“It is not easy, in the middle of one’s life or political career, to say that the old horizons are too limited-that our education must begin again. But neither are the challenges ahead easy. The best responses will not be easily found; nor once found, will they command unanimous agreement. But the possibilities of greatness are equal to the difficulty of the challenge.” Robert Kennedy’s timeless clarion call to union members 1966.
Not surprisingly, not all union members champion the casino legislation. Quieted by the media storm regarding this issue, I met union members in Dorchester last night tired and frustrated by the dark cloud casino issue. They shared their concerns with me quietly. We all agree union or not, good jobs with benefits will improve the quality of life. That’s what we all want!
My grandfather, an Irish immigrant, a union activist sadly died shortly after retiring from working most of his adult life in the parks department in Brookline. Grandpa, Anthony Mcgeoghegan retired before the town of Brookline established retirement benefits. Grandpa was brutally discriminated against due to his Irish heritage. He never gave up fighting to end this injustice. That’s why he became a union activist. My dad, Andrew Julian, now 82, a bostonian, reaped the benefits from walking the picket line with his fellow union workers during the John Hancock Insurance Corp strike. It was hard on all of us when dad gave up his paycheck but his steadfast belief in the power of the union paid off. He has excellent health care benefits only because he joined the union and strike. Today, we are polarized. Many are angry at unions and blame unions for our economic demise. I don’t agree. We need to critically evaluate the benefits of joining a union. Sure there are problems, mistakes, in-fighting, power struggles within but I think we can learn from the timeless lessons and benefits. Organize with dignity, honor and transparency. The answer: is not to demonize unions, the answer, I believe is to learn from the mistakes and work together to improve the quality of life for every citizen in Massachusetts. Every citizen should enjoy paid vacations, spend quality time with their family, earn a living wage, earn an affordable college education, afford to own an energy efficient home in the same community where they work, have an opportunity to enjoy a retirement, affordable health care. Let’s work together towards these timely goals. To make the American dream a reality is our shared goal. Let’s discuss the facts regarding unions and non union jobs here and now. What do you propose?
Why support our campaign to fix it:
In order to fix our broken political system mired in casino short term, roll the dice archaic policy, we need more skilled legislators who will work FULL-TIME to fix our broken political system by working together with the voters in the 10th Suffolk District after the election. Don’t be tricked by elite status quo special interest groups or false advertising. Please check out the candidates on your own. Please take the time to find out where my fellow candidates stand and who they supported before they decided to jump into this race. I was the only candidate who ran against known conservative democrat Mike Rush in 2008. Who did my fellow candidates support during the special election to replace beloved champion of working class citizens Senator Kennedy?
I supported Martha Coakley. Where do they stand on
health care? This is not a city council seat. This is a state representative seat. The newly elected state representative will work with local officials but they will vote on, support and or propose state legislation that will effect every citizen in the district and beyond.
Will they continue to work at a law firm, attend law school, or work other jobs? What skills do they have to bring to the state house? I publicly support Governor Patrick’s re-election. Why are none of the other 5 candidates running for this 10th Suffolk District seat held by Mike Rush not publicly supporting Governor Patrick’s re-election? He is our democratic nominee. No other democrat is running in the primary and most important, Governor Patrick deserves our support! If some of my fellow candidates are pro choice, pro-equal marriage, professed progressives only during a special interest PAC interview, why? Ask why they choose not to publicly post their professed progressive views on their public websites? Every candidate has a website, most have facebook sites too. Please be informed before election day.
I am not afraid to discuss the issues now or after the election.
I am pro-choice, pro-equal marriage, against discrimination all the time, now and forever not only during an election. Questions? Join us! Feel free to call or contact our campaign manager, BC grad, Sarah Horn, staylorhorn@gmail.com or me, pamelasjulian@gmail.com.
Vote to put an end to political expediency and opportunism on September 14. Join the movement: pamelajulian.com. Let’s work together now and after the election to establish the 10th Suffolk District Board Coalition to meet regularly to identify and solve problems. If elected, we will open an office in the West Roxbury section of the district to help bring citizens together to achieve our vitally important shared goals at the local and state level.
Sincerely,
Pamela Julian
Principal author of pending student voter bills in Massachusetts, New York and in Washington D.C. State Representative Candidate 10th Suffolk District, West Roxbury, Brookline, Roslindale, pamelajulian.com
Killed the host, obviously. It remains to seen what will happen with government workers, but appears to be headed the same way.
<
p>Yuck.
The top 1% are doing just fine.
Unionized out the wazoo and either the first or second largest net exporter in the world, so obviously their labor is competitive. And with six weeks vacation, medical care for all, and so forth.
<
p>In the US, unions were at their largest and strongest in the late 70s, and have been shrinking ever since due to the continuous war on the middle class. Do you think things have gotten better, or worse, for working Americans since the late 1970s?
<
p>You guys on the right have every reason to be mad as hell – working Americans are getting horribly screwed. However, if you’d look at the hard evidence instead of listening to truthy liars like Limbaugh and Beck, you’d channel your anger towards those you currently see as your friends.
<
p>The evidence is pretty clear – Reaganism has wrecked our country for working Americans. I look forward to your evidence to the contrary. Go ahead, demolish me.
What evidence of Reaganism do you feel was either intended to harm or actually did harm the middle class? Do you have any idea what Reagan stood for, or what he accomplished?? You seriously think we were all better off under Carter?!? I was going to say I doubt that anyone here would even agree with that absurdity, but you’ve garnered 4 6’s so who knows.
<
p>Well at least you’ve got your new Carter now, and a fully dem congress to boot.
<
p>I don’t know much about German unions or for that matter, German politics. Yet I can grant your unsupported claim and that still says nothing about the incredible harmfulness of American unions.
<
p>Because, if our unions were so great then you wouldn’t have to point to the ones in Germany when looking for something good to say.
<
p>Look, I get it that many of you favor eu style socialism. But how many are prepared to pay the taxes? Based on your “tax cuts for me, increases for others” philosophy, I’d say not many.
<
p>Have a nice day.
But I sure as hell do know what he did. He began a full-scale war on the middle class, a war which continues to this day.
<
p>It’s really pretty simple when you look at the evidence: Reagan’s bizarre trickle-down policies have remained dominant through today. Look around: are things better or worse? Has busting unions and hunting non-existing welfare queens helped? The wealthiest Americans pay only 18% in federal taxes, while many in the middle class pay twice that. Before Reagan, it was the other way around. How’s that working out for us? Exploding federal debt and an eviscerated middle class is how it’s working out.
<
p>Do you actually know what things were like under the dreaded President Carter? Unemployment of 6%-7%, vs today’s 22% when measured the same way? The ability for a family to enjoy a middle class lifestyle on a single median salary? Jobs with sick time, full health benefits, and pensions? Quelle horreur! Perhaps you can tell me what was so horrible about that, because I sure as hell don’t know.
<
p>As to EU socialism – I have no idea of what that means. We have socialized programs, they have socialized programs. What bit of it turns it from acceptable US socialism to the dreaded EU socialism?
<
p>As far as I can tell, things were better when we had more union membership, and have gotten worse as unions have been broken. Come on, show me what you got. Demolish me with data demonstrating that unions harmed America.
You love the carter years, got it. Hoo boy, those were the days. But tell me, was it the malaise speech that won you over? Or maybe the hostages? Or the inflation and double digit interest rates, or maybe the gas lines? I’d suspect the favorite concept for any leftist would be the decline of America, but you seem to be pretendingnlike things were super. Why, then, did Carter get blown completely out in the 80 election? Those naughty rascals beck and limbaugh deceived everyone maybe?
<
p>No socialism is ever acceptable to me, now go ahead and go wild* with data demonstrating a war on the middle class. Or maybe ive confused you with someone else, which would explain why I am so perplexed by your persistent loopiness these days.
<
p>(If you are not goldsteingonewild then, my bad, I expected more but perhaps shouldn’t have.)
A total of zero evidence that unions have harmed America, the EU Socialism is a special evil, and the Reagan was a god among men?
<
p>I’ll take 10,000 malaise speeches over Reagan’s cowardly Marine retreat from Beirut after a suicide bombing. What lesson did the bad guys learn from that? “Let’s see… we send a single suicide bomber in, and the Americans totally flee Beirut… hmmm…”
<
p>I’ll take hostages released safely over the thousands of Americans (and hundreds of thousands of others) killed, and trillions spent, in two pointless, unwinnable wars.
<
p>You forgot to mention that inflation under Carter reached the same levels under Ford and Nixon. At least Carter did something to fix it – he appointed Paul Volcker to head the Fed, and Volcker fixed inflation by raising interest rates, which had the short-term effect of increasing inflation, but finally got it under control.
<
p>War on the Middle Class? I’d be happy to provide plenty of data if it would actually make a difference to you – let me know. I’ll end with a quote by one of the attackers:
<
p>
<
p>P.S. – I’m a different Goldstein, but the other one’s a good fellow too.
As the hostage crisis was not relevant above, neither is Beirut.
<
p>And, the “war on the middle class” to the extent that this refers to a failure by the middle class to become “wealthier” in recent decades, probably is the result of (i) the decline of the American manufacturing economy, which boomed artificially from 1939 through the 1960s; (ii) enormous productivity gains in all sectors in recent decades than it is a result of Republican tax cuts.
<
p>In addition, the notion depends on rather somewhat skewed definitions of “wealthier” though this is debatable.
A withering war has been waged on working Americans – we now pay higher taxes and have functionally lost the right to defend ourselves through collective bargaining. Moreover, the banks have purchased the right to do anything they want to us.
<
p>Buffet’s right – it’s a war.
I guess I would refer you here.
<
p>North American heavy industry was the exception to the devastation of the rest of the world’s manufacturing base–not to mention the labor to operate the manufacturing base– during the war. That left it (i) without meaningful competition while the rest of the world rebuilt; and (ii) with older, less efficient infrastructure once the rest of the world did rebuild. Which means that by the late 60s, US heavy manufacturing was in serious trouble, resulting in losses and layoffs throughout the 70s. That is why Chrysler went belly up (the first time) in 1979— before Reagan.
<
p>As for productivity, the entire period from 1980 to now corresponds exactly with the advent of computers and the IT revolution. Do you seriously believe that one guy working for one hour in 2010, using modern technology and tools, does not produce more than one guy working for one hour in 1950?
Reagan’s primary advantages over Carter were (i) the ability to project optimism; and (ii) being president beginning in 1981, rather than 1976.
<
p>The double interest interest rates came from Paul Volker, started before 1980, and got worse in the years after 1981, resulting in the worst recession of the last 30 years next to the one we are in. These high interest rates finally improved the inflation that raged throughout the 70s.
<
p>That is what brought the 1980s boom–not “supply side economics” which was rapidly abandoned anyway. Reagan does get credit in my book for the Tax reform of 1986 (along with certain Democrats, Gephardt and Bradley in particular) and certain provisions of the his first tax cut, which did indeed fuel economic growth by significantly simplifying the tax code, an improvement that has been since undone by Democrats and republicans alike. (In my view, the damage done by hyper-compexity in the tax code is greater than that done by over-taxation. Unfortunately, both parties LOVE LOVE LOVE to layer complexity upon complexity, because it gives them a way to conceal giveaways to their respective special interests.)
<
p>Don’t know WTF the hostage crisis has to do with unions or the economy.
<
p>Carter lost because he was a crappy politician, antagonized what should have been a friendly Congress, and kicked away evangelicals, who were at the time supporters, and therefore got bupkus done. Also, because he took some painful steps that didn’t bear economic fruit until he was gone (kind of like President Bush, the elder).
<
p>The malaise speech is an example of why Mr. Reagan was more successful (and a better executive) than his predecessor: Carter complained that people had no confidence, whereas reagan had the ability to inspire it. True though that may be, it doesn’t strike me as being especially relevant to this particular discussion, given that Carter is old and addled, and Reagan is dead.
___________________________________
<
p>(And, keeping my word, no response to the last sentence of your paragraph 1.– :))
One, Germany, like much of Europe, focuses taxation on consumption though the VAT, and not on investment. Until quite recently, Germany had no capital gains tax at all. This tends to encourage the existence of large trade surpluses.
<
p>The US, in contrast, taxes income and investment, not consumption (at least in the main). This encourages borrowing and consumption, and discourages investment.
<
p>Together, these two things reinforced one another. When German banks looked for a place to invest all of those surplus dollars, they put it in US credit markets– fueling the bubble. That is why Deutsche Bank is a big player in the financial mess.
<
p>The price they pay for their welfare state is a lot of unemployment. Even during the boom years, German unemployment was at rates that would terrify (and are presently terrifying) incumbent American politicians.
High capital tax rates mean companies don’t invest and their products become uncompetitive. Allowing the bush tax cuts to expire will effect the few companies left in the US that actually make something.
<
p>I think German companies succeed in spite of strong unions. Also I think the German unions won’t put up with unprofessional members, like the union my grandfather formed in the early 1900’s.
<
p>
France also has strong unions, and it succeeds “in spite” of them – like Germany, France is a large net exporter so their labor must be competitive.
<
p>Hey… wait… maybe unions actually help countries! Of course you’ll supply me with hard evidence that demonstrates they do not, but from where I’m sitting, it sure looks like the countries that are most unionized have a strong middle class, good job security, and their economies are doing quite well.
When was the last time you thought, boy that french car is really well engineered and well made?
<
p>Current account balance by country France is hanging out with us on the negative side.
<
p>The only reason our currency hasn’t devalued is that dollar is the currency of trade and everyone is afraid of the Euro. We are living on borrowed time.
<
p>All of the EU countries with strong unions have very high structural unemployment. As an employer you don’t hire someone unless they are absolutely perfect for the position. It took one of my suppliers 5 years to get rid of an employee, what lesson would an employer get from this – don’t hire or automate the job. The upside of automating the job is in the long run you make products very efficiently, like Germany.
<
p>
Unions do better in a competitive wage/salary market.
<
p>
<
p>A strong non-union economy makes it easier for unions to form and for their demands to be met. You want the average level of benefits to be higher, then the unions can demand that across the board. For instance, the minimum wage can safely be set higher if the actual minimum wage is naturally high. However if you simply set an unrealistic minimum wage ($35/hour) you will find massive cheating and off-the-books employment. It’s the same with all other kinds of benefits.