Was the BClinton win a victory?
(will it be any kind of a win when-if Hillary wins in Nov – all the invading by treaty and bombs…?)
Norma
From: Members [mailto:members-bounces+
normaha =pacbell.net@lists.cc-ds.org ] On Behalf Of Stewart Acuff Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2016 5:19 PM To: John Case jcase4218@gmail.com Cc: Socialist Economics <socialist-economics@googlegroups.com >; Blogger Socialist Economics <jcase4218.lightanddark@blogger.com >; PWW Editors <editors@peoplesworld.org>; CCDS-Members members@lists.cc-ds.org Subject: Re: [CCDS Members] [socialist-econ] Sam Webb doesn't get Robert Reich [feedly]
Thanks, John, for this clear and strong defense of our friend, Sam. We have an election to win in November. It is not a referendum. The other candidate on the ballot is the hero of neo-Nazis and unrepentant Confederates, sexists, bigots of all kind, Donald Trump. The stakes for this country and the world could not be more high--either moving forward or turning or turning the governance of the nation over to those seemingly solely motivated by hatred of the other and love of a past in their mind dominated by slavery and genocide.
I strongly supported My friend Bernie and will do it again if ever given the chance. But Bernie is not on the ballot. I supported Rev. Jesse Jackson in 1988 and Tom Harkin in 1992, but they weren't on the general election ballots. I worked my ass off for Dukakis and Bill Clinton. And I'm working hard for Hillary.
Elections are won with passion, will, strategy and money.
Elections are not won with dithering. I salute my friends, John and Sam, for knowing how to win and refusing to act as if they live in a world and universe that doesn't exist.
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 3, 2016, at 8:34 AM, John Case <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:I get Robert Reich -- a social democrat (that's not a negative in this context) with a big ego and a longstanding grievance against both Clintons for being fired as Labor Secretary by Bill for not being a team player. He does not get invited to Clinton parties or events anymore. If I read the news right, he was not exactly a team player with Bernie either: first he says (on the Clinton endorsement) he will respect whatever Sanders decides -- then -- when Sanders endorses Clinton, Reich publicly criticizes him for it! Typical crappy team player. If you hang your hat on Reich, you will be disappointed.
Hillary was to the left of her husband from the beginning. ON health care, on poverty, on women, on children. She is a politician who listens, and changes her mind based on evidence: something some of her critics could take some fucking time to learn. She is, like Bill, and like Obama, also a politician focused on winning, not posturing for the narcissistic mirrors.
I did not agree with Sam Webb's skeptical, critical stance on the Sanders campaign. But then I know Bernie Sanders and his history well. I KNOW he is not a splitter. But most out side northern New England did not know him well.
Between the working class and progressive .supporters of Sanders, and the working class and progressive supporters of Clinton, there is a majority, if it can be organized and united, ready to reverse austerity, inequality, racism, and hold back from the slippery slopes that can lead to world war.
Any effort that seeks to divide this unity -- such as the reprehensible, dogma drenched, posts of Rick Nagin -- should be sanctioned.
Reich is a friend, even if unreliable
Sam is a much better friend.
John Case
Sam Webb doesn't get Robert Reich
http://peoplesworld.org/sam-webb-doesn-t-get-robert-reich/
As supporters of Hillary Clinton, we disagree with some of the assertions and implications in Sam Webb's opinion piece, Robert Reich on Hillary Clinton: too smug, too sexist, which is Sam's critique of a Robert Reich blog. For example, he says that "Hillary-hating ... is nearly a national pastime" and implies that Hillary Clinton herself did not play a key role in the Clinton Administration.
If hating Hillary were truly a "national pastime," we supporters might get discouraged. However, we are bolstered by opinion polls from around the country that show Hillary is, for the most part, ahead of Donald Trump.
In taking issue with Reich, Sam implies that Hillary was less than an equal partner in the Clinton Administration with statements such as "Reich ... assumes that what Bill did, Hillary will do. In other words, she has to not only pay for the sins of her husband, but, as a dutiful woman and wife, she is programmed to repeat them."
By implying that Hillary, herself, separately and as an individual did not play a leading, responsible role in the Clinton Administration Sam is actually discounting one of the most important items on her resume and one of the reasons we believe she is so well prepared to be President.
Reich worked in the Clinton Administration. He saw firsthand that what "Bill did" Hillary in fact, "did," too.
No one we know says Hillary Clinton "has to pay for the sins of her husband." She, herself, in all her speeches takes full responsibility for the central role she played in Bill's Administration.
To deny that she was an equal partner is to deny her credit for efforts such as trying to establish universal health care.
Is Sam trying to discourage people from supporting Clinton? We don't think so. We think he is shadow boxing a specter he calls "some" on the left and that he did not think through the possible impact of what he wrote.
As an example, he states "Reich (and some others on the left) ... are far more likely to critique - at times blast - [Clinton]. I guess they think that to do otherwise might leave them open to criticism from others on the left, thereby tarnishing what is most precious to them - their progressive and radical credentials."
Sam presents no evidence for "guessing" that Robert Reich does not write what he really thinks or that Reich is pandering to the left. For that matter, Sam does not say who exactly are the "some others on the left."
Without evidence for Sam's claim, there is no way to evaluate it. However we doubt that Reich feels a need to protect his "credentials," radical or otherwise. Moreover, as a nationally known liberal thinker he has never, to our knowledge, identified himself as a "radical."
Along with mislabeling Reich as a "radical," Sam misrepresents him. Contrary to Sam's assertion, nowhere in his piece does Reich lock "Hillary into a tightly constructed political category from which he allows her no space to escape."
On the contrary, Reich is giving Hillary advice he thinks she needs to win. He obviously thinks Hillary is flexible enough to make changes. Furthermore, in other pieces he's written, Reich has fully described how the Clinton campaign has changed in ideas and tone.
Sam seems to take the approach that the only good Hillary supporter is a Hillary-right-or-wrong supporter. But, to paraphrase one of the best known quotes in American history, Reich believes in "Hillary right or wrong. If right, to keep her right, if wrong to make her right."
Furthermore, Sam uses ad hominin attacks against Reich, accusing him of being "sexist" and "smug." Those characterizations are not really descriptive, we think, of the arguments made by Reich.
Sam also says "Reich brings no evidence to bear on his claim that Hillary is tacking to the right."
Perhaps Reich assumes his readers already have some "evidence" of that. He might be thinking that they see the newspapers or listen to the news on TV or radio or see it on the Internet. In recent weeks, among other things, Hillary has asked Henry Kissinger and George W. Bush's former Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, for their endorsements.
The media has also widely reported that Hillary is courting "moderate" voters.
Is there something "wrong with this?" Sam asks.
Reich's position is that formulating a strategy to reach "moderate" voters is counter-productive because, Reich says, "There are no longer 'moderates.' There's no longer a 'center.' There's authoritarian populism (Trump) or democratic populism (which had been Bernie's 'political revolution,' and is now up for grabs)."
Reich presents evidence to back up his claim. Even though one might question Reich's conclusion, as supporters of Hillary, we feel we must carefully consider those conclusions. After all, Reich is a leading Hillary supporter and an experienced political campaigner. His opinion matters when we are considering tactics that will be useful in the fight to get her elected.
Reich says in his piece that he's worried that Hillary Clinton does not get that the "biggest divide in American politics is no longer between the right and the left."
Sam assures us that "The biggest divide - and Hillary clearly understands this well - has never been between the right and left." However, he does not tell us how he knows what Hillary does or does not understand.
Reich, on the other hand, is abundantly qualified for describing the ideas and attitudes of both Clintons. He knew them both during their college years and has remained friends ever since.
He says, as we stated above, that he's worried that Hillary doesn't get that the "biggest divide in American politics is ... between the anti-establishment and the establishment."
Sam agrees, "the establishment/anti-
establishment idea has increasingly fractured U.S. politics and shapes popular thinking." Therefore, one would assume that Sam would urge Clinton to zero in on this "popular thinking." That's what candidates do to win elections.
But Sam strongly implies that instead of doing what needs to be done to win, Hillary is somehow adhering to Sam's personal belief that "the main political division ... is between right-wing extremism on the one side and a broad, diverse, multi-class people's movement on the other."
Sam seems to think there's a difference between what he calls a "people's movement" and what Reich calls a movement for "democratic populism."
We think that the difference between the two formulations is mainly a rhetorical one, not a real one. But in election campaigns, language means a lot.
Reich's formulation may well help lead Hillary to victory in November. On the other hand, Sam's could lessen enthusiasm for Hillary among some former Bernie Sanders supporters and other progressives. In a close election this important that could mean disaster.
Photo: AP
-- via my feedly newsfeed
_______________________________________________
CCDS Members mailing list
CCDS website: http://www.cc-ds.org
CCDS welcomes and encourages the full participation of our members in
this list serve. It is intended for discussion of issues of concern to
our organization and its members, for building our community, for
respectfully expressing our different points of view, all in keeping
with our commitment to building a democratic and socialist society. To
those ends, free and honest discussion of issues and ideas is
encouraged. However, personal attacks on named individuals, carrying on
old vendettas, excessive posts and, especially, statements that are
racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic and/or anti-working class are not
appropriate.
Repeated failure to respect those principles of discussion
may result in exclusion from the list.
Please respect each other and our organization.
Any member of the list who objects to a posting on the list or the
behavior of a particular member should send email describing his or her
concerns to members-owner@lists.cc-ds.org
Post: Members@lists.cc-ds.org
List info and archives: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/members
To Unsubscribe, send email to:
Members-unsubscribe@lists.cc-ds.org
To Unsubscribe, change your email address, your password or your preferences:
visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/members/jtr2% 40nyu.edu
You are subscribed as: jtr2@nyu.edu
Monday, September 5, 2016
Re: [CCDS Members] [socialist-econ] Sam Webb doesn’t get Robert Reich [feedly]
Incomes Fell for Poorest Children of Single Mothers in Welfare Law’s First Decade [feedly]
http://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/incomes-fell-for-poorest-children-of-single-mothers-in-welfare-laws
Since the welfare law's enactment, the overall poverty rate for single-parent families has fallen — though many other factors besides TANF influenced this trend — but the poorest families and children have become worse off.
-- via my feedly newsfeed
What Do Cuts to Higher Ed Mean to You? [feedly]
http://www.wvpolicy.org/what-do-cuts-to-higher-ed-mean-to-you/
Join Us in the WVU Mountainlair – In Person or Streaming!
Balancing the state budget has meant year after year of cuts to higher education funding in West Virginia. Public colleges and universities have been forced to respond with tuition hikes while the state's Promise scholarship has remained flat, putting college affordability out of reach for some West Virginia families.
Want to find out more about how the state budget works, how we got into our current crisis and how we can get out?
On Tuesday, September 6, WVCBP Executive Director Ted Boettner will kick-off our speaker series at the West Virginia University Campus at 2:00 PM at the Mountainlair.
Can't be there in person? Join us here.
Contact us for more information. Visit our Events page for future presentations. Thanks!
Facts About Year One of Prevailing Wage Repeal
A big priority of the legislature last year was to repeal the state's prevailing wage. Promises were made of cost savings and job creation. In fact, West Virginia lost 1,000 construction jobs in the past year (see data below from the Bureau of Labor Statistics). Read more in this week's State Journal op-ed by Senior Policy Analyst Sean O'Leary.
Hearts, Minds and Futures
The WVCBP is proud to join organizations from across West Virginia to sponsor six forums on juvenile justice, mental health and education in the Mountain State. For more information, please contact info@wvmh4kids.org or 304-444-5917.
- Huntington: Tuesday, September 13, 5:00 to 7:00 PM in the Memorial Student Center at Marshall University
- Charleston: Monday, September 19, 5:30 to 7:30 PM in the Appalachian Room at the University of Charleston
- Beckley: Wednesday, September 28, 5:30 to 7:30 PM at WVU-Beckley
- Wheeling: Tuesday, October 4, 5:30 to 7:30 PM in the NTTC Auditorium at Wheeling Jesuit University
- Morgantown: Friday, October 7, 5:30 to 7:30 PM in the Rhododendron Room, Mountainlair at WVU
- Martinsburg: Tuesday, October 25, 5:30 to 7:30 PM in the HSC Auditorium at WVU-Martinsburg
Why is juvenile justice such an important issue? While most states have reduced the number of their youth in confinement, West Virginia's confinement rate has grown by more than 50%. It's time to look at cost-saving alternatives that would save the state money while still protecting public safety.
View full PDF here.
Have You Taken This Quick Action to Keep Payday Loans Out of West Virginia?
Take this quick action to add your voice now to stop the debt trap – please add a personal note if payday lending has affected you or someone you know!
Though payday lenders are not allowed in our state, they will use a weak rule to come back into West Virginia.
Support a strong rule to stop these predatory practices.
Want to know more about how much better off West Virginia is without payday lending? Check out this report by the Center for Responsible Lending. Every year, residents in states that ban payday lending save over $2 billion in fees. West Virginia alone saves over $48 million annually!
-- via my feedly newsfeed
Poverty and Precarious Work [feedly]
https://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2016/09/04/poverty-and-precarious-work/
Given that many working people are also poor, Labor Day is good time to talk about poverty in the United States. But in this election year, with so much with emphasis on jobs, we should look especially at the relationship between poverty and the changing landscape of work and economic insecurity.
The organization and composition of work has changed dramatically over the last 60 years. Technology, globalization, financialization, and neoliberalism have changed the structure and experience of work. From 1950 through 1980, Fordism dominated economic life, and mass production in large factories and offices linked economic growth with material improvement for most Americans. But the Fordist organization of work was often fragmented, highly controlled, and mind-numbing. It counterposed stable employment and alienated labor.
Fordist production began to change in the 1980s with development of the less hierarchical, flexible production systems that included computer aided design, just-in-time inventory control, total quality management, leaderless work groups, downsizing, and subcontracting leading to corporate restructuring. No doubt, these new systems produced cost savings, improved efficiency, and made the quality of work life better for some while also expanding consumer goods and services for many Americans. Soon government organizations followed suit, embracing the neoliberal principles of restructuring and dramatically altering the delivery of public services and downsizing public sector employment.
In the most recent version of neoliberal economics, we've seen a rise in contract and informal labor, often called the "gig economy," "crowdsourcing," or the "1099 economy." Work today includes not only short-term contracts and uncertain schedules but also systems that pit workers against each other as they bid to do specific, often small-scale jobs for the lowest pay. The best known example is Uber, which seems to point to a future in which workers provide their own workplaces and tools and trade a fair amount of self-regulation for insecure incomes.
Neoliberals believed that changes in the organization of work associated with economic restructuring would propel economic growth that would, as the saying goes, "lift all boats." That didn't happen. Rather, we've seen wages and benefits decline for working people in both private and public sectors – as we've heard about throughout this year's presidential election, from candidates from all parties.
Instead of rising, many boats began to sink. Several decades into economic restructuring and neoliberalism, the poverty rate in the U.S. is higher than it's been since 1960. More than 146 million Americans live in poverty today. More than 100 million receive some form of public assistance, including about 46 million who receive food stamps. As The Economistreported recently, the poverty rate here is "higher than that of almost any other developed country." High poverty rates mean that many people go hungry, struggle to pay for housing, and have very limited access to health care.
Those living in poverty include many who have jobs. The Pew Research Center has estimated that over 20.6 million people — 30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and older — earn something close to the minimum wage. To get by, many of these low-wage workers rely on Federal welfare. While a number of factors contribute to these high poverty and welfare rates, low-wage contingent work – the conditions fostered by economic restructuring and neoliberalism – plays an important role. Put simply, changes in work contribute to poverty.
Moreover, the continued informalization of work and contingent work relationships will likely exacerbate poverty and growing marginality. Guy Standing argues that we should consider the unemployed, underemployed, and the anxiously employed as a new class – The Precariat. They are, he argues, largely disconnected from traditional mechanisms of upward mobility or stable employment, and they increasingly depend on government support. No doubt some appreciate being freed from Fordist work arrangements. They may be willing to accept contingent work arrangements, work longer hours, or and receive Federal stipends in exchange for more independence.
But there is some evidence this attachment to contract work may be waning. A recent study by Deloitte found that 67% of those doing contract work would choose not to if they had the opportunity and less than half were satisfied with their overall experience. The study also showed that almost half of employed workers believed that they would suffer economically as independent contractors. While 41% understood that contract work provided greater flexibility (especially women) compared to full-time employment, more than half preferred full time employment with a steady income.
As we celebrate this Labor Day with end-of-summer sales and barbecues, we should not forget that the holiday was originally meant as a "tribute to the contributions workers have made." We should not forget how much has been lost – strong unions, stable employment, the promise that a hard worker could support a family, and the hope for upward mobility. In this era of precarity, with so many working people experiencing poverty, some for the first time, we should re-embrace worker solidarity as well as the simple idea that workers deserve both economic security, a livable wage, and respect.
John Russo, Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor
-- via my feedly newsfeed
Bernstein: Goldilocks rising: job market not too hot, not too cold [feedly]
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/goldilocks-rising-job-market-not-too-hot-not-too-cold/
The pace of employment gains slowed slightly in August, as payrolls were up 151,000 and the unemployment rate held steady at 4.9 percent.
Despite the fact that expectations were for 180,000 jobs, the lower number in today's report should not at all be taken as a change in the solid, underlying trend in employment growth. First, note the JB smoother figure below, which averages out the bips and bops in the monthly data by showing monthly gains at 3, 6, and 12-month averages. Over the past three, payrolls are up 232,000 per month on net, and while the six-month average gets dinged by May's outlier 24,000 count, the longer term average is right about 200,000.
Source: BLS, my analysis
It is also the case, as I discuss below, that in recent years the first report of the August payroll number has later been revised up (perhaps due to seasonal adjustment issues).
But the broader picture suggests that, barring a negative shock, job gains of these magnitudes will continue nudging the US labor market towards full employment. However, while I put more weight on the smoothed values, the weaker-than-expected payroll number, along with a few other indicators in the report noted below, may give some of the more dovish Federal Reserve officials the evidence they need to hold off from a September rate hike, an outcome I would view as highly positive.
In fact, last night markets placed the probability of a September rate hike at 27 percent. This morning, post-jobs-report, it's at 18 percent.
Other indicators which may dampen the "craze to raise:"
–The underemployment rate remains elevated at 9.7 percent, where it has been for four of the past five months. My analysis suggests that's about a percentage point above the full-employment underemployment rate;
–Labor force participation remains low (the rate is stuck below 63 percent) and hasn't moved much in recent months;
–The goods sector shed 24,000 jobs last month with small negatives in all major subcategories, including mining, construction, and manufacturing;
–Average weekly hours ticked down slightly;
–Year-over-year wage growth decelerated slightly from 2.7 percent in July to 2.4 percent in August.
–Health care employment, typically a stalwart, added only 14,000 jobs last month, well off its average pace of around 40,000.
I'm somewhat concerned about weaker job growth in the goods sector—the weakness in manufacturing and construction have persisted over the past year. And the underemployment/non-participation problem remains a clear signal that we're not yet at full employment. But the downshift in payroll gains is no sign of a slowing in the underlying trend and, if anything, underscores (from the Fed's perspective) the Goldilocks job market: not too hot, not too cold.
August's seasonals: It's worth remembering that these payroll numbers undergo numerousrevisions as the BLS refines their initial estimate with more complete data. In advance of today's report, numerous analysts have pointed out that in recent years, BLS has often revised up the first report of the August payroll gain. The figure below shows the revision from the first to the third release of the August payroll change. For example, in September 2007, the jobs report for August reported a loss of 4,000 jobs. By the time the third revision was in a few months later, that number had been revised up to 93,000, a revision of 97,000 (93K – (-4K)), as you see in the chart. The suspicion is that the first report is missing shifts in the timing of back-to-school hiring. So coming months may reveal that August's gain was >150K.
Source: BLS
How might the Fed read today's report? With just two more employment reports before the November election, today's report will certainly get thrown into the political mix, but even more consequential is how the members of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee will read the numbers. Based on a robust set of challenging economic dynamics that have evolved in recent years, the Fed's usual models and guideposts have proven less reliable of late. That's made it hard for Fed watchers to understand their reaction function to reports like this one. No question, they're close to another rate hike, and Chair Yellen has broadly signaled that unless there's a notable hiccup in the data flow, an increase in their target rate could be on the table for their September meeting later this month.
How does today's report fit into that mix? I'd guess it takes the probability of a September rate hike down to below 50 percent. A 200+K number would have sharpened the hawks' talons; the 150K number releases the doves.
And then there's inflation, the path of which provides the most compelling reason to chill.
Especially given the fog surrounding monetary policy right now—what's the natural rate of unemployment?; what's the neutral interest rate?; what's the slope of the Phillips Curve (the correlation between unemployment and inflation)?—the smart, simple play is watch inflation, actual and expected. The latter appears well-anchored and the former (using PCE core) remains consistently below the Fed's 2 percent target.
Researchers at Goldman Sachs (no link available) use a bottom-up model of inflation (i.e., modeling components of the core PCE) which does a good job of tracking the index. They forecast inflation to be 1.7 percent by the end of this year and 1.9 percent by the end of 2017. Assume they're in the ballpark.
Now, consider that the 2 percent target is not a ceiling but an average. If GS is right, expecting a month or two here and there, the Fed will have missed their target to the downside for about eight years by the end of 2017. Not only is that a remarkably long period of dis-inflation (and evidence of the challenges facing contemporary monetary policy). Especially in light of today's Goldilocks report, it's a strong argument for not tapping the brakes, allowing the job market to continue tightening, and overshooting the inflation target for a time to hit the average.
Still, what damage will a 25 basis point in the target range really do? Perhaps not much, but here's what worries me, succinctly put by Nobel laureate Mike Spence:
"But raising interest rates unilaterally carries serious risks, because in a demand-constrained environment, higher interest rates attract capital inflows, thereby driving up the exchange rate and undermining growth in the tradable part of the economy."
And who needs that? (Spence suggest that if we must raise rates, we should consider capital controls to block the inflows. That's a policy one associates much more with emerging economies protecting themselves from exchange rate volatility. But I'm hearing more people suggest it, as it falls out of the sort of analysis I offer here.)
So let's hope the payroll number dampens the craze to raise, which seems motivated more by "hawk management" personnel policy at the FOMC then sound economic policy.
-- via my feedly newsfeed
-
John Case has sent you a link to a blog: Blog: Eastern Panhandle Independent Community (EPIC) Radio Post: Are You Crazy? Reall...
-
via Bloomberg -- excerpted from "Balance of Power" email from David Westin. Welcome to Balance of Power, bringing you the late... -
---- Mylan's EpiPen profit was 60% higher than what the CEO told Congress // L.A. Times - Business Lawmakers were skeptical last...