Leonard Fein, Provocative Writer on Jewish Affairs, Dies at 80
Leonard Fein, an intellectual and activist who wrote voluminously about contemporary Jews, Judaism and, in his words, “the often stormy relationship between Jews and Judaism,” and who founded a magazine and organizations to combat hunger and illiteracy, died late Wednesday or early Thursday in Manhattan. He was 80.
His brother, Rashi Fein, a professor emeritus at Harvard Medical School, confirmed the death, saying the cause was uncertain. Mr. Fein lived in Watertown, Mass.
As an author, a columnist for The Jewish Daily Forward and a contributor to many publications, including The New York Times, Mr. Fein was among the foremost of the so-called liberal Zionists. Known to friends and family as Leibel (pronounced LAY-bul), he was a social progressive, a fierce peacenik, a staunch defender of Israel and a shrewd observer of the American Jewish community.
He was fascinated by the diverse, complex, sometimes contradictory nature of modern Jewry.
“Some questions,” he began a 1985 essay in Moment, a magazine he edited and had founded a decade earlier with Elie Wiesel: “Why do we, less than 3 percent of America’s population, far, far less than 1 percent of the world’s, seem implicated in so much that happens about us? Or is it that, out of our preoccupation with self, we only imagine that implication?
“And why is it that some of us are so absorbed with self, and others of us so indifferent?” he went on. “How is it that a people so manifestly successful as we continues to represent itself — and, in truth, to see itself — as a victim people? Is Jewish survival everywhere and always at stake, as we so often announce — or can a people that has weathered 4,000 years of time, much of it traumatic, take its continuing survival pretty much for granted?”
Mr. Fein had given up an academic career to focus on Moment. He envisioned it as a more stylish and literary alternative to Commentary, another magazine that concentrated on Jewish issues but one that Mr. Fein found dour, dull and ideologically out of step with most Jews after it swung politically rightward in the 1960s.
Moment became “one of American Jewry’s most influential sources of Jewish ideas,” Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center in Washington, wrote Friday in Haaretz, the English-language Israeli daily, “and it launched Leibel as the most influential liberal ideologue in American Jewish life.”
Mr. Fein left the magazine in 1987. (The current editor, Nadine Epstein, said in an interview that Moment was more journalistic and less literary today than it was under Mr. Fein.) Shortly before that, he had founded an organization to raise money from Jewish families who were celebrating bar mitzvahs and weddings in increasingly opulent fashion and distribute it to groups that fed the hungry of any faith.
Based in Los Angeles, the charity, called Mazon: A Jewish Response to Hunger — it was named for the Hebrew word for food or sustenance — asked families to contribute 3 percent of the cost of their celebrations. Mr. Fein called the figure “small enough to be reasonable and large enough to be meaningful.”
After a year, Mazon was raising $80,000 a month. In the fiscal year that ended June 30, it dispensed $4.5 million in grants.
The idea for Mazon came to Mr. Fein when he learned that party caterers were pulling in half a billion dollars a year.
“A light bulb flashed over my head, and I started figuring a small percent of that sum could mean a lot of food for hungry people,” he told The Times in 1987. He quickly earned the support of rabbis around the country, Rashi Fein recalled, “perhaps because they were distressed at what was happening to bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs.”
Mr. Fein was born in New York City on July 1, 1934, and his first home was in the Bronx. His parents, who were teachers, frequently moved to find work, and before he was 10 he had lived in Winnipeg and Bridgeport, Conn. There, he contracted polio, which left him with a condition known as post-polio syndrome, characterized by muscle weakness and fatigue.
The family later settled in Baltimore, where Leonard graduated from high school. His father, Isaac, taught Jewish studies at Baltimore Hebrew College (now Baltimore Hebrew Institute), and his mother, the former Chaya Wertheim, taught in Baltimore schools.
Mr. Fein graduated from the University of Chicago, spent a year in Israel and then resumed his studies, earning a Ph.D. in political science from Michigan State. He taught in the political science department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and later taught Jewish studies at Brandeis.
He was married and divorced twice. In addition to his brother, he is survived by two daughters, Rachel and Jessie, and five grandchildren. A third daughter, Nomi, died in 1996. Mr. Fein wrote about her in a 2001 book, “Against the Dying of the Light: A Parent’s Story of Love, Loss and Hope.”
His other books include “Where Are We? The Inner Life of America’s Jews” (1970).
In the late 1990s, after President Bill Clinton declared that it should be a national goal to have every American child able to read by fourth grade, Mr. Fein founded the National Jewish Coalition for Literacy, a network of organizations that provide volunteer tutors in schools. The coalition, which began with a pilot program in Boston in 1997, operates in 47 communities and has recruited about 12,000 tutors.
“Leibel was a pioneer of American Jewish sociology, and in the application of social scientific research to improving the conditions of the American Jewish community in various ways,” a friend, Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, said in an interview. “His feeling for his people was vast. He insisted that certain Jewish teachings about social justice and social equality be put into practice, as regards the community’s policies towards its poor.
“He was an impenitent dove,” Mr. Wieseltier added. “He knew Israel very well, and his concern for its security was profound, and his belief in territorial compromise for the sake of both Israel and the Palestinians was equally profound. We disagreed on some things, but he was a joy to disagree with. He was a state-of-the-art mensch.”
All the Ramones are dead and I am old.
All the Ramones are dead and I am old.
Can you guess which of those two items made the news?
My bottle rocket’s grounded, ashed over and cold,
not hot like when I aimed it at a friend,
both of us drunk, young wildness on the loose.
All the Ramones are dead and I am old
enough to have liked them before they were old,
when they were hot, when they were cool,
not like a bottle rocket on the ground, ashed over and cold,
but cool like benzodiazepines. All my bold
endeavors seem dangerous now. I’m blue.
All the Ramones are dead and I am old.
One time a friend dressed up as Joey Ramone,
but he looked like Emo Phillips, to tell the truth.
My bottle rocket’s grounded, ashed over and cold,
but I might have a little firepower left in my head.
I’m anxious to figure out what I can do
because the Ramones are dead and I am old,
with only a bottle rocket, ashed over and cold.
If you believe Bruce had no idea Stu Levine was getting paid off and no idea what Stu Levine was doing with that money, I guess it’s no surprise that he’s not exactly sure where his losses came from. That doesn’t translate well into transforming the financial woes of Illinois.
Elite accounting tactics cut Rauner’s tax tab
Returns show GOP hopeful used fee waivers — a strategy now under IRS scrutiny — to pay much less than top bracket’s rate
By Jeff Coen and Bob Secter, Tribune reporters
12:04 AM CDT, July 2, 2014
IRS data show Bruce Rauner to be one of the 11,000 richest tax filers in the nation, but most of the millions he made in recent years was taxed at 15 percent — less than half the top federal rate for the wealthy, a review of tax documents released by the GOP governor hopeful shows.
One reason behind that sharp discount is that Rauner took advantage of a strategy that yielded big tax savings on his share of investment fees paid to his private equity firm, GTCR. That strategy is allowed under tax rules but has come under IRS scrutiny.
An analysis of the limited records Rauner has released, conducted by the Tribune in consultation with tax experts, gives the fullest picture yet of the steps he took to trim his tax bill. In ways both big and small, the Republican businessman’s financial profile is one driven by tax-reducing strategies often out of reach for those of more modest means:
•Rauner’s campaign is built around his resounding success at the helm of GTCR, through which he earned millions of dollars a year. But a major portion of that money was reported to the IRS as capital gains taxed at a preferential 15 percent, including money from so-called management fee waivers used by many private equity firms to reduce tax bills for key partners.
•For three years, Rauner reported little regular business income, the tax category that includes partnership earnings and is subject to a top tax rate of 35 percent. Instead he claimed losses of $3.1 million in 2011 and $12.7 million the year before.
•Complicated tax rules related to those business income losses freed Rauner from paying any Social Security or Medicare taxes in 2010 and 2011, despite his reporting healthy earnings in other income categories and listing a combined adjusted gross income for those years of about $55 million.
•In 2012, Rauner claimed an additional $53 million in adjusted gross income, bringing his total for three years to $108 million and easily placing him in the top federal tax bracket of 35 percent then in effect. Tax breaks, however, reduced his effective tax rate for those years to slightly more than 19 percent, about the same rate paid by Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, whom Rauner is trying to unseat.
Rauner’s combined federal tax bill was $20.7 million from 2010 through 2012. Quinn’s, according to his tax returns for those years, totaled about $106,600 on income of about $568,000, giving the governor an effective tax rate of 18.8 percent.
Likely the wealthiest office seeker in Illinois history, Rauner has used more than $6 million of a personal fortune he pegs at more than $500 million to substantially bankroll his campaign for governor. Yet Rauner has offered voters only a narrow glimpse into his personal finances, releasing three years of basic tax forms without the kind of detailed, supporting documentation such as schedules that many other candidates often make public.
Experts say the limited nature of his tax disclosure makes it difficult to draw a complete financial picture of Rauner, and the candidate himself has been reluctant to fill in many of the gaps.
In a Tribune interview focused on his taxes, Rauner said his returns “very carefully” adhered to the tax code and that he paid everything owed. At the same time, he said he could not recall some details surrounding losses he claimed and deductions he took.
“My income is based upon a whole lot of things. It’s capital gains through carried interest. It’s through management fees I get across all the funds,” said Rauner, who characterized his earnings as “lumpy” because they fluctuated widely from year to year.
“I’ve been a very large owner in every GTCR fund over 32 years. I also have other personal investments, some of which generate ordinary income of various types, some of which generate capital gains, some of which generate interest income,” Rauner said. “Breaking apart all that detail is hard to do.”
Central to Rauner’s campaign is his financial success, which he argues is proof of the kind of leadership savvy needed to turn around a financially ailing state. But that approach comes against the backdrop of a broad national argument over the meaning of an ever-widening gap between incomes of the wealthy that keep growing and those of the middle class that have been stagnant for years.
That debate led to political headaches in 2012 for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, then the Republican presidential nominee.
And there are significant parallels between Romney and Rauner, both of whom made fortunes at the helm of private equity firms. During his campaign, Romney released two years worth of voluminous tax returns that provided considerable fodder for critics who argued that he took ample advantage of tax code loopholes favoring the wealthy.
While Romney released more than 700 pages of returns and schedules, Rauner’s financial disclosures have been much less extensive.
The campaign of the Illinois Republican has released copies of the two-page 1040 tax forms filed jointly by Rauner and his wife, Diana, for 2010, 2011 and 2012without any accompanying documents. The candidate sought an extension on filing his 2013 tax returns and has yet to submit them, a spokesman said.
In 2012, the intense focus on Romney’s wealth and taxes spilled over into the business practices of his old firm, Bain Capital, which was found to have engaged in the same sort of fee waivers that have helped Rauner lower his taxes. Since then, the practice has attracted the attention of the IRS, with a top attorney for the tax agency disclosing at a legal conference in Chicago last year that it has begun looking into the broad use of the strategy across the private equity industry.
“We don’t like what we see in all cases,” the IRS attorney, Clifford Warren, was quoted as saying by several tax industry trade publications.
Experts say most large private equity firms have employed the strategy, some more aggressively than others.
Private equity firms make money for their partners in a variety of ways. Most, including GTCR, take a 20 percent cut of earnings from the large investment pools they oversee — revenue referred to as “carried interest” but treated as preferentially taxed capital gains. To encourage investment, federal tax law has long conferred special low tax rates on such investment profits.
Another lucrative source of equity firm revenue is management fees, essentially charges for the service of overseeing investments. Most equity firms levy a 2 percent annual charge on the assets they manage for clients, but Rauner has said the GTCR charge is 1.5 percent.
Service fees charged by most professionals, be they money managers or plumbers, are typically considered regular income and subject to taxation at the top of whatever tax bracket the individual qualifies for under the federal progressive tax system, tax experts said. In Rauner’s case, that was 35 percent through 2012.
At its core, the fee waiver strategy is an accounting maneuver that blurs the line between management fees charged by equity firms like GTCR to manage funds for investors and profits generated by the firms’ investments in the funds they manage.
In short, equity firms technically waive collecting on millions of dollars of management fees they are owed, but that hardly means they forgo the value of those fees. Instead, that gets reflected as a stake in the very investments they manage.
When the investment fund turns a profit, often within months, the equity firm receives the cash value of the waived fees and distributes that among its partners.
All that maneuvering might sound esoteric, but it carries profound tax consequences. Tax rates changed in 2013, but before that it meant the difference between paying a 35 percent rate on fee income or a 15 percent rate on investment income.
Put another way, for every $10 million in management fees an equity firm waived, it could save its partners $2 million in taxes.
“It’s a technique that is entirely tax-driven,” said Victor Fleischer, a professor who teaches tax law at the University of San Diego and has written extensively about fee waivers. “There’s no business motivation behind it.”
Brian Krob, a corporate lawyer for the Chicago firm of Ungaretti & Harris, said equity firms began charging management fees years ago to cover administrative costs of overseeing huge pools of money. But as the industry exploded in size a decade ago, he said, the income from fees greatly outpaced the costs of running the funds.
With that, the fees became profit centers in their own right for equity firms, which quickly began devising creative ways to minimize the tax consequences, Krob said.
For years, Rauner said, GTCR had relied on a traditional fee structure as it organized a series of investment funds. Clients paid management fees to GTCR, which then distributed the money among Rauner and his partners, who then were taxed on that income at top rates, he said.
That changed in 2009, he recalled, when the firm was organizing a new investment pool, known by Roman numeral as Fund X, that grew to more than $3.7 billion. At that size, the fund could generate more than $56 million annually in management fees for GTCR.
This time the partners opted to forgo taking fees in cash and instead use fee waivers, Rauner recalled, adding that he was hesitant about the strategy but acquiesced to the wishes of other partners. For one thing, he said, the approach required more paperwork.
Rauner said tax consequences were only one of many considerations weighed. “The tax element is one of the factors,” he said. “It’s all about trading off less certainty for more upside. If you really, really hit it out of the park you can make more money from carried interest just from raw performance. But there’s less certainty to it.”
Critics, however, contend the strategy involves little risk because equity firms like GTCR, as managers of the investment pools, can be paid the cash value of fees as soon as there is a profit.
“It’s a total tax game. There is no nontax reason for it,” said Gregg Polsky, formerly a professor in residence at the IRS who now teaches at the University of North Carolina School of Law. “In reality, everyone knows that. It creates the appearance of risk to try and get a tax result.”
Polsky said equity firms are at the controls of the investment funds they manage. He said the only scenario that could prevent them from recouping waived fee revenue is if a fund lost money from start to finish without a single profitable quarter.
“If hell freezes over, they might not get their 2 percent, but that’s not going to happen,” Polsky said.
Rebecca Wilkins, an expert on fee waivers with the Washington-based Citizens for Tax Justice, said the maneuver gives private equity partners a tax edge over even CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Those executives, she noted, may be paid millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and stock options, but those are earnings on which they typically are taxed at the highest rates.
“By taking their compensation in this way, they are avoiding ordinary income tax rates, which were 35 percent at the time, plus Social Security and Medicare taxes,” she said.
For most wage earners, those so-called payroll taxes are deducted directly from paychecks. But Rauner said he hasn’t taken a regular salary since the early 1980s.
For business executives like Rauner, the IRS provides an alternative method for paying Social Security and Medicare taxes called the self-employment tax.
Rauner’s tax returns report a payment of $15,777 of self-employment tax in 2012 but no payments in 2010 or 2011. He said he and his wife didn’t owe the tax in those two years because it is applied to only certain types of income — in his case the category that showed multimillion-dollar losses in regular business income.
That is not to say that Rauner did not report making millions of dollars off GTCR and other enterprises, but his tax returns spread it among a variety of income categories and it is impossible to determine why he declared such big losses in one of those without the supporting tax documents Rauner declines to release.
Asked to explain those losses, Rauner said he couldn’t recall details but speculated that a portion was likely connected with large ranching operations he owns in Montana and Wyoming. “Some of it’s farm and ranch income or losses,” he said. “That goes up and down year to year. Some of it’s operating losses from other investments that I have made.”
Despite owing no payroll taxes for two years, Rauner at the same time did remit what are known as household employment taxes, his returns show. Those are tax withholdings deducted from the pay of two personal assistants to cover their Social Security and Medicare taxes, among other things.
Rauner said he would not be releasing additional tax documents beyond the 1040s he had made public. The experts consulted by the Tribune said such broader disclosure would almost certainly shed light on the business losses he claimed as well as other strategies used to minimize Rauner’s tax bill.
“Obviously, in virtually every year the vast bulk of my income is capital gains, because that’s where my assets go, to purchase equities, ownership in both business and real estate,” Rauner said.
He said his returns show large variations from year to year in interest income, self-employment income and other categories.
“Some of those categories of income are susceptible or part of the Social Security, Medicare taxation system and some of those sources of income are not. But some of those sources of income are positive in some years and losses in some years. That’s just the nature of the business.”
Copyright © 2014 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC
Having been accused repeatedly of being a mindless fanboy/shill for our lame duck President, I decided to take 30 seconds away from my normal focus: upcoming elections (not re-fighting elections already won, but, hey, if the Prez is such a big stupid head why did you lose to him twice, wingnuts? Cuz we Dems are so so much dumber we didn’t see the golden opportunity for electing two GOP nominees that were pretty well disliked by their own party HOW COULD WE NOT SEE THE APPEAL WE SO SO DUMB MINDLESS LIBTARD PEOPLE!!!!!!!) so here you go, wingnuts. Eat it.
Fri Jun 27, 2014 at 10:36 AM PDT
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release June 27, 2014
ON THE ECONOMYLake Harriet Band Shell
I’ve been wanting to visit a place where all the women are strong and the men are good-looking, and the children above average. (Applause.) And this clearly is an example of what Minnesota produces. So yesterday, Rebekah and I had lunch at Matt’s Bar, had a “Jucy Lucy” — (applause) — which was quite tasty. We had a town hall at Minnehaha Park, although I did not take a kayak over the falls, which seemed dangerous. (Laughter.) We got ice cream at Grand Ole Creamery — very good, very tasty.
And then this morning, Al Franken and I and Secretary Tom Perez, our Secretary of Labor who’s here — Tom, stand up — (applause) — we stopped by a community organization that helps with a lot of job programs and job placement programs. And this program in particular was focused on young moms. It was really interesting talking to them, because there are teenage mothers, 16 to 18, and it was a great pleasure for me to be able to say to all of them that my mom was a teenage mom, and she was 18 when she had me — and to be able to say to all of them that here in this country, it is possible for the child of a teenage mom, a single mom, to end up being President of the United States. (Applause.) And I think that it maybe gave them something to think about.
So you guys have been great hosts, Minnesota.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you!
THE PRESIDENT: You’re welcome. (Laughter.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you!
THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Laughter and applause.)
So I want to give you a sense of how this visit came up. As some of you know, every day we get tens of thousands of correspondence at the White House. And we have a big correspondence office, and every night the folks who manage the correspondence office select 10 letters for me to read.
And the job of these letters is not to just puff me up — so it’s not like they only send me letters saying, Mr. President, you’re doing great. (Laughter.) Sometimes the letters say thank you for something I may have done. Sometimes the letters say, you are an idiot and the worst President ever. (Laughter.) And most of the stories, though, are stories of hardship, or hard-won success, or hopes that haven’t been met yet. Some appreciate a position that I may have taken; some disagree with what I’m doing. Some consider policies like the Affordable Care Act to be socialism; some tell stories about the difference that same policy may have made in folks’ lives.
So I’m getting a good sample of what’s happening around the country. And last month, three young girls wrote to me that boys aren’t fair because they don’t pass the ball in gym class. (Laughter.) So there’s a wide spectrum — and I’m going to prepare an executive order on that.
But the letter that Rebekah sent stood out — first of all, because she’s a good writer, and also because she’s a good person. And the story that she told me reminded Michelle and I of some of our own experiences when we were Rebekah and her husband’s age. And in many ways, her story for the past five years is our story, it’s the American story.
In early 2009, Rebekah and Ben, her husband, they were newly married, expecting their first son, Jack. She was waiting tables, he was in construction. Like millions of middle-class families who got hammered by the Great Recession — the worst recession since the Great Depression — life was about to get pretty hard. “If only we had known,” she wrote, “what was about to happen to the housing and construction market.”
Ben’s business dried up. But as a new husband and dad, he did what he had to, so he took whatever jobs he could, even if it forced him to be away from his family for days at a time. Rebekah realized she needed to think about how her career would unfold, so she took out student loans and enrolled in St. Paul College, and retrained for a new career as an accountant.
And it’s been a long, hard road for them. They had to pay off debt. They had to sacrifice for their kids and for one another. But then last year, they were able to buy their first home, and they’ve got a second son. And they love where they work, and Ben’s new job lets him be home for dinner each night. (Applause.) And so what Rebekah wrote was, “It’s amazing what you can bounce back from when you have to. We’re a strong, tight-knit family who has made it through some very, very hard times.”
And that describes the American people. We, too, are a strong, tight-knit family who has made it through some very, very hard times. And today, over the past 51 months, our businesses have created 9.4 million new jobs. Our housing market is rebounding. Our auto industry is booming. Our manufacturing sector is adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s. We’ve made our tax code fairer. We’ve cut our deficits by more than half. More than 8 million Americans have signed up for private insurance plans through the Affordable Care Act. (Applause.) So here in Minnesota, you can now say that the women are strong, the men are good-looking, the children are above average, and 95 percent of you are insured. (Applause.)
And it’s thanks to the hard work of citizens like Rebekah and Ben and so many of you that we’ve come farther, we’ve recovered faster than just about any other advanced economy on Earth. More and more companies are deciding that the world’s number-one place to create jobs and invest is once again the United States of America. (Applause.) That’s the good news. And you don’t hear it very often.
By every economic measure, we are better off now than we were when I took office. (Applause.) You wouldn’t know it, but we are. We’ve made some enormous strides. But that’s not the end of the story. We have more work to do.
It wasn’t the end of Rebekah’s story, because she went on to write in her letter, “We did everything right. The truth is, in America, where two people have done everything they can to succeed and fight back from the brink of financial ruin -– through job loss and retraining, and kids, and credit card debts that are set up to keep you impoverished forever, and the discipline to stop spending any money on yourselves or take a vacation in five years — it’s virtually impossible to live a simple middle-class life.” That’s what Rebekah wrote. Because their income is eaten up by childcare for Jack and Henry that costs more each month than their mortgage. And as I was telling Rebekah — Michelle and I, when we were their age, we had good jobs and we still had to deal with childcare issues and couldn’t figure out how to some months make ends meet.
They forego vacations so they can afford to pay off student loans and save for retirement. “Our big splurge,” Rebekah wrote, “is cable TV, so we can follow our beloved Minnesota Wild, and watch Team USA in the Olympics!” (Applause.) They go out once a week for pizza or a burger. But they’re not splurging. And at the end of the month, things are tight. And this is like this wonderful young couple, with these wonderful kids, who are really working hard.
And the point is, all across this country, there are people just like that, all in this audience. You’re working hard, you’re doing everything right. You believe in the American Dream. You’re not trying to get fabulously wealthy. You just want a chance to build a decent life for yourselves and your families, but sometimes it feels like the odds are rigged against you.
And I think sometimes what it takes for somebody like Rebekah to sit down and write one of these letters. And I believe that even when it’s heartbreaking and it’s hard, every single one of those letters is by definition an act of hope.
Because it’s a hope that the system can listen, that somebody is going to hear you; that even when Washington sometimes seems tone deaf to what’s going on in people’s lives and around kitchen tables, that there’s going to be somebody who’s going to stand up for you and your family.
And that’s why I’m here — because I want to let Rebekah know, and I wanted to let all of you know that — because you don’t see it on TV sometimes. It’s not what the press and the pundits talk about. I’m here to tell you I’m listening, because you’re the reason I ran for President. (Applause.) Because those stories are stories I’ve lived. The same way that when I saw those young teenage moms, I thought of my mother. And when I see Rebekah and Ben, I think of our struggles when Malia and Sasha were young. And they’re not distant from me and everything we do.
I ran for President because I believe this country is at its best when we’re all in it together and when everybody has a fair shot, and everybody is doing their fair share. (Applause.) And the reason I believe that is because that’s how I came here. That’s how I got here. That’s how Michelle and I were able to succeed. (Applause.) And I haven’t forgotten.
And so even though you may not read about it or see it on TV all the time, our agenda, what we’re fighting for every day, is designed not to solve every problem, but to help just a little bit. To create more good jobs that pay good wages — jobs in manufacturing and construction; energy and innovation. That’s why we’re fighting to train more workers to fill those jobs. That’s why we’re fighting to guarantee every child a world-class education, including early childhood education and better childcare. (Applause.) That’s why we’re fighting to make sure hard work pays off with a wage you can live on and savings you can retire on, and making sure that women get paid the same as men for the same job, and folks have flexibility to look after a sick child or a sick parent. (Applause.)
That’s what we’re fighting for. We’re fighting so everybody has a chance. We’re fighting to vindicate the idea that no matter who you are, or what you look like, or how you grew up, or who you love, or who your parents were, or what your last name is, it doesn’t matter — America is a place where if you’re doing the right thing, like Ben and Rebekah are, and you’re being responsible and you’re taking care of your family, that you can make it.
And the fact is, we can do that. If we do some basic things, if we make some basic changes, we can create more jobs and lift more incomes and strengthen the middle class. And that’s what we should be doing. And I know it drives you nuts that Washington isn’t doing it. And it drives me nuts. (Applause.) And the reason it’s not getting done is, today, even basic commonsense ideas can’t get through this Congress.
And sometimes I’m supposed to be politic about how I say things — (laughter) — but I’m finding lately that I just want to say what’s on my mind. (Applause.) So let me just be clear — I want you think about this — so far this year, Republicans in Congress have blocked or voted down every single serious idea to strengthen the middle class. You may think I’m exaggerating, but let me go through the list. They’ve said no to raising the minimum wage. They’ve said no to fair pay. Some of them have denied that there’s even a problem, despite the fact that women are getting paid 77 cents for every dollar a man is getting paid.
They’ve said no to extending unemployment insurance for more than three million Americans who are out there looking every single day for a new job, despite the fact that we know it would be good not just for those families who are working hard to try to get back on their feet, but for the economy as a whole. Rather than invest in working families getting ahead, they actually voted to give another massive tax cut to the wealthiest Americans.
AUDIENCE: Booo —
THE PRESIDENT: Don’t boo, by the way. I want you to vote. (Laughter and applause.) I mean, over and over again, they show that they’ll do anything to keep in place systems that really help folks at the top but don’t help you. And they don’t seem to mind. And their obstruction is keeping a system that is rigged against families like Ben’s and Rebekah’s.
Now, I’m not saying these are all bad people; they’re not. When I’m sitting there just talking to them about family, we get along just fine. Many of them will acknowledge when I talk to them — yes, I know, I wish we could do something more, but I can’t — but they can’t be too friendly towards me because they’d be run out of town by the tea party. (Laughter.)
But sometimes I get a sense they just don’t know what most folks are going through. They keep on offering a theory of the economy that time and again failed for the middle class. They think we should give more tax breaks to those at the top. They think we should invest less in things like education. They think we should let big banks, and credit card companies, and polluters, and insurers do only whatever is best for their bottom line without any responsibility to anybody else. They want to drastically reduce or get rid of the safety net for people trying to work their way into the middle class.
And if we did all these things, they think the economy will thrive and jobs will prosper, and everything will trickle down.
And just because they believe it, it doesn’t mean the rest of us should be believing it — because we’ve tried what they’re peddling, and it doesn’t work. We know from our history that our economy does not grow from the top down, it grows from the middle out. We do better when the middle class does better. We do better when workers are getting a decent salary. We do better when they’ve got decent benefits. (Applause.) We do better when a young family knows that they can get ahead. And we do better when people who are working hard know that they can count on decent childcare at an affordable cost, and that if they get sick they’re not going to lose their homes.
We do better when if somebody is stuck in a job that is not paying well enough, they know they can go get retrained without taking on huge mountains of debt. That’s when things hum. And with just a few changes in priorities, we could get a lot of that done right now if Congress would actually just think about you and not about getting reelected, not about the next election, not about some media sound bite, but just focus on you. (Applause.)
So that’s why I’ve said, look, I want to work with Democrats and Republicans. My favorite President, by the way, was the first Republican President — a guy named Abraham Lincoln. So this is not a statement about partisanship. This is a statement about America and what we’re fighting for. And I’m not going to let gridlock and inaction and willful indifference and greed threaten the hard work of families like yours. And so we can’t afford to wait for Congress right now. And that’s why I’m going ahead and moving ahead without them wherever I can. (Applause.)
That’s why I acted to raise more workers’ wages by requiring federal contractors to pay their employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour. (Applause.) That’s why I acted to help nearly five million Americans make student loan payments cap those payments at 10 percent of their income. That’s why I made sure more women have the protections they need to fight for fair pay in the workplace. (Applause.) That’s why we went ahead and launched new hubs to attract more high-tech manufacturing jobs to America.
And, now, some of you may have read — so we take these actions and then now Republicans are mad at me for taking these actions. They’re not doing anything, and then they’re mad that I’m doing something. I’m not sure which of the things I’ve done they find most offensive, but they’ve decided they’re going to sue me for doing my job. I mean, I might have said in the heat of the moment during one of these debates, “I want to raise the minimum wage, so sue me when I do.” (Laughter.) But I didn’t think they were going to take it literally.
But giving more working Americans a fair shot is not about simply what I can do — it’s about what we can do together. So when Congress doesn’t act, not only have I acted, I’ve also tried to rally others to help. I told CEOs, and governors, and mayors, and state legislatures, for example, they don’t have to wait for Congress to raise the minimum wage. Go ahead and raise your workers’ wages right now. And since I first asked Congress to raise the minimum wage, 13 states and D.C. have raised theirs, including Minnesota, where more than 450,000 of your neighbors are poised to get a raise. (Applause.)
When Gap raised wages for its employees, job applications went up through the roof. It was good for business. I even got a letter from a proud mom right here in Minneapolis who just wanted me to know that her son starts his employees at $15 an hour, at Aaron’s Green Cleaning here in town. (Applause.) There they are! (Applause.) So the letter said, “We are very proud of his people-centered business philosophy! Three cheers for a decent living wage!”
So we don’t have to wait for Congress to do some good stuff. On Monday, we held the first-ever White House Summit on Working Families, and we heard from a lot of other families like Ben and Rebekah. They count on policies like paid leave and workplace flexibility to juggle everything. We had business owners who came and told me they became more profitable when they made family life easier for their employees.
So more companies are deciding that higher wages and workplace flexibility is good for business — it reduces turnover, more productive workers, more loyal workers. More cities and states are deciding this is good policy for families. So the only holdout standing in the way of change for tens of millions of Americans are some Republicans in Congress.
Because I just want to be real blunt: If you watch the news, you just see, okay, Washington is a mess, and the basic attitude is everybody is just crazy up there. But if you actually read the fine print, it turns out that the things you care about right now Democrats are promoting. (Applause.) And we’re just not getting enough help.
And my message to Republicans is: Join us. Get on board. If you’re mad at me for helping people on my own, then why don’t you join me and we’ll do it together? (Applause.) We’ll do it together. I’m happy to share the credit. You’re mad at me for doing some things to raise the minimum wage, let’s pass a law — Republicans and Democrats giving America a raise.
If you’re mad at me for taking executive action to make it easier for women to find out if they’re not getting treated fairly in the workplace, let’s do it together. You can share the credit. (Applause.) You’re worried about me trying to fix a broken immigration system, let’s hold hands and go ahead and make sure that this country continues to be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. I want to work with you, but you’ve got to give me something. You’ve got to try to deliver something — anything. (Applause.)
They don’t do anything — (laughter) — except block me. And call me names. It can’t be that much fun. (Laughter.) It’d be so much more fun if they said, you know what, let’s do something together. If they were more interested in growing the economy for you, and the issues that you’re talking about, instead of trying to mess with me — (laughter) — then we’d be doing a lot better. That’s what makes this country great, is when we’re all working together. That’s the American way.
Now more than ever, with the 4th of July next week, Team USA moving on down in Brazil — (applause) — we should try to rally around some economic patriotism that says we rise or fall as one nation and one people. Let’s rally around the idea that instead of giving tax breaks for millionaires, let’s give more tax breaks for working families to help pay for childcare or college. (Applause.)
Instead of protecting companies that are shifting profits overseas to avoid paying their fair share, let’s put people to work rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our airports. (Applause.) Let’s invest in manufacturing startups so that we’re creating good jobs making products here in America, here in Minnesota. (Applause.) Rather than stack the deck in favor of those who have already got an awful lot, let’s help folks who have huge talent and potential and ingenuity but just need a little bit of a hand up so that we can tap the potential of every American.
I mean, this isn’t rocket science. There are some things that are complicated — this isn’t one of them. Let’s make sure every 4-year-old in America has access to high school — high-quality preschool — (applause) — so that moms like Rebekah and dads like Ben know their kids are getting the best quality care and getting a head start on life. Let’s redesign our high schools to make sure that our kids are better prepared for the 21st century economy. Let’s follow the lead of Senator Franken and Secretary Perez and give more apprenticeships that connect young people to rewarding careers. (Applause.)
Let’s tell every American if they’ve lost their job because it was shipped overseas, we’re going to train you for an even better one. (Applause.) Let’s rally around the patriotism that says our country is stronger when every American can count on affordable health insurance and Medicare and Social Security, and women earn pay equal to their efforts, and family can make ends meet if their kid get sick, and when nobody who works full-time is living in poverty. We can do all these things.
And so let me just — let me wrap up by saying this. I know sometimes things get kind of discouraging. And I know that our politics looks profoundly broken, and Washington looks like it’s never going to deliver for you. It seems like they’re focused on everything but your concerns. And I know that when I was elected in 2008 and then reelected in 2012, so many of you were hoping that we could get Washington to work differently, and sometimes when I get stymied you’d think, oh, maybe not; maybe it’s just too tough, maybe things won’t change. And I get that frustration. And the critics and the cynics in Washington, they’ve written me off more times than I can count.
But I’m here to tell you, don’t get cynical. Despite all of the frustrations, America is making progress. Despite the unyielding opposition, there are families who have health insurance now who didn’t have it before. And there are students in college who couldn’t afford it before. And there are workers on the job who didn’t have jobs before. And there are troops home with their families after serving tour after tour. (Applause.) Don’t think that we’re not making progress.
So, yes, it’s easy to be cynical; in fact, these days it’s kind of trendy. Cynicism passes off for wisdom. But cynicism doesn’t liberate a continent. Cynicism doesn’t build a transcontinental railroad. Cynicism doesn’t send a man to the moon. Cynicism doesn’t invent the Internet. Cynicism doesn’t give women the right to vote. Cynicism doesn’t make sure that people are treated equally regardless of race.
Cynicism is a choice, and hope is a better choice. And every day I’m lucky to receive thousands of acts of hope — every time somebody sits down and picks up a pen, and writes to me and shares their story, just like Rebekah did. And Rebekah said in her letter — she ended it, she said, “I’m pretty sure this is a silly thing to do to write a letter to the President, but on some level I know that staying silent about what you see and what needs changing, it never makes any difference. So I’m writing to you to let you know what it’s like for us out here in the middle of the country, and I hope you will listen.”
And I’m here because Rebekah wrote to me and I want her to know I’m listening. I’m here as President, because I want you all to know that I’m listening. (Applause.) I ran for office to make sure that anybody who is working hard to meet their dreams has somebody in Washington that is listening. And I’m always going to keep listening. And I’m always going to keep fighting. (Applause.)
And your cares and your concerns are my own, and your hopes for your kids and your grandkids are my own. And I’m always going to be working to restore the American Dream for everybody who’s willing to work for it. (Applause.) And I am not going to get cynical; I’m staying hopeful, and I hope you do too.
Thank you. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)
END 10:50 A.M. CDT
9 Questions Billionaires Disparagingly Ask About the People They Exploit
Photo Credit: Maslowski Marcin/Shutterstock.com
To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.
Last year eight Americans — the four Waltons of Walmart fame, the two Koch brothers, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett — made more money than 3.6 million American minimum-wage workers combined. The median pay for CEOs at America’s large corporations rose to $10 million per year, while a typical chief executive now makes about 257 times the average worker’s salary, up sharply from 181 times in 2009. Overall, 1% of Americans own more than a third of the country’s wealth.
As the United States slips from its status as the globe’s number one economic power, small numbers of Americans continue to amass staggering amounts of wealth, while simultaneously inequality trends toward historic levels. At what appears to be a critical juncture in our history and the history of inequality in this country, here are nine questions we need to ask about who we are and what will become of us. Let’s start with a French economist who has emerged as an important voice on what’s happening in America today.
French economist Thomas Piketty’s surprise bestseller, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, is an unlikely beach read, though it’s selling like one. A careful parsing of massive amounts of data distilled into “only” 700 pages, it outlines the economic basis for the 1%-99% divide in the United States. (Conservative critics, of course, disagree.)
Just in case you aren’t yet rock-bottom certain about the reality of that divide, here are some stats: the top 1% of Americans hold 35% of the nation’s net worth; the bottom 80%, only 11% percent. The United States has such an unequal distribution of wealth that, in global rankings, it falls among the planet’s kleptocracies, not the developed nations that were once its peers. The mathematical measure of wealth-inequality is called “Gini,” and the higher it is, the more extreme a nation’s wealth-inequality. The Gini for the U.S. is 85; for Germany, 77; Canada, 72; and Bangladesh, 64. Nations more unequal than the U.S. include Kazakhstan at 86 and the Ukraine at 90. The African continent tips in at just under 85. Odd company for the self-proclaimed “indispensable nation.”
Piketty shows that such inequality is driven by two complementary forces. By owning more of everything (capital), rich people have a mechanism for getting ever richer than the rest of us, because the rate of return on investment is higher than the rate of economic growth. In other words, money made from investments grows faster than money made from wages. Piketty claims the wealth of the wealthiest Americans is rising at 6%-7% a year, more than three times as fast as the economy the rest of us live in.
At the same time, wages for middle and lower income Americans are sinking, driven by factors also largely under the control of the wealthy. These include the application of new technology to eliminate human jobs, the crushing of unions, and a decline in the inflation-adjusted minimum wage that more and more Americans depend on for survival.
The short version: A rising tide lifts all yachts.
2) So why don’t the unemployed/underemployed simply find better jobs?
Another way of phrasing this question is: Why don’t we just blame the poor for their plight? Mention unemployment or underemployment and someone will inevitably invoke the old “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” line. If workers don’t like retail or minimum-wage jobs, or if they can’t find good paying jobs in their area, why don’t they just move? Quit retail or quit Pittsburgh (Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis) and…
Move to where to do what? Our country lost one-third of all decent factory jobs — almost six million of them — between 2000 and 2009, and wherever “there” is supposed to be, piles of people are already in line. In addition, many who lost their jobs don’t have the means to move or a friend with a couch to sleep on when they get to Colorado. Some have lived for generations in the places where the jobs have disappeared. As for the jobs that are left, what do they pay? One out of four working Americans earn less than $10 per hour. At 25%, the U.S. has the highest percentage of low-wage workers in the developed world. (Canada and Great Britain have 20%, Japan under 15%, and France 11%.)
One in six men, 10.4 million Americans aged 25 to 64, the prime working years, don’t have jobs at all, a portion of the male population that has almost tripled in the past four decades. They are neither all lazy nor all unskilled, and at present they await news of the uncharted places in the U.S. where those 10 million unfilled jobs are hidden.
Moving “there” to find better work isn’t an option.
3) But aren’t there small-scale versions of economic “rebirths” occurring all over America?
Travel through some of the old Rust Belt towns of this country and you’ll quickly notice that “economic rebirth” seems to mean repurposing buildings that once housed factories and shipping depots as bars and boutiques. Abandoned warehouses are now trendy restaurants; a former radiator factory is an artisanal coffee shop. In other words, in a place where a manufacturing plant once employed hundreds of skilled workers at union wages, a handful of part-timers are now serving tapas at minimum wage plus tips.
In Maryland, an ice cream plant that once employed 400 people with benefits and salaries pegged at around $40,000 a year closed its doors in 2012. Under a “rebirth” program, a smaller ice cream packer reopened the place with only 16 jobs at low wages and without benefits. The new operation had 1,600 applicants for those 16 jobs. The area around the ice cream plant once produced airplanes, pipe organs, and leather car seats. No more. There were roughly 14,000 factory jobs in the area in 2000; today, there are 8,000.
General Electric’s Appliance Park, in Louisville, Kentucky, employed 23,000 union workers at its peak in 1973. By 2011, the sputtering plant held onto only about 1,800 workers. What was left of the union there agreed to a two-tier wage scale, and today 70% of the jobs are on the lower tier — at $13.50 an hour, almost $8 less than what the starting wage used to be. A full-time worker makes about $28,000 a year before taxes and deductions. The poverty line for a family of four in Kentucky is $23,000. Food stamp benefits are available to people who earn up to 130% of the poverty line, so a full-timer in Kentucky with a family still qualifies. Even if a worker moved to Kentucky and lucked out by landing a job at the plant, standing on your tiptoes with your lips just above sea level is not much of a step up.
Low paying jobs are not a rebirth.
4) Can’t people just get off their couches and get back to work?
There are 3.8 million Americans who have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. These are the country’s long-term unemployed, as defined by the Department of Labor. Statistically, the longer you are unemployed, the less likely it is that you’ll ever find work again. Between 2008 and 2012, only 11% of those unemployed 15 months or more found a full-time job, and research shows that those who do find a job are less likely to retain it. Think of it as a snowball effect: more unemployment creates more unemployable people.
And how hard is it to land even a minimum-wage job? This year, the Ivy League college admissions acceptance rate was 8.9%. Last year, when Walmart opened its first store in Washington, D.C., there were more than 23,000applications for 600 jobs, which resulted in an acceptance rate of 2.6%, making the big box store about twice as selective as Harvard and five times as choosy as Cornell.
Telling unemployed people to get off their couches (or out of the cars they live in or the shelters where they sleep) and get a job makes as much sense as telling them to go study at Harvard.
5) Why can’t former factory workers retrain into new jobs?
Janesville, Wisconsin, had the oldest General Motors car factory in America, one that candidate Obama visited in 2007 and insisted would be there for another 100 years. Two days before Christmas that year and just before Obama’s inauguration, the plant closed forever, throwing 5,000 people out of work. This devastated the town, because you either worked in the plant or in a business that depended on people working in the plant. The new president and Congress quickly paid for a two-million-dollar Janesville retraining program, using state community colleges the way the government once used trade schools built to teach new immigrants the skills needed by that Janesville factory a century ago.
This time around, however, those who finished their retraining programs simply became trained unemployables rather than untrained ones. It turned out that having a certificate in “heating and ventilation” did not automatically lead to a job in the field. There were already plenty of people out there with such certificates, never mind actual college degrees. And those who did find work in some field saw their take-home pay drop by 36%. This, it seems, is increasingly typical in twenty-first-century America (though retraining programs have been little studied in recent years).
Manufacturing is dead and the future lies in a high-tech, information-based economy, some say. So why can’t former factory workers be trained to do that? Maybe some percentage could, but the U.S. graduated 1,606,000 students with bachelor’s degrees in 2014, many of whom already have such skills.
Bottom Line: Jobs create the need for training. Training does not create jobs.
6) Shouldn’t we cut public assistance and force people into the job market?
At some point in any discussion of jobs, someone will drop the nuclear option: cut federal and state benefits and do away with most public assistance. That’ll motivate people to find jobs — or starve. Unemployment money and food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) encourage people to be lazy. Why should tax dollars be used to give food to people who won’t work for it? “If you’re able-bodied, you should be willing to work,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said discussing food stamp cuts.
The problem with such statements is 73% of those enrolled in the country’s major public benefits programs are, in fact, from working families — just in jobs whose paychecks don’t cover life’s basic necessities. McDonald’s workers alone receive $1.2 billion in federal assistance per year.
Why do so many of the employed need food stamps? It’s not complicated. Workers in the minimum-wage economy often need them simply to survive. All in all, 47 million people get SNAP nationwide because without it they would go hungry.
In Ohio, where I did some of the research for my book Ghosts of Tom Joad, the state pays out benefits on the first of each month. Pay Day, Food Day, Mother’s Day, people call it. SNAP is distributed in the form of an Electronic Bank Transfer card, or EBT, which, recipients will tell you, stands for “Eat Better Tonight.” EBT-friendly stores open early and stay open late on the first of the month because most people are pretty hungry come the Day.
A single person with nothing to her name in the lower 48 states would qualify for no more than $189 a month in SNAP. If she works, her net monthly income is multiplied by .3, and the result is subtracted from the maximum allotment. Less than fifty bucks a week for food isn’t exactly luxury fare. Sure, she can skip a meal if she needs to, and she likely does. However, she may have kids; almost two-thirds of SNAP children live in single-parent households. Twenty percent or more of the child population in 37 states lived in “food insecure households” in 2011, with New Mexico (30.6%) and the District of Columbia (30%) topping the list. And it’s not just kids. Households with disabled people account for 16% of SNAP benefits, while 9% go to households with senior citizens.
Almost 22% of American children under age 18 lived in poverty in 2012; for those under age five, it’s more than 25%. Almost 1 in 10 live in extreme poverty.
Our system is trending toward asking kids (and the disabled, and the elderly) to go to hell if they’re hungry. Many are already there.
7) Why are Walmart and other businesses opposed to SNAP cuts?
Public benefits are now a huge part of the profits of certain major corporations. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Walmart was oddly blunt about what SNAP cuts could do to its bottom line:
“Our business operations are subject to numerous risks, factors, and uncertainties, domestically and internationally, which are outside our control. These factors include… changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, [and] changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans.”
How much profit do such businesses make from public assistance? Short answer: big bucks. In one year, nine Walmart Supercenters in Massachusetts received more than $33 million in SNAP dollars — more than four times the SNAP money spent at farmers’ markets nationwide. In two years, Walmart received about half of the one billion dollars in SNAP expenditures in Oklahoma. Overall, 18% of all food benefits money is spent at Walmart.
Pepsi, Coke, and the grocery chain Kroger lobbied for food stamps, an indication of how much they rely on the money. The CEO of Kraft admittedthat the mac n’ cheese maker opposed food stamp cuts because users were “a big part of our audience.” One-sixth of Kraft’s revenues come from food stamp purchases. Yum Brands, the operator of KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut, tried to convince lawmakers in several states to allow its restaurants to accept food stamps. Products eligible for SNAP purchases are supposed to be limited to “healthy foods.” Yet lobbying by the soda industry keeps sugary drinks on the approved list, while companies like Coke and Pepsi pull in four billion dollars a year in revenues from SNAP money.
Poverty is big business.
8) Should We Raise the Minimum Wage?
One important reason to raise the minimum wage to a living one is that people who can afford to feed themselves will not need food stamps paid for by taxpayers. Companies who profit off their workers’ labor will be forced to pay a fair price for it, and not get by on taxpayer-subsidized low wages. Just as important, people who can afford to feed themselves earn not just money, but self-respect. The connection between working and taking care of yourself and your family has increasingly gone missing in America, creating a society that no longer believes in itself. Rock bottom is a poor foundation for building anything human.
But won’t higher wages cause higher prices? The way taxpayers functionally subsidize companies paying low-wages to workers — essentially ponying up the difference between what McDonald’s and its ilk pay and what those workers need to live via SNAP and other benefits — is a hidden cost squirreled away in plain sight. You’re already paying higher prices via higher taxes; you just may not know it.
Even if taxes go down, won’t companies pass on their costs? Maybe, but they are unlikely to be significant. For example, if McDonald’s doubled the salaries of its employees to a semi-livable $14.50 an hour, not only would most of them go off public benefits, but so would the company — and yet a Big Mac would cost just 68 cents more. In general, only about 20% of the money you pay for a Big Mac goes to labor costs. At Walmart, increasing wages to $12 per hour would cost the company only about one percent of its annual sales.
Despite labor costs not being the most significant factor in the way low-wage businesses set their prices, one of the more common objections to raising the minimum wage is that companies, facing higher labor costs, will cut back on jobs. Don’t believe it.
The Los Angeles Economic Round Table concluded that raising the hourly minimum to $15 in that city would generate an additional $9.2 billion in annual sales and create more than 50,000 jobs. A Paychex/IHS survey, which looks at employment in small businesses, found that the state with the highest percentage of annual job growth was Washington, which also has the highest statewide minimum wage in the nation. The area with the highest percentage of annual job growth was San Francisco, the city with the highest minimum wage in the nation. Higher wages do not automatically lead to fewer jobs. Many large grocery chains, including Safeway and Kroger, are unionized and pay well-above-minimum wage. They compete as equals against their non-union rivals, despite the higher wages.
Will employers leave a state if it raises its minimum wage independent of a nationwide hike? Unlikely. Most minimum-wage employers are service businesses that are tied to where their customers are. People are not likely to drive across state lines for a burger. A report on businesses on the Washington-Idaho border at a time when Washington’s minimum wage was nearly three bucks higher than Idaho’s found that the ones in Washington were flourishing.
While some businesses could indeed decide to close or cut back if the minimum wage rose, the net macro gains would be significant. Even a small hike to $10.10 an hour would put some $24 billion a year into workers’ hands to spend and lift 900,000 Americans above the poverty line. Consumer spending drives 70% of our economy. More money in the hands of consumers would likely increase the demand for goods and services, creating jobs.
Yes, raise the minimum wage. Double it or more. We can’t afford not to.
9) Okay, after the minimum wage is raised, what else can we do?
To end such an article, it’s traditional to suggest reforms, changes, solutions. It is, in fact, especially American to assume that every problem has a “solution.” So my instant suggestion: raise the minimum wage. Tomorrow. In a big way. And maybe appoint Thomas Piketty to the board of directors of Walmart.
But while higher wages are good, they are likely only to soften the blows still to come. What if the hyper-rich like being ever more hyper-rich and, with so many new ways to influence and control our political system and the economy, never plan to give up any of their advantages? What if they don’t want to share, not even a little more, not when it comes to the minimum wage or anything else?
The striking trend lines of social and economic disparity that have developed over the last 50 years are clearly no accident; nor have disemboweled unions, a deindustrialized America, wages heading for the basement (with profits still on the rise), and the widest gap between rich and poor since the slavery era been the work of the invisible hand. It seems far more likely that a remarkably small but powerful crew wanted it that way, knowing that a nation of fast food workers isn’t heading for the barricades any time soon. Think of it all as a kind of “Game of Thrones” played out over many years. A super-wealthy few have succeeded in defeating all of their rivals — unions, regulators, the media, honest politicians, environmentalists — and now are free to do as they wish.
What most likely lies ahead is not a series of satisfying American-style solutions to the economic problems of the 99%, but a boiling frog’s journey into a form of twenty-first-century feudalism in which a wealthy and powerful few live well off the labors of a vast mass of the working poor. Once upon a time, the original 99% percent, the serfs, worked for whatever their feudal lords allowed them to have. Now, Walmart “associates” do the same. Then, a few artisans lived slightly better, an economic step or two up the feudal ladder. Now, a technocratic class of programmers, teachers, and engineers with shrinking possibilities for upward mobility function similarly amid the declining middle class. Absent a change in America beyond my ability to imagine, that’s likely to be my future — and yours.
As rising sea levels begin to engulf naval bases and extreme weather exacerbates conflicts worldwide, the military has sounded the alarm that climate change poses a long-term threat to U.S. security. The GOP response? It passed legislation that blocks funding for any Pentagon program that tackles climate change.
Just prior to Memorial Day weekend, the House of Representatives stuck an amendment onto the National Defense Authorization Act, which stipulates that:
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to implement the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation’s Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order.
In other words, don’t even THINK about initiating programs to prepare for the potential impacts of climate change, either in the United States or abroad.
The amendment, which was approved by the Republican-controlled House in a 231-192 vote, was introduced by Rep. David McKinley (R-WV), who said:
Our climate is obviously changing; it has always been changing. With all the unrest around the global [sic], why should Congress divert funds from the mission of our military and national security to support a political ideology. This amendment will ensure we maximize our military might without diverting funds for a politically motivated agenda.
Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Bobby Rush (D-IL) wrote a letter in strong opposition to the amendment, saying:
The flat earth society is at it again….The McKinley amendment would require the Defense Department to assume that the cost of carbon pollution is zero. That’s science denial at its worst and it fails our moral obligation to our children and grandchildren.
The Pentagon’s Case for Dealing with Climate Change
The legislation comes at a time when military officials have been cranking up the volume on this issue—notably, through the recent publication of two reports, the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (a Congressionally mandated assessment of Department of Defense strategy and priorities) and a study written by an advisory group of retired, high-ranking military officers, titled “National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change.”
The 2014 QDR, which is the second consecutive review that has addressed the implications of climate change for Pentagon planning, observed that:
As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with other global dynamics….are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions—conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence.
This is more than simply a rhetorical nod to an issue that is a high priority for the White House. Comments by military officials over the past few years have made it clear that it’s a problem they take very seriously. Last March, the Boston Globe reported, Admiral Samuel Locklear—America’s top military officer in charge of monitoring hostile actions by North Korea and escalating tensions between China and Japan—identified climate change as the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region. “You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level,” he said. “Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.”
The U.S. military, Locklear added, has taken the initiative to reach out to other armed forces in the region. “We have interjected into our multilateral dialogue—even with China and India—the imperative to kind of get military capabilities aligned [for] when the effects of climate change start to impact these massive populations,” he told the Boston Globe. “If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.”
“I’m not seeing intransigence [on the issue] in the Pentagon,” retired Army Brig. Gen. John Adams told the online publication Defense One. Adams, who is an advisor to the Center for Climate Security, spoke specifically about how climate change is already having an influence on military decision-making near Pensacola, Florida, where he lives. “We have major installations in this area. We predict the sea level will rise here. That means that Navy ship berths will have to change, because they’re not floating docks, they’re built into the land. And when the sea level rises above the point where it’s safe to berth a Navy ship, then you have to change the berthing structure … so climate change will have an effect on our basing structures.”
The impact on military facilities is the subject of considerable discussion in the aforementioned report, “National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change.” The study was written by 11 retired U.S. generals and admirals who are members of the CNA Corporation Military Advisory Board (MAB), a respected government-funded military research organization.
One case study that MAB addressed is the Hampton Roads metropolitan area (see map above), located near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay in the southeastern part of Virginia:
All military branches and the Coast Guard have facilities in the region. In all, there are 29 military sites in Hampton Roads, including Naval Station Norfolk (the largest naval complex in the world), Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek–Fort Story, and Naval Air Station Oceana, including critical defense industry partners such as Huntington Ingalls Shipyard, which builds half our submarines and all of our aircraft carriers. Many of the facilities are at or only a few meters above sea level.
The area has hundreds of miles of waterfront from three major rivers that all flow into the Chesapeake Bay. It is an extremely low-lying area, which makes it particularly susceptible to flooding from relative sea level rise—a combination of global sea level rise, land subsidence, and ocean circulation.
Estimates of relative sea level rise in the Hampton Roads area range from 1.5 feet over the next 20–50 years to as high as a 7.5-foot rise by 2100 (above the 1992 mean sea level baseline).
“Political posturing and budgetary woes cannot be allowed to inhibit discussion and debate over what so many believe to be a salient national security concern for our nation,” MAB added. “Time and tide wait for no one.”
Conservatives Respond to the Military
This kind of talk makes conservatives grouchy. They’ve spent years making the case that climate change is the latest fad in environmental hysteria, a liberal plot to “create global government” and a scheme for scientists and universities to keep their pockets lined with grant money. And now conservatives find themselves at odds with the guardians of our national security? (Awkward!)
But never underestimate the power of political spin. Over the last few years, conservative commentators have developed a series of talking points to distance themselves from climate change without attacking our active-duty military officers:
Talking point #1: Our military is a victim of political peer pressure
According to a draft copy of the Quadrennial Defense Review, DoD wonks are planning to mold an already over-tasked military to meet rising challenges associated with global warming climate change.
Consider how drastically the Pentagon has been forced to adapt since the end of the Cold War….Now we are proposing a massive shakeup to Pentagon policy by adding yet another core mission— climate change, which has nothing to do with winning battles— to an already crowded task list….is it wise to continue to violently disrupt a culture which is fueled by tradition and a fierce warrior ethos by forcing them to constantly adjust to the popular political trends of the day?
QDRs are now squarely aimed at defending present budgets and ongoing activities. Worse, they often cannot resist throwing support behind the political hot item of the day.
Talking point #2: Fight wars, not climate change
Let’s free up the Navy from responsibility for protecting our planet from natural climate change so that they can concentrate on addressing real man-made threats to our national independence…a mission they can actually do something about!
The QDR sees the potential consequences of global warming—retreating glaciers, extreme weather, rising sea levels and temperatures, food security and water scarcity, disease—as potential contributors to instability and conflict.
This approach leads to recommendations that limit the flexibility of the military by, for example, limiting its options regarding the use of energy. While the QDR asserts that such steps will not undermine the military’s ability to perform its missions, it is likely they will. This is like telling the fire department to cut down on hydrant use in order to conserve water.
Talking point #3: The Democrats made them do it!
In 2007, Senate Armed Services Committee members Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John Warner (R-VA) snuck some language into the National Defense Authorization Act which got our military into the climate protection business whether they wanted to or not. The amendment required DoD to consider the effects of climate change upon their facilities, capabilities and missions. Now, through the QDR, the DoD is incorporating and considering the “threat” of climate change into its long-range strategic plans. This despite the fact that no evidence of a climate crisis, much less any human-caused one, actually exists.
Talking point #4: Military strategists are making decisions based on bad data
The link between extreme weather and global warming is debatable….All of this seems to be a very shaky foundation upon which to reshape America’s defense strategy. In its oversight role, Congress should challenge the administration’s inclusion of climate change as a defense priority.
Talking point #5: Retired military officers yearn for more glory
Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, described the CNA Corporation Military Advisory Board’s report as nothing more than ex-military men seeking attention.
“There is no one in more pursuit of publicity than a retired military officer,” Inhofe said of the report’s authors. “I look back wistfully at the days of the Cold War. Now you have people who are mentally imbalanced, with the ability to deploy a nuclear weapon. For anyone to say that any type of global warming is anywhere close to the threat that we have with crazy people running around with nuclear weapons, it shows how desperate they are to get the public to buy this.”
Climate change deniers in Congress should be worried. The problem for them is not just that the military is a respected voice of authority. Their real problem is that the military is quite adept at communicating the urgency to address climate change. While conservative pundits prattle on about how military culture is defined by “tradition and a fierce warrior ethos,” the men and women who serve this country discuss climate change in terms that reflect how the military actually operates—by emphasizing the importance of risk management, logistics and scenario planning.
Consider some of these excerpts from the MAB report—
The risk of inaction:
Some in the political realm continue to debate the cause of a warming planet and demand more data. Yet MAB member General Gordon Sullivan, United States Army, Retired, has noted: “Speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”
We recognize that skepticism is important in the scientific process, especially in the continual refinement of theories, and that healthy debate in the area of climate change can serve to advance science, but falling short of 100 percent agreement is not a justifiable reason for inaction. As noted by MAB member Admiral Frank “Skip” Bowman, United States Navy, Retired: “Managing risk is seldom about dealing with absolute certainties but, rather, involves careful analysis of the probability of an event and the resultant consequences of that event occurring. Even very low probability events with devastating consequences must be considered and mitigation/adaptation schemes developed and employed.”
We operate our nuclear submarine fleet in this manner. Some may argue that this continuing process results in overdesign and over cautiousness. Maybe so, but our U.S. submarine safety record testifies to the wisdom of this approach. That’s where we should be with climate change knowns and unknowns.
Climate vs. weather:
Contributing to the ongoing climate change debate are natural variations in weather patterns. Although pundits may try, no individual weather event or weather season can be attributed decisively to climate change. Weather is what occurs day-to-day; climate describes weather patterns over decades. However, rather than wondering if any specific events are “caused” by climate change, MAB member Rear Admiral David Titley, United States Navy, Retired, suggests an alternative way of thinking about recent weather phenomena: “It is more useful to think of climate as the deck of cards from which our daily weather events are dealt. As the climate changes, so does our deck of cards. For every degree of warming, we add an extra ace into the deck. Over time, unusual hands such as a full house with aces high become more plausible and more common.”
The need to build alliances:
Addressing climate change is expensive, so those costs should be shared as much as possible, General Wald agreed. “It’s also massive and unpredictable as to where it’s going to be,” he said. “You’d like to interface with other governments to arrive at an understanding of interoperability issues. When people train together, they become more accepting of what the perceived threat is.”
General Stalder said he’d like to see a new multilateral arrangement emerge to address climate change. “From my perspective,” he said, “the opportunity that it creates is an operating construct among the coalition of the willing to respond to things in a more cohesive way than is done right now, including a sort of standing command arrangement or coordination arrangement where countries could contribute to that and offer relief more quickly.
The risks of ceding American leadership:
When Admiral Gunn thinks about climate change, he remembers a plaque on the desk of the late Vice Admiral Paul Butcher, a gruff, cigar-chomping figure with whom he served in the 1970s: “Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.”
“That’s the kind of the way I feel about this—we need to be leaders,” said Admiral Gunn, a 35-year Navy veteran who is president of CNA’s Institute for Public Research….”During the last seven years, it appears that America has begun to surrender world leadership in this collection of issues dealing with climate change and national security,” he said. “Ceding this has serious economic and national security implications, and as the U.S. desires to provide security and stability in various parts of the world, the fact that we are ceding our leadership will make it more and more difficult.”
It remains to be seen whether the McKinley amendment will make it past the Senate and onto the president’s desk. But, no matter what the outcome, it’s further proof that Congressional Republicans have abrogated any effort to lead responsibly on this issue. It’s time for them to follow—or get out of the way.
He wrote in the guest book: “With shame for what man, who was created in the image of God, was able to do; with shame for the fact that man made himself the owner of evil; with shame that man made himself into God and sacrificed his brothers.” He signed his note: “Never again!! Never again!! Francis.”