in America's Hidden Class War
The brazen choices of the Republican governor shows the real ideology behind attacks on unions – in the US and beyond
You can tell a great deal about a nation's anxieties and aspirations by the discrepancy between reality and popular perception. Polls last year showed that in the US 61% think the country spends too much on foreign aid. This makes sense once you understand that the average American is under the illusion that 25% of the federal budget goes on foreign aid (the real figure is 1%).
Similarly, a Mori poll in Britain in 2002 revealed that more than a third of the country thought there were too many immigrants. Little wonder. The mean estimate was that immigrants comprise 23% of the country; the actual number was about 4%.
Broadly speaking, these inconsistencies do not reflect malice or wilful ignorance but people's attempts to make sense of the world they experience through the distorting filters of media representation, popular prejudice and national myths. "The way we see things is affected by what we know and what we believe," wrote John Berger in Ways of Seeing. "The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled."
When it comes to class, Americans have long seen themselves as potentially rich and perpetually middling. A Pew survey in 2008 revealed that 91% believe they are either middle class, upper-middle class or lower-middle class. Relatively few claim to be working class or upper class, intimating more of a cultural aspiration than an economic relationship. Meanwhile, a Gallup poll in 2005 showed that while only 2% of Americans described themselves as "rich", 31% thought it very likely or somewhat likely they would "ever be rich".
But trends and ongoing events are forcing a reappraisal of that self-image. Social mobility has stalled; wages have been stagnant for a generation. It is in this light that the growing resistance to events in Wisconsin must be understood. The hardline Republican governor, Scott Walker, has pledged to remove collective bargaining rights from public sector unions and cut local government workers' health benefits and pension entitlements.
As the prospect of becoming rich diminishes, many are simply trying not to become poor. Inequality of income and wealth has been more readily accepted in the US because equality of opportunity has long been assumed. The absence of the latter raises serious questions about the existence of the former. This tension brought thousands to the streets in all 50 states to support the Wisconsin unions last weekend.
For Walker's measures to pass, a certain number of local senators must be present in the chamber for the vote. To prevent that happening, the entire Democratic delegation fled the state and is refusing to return until Walker agrees to negotiate. Meanwhile, thousands of pro-union demonstrators have descended on the state capital to protest, sparking solidarity rallies nationwide.
Polls suggest the public is siding with the unions locally and nationally. A survey last week showed 53% against cutting benefits and pay for government workers and 61% opposed to removing collective bargaining. Even conservative polls suggest a majority in Wisconsin is opposed to Walker's attempt to eliminate collective bargaining.
Coming so soon after Republican electoral victories at federal and state level, Walker might have anticipated an easier ride for his agenda than this. After all, membership of unions is at an all-time low and public support for them does not fare much better. Moreover, support for unions ordinarily falls when unemployment rises. But these are no ordinary times. For if organised labour has fallen out of favour, the illusion that you can make it on your own is not far behind. A Pew survey in 2008 – before the banking system imploded – showed that fewer Americans than at any time in 50 years thought they were moving forward in life. The number of those who don't believe you can get ahead by working hard has doubled in 10 years. Half the country thinks its best days are behind it. While many may question the role of the unions, few believe firing 12,000 government workers, as Walker has pledged to do, is the answer.
Walker's case is as predictable as it is weak. Government workers, he claims, have higher pay and better benefits than others in a bloated state that must slim down if it is to keep running. This is hardly true. Accounting for age and education, US local government employees earn 4% less than their private sector counterparts. Yes, the shortfall in pensions is real. But if the political will existed, calamity could be avoided with a fairly modest increase in the budget allocation. Union members do generally enjoy better benefits. That's the whole point of being in a union: to improve your living standards through collective action. And that is precisely why Republicans like Walker want to crush them.
His agenda has nothing to do with redressing a fiscal imbalance and everything to do with exploiting the crisis to deliver a killer blow to organised labour. If fixing the budget deficit were really Walker's priority, he would not have waved through $140m in tax breaks for multinationals or refused to take federal funds for transport or broadband development. Like 10 other states, he might even have raised taxes progressively.
None of these contradictions are particular to Wisconsin. Similar stories could be told as far away as Ireland and as nearby as Indiana, where Democrats also fled the state to defeat a union-bashing bill. Nor are they coming exclusively from the hard right. Democrats in the US and social democrats around Europe are attacking unions too, albeit with less relish. What Wisconsin does offer is a transparent illustration of the ideological sophistry and political mendacity driving these attacks.
But having started this fight in such a brazen manner, Walker has little option but to pursue it to its bitter end. That is why it has taken on national significance. Faced with an existential threat, the labour movement has broadened its horizons and galvanised a pluralistic, national opposition. That is a precondition for success but by no means a guarantee.
Last weekend's demonstrations do not necessarily reflect a new sense of class consciousness, but they do suggest the potential for it. The idea of a class system where only a handful can ever be truly wealthy intrudes awkwardly on a culture rooted in notions of self-advancement, personal reinvention and rugged individualism, even if it is closer to reality. Old habits die hard. The weekend protests were organised under the banner "Save the American Dream".
Democratic politicians, funded by both unions and corporations, pretend not to take sides, casting the national conversation not in terms of bosses and workers or wages and profits but of rich and poor.
The problem with this, explains Michael Zweig, the director of the centre for the study of working-class life at the State University of New York, is that "most people want to be rich and most of them don't know what rich is. If you put class in terms of power, you start to get to the source of the problem."
Leaders like Walker are making it clear which side of the class divide they stand on. A growing number of Americans, it seems, have begun to understand that this is precisely the problem and are discovering the source of their own power.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



41 Comments so far
Show AllIf government employees feels they're being screwed, they are free to seek private sector employment. Now before someone gets worked up, let me state that I completely support worker unions.
"free to seek" is an example of exactly what Younge is talking about. This mythical "freedom" we all have to--do what? The reality is, you can "seek" all you want, but the private sector is not hiring. Or, the competition is so severe that you may wait years before getting a job interview. Or, you may be too old to even be considered. Or, you may fear leaving your job because you might lose your health insurance. Or, etc., etc., etc. Here's where myth meets reality. The old, "if you don't like America, leave" is, was and forever will be a specious argument, meant more to sidetrack solutions and promote myths, rather than reveal the truth.
donna,
My comment was not intended to imply a lack of sympathy for government workers. There are upsides/downsides whether one is a government or private sector employee. But I question this search or justification for equivalency by those who argue that private sector workers have it better than government employees. In our supposed "free" country, government employees are "free" to find work in the private sector if they feel dissatisfied with their employment. No one is telling them they have to continue working in government. But, of course, in reality there are few jobs to be had in the private sector. The bottom line is simply this: just about all workers are screwed, and it's about time we all realized we're in the same boat (which is fast sinking).
It is not about "sympathy," but rather it is about where a person stands.
A group of workers taking action in one area is not incompatible with "just about all workers are screwed, and it's about time we all realized we're in the same boat."
I don't understand why you keep harping on the "hey if they don't like it no one is making them stay in the job" line. That is an age-old anti-Labor argument.
If government employees feels they're being screwed they are free to demonstrate and fight for their rights. Or they could slink away and take some part time, temporary, no benefit, low pay jobs, which is what is mostly what is out there for those who do not have advanced degrees, and for many that do. Private sector workers really need unions too.
I support worker unions too,
but apparently scott walker and the kochs don't
"They are free to seek" other jobs, and "I completely support worker unions" are contradictory statements..
And your point is?
How many teaching jobs do you think there are in the private sector?
How many firemen does the private sector employ?
How would you feel if everyone took your advice?
What if there were a general strike in Wisconsin, and there was nobody to run the functions of government?
The world would not end. It would not last forever. The hired help would miss their place of power before I would miss them.
You never miss the water 'till the well runs dry.
The rational for public service unions to not have the right to strike is that their work such as fire, police, health care, utility maintanance, etc. are so necessary to the daily functioning and safety of society that it is unthinkable for them to walk off the job. With that understanding there must be a reciprical of good faith from government officials.
And just imagine all of the afore mentioned government workers walking off of the job. Even the most non-emergency workers, teachers, missing would leave people with no one to watch their children and so unable to go to work. If the cops walk off the crazies and the crooks would have a field day. And when your house catches fire are you going to organize a bucket bragade? Where will you get the water from since nobody is running the pumping station?
It's so easy to take things for granted because they seemingly have always been there. It's like when the power goes out and you still get surprised that the refridgerator light doesn't come on when you open the door.
Why, because Blackwater would be hired for the jobs?
South Central Federation of Labor, a 45,000+ private sector union organization here in WI voted almost unanimously to endorse a nationwide general strike if this bill somehow passes.
Please do not call health benefits and pension "entitlements." They are not entitlements, they are deferred wages. Workers accept them in lieu of more wages. Their monetary value is considered income, and every independent contractor who pays their own health care premiums knows this--we have to count the premiums as income, just as salaried workers bargain for less wages and more health care. If their employer didn't give them health care, he'd have to increase their wage. Entitlement, on the other hand, is something the rich seem to think they are due.
It's it intetresting that sometimes it takes a foreign observer-in this case a Brit-to see the American class divide for what it is. Re: the rich and their sense of 'entitlement', you are spot on.Coming from a privileged background, I can quote chapter and verse on the subject of rich people who think that being born wealthy is not an accident of fate, but a God-given right which entitles them to all the goodies they're surrounded with: Some literally think that they are superior to everyone else, and that their wealth, earned or unearned, is the proof of that. If you knew some of these people up close
and personal, you might miss the 'superiority' part. Reminds me of Congessman Rangel's remark about George Bush disproving the idea of white supremacy.
I hate to be a slave to the news cycle so I am reacting to a thread started in the comment section about "the real issues" a couple days ago but that still seems appropriate here. See:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/26-0
in case you missed it and have no life whatsoever.
Spin is a big part of the problem and not a part of the solution. If you get into a spin battle whoever has the most money to hire the most spinmiesters will win. Instead of trying to win with spin, how about standing up? There's an old saying that if you always tell the truth then you never have to remember what you said. Same is true for the future: always tell the truth and you'll never have to plan what you're going to say.
That said I think it's okay to try and explain the spin used by the duopoly or even use it against them. For example I find it pleasantly ironic that King George The Second decided to split out the war budget from the military budget. Pretty sneaky huh? Make us think the military is not spending so much after all....Now however, we can turn their biggest spin of all against them: Support the Troops AND cut the Pentagon budget at the same time! Keep the war spending at a million per soldier or whatever the hell it comes out to be but cut the Pentagon! Even the lowest I.Q. Democrat should be able to handle that one, no?
Indeed because the military budget is so spread out (not unlike the military itself), just asking for an across the board cut of one trillion dollars is not that unreasonable. Later we can compromise on five times the 60 billion amount that came out the House or 300 billion and programs like Planned Parenthood will not even notice the funding change. The key is we have to demand across the board cuts (not entitlements, support the troops, cut everything else proportionately).
I am an effing genius!
And from the same thread:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/26-0
I've gone back and forth on the question of whether or not the actors especially the D's are conscious of their complicity. My main conclusion is that it does not matter, only their actions matter. However, I rather think they are aware. If they were ever REALLY confronted with it they would say they know but they are just doing their jobs. Playing their part. Getting theirs. Of course we'll never find out because as Joe Biden says it's a crime for the media to do anything except be absolutely passive (remember he accused Julian Sausage of having the temerity to solicit information from his source!).
I suppose it's possible that we have gotten into a stable state because of a bad system where Coke and Pepsi really are trying to make the better soft drink, and the candidates are just too busy fund raising and reading their teleprompters to think about the issues. However, they don't even have to pause to realize they are saying one thing and doing another. They know exactly whom they serve, even the Lincoln Democrats in Illinois. (They must have time to read the blogs these days....How about it? You staying put or buckling under? How about discussing your Party in open forum?)
Furthermore, multimillionaires recognize and feel comfortable with one another whereas they feel contrast with those whom they supposedly represent. How can they not know they are all on the same side?
Terri Gross on my favorite new radio show always asks her movie star guests what it was like to do such and such when they were so and so in their latest movie as if they had actually gone through the experience in question. The actors are always polite but I can hear them thinking how clueless she is. Somehow I get a similar feeling when the MSM talks to our politicos.
Finally, I also disagree with Hastings from Greenwald's article yesterday:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/27-0
"General Caldwell and his people claim that what the general and his staff were doing was "innocent." I don't doubt Gen. Caldwell and his friends actually believe that -- and that is what's truly disturbing." Either way it's disturbing and even if they didn't know what they were doing was wrong, they should begin to ponder it in the brig.
So true about the last point in the article, Why if I were rich, they fantasize, I wouldn't hoard my money or speculate, I would invest it in a factory where I would put people to work and I would treat them fairly, and they would be grateful to me and if I made even more money doing that, well that's just the blessedness of our free enterprise system..-- I can't tell you how many people I've met that believe something like that about wealth and the younger they are the more naively they seem to believe it.
Actually, they tend to save their money, or put it to "work" in the stock market, or they buy art and collectibles, or a second or third, or fourth home. Remember MaCain not being able to recall how many homes he owned? It's his wife who owns the homes, isn't it. He just married the money. Anyway, the last thing on the minds of most of the rich is investing in a business to create jobs-that's so, well, like work. There are exceptions, of course.
Yes, and all of those activities impact the rest of us negatively.
Calling for a reunion of the Eurythmics in support of the cause
one of the early warning systems - the arts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg&feature=BF&list=UL4Q45Va6JN58&index=2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhpu2N4rQZM
My song is Dancin in the Streets. It lifted me up in the sixties and now again at this moment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdvITn5cAVc
This seems like another "Shot heard `round the world" in the War between the Ruling Class and the Working Classes. Who will 'win' - the Corporate Plutocrats
or Civilization Itself?
The people of the world - the emerging superpower which none other can stand - will. The more the elites screw the people, the faster the people are waking up and rising up and seeing all of us regular folks everywhere are all in the same boat. This is the dawning of the age humanity in its most refined sense - the time when we will become humane to each other.
"No politician on earth will now be able to repeat past history. Rule by force will disappear. The politicians will become the servants, not the masters, of the people.
Governments round the world will be spending more money on the welfare of the people (on education, medicine, sports, etc) rather than on destructive weapons.
The nations right across the world have been filled with this new form of energy which creates selfawareness, which leads to equilibrium and therefore to mutual respect."
- World Teacher Maitreya through an associate as reported by Share International
I was in Madison, Wisconsin, to give my support and thanks to the public employees that are fighting for all working Americans. It is so sad and disgusting to see the Republican hate machine being directed toward teachers, nurses, social workers, firemen, police, and other public workers. These are in no way free loaders as insulting Rush Limbaugh calls them - they don't have tax avoidance schemes like the rich; they pay their taxes - they are not the bankers that crashed the real estate market - they are not speculators that are driving up the price of food and fuel - they are simple average Americans that have never gamed the system to get rich. I ask you, if these tax paying, educated, trained professionals don't deserve a livable wage, who in America does? Public sector employees are not wealthy by any measurement; but their wages have set a minimum standard in our society. Kill the public standard and you kill living wages for all. We are pitted against each other in a totally ruthless, greed based society where the top 10% that own 90% of America’s wealth, want the remainder of us to offset the taxes they no longer pay. “We’ll either hang together or we’ll hang separately” - Benjamin Franklin.
In his autobiography, Franklin said he didn't think that the Republic he had been involved in helping to create, would last very long. I suppose he meant a couple hundred years, or so. Don't know the exact quote, but maybe some one can find it.
It was one extemporaneous quip, isolated and not connected to any of his other writings. I don't know why people read so much into it.
Speaking of Franklin, he is the prototype for the "American Dream," he is the modern striving capitalist personified. I don't know why people worship him. Franklin did more to promote the illusion that the system was fair than almost anyone else. As far as being a patriot, he and many other "founding fathers" did not take a stand with the rebels until the last minute, when they could see which way the wind was blowing. The only "liberty" Franklin stood for was the liberty of the clever and well-connected to "get ahead" and form a new aristocracy.
Put on some comfortable shoes.
I think the Koch connection is making it real clear who is who.
We are a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
The only sore thumbs here are Walker and the Koch's. Certainly not the hundreds of thousands of people gathered in the frozen weather and only growing stronger!
This IS existential. They attacked the wrong people. Those people are the people. A Nation united stands undivided.
koch-suckers!
I always thought that a government of the people, by the people, for the people, was the bedrock ideal of American democracy. We've never achieved that ideal-and it's become more like a myth over time-but I don't think that what old Abe had in mind was a plutocracy, which is what we've got at the moment. We're further away from that ideal than at any time in our history. Even the robber barons of the Gilded Age didn't have it as good as our current crop of plutocrats.
The headquarters and inner workings of America's corporate corruption are described in Matt Taibbi's latest excellent Rolling Stone article, "Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?"
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216
Publications like Sean Hanna’s rags, MFWire and 401kWire--which reports on the “rock star” pension planners’ performances, job changes, sales statistics, and salaries as though they were Major League Baseball stars--cater to the drooling money-freaks of Goldman Sachs. Since Hanna makes money, his tabloids must have readers hanging on each breaking story. “New Flash: Joe Blow Moves From One Fund to Another,” because it may affect how they will invest Goldman Sachs’ clients’ money, and, “In the end, the bonus you take, is equal to the money you rake (in),” to paraphrase “The End” from the Beatles’ 1969 masterpiece, “Abbey Road.
Human minds are capable of wondrous achievement, considering we are trapped on a tiny dirtball within trillions of light years of nothingness. But, the hidden mind--what remains from our evolutionary ancestors--is sinister. It works in the Darwinian sense: I win, you lose. I get to spread my seed, you don’t. Tough.
The hidden mind also is silly, hanging on every word about each “rock star’s” change of job as published in InvestmentWires. And to think that Hanna is making money off those rags. Well, people became rich off of “The Enquirer” and “Star” magazine. And humans do love to feel superior because they know which “genius” investor is going somewhere first and they can follow him or her, or because they can laugh at the wretches without health care, who live in tiny apartments to save $900—and still have no health insurance. God Bless Libertarians like Hanna! They don’t have to share unless THEY want to. God Bless the Mormons! They save $50,000 for each of their five kids' missions, so they can save the world after I’m dead and my wife and child have struggled to make ends meet for 20 years
One of the latest emaill versions of 401kWire looked somewhat like this:
Connect with the 401(k) industry leaders at the Thought Leadership Series
Influencers' Summit
Hear from 401kWire's Most Influential People 2011
See this year's list at: www.401kWire.com
/influencers.asp
January's Most Read Stories
Two Mutual Fund Families Walk Down the Aisle on New Year's Eve
A New Mutual Fund Player Plans to Hire More Wholesalers
Private Equity Buys into a San Fran Fund Firm
Could the Senate Be in a Former Fidelity Honcho's Future?
An Ex-Employee Slaps Suit Against Putnam Over Her Termination
Pru is on the Hunt for Acquisitions
A Star Fund Manager Returns
With the consolidation of the media advancing apace, liberals like Olbermann are going to vanish, while conservatives like Hanna will succeed, because they cater to the masters of the universe. I have an ex-friend who says he's a devout Mormon. He is one of the directors of Citigroup’s tax department. He lives in Westchester in a large house accommodating his “sowing his seed” with five kids —as ordered by the “prophet” Joseph Smith, a libertine, hallucinator, from the early 1800s, who could weave stories faster than J.K. Rowling wrote the Harry Potter stories. Smith wove a 300 page “Book of Mormon” that reads like a “Narnia” script, with constant battles, made-up names, and repeated hints that it relates to God and Jesus, but never really says so. I asked the ex-friend if I could borrow money for the security so my family could move into a cheaper apartment and save $900 a month. He declined. He needs to save the money to send his children on missions to “save the world” by converting the whole world to Mormonism.He holds on to his money for the same reason Goldman Sachs holds on to its: It boosts and extends the myth that they are “masters of the universe.” He and Goldman Sachs will let people starve or families split up because “you wouldn’t be in that situation unless you did something,” or “you ‘chose evil’,” or “god wants it that way.” The legal profession enables the money-habits of the wealth-addicts on Wall Street. The truth is that money talks and only the rich can be heard in U.S. courts, so the little people have turned to Wikileaks and the Internet while they still can. My own attempts to get Sol Zepnick to pay $1,400 he owes me for work done on his self-published peon to the greatness of lawyers have fallen on deaf ears or made impossible by the logistics of getting to court for an unemployed man. Once you become unemployed, the wealthy drop you like a hot potato--even if they are affluent lawyers, "professionals," sworn to ABA standards, "class" acts. You are of no use to them. "Close" friends for nine years in the legal field, such as Cary Peynolds, Posh Jeck, Schil Phatz, and Scathy Kott don't need you, after pursuing you to pad their treasure chests. Meanwhile, Wisconsin’s goofy governor’s budget cuts and lying about the cost of unions are just code words similar to Reagan's saying the problem with the U.S. is big government. What Reagan really meant is that he and his fellow rich old white men in charge of corporations should be the government--and they could as BIG as they wanted to be.
Today's “powers-that-be,” which include Goldman Sachs and Citigroup and now the corporate-funded Obama administration agree with Reagan and ALREADY have a plan for solving the crises of overpopulation, climate change, and peak oil. It’s called the “Great Die-Off.” The elites who have been stripping the carcass of the middle and lower classes since Saint Reagan in 1980 are now going to let the rest die by the millions in the U.S. and the hundeds of millions worldwide . The planet and laws of physics will force an economic paradigm change from constant, infinite growth to a no-growth, status-quo economy ASAP. I’ve asked, in new-york-commoners-law.com and dons-review.com, "Where have all the green jobs gone?” “The solar panels?” “The conversion of GM, Ford, and Chrysler plants for production of electric cars or hydrogen-run cars? The emission restrictions? The inspiring speeches to help people break through their denial and confront the crisis? With a smart guy like Obama, you know that there’s a plan and that he either has signed on to it as the most reasonable plan or someone is holding a gun to his head.I think he has signed on to “demand destruction.” Michael C. Ruppert in “Confronting the Collapse: The Crisis of Energy and Money in a Post-Peak Oil World” (2009) lays bare what "austerity measures" really means. It is the "die-off".
ricardohead:
"Re: the rich and their sense of 'entitlement,'" (from your post). If the rich exhibit a sense of entitlement, it's because they've been lifelong beneficiaries of "privilege," the etymology of which means "private law." They expect to win, to be the best, etc., because privilege ensures that they "compete" in a rigged game that they're SUPPOSED to win. Nothing so outrages the privileged as the prospect of being subject to fair play, since (horrors!) they might very well lose in an equitable contest decided on merit.
You nailed it, Joe. And they are constantly told by everybody in their tight little milieu that they are the best, and that they absolutley deserve what they have. If you're part of this world, that's a hard mind -set to get out of, because your surroundings tend to confirm it.In school (elite and rigorous), you are exposed to teachers who tell you flat out that you were part of the next generation of the ruling class.They throw in a little 'noblesse oblige' to take the edge off of this. Yes, 'private law'. No need to make your own rules: the rules are made for you. I was a half-scholarship student, but I didn't let on. That wouldn't have been good for my survival-it was a Lord of the Flies kind of world, and weak kids were destroyed. So it wasn't all easy.
It is a self-reinforcing feedback loop. Money equals power, and there is a presumption that the system is a meritocracy. Ergo, rich = powerful = more talented = morally superior. That is presumed to be true until shown to be otherwise, and it is difficult to persuade people otherwise. Poor = weak = inferior = sinner = defective = criminal.
Jeez. Nobody loves you when you're down and out. Sounds like you should have 'chosen' your friends better. Continuing with one of your themes, though, Obama flew out here to brainstorm and dine with assorted billinionaires about how to revive the economy. Taxing them fairly probably didn't come up. The whole thing was covered-at a distance-with the appropriate and customary grovelling in the media about our putative saviors. No great ideas came out of this, but Obama went home with a lot more campaign bux in his pocket.
ricardohead:
You can be sure that taxing the rich fairly did not come up. Have you seen the cartoon that appeared on www.truthdig.com right around MLK Day? In the Oval Office, seated across from Obama, MLK says, "So, that's my dream. What's your dream?" Obama replies: "To not piss off rich people -- that's really about it."
He's a man of his word, it seems.
The rich and the corporations need to keep the rest of us divided. If we all realized the enormous power we have through choosing where and how to contribute our labor, we could work for justice. We need more unions, not less. Government workers should be aiding and supporting unions in the private sector, just like those unions are supporting government workers now. NEA and AFT should be organizing private school teachers, and charter school teachers, and other school personnel. The problem is that those folks are powerless without help and technical support, and they work for peanuts because it's a job with some non-financial rewards and prestige. If you are a private sector worker, remember that if you knock down public sector workers it just makes it that much harder to pull yourself up.
The Senator on the GOP side that is riding the fence is Sen. Schultz. If you have encouraging words and facts to give him, in a short concise way, maybe he should hear from you. Certainly he is getting bombarded with bashing from his own party. Write and encourage.
sen.schultz@legis.wisconsin.gov
Stop foreign aid, cut Alaska off at the knees.