Next Up: A Battle over Unionization

Next Up: A Battle over Unionization
By Jerome Grossman

In recent decades the number of U. S. workers in unions has declined dramatically from a peak of more than 35% to below 10%. Some of the factors in the decline have been the weakness of industry and manufacturing in America, the lengthy political dominance (now ended) of the anti-union Republican Party, the rulings of the National Labor Relations Board and the sophisticated anti-union tactics that some employers have used to sway or intimidate workers before the first union election.

The unions believe that a bargaining unit should be formed as soon as a majority of workers sign authorization cards. The employers now have the right to call for a subsequent secret ballot vote on unionization. This dual process often results in lengthy delays, angry relationships, employer pressures and legal expense more easily borne by the employer.

For years the labor movement has been trying to pass a law, The Employee Free Choice Act, to take employers out of the decision of the workers to organize themselves by recognizing card check elections as decisive.

The unions base their argument on the National Labor Relations Act, signed in 1935 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which made unionization the national policy, "To protect the rights of employees and employers, to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector labor and management practices......"

Last year, the House of Representatives passed 241 to 185 a bill requiring employers to recognize unions organized by card check. In the Senate, the bill passed 51 to 48 on a party-lined vote but failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to prevent filibuster.

Prospects for passage will be better in 2009. The Democrats will have at least 57 senators, perhaps 58, some GOP senators from heavily unionized states are up for reelection, and the legislation is supported by President-elect Obama, and Vice President-elect Biden.

The unions are already calling the legislation "An economic stimulus package for America's working families." The employers will cite the cost to business in a recession and the sanctity of the secret ballot. The general public may wish to support an increase in share for US workers in the declining American pie, a share that has gone down dramatically since the 1970s.

Presidents Promises

Presidents Promises
By Jerome Grossman

Richard Holbrooke, US Ambassador to the United Nations from 1999 to 2001, and a likely member of the Obama administration, wrote in Foreign Affairs (October 2008) that “It is a well-established historical fact that what candidates say about foreign policy is not always an exact guide to what they will do if elected.”

Franklin Roosevelt promised in 1940 to not send “your boys.........into any foreign wars."

Lyndon Johnson stated in 1964 that he would not send ground troops to Vietnam.

Richard Nixon referred in 1968 to a non-existent "secret plan to get out of Vietnam.”

Jimmy Carter pledged in 1976 to withdraw all US ground troops from South Korea.

Ronald Reagan pledged in 1982 to upgrade US relations with Taiwan to "official" status.

Bill Clinton promised in 1992 to take a strong stand on Bosnia and stand up to the "Butchers of Beijing."

George W. Bush called in 2000 for a "more humble" foreign policy and no more "nation building."

Some candidates believe in their campaign pledges. Others adopt them to win over constituencies. Some change positions upon reaching the White House because the situation has changed. A responsible supporter of a president must make the determination of motive and act accordingly, above all avoiding blind support.

Can Obama Do Change?

Can Obama Do Change?
By Jerome Grossman

Immediately after his election, President-elect Barack Obama was properly deferential to George W. Bush and the U. S. Constitution: "We have only one president at a time." However, it has not worked out that way. Obama has dominated the news every day, with multiple press conferences announcing his teams of advisors and Cabinet appointments while answering questions on foreign and domestic policies. At the same time he makes personal appearances (60 minutes, Meet the Press, etc.) designed to establish close relationships with the citizens.

Clearly, the US has two presidents in effect. As Bush recedes in public consciousness, the outgoing president seems baffled by the Obama phenomenon. Plaintively, he told Charlie Gibson on ABC television that he ran for president in 2000 on a program for change and before that had been elected governor of Texas promising change. Then he giggled.

Some Obama supporters are questioning his appointments drawn from the pool of establishment figures who had worked in high positions in the Clinton and Bush administrations. They worry whether such people can deliver the change promised by Obama in his presidential campaign. There are also complaints that significant sectors of the electorate are unrepresented, particularly labor, liberals and anti-Iraq war activists. Obama supporters also worry that he will not receive a full range of options from teams of centrist advisors. While his appointment of Republicans will give the president the views of the right, it is not matched by views from the left. And this is a Democratic president.

When asked to respond to this situation, Obama says that he is the changer, the idea man, that his appointees were the best qualified to carry out his changes. However, as brilliant as he is, Obama is unlikely to know the full range of options and possibilities and history to change the way the government works in foreign and domestic policies. No one could.

With nostalgia, Obama supporters remember the glory days of the campaign when their candidate led the enormous crowds chanting "We are the people we have been waiting for", emphasizing repeatedly the mantra that change will bubble up from the people. They remember the repeated calls for “Change we can believe in “, and the denunciation of lobbyists: “When I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House “.

These questions have not affected Obama's popularity, now at new heights. Most Americans along with most of the rest of the world are overjoyed that the failed Bush presidency is almost over and that America has repudiated its racist past by electing an African-American as president. Love is in the air but after the honeymoon, Obama will have to deliver.

Where is the Change?

Where is the Change?
By Jerome Grossman

Is it too early to criticize Barack Obama for his program, his appointments, and his policies? He is not yet president but he is dominating the news and influencing markets and foreign-policy as though he had already been inaugurated. At the same time, he tells us that we have only one president at a time and that president is George W. Bush.

Personnel indicates policy, often determines policy, and Obama's appointments are from the establishment on both domestic and foreign affairs. Yet Obama's prime message during his meteoric rise to power was "change". How can establishment figures from both parties install significant change?

Obama’s foreign and military policies will be developed by four power centers: Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and National Security Adviser, Marine General James Jones. All supported the invasion of Iraq; none advocate immediate withdrawal from that country or revision of US world-wide military involvement.

Obama's economic team is dominated by veterans of the Clinton and Bush administrations, who participated in the repeal of financial regulations, an act that precipitated the current crisis. Robert Rubin guided Citicorp to its current bankrupt position, Lawrence Summers was the prime mover for the repeal and Timothy Geithner is a Bush appointee. How can Obama entrust the American economy to these failures?

During his campaign Barack Obama exhorted the adoring crowds of supporters with, “We are the people we have been waiting for". Well, where are these people? He promised reform ideas for fundamental change of the system. The voters projected on him their personal ideals and idiosyncratic hopes for change. They are sure to be disappointed at Obama’s emphasis on traditional experience by establishment figures who brought us to the current crisis.

And a large part of the Obama vote came from liberals. It's fair to ask, "Where are the liberals in the Obama administration?" Obama is seeking support from conservative Republicans, offers to include their ideas and opinions in his programs, and appoints them to key positions, a process that pushes the Obama agenda in a conservative direction.

Do the liberals have the abilities and experience to manage these bureaucracies, to furnish the necessary ideas? For answers consult the Nobel Prize winners, the faculties of our finest universities, the managers of some of our largest businesses. The liberals are there, in big numbers, but not on Obama’s list.

Obama needs to answer important questions about his administration. Where are the liberals? Where are the people who voted against the war? Where are the prescient who warned against financial deregulation? Where are the advisors who will give Obama a full range of policy options to make him a better problem solver and successful president?

Don't Help GM and Ford

Don't Help GM and Ford
By Jerome Grossman

Please don't help General Motors and Ford. Loaning them $25 billion to ride out the world-wide economic perfect storm would be a waste of money. Every patriotic American knows that it is more important to save Baghdad than Detroit, or to put 100,000 Sunnis on the US payroll in Anbar Province for doing nothing, our current policy. Money for the automobile companies could be better spent in Iraq looking for Saddam Hussein's fictitious weapons of mass destruction. The funds saved in Michigan could be given to the Halliburton Corporation for one of their no-bid contracts. There will be plenty of opportunities to spend even more in Iraq now that the government there is about to authorize our presence for the next three years - and maybe longer if enough Iraqis rebel against our occupation and Iraq doesn’t run out of oil. No problem about the money. We have already spent about one trillion dollars in Iraq on an invasion based on lies told to the United Nations and the US Congress. And we didn’t even have a plan, ask Bush and Rumsfeld. Just like GM and Ford don't have a plan. And the generals and government officials and Members of Congress get to fly to Iraq in specially equipped US military jets, flights that cost $100,000 each, just to get their names in the newspapers to tell us that we are winning but whisper that we must stay as long as Iraq has oil and favors US oil companies. Hey, it's only money, better spent in Baghdad than Detroit or to pay for the 700 military bases we have in 130 other countries. First things first.

Money in Politics

Money in Politics
By Jerome Grossman


"Politics has got so expensive that it takes lots of money to even get beat with".
Will Rogers, 1931

"Nothing but money
Is sweeter then honey"
Benjamin Franklin, 1735

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce"
President James A. Garfield, 1880

"Knowledge - Zzzzp! Money-Zzzzp! - Power! That’s the cycle democracy is built on!
Tennessee Williams, The Glass Menagerie", 1945

How important is money in politics? The Federal Election Commission has recently released the following information:

In 2006 the top spenders won 94% of US House of Representative races:

and 73% of the U.S. Senate races

In 2004 the top spenders won 78% of US House of Representative races

and 88% of the U.S. Senate races

Figures for 2008 election are not yet available but we know that at least $5 billion was spent on Presidential, House, Senate races and that President-elect Barack Obama outspent GOP nominee John McCain by an estimated margin of at least three to one, giving Obama a great advantage in advertising, paid workers, organization.

Clearly, well meant initiatives like the McCain- Feingold election law controlling political spending in elections has failed. However, we cannot cease efforts to make the electoral process fair to candidates with fewer resources. Our national goals of equality and democracy demand continued searches for the right formula.

The War on Recession

The War on Recession
By Jerome Grossman

The success of the Obama administration will be measured primarily by its performance in reviving the United States economy, now sliding toward widespread unemployment, corporate bankruptcy, with a desperate middle-class that has lost its life savings.

The Bush administration, with the assent of the Democratically-controlled Congress, has initiated fiscal policies that point the way for the Obama administration: give federal government money to banks and other corporate entities considered “Too big to fail”; accept in return partial ownership and a measure of control over the subsidized companies. To this menu, subsidies for the citizens must be added. Everybody should be on the gravy train.

This degree of government intervention would have been unthinkable only a few months ago, especially with a conservative Republican president. President Obama will build on the Congressional and Bush precedents by vastly increasing the already sanctified programs, extending them to include many more economic entities under financial pressure, relaxing the qualifications to save or help those with lesser clout. George W. Bush has given Barack Obama political cover.

Opposition to this dramatic and expensive program will be minimal. Some will decry expansion of government power and they will be correct. Others will cite waste and fraud as thousands of companies and millions of individuals get in line for federal dollars and they will be right. In justification of its extension of Bush policy, President Obama needs only to declare a “War on Recession”, the battle to save the American economy from defeat, from deflation, from massive unemployment, from the collapse of US world financial hegemony, from the diminution of Social Security and Medicare, from the possibility that other nations might take advantage of our plight, even challenging us militarily.

The people of America will respond positively to the call to war as they have so many times in the past: the war on terror, the war to save democracy, the war to end war, the Cold War, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc., etc. The amount that will be spent on this war will be many times the $700 billion already appropriated but only a fraction of the losses sustained by corporations and private investors. The safety of the nation is at stake. The price is not the decisive factor. We will spend any amount to insure economic stability and to guard against social disruption. All we need is a slogan, The War on Recession to rally public support and achieve focus. The rest is history and it begins on January 20, in President Obama’s inauguration address.

Put Obama in the White House – NOW

Put Obama in the White House – NOW
By Jerome Grossman

President George W. Bush should immediately invite President-Elect Barack Obama to participate in presidential decisions. Don’t wait until Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009. The financial crisis requires immediate coordinated action. We cannot afford to follow the traditional procedure as the economy sinks day by day.
On November 15, the leaders of 20 nations will meet in Washington to discuss the global financial crisis. United world action is absolutely necessary to prevent the utter collapse of stock prices and other financial instruments that are destroying the life savings of millions of people in America and around the globe and generating mass unemployment.
Any agreement signed by President Bush will be subject to the approval or repeal by President Obama in January. Valuable time will be lost as the new administration reviews the new agreement. We cannot afford to wait taking the chance that values and economic activity might decline even further.
President Bush has lost his popularity by a combination of errors and negative circumstances. Breaking tradition by involving Obama in policy decisions in this time of crisis will earn Bush public appreciation for putting America first by sharing power.

How Healthy are the Candidates

How Healthy are the Candidates
By Jerome Grossman

If you apply for residence in a retirement community you will be required to furnish medical information about your present state of health as well as your complete medical history. That information will determine whether or not you will be accepted.

If you are a candidate for president or vice president of the United States of America, with the responsibilities of commander- in- chief and the duty to execute the will of the Congress or vetoing their bills, there is no requirement that you submit to health examination or furnish medical information.

The health of the four major party nominees should be an important consideration to the voters because some past candidates as well as their doctors have concealed serious ailments that could have affected performance in office. Examples include Senator Tom Eagleton (depression), Senator Paul Tsongas (cancer), Senator Bill Bradley(heart), Richard Cheney (heart), Senator John F. Kennedy (Addison's disease), Franklin Delano Roosevelt (heart), Woodrow Wilson (stroke) to name only a few. They didn't tell and their doctors didn't either.

In the current election, John McCain has released more details about his health than the other three nominees but not enough for a complete medical history. He has limb difficulty from his Vietnam War injuries and has had extensive melanoma surgeries.

Barack Obama's campaign has released a single page letter from his doctor attesting to his "excellent health", the only possible medical problem is his difficulty in stopping smoking.

Sarah Palin has released no medical information and has declined to provide any health records.

Joseph Biden has had two brain aneurysms for which he had two major operations with a major complication: a blood clot lodged in his lung.

McCain and Biden clearly have medical histories that might affect their abilities to do their jobs. Obama and Palin appear to have no serious problems but the voters have no way to be sure.

Clearly, there ought to be an organized way of checking all aspects of their health and the information ought to be given to the electorate as a condition for a running for office. The authority to use the nuclear bomb ought to be as jealously guarded as admittance to a retirement community.

The Next President's Honeymoon

The Next President's Honeymoon
By Jerome Grossman

The next president will inherit the leadership of a country beset with extraordinary domestic and foreign problems, the solution of which will determine his place in history and his chances for re-election.

The Wall Street implosion has reduced the standard of living for millions of Americans, stifled business activity, dramatically increased unemployment and threatened the value of the dollar.

The Bush administration will have spent at least $1 trillion by inauguration day to rescue the US banking system from the first stage of the emergency. Will there be sufficient funds available to finance the campaign promises on health care, infrastructure, military, education, etc. without running the risk of runaway inflation?

The next president must also resolve the unpopular wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. US troops have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan since 2001, in Iraq since 2003, in Pakistan since 2007 at great cost in blood and treasure. These military engagements cannot continue indefinitely.

The next president may have four years to end these crises, perhaps less, certainly not more. The next election will be congressional and the president had better show serious progress on these issues else his party will suffer at the polls. Then he himself will run for re-election with no chance if the situations are not dramatically improved.

Mount Rushmore will be the reward for success but the choices and the tools available to the next president are limited. New presidents usually have political honeymoons but the next president may have the shortest honeymoon in history.