Skip to content

Month: April 2010

Fingers Crossed

Fingers Crossed

by digby

I hope this analysis is correct. But I’m not getting my hopes up:

Obama’s strategy worked when he chose Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter last year — announce the criteria he deems the most vital for a nominee, vet the nominees with no embarrassing gaffes or leaks, and pick the one with whom he feels the most comfort.Confirmability was a factor then, not a driver. Expect much the same now.Not even one year later, Obama must replace the liberal lion of the court, Justice John Paul Stevens, who on Friday announced his coming retirement.In choosing a nominee over the next few weeks, Obama is inclined to stick with his formula of going all in, like he did in getting a health care reform law done, the biggest and most consuming fight of his presidency. The view from the White House is that the president is almost certain to face a political and ideological fight in this election year no matter who he nominates to the court; the only issue is to what degree.So why scale back?

They didn’t want to fight for Dawn Johnson so it’s hard for me to believe they want to fight for liberal in a high profile Supreme Court battle. In fact, it’s hard to see them fighting for a moderate Republican like Stevens:

Justice John Paul Stevens’s departure from the Supreme Court represents the end of an era. Just not the one you are probably thinking of. Stevens’s unblinking devotion to human rights, civil rights, and the rights of the little guy have led him to be widely seen as the Last Great Liberal Justice, the end of a lineage that included William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and William O. Douglas. But Stevens is something else entirely. He is actually the last of the Moderate Republican Justices. Stevens himself advanced this view in a an interview with the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin last month. “For many decades,” Toobin wrote, “there have been moderate Republicans on the Court — John M. Harlan II and Potter Stewart (appointed by Eisenhower), Lewis F. Powell and Harry Blackmun (Nixon), David H. Souter (Bush I). Stevens is the last of them, and his departure will mark a cultural milestone. The moderate-Republican tradition that he came out of ‘goes way back,’ Stevens said. ‘But things have changed.'” What’s changed, of course, is the Court’s steady march to the far right. The four zealots on the Court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — engage in such extremist, blindered legal thinking that there’s almost no chance any of them will ever join an even vaguely mainstream verdict.

Sadly, I think it’s much more likely that we will see what today is called “moderate” but which is, by historical terms, a very conservative justice. I will be thrilled to be wrong.

.

Climate Economics

Climate Economics

by digby

There’s lots of talk today about Krugman’s article in the NY Times magazine about the green economy. Adam Siegel writes:

The New York Times Sunday magazine will feature a tour de force on climate economics by Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman. Entitled Building a Green Economy, a more appropriate title might be Climate Economics 101 and it should be required reading of every single Member of Congress and any journalist who writes on the issue of costs and benefits of action to mitigate climate change. Sadly, I don’t have time to do Krugman’s excellent work full justice. He examines the costs and benefits of action on climate change, tackles issues (cogently) about the science, and highlights the critical importance of ‘insurance’ — valuing the potential, in decision-making, not just of ‘Climate Change’ but of catastrophic climate consequences — the low probability but incredible serious in impact risks.

Siegel points out some weaknesses in the article and gives some context so I’d take a look at the full post as well as Krugman’s article. But this article forms one of the core progressive arguments we should have been having for the past year about the economy and the environment. Let’s hope our politicians are listening and take this one on the road for the fall campaign.

.

Saturday Night At The Movies

Saturday Night At The Movies


Even Hitler had a girlfriend

By Dennis Hartley

Fascism, a love story: Vincere

Have you ever noticed something about movies based in mental hospitals? More often than not, there’s at least one patient who thinks he’s Napoleon Bonaparte; or Jesus Christ, or at least Elvis (you get the idea). I’ve always wondered if that cliché is based on fact. I couldn’t tell you from any personal observation-because I’ve never been committed (yet).

In 1920s Italy, a mental patient named Ida Dalser had a good one. She would claim repeatedly, for the benefit of any or all within earshot, that she was the wife of that country’s leader, Benito Mussolini (who was in fact married-but to another woman). She also insisted that her son, Benito was Il Duce’s firstborn and therefore his “rightful heir”. “Yes, yes, of course you are,” they would assure her, rolling their eyes as they handed her more meds. Funny thing is, she really was the mother of Mussolini’s firstborn son; although to this day there remains no official documentation that the marriage took place. Oh-and she wasn’t really crazy. Crazy in love, perhaps, but she wasn’t nuts. Unfortunately for the doomed Ida, she died of a brain hemorrhage in 1937, in a psychiatric hospital. Her son suffered a similar fate, dying in an asylum in 1942 at age 26. Mussolini’s history with Dalser was kept a state secret during his regime, and remained undisclosed to the general public for a number of years afterwards. Writer-director Marco Bellocchio has taken this relatively obscure historical footnote and elevated it to the level of a classic baroque tragedy in an exquisitely mounted new film called Vincere (“Win”).

The film picks up their story in pre-WWI Milan, where Mussolini (Felippo Timi) is a struggling self-employed journalist, and Ida (Giovanna Mezzogiorno) is running a beauty salon business. Attracted more by his persona rather than by his politics (he was a socialist acolyte at the time), Ida becomes 100% devoted to her lover; at one point she even sells off her business to help keep his self-published newspaper afloat. In a cleverly written scene, he vows to pay her back every lira, melodramatically drawing up an IOU like a world leader composing a proclamation (a portent of the clownish theatricality he would adopt when he actually did become a world leader). However, his eventual “payback” to Ida was not exactly reciprocal in its sentiment. Following the birth of their son, Mussolini (a textbook narcissist) begins to distance himself from Ida, Much to his convenience, storm clouds gather over Europe and Mussolini runs off to join the army, leaving Ida puzzled and hurt by his emotional (and now, geographical) distancing. When she travels to visit him at a military hospital, she learns to her chagrin that the woman attending him is not his nurse-but his new wife. Ouch. Her nightmare is only beginning.

Bellocchio makes an interesting choice. Just as Mussolini disappeared from Ida’s life, leading man Timi virtually disappears for the film’s second half, with archival news reels of the real Mussolini taking his place to update the viewer on his career trajectory, whilst Ida’s life turns into a Kafkaesque nightmare. You see the method to the director’s madness, however, when Timi reappears in a memorable scene as Mussolini and Ida’s now college-aged son. He entertains several of his fellow students with a pitch-perfect reenactment of a Mussolini speech that has immediately preceded the scene in one of the aforementioned archival news reels. His pals are impressed by his spot-on impression of Il Duce (although they don’t really believe that he is Mussolini’s son, as he claims to be).

The first half of the film, which examines the couple’s relationship, reminded me at times of Reds or Doctor Zhivago, with its blend of passion, politics, and historical sweep. It is important to note, however, that this is not a film that sets out to detail Mussolini’s rise to power; it is really Ida’s story, which is more intimate. That being said, as Ida descends further and further into a living purgatory, getting shuffled from institution to institution, having her identity, freedom, and eventually her son ostensibly co-opted by “the state”, i.e. her ex-lover, Mussolini, you could take away an allegorical lesson here about the ugly politics of fascism. Of course, my Inner Cynic might offer that “seduction and betrayal” sums up politics in general (I’m trying to keep him in check, Lord, really, I’m trying).

Note: Vincere is currently available on PPV in some markets. Check your local listings!

As love dictates: Downfall, Nicholas and Alexandra, Caesar and Cleopatra, Cleopatra, Caligula , Evita, Children of the Revolution, The Emperor’s New Clothes, The Producers, Bananas, WR: Mysteries of the Organism, Pink Floyd .

.

Stop Yer Crying

Stop Yer Crying

by digby

… or I’ll give you something to cry about.

On Easter morning in Alexandria, Va., a motorcyclist spotted the license plates on his car, then pulled up next to him and asked if he was a congressman. The Republican from Gold River said yes.

“He started using profanities and telling me how I was a criminal and I ought to go to jail,” Lungren said. “Then he pulled the motorcycle to the other side of the car, where my wife was, and repeated the very same thing, to which my wife responded, ‘Have a nice Easter.’ “

Lungren said he didn’t feel any particular need to publicize the harassment. And he wishes more of his colleagues would follow suit.

“We ought to kind of cool it in terms of the publicity of this stuff,” Lungren said. “I don’t think it serves any purpose other than maybe encourage some nutcases out there because they think they’ll get publicity about it.”

As the top-ranked Republican on the House Subcommittee on Capitol Security, Lungren gets regular briefings from Capitol police, who investigate any threats made against a member of Congress.

While Capitol police won’t say anything about the issue, Lungren said there are no data to suggest that the number of threats is increasing this year.

“I have no evidence at this point that there is a steep rise in threats or that it’s a more dangerous situation with respect to members of Congress,” he said.

Lungren’s assessment was challenged Friday by Democrats on the subcommittee.

“Discussions with members of Congress and law enforcement officials have shown increased incidents of threats directed at members,” said House Administration Committee Chairman Robert Brady of Pennsylvania and Capitol Security Subcommittee Chairman Michael E. Capuano of Massachusetts, both Democrats, in a joint statement.

[…]

Lungren said the official police policy is to keep all threats private, unless arrests are made and charges are filed, which is what happened in the Pelosi and Murray cases.

[…]

Lungren noted that while many members of Congress are going public with the threats against them, nearly all threats against the president are kept quiet.

“We shouldn’t be any different,” he said. “The Secret Service has to run down all sorts of purported threats against the president and vice president,” he said. “That’s always been done, but you almost never read about it in the newspapers.”

Moreover, he noted, people have every right to speak up.

“It’s when they go from the position of saying something nasty about a member of Congress, which the Constitution allows them to do, to becoming an actual threat of physical harm,”

And when they say nasty things, you should keep your yap shut and take it because they might get fed up with your lip and do something violent. And you’d have no one to blame but yourself. And anyway, you’re all making it up. And that makes me really mad.

My favorite thing about this story is the fact that the person who allegedly yelled at him from his motorcycle was almost guaranteed to be a conservative.

.

Channel The Frenzy

Channel The Frenzy

by digby

This seems like a good idea to me:

The…retirement of Justice Stevens could be a major teachable moment for progressives about the underlying belief system of contemporary conservatives and of Republicans who have let themselves get radicalized to an extraordinary degree since the latter stages of the 2008 presidential contest.

As we speak, conservatives all over the country are demanding legal action by states to challenge the constitutionality of health reform legislation (in my home state of Georgia, there’s even talk of impeaching the Democratic Attorney General, Thurbert Baker, for refusing to waste taxpayer dollars by launching a suit). Yet the basis for such suits — typically a denial of the power of Congress to legislative economic matters under the Commerce and Spending Clauses of the U.S. Constitution — is a collateral attack on the constitutionality of a vast array of past legislation, including the New Deal and Great Society initiatives, not to mention most civil rights laws.

And that questionable proposition is completely aside from other conservative efforts, many of them backed by major Republican officeholders, to “interpose” (to use the term for this strategy when it was deployed by segregationists in the 1950s) state sovereignty to block the implementation of health reform and other federal laws. And beyond that we have the even more radical nullification and secession gestures that have become standard features of conservative Republican rhetoric over the last year or so.

In other words, a debate that revolves around constitutional interpretation is not necessarily one that will help the conservative movement at this particular moment. Indeed, it could actually help progressives raise suspicions that Republicans are contemplating a very radical agenda if they return to power, one that could include (particularly given the stridency of their fiscal rhetoric lately) a direct assault on very popular programs like Social Security and Medicare.

The social conservatives will come out swinging as well, something that muddies the right’s small government message right now.

I don’t know if the people will see this the way we think they will, but it’s a fight worth fighting anyway. Since the wingnuts are going to go into full hysterical mode no matter what, the Democrats should try to use the situation to their own advantage.

.

Sore Losermen

Sore Losermen

by digby

It’s clear to me that the main thing that’s animating the right wing hysteria is anger at losing. They went nuts the minute they lost the election — Obama hadn’t had a moment to even start his socialist takeover before they started keening like a bunch of Greek widows. No, they’re just sore losers who can’t stand the idea that not everyone agrees with them.

I’ve written forever about what I call the Resentment Tribe, which has its genesis in Southern victimology. After rereading this post about neo-confederate history, it occurs to me that sore loserdom has always been one of the defining features of this tribe. When they couldn’t get their way in that case, they seceded rather than accept the democratic process. The current paroxysms of rage and anger over the fact that the people voted for someone of whom they disapprove is just an extension of the Lost Cause mentality that made it impossible for the South to accept their loss in the civil war.

This is American politics and it may have more or less energy depending on the time period and the people involved, but it’s always been this way to one extent or another. There is just a large group of people in this country who can’t accept losing. And when that happens, they often get very nasty.

.

Nice Little Job You’ve Got There

Nice Little Job You’ve Got There

by digby

… be a shame if anything happened to it.

Steve Benen reports:

Neal Boortz, a far-right radio host, argued today, “If Obama is hurting your business, and you have to lay off someone, why not lay off an Obama voter? They contributed to your problem.” Boortz added, “Why should you have to provide a livelihood to someone actively working to destroy your business?”

Now, as a matter of reality, the notion that President Obama might be hurting businesses is quite foolish. It was, after all, the president’s policies that rescued the economy and generated growth and job creation. I don’t know what Boortz is whining about.

But it’s this notion that conservative employers should fire Democratic employees that seems insane — and illegal. That it may actually be happening is especially disconcerting.

Last Friday, someone going by the name “dermdoc” posted a thread on a message board for Texas A&M students and alumni with this topic: “Laid off my first Obama voting employee today.”

“Our reimbursement rates are spiraling downward, taxes are projected to go up with Obamacare, so I did it,” the person wrote. He later added: “I made this decision because I can.”

“It is kind of interesting watching their face as you explain to them the economic consequences of the policies of the guy they voted for,” wrote dermdoc. […]

“Elections have consequences,” wrote dermdoc. “If you vote for someone who raises my taxes and lowers my income, you pay the cost.”

This is probably perfectly legal, by the way. The only federa protections you really have are on the basis of sex, race or religious discrimination and not many states go much further unless you have a union or employment contract.

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard of Republicans politically intimidating their employees, by the way. You’ll recall this jerk who fired his employee for refusing to remove the Kerry sticker from her car. But the idea that these people would begin a national campaign for this is taking it to the next level. In a period of high anxiety with 10% unemployment, I’d guess this kind of intimidation could affect people’s social interactions at work at the very least. At worst, Democrats could find themselves out of work.

You have to love some wealthy bastard firing his employees because they voted for someone who raised his taxes. Is this a great country or what? I think I just caught a big ole whiff ‘o freedom.

.

The Worst Of The Worst

The Worst Of The Worst

by digby

Gosh it seems like just yesterday that everyone agreed that all the prisoners at Gitmo were the most dangerous men on earth. We knew they were lying. And they knew they were lying:

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror, according to a new document obtained by The Times.

The accusations were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to Colin Powell, the former Republican Secretary of State, in a signed declaration to support a lawsuit filed by a Guantánamo detainee. It is the first time that such allegations have been made by a senior member of the Bush Administration.

Colonel Wilkerson, who was General Powell’s chief of staff when he ran the State Department, was most critical of Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld. He claimed that the former Vice-President and Defence Secretary knew that the majority of the initial 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were innocent but believed that it was “politically impossible to release them”.

General Powell, who left the Bush Administration in 2005, angry about the misinformation that he unwittingly gave the world when he made the case for the invasion of Iraq at the UN, is understood to have backed Colonel Wilkerson’s declaration.

Colonel Wilkerson, a long-time critic of the Bush Administration’s approach to counter-terrorism and the war in Iraq, claimed that the majority of detainees — children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, he said — never saw a US soldier when they were captured. He said that many were turned over by Afghans and Pakistanis for up to $5,000. Little or no evidence was produced as to why they had been taken.

He also claimed that one reason Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld did not want the innocent detainees released was because “the detention efforts would be revealed as the incredibly confused operation that they were”. This was “not acceptable to the Administration and would have been severely detrimental to the leadership at DoD [Mr Rumsfeld at the Defence Department]”.

Referring to Mr Cheney, Colonel Wilkerson, who served 31 years in the US Army, asserted: “He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent … If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.”

He alleged that for Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld “innocent people languishing in Guantánamo for years was justified by the broader War on Terror and the small number of terrorists who were responsible for the September 11 attacks”.

He added: “I discussed the issue of the Guantánamo detainees with Secretary Powell. I learnt that it was his view that it was not just Vice-President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, but also President Bush who was involved in all of the Guantánamo decision making.”

Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld, Colonel Wilkerson said, deemed the incarceration of innocent men acceptable if some genuine militants were captured, leading to a better intelligence picture of Iraq at a time when the Bush Administration was desperate to find a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, “thus justifying the Administration’s plans for war with that country”.

But not to worry. None of those left at Guantanamo are among the innocent. There’s no need for any trials or anything. Really. They’re the worst of the worst this time, they promise. Just because the administration refused to release pictures of wartime abuse and atrocities because it would make the country look bad doesn’t automatically mean they would keep innocent people in prison because having trials would be politically difficult.

.

Working Together

Working Together

by digby

The president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka went to Harvard this week. And he gave a great speech:

Good evening. Thank you, John. I will never be able to express how much I owe you and how much the American labor movement owes you. The Institute of Politics is fortunate to have you as a fellow this semester. And let me add my thanks to the Institute of Politics and Bill Purcell for inviting me to be here with you tonight.

I am going to talk tonight about anger—and specifically the anger of working people. I want to explain why working people are right to be mad about what has happened to our economy and our country, and then I want to talk about why there is a difference between anger and hatred. There are forces in our country that are working hard to convert justifiable anger about an economy that only seems to work for a few of us into racist and homophobic hate and violence directed at our President and heroes like Congressman John Lewis. Most of all, those forces of hate seek to divide working people – to turn our anger against each other.

So I also want to talk to you tonight about what I believe is the only way to fight the forces of hatred—with a strong progressive tradition that includes working people in action, organizing unions and organizing to elect public officials committed to bold action to address economic suffering.

That progressive tradition has drawn its strength from an alliance of the poor and the middle class—everyone who works for a living. But the alliance between working people and public minded intellectuals is also crucial—it is all about standing up to entrenched economic power and the complacency of the affluent. It’s an alliance that depends on intellectuals being critics, and not the servants, of economic privilege.

I am here tonight at the Kennedy School of Government to say that if you care about defending our country against the apostles of hate, you need to be part of the fight to rebuild a sustainable, high wage economy built on good jobs – the kind of economy that can only exist when working men and women have a real voice on the job.

Our republic must offer working people something other than the dead-end choice between the failed agenda of greed and the voices of hate and division and violence. Public intellectuals have a responsibility to offer a better way.

The stakes could not be higher. Mass unemployment and growing inequality threaten our democracy. We need to act—and act boldly—to strike at the roots of working people’s anger and shut down the forces of hatred and racism.

We have to begin the conversation by talking about jobs—the 11 million missing jobs behind our unemployment rate of 9.7 percent.

Now, you may think to yourself, that is so retro. Jobs are so twentieth century. Sweat is for gyms, not workplaces.

For a generation, our intellectual culture has suggested that in the new global age, work is something someone else does. Someone we never met far away in an export processing zone will make our clothes, immigrants with no rights in our political process or workplaces will cook our food and clean our clothes.

And for the lucky top 10 percent of our society, that has been the reality of globalization—everything got cheaper and easier.

But for the rest of the country, economic reality has been something entirely different. It has meant trying to hold on to a good job in a grim game of musical chairs where every time the music stopped, there were fewer good jobs and more people trying to get and keep one. Over the last decade, we lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs—a million of them professional and design jobs. We lost 20 percent of our aerospace manufacturing jobs. We’re losing high-tech jobs—the jobs we were supposed to keep.

For most of us, economic reality has meant trying to pay for the ever-more-expensive education needed to pursue a good job—the cost of a college degree has gone up more than 24 percent since 2000 while average wages and salaries have increased less than one percent. It has meant trying to pay for exorbitant health care as employer coverage went away or got hollowed out. It has meant trying to eke out a decent retirement even as the private sector shed real pensions and long-term investment returns evaporated. Meanwhile, Wall Street middlemen raked in the bonuses.

And that was the reality for most Americans before the Great Recession began in 2007. Since then, we have lost 8 million jobs when the economy needed to add nearly three million just to keep up with population growth. That’s 11 million missing jobs.

We used the public’s money to bail out the major banks, only to see those same banks return to the behavior that got us here in the first place—aggressive risk taking in securities and derivatives markets, and handing out gigantic bonuses. Most galling of all—they used the funds we gave them — courtesy of TARP and endless cheap credit from the Federal Reserve — to fight even the most modest, common sense reforms of our financial system.

President Obama’s economic recovery program has done a lot of good for working people—creating or saving more than 2 million jobs. But the reality is that 2 million jobs is just 18 percent of the hole in our labor market.

The jobs hole – and the decades-long stagnation in real wages — are the source of the anger that echoes across our political landscape. People are incensed by the government’s inability to halt massive job loss and declining living standards, on the one hand, and the comparative ease with which government led by both parties has made the world safe again for JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, on the other hand.

Rescuing the big banks hasn’t done much for Main Street. The very same financial institutions that got bailed out have not only cut way back on lending to business, they have never stopped foreclosing on American families’ homes.

The fact is that for a generation we have built our economy on a lie—that we can have a low-wage, high-consumption society and paper over the contradiction with cheap credit funded by our foreign trading partners and financial sector profits made by taking a cut of the flow of cheap credit.

So now a lot of Americans are angry. And we should be angry. And just as we have seen throughout history, there are plenty of purveyors of hate and division looking to profit from our hurt and our anger.

I am a student of history, and now is the time to remember our history as a nation. Remember that when President Franklin Roosevelt said, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself,” other voices were on the radio, voices saying that what we really needed to fear was each other – voices preaching anti-Semitism and Nazi-style racial hatred.

Remember that when President John F. Kennedy stepped off the plane in Dallas on November 22, 1963, radio voices were calling for violence against the President of the United States. And the violence came—and took John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers and so many others.

But in the United States, we chose to turn away from the voices of hatred at those critical moments in the twentieth century. In much of Europe, racial hatred and political violence prevailed in response to the mass unemployment of the Great Depression. And in the end, we had to rescue those countries from fascism– from the horrible consequences of the failure of their societies to speak to the pain and anger bred by mass unemployment.

Why did our democracy endure through the Great Depression? Because working people discovered it was possible to elect leaders who would fight for them and not for the financial barons who had brought on the catastrophe. Because our politics offered a real choice besides greed and hatred. Because our leaders inspired the confidence to reject hate and charted a path to higher ground through broadly shared prosperity.

This is a similar moment. Our politics have been dominated by greed and the forces of money for a generation. Now, amid the wreckage that came from that experiment, we hear the voices of hatred, of racism and homophobia.
At this moment of economic pain and anger, political intellectuals face a great choice—whether to be servants or critics of economic privilege. And I think this is an important point to make here at Harvard. The economic elites at JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and the other big Wall Street banks are happy to hire intellectual servants wherever they can find them. But the stronger the alliance between intellectuals and economic elites, the more the forces of hatred—of anti-intellectualism—will grow. If you want to fight the forces of hatred, you have to help empower the forces of righteous anger.

And at this moment, the labor movement is working to give voice to the justified anger of the American people. We need help. We need public intellectuals who will help design the policies that will replace the bubble economy with a real, sustainable economy that works for all of us.

Working people want an American economy that creates good jobs, where wealth is fairly shared, and where the economic life of our nation is about solving big problems like the threat of climate change rather than creating big problems like the foreclosure crisis. We know that growing inequality undermines our ability to grow as a nation by squandering the talents and the contributions of our people and consigning entire communities to stagnation and failure. But despite our best efforts, we have endured a generation of stagnant wages and collapsing benefits—a generation where the labor movement has been much more about defense than about offense.

We in the labor movement have to challenge ourselves to make our institutions into a voice for all working people. And we need to begin with jobs. Eleven million missing jobs is not tolerable. That’s why we are fighting for the AFL-CIO’s five point jobs program—extending unemployment benefits, including COBRA health benefits for unemployed workers; expanding federal infrastructure and green jobs investments; dramatically increasing federal aid to state and local governments facing fiscal disaster; creating jobs directly, especially in distressed communities; and finally, lending TARP money to small and medium sized businesses that can’t get credit because of the financial crisis.

As we meet tonight, organizers working for the AFL-CIO’s 3 million-member community affiliate Working America are knocking on doors across our country talking jobs. We are organizing support for George Miller’s Local Jobs for America Act that would target $100 billion in job creation dollars toward our country’s hardest hit communities—to keep teachers in the classroom and first responders on the job, and to create new jobs where Wall Street destroyed them. We are organizing support for financial reform and accountability for Wall Street. We are working to counter the Glenn Beck effect and turn anger into action for real change.

But we are not just talking about how to create jobs, we are talking about how to pay for them. Wall Street should pay to clean up the mess they made, and we are supporting four ways for the big banks to pay—President Obama’s bank tax, a special tax on bank bonuses, closing the carried interest tax loophole for hedge funds and private equity, and most important, a financial speculation tax levied on all financial transactions—including derivatives—that would raise over $150 billion a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The financial speculation tax would have negligible impact on long-term investors, but would discourage the short termism in the capital markets that led to so much destruction over the last decade.

When it comes to creating jobs, some in Washington say: Go slow—take half steps, don’t spend real money. Those voices are harming millions of unemployed Americans and their families — and they are jeopardizing our economic recovery. It is responsible to have a plan for paying for job creation over time. But it is bad economics and suicidal politics not to aggressively address the job crisis at a time of stubbornly high unemployment. In fact, budget deficits over the medium and long term will be worse if we allow the economy to slide into a long job stagnation — unemployed workers don’t pay taxes and they don’t go shopping; businesses without customers don’t hire workers, they don’t invest and they also don’t pay taxes.

But we must do much more to restore broadly shared prosperity.

We must take action to restore workers’ voices. The systematic silencing of America’s workers by denying their freedom to form unions is at the heart of the disappearance of good jobs in America. We must pass the Employee Free Choice Act so that workers can have the chance to turn bad jobs into good jobs, and so we can reduce the inequality which is undermining our country’s prospects for stable economic growth.

We must have an agenda for restoring American manufacturing—a combination of fair trade and currency policies, worker training, infrastructure investment and regional development policies targeted to help economically distressed areas. We cannot be a prosperous middle class society in a dynamic global economy without a healthy manufacturing sector.

We must have an agenda to address the daily challenges workers face on the job – to ensure safe and healthy workplaces and family-friendly work rules.

And we need comprehensive reform of our immigration policy based on ending exploitation and securing fairness, working for an America where there are no second class workers.

Each of these initiatives should be rooted in a crucial alliance of the middle class and the poor—the majority of the American people. And those of us in the labor movement know that we can only achieve these great things if we work together with community partners who share our goals, and with government leaders who share our vision.

Government that acted in the interests of the majority of Americans has produced our greatest achievements. The New Deal. The Great Society and the Civil Rights movement — Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage and the forty-hour work week, and the Voting Rights Act. This is what made the United States a beacon of hope in a confused and divided world. In the end, I believe the health care bill signed into law last month is an achievement on this order, one we can continue to improve upon to secure health care for all.

But too many thought leaders have become the servants of a different kind of politics—a politics that sees middle-class Americans as overpaid and underworked. That sees Social Security as a problem rather than the only piece of our retirement system that actually works. A mentality that feels sorry for homeless people, but fails to see the connections between downsizing, outsourcing, inequality and homelessness. A mentality that sees mass unemployment as something that will take care of itself, eventually.

We need to return to a different vision.

President Obama said in his inaugural address, “The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” Now is the time to make good on these words – for Congress, for President Obama and for the American people.

These are big challenges. But it is long past time to take them on. If you are worried about the anger in our country, if you don’t want the forces of hatred to grow, be a part of the fight for economic justice and a new economic foundation for America. Be a critic of power and privilege, not its servant.

Be the source of the ideas that can rebuild our economy and restore confidence in government. As students, as teachers, as workers—all of us can play a role in this great effort. Whether here within the university, at think tanks, in the government, in the press, or even working with us in the labor movement, working people need the help of engaged policy intellectuals if we are together going to build an economy that works for all.

Think about the great promise of America and the great legacy we have inherited. Our wealth as a nation and our energy as a people can deliver, in the words of my predecessor Samuel Gompers, “more schoolhouses and less jails; more books and less arsenals; more learning and less vice; more leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of the opportunities to cultivate our better natures.”

That is the American future the labor movement is working for. Let me be clear: There is no excuse for racism and hatred. All Americans need to unite against it. The labor movement must be a powerful voice against it. But you cannot fight hatred with greed. Working people are angry—and we are right to be angry at the betrayal of our economic future. Help us turn that anger into the energy to win a better country and a better world.

That anger is going to go somewhere. And right now it’s going toward us. As far as the demagogues of the right are concerned, its the intelligentsia that’s the enemy. We’re all in this together.

.

.