Obama should set his sights higher - The Washington Post

The unedited article appears here. It is quoted in this blog post to facilitate my comments to Ms. Heuvel [in red].

Obama should set his sights higher
By Katrina vanden Heuvel July 10 at 4:53 PM


Last Monday, President Obama defied Republican threats to file suit against him for his use of executive orders. “If House Republicans are really concerned about me taking too many executive actions,” the president said, “the best solution to that is passing bills. Pass a bill, solve a problem.” Republican obstruction is so extreme that House Speaker John Boehner can’t even get what he wants done, much less what the country needs. House Republicans have blocked countless jobs plans [in statements like this, I’d like to see references to the HR bills put forth by House Democrats], stonewalled immigration reform, stopped a hike in the minimum wage and prevented emergency unemployment benefits from even getting a vote. [can you fucking blame them when they smelled weakness from the get go--when they saw the President of Change follow Georgy's time frame for Iraq, etc. (note: sorry for all the profanity. I blame my Netflix marathon watching of the Dexter series with the cussing sister Deb.]
So Obama has begun to act — often belatedly and timidly in his supporters’ view. [In everyone's view, actually] He has halted deportation of the “dreamers,” kids of undocumented immigrants who were, like their parents, not born in the United States, and promises more action on immigration. He has ordered that the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act not be enforced against gay couples. He has issued a bevy of minor common sense measures on gun control (like making it harder for the mentally ill to get a permit). His push for executive action on climate change will have real impact. And recently, he lifted the minimum wage for federal contract workers to $10.10 an hour, shaming Republican obstruction of this long overdue measure.[this reminds me of one of my ideas: make the government the human resources dept for unskilled and semi-skilled labor, hire the unions to administrate, and have congress set the wages. Now that's an idea that will send Boehner to the nearest revolving door.]
Republicans are simply drinking the Kool-Aid if they think they can make Obama’s initiatives an issue in the fall elections. Americans want action, not more dysfunction.
In fact, the president would be well advised to elevate his sights. He has called the United States’ inequality the “defining challenge of our time.” [when did he arrive at this notion, when the occupiers had been ousted by the rich guy in NYC? It must have been afterward because he never came to their aid. When they needed help the most, all they got was short shrift from the liberals and the progressives who feared encroachment on their turf. Oh, the hypocrisy] He understands this isn’t about a few getting obscenely rich, but about the many struggling simply to stay afloat. [then he still doesn't understand, because it IS about the obscenity but you, Ms. Heuvel, no doubt fear being accused of starting a class war--don't fear it, mam', embrace it] Median household incomes have fallen in this “recovery,” as the richest 1 percent captured a staggering 95 percent of the nation’s income growth from 2009-2012. One in five children are raised in poverty. Workers’ wages have been mostly stagnant for more than thirty years, while productivity has continued to rise. U.S. companies could afford to provide higher wages to their workers but instead the money has gone to investors, chief executives and others in executive suites.[Investors? What are you talking about, the only money investors directly get from a company is in the form of dividends and, in a bull market, after selling stocks. The first is hardly a windfall and the second accrues value only indirectly from low wages. Executives do get an inordinate share of the profits but you and I know they wouldn't be getting that if Wall Street wasn't happy with the profits which wouldn't rise without workers getting less. But what president would possibly change that? Certainly not your hero!]

There are many reasons for this, of course, but one central cause has been the unrelenting and successful war waged against workers and their right to organize and bargain collectively. The facts on this are clear. Unions — aided by Franklin Roosevelt’s support — came out of World War II representing nearly 40 percent of the private workforce. [it had nothing to do with the 4 termer but with the fact that no company would dare say no to the populace that just won a war for them with the sacrifice of their sons and daughters.] They could negotiate industry-wide wage and labor standards. Non-union employers had to compete to attract decent employees. Union power in the workforce curbed the avarice of corporate CEOs and captured boards. [I don't know what world you are living in but the union MO is "you scratch mine and let avarice prevail all around"] Union power in the democracy helped to lift the minimum wage, pass fair labor standards, make workplaces safer and win the 40-hour work week [kudos for the last one but why do the French work even less while enjoying a high standard of living? Unions?] And they anchored our democracy, leading the United States to champion those unions across the world [not the third world, of course; just where the money was overflowing] as a counter to the Soviet model.


Like all large institutions, unions were and are far from perfect. As they grew larger, they grew less militant, servicing current members often took priority over organizing new ones. [and what was there to service? I.e., what were they doing between contracts? Reaping?] Labor laws limited their ability to negotiate about quality or corporate strategy. Union democracy did not eliminate corruption. Employers struggled with inane union rules.


But it was their successes, not their failures, that led companies to open up a full-scale assault on them. When Ronald Reagan fired the striking air-traffic control workers, [Bull, Katrina, air-traffic controllers were closer to public employees and those are still rather successful in anyone's book]  open season was declared on labor. Companies shared tactics to crush organizing drives. Labor laws were trampled; enforcement weakened. Reforms were blocked in the Congress. Segregationist Democrats in the South passed “right to work” laws, fearful of multi-racial union organizing. New Democrats echoed conservative memes of unions as outmoded. [In reality it was all a question of their laziness, preferring to reap the easy public-sector.]


Now unions represent about 7 percent of the private-sector workforce. Scholars suggest that the decline of unions accounts directly for about one-third of the rise of inequality. [gee, Ms. Heuvel, have you ever asked yourself why no public employee is ready to dump them?] That probably understates the effect. As unions lost strength, the wealthy and big corporations were more able to rig the rules to benefit themselves. As unions grew weaker, the demands of creditors had ever-greater weight over the demands for full employment. [but if creditors have greater sway, isn't it because the corporation is not doing well and shouldn't employment decrease? Just saying] Corporate boards of union-free companies had free rein to lavish bonuses and rewards on CEOs. [Did the creditors like this? Ummm.]
President Obama could challenge this trend directly. The liberal think tank Demos has recently published a study, “Underwriting Good Jobs,” showing that the president could use executive action to put some 21 million Americans onto the road of joining the middle class.
The U.S. government is the largest employer of low-wage workers in the nation, with the $1.3 trillion it spends on purchasing goods and services. The president, standing in the proud tradition of Roosevelt, could issue a Good Jobs Executive Order that would reward companies who pay their workers a living wage, allow them a voice at the workplace without having to go on strike, adhere to federal workplace safety and fair labor standards and limit the pay of their chief executives to some reasonable ratio to that of their average workers. [I had no idea the prez could do this but especially the latter which begs the question, why hasn't this type of action EVER been taken?]
    Of course, the corporate and conservative lobbies would rise up. [no, they don't need to rise up, Democrats are just as douche baggy as anyone else] Nothing arouses more fury than something that might impede their access to federal lucre. [but this pertains to the CMIC which your hero empowered by not fulfilling his campaign promise to get the fuck out of Bush's war and continuing three other wars: Afghanistan, immigration, and drugs] But in reality, the country and the democracy have a huge stake in a broad middle class. Well-paid, productive workers aren’t simply an idle luxury; they are a vital necessity to any prosperous economy. [fuck that. Start giving everyone a home of their own and everyone will get by on minimum wage. It's fucking rent that kills a family! The money would come from the war chest which is bottomless]
The president has praised Costco, [was this before or after they pulled that d'Souza book?] for example, as a company that “pays good wages and offers good benefits,” saying that “this isn’t just good for their business, it’s good for America.” Costco pays its hourly workers an average of over $20 an hour, not including overtime. [the company must be rife with nepotism and cronyism, and it explains why I never see a "Costco is hiring" ad anywhere. Just the thing a Democrat craves.]  Eighty-eight percent have health-care benefits. [Yo, did you hear, Obamacare offers one-hundred percent] The contrast with the low-road model of Wal-Mart, which relies on employees collecting food stamps and Medicaid, is stark. Yet Costco is successful, benefiting from loyal, committed and productive employees, who stay at the company and rise in the ranks. [do your homework, Ms. Heuvel, Costco has HALF the number of employees per sq.ft. as the others. Those employees HAVE to be more productive and should be paid more else Costco could only hire undoc's]
Obama could use the Good Jobs Executive Order to make federal procurement a spur to high-road employers. Millions would be helped directly. Democratic governors and mayors could issue similar orders. Once more, as under Roosevelt, government could stand with workers, helping to build rather than undermine an economy in which the rewards are widely shared. [get rid of wall street, damn it. The CEO would be under no pressure to outsource or in any way kill jobs.]
Republicans want to make an election issue out of Obama’s use of executive actions to overcome their obstruction? The president should double down and raise the stakes. Democrats would win that fight — and they would deserve to win. [like I've said with every positive thing that Obama has done or offered to do: why didn't he put on his pants earlier in the game when his chances were no different than today--imho?] [one final note: I've offered solutions to fix unemployment while utilizing union power but no one is interested in paradigm shifts that might take them out of their comfort zone--and that's your problem too, Ms. Heuvel. Shut up and enjoy your upcoming cruise.]