Day: June 20, 2008

International Trade Union Congress Blasts The US

The International Trade Union Congress, which met June 9-11 in Geneva, assailed the lack of workers’ rights in the United States, and called on the World Trade Organization to take up the issue at its biannual review of U.S. trade policy.

The Bush administration’s response, a few days later, to the WTO’s routine review of U.S. trade policy made no mention of that policy’s effect on workers. The questions that the WTO asked the administration to answer did not include any of the workers’ rights concerns raised by the ITUC. Moreover, the WTO ignored a mandate from the foreign ministers of member countries who, in 2006, had insisted that the review include labor standards and workers’ rights.

In its report, the ITUC noted that the U.S. has yet to ratify key International Labor Organization planks on the right to organize unions and the right to bargain collectively.

The group also noted that the U.S. has failed to ratify an ILO plank calling for equal pay for equal work, and pointed out that there is still rampant pay discrimination in the U.S. based on sex.

Describing the status of labor rights in the U.S., the ITUC report charged, “The right to strike and the right to collective bargaining are severely restricted, in particular for public service workers and for certain groups of private sector workers.”

The report also noted that at least 32 million workers, 25 million of them in the private sector, are not covered by U.S. labor law. “These figures do not include many more who have lost the protections of U.S. labor law as a result of decisions by the National Labor Relations Board,” the report said.

The ITUC document also took issue with the extent to which employers in the U.S. are permitted to interfere with union organizing drives.

“Employers have a statutory right under the National Labor Relations Act to express their views during a union campaign so long as they do not interfere with their employees’ free choice,” the report said. “In practice, however, employers have a legal right to engage in a wide range of anti-union tactics that chill exercise of freedom of association.”

The ITUC also cited “captive audience meetings” where firms that propagandize against the union “can fire workers who refuse to attend them.” The report criticized laws that allow employers to “predict,” although not “threaten,” that a workplace will be shut down if workers vote for a union.

The ITUC findings were particularly harsh in the area of rights for public sector workers:

“In the public sector, 40 percent of workers are still denied basic collective bargaining rights. While the federal Labor Relations Act covers over two million federal employees, the statute outlaws strikes, proscribes collective bargaining over hours, wages and economic benefits, and imposes extensive management rights that further limit collective bargaining.
When he spoke in Geneva, Sweeney said, “Independent polls show 44 million more workers would join a union if they were not intimidated by employers. We intend to do something about that this year in the election.”

The Battle Over Entitlements

The Republicans are saying in this election cycle that the biggest problem that the country and government will face is how to pay for the entitlement programs, like Social Security, medicare, etc. There plan and one that McCain is embracing hardily is to give tax cuts and lower entitlement payments.

You know I have listened and thought on this subject for several days and I have come up with a novel idea—END THE WAR! (sarcasm intended) How many trillions, that is trillions with a “T”, is the war gonna cost the American taxpayer? Could not that money be spent here in this country on…I don’t know….entitlements?

Have you noticed that both candidates are promising jobs or emplyment. But they are not addressing the immediate concerns of the people. They both are giving obscure solutions to complex problems. Hell, I will promise you whatever you want if you will vote for me. My point is, they ALL have lied to you and you do not seem to care. You do not hold them accountable for their lies. Why is that?

Both plans seem to say, “screw the American taxpayer”. Why not? After all they are the ones that finance the whole damn government. Corporations get all the assistence they can stand, but yet the people and the entitlement programs have to stand raid after raid just to make a few a couple more bucks. At what point do the American people become the most important issue? At what point do the American people who have fought and worked for this country deserve an adequate life?

What part of this government is truly showing a concern for the American people? Better yet, what part of this government is a government for the people? Your vote is very important, so please use it wisely. Do not let them keep your ignorant, learn the issues and how it will realistically impact your life, not the lame promises of the past, but real issues and real solutions.

Contents Of The War Funding Bill

Highlights of legislation scheduled for House action on Thursday to fund U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, extend unemployment benefits, provide flood aid, boost GI Bill college benefits and provide flood aid to the Midwest.

War funding — $162 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to fund the war into next year.

GI Bill — $63 billion over ten years for increased college aid for military service members who serve after Sept. 11, 2001. The new benefit would provide tuition up to in-state tuition and fees for enrollment in a public college; a monthly housing stipend; and $1,000 per year for books and supplies. People who serve three years would receive the full benefit; those with shorter enrollments would receive between 40 and 90 percent of the benefit. The benefits could be transfered to a service member’s spouse or children.

Unemployment insurance — $12.5 billion over two years to provide 13 additional weeks of unemployment benefits for people whose 26-week benefits have run out. People must have worked 20 weeks to be eligible. 10-year cost: $8.2 billion.

Flood aid — $2.7 to replenish various disaster aid accounts in the aftermath of widespread flooding in the Midwest.

Medicaid rules — Blocks six of seven new Medicaid regulations sought by the Bush administration to curb program costs and combat waste and abuse.

Other spending — $10.1 billion for various foreign aid programs, including $1.9 billion for international food aid and $465 million for Mexico to combat drug trafficking; $5.8 billion for Louisiana levee repairs and construction; $4.6 billion for military base construction; $400 million for “competitiveness” programs, energy research and medical research; and $210 million to address cost overruns involving the 2010 Census.

Big Oil To Return To Iraq

Nearly four decades after the four biggest Western oil companies were expelled from Iraq by Saddam Hussein, they are negotiating their return. By the end of the month, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total will sign agreements with the Baghdad government, Iraq’s first with big Western oil firms since the US-led invasion in 2003.

The deals are for repair and technical support in some of the country’s largest oilfields, the Oil Ministry in Baghdad said yesterday. The return of “Big Oil” will add to the suspicions of those in the Middle East who claimed that the overthrow of Saddam was secretly driven by the West’s desire to gain control of Iraq’s oil. It will also be greeted with dismay by many Iraqis who fear losing control of their vast oil reserves.

But they mean that the four oil companies, which originally formed the Iraq Petroleum Company to exploit Iraqi oil from the 1920s until the industry’s nationalisation in 1972, will be well-placed to bid for contracts for the long-term development of these fields. The oilfields affected are some of the largest in Iraq, from Kirkuk in the north to Rumaila, on the border with Kuwait. Although there is oil in northern Iraq, most of the reserves are close to Basra, in the far south.

The high price of oil means that Iraq is not under immediate pressure to maximise its oil revenues. The Iraqi parliament has suspected anything which looks like giving foreign companies ownership of Iraq’s oil through a production sharing agreement.

The nationalisation of Iraq’s oil is one the few acts of Saddam Hussein’s long years in power which is still highly popular, and Iraqi members of parliament are fearful of anything that looks like back-door privatisation in the interests of foreigners.

This is something that should been a no brainer–they should have nationalized the industry immediately and that would avoid the possibility of the companies gaining complete control of their fields.  Slowly, but slowly these companies are reasserting their control–good for the companies—but bad for Iraq.

McCain Pushes Nukes

Sen. John McCain proposed Wednesday to dramatically increase America’s commitment to nuclear power, calling for a crash program to build 45 reactors by 2030 and a long-term goal of building 100 such plants across the country.

McCain has long been a proponent of nuclear power. But his speech here included unabashed support for an energy source and technology that has been suspect in many communities since the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, the most serious commercial nuclear accident in U.S. history.

No nuclear power plant has been built in America in more than 30 years, and few U.S. companies have invested in the technology to build new plants. The nation draws about 20% of its electricity from 104 working commercial reactors, but many are nearing the end of the operating period allowed by their licenses

I agree that Nukes are probably going to be part of the answer to global warming.  But it should not be considered until there is a foolproof method of disposing of the waste.  But right now the industry gets taxpayer money in the form of subsidies.  I will support it when the waste thingy is solved and there is an end to government subsidies for the industry.  Think about it, if the industry cannot finance itself, why should the American people help?

Problems Facing The Next President

No matter who gets the nod from the voters, there are parts of the of thew whole picture that will be a thorn in the next presidents side.  But the question should be can the new president really be up to the challange?

BUDGET

The U.S. budget deficit burgeoned under the Bush administration because of several rounds of tax cuts that slashed revenue while the government pursued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that cost $11 billion a month.

Bush could leave his successor a record $500 billion budget deficit, compared with the $128 billion surplus he inherited when he took office in 2001.

Under Bush, the national debt has nearly doubled to $10 trillion. That requires interest payments of roughly $200 billion each year — more than any other single category of government expenditure except defense, the Social Security retirement fund and Medicare for the elderly.

With the budget already stretched, finding revenue for new spending programs or to offset further tax cuts could be especially difficult.

ECONOMY

The next president will inherit a sluggish economy hobbled by high energy prices and a housing slump, brought on in part by the Bush administration’s drive to expand home ownership.

Hard times for businesses and consumers means the government collects less tax revenue. Revenue from taxes on corporations dropped 14 percent over much of last year and tax revenue from workers’ paychecks recently has been flat, according to a research note by Goldman Sachs.

McCain has proposed a gas-tax holiday over the summer and other tax cuts to boost the economy. But he will probably have a hard time getting them through a Congress expected to remain under Democratic control.

Obama has said he might defer his proposed tax increases on the wealthy if the economic picture remains grim.

MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY

Ballooning payments to the elderly through Social Security and Medicare will pose a growing problem with the retirement of the country’s 77 million Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964.

By 2017 when a second Obama or McCain term would end, each household would have to pay an additional $2,000 a year in taxes to cover these costs, according to Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.

Medicare, the $400 billion health-insurance program for the elderly, began paying out more than it takes in this year.

The Medicare program that pays for hospital visits is expected to go bankrupt in 2019 and a program that covers prescription drugs, added during Bush’s tenure, will increase costs as well.

These are just the major problems that will be nibbling at the butt of the new president.  Ask yourself which candidate will be capable of handling these—and there will be your vote.

AFSCME Endorses Obama

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the Sierra Club announced separately yesterday that they would endorse Barack Obama for president.

“Barack Obama has mobilized a historic movement to reclaim the greatness of America,” said AFSCME President Gerald McEntee. “With his leadership, our nation will rise up to rebuild the middle class at home and restore America’s reputation in the world.”

Only last month, McEntee was one of organized labor’s most outspoken critics of Obama, professing grave doubts about his qualifications as the Democratic presidential nominee. “I think he has a problem with the blue-collar worker and relating to that worker,” McEntee said.

Asked about the change in his estimation of Obama from one month ago, McEntee said that he and other AFSCME officials had changed their views of the candidate after extensive meetings with his staff and with Obama himself in Washington in the past two days. “We’ve had an opportunity . . . to sort out our differences to move ahead,” he said. “We have changed positions. He’s more sure-footed. We fought like hell for Hillary, no question about that, and at times it was tough on the campaign trail, but now we’re prepared and ready,” McEntee said, to back Obama.

Labor is coming around to Obama, but will the members help put Obama in the White House?