SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
republican party
Dear Republican Friends: The Democratic Party Is Not Your Enemy
Sep 16, 2024
"I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." —Oliver Cromwell, 1650, imploring his executioners to reconsider
This is a missive directed to Republican voters, wherever it finds them. And here is the message: the Democratic Party is not your enemy.
No, your enemy is former U.S. President Donald Trump. He and the Republican Party care a great deal about your votes, but they don’t give a damn about you. They rely on your fierce loyalty to get elected and then betray you, serving instead the interests of great American corporations and a tiny stratum of immensely wealthy citizens. (The towering achievement of Trump’s presidency was a massive tax cut for precisely these clients.) The betrayal is not readily apparent, of course: It is disguised brilliantly and successfully with distortion, fabrication, and lies.
Donald Trump tells you the Democratic Party is a radical, far left, socialist enterprise and it must be defeated to protect the America we know and love. At his rallies you roar in approval, shouting USA! USA! USA!
Your patriotism is genuine and praiseworthy, but please heed Mr. Cromwell’s plea for open minds: Think it possible—just possible—you may be mistaken about the integrity of Mr. Trump, the Republican Party, and the messaging. Think it possible you are not being protected but victimized.
Let’s look at the evidence.
Mr. Trump is the spokesman and the Republican Party is the front group for corporate oligarchy, a tyrannical form of federal governance put in place decades ago, when corporate money overpowered American democracy. The well-being of the American people no longer takes priority in crafting public policy. Foremost now is the assurance of financial security for powerful corporations: creating new profit streams or enhancing and protecting those in place. This is what the Republican Party hides from view.
We must rid the corrupted Republican Party of its greedy corporate captors, and that means, first, Donald Trump and Republican Senators and Representatives must suffer a smashing defeat in November.
Corporate oligarchy is comprised of the corporations, yes, who contribute millions of dollars to political campaigns eliciting the candidates’ favor and spend billions more in lobbying for quid pro quos. But it also includes individual corporate owners and managers, and conservative billionaires with similar interests who pour personal funds into friendly campaigns. (Think about Elon Musk, say, offering Trump $45 million per month to win this campaign.)
The core ideology of corporate oligarchy is neoliberalism: “Free market capitalism” best provides for society’s needs, and “government regulation” only degrades the process. It is legitimized by conservative think tanks—notably the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C.—and disseminated by sympathetic media—think the Fox News empire and conservative talk radio which blankets the nation with right-wing propaganda 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The consequences of corporate oligarchy are not trivial.
American people are suffering today the largest increases in food prices in 50 years, while the corporations marketing food products are reaping unprecedented profits. In two years from 2020 to 2022 the Cargill corporation (grains and meat products) doubled its profits, from $3.3 billion to $6.7 billion. In just a single year, from 2021 to 2022, the profits of the Kraft-Heinz company (cheese products, condiments, frozen meals, snacks) rose 448%, from $225 million to $887 million; Cal-Maine Foods (the country’s largest egg producer) grew 718%, to $323 million.
Extortionate consumer prices are not the only outrage imposed by corporate oligarchy. The rampant social and economic injustices in our country today are not the consequences of a functioning democracy: They certainly do not reflect the wishes of the people. Unprecedented inequalities in wealth and income are producing a two-tiered society of opulence and hardship. Homeless colonies blossom coast to coast. A full 31.1 million Americans, almost 10% of our citizens, lack access to healthcare, suffering unnecessary illness and preventable death. A total of 13.5% of American households are “food insecure:” They don't have enough to eat. ChatGPT will tell you it costs up to $60,000 per year to live modestly in America; a minimum-wage worker earns $15,080. Do the math.
Fifty years ago America was flourishing. The middle class constituted almost two-thirds of the population, and it was thriving. A single income was sufficient to raise a family, buy a home, cover healthcare costs, send the kids to college, and retire in comfort. Today, with both parents working full time, this good life is out of reach.
The ravaging of the American people was driven by corporate oligarchy—nothing else, not “socialism,” not the Democratic Party.
Republican friends and neighbors, who is your enemy?
The Republican Party is, because it has been the driving force for the emergence of corporate oligarchy. The process began in 1971 with a Republican lawyer who specialized in corporate mergers, who defended the tobacco industry in the smoking-and-cancer litigation, who advocated segregation in public schools, and who as a Supreme Court justice wrote the majority opinion that corporate political spending was an exercise in free speech.
His name was Lewis Powell, the progenitor of corporate oligarchy.
In 1971 the nation’s campuses were ablaze with protest, against the Vietnam War, against racism, against the savagery of capitalism. Ralph Nader was firing broadsides at American corporate corruption.
The United States Chamber of Commerce was alarmed. It commissioned Lewis Powell to propose a strategy for a corporate counterattack, and he did. On August 23, 1971 the Chamber published what came to be known as the “Powell Manifesto.” The Chamber carpet-bombed the business community with the Manifesto’s message: Corporate America needs to become politically active, quickly and massively. Especially vital was educating the American people about the virtue and vulnerability of “free market capitalism”: it can optimize society’s welfare only if it is uninhibited by “government regulation.” Neoliberalism had to become widely known and appreciated.
Corporate money rose quickly to the challenge, literally creating two of the most influential think-tanks in Washington today and funding a massive redevelopment of the third. The Adolph Coors Foundation and Koch Foundation provided the seed money that created the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, respectively, in 1973 and 1977. The American Enterprise Institute, pre-dating the Manifesto, was greatly enriched by the subsequent flood of corporate money flowing through a dozen conservative philanthropies.
Today these three powerhouses are virtual subsidiaries of the Republican Party, writing policy agendas for Republican presidents (cf. the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 written for Donald Trump) and providing revolving-door services: their members move seamlessly into staff positions in Republican administration, and when the party is defeated they return to the think tanks.
The pattern was established early. Soon after Ronald Reagan’s election, the Heritage Foundation submitted to the new Administration a list of 2,000 specific policy proposals aimed, among other objectives, at “reducing the size of the federal government.” By the end of Reagan’s first year in office 60% of them were implemented or initiated. Ronald Reagan said in later years the Heritage Foundation was a “vital force” in the achievements of his presidency.
The most vital achievement was Reagan’s suspension of the long-standing anti-trust laws. A staunch neoliberal, he reduced government regulation to allow free market capitalism to work its wonders. In doing so Reagan exposed the absurd contradiction in the neoliberal creed.
“Free market capitalism” will optimize a country’s economy only if intense competition for customers is present among many, many sellers. That’s Econ 101. Good for society, yes, but bad for the sellers who, historically, connive and conspire to minimize that competition—in the Golden Age of the late 1800’s, say, by the formation of “combines” and “trusts.” The sellers consolidated, becoming fewer and fewer but with greater and greater power to raise prices and reduce wages.
The counteroffensive was political, in the passage of the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust Acts—government regulations—prohibiting “the restraint of trade.” Consolidation was made illegal, keeping free markets competitive for society’s benefit.
This we know: “free market capitalism” will benefit society only in the presence—not the absence—of “government regulation.” But neoliberalism gets it entirely backwards.
But Ronald Reagan bought in, virtually halting the enforcement of the anti-trust legislation, sparking a 50-year frenzy of mergers and acquisitions across the spectrum of the American economy.
Virtually every industry was consolidated into far fewer but immensely larger corporations. A quick ChatGPT query shows five grocery chains—Walmart, Kroger, Costco, Albertsons, and Ahold Delhaize—today control more than 60% of the market. (And Kroger and Albertson's are in the process of merging.)
The number of American corporations was cut in half concentrating American industries into literal oligopolies, with pricing power to match. Compared to European countries—where anti-trust laws remain in force—American families pay on average $5,000 more per year for living expenses.
Ronald Reagan’s neoliberalism did this. Republican friends your enemy is not the Democratic Party.
As the dwindling number of corporations expanded their economic clout they chafed at other government regulations—clean air and water, safe workplaces, fair labor practices—but had no means to do much about them. They lacked a corollary political clout.
Wittingly or otherwise the Republican Party provided this, too.
Since 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court has displayed without interruption a conservative majority—justices appointed by Republican presidents. And in that time the Court lit the fuse for corporate oligarchy to explode. It offered corporations the legal means of bribing Congressional candidates and tilting presidential elections as well—with corporate campaign contributions.
In the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo, the Court declared spending money is the equivalent of free speech. In the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Court declared corporate contributions to political campaigns were an exercise of free speech, too. Finally in the 2010 case Citizens United v. the FEC, the Court declared as unconstitutional any limits on those corporate campaign contributions.
It did so with this preposterous reasoning:
...this Court now concludes that independent [campaign] expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That [corporations] may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.
The Court with 100% predictability was dead wrong. In 1964—before the genesis of corporate oligarchy—77 percent of the American people trusted the federal government. Today—14 years after Citizens United—only 22 percent retain their “faith in democracy.”
But corporate campaign funding of public officials—some say the corporate purchase—is only one element of corporate oligarchy’s success. The other is the dominance of corporate lobbying, where obligated public officials get their marching orders to favor corporate interests over the public’s. Does corporate lobbying prevail? Corporations outspend citizens’ organizations in hiring lobbyists by a factor of 34:1.
Before the triumph of corporate oligarchy partisan conflict was congenial and productive. Republicans were conservatives, anxious to maintain the status quo which at a given point in time was quite satisfactory. Democrats were liberals, impatient with the status quo which at a given point in time could always be changed for the better. The two points of view were imperative in a functioning democracy and the tension between them produced public policy compromises that served the nation well, avoiding stasis on the one hand and turmoil on the other.
We can regain that form of governance.
Those of us in the rank and file of the political parties have far more in common than today’s bitter divisiveness suggests. We all love our country, cherishing its past and hopeful for its future; we treasure our families, honoring our predecessors and nurturing our children; and we find gratification in productive work and comfort in spiritual practice. We are ordinary Americans and conscientious citizens, millions and millions of us. We are the People, all of us victimized by corporate oligarchy and its patron, the Republican Party. If we put aside the partisan invective and focus on the imperative of restoring democracy, we can do it.
We must rid the corrupted Republican Party of its greedy corporate captors, and that means, first, Donald Trump and Republican Senators and Representatives must suffer a smashing defeat in November. Then, perhaps, the GOP can be rebuilt as the necessary and responsible voice of true conservatism—the indispensable countervailing force it was in the past. Democracy can flourish again.
Republican friends and neighbors, listen up.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Donald Trump and Dick Cheney Are Both Horrific, Irredeemable Scoundrels
Ultimately, both Trump and Cheney represent different forms of danger to American democracy and global stability. They both deserve nothing less than our eternal scorn.
Sep 16, 2024
In an unsurprising yet telling development, Republican former Vice President Dick Cheney has thrown his support behind the Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, over his party’s candidate, framing former President Donald Trump as an unprecedented threat to the United States. On its face, this endorsement might appear as a principled defence of democracy from a longstanding Republican stalwart. But beneath the surface lies a troubling irony.
Cheney, the architect of some of the most disastrous foreign and domestic policies of the early 21st century, now seeks to claim the moral high ground. The legacy of his policies – particularly the havoc unleashed during the Iraq War and the broader “war on terror” – continues to reverberate globally, causing suffering and instability that far surpass anything Trump has wrought to date.
During Tuesday’s presidential debate, Harris proudly touted Dick Cheney’s endorsement as a badge of honour – a moment as baffling as it was revealing.
Embracing a man whose policies left a trail of death and destabilization in their wake as a champion of American values lacks any semblance of moral clarity. Cheney, whose hands are stained with the blood of countless innocents from Iraq to Guantanamo, who undermined American democracy and terrorized countless innocent Americans under the “war on terror,” should not be celebrated, especially by someone seeking the mantle of progressive leadership.
While Trump has undeniably stoked internal divisions and undermined democratic norms, Cheney’s actions as vice president set the stage for some of the most catastrophic conflicts of the 21st century.
Cheney’s tenure as vice president under George W Bush is synonymous with neoconservative ambition, a vision of American dominance built on military intervention and disregard for international law. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is perhaps the most glaring example of this approach. Alongside President Bush, Cheney pushed for a war based on false premises, most notably the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, and a supposed link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Both claims were categorically debunked in the years that followed, yet the human and financial costs of the war are staggering.
Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths range from hundreds of thousands to well over a million, depending on the source. This war destabilized an entire region, paving the way for the rise of extremist groups like ISIL (ISIS) and contributing to ongoing cycles of violence and displacement. The political vacuum created by the toppling of Hussein remains unfilled, as Iraq continues to grapple with internal conflicts and external influences.632184874
Domestically, the costs were equally profound. The war drained trillions from the United States economy, money that could have been directed toward infrastructure, education or healthcare. Thousands of US troops lost their lives, and many more returned with life-altering physical and psychological wounds. Veterans of the Iraq conflict have some of the highest rates of PTSD and suicide among recent generations of American soldiers, underscoring the toll of this misadventure.
And yet, those celebrating Cheney’s endorsement of Harris over Trump are now portraying him as a defender of democracy, as if the destabilizing effects of his policies were somehow a lesser evil. The truth is that while Trump’s brand of populist nationalism has damaged the social fabric of the United States, the neoconservative project Cheney helped lead caused immense human suffering on a global scale – far beyond anything Trump has so far accomplished.
Cheney’s endorsement of Harris, framed as a repudiation of Trump’s divisiveness, conveniently ignores his own role in eroding civil liberties in the US and across the world.
One of Cheney’s signature policies, the “war on terror”, brought with it the expansion of executive power and a profound shift in the relationship between the American government and its citizens – especially Muslim Americans.
The Patriot Act, passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, granted the US government sweeping surveillance powers, many of which were abused in the name of national security. Cheney was one of the most ardent advocates of these measures, arguing that extraordinary threats required extraordinary responses. In practice, these measures disproportionately targeted minorities, particularly Muslim Americans.
Programs like the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) singled out men from predominantly Muslim countries, leading to widespread racial profiling and unconstitutional detentions. Muslim communities in the US were left to bear the brunt of Cheney’s overreach, living under a cloud of suspicion that persists to this day.
Internationally, the “war on terror” led to even graver abuses. Cheney oversaw the use of torture in US military operations. “Enhanced interrogation techniques,” such as waterboarding, were deployed at facilities like Guantanamo Bay and CIA black sites across the globe. These practices violated basic human rights and international law, leaving a stain on America’s global reputation. Many of the individuals detained and tortured were never formally charged with any crime. To this day, Guantanamo Bay remains a symbol of injustice, where detainees languish without trial or meaningful recourse.
The erosion of civil liberties Cheney helped to engineer not only devastated communities but also created a culture of fear that Trump later capitalized on during his rise to power. Anti-Muslim rhetoric, which played a key role in Trump’s 2016 campaign, has its roots in the fear-mongering that Cheney and his neoconservative allies perpetuated during the Bush administration. In this sense, the groundwork for Trump’s policies on immigration and national security was laid by Cheney himself.
When examining Cheney’s legacy, no issue looms larger than the invasion of Iraq. The war, waged on false pretenses, remains one of the costliest misadventures in modern American history. Under Cheney’s influence, the Bush administration sidelined diplomacy, dismissing warnings from the international community and bypassing the United Nations Security Council. The war not only violated international law but also undermined the very principles of sovereignty and self-determination that the US purported to champion.
The ripple effects of the Iraq War are still being felt today. The instability it created in the Middle East has made it fertile ground for extremist groups, leading to a proliferation of violence that has engulfed nations far beyond Iraq’s borders. The rise of ISIL, the ongoing Syrian civil war, and the refugee crisis that has strained Europe can all be traced back, at least in part, to the power vacuum created by the toppling of Hussein.
Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence of the war’s catastrophic consequences, Cheney has never fully reckoned with his role in bringing about this disaster. By endorsing Harris, he is attempting to paint himself as a responsible elder statesman, but his track record tells a different story – one of hubris, miscalculation and indifference to human suffering.
One of the reasons Cheney’s endorsement may resonate with some Democrats and centrists is the perception that Trump represents an existential threat to American democracy. Trump’s brand of populism, his encouragement of far-right extremism, and his open disregard for democratic norms have indeed damaged the political fabric of the US. However, Cheney’s legacy of violence and imperialism abroad, coupled with his domestic assault on civil liberties, presents a far more troubling picture of the threats to democracy.
The Democratic Party and some of its liberal and progressive backers’ apparent decision to absolve Cheney of any responsibility for the havoc he unleashed on the world simply because he now opposes Trump is devoid of morality.
Trump’s most egregious actions have played out on American soil, targeting immigrants, people of colour, and marginalised groups. His rhetoric has fueled political violence and stoked deep divisions within American society. But the scope of Cheney’s policies, especially those that played out on the world stage, exceeds Trump’s in terms of sheer human suffering. The wars Cheney championed, particularly the Iraq War, claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions. The torture and surveillance programs he helped oversee have left a lasting legacy of fear and suspicion, both at home and abroad.
What makes Cheney’s endorsement, and the Democratic Party’s embrace of it, particularly galling is the way in which they gloss over these past sins in order to paint him as a guardian of American values. While Trump’s rhetoric and policies may have caused harm within the US, Cheney’s decisions inflicted untold suffering on far more people all across the globe. The selective moral outrage they direct at Trump while embracing Cheney as a savior of democracy, is a testament to the hypocrisy of the liberal political establishment in the country.
Both men have caused irreparable harm, and neither should be celebrated for their actions.
As we navigate American politics, we must be careful not to view figures like Cheney solely through a partisan lens. His critique of Trump, while valid in some respects, cannot erase the devastating impact of his own policies. Cheney’s endorsement of Harris should not be interpreted as an act of moral courage, but rather as a cynical attempt to rehabilitate his public image in the face of a deeply divided country.
Ultimately, both Trump and Cheney represent different forms of danger to American democracy and global stability. While Trump has undeniably stoked internal divisions and undermined democratic norms, Cheney’s actions as vice president set the stage for some of the most catastrophic conflicts of the 21st century. His policies eroded civil liberties, violated human rights, and destabilized entire regions, leaving a legacy of fear and instability that continues to haunt the world today.
The Democratic Party and some of its liberal and progressive backers’ apparent decision to absolve Cheney of any responsibility for the havoc he unleashed on the world simply because he now opposes Trump is devoid of morality. Both men have caused irreparable harm, and neither should be celebrated for their actions. Instead, we should take this moment to reflect on the broader failures of the political system that allowed both Cheney and Trump to rise to power in the first place. Only then can we begin to chart a course towards a more just and equitable future.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Is Trump Still Clobbering Harris on the Economy?
Really, after watching Trump’s debate meltdown, how is it possible for any sane human to believe he has the capability to improve anything at all? But still, Democrats must answer this key question—and turn things around—before it's too late.
Sep 16, 2024
Despite the drubbing Trump took during the debate, he still holds a commanding 20 percent lead (55 to 35 percent) over Harris on the economy, according to the CNN post-debate poll. Democrats should be very concerned about this because economic issues are extremely salient in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
But really, after watching Trump’s debate meltdown, how is it possible for any sane human to believe he has the capability to improve anything at all?
The problem isn’t Trump’s crumbling abilities, nor is it a sure thing that abortion will ‘trump’ the economy this cycle, as many Democratic strategists are counting on.
The problem is that a significant segment of the electorate views the Democrats as part of the corporate elite that has grabbed unfair advantages. About 70 percent of Americans say that our economy “unfairly favors the powerful interests.” That’s also what we hear from workers in our political economy classes. They consistently tell us that “corporate greed” is the culprit.
As professor Jedediah Britton-Purdy wrote in The New York Times, “Compared to Mr. Trump’s Republicans, the Democrats remain the party of protecting the system and making it work — the small-c conservative party of the liberal but comfortable coasts and other economic hubs.”
The problem is that a significant segment of the electorate views the Democrats as part of the corporate elite that has grabbed unfair advantages.
In a twisted, demented way, Trump looked every bit the mega-disrupter during the debate last Tuesday, as he flailed away at everyone and everything. He was the picture of disorder and decidedly not part of the established order.
However, shaking up the established order is what many voters want. About 15 percent of registered voters believe that the political and economic “system needs to be torn down entirely.” Another 55 percent believe “the system needs major changes.”
Harris and the Democrats try to address this anger through a myriad of reforms that do not come across as “major changes.” Investing in new jobs for the future is certainly admirable, but the billions in subsidies for the greedy corporations involved in every “public-private” infrastructure investment look like the same-old, same-old. Tax breaks for childcare and new business startups are important, but they aren’t major challenges to the established order. Going after oligopolistic price gouging is a start, but corporate mass layoffs and job insecurity are not mentioned.
Harris/Walz should be paying much closer attention to this: 70 percent of workers, right now, are preparing for job cuts, according to a MarketWatch survey.
There is a material basis for this fear. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that “from January 2021 through December 2023, there were 2.6 million workers displaced from jobs they held for at least three years.” And an additional 3.7 million with fewer than three years tenure lost their jobs “because their plant closed or moved, there was insufficient work for them to do, or their position or shift was abolished.” The research for my book, Wall Street’s War on Workers, found that more than 30 million workers have suffered through mass layoffs since 1996.
If the Democrats want to take back the economy from Trump, they must speak directly to the 70 percent who are worried about losing their jobs.
The economy for working people has fundamentally changed since the deregulation of Wall Street starting in the 1980s. Now, in good times and in bad, mass layoffs are common as corporations pour more and more money into their outrageous pay packages and stock buybacks for their Wall Street investors. (A stock buyback is when a corporation uses its money or borrowed funds to repurchase its own shares in the stock market. This raises its share price without adding any value at all to the company. Stock buybacks were considered illegal stock manipulation until their deregulation in1982. Please see Wall Street’s War on Workers for all the sordid details.)
In their 2024 platform, the Democrats waved at this problem by promising to raise the tax on stock buybacks from one percent to four percent. But that won’t put a dent in the more than $1 trillion in stock buybacks projected for 2025. Time and again those buybacks are funded by mass layoffs.
So why aren’t the Democrats attacking mass layoffs?
The problem is that most elected officials, including virtually all Republicans, really believe that layoffs are a natural law, like gravity, the result of market fluctuations, global trade, and new technologies. It’s all about unstoppable technological forces like A.I. and there’s nothing much that can be done except help create new jobs in the future. Those left behind will have to scramble. That’s the way of the world. That’s the basis for free enterprise, and that’s what freedom is all about. (Janis Joplin, thanks to Kris Kristofferson, cut through this BS: “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose,” she sang.)
Why aren’t the Democrats attacking mass layoffs?
But that fatalism reflects how much politicians fear Wall Street. Already, we can see Harris back-peddle a bit on corporate taxes, and she’s facing pressure to tone down her proposed wealth tax. I’m sure the Democrats worry that if they attack stock buybacks and mass layoffs, Wall Street will cry Marxism! Socialism!
But if the Democrats want to take back the economy from Trump, they must speak directly to the 70 percent who are worried about losing their jobs.
For starters, they should re-read their 2020 Democratic Party platform, which said: “Taxpayer money should not be used to pay out dividends, fund stock buybacks, or give raises to executives.” Unfortunately, that plank only applied to Covid relief funds.
But, as I wrote here, it could easily be expanded to read: “No taxpayer money should be awarded to corporations that lay off taxpayers and conduct stock buybacks.”
Harris/Walz could pledge to add that one line to the $700 billion the federal government awards each year to corporations for goods and services. (It can probably be done without an act of Congress.)
When corporations scream that it will kill free enterprise if they can’t lay off workers, the response is simple. 1) If you don’t like the rule, don’t take the federal money. 2) If you still want to lay off workers, you can do so but those layoffs have to be voluntary, not compulsory. Use some of your lavish stock buyback funds to offer workers ample severance so that they voluntarily leave your firm, something that is often done for management employees.
Would corporations be willing to play by these rules?
Trump’s 2016 intervention in a Carrier air conditioning plant closing suggests they would. At that time, Carrier, under pressure from Trump, reversed its decision to move about 800 jobs to Mexico. Polling showed the intervention was wildly popular with the American people.
Why did the CEO give in? Why didn’t he scream about socialism and the collapse of the free enterprise system? Here’s what he said. “I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night. I also know that about 10 percent of our revenue comes from the U.S. government.” He was not about to bite the hand that feeds him.
Nor will Corporate America. They will not walk away from $700 billion in tax-payer money even if they have to abandon compulsory layoffs.
Calling for this rule would show that the Democrats are willing to disrupt the established corporate order and attack the unconscionable greed that is costing working people their livelihoods.
As Bernie Sanders put it back in 1996, “No Payoffs for Layoffs.”Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular