Commentary: The latest con job

by Steve Foreman
Originally published in the Northern Virginia Daily, January 12, 2018 

Takeaways

• The Trump administration's new tax bill falsely claims to be a boon for the middle class, but the biggest perks serve to quell increasing anger from Trump's demanding donor base.
  
• Republicans will use the resulting budget deficit as an excuse to shrink the scope of the government, particularly Social Security and Medicare.
  
• The GOP's economic priorities reveal no interest in addressing income inequality despite the fairy tale they push about a "rising tide floating all boats."
• Income inequality will continue because of the lobbying power money buys for the wealthy.
• The continuation of this inequality will have serious consequences for our country's infrastructure and progress.

I wonder how the people of Wall Street and the infamous swamp felt in 2016 when they heard Trump rail against lobbyists, hedge fund managers and CEO’s all taking advantage of the forgotten people. They are surely relieved by the Christmas present bestowed upon them now.

Disguised and promoted and promised as a middle-class gift, the new tax bill does nothing to close loopholes or ensure the Top 20 percent contribute their fair share. Their portion of tax relief is huge and is borrowed against the future. Trump’s declaration about the bill not helping him? It’s as trustworthy as the other thousand lies of his first year. Selling this as help to the middle class?  A completely cynical con job. Income inequality is a dangerous force damaging American society and is compounded by this tax law.

Behind the curtain, one long-held Republican goal is reducing the size of the government, aka “starving the beast.”  The ballooning of the deficit will erode revenue resources, setting up an attack on Social Security and Medicare next. Since less government means less oversight, expect to see reduced enforcement of basic protections for American consumers and citizens.

The second and more immediately pressing goal was the need for a legislative achievement in an unproductive year despite complete control of the government. Their benefactors have flatly expressed that no campaign money will be forthcoming without results, so Republicans cynically presented a bill that blatantly serves their donors first and the rest of the country a dismal second.

Republican theory assumes a rapidly expanding economy will fill the $1.5 trillion void in the budget. It is a cherished belief that reducing the corporate tax rate will suddenly prompt a corporate groundswell of concern for the American worker and lead to an expansion of the workforce and the creation of large numbers of new, well-paid jobs while swelling the tax rolls. This fantasy defies experience. Most businesses reject even raising the minimum wage.

Corporate profits have ballooned over recent years. CEOs earn on average 300 times what workers earn. Corporate wealth has not seen expansions or higher wages for workers, instead it finances mergers and stock buybacks that only serve to fatten the wallets of officers and shareholders. As that money flows upward, we see fewer research programs, fewer pay raises for workers, and higher prices as consolidation means less pressure on providers of services.

Repealing the estate tax, another Republican wish list item, works to keep fortunes intact for winners of the birth lottery.  The Walton family is roughly worth more than 40 percent of American citizens. Workers at their stores are often forced to collect welfare and other assistance due to the low wages paid by Wal-Mart.

Short of widespread wage increases creating more disposable income for a large swath of consumers and creating demand for more products, it is difficult to envision large increases in American jobs. Putting more money into the pockets of the majority of Americans translates to a need for more services and widgets. More demand means more workers to fill the need. Redistributing the money upward results in more savings for an already comfortable 20 percent. More money in fewer hands means less money circulates.

Republican orthodoxy says that money will overflow from private pockets at the top and ripple through the economy enriching everyone. The Reagan years made shirking the responsibility to contribute acceptable. As a result, we see the decay of infrastructure due to loss of revenue for improvements and maintenance and the bleeding of the lower classes, those powerless to pay for legislative favors or lobbying groups.

Estimates vary, but most sources show that the Top 20 percent own 84 percent of the wealth. Most average wage earners will get tax cuts with this bill, but the proportion claimed by the well-off far outdistance the effects for the rest of us. Income inequality is promoted by expanding the top earners share of wealth. Upward mobility in the U.S. has largely disappeared. Most don’t realize the wealth owned by the top earners.

Republicans count on voters believing that wealth at the top benefits all, but what it really buys is economic and tax favors. It didn’t work in the Gilded Age, or in the 1920s, and will not work now. Future generations will suffer from an expanded deficit. Income inequality will choke progress. Remember this tax bill the next time you vote. Hopefully it will not take another Great Recession to end this fantasy.

Steve Foreman is a writer, IT specialist, and Chairman of the Warren County Democratic Committee

Learn more about the Warren County Democratic Committee at www.warrencodems.org

Why Change The Constitution?

by Steve Foreman
Originally published in the Northern Virginia Daily, October 10, 2016

Takeaways

• The label, 'right to work', is misleading, since it does not help employees find work.
• The existing law, the Wagner Act of 1935, provided protection for workers against exploitation in the wake of the excesses that contributed to the Great Depression and set the stage for unprecedented post-World War II growth and prosperity and the blossoming of the middle class.
• Right to Work is an attack on the Wagner Act and continues the tradition of Republicans and corporations teaming up to chip away at worker's rights.
• Workers already have the choice to not become a union member, even though they benefit by the union's work to improve wages and conditions.
• When the economic balance is set to favor corporate profits instead of family life, and profits rule over all other considerations.

In addition to the other important electoral choices Virginians are deciding this November, we are faced with a proposal to change the Virginia state constitution by adding anti-union language. This proposed amendment wound its way through the state legislature over a period of years, and regards the right-to-work law, a Virginia statute since 1947. This revision is being pushed forward by several Republican state legislators.

The label, 'right to work', is misleading, since it does not help employees find work. Instead, it adds an amendment to the state constitution to make it harder for future General Assemblies to undo the already existing law. There have been no challenges to the current law, and many question the need for an amendment since it is already state law.

The existing law bans employers from requiring union membership as a condition of employment. The Wagner Act, instituted in 1935, sought to allow collective bargaining as well as setting up a National Labor Relations Board, and allowed closed shops. This legislation was an attempt to provide protection for workers against exploitation and provide better conditions for employees in the wake of the excesses that contributed to the Great Depression. The right to work law was passed as a state level reaction to the Taft-Hartley Act enacted in 1947.

The Wagner Act and accompanying legislation were part of the New Deal which set the stage for unprecedented post-World War II growth and prosperity and the blossoming of the middle class. At the beginning of the 20th century excesses like child labor, unlimited work hours, and unsafe working environments were all commonplace. Instead of being forced to exist in the conditions created by employers, collective bargaining gave the working man a say in his work life and greatly improved countless lives.

Workers were finally recognized for their contributions, instead of being treated as just another disposable material resource. As time wore on, workers were further able to create a level playing field and attained wages that allowed the abundance of the mid-twentieth century American culture.

Why the need for this amendment, especially when the election process is expected to be heavily burdened in this election cycle due to high voter interest? The existing law has been in effect for four decades, but once placed into the state constitution, it would not be possible to modify it in a timely fashion. The efficiency of the right to work laws are supported by some with studies showing that it attracts business. On the other hand, there are opposing studies saying that allowing employees freedom to a strictly union shop increases productivity and quality.

This attack on workers continues the tradition of Republicans and corporations teaming up to chip away at worker's rights that reached a low point under the Reagan administration when striking flight controllers were summarily dismissed instead of bargaining to remedy stressful conditions that could impact public safety. This amendment erodes union's power to represent labor int its lopsided struggle against corporations. As a result, all workers find their wages, insurance and safety impacted.

Workers already have the choice to not become a union member, even though they benefit by the union's work to improve wages and conditions. It also removes a company's ability to require union laborers who may be better suited for a particular type of work.

To subject workers to a partisan attempt at the whim of business is a slap at workers in our state. When workers are faced with the gnawing reality of making ends meet, and too many face the stark reality of having to work multiple jobs while juggling family responsibilities like childcare, rent and putting food on their families table, should we restrict their ability to have a voice in their future? When the economic balance is set to favor corporate profits instead of family life, and profits rule over all other considerations, is this an acceptable outcome?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce favors the right to work because they want a "better business environment" and they also call raising the minimum wage a distraction. Last year, Forbes Magazine had an article titled “The Decline Of Unions Is A Middle Class Problem”. Numerous economists have noted the downward effect of fewer union members on wages. Meanwhile, CEO pay has ballooned to 373 times the average worker’s salary.

Doesn’t providing more wages for workers provide the ability to spend and create stimulus at the ground level? How does this amendment improve most Virginian’s lives? I am voting no.

Steve Foreman is a writer, an IT specialist and Chairman of the Warren County Democratic Committee

Learn more about the Warren County Democratic Committee at www.warrencodems.org

Unfit, unqualified, and unwelcome

by Steve Foreman
Originally published in the Northern Virginia Daily, March 8, 2017

Takeaways

• As Donald Trump adjusts to his role as president, his persistent reliance on his campaign tactics of attack and distract continues to divide the country.
• His statements reveal troubling gaps in his knowledge of basic civics as well as an unhealthy attraction to authoritarian power. 
• Donald Trump's messaging to voters weary of political correctness and frustrated with the status quo was unduly amplified by a press eager to captivate an audience.
• Steve Bannon's continued role in the administration underscores Donald Trump's lack of interest in effective governing, truthful messaging, and unifying the country.
• It's time for Republicans to show some leadership by putting country ahead of party and profit, before there are disastrous consequences. 

It is increasingly clear that Donald Trump possesses self-promotion and fortune building skills, but lacks qualities required in a president, or even in a city council member. His abilities made him a reality TV star, but do not translate to governance. Persuasion, empathy, or even the ability to look at the long-term effects of his actions are lacking. Instead of helping the forgotten voters, he has turned their government against them. When challenged, his first response is to strike out, flailing with baseless charges in every direction, empty words with no basis in truth. The erosion of trust in society increases by every utterance he makes against another branch of government.

Clearly, Trump does not command a basic knowledge of how government is structured, shown by his pronouncements about judges, the intelligence communities, or the role of a free press. His repeated admiration for Vladimir Putin is a telltale sign that Trump does not appreciate the ideals of a democracy, or even the basic function of a modern government: to promote the common good. Instead, he sees power and worships it, raising it above the welfare of a nation. His sole interest is the well-being of Donald Trump. Despite Trump’s wishes, we elect presidents not emperors, and time has run out for Trump to become “presidential.”

The actions that brought so much attention to Trump resulted in a strange appeal for his base voters, those so frustrated with the status quo they could not accept a conventional candidate, or those so attracted to what appeared to be a strong candidate that they were willing to overlook the usual slippery morality of politics, and support a man promising to tear down the establishment. Repeatedly, members of his base were quoted as saying that he “says what we are thinking” and he “rejects political correctness,” as if unfiltered speech was somehow more rational than a reasoned opinion.

The post-election period was an opportunity to consider what he accomplished and forge a cohesive direction forward. Winning a presidential election is seen as an extreme trial to prove one’s worthiness to command. Instead, he treated it as a popularity contest, and ignored the most important trust he was given, becoming leader of a whole nation. Instead of reassuring the majority who did not vote for him, he worked to alienate and create more opposition. The vacuum created by his lack of knowledge and morals has caused events to close in around him. His words and deeds have trapped him in a web of his own making.

As if the specter of somehow being involved or beholden to Russia’s current dictator was not enough of a burden, he saddled himself with a man, his closest adviser, whose past contains nothing but division and deceit, a purveyor of alt-right hate. This adviser has expressed his intent to be the ultimate disruptor, and desires to tear down the administrative state.

Prevailing on a platform of tearing down America wasn’t enough, as Trump dragged our national conversation down to a new low. Not content with casting doubt on the state of our institutions, he instinctively used lies and deceit to confuse and distract voters and manipulate the media. The embattled media, desperate for attention, was complicit in not calling out his lies, and in giving him more air time than any other candidate. Despite owing his rise to the media, Trump had no problem turning on them when the term ‘alternative news’ was created to describe his statements. Now there is widespread disbelief in any source. Trump has made the truth subjective. How can a people be governed if they cannot agree on what is true?

How long will the Republican majority in the government enable a man who has repeatedly shown that he has neither the knowledge, temperament, reason or compassion required for such a colossal job? Six weeks into his administration, we have seen how his judgment in choosing people and policy has already resulted in more chaos and scandals than the previous eight years of an administration that faced fierce opposition and world crises. Yet Republicans have no problem backing a man who is morally bankrupt, all for the sake of power for their party and to represent the 1 percent.

What happens when there is a real crisis not caused by Trump or one of his chosen ones? Will there be a reasoned response or will it collapse into an egotistical contest resulting in needless death and destruction?

Steve Foreman is a Warren County resident.

Steve Foreman is also Chairman of the Warren County Democratic Committee.

Learn more about the Warren County Democratic Committee at www.warrencodems.org