Monday, March 02, 2009 - Posts
-
sponsorship
L.A.'s fifteen City Council members make $178,000 per year, way more than in New York ($112K) or Chicago ($110K). They have 320 staffers between them, they get free cars, plus taxpayer-financed $100,000 slush funds to dispense as they choose to local organizations. They don't have to feed parking meters! Plus they have approximately zero fear of not being reelected. ... Despite that, or maybe because of it, they do a lousy job, argues L.A. Weekly in an impressive full-frontal assault that takes some cheap shots and some not-cheap ones:
The members admit that they never discussed what a digital billboard was, or its intrusive impact, before quickly approving them citywide; ...[M]any now admit they had no idea what made up the $1 billion to $3.6 billion solar plan, Measure B, but stuck it on [this] week's ballot anyway. ... They squabbled over selling valuable city land throughout the run-up in land values, and now that they're desperate for funds, council members plan to hold an embarrassing fire sale of the public's land.
Needless to say, the city's giant budget deficit is driven in large part by "increases in employee pay and benefits". [LAT via LAO] ... More generally, in part due to L.A.'s weak-mayor/strong council system, residents have little sense that the development (or overdevelopment) of L.A. is under any kind of intelligible control. It seems as if everything's a favor handed out by individual councilpersons--an impression reinforced by the Weekly. ... P.S.: If you are part of kf's coveted Beverly Hills demographic, my mother says to vote for Mirisch. I note only that she is an excellent judge of character.. ... 10:57 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Mike Allen buries the lede:
In the end, Obama believes, forward motion on his agenda matters more than any details.
“Even if we’re busting the budget, we’ve got to solve some of these problems,” said a member of his inner circle. “I’d rather live with a debt than have people go without health care.” [E.A.]
Aha. ... And here I almost believed Obama's health care plans were all about lowering costs and getting the budget under control. ... 2:48 P.M.
___________________________
HuffPo 1, NYT 0: Sam Stein on the possibility of Dem Senate defections on "card check." Don't tell NYT designated labor spinnee Steven Greenhouse!
A senior official involved in getting EFCA passed into law said he was underwhelmed but not surprised by the support being offered for this union priority from the White House ...
P.S.--J-School Extra Credit Assignment: Compare Stein's article, in the biased, amateur-filled Huffington Post, with Greenhouse's article in the venerable and highly professional New York Times. They aren't in the same ballpark in terms of a) sophistication and b) reporting on the actual situation. Could Greenhouse even get a job at HuffPo? ... P.P.S.: Stein's story could serve a pro-labor function, of course, by focusing union-led pressure on potential defectors Bayh, Landrieu, Baucus, and Nelson. ... 12:26 P.M.
___________________________
Up-to-the-second twitters on the Illinois-5 Congressional race: Geoghegan's been endorsed by the prestigious Hideout bar. ... 12:12 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
E.J. Dionne on Obama's budget:
The central issue in American politics now is whether the country should reverse a three-decade long trend of rising inequality in incomes and wealth.
Hmm. Does Dionne think Obama's budget will "reverse a three-decade long trend of rising inequality in incomes and wealth"? As opposed to making the trend slightly less inegalitarian than it would otherwise be? I'd like to see the calculation.
A "reverse" in the decades-long inequality trend would be an impressive feat for what is only a rise of 4.6% in the top tax rate (from 35% to 39.6 percent) plus a modest rise in the capital gains rate and some reduced deductions. Isn't it more likely that whether inequality rises will still depend on trends in before-tax incomes--i.e. the underlying economy--which tend to swamp modest shifts in how those incomes are taxed? And if economic health returns, why would we expect the rich to stop getting as rich, before taxes, as they've been getting?
Maybe Obama's biggest feat of salesmanship** will have been convincing starry-eyed Money Liberals like Dionne that he's grandly reversing the inequality trend, when he's really doing something much more modest and realistic (e.g., funding some important new benefits by raising some taxes on top earners). ...
**--Obama's helped here, of course, by the alarmist right, which also has an interest in exaggerating the distributive impact of his budget. ... 2:17 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
"Card Check" Cocooning? Steven Greenhouse reports organized labor isn't worried about Obama's commitment to "card check" bill:
... [M]r. Obama has signaled he will push for legislation that would expand labor's thinned ranks by making it far easier to unionize workers. Labor leaders expect Vice President Joseph Biden to spell out the administration's battle plans for the bill on Thursday, when he is scheduled to speak at the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s winter meeting in Miami Beach.
Any doubts that union leaders might have had about Mr. Obama dissolved several weeks ago when, in announcing a new Task Force on the Middle Class, he said: "I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem. To me, it's part of the solution. You cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement." ...
Mr. Johnson, of the Chamber of Commerce, denounced the bill, saying, “The idea of radically changing employment law when companies are trying to dig themselves out of a hole is ludicrous.”
But Mr. Obama disagreed, telling regional newspaper reporters last month: “I don’t buy the argument that providing workers with collective-bargaining rights somehow weakens the economy or worsens the business environment. If you’ve got workers who have decent pay and benefits, they’re also customers for business.” If there is one area where labor remains uneasy with Mr. Obama, it is trade policy. ... [E.A.]
This seems like chearleaderish pro-"card check" optimism. Yes, Obama clearly supports unions. But does he clearly support the "Employee Free Choice Act," the bill he co-sponsored as a Senator? The general pro-labor sentiments Greenhouse quotes don't make that case. For example, the Detroit Freep's summary of Obama's regional paper interview contained this passage, left out of both the AFL-CIO's account and Greenhouse's:
He said he hoped to see in coming weeks forces on both sides talk about common ground which could be reached on the legislation.
The Philadelphia Inquirer's account continued this passage, also left out of the AFL-CIO's account and Greenhouses's:
At the same time, Obama said business had legitimate concerns. He said he would like to see labor and business groups work together on a compromise.
"Whether those conversations can bear fruit over the next several months, we'll see," he said. "But I'm always a big believer in before we gear up for some tooth-and-nail battle, that we see if some accommodations can't be found."
If you are really 'pushing' for legislation, do you start by calling for compromise? The unions may effectively win the card check fight--either through a tooth-and-nail battle or a pro-union revision. But unless they are immune to ordinary human anxiety--or have received some private assurance from Obama not reported by Greenhouse--I suspect they have 'doubts' and are 'uneasy.' As are their opponents. ...
Update: Carter Wood suggests that if Obama were 100% for card check, he'd still encourage uncertainty about his position--
Given the faltering support in Congress for card check, strategic ambiguity serves the advocates best.
How to tell real uncertainty from strategic uncertainty? [Blind quotes from aides!--ed Greenhouse has none of those.] 12:49 A.M.
___________________________
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?