Laboring for American Workers

Laboring for American Workers
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, August 31, 2022, p. A5
Where have all the workers gone? And what can Democrats do about it next Monday?

Had Democrats stuck with the coalition Franklin Roosevelt bequeathed them they would today be winning by wide margins every election from the local schoolhouse to the White House.

That coalition carries forward in the name, “the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party.” Not incidentally, that party controls half of Minnesota's U.S. House seats, both U.S. Senate seats, the lower house of the state legislature, and the governorship.

Both parties have watched the cost of presidential and congressional campaign expenses go from $23 million in 1952 ($257 million in 2020 dollars) to $14.4 billion in 2020 – a 56 fold increase.

In response, the Democrats tried to build a national political party with money from the east coast and voters on the left coast. The result? Flyover country became fly away country. When workers asked, “What have you done for us lately?” all they heard was crickets.

By the 2020 election 83 percent of the 3112 U.S. counties studied were solid Republican. Iowa Democrats’ results were worse: 94 percent of the counties went for Trump. (Democrats picked up the three counties with state universities plus Polk, Linn, and Scott.)

The pay and benefits of union jobs that had enabled workers to enjoy the middle-class rewards of homes, cars, boats and college-educated kids had largely disappeared. When the air traffic controllers went on strike in 1981 President Reagan shut out the union and fired 3,000 members. His message to industry leaders? Union busting is OK.

In the 1950s 35 percent of private sector workers belonged to unions. By 2012, after a half-century of Republicans’ successful efforts at union busting, it had fallen to 6.6 percent. [Photo credit: The United Food & Commercial Workers International Union.]

Union members were not just a source of funds and votes. They also used to do the most significant share of the heavy lifting – door knocking, leaflet distribution, phone calling, and taking voters to the polls.

Today much of that person-to-person campaigning goes undone.

I recall (but can’t find) a Wall Street Journal item in the early 1960s about a firm in California that claimed it could elect anyone to any office with a $100,000 TV-only campaign. With no TV competition they were quite successful. During 2019-2020 political TV, radio and digital advertising reached $8.5 billion.

But today’s TV effectiveness is not what it used to be. And mastery of political use of social media has yet to occur.

Democrats can’t magic wand their party’s problems away.

Meanwhile, what Democrats can do is to seize the ultimate teachable moment each Labor Day offers the party – starting with next Monday.

They can organize Labor Day Democratic party celebrations and rallies in communities and neighborhoods around the country. They can emphasize what the party’s elected officials have delivered to working people over the past century. Not today’s candidates’ promises. What Republicans have done to oppose them, further enriching the wealthy while ignoring, or opposing, workers’ interests.

It's no cure-all, but it sure would be a good start.
__________
Nicholas Johnson was a board member, DNC Harriman Communications Center. mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES Minnesota DFL. “Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Democratic-Farmer-Labor_Party (“It is currently the state's favored party, controlling half of Minnesota's U.S. House seats, both U.S. Senate seats, the lower house of the state legislature, and the governorship.”)

Campaigns cost. “$23 Million for 1952 Campaigns,” CQ Almanac [Congressional Quarterly], 1953, https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal53-1365614 (“GOP Reports $13,814,997, Democrats $6,159,844 For White House, Capital Races; CQ Lists Spending Reports Of 133 Groups, Names $5,000 Donors In 30 States

The 1952 campaign, Presidential and Congressional, cost the two major parties and other national political groups $23 million, according to reports filed with the Clerk of the House by political organizations. The total includes expenditures for Congressional campaigns. (For detailed analysis of Congressional campaign spending, see page 40.)

Republican Congressional candidates and national and special political committees spent a total of $13.8 million. Democratic groups and candidates spent $6.2 million. The remaining $3 million was recorded as expenditures by labor groups, minor parties and unaffiliated political groups.”)

Karl Evers-Hillstrom, “Most Expensive Ever: 2020 Election Cost $14.4 Billion,” Open Secrets, Feb. 11, 2021, https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/02/2020-cycle-cost-14p4-billion-doubling-16/ (“Political spending in the 2020 election totaled $14.4 billion, . . .. While the presidential election drew a record $5.7 billion, congressional races saw a stunning $8.7 billion in total spending.”)

“$1 in 1952 is Worth $11.18 Today,” CPI Inflation Calculator, https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1952?amount=1#:~:text=Value%20of%20%241%20from%201952,cumulative%20price%20increase%20of%201%2C018.02%25 [based on U.S. Bureau of Statistics data] (“Value of $1 from 1952 to 2022. $1 in 1952 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $11.18 today, an increase of $10.18 over 70 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.51% per year between 1952 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 1,018.02%.”) [Thus, the 2020 value of $23 million in 1952 would be $257 million.]

Republican counties. Samuel Wonacott, “87% of Americans Live in a County That Has Voted For the Same Party in the Past Three presidential Elections,” Ballotpedia News, news.ballotpedia.org/2022/04/18/87-of-americans-live-in-a-county-that-has-voted-for-the-same-party-in-the-past-three-presidential-elections/ (“After the 2020 presidential election, 288 million Americans lived in either a Solid Democratic or Republican county, 87.2% of the 330 million covered in this analysis.” map of counties; 459 solid Democratic, 2368 solid Republican)

“Donald Trump Won in Iowa,” Politico, Jan. 6, 2021, https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/iowa/ (map showing counties)

Percentage in unions. Mike Collins, “The Decline Of Unions Is A Middle Class Problem,” Forbes, Mar. 19, 2015, https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/03/19/the-decline-of-unions-is-a-middle-class-problem/?sh=5b0d78667f2d (“President Reagan - Reagan Kicked off the era of union busting by successfully shutting out the air traffic controllers union in 1981. After a nationwide strike 3,000 workers were dismissed by Reagan. This was a signal to industry that union busting was o.k. It was also a signal to future presidents and politicians that taking an anti-union stance was not necessarily a political liability.”

“In 2013 the unionized workforce in America hit a 97 year low. Only 11.3% of all workers were unionized. In the private sector unionization fell to 6.6%, down from a peak of 35% in the 1950s. American corporations have made a concerted effort to get rid of unions and reduce labor costs since 1980, and they have been very successful.”)

“Unions by the Numbers,” Barnes & Thornburg, Jan. 24, 2022, https://btlaw.com/en/insights/blogs/labor-relations/2022/unions-by-the-numbers-2022-edition (“In 2021, the number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions continued to decline (-241,000) to 14.0 million, and the percent who were members of unions was 10.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The rate is down from 10.8 percent in 2020 . . ..” crediting U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

TV ads. Howard Homonoff, “2020 Political Ad Spending Exploded: Did It Work?” Forbes, Dec. 8, 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardhomonoff/2020/12/08/2020-political-ad-spending-exploded-did-it-work/?sh=7fa848d3ce0d (“In the 2019-2020 election cycle, total political advertising spending reached $8.5 billion across TV, radio and digital media. This was 30% higher than the $6.7 billion projected earlier this year, and 108% more than spending in 2017-2018, which was a record at that time. We saw 9.3 million of TV ads alone in more than 4300 federal, state and local elections ….”)
# # #

Democrats’ ‘Bridge Too Far’

Struggling Democrats Must Build More Bridges

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, Feb. 10, 2021, p. A6
Linn County Auditor Joel Miller says, “to run for statewide office may be a bridge too far if the Democratic Party cannot broaden their appeal in rural Iowa.”

He’s an optimist. The reality’s worse.

Color Iowa’s 99 counties red and blue. Six went for Joe Biden (the three with state universities, plus Linn, Polk and Scott); 93 for the former president – 94 percent.

That’s even worse than the national map: 83 percent of the nation’s counties are red; 17 percent are blue. [Photo credit: U.S. Bureau of Land Management]

Yes, I know. We don’t vote by county. Besides, half of the country’s population lives in only 143 of those counties (5 percent) – enough to make Joe Biden president.

But a political party that relies on the east coast for money and the left coast for votes is not a national party. Democrats shouldn’t be surprised to discover they’ve alienated voters in that 83 percent of U.S. counties who feel ignored and have understandably turned anti-establishment.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There was a time when it wasn’t.

An oft-told story bears repeating.

As Ken Burns tells it, “When FDR's funeral procession went by, a man collapsed; he was so overcome. A neighbor picked him up and said, 'Did you know the president?' And he responded, 'No, but he knew me.'"

Few presidents since have made that connection. President Biden has a chance.

President Franklin Roosevelt’s legacy was a Democratic Party tent sheltering those in abject poverty, the working poor, union members, small farmers, and lower middle class. Had the party nurtured that coalition instead of Wall Street, knocked on their doors and listened, it would today control most city councils and state legislatures -- plus the U.S. House, Senate and White House.

Two Texas Democratic Party officials asked me, a college student, to run for the Legislature. Stunned, I explained I was an Iowa boy, with two part time jobs, a heavy course load and knew few Austin voters.

They responded with a story of another recruit. He mumbled while talking to his shoes and asking voters, “You wouldn’t vote for me would you?”

Now understanding their standards, and decidedly less flattered, I asked, “How’d he do?”

“He won,” one replied. “He knocked on every door in Travis County – and won.” I took a pass on that opportunity.

But I remembered the lesson during the 1962 Pat Brown-Richard Nixon gubernatorial race, door knocking in an unorganized county where I knew fewer voters than I’d known in Travis County, Texas. If they were willing to door-knock I’d assign them an area and move on.

Could the Democratic National Committee find at least one experienced campaign organizer to work each of the 2500 counties now painted red? Of course. And it must if it is to be a national party representing more than 5 percent of America’s counties and 50 percent of its people, building bridges well within Joel Miller’s reach.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City held three presidential appointments and is the author of Columns of Democracy. Comments: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES
Joel Miller. Gage Miskimen, “Linn County Auditor Considers Run for Secretary of State,” The Gazette, Feb. 2, 2021, p. A3; https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/linn-county-auditor-may-run-for-secretary-of-state-in-2022-20210202

Republican counties. Iowa Trump 93 Biden 6 (Black Hawk, Johnson, Linn, Polk, Scott, Story, https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/iowa/

Republican counties U.S. “The Biden and Trump data in the posts appears to match the information reported by the Brookings Institute on Nov. 7. On Dec. 8, the think tank updated the report to say Biden had won 509 counties and Trump 2,547 counties, according to ‘unofficial results from 99% of counties.’” [Me: 509+2547=3056] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-votes-counties-election/fact-check-clarifying-the-comparison-between-popular-vote-and-counties-won-in-the-2020-election-idUSKBN2931UY

143 counties, half population “U.S. Census Bureau, population is not homogeneously distributed across the country. In 2017, out of a total of 3,142 counties and county equivalents more than half of the population inhabited just 143 counties. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-votes-counties-election/fact-check-clarifying-the-comparison-between-popular-vote-and-counties-won-in-the-2020-election-idUSKBN2931UY

“But he knew me.” Google search [“did you know" no "but he knew me"] turns up dozens of sources where quoted/told, but in sample none discovered with a citation to an acceptable academic or journalistic source. Maybe Ken Burns’ is the best for authenticity: Bob Fisher, “Ken Burns Spends 14 Hours with ‘The Roosevelts,” Documentary Magazine, Sept. 12, 2014, https://www.documentary.org/online-feature/ken-burns-spends-14-hours-roosevelts

# # #

Now What? Organize to Pressure Congress

November 7, 2012 3:25 p.m. -- Note: The latest blog entry, November 8, 2012, regarding the failed proposal for a bond issue-funded new Johnson County Justice Center, is embedded at the beginning of the October 15 blog entry on that subject (which also contains the Press-Citizen op ed column): "Prisons: The Costs and Challenges of Crime," and can be found there.

"When the People Lead, the Leaders Will Follow"

-- Mahatma Gandhi (attributed, but no source)

"The role of citizens in our democracy does not end with your vote. America’s never been about what can be done for us; it’s about what can be done by us together, through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self- government. That’s the principle we were founded on."

-- President Barack Obama, "Election Night Speech," Chicago, November 6, 2012

(And, from 2008: "This victory . . . is not the change we seek; it is only the chance for us to make that change. . . . It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice." President Barack Obama, "Victory Speech," Chicago, November 4, 2008.)

President Obama won re-election. The morning after the night before, how are you feeling about that? Joyous? Depressed? Ho, hum?

Regardless of your answer, we all have a lot of work to do.

The Challenges

We're still not dealing meaningfully with climate change.

We still have troops in 150 countries, the remnants of two wars, and a Defense Department budget that's greater than the military expenditures of the next ten largest countries' combined.

Unemployment. Meager growth. Rotting infrastructure.

We're paying more, and getting less, for increasing healthcare costs that produce life expectancy and infant mortality stats near the bottom of the industrialized world.

We get similar comparative results for our K-12 educational expenditures.

Those most responsible for our economic difficulties haven't been prosecuted, nor have their successors been effectively restrained from personally profiting by creating the same disaster all over again.

Taxes have been driven down to levels that require us to put our ongoing expenses on a credit card. This creates annual deficits in the $1 trillion range, which have accumulated into a national debt of $16 trillion. We're quickly coming to the place in the road where Congress last kicked the can, the so-called "fiscal cliff" of program cuts and tax increases that most concede will be disastrous if we don't change course.

You undoubtedly have many more challenges you could add to this list.

Impediments to Solutions
My point is not that "it's hopeless; we're doomed." Quite the contrary. Solutions for each of these, and more, can be created and proposed with the application of reason, rational analysis, and the use of science, data and best practices. Solutions are not "easy," but they are possible. That's not our problem.

The problem is Washington gridlock, and the money and lobbying power of special interests. The problem has been that one party controls the House and has the capacity to prevent action in the Senate -- and that it chooses to use this power to obstruct any proposals from the White House that might contribute to President Obama serving more than one term.

That goal is no longer available. President Obama has been elected to a second term, and the Constitution prevents his being elected to a third. But continuing obstruction may still be perceived as an attractive way to maintain that party's House and Senate control. Nothing said so far suggests the likelihood of any change in party strategy. With so many of the obstructionists coming from safe districts, meaningful challenges to their longevity only come from primaries in which they are attacked from the right for not being conservative enough. Intransigence may be seen by their constituents as a virtue.

A Possible Strategy

There's an anecdote regarding President Franklin Roosevelt's response to advocates of various progressive ideas. He would listen, and then tell them, in effect, “I agree with you. Now you go out there and make me do it” -– at least with Frances Perkins (Social Security) and A. Philip Randolph (civil rights legislation), and probably many more. His point, of course, was a variant of the old adage, “When the people lead, the leaders will follow.” It’s very difficult to pass legislation over the opposition of the special interests without overwhelming popular awareness, involvement and support.

One of those efforts to "make him do it," was "Cox's Army." "In January 1932, Cox led a march of 25,000 unemployed Pennsylvanians, dubbed 'Cox's Army,' on Washington, D.C, the largest demonstration to [that] date in the nation's capital. He hoped the action would stir Congress to start a public works program and to increase the inheritance tax tax to 70%." "James Renshaw Cox," wikipedia.org.

I have been, and remain, hopeful that Senator Obama, as president, will follow President Roosevelt's example. I base this on a conversation I had with Obama in April 2007, his experience as a community organizer, his 50-state-strategy during the 2008 primary, and his millions of ground troops, contributors and email addressees in 2012.

Marches on Washington, and other creative and peaceful demonstrations are still effective. But the Internet and mobile networks can be even faster, cheaper and more effective to organize -- as we saw during "the Arab spring." "Asmaa Mahfouz: Democracy's Heroine." There are Web pages, blogs, email, text messages, Skype video conversations, Tweets, Facebook, and the possibility of "circulating" petitions online to pick up thousands of signatures in the course of a day. Those who might be unwilling or unable to take three or four days off from work to travel to Washington, are often able to take 15 seconds to sign an online petition.

When a president can't legislate, he can at least educate. "Legislating, Educating: Obama as Community Organizer."

If President Obama was willing, able, and comfortable doing so, he might pick one to a half-dozen things he wants to accomplish during the next four years that will require some measure of Congressional support, pick one at a time, and tour the country as if back in campaign mode -- focusing on the states and districts of those elected officials who are providing the most opposition. He, and preexisting organizations with some coordination, could email those officials' constituents likely to support the proposal, who could then engage in demonstrations, phone, mail, and email communications focused on the official.

This is the way defense contractors, and other large manufacturers, do it with their suppliers and customers, and it ought to be at least somewhat effective for the rest of us.

I wish it were otherwise, but it's not. Executive branch agencies, and so-called "independent regulatory commissions," tend to be covered by a pro-industry trade press, rather than general media. The congressional committees that determine the agencies' appropriations, legislation, and oversight tend to be made up of elected officials who come from areas impacted by those industries, and whose campaigns are funded by them. The agencies' employees are wined and dined by representatives of the industry. (In the case of the agency responsible for monitoring BP prior to the Gulf oil spill, it turned out the employees were literally sleeping with industry representatives.) And industry representatives often have easier access to the supervising cabinet officers and White House staff than the agency heads themselves.

As The Smothers Brothers' head writer Mason Williams once said, "You can't fight the system from within, because the system is from within." It's one of those observations that rings true even though you can't quite figure out what it means. The point is simply that with the pressures on, and from within, Washington, it is not likely that any one individual can do much to change that one-industry town's institutional behavior -- even if that one person is the President of the United States.

If not "any one individual," then who? The initially small group created by that individual, one that expands into a larger group, whether one thousand or one million, that's who. For dozens of examples see the "List of protest marches on Washington, D.C.," wikipedia.org. As Margaret Mead put it, "Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." "Margaret Mead, wikipedia.org.

Yesterday was Barak Obama's "last hurrah." At this point he's just running for the history books. For four years he's tried Mr. Nice Guy. He's tried executive orders. If he has a better option than Community Organizer-in-Chief, educating and then legislating -- with our help -- let us know what it is and we'll join him in that effort.

But Washington, as it is, cannot save us. We have to save ourselves. The list of crises is just growing longer each day. "Mr. President, please lead, follow, or get out of the way." Here we come.

# # #

Finding Jobs on Labor Day

September 5, 2010, 7:58 a.m.

Former Labor Secretary Reich Has Economic Solution
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Reducing the unnecessarily high numbers of workplace deaths, injuries and disease is always high on labor's wish list -- as we were recently reminded in Iowa City. "Danger in the Workplace; Honoring Those Who Built and Build America," September 1, 2010.

But ranking right up there for labor, especially during this "jobless recovery" (or "jobless stagnation") economy, is finding jobs at which one can both labor and support a family.

Even "unemployment" is inching up. But the much more relevant measure is "underemployment."

"Underemployment" is the total number of those (1) who have recently been "laid off," plus (2) those who have given up looking, plus (3) those working part time who want and need full time work. So far as I know even that number excludes those who are working full or part time, but at jobs, and for pay, far below the level warranted by their professional training, skills and experience (not to mention financial need).

And according to the Gallup Chief Economist, the company's latest survey finds that number, at 18.6%, is now roughly two times the rate of "unemployment." Dennis Jacobe, "U.S. Underemployment at 18.6% in August," September 2, 2010 ("Underemployment, as measured by Gallup, was 18.6% in August, up from 18.4% at the end of July. Underemployment peaked at 20.4% in April and has yet to break below 18.3% this year.")

And of course, even these average numbers presume boiling water comfort. You know the line, "If your foot's in a bucket of ice water, and your hand is in a pan of boiling water, on average you're comfortable."

For professional men and women with advanced university degrees and some years of experience, unemployment, while always devastating for those experiencing it, now affects almost no larger a percentage than in economic boom times, and when it does it tends to last a shorter time for them than the "average time" for others.

For African-American high school dropouts it's a different story. And this is a goodly number of Americans. "In the inner cities, more than half of all black men do not finish high school." Erik Eckholm, "Plight Deepens for Black Men, Studies Warn," New York Times, March 20, 2006.

Eckholm reports, "Black men in the United States face a far more dire situation than is portrayed by common employment and education statistics, a flurry of new scholarly studies warn . . ..

"In 2000, 65 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless — that is, unable to find work, not seeking it or incarcerated. By 2004, the share had grown to 72 percent, compared with . . . 19 percent of Hispanic dropouts. Even when high school graduates were included, half of black men in their 20's were jobless in 2004, up from 46 percent in 2000."

And bear in mind, this is a report from 2006, the "good old days" compared with the worst of the current downturn.

I have repeatedly argued in this blog for a federal jobs program, like those President Roosevelt created in the 1930s. If you want to jump start an economy that is 80% driven by consumer spending, and you're willing to invest trillions of dollars to do it, getting everyone employed is what seems to me to be the no-brainer solution (however politically unpopular in some quarters).

For example, when the car dealers' lots are filled with cars, because consumers either don't have the money to buy them or are too concerned about their future to risk doing so, it makes little sense to give money to corporate CEOs to build more plants and hire more workers. Why would a rational automobile CEO do that; to stack the newly manufactured cars on top of the ones already sitting out on the dealers' lots? One could have easily predicted (as I and a great many others did) that this kind of "stimulus" was not going to work for any sector of our economy (manufacturing, service, or retail). And it hasn't.

(Which is not to say that it has not had any, even very limited, short-term effect whatsoever. It is only to say that it has, rather obviously, not solved our problem -- as, I contend, putting everyone to work with those trillions of dollars would have done, and rather promptly and permanently.)

While that approach is certainly consistent with former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich's understanding of our challenge, I'll be the first to acknowledge that his analysis is far more sophisticated than my own. Robert B. Reich, "How to End the Great Recession," New York Times, September 3, 2010, p. A21.

Organized labor is down to about 7 percent of the private work force.. . .

None of the standard booster rockets are working: near-zero short-term interest rates from the Fed, almost record-low borrowing costs in the bond market, a giant stimulus package and tax credits for small businesses that hire the long-term unemployed have all failed to do enough.

That’s because the real problem has to do with the structure of the economy, not the business cycle. No booster rocket can work unless consumers are able, at some point, to keep the economy moving on their own. . . .

But consumers no longer have the purchasing power to buy the goods and services they produce as workers; for some time now, their means haven’t kept up with what the growing economy could and should have been able to provide them.

This crisis began decades ago when a new wave of technology — things like satellite communications, container ships, computers and eventually the Internet — made it cheaper for American employers to use low-wage labor abroad . . .. The median male worker earns less today, adjusted for inflation, than he did 30 years ago.

But for years American families kept spending . . .. How did families manage this trick? First, women streamed into the paid work force. . . .

Second, everyone put in more hours. . . .

[T]third: going ever deeper into debt. . . . From 2002 to 2007, American households extracted $2.3 trillion from their homes. . . .

Now we’re left to deal with the underlying problem that we’ve avoided for decades. Even if nearly everyone was employed, the vast middle class still wouldn’t have enough money to buy what the economy is capable of producing.

Where have all the economic gains gone? . . . In the late 1970s, the richest 1 percent of American families took in about 9 percent of the nation’s total income; by 2007, the top 1 percent took in 23.5 percent of total income.

It’s no coincidence that the last time income was this concentrated was in 1928. . . .

The rich spend a much smaller proportion of their incomes than the rest of us. . . . [T]he economy is robbed of the demand it needs to keep growing and creating jobs. . . .

[T]he rich . . . invest their earnings . . . anywhere around the globe where they’ll summon the highest returns — . . . often it’s the Cayman Islands, China or elsewhere. . . .

Meanwhile, as the economy grows, the [middle class] spending fuels continued growth . . .. But because this situation can’t be sustained, at some point — 1929 and 2008 offer ready examples — the bill comes due.

This time around, . . . averting another Great Depression-like calamity removed political pressure for more fundamental reform. We’re left instead with a long and seemingly endless Great Jobs Recession.

[T]here is only one way back to full recovery: through more widely shared prosperity. In the 1930s, the American economy was completely restructured. New Deal measures — Social Security, a 40-hour work week with time-and-a-half overtime, unemployment insurance, the right to form unions and bargain collectively, the minimum wage — leveled the playing field.

In the decades after World War II, legislation like the G.I. Bill, a vast expansion of public higher education and civil rights and voting rights laws further reduced economic inequality. Much of this was paid for with a 70 percent to 90 percent marginal income tax on the highest incomes. And as America’s middle class shared more of the economy’s gains, it was able to buy more of the goods and services the economy could provide. The result: rapid growth and more jobs.

By contrast, little has been done since 2008 to widen the circle of prosperity. . . .

[Comparable] measures would not enlarge the budget deficit because they would be paid for. In fact, such moves would help reduce the long-term deficits by getting more Americans back to work and the economy growing again.

Policies that generate more widely shared prosperity lead to stronger and more sustainable economic growth — and that’s good for everyone. The rich are better off with a smaller percentage of a fast-growing economy than a larger share of an economy that’s barely moving. That’s the Labor Day lesson we learned decades ago; until we remember it again, we’ll be stuck in the Great Recession.

Clearly, turning trillions of dollars over to our wealthiest one percent has not helped the poor, the working poor, the underemployed, the working class and the middle class.

It is said that "a rising tide lifts all boats." Whether or not that's true, the absence of any tide at all moves no one's boat. Thus, it turns out that while the rich (and the politicians they control) have been doing in the rest of us, they have been shooting themselves in the wallet as well.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

No Such Thing as 10.2% Unemployment

November 27, 2009, 11:00 a.m.

I Can CCC Our Way Out of Recession
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Today we transition from the poverty, and generosity, of Thanksgiving Day, e.g., Lee Hermiston, "Sharing food, lives; Church serves meal as a gift to community," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 27, 2009, p. A1, to the profligacy of the Black Friday Stampede -- America's equivalent to Pamplona, Spain's running of the bulls -- on our corporatized, computerized, commercialized way to many religions' winter holidays.

It's a time for those of us who are still employed, more or less, to reflect upon the impact of the recession on those who aren't . . .

[. . . but first, know that at the bottom of this blog entry there are links to earlier entries on some of the hot topics from the past week or so that are now getting the most direct hits, along with links to "updates" in the form of subsequent news articles, among which may be the entries you came here looking for.]

Unemployment statistics are a classic example of the old definition of averages: A man with one hand in a pan of boiling water, and one foot in a bucket of ice water is, on average, comfortable.

During the past year no one has become 10.2% unemployed (unless you count "underemployment, of which more in a moment). It's binary; you're either employed or you're not.

The New York Times provides one of its "multimedia interactive graphics" that makes the point: "The Unemployment Rate for People Like You," New York Times, November 6, 2009. As it shows, the percentages of unemployment for various demographic groups that have been averaged into that 10.2% are widely disparate.

For example, the unemployment rate for white, college educated women, 45 and over is 3.7% -- a number well within the normal range for a fully functioning economy. (For white, college educated men over 45 it's an equally acceptable 4.1%.)

On the other hand, the unemployment rate for Black, high school dropouts, aged 15 to 24 is 48.5% -- equal to the worst numbers in third world countries with virtually no economy. For Hispanic men 25 to 44, with a high school diploma, it's 9.9%. For more of the combinations click on the link above and select the demographic characteristics that interest you.

Moreover, even that 10.2% increases to 17.5% if you include, along with the recently unemployed, those unemployed for over six months, part time workers who would rather be working full time, and those too discouraged to continue looking (and even that number does not include, so far as I know, those working full time but at jobs well below their skill, education, and experience level). Presumably that near doubling of the numbers would apply to the percentages within various demographic groups as well.

Since 1948 it has never reached this level except for a time in 1982 -- following which it took five years to return to pre-recession numbers. Kevin Quealy, "Behind the Jobless Rate; a multimedia interactive graphic," New York Times, November 6, 2009.

My point, for now, is that just as we have a growing gap between rich and poor in this country (including "information rich" and "information poor"), so we have enormous gaps in the impact of the recession on various demographic groups.

And from that truth come some serious questions about what we're doing about it.

So far we're applying the same "trickle down economics" that President Reagan taught us. In an economy 70% driven by consumer spending, the money and a sense of economic security are not reaching the middle-to-lower class consumers who make up the majority of Americans. When auto dealers lots are full of unsold cars, giving billions of dollars to General Motors (taxpayers' money that has little prospect of ever being repaid), does little to benefit either workers or consumers -- or to boost the economy. (And don't get me started on the trillions of dollars to Wall Street investment bankers and AIG.)

Providing up to $4500 "cash for clunkers" to clear out that inventory of new cars boosts the income of auto dealers (and provides a false sense of "jobless recovery" with a brief and insignificant blip in GDP as a result), but does little for those who are either too smart, or unable, to borrow more money for any purchase, let alone a new car. It's a gift to those 96.3% of white, college-educated women over 45 who are employed, and in a market for a new car -- but they would and could have made the purchase without the subsidy. Ditto for the $8500 subsidy for "new home buyers." That may help those of the relatively wealthy employed who are able to be in the market for a new home, but neither program does anything for the unemployed or the newly homeless who are unable to pay mortgages on their old homes.

The one program that Washington seems unwilling to try is the no-brainer solution that did work in the last Great Depression and would work now: federal employment.

One of those programs was called the "Civilian Conservation Corps." Opposed at the time by President Roosevelt's Department of Labor, Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Army (responsible for some of its administration), that President was willing to take the leadership, and the heat, to push it through to reality -- and great success.

Here is a description from "Scout Report" regarding an online PBS video documentary about the CCC:

American Experience: Civilian Conservation Corps

The excellent film from the WBGH website, The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), is offered in its entirety on this site. "Heal the man, heal the land," was the philosophy of the CCC, and they engaged in some of the first environmental conservation work in the country. Since many academics, politicians, and lay people compare the current troubled times with what was seen in the 1930s, this film is particularly pertinent and visitors can decide if it's an apt comparison or not. Regardless, the stories of the three million young men who benefited from the regular meals, healthcare, clothing, diversity and hard work are fascinating. The trailer for the film starts playing right upon entering the website, but can be stopped just by clicking on the screen. Visitors can scroll over the "The 1930s Collection" logo to the right hand side of the film's screen to see the playlist for the film, but watching the whole film is recommended, as it is truly a treat. [KMG]

As you can read from the "Timeline" on that site, the contrasts between the response of the Roosevelt and Obama Administrations is dramatic.

FDR was sworn in on March 4 of 1933. By March 31 the CCC legislation had been passed and signed. Five days later there were already 25,000 employed in the program -- soon to reach 250,000 and then 3 million. And not incidentally, the benefits to the participants in literacy training and health care paid national dividends for decades more.

"By mid-1933, sixteen CCC camps and thirty-two projects had been approved for Iowa. . . . By the time the CCC ended in 1942, the number of CCC enrollees in Iowa camps would total nearly 46,000. They would contribute to the development of more than eighty state parks, and leave a tangible legacy that still numbers more than seven hundred state park structures" -- including Johnson County's own Lake MacBride State Park. Rebecca Conard, "The Legacy of Hope from an Era of Despair: The CCC and Iowa State Parks," Books at Iowa 64 (April 1996). [Photo credit: the Iowa DNR CCC Web site.]

How far we have fallen from our once proud compassion for our fellow Americans in distress. Nor is that distress limited to homelessness and hunger. See Reid Forgrave, "Worry rises with suicide rate," Des Moines Register, November 28, 2009.

But hunger is still a very real problem. And yet some are even seemingly reluctant to provide the underemployed 17% with unemployment compensation and Food Stamps -- those who are suffering from an economic collapse brought on, through no fault of their own, by greedy, multi-million-dollar Wall Street bankers and those in Washington who've been blessed with their generous campaign contributions. See Jason DeParle and Robert Gebeloff, "Across U.S., Food Stamp Use Soars and Stigma Fades," New York Times, November 29, 2009, p. A1 (More than 36 million receive Food Stamps, a program that "now helps feed one in eight Americans and one in four children. . . . Under Secretary of Agriculture Kevin Concannon says 'there are another 15, 16 million who could benefit.' . . . [T]he program is now expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day. . . . In more than 750 counties, the program helps feed one in three blacks. In more than 800 counties, it helps feed one in three children. In the Mississippi River cities of St. Louis, Memphis and New Orleans, half of the children or more receive food stamps. [H]alf of Americans receive food stamps, at least briefly, by the time they turn 20. Among black children, the figure was 90 percent. . . . [During] the 1990s . . . some conservatives tried to abolish the program . . ..").

Notwithstanding the fact that many, if not most, of these recipients would prefer the self-esteem that comes from work, and the ability to support oneself financially, we have yet to see the first federal job created by the current Administration.

As a result, we all fail to receive the benefits -- for ourselves as well as the participants in a modern-day CCC -- if only we were willing to pay for their work rather than their unemployment.
_______________
Here are links to earlier entries on some of the other hot topics from the past week or so that are now getting the most direct hits, along with links to "updates" in the form of subsequent news articles, among which may be the entries you came here looking for:

UIHC, Regents and UI.

"UI's Basketball Fees Self-Defeating," November 23, 2009

I'll drink to that: "UI Has A Drinking Problem," November 18, 2009 [see "Updates," below];

If UI has become a for-profit corporation . . .: "Corporatizing the University of Iowa; If We're Going to Do It, Let's Do It Right," November 17, 2009

Strategic Communications VP position: "Strategic Communications a Failed Strategy; Actions Speak Louder," November 13, 2009 [See "Updates," below]

Executives trip to Disney World: "Mickey Mouse Patient Satisfaction; UIHC's Troubles: Is Orlando the Answer?" November 8, 2009

"Contributions from patients" proposal: "UIHC: 'Sick Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?'; A Check-In and a Check," October 31, 2009, 7:00 a.m. (with numerous updates through November 4, links to additional, related material -- and now with over 30 of the Press-Citizen readers' comments on B.A. Morelli's stories) [see "Updates," below]

Board of Regents and State universities' budget cutting: "Cutting Slack, Cutting Budgets; Regents, University Presidents, Deserve Some Thanks and Credit," October 30, 2009, 8:30 a.m. (with links to prior, related blog entries)

Spence break-in grand jury proceedings: "UI Spence Break-In: Gazette Scoop Illustrates Issues," October 27, 2009 [See "Updates," below]

School boundaries, school boards, and the ICCSD.
"School Board Election: Now Work Begins; It's Swisher, Dorau, Cooper; Old Board 'Starting Off Backing Up' With Consultant and Tough Decisions," September 9, 2009, 7:00 a.m. (with its links to 11 prior and related blog entries including, for example, "School Boundaries Consultant Folly; Tough Boundary Questions Are for Board, Not Consultants or Superintendent, Plus: What Consultant Could Do," and "Cluster Schools: Potential for IC District?")

Nicholas Johnson, "School Board Has Work to Do," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 2, 2009 (and reproduced in blog)

"Boundaries: Only Board Can Do Board's Job; Drawing School Boundaries Made Easy," November 2, 2009

And Updates: UI VP Medical Jean Robillard says patient-donation-dunning plan "canceled a week ago"; spokesperson "clarifies," says "canceled" means "under review," B.A. Morelli, "Leaders Address Employee Concerns; UI Officials: No Decision on Job Issues," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2009, p. A3; Ashley Oerman, "UI Cancels Asking Patients for Money," The Daily Iowan, November 20, 2009, p. A1; UI's Funded Retirement Insurance Committee asks President Mason to "abolish rather than just delay" UIHC's "patient donation plan," B.A. Morelli, "Group Wants UIHC Patient Donation Plan Nixed," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009, p. A1;

Two Spence break-in grand jury witnesses jailed for refusal to testify, one now indicted, "UI Spence Break-In: Gazette Scoop Illustrates Issues," October 27, 2009; Anonymous, "Davenport Grand Jury Subpoena for Scott DeMuth," Nov. 11, 2009; "Two jailed for refusing to testify before grand jury," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 17, 2009; Carrie Feldman's Web site and the new "Support Carrie and Scott!"; "Activist indicted for alleged role in Spence Labs vandalism," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009 [in hard copy as "Man Indicted for Animal Terrorism," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2009, p. A1]; Ann McGlynn, "Activist who refused grand jury testimony now charged with conspiracy," Quad City Times, November 19, 2009; Ann McGlynn and Diane Heldt, "Lab Break-in Charge Pleases UI Officials," The Gazette, November 20, 2009, p. A1; Regina Zilbermints, "Man Charged in Spence Action," The Daily Iowan, November 20, 2009, p. A1; Ann McGlynn, "Animal rights activist pleads not guilty in University of Iowa vandalism," Quad City Times, November 20, 2009; Zack Kucharski, "Judge Orders Animal Rights Activist Held," Quad City Times, November 26, 2009;

Press-Citizen editorial: Hold off on VP for Strategic Communications: Editorial, "Stakes Have Risen for UI's Strategic Communication," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2009, p. A7 ("it's wrong when UI seems to care more about finding the right way to spin its decisions than about making the right decisions in the first place. The best strategy for UI communication is for officials to be more forthright and to show more common sense.");

Press-Citizen editorializes for 21-only, Editorial, "21-Only Still an Option for Bars with PAULAs," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 19, 2009, p. A7;

Hancher Relocation: Rachel Gallegos, "Property owner for Hancher site won't sell land," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 26, 2009, p. A1 (and see related five-part series, "Hancher - Part V," September 18, 2009, with links to prior four).

_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Holding Obama's Feet to the Fireside Chat

June 24, 2008, 7:45 a.m.

More on Believing in Change
Yesterday I commented about some problems I thought Senator Barack Obama was creating for himself. Nicholas Johnson, "Change We Can No Longer Believe In," June 22, 2008 (a play on his campaign slogan, "Change We Can Believe In").

It produced a number of comments. [And you might also want to take a look at State29, "What Are Headed Towards 'Divorce, Default, and Defeat?'" June 22, 2008 (pointing out -- with videos in Obama's own words -- his shifts with regard to the Iraq War); and State29, "Why I Hate Barack Obama," June 21, 2008 (charging Obama -- unfairly I believe -- with "race bating").]

Today I'm going to respond to one of the comments following yesterday's blog entry as a way of trying to clarify what I thought I was, and was not, saying.

Yes, I know, this is very unusual for me. I run an open blog. I receive, and leave posted, critical comments -- as a practical application of my theoretical beliefs about the First Amendment, the Fairness Doctrine, and what I have called "the separation of content and conduit." The only ones I remove are those that attempt an inappropriate use of this blog as a billboard to advertise a product or service. Nor do I normally carry on the discussion, or otherwise respond to comments, in the comments section. I figure I've had my say, and the comments deserve to speak for themselves.

So my response this morning is not an effort to engage in a she-said-he-said, 'tis-'t'aint ongoing exchange to prove that I'm "right" and someone else is "wrong." It's simply an introductory way into a little more commentary by me about yesterday's blog entry.

The comment reads as follows:

These are the right-wing talking points. I can't believe you're falling for them! Obama is going to do everything he can to make sure we do not have a third Bush administration. This is worth a few necessary sacrifices. Personally, I am thrilled to finally have a candidate who is committed to winning, knows how to do it, and who doesn't foolishly hand the country over to the evil Republicans at his first opportunity. Please don't do the Republicans' work for them. Why not beat up on McSame? That would serve the country better.

Supportive-Constructive vs. Partisan-Mean-Spirited Criticism. During Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign I pointed out that she was not doing her campaign a favor by emphasizing her superior "35 years of experience," and having passed the "commander-in-chief test," including "traveling to 80 countries" and risking her life to sniper fire.

Why? Well, because there was no meaningful distinction between the amount of presidentially-qualifying life experience she'd had since law school and that of Senators Obama and McCain (all of whom were devoid of the range of experience one would hope for in a president -- such as that of Governor Bill Richardson or the first President Bush), when both of whom had more years of legislative experience than she did, there was nothing in 11,000 pages of White House records to indicate her significant involvement in decisions, and there was videotape documenting the absence of sniper fire.

I believe there is some evidence that my judgment was right, and that what was perceived by voters to be "politics as usual," her attempting to claim something that could not withstand analysis, did in fact do her much more harm than good during the primary elections and caucuses.

It was in a similar spirit -- I thought -- that I was pointing out what I believed to be a self-defeating move by the Obama campaign. I noted that when a candidate chooses to raise the electorate's expectations to incredible heights with promises of "change" in Washington, and getting rid of "the old politics" of corporate control, resulting in Independents and young people flocking to his or her side by the millions, they have created a much higher platform from which to fall from grace.

What he has created is a very precious and fragile asset that can very quickly disappear when and if supporters get a sense that the "change" he has promised is no longer a change they can "believe in."

These are not "yellow dog Democrats" (voters who are so loyal to the Democratic Party they would vote for an old yellow dog if it was in the Democrats' column on the ballot). Many of his supporters are Independents in fact as well as name, and young, first-time voters who have no "party loyalty" whatsoever at this stage of their political life.

On the one hand it is unfair to hold Senator Obama to a higher standard than other candidates; on the other hand, it is a standard he has created and chosen to run on -- like Senator Clinton claiming that we should vote for her because of her "superior experience."

So why, you might fairly ask, do I choose to offer the Obama campaign this advice by way of a blog entry rather than a private communication? Because this is the most effective means available to me, however feeble it may be, to get a message to the campaign. (So far as I know, the Obama Web site, http://www.barackobama.com/index.php offers no way for supporters to interact with the campaign staff -- unless they want to send money.)

Was I Right? Last evening alone -- just based on what I read and saw in the media -- I was far from the only person expressing these concerns. Senator Obama's flips on public financing of campaigns and other issues was a topic, or the subject of comments, from a number of sources one would assume lean in favor of Obama: Keith Olbermann, KOS, MoveOn.org, and Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" (which led with ridicule of him in this "Indecision 2008 - Finance Reform" video). (See from minute 1:43-2:57 in the video below.)



These are just what I happened upon; I haven't researched to see how much more there is.

So I scarcely think that, had I refrained from yesterday's blog entry, Senator Obama would have been spared this criticism -- not to mention what he got for his, now withdrawn, premature presidential seal.

John Nichols gives Obama the following advice in the current (July 7, 2008) issue of The Nation regarding one of the "change we can no longer believe in" topics I mentioned yesterday: his moves toward a more favorable view of NAFTA.

Obama also told Fortune that he no longer believes in unilaterally reopening NAFTA and earned praise from the magazine for "toning down his populist rhetoric." If he keeps this up, Obama will also receive a thank-you note from John McCain, a militant supporter of free trade, a position that ought to hurt him in states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where surveys show widespread anti-free trade sentiments. Only if Obama goes soft on trade issues will McCain have a serious chance to win over these disgruntled working-class voters. Unfortunately, Obama seems to be doing just that. It's a mistake Democrats like Al Gore and John Kerry have made in the past.

Note that neither Nichols nor I are talking about the merits of free trade or NAFTA. We are talking about both how to win elections and how and why Democrats continue to lose them -- by promising to represent the interests of the working class, and then switching positions to please the interests of corporations and the richest 1/10th of 1% of campaign donors.

"Right Wing Talking Points." I don't really believe these are "right wing talking points" -- "not that there's anything wrong with that" (to quote a Seinfeld line). If the right wing is attacking Obama in ways that are cutting into his support it would seem to me that pointing that out to the Obama campaign is doing the campaign a favor, rather than doing it a harm for which the messenger should be shot.

But who is it, truly, John Nichols and I or Senator Obama who "do the Republicans' work for them"?

It is Obama who is moving toward the Republicans' position on NAFTA. It is Obama who says he supports the Bush Administration's position on FISA and immunity for the telephone companies that illegally spied on Americans. Isn't that doing "the Republicans work for them"?

And how do our comments echo "right wing talking points"? Are Republicans complaining about Obama's shifts to more right wing positions on free trade and civil rights violations? I don't think so.

"Why not beat up on McSame" and "the evil Reublicans"? In fact, while I try to keep this blog relatively balanced (I've done a very favorable piece about Governor Mike Huckabee), as a result of doing so probably more of the entries would be said to "favor Obama" than any of the other candidates -- simply because he has, so far, offered less of which I was critical and much I found inspirational.

Governor Huckabee, asked if he really considered himself a "conservative," replied something along these lines: "Of course I'm a conservative; I'm just not angry about it." (That attitude is a part of what I find attractive about him -- notwithstanding the fact we probably disagree on every issue he's spoken to, including evolution.)

Well, I'm not "angry about it" either. I've never (so far as I now recall) referred to the Republicans as "evil." I have friends I enjoy talking politics with who are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Green Party members, Naderites, and the old Kucinich gang -- and lots of Independents who are disgusted with both the national Democratic and Republican Parties -- all of whom have something to offer to the national dialog (and my own thinking). During the 2007-2008 Iowa primary I had some personal interaction with, and tried to be helpful in one way or another to, virtually all of the Democratic candidates.

So I'm not really very interested in "beating up on" much of anybody -- including those "evil Republicans."

On the other hand, I am certainly not a McCain supporter, and while I would not consider the things I've written about him as "beating up on" him I rather imagine he might.

At one point both Clinton and Obama supporters were saying that if their candidate did not receive the nomination they were going to vote for McCain. Among my responses was Nicholas Johnson, "Before You Actually Vote for McCain," April 30, 2008. In it I noted how the media were holding Obama and McCain to different standards. I discussed, and linked to, stories regarding his "anger problem." I included excerpts from MoveOn.org's well documented "10 Things You Should Know About John McCain but Probably Don't." And I had excerpts from Harold Meyerson's hilarious but scary "McCain on the Red Phone."

I can't know if the author of the comment would find that an adequate response to "Why not beat up on McSame? That would serve the country better." But it comes about as close as anything I'm likely to write.

"A few necessary sacrifices." Notwithstanding Senator Obama being labeled "one of" -- if not "the" -- most "liberal" U.S. senators, the fact is that his positions are far indeed from those of a Senator Russ Feingold, Congressman Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader. He has failed to vote on some potentially presidential-campaign-impeding issues. He has shown a willingness to switch positions from "liberal" to "Republican."

All presidents respond to pressure. The most public spirited actually seek out and encourage the public and media pressure that will make it possible for them to get Congress to do the right thing.

In my forthcoming book, Are We There Yet?, I relate the following:

The anecdote is told of President Franklin Roosevelt telling advocates of progressive ideas, in effect, “I agree with you. Now you go out there and make me do it” – at least with Frances Perkins (Social Security) and A. Philip Randolph (civil rights legislation), and probably many more. His point, of course, was a variant of the old adage, “When the people will lead their leaders will follow.” It’s very difficult to pass legislation over the opposition of the special interests without overwhelming popular awareness, involvement and support.

I have been, and remain, hopeful that Senator Obama, as president, will follow President Roosevelt's example. I base this on a conversation I had with Obama, his experience as a community organizer, his 50-state-strategy in the primary and now the general election campaign, his rejection of PAC and corporate money, and creation of roughly 1.5 million small contributors (and presumably the email addresses of even more supporters).

But that strategy, his strategy (if such it be), requires much from us. And so I say, "Ask not what a President Obama can do for you; ask what you can do for a President Obama."

And we best start now.

After he's elected it's too late. It is not enough, to quote from the comment, that he "is committed to winning [and] knows how to do it." Winning is not, to respectfully disagree with football coach Vince Lombardi and yesterday's author of the comment, "the only thing." "There are," as Senator Joe Biden said on one occasion in Iowa City, "some things worth losing an election for."

If a President Obama is to truly follow President Roosevelt's example it is not enough that we support his policies when he asks; he must also support our positions and policies when we ask. And the earlier we get about it the better -- for us, for him, and for our country.

Aside from giving him some advice yesterday on how to best win this election, that was all I was about.

# # #