Sherrod Brown

Buy American Jobs

Leo Gerard — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:41:26 -0400

Efforts by those who never want to hear someone say, “Bye-bye American manufacturing,” converged coincidentally to make June Buy American month.

First, at the forceful urging of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the Smithsonian on June 8 opened an all-American-made gift shop in the National Museum of American History. Three days later, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio introduced legislation requiring federal agencies to buy only 100 percent American-made flags.

Then, at the Netroots Nation 2011 conference in Minneapolis, Minn. this week, the AFL-CIO will serve American union-made beer, including Schell’s, brewed in Minnesota by members of my union, the United Steelworkers (USW). The Alliance for American Manufacturing will host at Netroots an American-made fashion show at which it will serve USW-member made Kellogg’s Nutri-Grain bars. And the BlueGreen Alliance is distributing to Netroots attendees mercury-free, USW-made, energy-efficient, non-curly cue Oshram Sylvania halogen light bulbs.

All these events occurring before mid-June are significant in an era of stubborn 9.1 percent unemployment, a time when 14 million unemployed Americans are searching for jobs. It’s significant because buying American-made products is buying American jobs. And buying American union-made products is buying good, middle class American jobs.

Eight million American manufacturing workers have lost their jobs over the past 30 years as multi-national corporations off-shored factories. But America still manufactures and the prices of American-manufactured goods, including those made by union workers, are competitive with foreign-made products.

Choosing an American-made product, or North American-made to include my home country of Canada where hundreds of thousands of USW members live and work, means supporting North American workers and the North American work ethic. It means buying products manufactured by willing adults in reasonable conditions, not by children laboring Dickensian hours in dangerous factories. It means reasonable assurance that the manufacturer abided by environmental laws prohibiting the poisoning of the air, ground and water by toxic substances like mercury and lead.

The Smithsonian experience provides the perfect example of how buying American-made products purchases American jobs.

Late last year, Sen. Sanders went to the history museum shop to buy Christmas gifts and discovered the presidential busts there were made in China. He was incensed that an American taxpayer-supported history museum was selling American history memorabilia not made in America. He complained.

While the Smithsonian reviewed the situation, CBS news determined exactly how policies like the museum’s injure the American economy. CBS reporters found a Connecticut woman who had to lay off three workers when the museum stopped selling her hand-crafted, American-made jewelry and replaced them with foreign-made substitutes. Before the change, Merrie Buchsbaum’s “Americana Collection” was among the museum shop’s best sellers. Apparently tourists did not find the prices for her America-made souvenirs to be excessive.

When the museum cut her off, Buchsbaum’s sales declined 20 percent, forcing her to furlough her entire staff. Three jobs is the difference between buying American and buying foreign for just one small supplier of one small gift shop.

The Smithsonian changed its policy, converting the gift shop to an all-American operation with 300 American-made souvenirs. Now it’s called the American History Price of Freedom gift shop.

That price of freedom, the Smithsonian said, is higher in some cases when the souvenir is American-made. For example, the custom, hand-crafted American-made mugs it now sells cost $20 instead of the average $12 price for a foreign-made mug in other museum shops. But U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, who is preparing legislation tying the sale of American-made souvenirs to future federal funding for the museums, believes Americans will pay a buck or two more “to have their lapel American flag pin say ‘Made in the U.S.A.’”

American products don’t always cost more, however, even when they’re union-made. ABC news investigative reporters discovered that when they removed foreign-made goods from a Dallas family’s home earlier this year and replaced them with American-made products.

In addition, included in the price of North American-made products is the cost of protecting the environment and treating workers with dignity. It’s the price of morality. The United States and Canada, for example, forbid child labor and institutionalized the 40-hour work week. Both countries enforce environmental protection laws forbidding the devastating pollution countenanced by China and some third-world nations.

For example, the New York Times this week revealed that millions of Chinese children suffer from brain and nerve-damaging lead poisoning from unregulated, polluting factories, many of which produce batteries or smelt metal. The Times reported that the Chinese government in some cases conspired with the polluting companies to cover up the problem, denied testing to nearby sick residents and withheld tests results.

The lead poisoning raises the question of what China is doing about even-more-dangerous mercury, which is used by Chinese companies to make those twisty, energy-efficient light bulbs.

In America, Steelworkers are fabricating energy-efficient Sylvania halogen bulbs that look exactly like traditional light bulbs and contain absolutely no mercury. That’s American innovation, American compliance with moral environmental rules and American union labor creating a superior product.

Who knew, though? All anyone hears anymore is that American manufacturing is dead. American doesn’t make anything anymore. That is just not true. Here are some USW-made, terrific North American products:

Jacobson hats
Cutco Cutlery
Kellogg’s Pop-Tarts
Wendell August Forge pewter gifts
Breyers Ice Cream
Cascades paper towels and tissue
Viva and Bounty paper towels
Depend undergarments and Poise pads
Charmin and Angel Soft bath tissue
Puffs facial tissue
Georgia-Pacific Dixie Cups and plates
Cenveo envelopes
Leader Paper Products envelopes and business cards
All-Clad metal cookware
Regal Ware cookware
Speed Queen washers and dryers
Alberto Culver hair care products
Carrier home heating systems
Enderes forged hand tools
Channellock tools
Ideal Roofing steel shingles
Blanco Canada kitchen sinks
Nestle Purina cat litter
Distinctive Design furniture
Barrymore furniture
Star Bedding, Sealy, Spring Air, Springwall, King Koil and Simmons mattresses
Anchor Hocking glass tableware
General Storage containers
World Kitchen Pyrex glassware
A.O. Smith residential water tanks
Gentek Building Products including windows, doors and vinyl siding
American Standard bathroom fixtures
Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil
Fabri-Kal plastic ware
Speakman shower heads
3M O-cell-O sponges
Crown Metal Packaging for food and beverages
Federal White Cement
Shade-O-Matic and Eclipse venetian blinds, shutters and window covers
Valspar pigment for Valspar paints
Lavelle Industries rubber and plastic plumbing components
Harley-Davidson motorcycle parts and accessories
PFERD Milwaukee Brush metal brushes
Alto-Shaam, Inc. ovens and warmers
Shur-Line paint rollers
Goodyear, Bridgestone/Firestone, BFGoodrich, Titan and Yokohama tires.

The tires require caution. Many of those companies have foreign factories that export tires to North America. So the buyer must look for these codes to get American made tires: BE and BF for BFGoodrich, YE, 4D and E3 for Bridgestone/Firestone, UP and UT for Cooper, MD, MJ, MC, and MK for Goodyear and CC for Yokohama. These letters follow the letters DOT on each tire’s code.

In the case of the other products listed, some also operate foreign factories, so it’s always good to look for the Made in America label.

Buy American. Buy American jobs.

At Last! Simple New Test Shows If Your Politician's Telling the Truth About "Too Big to Fail"

Richard Eskow — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:35:56 -0400

We thought we'd write a little radio ad for the SAFE Banking proposal being put forward in the House and Senate. But this ad's not just promoting a policy - it's selling a litmus test. This amendment finally gives us a chance to find out whether those politicians who are giving great speeches about "too big to fail" and "no more bailouts" mean what they say or not. So imagine you're listening to the radio and you hear this ...

Financial reform: It's so confusing! CDO, MBS, CDS ... it's like alphabet soup out there! Sure, we hear politicians in the House and Senate say they want to stop "too big to fail." They say they don't want to bail out rich, greedy bankers again just so they can give themselves more fat bonuses. They all say that. Then they fight each other tooth and nail! How's a poor voter to know who's telling the truth?

After all, it's not like we have all the time in the world. The economy's still in rough shape for most of us, thanks to the greed and recklessness of the big banks and their political enablers. So we're either working two jobs to make ends meet, or doing the work of two other people who have been laid off at our company(1) for no extra pay, or we're scrambling to find work ... something, anything ... before our unemployment runs out.(2)

Fortunately, now there's a simple test for the rest of us. You can apply this test to any member of the Senate or House of Representatives - and you can do it without having to take a break from the frantic fight for survival the big banks and their enablers have made of your life. This quick, easy-to-use test can be applied from the comfort of your own home (if you still have one), from that third job you've got to work every evening (too bad you can't help the kids with homework anymore) ... why you can even use it while you're waiting on line to collect the last of your unemployment benefits!

As long as there's a television droning away in the waiting area while you wait for that job interview, or a newspaper somebody left behind on that park bench, as long as you can learn how your politician voted, you can learn whether he's really on your side or just another bank lackey.

Here's the test: Will they vote to break up the big banks or not? It's as simple as that ... really.

Alright, that's the radio spot. Here's the detail.Yesterday Sens. Ted Kaufman and Sherrod Brown officially introduced an amendment that limits the size of banks and the amount of risk they can take. Under this amendment, no bank could become either so big or so leveraged that its collapse could threaten the economy. That means no more "blackmail bailouts," where the government either has to rescue a reckless and greedy institution or see the economy collapse. An identical amendment was introduced in the House by Reps Brad Miller, Keith Ellison, Steve Cohen, and Ben Chandler.

Reading the amendment's accompanying explanation (below) is a breath of fresh air. What's striking about the proposal is how simple and effective it is. No bank could hold more than 10% of the nation's deposits, nor could it leverage (take risks with) sums that amount to more than 2% of the GDP. As Mike Konczal explains (with nice graphs), that covers pretty much every smokescreen argument out there about why making banks smaller really wouldn't solve the "too big" problem. Together with the leveraging requirement, it's simple common sense.

What's also striking is how few institutions it would affect. Only the three biggest banks would be affected by the size limit, and the cap on liabilities would only affect an estimate nine institutions or so. There's also a requirement that banks have more capital on hand to cover their leveraged assets, but that's a relatively modest 50% increase over current requirements.

This is not a revolutionary shakeup of the financial sector. It's a simple, common-sense solution that helps us manage the enormous risk posed by freakishly large banks. And, as Sen. Kaufman observes, we've broken up risky institutions before.

These amendments offer our representatives in the House and Senate a simple choice: Support a safer and more rational banking system, or be counted among those whose votes are being swayed by the influence of Wall Street money. And they give the rest of us an invaluable tool. We'll be able to see whether our leaders really means those words about "too big to fail" and "no more bailouts" by seeing whether or not they vote for these amendments.

If they do, they've passed the test. If they don't, they've failed. Simple as that.

Here's the greatest benefit this new test offers to frustrated voters everywhere. It lets us say to politicians, once and for all, on one of the most crucial issues of our day, those words every citizen longs to say to a long-winded public servant:

Put up or shut up.

____________________________

(1) Alan Greenspan, perhaps the greatest architect of today's economic chaos, wrote this: "The ultimate goal of financial structure and regulation in a market economy is to direct a nation's savings ... towards investments in plant, equipment and human capital that offer the greatest increases in a nation's output per hour." Presumably that includes overworking employees ...

(2) There's concern that Democrats are now prepared to abandon further extensions in unemployment payments, despite evidence of systemic long-term unemployment in certain sectors and regions. As Dave Johnson notes, Max Baucus said "I think 99 weeks is sufficient." He meant "sufficient" for helping the unemployed, not "sufficient" as in "we need to do everything we can to help these people." The same article added, "Some Republicans say cutting off aid will spur people to find work."

One unnamed Senator added, "Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?" (Alright, that was Dickens. Same difference.)

The President Has Spoken. Now Let's Help Him Act.

Richard Eskow — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:51:04 -0400

If you've ever wondered what the phrase "the sound of silence" means, you should've been listening when the President invited "the titans of industry" to join him in promoting financial reform this morning.

The President's speech walked a fine line between vision and reality. At times it seemed almost an internal dialog between the technocrat who sees the problems and knows how to fix them, and the political pragmatist who wants to reap electoral rewards from whatever bill finally gets passed.

"Between the dream and the reality," wrote T. S. Eliot, "falls the shadow." The President's speech demonstrated that he sees what needs to be done. But reform has to make its way through the legislative shadows on Capitol Hill. That means it's up to the rest of us to create the political climate that makes that makes genuine reform possible - or, better yet, inevitable.

The signs are good. Sen. Chuck Grassley's vote yesterday for Blanche Lincoln's derivatives amendment reflected a new political reality: Republicans can't afford to be seen as favoring Wall Street, and when they're faced with an up-or-down vote they'll be under tremendous pressure to cave.

The President's speech was strong on principles. He led off the policy section of his speech with a strong endorsement of the Volcker rule, which in his words "places some limits on the size of banks and the kinds of risks that banking institutions can take." That's exactly what's needed (although the Dodd bill as currently written fails to deliver it.) The President also spoke strongly in favor of transparency, and was at his strongest when talking about consumer protection. He said:

"While a few companies made out like bandits by exploiting their customers, our entire economy suffered. Millions of people have lost homes, and tens of millions more have lost value in our homes ... unless your business model depends on bilking people, there is little to fear from these new rules."

That last comment was met with stony silence from the financiers in the audience, and no wonder: Their business model frequently does depend on "bilking people." As my colleague Zach Carter has pointed out, Jamie Dimon's JPMorgan Chase expects to lose one-half to three quarters of a billion dollars as a result of new consumer credit card protections, and to book a loss on their card operations for the year. So, at least in one of his corporate divisions, the man once called "Obama's favorite banker" did build a business model based on bilking customers.

Some viewers of the speech were no doubt frustrated by some of the parsing. Shahien Nasiripour cleverly caught the contrast between Obama's "join us" stance toward bankers and FDR's defiant "I welcome their hatred" speech. But that difference reflects the President's temperament and a changed political climate, and doesn't detract from the core of his message.

Obama's comment that both the Senate and House bills "represent a significant improvement" over the status quo will frustrate a lot of people, too. That's the politician talking: If the weak Dodd bill is the best he can get, he'll still need to declare a great victory in anticipation of November's elections. But there's no reason to expect that this bill really is the best he can get.

Strong reform measures need to be brought to an open vote on the Senate floor, where Wall Street-friendly Senators of both parties are unable to hide behind procedural smoke screens. It's tough to make a public stance in favor of the big banks in the "transparency" of an open vote, and that provides an unprecedented opportunity for real change. That's why Simon Johnson's suggestion - that you call your Senator, Harry Reid, and the White House to demand an up-or-down vote on the Brown/Kaufman SAFE Banking Act - makes so much sense. (Why not take a quick break and do it right now?)

There are other amendments that deserve support, too. Sen. Jack Reed's consumer amendment, Bernie Sanders' proposed audit of the Federal Reserve, and the truly bipartisan McCain/Cantwell amendment to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act are all important.

Sure, we could critique parts of the President's speech. His statement that "there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street ... we rise or fall together as one nation" is demonstrably false. One look at unemployment figures and the Dow will tell you that. But he can be forgiven the rhetorical excesses, especially if he succeeds in providing what he rightly describes as "common sense" fixes to a real problem. These reforms should appeal to people across the political spectrum, and deserve support from anyone who believes in non-monopolistic free market capitalism.

The President will face an ongoing temptation to compromise, to declare victory with the Dodd bill as written when he's faced with organized resistance. The same political pressure that encourages Senators to strengthen reform will also help the President stay resolute on this issue.

The political climate is right for meaningful change. The President needs public help and support to get tough reforms through the Senate. He's said his piece. Now he - and we - need to follow it up with concrete action.

What Would You Ask Tim Geithner If You Had the Chance?

Richard Eskow — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:46:31 -0400

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner delivered a populist stemwinder of a speech the other day, bringing his rhetorical A-game with comments like these: "Listen less to those whose judgments brought us this crisis. Listen less to those who told us all they were the masters of noble financial innovation and sophisticated risk management ... Instead, listen to the families and businesses still suffering from this crisis. Listen to those who borrowed responsibly but today can't get a loan or can't refinance their mortgage. Listen to those who lost their jobs and their healthcare and their pension savings. Listen to them."

Great talk - and to the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, no less. They call that "going where the sinners are." And Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin did the same thing with the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, confronting them directly and calling them dishonest and "backward." Maybe Treasury officials thrive in captivity.

Whatever the reasons, the Geithner Treasury Department has suddenly come out swinging. They're pugilists in pinstripes now. But while the rhetoric's encouraging, Geithner's record is cloudy at best. He's been criticized for being too cozy with leading bankers, both at Treasury and in his old role at the Federal Reserve Bank of New york. He's resisted those in the Administration pushing for stronger reforms. He has yet to weigh on clearly on new revelations about the failure of Lehman Brothers and his own role in it. His Congressional testimony yesterday on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could best be described as "vehemently noncommital," as he called for an end to those institutions' "ambiguity" while being ambiguous about the best course of action.

Tim Geithner, we hardly know ye.

And if we don't know the Treasury Secretary, we can't fully understand the Administration's financial policy. If the White House is going to succeed in leading the reform effort Tim Geithner needs to do two things: He needs to let the public (and Congress) know where the Administration stands on some key issues, fleshing out the populist talk with policy detail. And he needs to address questions about his past performance, as uncomfortable as that may be. If he doesn't, you can bet that the opponents of real reform will - now, and even more forcefully in November.

We have two sets of questions for the Secretary. Today's address policy and oversight, and the questions on New York and Lehman will come shortly. But we could use your help. We've listed seven topics, but that barely begins to cover it. What would you add, or change? What other areas should be explored? With that, here is Round One of "Ask the Treasury Secretary."

_________________________________________

1. Do you agree with Alan Greenspan, who now says that "if they're too big to fail, they're too big"?

If so, why did you appear to soft-pedal needed reforms like the original "Volcker rule" even as the Administration was introducing them? Do you regret those actions? Does your new rhetoric indicate that you've learned since then? Or is the change only rhetorical?

2. Do you support the Brown Amendment on "too big to fail"?

In line with Mr. Greenspan's concerns and in the spirit of the Volcker Rules, Sen. Sherrod Brown has introduced an amendment (pdf) that would prevent any bank holding company from holding non-deposit liabilities that total more than three percent of the Gross Domestic Product. (It would also give Republican critics of the Dodd draft bill the opportunity to vote for the kind of restrictions they say that they want.)

Three percent is a very large number. Do you agree in principle with this kind of prohibition on institutions becoming too large? If not, please clarify your opinion on "too big to fail" - should it be reduced slowly through some other means, gently discouraged, or permitted but taxed to pay for any future insolvencies?

3. Do you support reducing the amount people owe on their houses, if they owe more than their house is worth and can't afford it?

Bank of America has just announced that it will reduce the principal owed on some mortgages, if people have missed two months or more of payments and the house is now worth 20% or more less than it was when the loan was issued.

Do you support the idea of principal reductions? There are reports that the Treasury Department is looking into doing something similar. If so, what's the delay? Are you concerned that these programs create bad incentives? Do you support the concept but believe eligibility should be determined differently?

Or is the problem not being treated with enough urgency?

4. Do we pay our bank examiners enough?

The Wall Street Journal's Dennis Berman visited the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and reported that bank examiners there earned $40,000 to $140,000. Their jobs require enormous financial sophistication, and they're going up against bankers with seven-figure salaries and enormous resources at their disposal.

Are our front-line regulators compensated well enough for what they do? And are they given the tools they need to do their jobs? That includes staff, information technology, investigators ... all of it.

To sum up: What are we doing to ensure that our "financial first responders" are adequately compensated and equipped for their enormous responsibilities?

5. Do you agree with critics of the Dodd proposal who say his consumer protection "bureau" wouldn't have protected us from the last financial crisis?

One avenue of criticism is summarized well here: That Dodd's proposed "bureau," whose decisions would be subject to veto by an Oversight Council, would not have been able to prevent unorthodox mortgage products from being introduced had it tried in 2005.

Are you willing to state that the Dodd proposal does not provide adequate consumer protection, and is the Administration willing to expend political capital on the Hill to get something stronger?

6. Should JPMorganChase be allowed to get a $1.4 billion tax break after taking TARP funds?

JPMorganChase is trying to use a loophole to avoi paying $1.4 billion in taxes, using a tax break that allowed companies to write off their losses on five years of income, rather than two. The law specifically excludes companies like Chase that took TARP funds. But Chase bought Washington Mutual and wants to use its exclusion. They bought Washington Mutual for $1.9 billion, and now they want $1.4 billion in tax breaks.

Do you support or oppose this tax break for an institution that received TARP funds?

7. When do you expect to have a proposal on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Your opponents are making hay with the Administration's delay in rolling out a new plan. The policy vacuum creates an opening for some dangerous rhetoric about taking the government out of the mortgage business entirely,. Yet your only announcement in yesterday's testimony was that you plan to issue a "request for comment" on April 15.

This is painfully reminiscent of the endless rounds of dialog that preceded health reform, dragging the process out and making the reform process even more difficult than it had to be. We understand that it's a complex issue. We also understand that you don't want to panic the markets. But the Administration has been in place for over a year. Even the head of the Federal Housing Commission has had to concede that "We are at the point right now where no one trusts the American housing finance system."

When can we expect your proposal on the reorganization of Fannie and Freddie?
______________________________

Secretary Geithner's time at the New York Fed will be the subject of our next "Ask the Treasury Secretary." In the meantime, let's "crowdsource" this project a little more. What would you ask the Treasury Secretary if you had the chance?

In the Gritty World of Campaign Fundraising, The Power of Positive Progressivism

Richard Eskow — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:58:39 -0500

Let's have a frank talk about an uncomfortable subject: Progressives need to raise campaign money in order to get elected and stay in office. Sometimes that money has to come from places that progressives aren't comfortable talking about. This gritty reality has too often led to the conclusion that the Left needs to bow down to Wall Street in order to succeed.

It's a Washington truism. But is it true?

Progressives in Washington have been lectured in a condescending tone countless times: You crazy hippies don't understand how hard it is to raise money and succeed in politics nowadays. Consider the House Financial Services Committee. It costs a lot to run for Congress, so it's expected that members of a committee like this one will stay friendly with the businesses they regulate. How else can they raise the cash they need for re-election? Members on both sides of the aisle are able to draw in hundreds of thousands of dollars by staying bank-friendly, even in an off-election year.

It may not look pretty, insiders will tell you, but that's how the game is played. So guess which Committee member raked in the most campaign contributions in 2009?

Alan Grayson.

That would be the same Alan Grayson who has infuriated bankers with his aggressive stance, the same Alan Grayson who has pushed to "unmask the Fed" and insisted that Ben Bernanke "come clean" about which institutions received bailout money, the same Alan Grayson who said the voting on his bill to tax bonuses for bailout recipients will show which Republicans are "on the take."

Grayson's aggressive, in-your-face style makes a lot of other Democrats uncomfortable. In the gentleman-and-ladies-don't-perspire-they-glow world of Washington, he's not afraid to show some sweat. But this is more about substance than style. Grayson's been able to leverage a populist, anti-corporate style into a campaign money machine that outstrips that of his Wall Street-compliant colleagues. Is there a model there for other progressives?

Some will say the Grayson phenomenon can't be replicated. He's become a magnet for progressive fundraising, drawing cash from all over the country. If there were a hundred Alan Graysons, each wouldn't be able to draw as much in contributions. Now that the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling has completely unshackled the political buying power of the corporate dollar, they'll say, Democrats can't win without bank-friendly policies. But is that true?

Consider this: However much liberals want those Wall Street dollars, they'll never be able to do it on policy alone. Right-wingers will always win on that score. But it's important to remember that Wall Street campaign money isn't brave money. It's hedge-your-bet money. The reason Democrats got so much last year is because Wall Street knew they were going to win. So think of the progressive fundraising stance toward Wall Street as embodying four simple principles:

1. Banker contributions will go where the winners are.
2. Popular sentiment is very anti-bank right now.
3. Politicians who want to rein in bankers' excesses will be popular.
4. Popular politicians will draw votes -- and bankers' money.

And bankers aren't the only ones with cash right now. When it comes to big campaign dollars, the Supreme Court ruling left one other player on the field: Unions. Progressives are going to find it hard to court banker bucks with pro-Wall Street policies and also get the union donations and grassroots support they'll need to keep winning elections.

And there's small business, too: While smaller companies can't contribute the sheer volume of dollars larger ones can, in total they represent a sizable chunk of change. A better-regulated Wall Street will mean more credit for these kinds of businesses, and that in turn could free up more campaign cash for those who push smarter banking policy.

Sen. Sherrod Brown understands the need for more credit to small businesses. As he said this week, ""What I hear now is consistently about credit. It's always about credit. (Businesses) tell me they have the capacity to grow, they tell me they have new customers and the old customers are coming back. They'd like to know what we're doing on the health bill, of course, but I don't think that's stopping companies from moving forward with what they need to do if they could get credit."

Sen. Brown has introduced a bill to use $30 billion in TARP repayments to free more loans to small businesses, and another one to raise taxes on bonuses paid by companies that received TARP funding.

Sherrod Brown is on to something. These proposals aren't just smart policy - they're smart politics. They could lead to increased voter support and new sources of campaign contributions. Those who oppose these measure could face a backlash from angry voters who wonder why they're not doing a better job stewarding taxpayer money, and why they're so "anti-business" that they won't help companies get back on their feet - which would lead to more hiring.

There is a way out for elected progressives - a way to do the right thing and enhance, not endanger, their chances of re-election. But it will take a little courage, and the willingness to step out of their comfort zones. Hopefully Rep. Grayson and Sen. Brown - two leaders with very different styles but similar strategies - will lead the way for others to follow.

This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project.

The Front Line: Senate and House Anti-Tax Fighters

Richard Eskow — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:08:33 -0500

The battle to resist the excise tax continue, with a front line of resistance forming in the House and Senate. Efforts include the movement to drum up support for the Sanders-Franken-Brown Amendment, which replaces it with a high-earner tax similar to that contained in the House health reform bill. The Amendment's three sponsors - Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, and Sherrod Brown - are clearly holding the fort on the Senate side, and we'll be watching to see who else signs on as a cosponsor.

In the House, one prominent front-liner is Rep. Joe Courtney. Last Friday Rep. Courtney joined the director of health research at consulting firm Watson Wyatt to discuss the negative impact of the tax at a press briefing. "(T)he Senate proposal, when you really scrutinize it, will result in a much higher burden to middle class families,” Courtney said. In an email cosigned by Rep. Sander Levin, Rep. Courtney also shared survey findings from the Mercer consulting group which showed that only 18% of employers would pass benefit reductions along to workers in the form of higher wages.

Today's front-liners: Sens. Sanders, Franken, and Brown, and Rep. Courtney and Levin.

Sanders, Franken, and Brown Introduce Amendment to Replace Excise Tax

Richard Eskow — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:26:03 -0500

Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, and Sherrod Brown have introduced a bill in the Senate that would replace the excise tax on higher-cost health plans with a tax on very high-earners. This amendment would put the Senate's proposal in line with the House bill, removing one contentious issue from any future conference to reconcile the House and Senate bills.

The bill's announcement included the following information:

Individuals: Out of the approximately 134 million individual returns filed in 2005, 0.02%, or about 26,000, reported adjusted gross income over $2.4 million.
Families: Out of the approximately 100 million joint returns filed in 2005, 0.08%, or about 80,000, reported adjusted gross income over $4.8 million.
Under their amendment, say the Senators, "an individual earning less than $2.4 million and a couple earning less than $4.8 million would not see their taxes go up by one dime."
Since 2001, the richest one percent of Americans, received $565.6 billion in tax breaks. In 2010 alone, the wealthiest one percent of Americans is scheduled to receive an additional $108.3 billion in tax breaks.

The Senators circulated a letter to their colleagues yesterday urging them to become co-sponsors. The letter read in part: " While we are in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the last thing the American middle class need right now is a tax on their health benefits." The letter also said: "99.98% of individuals and 99.92% of families would not see their taxes go up by one dime under the Sanders-Brown-Franken Amendment."

The Senators said their amendment would raise $151 billion over ten years -- two billion dollars more than the estimated revenue from the excise tax.

Financing A Clean Energy Renaissance

Natasha Chart — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:13:08 -0500

In clean energy, countries get what they pay for. If the United States won't invest in cleaner manufacturing, other countries will, and their workers will benefit from being able to supply their markets and others. As Jerome a Paris noted in a recent article, the US has almost destroyed its wind industry three times when Congress let the production tax credit expire, sending both the manufacturing jobs and financing know-how overseas.

By contrast, China is so committed to their industrial strategy that they're willing to annoy the whole world with an arbitrary currency peg in order to ensure a market that will keep their citizens employed. Their determination has lifted 250 million people out of poverty in the last 30 years, so they must be doing something we could learn from, even if we might not want to imitate their currency practices. Though as Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said recently, there are ways in which we should take a look at imitating China, where they're spending around 10 percent of their GDP on infrastructure projects.

Or we could look to Germany, with its high wages and strong currency. They've kept their exports high and have taken a leading role in global solar power production in spite of not being overly burdened with sunshine. Their approach is different from China's, but they've also refused to leave the success of their domestic industries to chance.

How does the US get its government to a place where it's as committed as other countries are to creating good opportunities for its workers in expanding sectors like clean energy? Before considering that, take a look if you hadn't clicked over to Jerome's article, for a wake up call on what happens without a stable investment climate for fossil fuel alternatives:

Sen. Sherrod Brown joined the Blue Green Alliance last week to highlight their report on the potential for new clean energy jobs in the US (pdf) with a consistent renewable energy standard, such as the one supplied by Brown's IMPACT Act, which has already been included in the House version of the new clean energy legislation.

Sen. Brown said there was as much "need to help communities recover from massive job loss" as there was to help them recover from natural disasters. Also, that the US was the only country in the world that still runs its economic policy "from a textbook that's 20 years out of date" and that we needed to start acting in our national interests.

Part of that will come by creating new opportunities for the devastated auto supply chain, Brown said, that altogether are among the country's largest employers. He said it was important to help businesses like theirs retool their facilities so that in addition to gearboxes for trucks, they could make gearboxes for windmills, or glass for solar panels as well as windshields.

And the clean energy investments Brown proposes would be well leveraged. Also highlighted in the call by David Foster, executive director of the Blue Green Alliance was a report by the Center for American Progress on the economic benefits of different energy investments, conducted at the height of the oil boom, which concluded that three times as many jobs could be created in clean energy sectors for an equivalent investment in fossil energy.

Sounds like a win, particularly in regions whose manufacturing jobs have been hard hit and are already seeing increases in alternative energy production, such as Brown's Ohio. As Jerome says, and as the Blue Green report supports, the main obstacle to benefitting from this opportunity is more what the US government and finance sector has failed to do, and less what other countries are doing. Until it becomes acceptable to look out for domestic industry again, other countries' producers will have to make up for shortfalls in our production, and overseas financing will have to provide backing for domestic clean energy job creation.

There's no substitute for the sort of robust industrial strategy that competing countries have and not even a solution to China's currency fixing will make up for its absence.

Senator Sherrod Brown at America's Future Now!

Jack Arlook — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:40:10 -0400

Senator Sherrod Brown (Ohio) speaking at the America's Future Now Conference hosted by Campaign for America's Future.

The Uprising - Coming Soon

David Sirota — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:36:12 -0500

As you may know, I just completed my new book, entitled The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington. Many of you have been asking me when my new book is officially scheduled for release, so I wanted to let you know we have set a formal launch date of May 27, 2008. We are also releasing the book's cover this week, which you see above. The book is now available for pre-order at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders, Powell's, or through your local independent bookstore. For a high-resolution media-ready photo of the book's cover, click here.

The book takes a look at the populist movement building on both the Right and Left. It is much different from my last book in that it is investigative, firsthand narrative journalism - all brand new material, rather than analysis/synthesis of information already available. I tried to write a book that is engaging both for political junkies and non-political junkies - and that's why this book is much more novel-like than a typical political book.

Among other places, my travels took me to New York city for a behind-the-scenes look at Lou Dobbs Tonight; Redmond, Washington to accompany union organizers at Microsoft's headquarters; Dallas to join shareholder activists planning resolutions at the ExxonMobil stockholder meeting; Helena, Montana to witness a groundbreaking tax fight in the Montana legislature; Washington, D.C. to shadow three U.S. Senators (Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown and Jon Tester); Las Vegas and Chicago to attend YearlyKos Conventions; Boulevard, California to camp out with the California Minutemen; Meriden, Connecticut to explore the Ned Lamont for Senate campaign; and Albany to study the most powerful third party in America.

At the same time all of this was going on, my wife and I moved from Montana to Denver, my nationally syndicated weekly newspaper column launched, I joined the Campaign for America's Future as a fellow, and I continued my long-running work with the Progressive States Network, Credo Action and In These Times. So, needless to say, it was an exhausting - and exhilarating - experience, and I am just now trying to reconstruct a semblance of a regular life and routine (and I apologize if I haven't been in better touch with many of you).

Already, I have received my first back-of-the-book blurb, from bestselling environmental author Bill McKibben. "This book engages in the nearly lost art of reporting to tell us what's going on in the many places that the elite media can't be bothered to look," he wrote. "It chronicles just how fed up Americans have become, and nominates a few heroes for them to turn to. It cheered me a good deal to read how many Americans are finally starting to fight back against the rule of greed that has been our lot for too many years."

I am busy planning the book launch and subsequent tour. My last book took me to about 40 cities, and I expect this to take me to as many, and probably more. If you have ideas or thoughts on specific events I should do or groups I should reach out to, please send those ideas my way at ds@davidsirota.com.

Obviously, I hope to see many of you on the tour this summer. My wife, Emily, will be traveling with me for much of it, and I expect so will Monty, our dog. It should be a great adventure - and it will be great to meet and catch up with as many of you as possible.

UPDATE: In response to a reader's question, the answer is no, Monty will not be traveling Mitt Romney-style.