The Reader's Corner
Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from it's death throes? He's now 82 years old and has a new book, and here are some excerpts. Lee Iacocca says:
"Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course"
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America , not the damned "Titanic". I'll give you a sound bite: "Throw all the bums out! "
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq , the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom -poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the " America " my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest "C" is Crisis ! (Iacocca elaborates on nine Cs of leadership, crisis being the first.)
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A Hell of a Mess So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which way. These are times that cry out for leadership.
But when you look around, you've got to ask : "Where have all the leaders gone?" Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we k now how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane,or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm.
Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now , that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when "The Big Three" referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it?
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?
Had Enough?
Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope I believe in America In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: the "Great Depression", "World War II", the "Korean War", the "Kennedy Assassination", the "Vietnam War", the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's this:
"You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play.
That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to "Action" for people who, like me, believe in America
It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had "enough."
Make your own contribution by sending this to everyone you know and care about. It's our country, folks; and it's our future. Our future is at stake!
McCain claims that his military experience qualifies him to be president during war time. Has anyone bothered to question this piece of received wisdom? McCain deserves credit for his service–but the war he served in ended 33 years ago. Saying McCain's service n Vietnam qualifies him to be commander-in-chief in 2008 would be like saying a World War I veteran's experience qualified him to be commander-in-chief during the Korean War.
Things have changed a bit since 1975, when the Vietnam War ended. The war McCain fought in was waged in the context of the Cold War, which has itself been over for nearly 20 years now. The conflict with Al Qaeda (from which Iraq is a distraction) will not end with a peace treaty or surrender by either side. It is not a traditional conflict between governments. McCain does not understand the nature of this conflict–sometimes he doesn't even understand who we're fighting against. He believes the struggle between Sunni and Shia in Iraq can be stopped if he gets both sides together and tells them to "stop the bickering".
McCain believes that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror–in fact Al Qaeda has established a safe haven in Pakistan, not Iraq. McCain still believes that it was a good idea to invade Iraq–even though the reason he gives for going to war turned out to be incorrect (Iraq had no WMD). Generals who have served in recent years flatly disagree with McCain and say the war itself was a mistake.
McCain likes to argue that his experience qualifies him to be commander-in-chief–and Hillary Clinton apparently agrees. But what good is "experience" in the abstract? Experience only matters if it leads to wisdom and good decisions. McCain's years of experience led him to support a misconceived war against a country that didn't attack us, a war that distracted us from dealing with those who actually did attack us, a war that has gone for five years already and shows no signs of ending.
Call me crazy, but the qualities I'd like to see in a wartime president are good judgment and good decisionmaking. The decision to invade Iraq was a terrible mistake, as even some Republicans and former supporters of the war concede.
John McCain exercised poor judgment when he supported the war. in Iraq. He continues to exercise poor judgment in failing to recognize that the war was a mistake.
Temperament also matters–we want a commander-in-chief who is steady, who inspires others to follow him or her, and who doesn't have a hair-trigger temper. This isn't just what I think–this is what military leaders say matters. Several military leaders question McCain's temperament. One retired general says he has "tremendous respect for McCain, but would not follow him." Another says "I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I'm a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor. I think it's a little scary. I think this guy's first reactions are not necessariy the best reaactions. I believe that he acts on impulse." Several Republicans, menbers of McCain's own party, echo this sentiment.
Hillary Clinton may be ready to concede McCain's qualifications without actually examining them. I think we can do a lot better than this. Fortunately, there is one candidate who showed the right judgment about Iraq, and continues to show the right judgment. I hope Obama, unlike Clinton, won't concede on McCain's qualifications to be commander-in-chief, because there is a lot to question here.
On this morning’s Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewed former President George H.W. Bush at his Presidential Library in Texas. Bush defends his son’s disastrous presidency, but later in the interview as he and Wallace stood in a mock up of a tent used by U.S. soldiers during the first Gulf War, he vehemently defended his decision not to march on to Baghdad in 1991.
While watching footage of news clips from the conflict, the Senior Bush becomes emotional when he describes what he believes to be the most lasting images from the conflict — the humane way in which the U.S. treated Iraqi prisoners.
The former President remembered the courage and humanity of American soldiers and he grew emotional.
Bush: “My favorite picture is a picture of American soldiers surrounding a guy whose been in a foxhole, Iraqi soldier, and the American guy says, we’re not going to harm you, we’re American soldiers.”
Bush: “…See, that side of the war never got — the fact that we treated those people with respect in spite of the fact they were the enemy, it’s really good.
Sadly, Mr. Bush would now be considered a coward and a terrorist sympathizer by his own party for these views. Go ahead and let it out, sir — the nation weeps with you for what your son has done in our name.
In 2006, the average CEO of a Standard & Poor's 500 company received $14.78 million in total compensation, according to a preliminary analysis by The Corporate Library. This represents a 9.4 percent increase in CEO pay over 2005.
A reasonable and fair compensation system for executives and workers is fundamental to the creation of long-term corporate value. However, the past two decades have seen an unprecedented growth in compensation for top executives and a dramatic increase in the ratio between the compensation of executives and their employees.
Boards of directors are responsible for setting CEO pay. Too often, directors award compensation packages that go well beyond what is required to attract and retain executives and reward even poorly performing CEOs. These executive pay excesses come at the expense of shareholders as well as the company and its employees.
Excessive CEO pay takes dollars out of the pockets of shareholders—including the retirement savings of America’s working families. Moreover, a poorly designed executive compensation package can reward decisions that are not in the long-term interests of a company, its shareholders and employees.
Working families won back the Congress on Nov. 7, exceeding the 15-seat margin needed to return the U.S. House of Representatives to Democratic leadership and gaining the six seats needed for a majority in the Senate. Union households voted 74 percent to 26 percent for Democratic candidates—and union members made up one in four voters. In key battleground states, union members voted 76 percent to 24 percent for Democrats.
Another day, another top military commander coming out against President Bush’s vague plan to pour 30,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq without a clear mission.
Today the honor belongs to Gen. John Abizaid, senior U.S. commander in the Middle East, who would eschew extra military force in favor of the White House’s least-favorite option: regional diplomacy. Says Abizaid: “You just can’t apply a microscope on a particular problem in downtown Baghdad and a particular problem in downtown Kabul and say that somehow or another, if you throw enough military forces at it, that you are going to solve the broader issues in the region of extremism.
The first 100 hours of a Democrat-controlled House promise to be an orgy of excess for the loony smear merchants on the left and their radical San Francisco hippy liberal agenda. Fair warning, America: this is why you should be mortified at the thought of a "Speaker" Nancy Pelosi:
Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds---"I hope with a veto-proof majority."
But here's what Nancy Pelosi won't tell you: these actions only apply to gays, feminists and George Soros. On November 7th, vote Republican. You won't get anything from us in return, but at least...neither will they.
This message paid for by Republicans Hanging By A Thread
One of the signature moves of the modern conservative movement is an almost childlike faith in the fairness of the free market. In their eyes all of the world's problems would be solved if we'd just get out of the way and let the "private sector do its job." Social Security? Medicare? Unemployment? All trivial problems of the past in an unregulated free market. All will be taken care of. The free market loves you. Trust the free market.
Part of free market operations involves leveraging every economic opportunity. Kudos to Northwest Airlines for taking this concept to its logical conclusion!
Facing insanely high fuel costs and record levels of traveler dissatisfaction, NorthWest Airlines realized they're probably on the cusp of needing to do some massive benefit cuts before the inevitable layoffs.
As any large company might do, NWA wanted to prepare their employees for life without, you know, money. So they handed out a booklet entitled "Preparing for a Financial Setback" to about 50 employees to help them prepare. Some of the advice? Consider shopping at thrift stores (good news for Wal-Mart), take a date for a walk on the beach or in the woods (woods...a little creepy, but okay), and of course don't be "shy about pulling something you like out of the trash."
Well, sure, who hasn't pulled something out of the trash before? I knew companies were getting rid of their pensions, but this is a little ridiculous. What's next? "By law pet food is suitable for human consumption. Consider Purina Cat Chow as a low-cost alternative to people food." Or "Medicine's are expensive. Ask yourself, `Is this life really worth it?'"
So, smile America! Sure we're all getting dumped on in this economy, but that doesn't mean we can't take that crap out of the dumpster and make...I don't know...an inexpensive meal.
Here are some more great money saving ideas!
"There's no law stating that toilet paper can only be used once. Make each use count, then wash hands vigorously!"
"Your company stock certificates aren't worthless! You can frame them to decorate your house, make paper airplanes to remind you of the good old days, or even burn them for warmth! Be creative!"
"Due to recently-heightened security measures, there is an unlimited amount of partially-used bottled water, toothpaste, and hair gel available.
For all who wondered how much money NWA paid to produce this pamphlet, good news! They took their own advice and got it for free. It's a list from the Consumer Credit Counceling Service of San Francisco.
What are the Top Ten best things that conservatives have given to America?
Yesterday, Bob Herbert noted that the federal minimum wage’s purchasing power has deteriorated by 20% over the last decade. After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955.
House Republicans are apparently feeling the heat. They’ve repeatedly blocked consideration of an increase, but are now prepared to give the issue a floor vote.
With Democrats plotting to make the minimum wage a major issue in this fall’s congressional races, House Republican leaders are conceding that they may have to yield to pressure for an increase to the federal standard, which has been frozen for nearly a decade.
Faced with elections that could cost them control of Congress, John A. Boehner, the House majority leader, acknowledged Thursday that Republican leaders are likely to reverse course and hold a vote on a proposed minimum wage increase. Though Boehner said it was a "cynical ploy" for Democrats to make it a campaign centerpiece, polls indicate that voters clearly favor an increase in the wage, and Boehner acknowledged that GOP leaders are "probably going to have to find some way to deal with it."
Keep in mind, Senate Republicans already helped reject an increase, and House Republicans will likely do the same.
But at least voters will have a chance to consider how every member of Congress — especially those who don’t mind seeing their own taxpayer-financed salary go up — votes on a minimum-wage increase before the November elections.
This weekend, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez fired a shot across the bow of any journalists who still haven’t been intimidated by this administration. Suggesting that the government might prosecute reporters for publishing “classified” information – you know, things like the NSA spying on law-abiding Americans – Mr. Gonzalez seemed to be dropping a major hint to outfits like the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Gonzalez, appearing on ABC’s “This Week” stated, regarding prosecution of journalists, “There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility”. Well Mr. Gonzalez, I’ll see your statutes and raise you one Constitutional Amendment. I’d really love to see the federal government start prosecuting journalists for exposing illegal activity on the part of the government. No court will uphold any such prosecution, including the dubya-stacked Supreme Court.
Not to mention the media backlash that would follow any Bush admin. prosecution of journalists. Remember something Mr. Gonzalez… it’s the media that helps to frame public opinion of your administration, and not just the media that you control. It wasn’t Congress that brought down Richard Nixon. It wasn’t the American people. It wasn’t the opposition party, it wasn’t his own party. It was the media. It was honest, aggressive reporters, and they didn’t even have an axe to grind. Imagine how kind they will be to you when you start prosecuting their colleagues. The old adage applies here… “Those who forget the past…”
And let’s not forget the hypocrisy here. The double standard. If Mr. Gonzalez were to apply his logic consistently, Robert Novak would be in jail. Mr. Novak after all, who I hesitate to call a journalist, was the one who first published not only Valerie Plame’s identity, but “outed” an entire CIA brass-plate operation, Brewster-Jennings. And then there are those within the administration who have leaked info, sometimes for political gain. Do not ask for whom the bell tolls Mr. Gonzalez, it tolls for thee.
Prosecuting journalists for reporting the truth. What’s next, hauling me off to jail for writing an opposing view? Bring it on. If that is what it takes for America to see what this administration is all about, I say, “bring it on.”
05/03/06
The ERIC investigations continue
So far, six employees who were suspended pending investigation, have been returned to work, paid for their suspension time, and received no further discipline
Two employees who were initally suspended pending investigation were returned to work, paid for their suspension and received a warning of dismissal.
Six employees received a thirty day suspension and a warning of dismissal.
Sixteen employees were dismissed based on the results of the investigation.
Twelve employees are still in the process of being investigated.
A cell-phone tower or an antenna attached to a light pole may strike some neighbors as an eyesore, but there's not much the local city council can do about it.
That was the verdict Tuesday from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said California law does not allow local governments to veto telecommunications sites because of their appearance.
In the first ruling on the issue by an appellate court, the three-judge panel overturned an ordinance in the Los Angeles suburb of La Cañada Flintridge prohibiting any above-ground utility structure that would cause a negative aesthetic impact on the public right-of-way or the surrounding neighborhood.
The ordinance, passed in 2001, was challenged by Sprint PCS, whose applications to put wireless antennas on utility poles in two areas were rejected on the grounds that they would be unsightly.
Reversing a federal judge's ruling, the appeals court said such local regulations are unauthorized by state law, which allows communications companies to put lines and poles on public roads as long as they do not incommode the public use of the road.
Although an extremely ugly structure might make passing drivers uncomfortable, the language of the law "focuses on the function of the road - its use, not its enjoyment, said Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain in the 3-0 ruling. He said a more recent state law, allowing cities to exercise reasonable control of the time, place and manner by which its roads are accessed, was not broad enough to authorize aesthetic regulation.
The court rejected the city's argument that its policy was authorized by the 1996 federal Telecommunications Act, which allows any state or local government to regulate wireless facilities. That law can't be interpreted to allow wholesale local regulation in conflict with state law, O'Scannlain said, in light of the express purpose of the federal statute to encourage the rapid deployment of new technologies.
A Sprint spokeswoman, said the ruling was good for wireless companies and their customers. The main reason for such construction, she said, is that our customers and constituents are asking for more comprehensive and complete and better coverage.
Sometimes it helps to draw back from what's going on, to see if any patterns emerge from the chaos of daily events. In the news biz, attempts to see the Big Picture are known as thumbsuckers and regarded with appropriate contempt.
On the famous other hand, it's also sometimes the only way to see the much bigger stories that seep and creep all around us without anyone ever calling a press conference, or issuing talking points, or having gong-show debates over them.
Everybody and his dog in the political commentating trade now agrees the Bush administration is experiencing hard times -- the going is getting tough, and Bush is getting testy. Bush always gets testy under stress. This is not news.
It seems to me what we are looking at was put best by noted journalist Billy Don Moyers, formerly of Marshall, Texas, who was home last week and observed that the Republican right came to Washington to start a revolution and stayed to run a racket. It has become a game of ideological flim-flam, a scam in which all manner of distracting hoo-hah -- abortion, judicial activism, even "the war on terra" -- is used to obscure the fact that the government has been taken over by people who are using it to make money for themselves and their friends.
In the business world, this is called "control fraud," and it refers to an organization, like Enron or Tyco, that is rotten at the head. One of the key figures in this web of malfeasance is Jack Abramoff, the super-lobbyist, top fund-raiser for Bush's re-election and close buddy of Rep. Tom DeLay, himself the architect of the "K Street Strategy" to convert the entire business lobby into the fund-raising arm of the Republican Party in return for whatever legislative favors the major donors want. Abramoff is also the close ally and former college roommate of Grover Norquist, a key right-wing political activist and major leader of the "movement conservatives" in Washington. Abramoff has also bragged that he contacted Karl Rove on behalf of Tyco.
Tim Flanigan, Bush's nominee to be deputy attorney general, left the White House Office of Legal Counsel in December 2002 to become the top lawyer for Tyco. Flanigan hired Abramoff to lobby for Tyco. He was to work against proposed legislation that would take away tax breaks from "Benedict Arnold" corporations that locate in tax havens outside the United States in order to get out of paying corporate taxes. Tyco is based in Bermuda.
Abramoff told Flanigan he would use his contacts with both DeLay and Karl Rove, "Bush's Brain," to lobby for keeping the tax breaks for Tyco. Think about it. Bush now proposes to put in as second in command of the Justice Department, which is investigating this whole mess, the man who is Tyco's lawyer and who hired Abramoff. If Flanigan is confirmed, that will mean the five top appointees at Justice have zero prosecutorial experience among them. But Flanigan does have the only quality that truly matters in a Bush appointee: absolute loyalty to the administration.
Washington, D.C., is theoretically covered by the largest concentration of journalistic talent anywhere in the world. This is just a straight, old-fashioned corruption story of the sort theoretically uncovered by many Washington reporters earlier in their lives at various city halls. Did everyone forget how it's done?
Equally, the arrest of David Safavian, former head of procurement at the White House Office of Management and Budget, for having impeded justice by lying or covering up material facts opens up all kinds of lines of inquiry. Safavian was previously a partner in Norquist's consulting firm Janus-Merritt. Safavian also worked with Abramoff at another law-lobbying firm.
One definition of Establishment journalism is relying solely on press conferences held by people with public office and power. With the exception of The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, the Washington press corps appears to be standing around waiting for word from the official investigation. Why aren't they ahead of the official investigators?
Seems to me we have all mourned the descent of politics from the noble (if messy and comically picturesque) doings of democracy into a system of legalized bribery. Taking huge campaign contributions from special interests and doing legislative favors in return is so common one barely blinks at it.
Rep. Roy Blunt, the man Republicans chose to temporarily replace DeLay while he's under indictment, tried to alter a Homeland Security bill in 2003 with a last-minute provision to benefit the cigarette company Philip Morris. Philip Morris had not only contributed heavily to Blunt's campaign, it also employed both Blunt's girlfriend and his son. DeLay gets indicted, and the Republicans replace him with another DeLay.
The executive branch scandals seem to me to be a new and more sinister level of corruption. I can't wait to have Tim Flanigan investigate them.
Many people complain that the democrats are quick to complain about the President's policies, but never offer any ideas of their own.
Well, I am a Democrat, and I would like to offer up a couple of my own ideas.
Many experts have argued that losing jobs overseas is both inevitable and ultimately healthy for the U.S. economy. They claim that policy solutions that would inhibit the movement of jobs within an unfettered global marketplace will be counter-productive and costly. What these arguments ignore, however, is that the destruction of U.S. jobs is not occurring on a level playing field resulting from neutral policies. Rather, a broad range of state and federal policies allow, facilitate and even reward the destruction of U.S. jobs. Government policies lavish tax breaks, government contracts, and easy access to the U.S. market on companies that destroy good jobs and exploit lax workers’ rights to produce overseas. These misguided policies hurt America’s working families and fail to promote equitable economic development in other countries.
Policymakers must reform policies that encourage and reward job destruction and implement new policies that will create good jobs for the future. While no single policy measure provides a magic bullet for stopping job loss, a dramatic re-orientation of U.S. policy that removes incentives for shipping jobs offshore, while fostering healthy conditions at home for job creation, will go a long way towards building a more balanced global economy that works for working families.
1) Remove Incentives to Ship Jobs Overseas
Taxes: Current law allows companies to defer paying taxes on their overseas income indefinitely while deducting many of the expenses associated with moving offshore – this provides a double subsidy to U.S. companies that ship work overseas, effectively penalizing those companies that keep jobs in the U.S. Ending overseas tax breaks would generate an additional $7 to 12 billion a year in tax revenue and eliminate the perverse incentive to move work abroad to avoid paying taxes. Public Contracts and Subsidies: Many companies that ship work overseas receive billions of dollars worth of government procurement contracts, subsidies and state and local tax abatements. These taxpayer-financed benefits usually come with very few strings attached, allowing companies to skim additional profits by performing publicly funded work overseas. Laws at the local, state and federal level should be reformed to ensure our taxpayer dollars are not subsidizing the destruction of American jobs. Currency: A number of U.S. trading partners – China in particular – manipulate the value of their currency relative to the dollar to give their exports to the U.S. an artificial cost advantage, while making American products more expensive. This puts American producers and workers at an impossible cost disadvantage, effectively shutting them out of export markets and undermining their competitiveness at home. The U.S. must take immediate and aggressive action to ensure that the dollar is appropriately valued and withdraw trade benefits from countries that insist on manipulating their currency to unfair advantage, in violation of international trade rules. Trade Laws: Domestic trade laws enable the government to redress unfair trade practices that give an illegitimate advantage to overseas production. These laws were intended to provide the first line of defense for American producers and workers, yet they are very poorly enforced. The World Trade Organization has weakened our ability to use these laws, and on-going trade negotiations may undermine these laws even further. We must vigorously enforce our domestic trade laws, defend them from challenge, and work to strengthen them in the future. Trade Agreements: Trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) create new rights, but no responsibilities, for companies that ship jobs overseas. NAFTA contains strong legal protections for companies investing abroad and guaranteed access for their products into the U.S. market. But NAFTA provides no comparable protections for the rights of workers and the environment, allowing companies to escape their international obligations by shipping work overseas. We must fundamentally reform flawed trade rules to hold companies accountable for respecting workers’ rights no matter where they produce.
2) Reward the Creation of Good Jobs in the United States
Health Care: Ballooning health care costs are creating a crisis for all American families and companies, with particularly devastating impacts on American manufacturers. The absence of a functional health care policy in the U.S. not only denies millions access to quality, affordable health care – it also impairs our companies’ ability to compete with companies in nations that control costs and share them more broadly, rather than imposing the burden on individual employers and employees. A national solution to our health care crisis is needed to reduce cost burdens on American firms and workers and make U.S. production more competitive. Public Investment: New technologies and productivity advances require wise investments, and the public sector can play an important role in stimulating such innovation. The U.S. needs a comprehensive policy on education and training, research and development, infrastructure investment, and energy independence to spur innovation and ensure it leads to the creation of more good jobs. State and local economic development policies also have an important role to play in helping American producers remain competitive in the global economy.
3) Improve Transparency and Protect Consumers
Data Collection: There are no comprehensive, official data on how many U.S. jobs have been lost to trade and offshore outsourcing. Even government statistics on service sector imports are unreliable, since they are self-reported by importing companies. The U.S. government should collect detailed and comprehensive data on the number of jobs lost overseas due to offshore investments and trade, including by requiring all companies to fully disclose this information. Greater coordination among agencies that collect labor market and international economic data is also needed. Disclosure: Consumers have a right to know where the goods and services they purchase are produced – country of origin labels on goods sold in the U.S. are required by law, but there is no policy for “labeling” services sold in the U.S. Firms should be required to inform consumers where the services they purchase are produced and provided from, with penalties for disclosing false information and failures to disclose. Privacy and Security: Personal financial and medical data is being sent overseas without consumers’ knowledge or consent and without the full protection of domestic privacy laws. Projects with sensitive security information, such as infrastructure engineering and design, are also being sent overseas. Information with such serious privacy and security implications must be adequately protected– if it is allowed to be processed abroad at all, it must be governed by the same legal safeguards that apply in the U.S. and subject to prior informed consent from consumers.
4) Assist Displaced Workers
Program Coverage: While all displaced workers need adequate notice, income support, training and health care, when resources are limited the federal government has a special obligation to assist workers who lose their jobs to trade and offshore outsourcing. The current WARN (advance notice) and Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs are intended to help trade-impacted workers make the transition to new jobs, but these displaced worker programs need to be expanded and strengthened. The WARN act should be amended to apply to more workers and provide more notice before layoff. TAA needs to be expanded to cover all workers who lose their jobs to import competition or production shifts, regardless of the sector (manufacturing or services) in which they work or the country to which their job has gone. Program Administration: Significant additional funding will be needed to finance this expansion, and to support improved outreach, program administration, income support, health care, training, and wage insurance benefits that reach every worker who needs them. The Department of Labor must demonstrate the will to ensure workers receive the benefits to which they are entitled, and assist states in the effective administration of these benefits. Additionally, TAA programs should continue to be administered by state workforce agencies and state merit-staff, not contracted out to non-governmental entities.
5) Support Equitable and Sustainable Development Abroad
Development: Stimulating robust and stable development around the world not only benefits workers in other countries – it is essential to building a more balanced global economy where workers and countries can engage in high-road competition based on skills and productivity instead of a race to the bottom in wages and working conditions. Until workers in other countries are able to earn a decent wage and build a middle class, they will never be able to purchase the goods and services they produce, much less consume those produced in the U.S. Workers’ Rights: The international community must recognize strong workers’ rights as a key foundation for vigorous democracy and equitable economic development, and incorporate obligations to uphold these fundamental rights in international rules and institutions. Research shows observing workers’ rights is good for growth and it contributes to development by building democratic institutions, decreasing inequality, and encouraging political participation. Underestimating the role of workers’ rights in development ignores the history of the wealthiest countries, where unions proved critical to democratization and the growth of a middle class. Debt Relief and Aid: Crippling debt burdens prevent many developing countries from meeting basic human needs and investing in the building blocks of development. Many indebted governments pursue short-term, export-led growth strategies to earn the dollars they need to pay the costs of debt service – strategies that do little to promote sustainable development and put even more competitive pressure on American workers. The U.S. must work with other creditors to relieve unpayable debt burdens and enable governments to invest the resulting savings in development. In addition, the U.S. must increase development aid and ensure its delivery is guided by democratic participation from those most affected. International Financial Institutions: Too often, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank pressure countries to “reform” their economies in the wrong direction. They press for deregulation, privatization, liberalization of trade and financial markets, and rolling back labor market regulations, urging that such steps are needed to attract foreign investors and expand exports. These policy prescriptions have failed to create robust growth and reduce poverty, and they speed up the race to the bottom for workers everywhere. The international financial institutions must be fundamentally reformed to work with developing country governments, trade unions, and other citizens’ organizations to promote core workers’ rights, strengthen the rule of law and democratic institutions, and invest in domestically-oriented development strategies.
I, and many other union members have been watching with great interest, and a certain amount of shock, what's been happening with the airlines and their pension funds.
Well, call me silly, but here's the way I see it.
1. The companies are required by law to fund their pensions as they go. Somebody hasn't done that, and they should go to jail as a result.
2. The airlines have managed to find a way to pay out the huge bonuses it owed to it's CEO's without difficulty, but when it comes to the money they owe the regular working people, they are broke. I say you owe the money, you signed a contract with these people promising to pay the money, if necessary, the courts should seize property and assets to make up the difference. You shouldn't be allowed to file bankruptcy and then drive around town in a limo.
3. Sen. Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa has proposed to let the airlines have up to 25 years to repay the money they stole from their pension funds. Once again I say, those in charge should be in jail. The money you stole needs to be repaid immediately...voluntarily or otherwise.
Now, of course, Delta and Northwest have spoken up, they also would like to have 25 years to pay what they owe into their pension funds. Under current pension funding rules, Delta must contribute about $2.6 billion to its retirement plans to eliminate the gap between what those accounts hold in assets and what the company has promised in benefits. At the end of 2004, Northwest's pensions had $5.5 billion in assets and projected benefits of $9.2 billion -- a difference of $3.7 billion.
This under funding has to stop! Someone in government is supposed to be watching over these people to make sure that the pension funds are fully funded, obviously someone there is not doing their job as well, and maybe they too should be in jail.
The airlines, like any other business, needs to charge enough to cover expenses, or, fold up their tent and go home. It is not fair or appropriate to give them taxpayer money in order to keep losing good money after bad, and by assuming their pension plan obligations, and that's exactly what they are doing.
Call me crazy, but maybe the airlines, like all energy, should be regulated in order to ensure a stable, vital service that has a direct impact on the overall economy of the entire nation.
I saw your page about off-shoring, and wanted to share my story with your members.
I am 31 years old, and was earning $90,000 a year with handheld computer maker Palm. After being flown to India to train people whom I later realized were my replacements, and despite promises made by Palm, I was subsequently laid off. I have been unemployed for six months, splitting my time between raising my six-year-old son, and tech labor activism.
I was earning a comfortable living at Palm. When the company began to reorganize—laying off American jobs and sending them offshore—I never thought my position was in danger. I was told repeatedly before training my Indian team in Bangalore that my job safe. Then I got laid off.
The thing that frightens me most is the talk of outsourcing ultimately benefiting the American worker. Though we’ve been sending low wage jobs off shore for years, we have no historical reference for the effects of upper-level positions being off-shored. The economy is not going to absorb people who used to make six figures as it did with low-paying jobs—so many people in California are working for fractions of their former wages.
Losing my job has put a real strain on my family as well. I raise my six-year-old child alone, and seeing the stress unemployment has put on me only makes things harder for him. When I asked him what his New Year’s resolution was he said, “To get Mommy a job so she’ll be happy again.”
The nature of today’s economy makes me extremely fearful for his future. I was raised to think that getting an education and working hard assure you a good and steady job. Seeing off shoring run rampant in our country has helped me realize that I need to prepare my son to be a player in the global economy.
However, there is only so much one can do to adapt to globalization. We need the government to step in with policies that protect American workers. I’m extremely concerned that off shoring has reached epidemic proportions. President Bush’s priorities are disturbingly out of order, and unless we get someone in the White House who understands the needs and problems facing the American worker, I can only imagine the devastation we will face in the future.
<
The real issue with Social Security is this: the Federal bonds that are being used (about 1.5 trillion dollars worth) to absorb surplus FICA contributions will have to be redeemed at 2018 or whenever the lines cross. That can be done by taxes, or it can be done by open-market borrowing. Either way, revenue will be needed.
The problem is that the Bush deficits will make redemption almost impossible if they're not quickly extinguished.
Why nobody talks about this is beyond me. It isn't a hard idea, and it's exactly how the Bush deficits are going to destroy Mr and Ms Average American.
As a registered Republican, I'm getting a little tired of all of the negative Bush articles.
How about printing something positive for a change?
You write it up and send it in....I'll publish it.
James Grahme, Steward, Safety Committee Chair and member of CWA local 9410
What does it mean to have a Union Brother or Sister? Someone, who you not only spend your working life with, but who you
attend meetings with, work on solving grievances or safety problems, count votes on elections or walk with on a picket
line. A man or a woman who watches your back and you watch theirs. It means we are a family and we are not alone. As it has
been our motto in the labor movement for over a hundred years “ An injury to one is the concern of all,” I am in pain today
for I have lost my Friend, James Grahme, My Union Brother, a Steward, Safety Committee Chair and election committee member
of CWA local 9410, a former operator, service representative, testing technician and communications technician ESS. How did
he die so young at age 52, a year after he had retired from Pacific Bell? He died on November 25, 2003 from Mesothelioma a
cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. A week before he died he attended a safety committee meeting for the purpose of
having SBC place labels on Asbestos hazards in their buildings. Even while he was having a hard time breathing, his concern
was stated to me “Don’t let this happen to any one else! Please get the asbestos marked and removed where possible!” I
promised him I would work to accomplish that end and I shall do so, because he is my brother and you are my Brothers and
Sisters. We both want you not to be exposed to Asbestos. That is his legacy to you and my promise to our brother Jim
Grahme.
Services will be at The Nazareth House 245 Nova Albion Way San Rafel, Calif. 94903 415-479-8282 Friday December 5, at 7:00 pm
Rosary Saturday December 6, at 10:30 am Mass Same place.
The Family has asked that Donations in lieu of flowers go to :
Mesothelioma Research Foundation
1441 Eastlake Avenue, MC9172
Los Angeles, California 90089-9172
The Bush administration continues to headline the feel good Commerce Department report which
stated that the economy surged 7.2% in the last quarter. The truth is, if anyone reads beyond
the propaganda, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of hungry and poor in America.
Consumers, the report goes on to say, spent more because of Bush's tax cuts, home purchases
and low interest home refinancing. According to the measure used by economists, two-thirds of
all GDP is consumer spending.
Not included in this latest Commerce Department report was the fact that in September,
consumers spent less than the previous two months, resulting in the "largest over-the-month
decrease in spending in a year." Purposely omitted, of course, is the huge consumer credit
card debt that just keeps piling up along with record bankruptcies. Total unemployed workers
remained at 9 million with over 93,000 jobs lost in August alone as the unemployment rate
stayed at 6.1%. Fewer jobs does not translate into more progress.
Buried in the back pages of the daily newspapers are some startling statistics. From 2001 to
2002 there was an 8.6% increase in the number of hungry in the US and a 13% increase since the
year 2000. Also, about 34.6 million Americans were living in poverty last year, 1.7 million
more than in 2001.
But Bush continues to revise the facts almost on a daily basis, now selling the idea that the
more US military that are killed by the Iraqi insurgents the more progress we are making. Each
day brings new reports of bombings, anti-American demonstrations and attacks on Iraqi
infrastructure such as oil pipelines, medical facilities and government buildings.
So many "good things" are occurring it boggles the mind. For instance, in July the average
number of attacks on American military were about 12 per day. They are now averaging 33 per day and rising as more Arab countries like Syria and Iran arm guerillas with more equipment and weapons.
When General Tommy Franks, who coordinated the U.S.-led military attack on Iraq, was asked
about civilian casualties, he shot back: "We don't do body counts." In spite of the fact that no WMD have been found in Iraq (the stated reason Bush gave for the Iraq invasion) during the 6-month US occupation, Bush has been quite adamant about how much "freedom" we are bringing to that country.
More body bags does not translate into more progress, no matter how you spin it.
We hear little of the number of Iraqi citizens killed in these daily attacks.
But if the increase in the number of US military who are coming home in body bags is the
measure of his "success" then just think how much more successful he will appear to the
American people if they start doing body counts of the daily deaths of Iraqi citizens as well
as American soldiers.
It isn't enough that the Administration has presided over the loss of 3 million private sector
jobs; it isn't enough that the Administration has forced millions of working Americans to
remain in poverty by refusing to raise the minimum wage; it isn't enough that the
Administration has denied unemployment compensation to millions of people who want to work but
who, because of the desperate state of the economy, cannot find jobs; it isn’t enough that the
Administration denies low and middle income working families real tax cuts, including the
child tax credit, while showering hundreds of billions in cuts to the wealthiest of
Americans.
Now, through draft regulations issued by the Labor Department last March, they want to cut the
overtime wages of as many as 8 million Americans, including many police and firefighters,
nurses and other First Responders, who depend on their overtime pay to support their
families.
There is an amendment to stop these anti-worker regulations in their tracks. This
will be your only opportunity to save overtime pay for thousands of workers.
The amendment prohibits the Department of Labor from using funds to enforce any regulation
that would cut overtime pay. It does not effect the portion of Department of Labor’s
regulation that would permit some additional individuals from receiving overtime pay. This
amendment tracks bipartisan legislation introduced with the help of Representative Peter King
and others.
Millions of workers who receive time and a half for their overtime work today will be required
to work longer hours for less money under the proposal. Millions more who have long depended
upon overtime work to help make ends meet will face effective pay cuts as opportunities to
work overtime are diminished. These regulations take both time and money from working
Americans, which is why tens of thousands of individuals and organizations, including over
100 Members of the House, submitted formal comments on the regulations.
I urge you to contact your elected representatives and tell them that you support the
Obey/Miller amendment, and urge them to do the same. It's time to let them know that we are
not going to take it any more!
The president of the Lucent Retirees Organization charged today that Lucent
executives have created a "moral chasm" by drawing multi-million dollar salaries while
eliminating health care benefits promised to retirees and their dependents.
After examining the deep cuts in management retiree benefits that Lucent announced this week,
We are appalled at the difference in treatment of the company’s retirees versus how well
Lucent’s senior management continues to take care of itself."
The LRO represents the interests of 127,000 retirees, including 50,000 management retirees
affected by Lucent’s action to no longer reimburse retirees for Medicare premiums, dental
coverage or health care insurance subsidies for dependents. Lucent has reported that the cuts
will save the company $75 million annually.
It is time for Congress to enact protective legislation that ends this carnage. "Republican
legislators refuse to support HR 1322, a House bill that protects retiree
health care as ERISA protects pensions. It is time for these legislators, the White House and
AARP to wake up. Today's executives have lost their moral compass.
Members are asking: Where are the corresponding reductions in salary for executives?
Lucent executives inflict pain time after time on retirees and continue to pay
themselves excessive salaries and maintain their expensive perks in the absence of a return to
profitability. They should be setting the proper moral tone for the sacrifices they are
forcing upon retirees by making public, highly visible sacrifices themselves.
Their bonuses and salaries seem to be based on how much they can take away from retirees
rather than how successfully they grow the business. Lucent’s executives
continue to pay themselves very high salaries as they preside over a company whose revenues
are now in the $8-9 billion range compared to $38 billion in 1999.
The LRO Board will be evaluating with legal experts Lucent’s latest
brutal whacks at retirees’ benefits. Already, the LRO is examining the potential for a class
action lawsuit against Lucent for the February elimination of the death benefit many retirees
had when they left the active payroll.
The LRO’s membership is rapidly increasing, providing us with broader input from retirees as
well as raising the funds needed to challenge Lucent on its actions against retirees.
According to the LRO president, the organization was formed by a group of loyal management
retirees who gave the company many years of quality, dedicated service. Our intent has been
to help Lucent, but the negative actions of its top executives has made that impossible.
LRO representatives have offered volunteer services and proposals to help
reduce health care costs during two meetings this year with senior executives at Lucent’s New
Jersey headquarters. Apparently, we have been headed down a one-way street because Lucent
blind-sided us with these latest reductions in benefits to management retirees.
Management retirees who ran the business successfully for decades never dreamed the company
would renege on the commitments made to them for retirement benefits such as the death
benefit, reimbursement for Medicare B premiums and spousal insurance coverage. They made their
retirement plans, indeed were encouraged to retire with these benefits at times, and always
relied on a strong belief and trust that future management would honor its commitments to them
as they had to earlier retirees."
I have noticed that many of the articles on you web site are sharply critical of George
Bush.
I felt that perhaps the president isn't being given enough credit. He has made good on some
of his campaign promises.
For instance, in one speech, he pronounced that the current budget surplus belongs to the American people, not the government. He has made good on that, turning the surplus into a
$455 Billion deficit, which has been estimated will grow to $475 Billion. I hope you spent
your portion wisely.
In another speech, he made the statement that the current surplus is the product of the
hard work and ingenuity of the American people. I guess since the surplus is now history,
the American people are now a bunch of goof-offs that have become stupid.
And one final thing. I heard the other day, if you took the current deficit
in $1 bills and laid them end to end around the equator, you could circle the earth more than 1800
times. I would say the president has been quite successful at refunding the surplus to the American people, wouldn't you?
The company seems to be making a habit lately of offering it's employees concessions that turn out
not to be concessions after all.
Cingular wireless packages were offered to employees at discounted rates, only later to offer the
same, or even cheaper rates to the general public.
SBC long distance plans were offered to employees at discounted rates, and once again was later
offered to the public for the same price.
And now, last week, SBC announced a DSL plan for the general public for $29.95, the same rate it
was originally offered to employees for and claimed to be the employee concession rate.
If SBC is going to continually reduce the "public rate" shouldn't the employee rate be lowered also?
I for one am getting sick and tired of being offered a so called "discounted rate" only to have it offered
to the public for the same price at a later date. More and more often, the concession rate turn out to be
no concession at all!
A reasonable and just compensation system for both executives and workers is fundamental to the creation of long-term corporate value. However, the past two decades have seen an unprecedented growth in compensation only for top executives and a dramatic increase in the ratio between the compensation of executives and rank-and-file workers.
By any standard, many of today's executive compensation packages are excessive. Too often directors have awarded compensation packages that go well beyond what is required to attract and retain executives and have rewarded even poorly performing CEOs. These executive pay excesses come at the expense of shareholders as well as the company and its employees.
Executive compensation packages generally are composed of annual salary, annual incentive awards, long-term incentive awards, stock options and other forms of equity compensation. The structure of a CEO's compensation package influences whether the CEO focuses on boosting the corporation's day-to-day share price or concentrates on building long-term corporate value.
A well-designed executive compensation plan aligns the interests of senior management with the long-term interests of the company and its shareholders. Pay-for-performance means rewarding executives for meeting explicit and demanding performance criteria and penalizing executives for failures to meet these goals as determined by the board of directors.
According to The New York Times, last year the average CEO of a major corporation received $10.83 million in total compensation, including stock-option grants. As the pay packages of many of the most richly rewarded CEOs declined, this average fell 20 percent between 2001 and 2002. But a majority of CEOs—as measured by the median pay package—actually got a 6 percent raise to $8.52 million in 2002.
Meanwhile, shareholders have lost $7 trillion over the past three years in the worst stock market decline since the Great Depression. Many CEOs attempt to justify this disconnect between CEO pay and performance by pointing to the bad state of the economy or other factors. Of course, they are equally quick to claim credit for their companies' performance in good times.
Stock options continue to be the largest component of CEO pay. As share prices have declined, CEOs have continued to receive large annual grants of new stock options with lower exercise prices. In effect, these new stock options will reward these CEOs for simply getting the share price back to its prior levels.
Stock-option grants promise executives all of the gain of share price increases with none of the risk of share price declines. As a result, they can encourage excessive risk taking by executives and can prompt executives to pursue corporate strategies designed to promote short-term stock price to the detriment of long-term corporate value.
Stock options are a significant cost for shareholders. According to the Investor Responsibility Research Center, the average potential dilution (meaning the percent of a company's shares that have been promised as stock options) reached a record 15.7 percent in 2002. And many companies still do not account for these stock options as a compensation expense.
Executives also are asking for and getting other compensation benefits that are risk free. For example, The Corporate Library estimates that the average departing CEO receives a severance package of $16.5 million. These golden parachutes can reward underperformance leading up to a CEO's departure and are not justified given already high levels of executive pay.
Shareholders are starting to demand limits on executive benefits like golden parachutes. Last year, Bank of America and Norfolk Southern agreed to act on golden-parachute shareholder proposals that received majority votes. This year, shareholders at Tyco International and Hewlett-Packard Co. also voted to require shareholder approval of these arrangements.
This year union members' pension funds have filed hundreds of shareholder proposals urging corporate governance and executive compensation reform. These reform initiatives to enhance corporate accountability represent a worker-owner view of value.
Edward Whitacre
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
SBC Communications Inc.
In 2001, Edward Whitacre raked in $21,256,426 in total compensation including stock option grants from SBC Communications Inc.
From previous years' stock option grants, the SBC Communications Inc. executive cashed out $3,835,625 in stock option exercises.
And Edward Whitacre has another $22,173,573 in unexercised stock options from previous years.
Any of your members who have been around for more than a few years will remember the days of us "Less
Than Acceptables".
It was actually those days that let to the creation of your web site, and everything that has come since.
I can remember well when the local's stewards would stand in front of our yard in the early morning hours
before work started and hand out those "Less Than Acceptable" newsletters. As I seem to remember our then
second level "Skippy" wouldn't allow them to be distributed on company premises or on company time. He tore
down anything that referred to them from the union bulletin board.
Ah yes, those were the good old days. Well friends, don't give up hope, back by popular demand are the days
of the "Less Than Acceptable". Several technicians have already been placed on the "program" and I am sure more will
follow.
The same seems to be holding true this time as last, that is, 100% of the technicians are failing to "meet standards".
Right now the only ones in trouble are the worst two, one in the productivity category, and one from the repeat report
category. I feel confident that as time goes on, there will be a mad scramble to see who can obtain the coveted award of
"last place" to ensure their place in the hall of fame of "LTA's"
Management continues to insist that there is no reason to be concerned. This is only a program to assist in the
Identification of those few employees who need further training or perhaps that one tool they are currently missing.
The only problem with this theory is that the ones that have been identified so far are anything but those few who need
help, they are in fact our top technicians who habitually get the tough jobs, no real surprise there.
We have been told that the objectives are completely reasonable, and every technician should be able to achieve a "meets".
However, so far, not a single technician has found a way to make it happen.
I suppose it depends on how you define "reasonable".
My name is Larry Cutrone, one of thousands robbed of the full value of their earned pensions
due to the “Cash Balance” pension conversion. Before AT&T converted my pension it was valued at
$350,000 and after the conversion in July 1997, the value dropped to $138,000. Even with AT&T’s
“Special Update” enhancement to my account, the value only rose to $150,000. The calculation
period for my pension was frozen at 1994-1996 salaries, so no value to my retirement account
was added for any years I worked after the conversion.
In September 2001, I was “downsized” out of AT&T and decided to take my pension. I discovered
that it translated into an annual income of just $23,444 instead of the $47,303 income under
the old plan. This seems meager after 31 loyal years of service to the company. As a result,
my wife was forced to waive her rights to the survivor benefits of my pension in the event I
predecease her. Invoking these rights would have meant between 8% and 20% less per month. While
my pension was reduced by more than half, my monthly contribution for medical benefits was
increased five times this year.
As representatives of “AT&T Concerned Employees Council on Retirement Protection” (ACE CORP),
we are willing to publicize our personal situation in order to bring to the forefront the
negative impact of the forced cash balance pension on the older worker. We urge President Bush
to support Congressmen Sanders, Miller, Senator Harkin, and their fellow representatives to
revise his proposal to the IRS by including protection for the older worker and preventing them
from becoming “Pension Challenged” by “Cash Imbalance”!
In President Bush’s radio address this past Sunday he states “In 2003, we must work to
strengthen our economy; improve access to affordable, high quality health care for all our
seniors...” In his State of the Union Address, he urged Congress to pass his plan “…to strengthen
our economy and help more Americans find jobs.” (Assuming he makes these comments in his State
of the Union Address on Tuesday.) We hope our efforts will convince President Bush that his IRS
Proposal and the affect of the cash balance pension on the older worker further reduces consumer
spending, and reduces tax revenue while causing our economy to continue suffering. We are
unaware of any negative impact to the corporations who convert to cash balance pension plans.
Should the loyal worker and subsequently America’s economy be penalized?
Representative George Miller, a leading proponent of strong pension reforms, is speaking out
against the Bush Administration's recently announced plan to make it easier for large companies
to convert their traditional pension plans to a less costly -- and less secure -- "cash balance
plan." The news media is closely following this story, as you can see from the items linked
below. Comments by Miller and other critics of this dangerous plan have appeared in the New York
Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and on both CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
and ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
To Voice Your Concerns About These Regulations:
Concerning the regulations, Linda S. F. Marshall, 202-622-6090, or R. Lisa Mojiri-Azad,
202-622-6030; concerning submissions and the hearing, and/or to be placed on the building
access list to attend the hearing, Sonya Cruse, 202-622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).
Tell Congressman Miller Your Cash Balance Plan Story:
Congressman Miller is organizing with other Members of Congress and organizations to oppose
these regulations. He wants to know how you have been affected by the switch to a cash balance
plan. george.miller@mail.house.gov to send him your comments. Thank you!
Background
The Treasury Department has issued a proposed rules change governing traditional pension plans,
referred to as Defined Benefit Plans. The rules change would make it easier for companies to
convert these stalwart pension plans to a less secure type of plan known as Cash Balance Plans.
Cash balance plans pose significant risks to older workers, those 40 and older.
This rules change will take away significant amounts of money from the retirement income of
millions of employees and is a devastating blow to employees who have just seen huge losses in
their 401k retirement plans because of the weak economy and slumping stock market.
Representative Miller and others have criticized the rules change and the news media has given
significant coverage to their criticism.
In March, the Bush administration overturned a ban on cash bonus awards to political appointees in federal government patronage jobs but did not publicly announce the change. News reports brought the action to light in December. Such awards were banned under White House policy in 1994 because of past abuse and favoritism including, according to The Washington Post, “questionable payments to some outgoing aides in the final days of the administration of President George H.W. Bush, the president’s father.” About, 2,100 political appointees are eligible for awards of up to $25,000. Total awards could exceed $25 million. The action came to light just days after Bush announced he was withholding a quarter of the pay adjustment career federal employees were to receive in 2003. “Whether it's tax cuts for the rich or privatizing 850,000 jobs to boost the fortunes of contractors, this administration knows how to enrich the rich and to impoverish working families,” said AFGE President Bobby L. Harnage Sr.
07/30/02
It's a big day for the business world in Washington as senators grill telecom and banking
Executives regarding two Wall Street scandals and President Bush signs a corporate fraud
measure into law.
The bill includes the creation of a new oversight board to monitor the accounting industry,
new and tougher penalties for corporate fraud, and more money for the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The law, shepherded through the House and Senate by Paul Sarbanes, D-Md., and Mike
Oxley, R-Ohio, was prompted by a spate of corporate accounting irregularities at companies
such as Enron and WorldCom, which sought to look more profitable.
The bill also quadruples the maximum prison term for executives who commit corporate
fraud to 20 years from five years.
Bush said the law sends a message on several levels. To corporate executives the
President said the law says, "No boardroom in America is above or beyond the law."
What the law doesn't address. is the root problem that led to most if not all of the woes we
are now facing. Corporations are currently free to offer their officers huge bonuses in the
form of stock options. Corporations are not required to report these options as debt, and so
they don't appear on the bottom line of the accounting ledgers. Options are routinely
offered to the "big brass" at prices far below current market prices.
This of course is a huge incentive for the top dogs to do whatever they can to keep stock
prices high, regardless of corporate performance. Unfortunately, this has meant that it is in
their own best interest to hide debt and inflate earnings reports. This in turn encourages
employees and others to continue to purchase the stock and keep the prices high, after all,
the amount of their total compensation depends directly on the current market values of the
stock.
It seems there is no limit to what they will do in order to ensure that they continue to rake in
millions of dollars a year at our expense. We now know that lying and cheating is only the
tip of the iceberg. They have hired accountants that are willing to cook the books for them,
and we are now learning that they have even influenced members of the banking industry
into giving favorable reports in return for continued business relations.
Yesterday, I read a report that said that Merrill Lynch possibly forced out an analyst who
had given Enron a "neutral" rating in order to land more business. Earlier this year they
agreed to a $100 million settlement as well as changes in its research department following
conflict-of-interest charges brought by N.Y. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
It seems to me that there is never going to be an end to all of this unless Mr. Bush is
willing to go further than he has. The Bill he signed yesterday threatens a 20 year prison
sentence. In my opinion, this is far short of what we really need. Those Enron executives
received nothing in the form of punishment after stealing millions. If you or I passed a bad
check at the local 7-11 we would be serving hard time while those guys are still walking
around free, and in all probability will never see the inside of a prison cell.
If the president is serious about cracking down on the "corporate wrong doers" he is going
to have to be willing to bite the hand that feeds him, and pass serious meaningful legislation
concerning the way CEO's are offered stock options. There has to be strict limits set as to
the amount they are allowed to receive. They need to report these options as debt, and in
order to eliminate the problem entirely, stock options should be banned as a form of
compensation. Let these guys live on a salary the same as the rest of us do.
I would like to encourage your readers to write or e-mail their president, and other elected
representatives and urge them to pass meaningful legislation that address the real root
cause of all of these problems. Anyone who would like to do so may wish to have a look at
your Links page where they can find out how to write to the people that can pass the
Legislation that we so desperately need.
Great website! Keep up the good work!
Your retirement savings, the kids' college
funds and other family finances may be victims
of runaway CEO pay. Corporate practices
that routinely reward poor CEO performance
with massive pay and perks jeopardize
working families' savings.
At the same time that stock prices are falling,
CEO pay continues to rise. According to the New York Times, the average CEO of a
major corporation received a record-breaking $20 million in 2000, including nearly 50
percent more stock options and 22 percent more in salary and bonus. By way of
comparison, the Standard & Poor 500 Index fell 10 percent in 2000 and the NASDAQ
Composite Index fell 39 percent. The typical hourly worker received a 3 percent raise
last year, and salaried employees got about 4 percent more during the same time.
Inequality between the shop floor and the executive suite is at an all-time high. According
to Business Week, the average CEO made 42 times the average blue-collar worker's
pay in 1980, 85 times in 1990 and a staggering 531 times in 2000. Academic studies,
including those published by the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford
University, have shown this inequality hurts employee morale and productivity and boosts
turnover.
Defenders of today's CEO pay packages like to point out other highly compensated
individuals such as sports stars. However, unlike many under-performing CEOs, star
athletes pay are based on their performance on the field. Moreover, a study published by
the Academy of Management Journal in 1999 found that the smaller the gap between
highest- and lowest-paid players, the higher the level of team performance.
Runaway CEO pay leaves shareholders footing the bill for excessive executive
compensation packages. Almost two-thirds of CEO pay is in the form of stock options.
Promised stock options now represent the equivalent of 13 percent of the company. A
report by the executive compensation consultant Watson Wyatt Worldwide found that
promising executives too many stock options actually hurts stock valuations.
Our own Ed Whitaker sold off nearly $4,000,000 in stock for the year 2001. Whenever large chunks of stock are sold off, it hurts all the rest of us, and remember, this was only one officer, they all get stock options, and it seems as though they are not shy about selling them off. Ed's total compensation for 2001 was around $24,800,000. That's nearly twenty-five MILLION dollars. It might also be interesting to note that at present, our stock (SBC) is worth about 16% less than if you had invested it in the Fortune 500.
Many of you probably received you annual proxy ballots in the mail recently. If you read any of the enclosed material, you may have noticed a little paragraph that quietly announced that certain Executive incentives may be TAX
DEDUCTIBLE! Just to add insult to injury, not only to they collect huge bonuses in the form of stock options, but they get to DEDUCT them from their taxes.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) currently allows public corporations to
deduct executive compensation of more than $1 million from corporate income
taxes, if the compensation is "performance-based" and is decided by a
compensation committee made up solely of "outside" or independent directors.
Unfortunately, the IRS definitions of performance-based compensation and
director independence are too lax to rein in executive pay. Urge the IRS to close
the tax loophole allowing companies to deduct excessive executive compensation
that exceeds $1 million, and do it today.
The recent CEO pay packages at Bank of America, Sprint and Conseco are all dramatic
examples in overpay for no performance at major corporations. They are case studies in
the breakdown of board of director oversight in setting effective executive pay standards.
Each company is now going through a leadership transition during which shareholders
have the opportunity to reform the corporate governance framework for the new
executive pay packages. This transition means there is an opportunity to push for reforms
that will make a difference.
Millions of working families have trillions of dollars invested in
thousands of companies through our savings for retirement,
college education and other needs. Together our voices can
make a difference.
California ranks 48th in the nation in power consumed per person.
California grows more than half the nation's fruit, nuts and vegetables.
We're keeping them. We need something to eat when the power goes out.
We grow 99 percent or more of the nation's almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, pistachios, prunes, raisins and walnuts.
Hope you won't miss them.
California is the nation's number one dairy state. We're keeping our dairy products. We'll need plenty of fresh ones since our refrigerators can't be relied upon. Got milk?
We Californians are gonna keep all our high-tech software in state.
Silicon Valley is ours, after all. Without enough electricity, which you're apparently keeping for yourselves, we just plain don't have enough software to spare.
We're keeping all our airplanes. California builds a good percentage of the commercial airliners available to fly you people to where you want to go.
When yours wear out, you'd better hope Boeing's Washington plant can keep you supplied. There isn't enough electricity here to allow us to export any more planes than we need ourselves.
And while we're at it, we're keeping all our high-tech aerospace stuff, too, like the sophisticated weapons systems that let you sleep at night, not worried you might wake up under the rule of some foreign kook.
Oh, yeah, and if you want to make a
long-distance call, remember where the satellite components and tracking systems come from. Maybe you could get back in the habit of writing letters.
Want to see a blockbuster movie this weekend? Come to California. We make them here. Since we'll now have to make them with our own electricity, we're keeping them. Even if we shot them somewhere else, the labs, printing facilities, editing facilities, and sound facilities are all here.
Want some nice domestic wine? We produce over 17 million gallons per year. We'll need all it to drown our sorrows when we think about the fact that no matter how many California products we export to make the rest of America's lives better, America can't see its way clear to help us out with a little electricity. You can no longer have any of our wine.
You all complain that we don't build enough power plants. Well, you don't grow enough food, write enough software, make enough movies, build enough airplanes and defense systems or make enough wine.
Love,
The Californians
Call the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at: 510-823-5777, or 415-637-3239
Or you may even wish to call the American Civil Liberties Union at 415-286-0233
These and many other resources are listed
on the CWA Link Page, check it out.
ED
