Obama vs. Jobs; Hope vs. Reality

[midnight]

http://my.firedoglake.com/davidswanson/2011/10/16/obama-vs-jobs-hope-vs-reality/#comments

If Obama or Reid or the Democratic Party or MoveOn.org or anybody else thinks the people occupying the streets of our cities in protest are going to fall for this, they’ve got a very rude awakening coming. The Occupation movement is one that brings policy demands to the government, not partisan pretense to a pseudo-combat with the goal of bipartisanship or the election of either flavor of crypto-fascist corporate servants.

The question is not whether we want to risk electing a racist buffoon to the imperial throne. The question is whether we want to join those who are making major sacrifices to occupy our city squares and move our entire culture and our entire government toward peace and justice instead of plutocracy and planetary collapse. Do we want to avoid a war on Iran before it happens or turn against it once we have a Republican president? Do we want to halt global warming or lament its advances later? Do we want to overthrow our financial oligarchy or hope it changes the appearance of the curtains behind which it works?

The genius of the 99% movement is that it brings people’s demands to the government. Nobody is asking a political party what to demand, whom to confront, and whose crimes to grant immunity. We’re uniting as a people to insist on representation in our government. The notion that we already have it from either half of our government is so ludicrous as to reveal those who make that claim to be engaging in fraud.

We now have a majority supporting the nonviolent occupations. And we have 99% of that majority sitting on its rear ends.

OWS has made it clear that both the left and right are not helping....

[Arctic Dave]

1. "the left and right are not helping" Amen to that. nt

[Vincardog]

2. Net recommendation: +2 votes (Your vote: +1)

[emilyg]

4. +8

[midnight]

3. Kalleberg shows that by the 1970s, government deregulation, global competition, and our decline...

Good Jobs, Bad Jobs provides an insightful analysis of how and why precarious employment is gaining ground in the labor market and the role these developments have played in the decline of the middle class. Kalleberg shows that by the 1970s, government deregulation, global competition, and the rise of the service sector gained traction, while institutional protections for workers—such as unions and minimum-wage legislation—weakened. Together, these forces marked the end of postwar security for American workers. https://www.russellsage.org/publications/good-jobs-bad-jobs

[midnight]

5. Look at these key findings for workforce provisions...

When it comes to creating jobs to jump-start our nation’s economy, we have to ensure they are good, family-sustaining jobs that offer career advancement. Construction projects have the opportunity to do just that—especially when they utilize opportunities to employ traditionally disadvantaged communities and local workers.

A new study by Cornell University finds that public and private construction projects across the United States that utilize Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are increasingly implementing community workforce agreements (CWAs) to ensure that local residents - particularly women, people of color, and military veterans - have a path to a brighter economic future. Nationwide, the utilization of these workforce development provisions is on the rise because they are effective tools for maximizing the benefits of job creation strategies and creating prosperous career paths for the communities that need them most.

Among the key findings:

Of the 185 PLAs analyzed for the report, 97 percent incorporated one or more community workforce provisions – most often including goals for hiring local area residents and utilizing apprenticeship programs.
139 PLAs included Helmets-to-Hardhats provisions to promote the entry of veterans into the construction industry.
103 PLAs included provisions to encourage hiring of women and minorities.
45 PLAs included provisions for employment and career opportunities for economically disadvantaged populations.
One such agreement in New York City established a direct entry system for women, minorities, and low-income individuals to access apprenticeship training and employment opportunities under several government projects covered by PLAs. If the $105 billion dedicated to construction projects in President Obama’s jobs plan was spent on projects with CWAs identical to the New York City agreement, approximately 525,000 good jobs could be created—including 114,000 apprenticeships so workers could earn while they learned. And you could expect to see up to 70,000 workers of color fill those apprentice slots, along with thousands of women, veterans, and low-income residents.http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/state-battles/project-labor-agreements/community-workforce-provisions-a-tool-for-building-middle-class-careers-20111006-1055-415-415.html

» Download the report (PDF)

[midnight]

6. Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, who is running for an open US Senate seat in 2012, made th

“Trade agreements should be in the best interests of our nation and its people, but sadly this has not been the case with the past free trade agreements,” Baldwin told the House. “Have some of our wealthiest corporations profited from them? Indeed. But the rest of America, especially the middle class, has struggled with job loss, closed factories, and economic and emotional anguish across the country.”

Citing a study issued by the Economic Policy Institute, which reveals that more than 680,000 US jobs have been lost or displaced due to the rise in the trade deficit with Mexico alone since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was enacted in 1994. Baldwin explained: “I hear from Wisconsin families every day that are struggling mightily—struggling to pay the mortgage, put food on the table, and send their kids to college, especially during these uncertain economic times. The solution is to put our people back to work and preserve American jobs. When done right, trade agreements can help bolster our manufacturing and high-skilled technology industries and create jobs as they increase exports and help our economy recover. Done wrong, trade agreements send these same jobs offshore, leaving Americans out of work. Unfortunately, I believe these trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia will exacerbate the US trade deficit and further erode our manufacturing base.”

Lori Wallach, who directs Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, made the political case.

“It is bizarre that President Barack Obama has switched from his long-awaited focus on jobs to spending effort passing three George W. Bush–signed, NAFTA-style trade deals that official government studies show will increase our trade deficit even as polls show most Americans oppose NAFTA-style trade pacts and recognize that they kill American jobs,” said Wallach. “The only way these deals will pass is if congressional GOP lawmakers expose themselves to the foreseeable election attack ads and provide President Obama almost all of the votes; most congressional Democrats will oppose these deals, which are loved by the US Chamber of Commerce and despised by the Democratic base groups. Apparently, the Obama team has a way to win re-election that does not involve Ohio or other industrial swing states. We saw with NAFTA in 1993 the dire political consequences of a Democratic president blurring distinctions between the parties on this third-rail issue of trade and jobs. And unlike NAFTA, this time, even official government studies show that these pacts will increase our trade deficit.”http://www.thenation.com/blog/163958/obama-wrong-wrong-wrong-about-free-trade?rel=emailNation

[Doctor_J]

7. Who are "the left that are not helping"?

I can't think of any leftists with any power at all.

[Bill USA]

8. If only Mr. Swanson could magically find a way to get the Repunks from fighting every effort to get

the economy going into recovery from the Trickle Down - Deregulation Disaster, I'm sure Pres. Obama would love to here it. The only way I can think of would put one at odds with the law. They demanded downsizing the original stimulus by about 40% as their price for not fighting it entirely (filibuster by amendment) by delaying it. Delaying passage of the stimulus bill is the same as killing it, as a stimulus delayed is no stimulus at all.