George Bush was asked about the auto industry rescue today during a speech at the American Enterprise Institute. He said that he hasn’t made up his mind yet. But the signs are clear that he’s looking at an “orderly” bankruptcy for the automakers.
The Bush administration is seriously considering “orderly” bankruptcy as a way of dealing with the desperately ailing U.S. auto industry.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Thursday, “There’s an orderly way to do bankruptcies that provides for more of a soft landing. I think that’s what we would be talking about.” […]
“Under normal circumstances, no question bankruptcy court is the best way to work through credit and debt and restructuring,” he said during a speech and question-and-answer session at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank. “These aren’t normal circumstances. That’s the problem.”
So we’ll force them to go bankrupt anyway, but it’ll be done very nicely. That’s not going to freak out consumers and keep them from purchasing an American car, worried about their warranties and service contracts.
This was floated the day before in a Bloomberg piece, but there it was assumed that bankruptcy would be forced by a “car czar” if the cash infusion didn’t work out after March 31. This makes it much more sudden. By the way, that “car czar” looks to be Henry Paulson at this point. I don’t think he’ll show the same sympathy for blue-collar industry that he did for his financial buddies.
This is insane. Both GM and Ford are retooling themselves for the 21st century, and were on the road to profitability before the economic meltdown. Nobody can buy a car, that’s the bottom line, it has nothing to do with what cars are being offered. The ripple effects have begun. Chrysler is shutting down all of its plants and GM is halting its Chevy Volt plant. You’re talking about 3 million jobs at risk, and even an orderly bankruptcy is going to shake consumer confidence. It’s exactly the wrong thing to do.
I know a lot of people thought that when Bush was left holding the bag after Senate negotiations produced no auto rescue, that the auto companies would end up with a better deal. Doesn’t seem like it. Obama’s transition could do a lot right now to save the industry and make his job a lot easier, but outside of the odd press release he’s been strangely silent.
I think it’s pretty clear that the Republicans are playing for 2010 and want to run against the “Obama Economy.” That means they are going to put a monkey wrench in everything they can get away with. And I think we know that the consequences for all of us are likely to be painful.
But if they get away with it, things may go awry in ways that they may not expect. (It’s even possible that newtie and Cheney and some of the other radicals who are saying some odd things may realize.) Here’s an article on the subject that will curl your hair:
What’s the worst that could happen?
That’s a question that James Rickards spends a lot of time pondering these days, as he sifts through the national security implications of the financial crisis facing the United States.
Rickards will lay out his worst case scenarios in a lecture sponsored by the Navy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Policy tonight. And his forecasts aren’t for the faint of heart.
Rickards calls it the “A to Z” problem: What are the threats that could make the U.S. economy look less like America and more like Zimbabwe? He sees them everywhere – in the Chinese ownership of vast amounts of American debt, in Russia’s increased centralization of its economy, in Al Qaeda’s long-established fascination with damaging the U.S. economy.
In many ways, Rickards is the ultimate bear. He’s not just thinking about whether the stock market will decline, but whether or not the stock market will survive.
All that puts Rickards decidedly outside mainstream economic and political thinking in America. But he does have an influential audience: the United States intelligence and defense communities.Rickards is a regular adviser on financial issues to the director of national intelligence’s office, and he lends his financial advice to the national security community.
His lecture comes as part of an annual “Rethinking Seminar” produced by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Rickards argues that government is not doing nearly enough to prepare for the worst. “Here’s the policy problem for the United States,” he said in an interview. “We have experts in defense and intelligence, and huge depth in capital markets experience at the Fed and at Treasury. But they’re separated by the Potomac River. And they’re not talking to each other.”
Rickards came by his economic experience the hard way. He was the general counsel at Long Term Capital Management, the hedge fund that collapsed in spectacular fashion in the late 1990s and nearly took the global economy along with it. That near-economic death experience gave him a healthy appreciation for risk. Today, he’s the senior managing director for research at Omnis, an applied research firm.
read on for the details. Now I don’t know if this is reasonable. But I do think that it’s something that the Republicans should keep in mind as they plan their little obstruction fest to the necessary stimulus Obama is said to be planning to propose. While Peggy Noonan and the rest of the clones have been robotically mouthing Karl Rove’s talking points about Bush “keeping us safe” he has actually been weakening this country in more ways that we can measure. From the secret energy task force, tohis intimate relationship with Kenny Boy Lay’s electrical ponzi scheme, to putting partisan hacks like Chris Cox in charge of the SEC to, well … everything else, this financial and economic crisis has most definitely made us all less safe.
If these Republicans want to continue with conservative dogma on free market fundamentalism by obstructing Obama’s efforts, I suppose they can. But if they think it’s a good political calculation, I’d suggest they have really lost their touch. Everybody is going to suffer and they are going to blame the wealthy grownups who ran the self-described “low tax and national security party” that ran the country into the ground. Why do you think that Dick Cheney is running around telling people that it’s “Herbert Hooverville” if the Republicans don’t get their act together. He’s evil, but he isn’t stupid.
Update II: Stupid people on CNN have taken it upon themselves to decide what constitutes “legitimate” infrastructure spending. Apparently, Obama is only going to be allowed to spend money on roads and bridges. Even things like bike paths are “pork” and are not going to be acceptable to the “fiscal responsibility” scolds and cable news spokesmodels. Word to the wise. Nobody gets it.
There were demonstrations in Iraq calling for the release of Muntathar al-Zaidi in Falluja, in the Sunni Triagle, and in the Baghdad Sunni neighborhood of Adhamiya. This is not relegated to a concern of Sadrist Shiites. In Falluja, US troops fired warning shots:
University students rallied for Zaidi in Fallujah on Wednesday, drawing the attention of U.S. forces.
Students raised their shoes and threw rocks at American soldiers, who reportedly opened fire above the crowd. Protesters said that indirect fire wounded one student, Zaid Salih. U.S. forces haven’t confirmed the account.
“We demonstrated to express our support for Muntathar al Zaidi, but we were surprised with the entrance of the U.S. military,” said Ahmed Ismail, one of the protesters. “Unconsciously, we raised our shoes expressing our support for al Zaidi, but they attacked us.”
I’m sure that won’t escalate.
The mood in Iraq these days is, well let’s call it “tense”. Yesterday demonstrators blocked the passage out of the Green Zone and ignored warning shots.
Al-Zaidi has formally apologized to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for his conduct and begged for forgiveness (his brother thinks it was coerced). For geostrategic reasons alone, he should be set free.
…This raid of the Interior Ministry is interesting. Maliki is clearly using a paramilitary group that he calls an “elite counterterrorism force” to muscle out all his competition. The idea that this was a foiled coup attempt doesn’t make sense at all. He is just consolidating power. But if he fails to understand the danger of the al-Zaidi case and the popular movement that could erupt, it won’t matter.
This is simply unacceptable — are we going to do something about it? From Bloomberg News:
Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which got $10 billion and debt guarantees from the U.S. government in October, expects to pay $14 million in taxes worldwide for 2008 compared with $6 billion in 2007.
The company’s effective income tax rate dropped to 1 percent from 34.1 percent[last year]…The firm reported a $2.3 billion profit for the year …[and] lowered its rate with more tax credits as a percentage of earnings and because of “changes in geographic earnings mix,” the company said.
U.S. Representative Lloyd Doggett, [said], “With the right hand out begging for bailout money, the left is hiding it offshore.” [Bold added]
Can you contact Goldman Sachs today? Tell them they should pay their taxes or go to jail–it’s that simple.
Jesus H. Christ. Can’t they even pretend to be decent corporate citizens?
Go here. You’ll find all the info you need to tell Goldman Sachs what you think of them.
The Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament has resigned over the al-Zaidi arrest.
Iraq’s parliament speaker announced his resignation Wednesday after a parliamentary session descended into chaos as lawmakers argued about whether to free a journalist who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush.
The speaker, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, has threatened to resign before and has been suspended for embarrassing the prime minister with erratic behavior.
On Wednesday, after arguments erupted among lawmakers over the fate of the journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi, the speaker said: “I have no honor leading this parliament and I announce my resignation.”
al-Mashhadani is a Salafi elected on the Iraqi Accord Front list, a Sunni-led slate. So much for the idea that only Shiite Sadrists supported al-Zaidi.
THE Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at United States President George W. Bush has appeared before a judge in his jail cell because he is too injured to appear in a courtroom, his brother says.
The al-Zaidi family went to Baghdad’s Central Criminal Court expecting to attend a hearing, his brother, Dhargham, said.
He said the family was told that the investigative judge went to see al-Zaidi in jail, and to return in eight days, Associated Press has reported.
“That means my brother was severely beaten and they fear that his appearance could trigger anger at the court,” Dhargham said.
The anger is already being triggered. Yesterday crowds in Najaf (a Shiite holy city and Sadrist stronghold) threw shoes at an American military patrol. At some point they’ll realize that other projectiles can do more damage.
I’ve been writing for a long time about the Religious Industrial Complex and how they hope to end the culture war by marginalizing pro-choice and pro gay rights voices within both parties. They’ve entirely succeeded with the Republicans and have now turned their attention to the Democrats. It just took a giant step forward with the announcement that Obama has invited Christian Right leader Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration.
There are those who feel this is a very savvy political move on Obama’s part — by inviting Warren to give the invocation at the most watched inauguration in history, Obama is validating the views of the Christian Right and they may very well be moved enough by that to become Democrats. But it naturally follows that in order to keep their votes, the Democrats would have to honor their agenda and views — the evangelicals are big voting bloc and if the Democrats become the social conservative party, they could count on their votes for sure. (If they don’t make substantial moves toward social conservatism, this won’t work, obviously.) It doesn’t leave much room for liberals, but perhaps that’s a good thing. They are nothing but trouble, defending women’s civil liberties, agitating for gay rights and hectoring the government about not torturing and starting wars and all that. It would be a big relief if they didn’t need them.
It occurs to me that this may have been one of the lessons the political establishment took from the Clinton years. Gore had the presidency denied him in 2000 largely because the Democrats had alienated a significant enough slice of the left that it defected to a third party, making the outcome much closer than it should have been. They may see the way to permanent realignment to be the replacement of liberals (who are universally loathed among their friends) with the salt-of-the-earth, well organized and easy to appease social conservatives. It makes some sense. It would keep liberals rootless and powerless but they could continue to serve as the useful punching bag for the political establishment.
And the good news is that if they do manage to completely marginalize these pro-choice and pro-gay rights millstones (and perhaps the inconvenient civil liberties cranks as well) they would probably also be pushing some progressive economic policies with the help of the social conservatives — which is exactly what the Religious Industrial Complex is promising will happen. Of course, that’s mostly because the only economic policies available are progressive, but it still makes the RIC look very, very smart doesn’t it?
Here is the nation’s new spiritual leader:
Update: If you think I’m being hyperbolic about what bringing Warren and his followers into the Big Tent means, here’s Warren himself (via Americablog):
“Of course I want to reduce the number of abortions,” Warren told Beliefnet Editor-in-Chief Steven Waldman when asked if he was going to work with the Obama administration to achieve an abortion reduction agenda or if he thinks that the effort is a charade.
“But to me it is kind of a charade in that people say ‘We believe abortions should be safe and rare,’” he added.
“Don’t tell me it should be rare. That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that,’” Warren said. “I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.”
More here, from Fred Clarkson, on the desire on the part of both parties to specifically marginalize the Religious Left, who are often pains in the ass with all their liberal insistence on following Jesus’s teaching and all.
I had a visceral reaction the other day against the move by the Illinois Attorney General to have Blogojevich removed by the state supremes. I just don’t like undemocratic end runs in these highly charged situations, no matter who is doing it.
The court apparently agreed. So now we let the system do its work, which requires that the Governor gets to tell his side of the story and present himself for judgment both by his fellow politicos in Springfield and a jury of his peers. Blagojevich should resign for the good of the state, of course, but he certainly has a right to fight this is he wants to. The state will survive.
In case you wonder what the political media’s priorities are, look no further than today’s First Read, the “blog” of Chuck Todd and his minions at NBC. Here is the first post this morning:
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Carrie Dann *** The Dem albatross: Just six weeks have passed since Election Day. But with the Blagojevich scandal still dominating the political news, the TV ads haven’t stopped. Yesterday, we reported that the pro-business group Americans for Job Security is up with an ad in Arkansas, Nebraska, and North Dakota — states with conservative- to moderate-leaning Democratic senators (including two up for re-election in 2010) — that links Blago with SEIU in the business group’s campaign against a union-backed measure that would overhaul labor law and forbid employers from mandating that workers cast secret ballots in union negotiations. And now the Illinois GOP has a new TV ad demanding a special election for Obama’s Senate seat rather than an appointment. What if F-Rod doesn’t leave office soon? Won’t he be an easy target for quite some time? This is the frustration Obama’s team and congressional Democrats are feeling right now. Blago’s a distraction that will keep on giving to the GOP. NBC Deputy Political Director Mark Murray offers his first read on concerns about a relationship between Ill. Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Barack Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
*** More F-Rod: Here are more developments in the Blagojevich scandal. The legislative panel considering the governor’s impeachment reconvenes today for its first day of testimony, with Blago’s attorney present… We learned that Jesse Jackson Jr. has been sharing information about public corruption with federal investigators for years… Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed notes — in a 44-word item — that Rahm Emanuel “is reportedly on 21 different taped conversations by the feds,” but an Obama source tells NBC’s Savannah Guthrie that the report is inaccurate… Another Sun-Times piece notes that Rahm was pushing for Valerie Jarrett to replace Obama (until Jarrett took her name out of contention). Next week, the Obama folks are going to need to allow both Rahm and Jarrett to explain when and why she took her name out to clean up the timing issue… And Obama sidestepped questions about Blagojevich at his press conference yesterday. “Let me just cut you off,” he told a Chicago Tribune reporter, “because I don’t want you to waste your question. As I indicated yesterday, we’ve done a full review of this. The facts are going to be released next week… So do you have another question?”
This has taken on a life of it’s own.
AB Stoddard of The Hill laid it all out on MSNBC this morning:
Contessa Brewer: Obama is really trying to stay on message here except the press corps is dropping daily hints that the honeymoon may be over … AB stoddard, editor of The Hill is here. AB what were seeing in these news conferences, is that the amount of time Obama is willing to spend in Q and A sessions with reporters is getting shorter and shorter. What’s the motive for Obama here in trying to keep these short and succinct?
Stoddard: Obviously he hopes that every time he rolls out a nominee, they’re only going to talk about that and as you see he’s calling on regional press hoping that they’ll be talking about regional issues related to those nominations. And he going to get Blagojevich questions every single time he comes out in public until they release these findings.
They’ve pushed that off until next week and you know, according to The Wall Street Journal yesterday, they’re just choosing to do this. They’re choosing not to talk. There is no legal impediment and no injunction against them. Although Patrick Fitzgerald doesn’t want them to talk, they’re not legally kept from doing so. They’re not. They’re choosing not to talk. So in some ways, Barack Obama is doing this to himself. He keeps getting those questions and it’s going to be a feeding frenzy next week.
Brewer: And it’s leaving room, time to ponder and question and time for doubts to arise. And, in fact, we’re seeing this new Marist poll which says that Americans feel the Obama transition is on the right track. [61%] Now that’s pretty good. But an NBC/Wall Street journal poll earlier that number was more like three fourths of the people who were responding.
Is the Blagojevich scandal and the surrounding questions, no matter what the answers are, if they remain unanswered, is it likely to affect how people view this transition?
Stoddard:Absolutely. If next week, Christmas week, we find out that no one did anything wrong and, in fact they alerted the feds about anything they knew and they’re totally clean, even if Rod Blagojevich doubled down and it remains a story perhaps it’s going to go away as a major distraction for Barack Obama.
However, the question that people are not asking about Rahm Emmanuel — it doesn’t matter that he talked 20 times or 40 times about the senate seat. The question is, if he didn’t engage in deal making, if he knew that Rod Blagojevich was trying to sell the seat, did he alert the authorities? If we find out that he did not, he may not be in legal jeopardy, but then you have a serious political problem for the chief of staff and a serious political problem for the president if he keeps him on as chief of staff.
Brewer: You just said the question that is not being asked. I know that there are journalists who are taking a lot of heat for not being aggressive and tough with Obama. Do you agree? And if you had the opportunity, what’s the one question right now that you would demand that he answer?
Stoddard: That would be the question — “if Rahm Emmanuel did not engage in deal making when he spoke to the Governor of Illinois about your successor to the senate, did he alert the authorities?” Did he tip off the feds that Rod Blagojevich was looking for goodies in exchange for the seat. And if he didn’t, why not? That is the question that has to be answered. Again, I want to repeat, maybe not a legal question — he has a lawyer but he might not be in legal jeopardy — and I believe Rahm Emmanuel and Patrick Fitzgerald when they say, “no one’s done anything inappropriate” but if Rahm Emmanuel then just sat there and didn’t tell the authorities that Rod Balgojevich was looking for prizes, then that’s a huge political problem for both him and his boss.
You’ll notice that Stoddard just moved the goal posts quite a way down the field. It’s no longer a matter of legal or ethical wrongdoing. It’s about whether or not Rahm (or any other name that comes up) reported his conversations to the feds. And what’s really awesome about this is that the press gets to decide whether or not he should have done it because there’s no legal obligation. And if by some chance the rest of the conversations are made public, they get to decide what constitutes “appropriate” and whether they should have ben reported in order to pass the smell test. They will also tell us whether or not Obama himself “should have known” and speculate endlessly about what this whole thing says about his “ability to lead.” It’s a dream come true.
Two more things stuck out at me about that exchange. First, Brewer brings up something that I’ve now heard half a dozen times on MSNBC by various talking heads: reporters are “taking a lot of heat” for not being aggressive enough toward Obama. Taking heat from whom?
I expected that after the election the press would come under pressure exactly like this. It’s a classic “work the refs” move. But the press is openly using it as an excuse for their own behavior, which is new and changed the rules, it seems to me. While they are haranguing Obama for failing to answer questions, they seem to think it’s fine not to reveal who is pressuring reporters to harangue him. Maybe they need to take some questions themselves.
The other concerning thing is that both Brewer and Stoddard seem to be banking on the public validating their obsession by losing faith in Obama. It’s possible, but in no way is it assured. And the inevitable result of that is to make the press all the more determined to find something that will. They will come to see the president as having some sort of illegitimate hold on the public which must be broken. If it doesn’t take with this scandal, the press will harbor resentment and jump on the next one with even more fervor.
The essential problem is that we all give the press the power to run our politics, both during campaigns and after. We applaud them when they go after those we hate and excoriate them when they go after those we like. And so does the other side. In the end, the media remain in the driver’s seat, ginning up controversy and indulging their passion for worthless speculation and scandalmongering. We give them their power by not holding them to a common standard.
I’m as guilty of this as anyone, but I regret it. They are always going to be harder on Democrats than Republicans because there are corporate pressures as well as institutional and social pressures to do so. And frankly, DC Dems just don’t have the killer instinct or the establishment clout to put the same kind of “pressure” on the press as the Republicans do. Until the press is reformed it remains an albatross around the neck of the American body politic.
It’s pretty clear that the GOP desire to stiff the auto companies had little to do with bailing out GM and Chrysler per se, and everything to do with busting unions. GOP lawmakers made it fairly explicit in their internal deliberations that this was a union fight, and they also characterized it as the first round of the battle against the Employee Free Choice Act:
Handing a defeat to labor and its Democratic allies in Congress was also seen as a preemptive strike in what is expected to be a major battle for the new Congress in January: the unions’ bid for a so-called card check law that would make it easier for them to organize workers, potentially reversing decades of declining power. The measure is strongly opposed by business groups.
“This is the Democrats’ first opportunity to pay off organized labor after the election,” read an e-mail circulated Wednesday among Senate Republicans. “This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it.”
One of the leading opponents of the auto bailout, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), said: “Year after year, union bosses have put their interests ahead of the workers they claim to represent. Congress never should have given these unions this much power, and now is the time to fix it.”
Congress didn’t “give” unions anything, of course. Workers took their rights to organize through concerted effort and mass action. Congress helped set labor law designed to stop them.
(By the way, make this guy the Labor Secretary, President-elect Obama. Make it happen today.)
Morgan Johnson, president of the United Auto Workers local representing General Motors workers in Shreveport, said Friday that Sen. David Vitter’s role in blocking an auto bailout indicates “he’s chosen to play Russian roulette” with Louisiana jobs and the national economy.
“I don’t know what Sen. Vitter has against GM or the United Auto Workers or the entire domestic auto industry; whatever it is, whatever he thinks we’ve done, it’s time for him to forgive us, just like Sen. Vitter has asked the citizens of Louisiana to forgive him, ” said Johnson, president of Local 2166. Otherwise, Johnson said of Vitter, it would appear, “He’d rather pay a prostitute than pay auto workers.”
But the fearmongering, the demonization of unions that found a home on talk radio, worked at least in part in this case. In part the Southern rump wanted to let their nonunion auto factories in Dixie flourish, but obviously Republicans want to protect their corporate allies and stop the gains of the labor movement over the last decade. They see it as poisonous to corporate profits and deadly to their political futures, as union households historically vote Democratic.
Now we’re seeing this fight over EFCA become even more pronounced. This latest ad tries to associate the Blagojevich scandal with “union bosses” And I think you’ll see whatever other scandal of the moment attached to labor, to continue to cement an image in the public mind that unions are the problem.
Kicking off what promises to be a huge fight over labor’s top legislative priority, a pro-business group is sinking over a million dollars into a TV ad campaign tying Rod Blagojevich to “union bosses” and calling on Democratic Senators in four states to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act.
The ad — which was sent over by a source and hasn’t been released to the press — seeks to tar the Employee Free Choice Act as vaguely corrupt-sounding by tying it rather tangentially to the Blago mess. It’s being aired by Americans for Job Security, a business-funded group that is expected to spend big money to sink the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for unions to organize and is labor’s top goal for 2009.
(Amusing that the target in this version of the ad, Ken Salazar, is now the Secretary of the Interior nominee and will not have a vote.)
Berman, hired by businesses, fights efforts such as further restricting drinking and driving, mandating healthier foods and raising the minimum wage. The former labor relations lawyer argues that many of the restrictions reduce our ability to make our own choices.
He seldom mentions his clients, other than to say many are in the food and restaurant industries, and he represents them through a variety of non-profit groups he has set up. His targets range from Mothers Against Drunk Driving to the Ralph Nader-founded Center for Science in the Public Interest, which works on food issues, to labor unions…
Berman spent the last couple of years fighting obesity-focused trial lawyers and consumer groups who have succeeded in getting trans fats out of many foods and soft-drink machines out of schools — the latter a move he finds ludicrous because high-calorie juice is allowed and diet drinks aren’t.
Currently, he’s predicting that when they’re done with fat, the food-safety groups will focus more on demonizing caffeine. And MADD, he says, won’t be happy until there is a breathalyzer in every car and social drinkers are scared into public sobriety.
Berman expects to raise $30 million dollars to fight the EFCA, and his efforts have already gotten one Democrat to waver, not surprisingly a Senator from the land of Wal-Mart.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln says she doesn’t think federal legislation that would allow labor organizations to unionize workplaces without secret-ballot elections is necessary. But in an interview with The Associated Press today, Lincoln gave herself room to support the measure if it’s brought up later.
Business and labor groups are pressuring the Democratic senator from Arkansas for support either way. Tim Griffin, a potential challenger to the senator’s 2010 re-election bid, has said her stand could be an issue in the race.
That’s right, Karl Rove’s protégé Tim Griffin, the man responsible for voter caging in Florida in 2004, and a key part of the US Attorney scandal, is mulling a run for Senate. And he’s putting union jobs at the heart of his campaign. Because the biggest issue facing America is that some in the working class just make too much darn money.
There are extremely powerful forces seeking to block the Employee Free Choice Act. We have nothing on our side but people power. SEIU is planning events where ordinary people speak directly with McDonald’s employees tomorrow, asking them “what it’s like to work for a CEO who is paid 770 times what his workers earn, leaving working families with barely enough to afford the ‘Dollar Menu.'” You can find an event in your areahere.