Democrats Need to Go Bolder on Jobs, Not Backwards

Sam Pizzigati

Sam Pizzigati Editor, Too Much online magazine

The Democratic Party’s congressional leadership has just unveiled a new slogan — and set of policy proposals — to help the party prep for the 2018 midterm elections ­­.

The slogan — “A Better Deal” — has underwhelmed just about everyone outside of the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership. The actual policy piece has fared only a little bit better.

This policy piece includes three initial specific policy prescriptions, and all three arguably take “the side of working people,” the goal the Senate’s top Democrat, New York’s Chuck Schumer, has spelled out for the “Better Deal” effort. Average Americans would without question be better off if Congress made pharmaceuticals cheaper, expanded on-the-job training, and cracked down on corporate mergers that pad the pockets of investors and raise prices for everyone else.

Few Americans are going to oppose policies like these. But the release of the “Better Deal” seems to have few Americans up and cheering either. One media outlet has already dubbed the new policy set’s launch a “box-office dud.”

Why so little enthusiasm around this “Better Deal”? The timidity of the package may be one reason. Take the “Better Deal” position on job-training, for instance. The “Better Deal” plan proposes tax credits for businesses that create new training opportunities. Nothing particularly exciting here.

In fact, Democrats a quarter-century ago campaigned on a much bolder approach to job training. In 1992, Bill Clinton ran for President on a policy platform — “Putting People First” — that proposed making companies that employ over 50 people spend at least 1.5 percent of their payroll on training.

Clinton, once elected, never made much of a move to advance the “Putting People First” agenda into law. That left the political momentum with right-wingers. They derided ideas like the job-training mandate as “absurd.” Businesses don’t need regulatory mandates to do the right thing, as the conservative Chicago Tribune argued. “Farsighted companies,” the paper went on, will spend more on worker job training and prosper. “Shortsighted companies” will spend less and fail.

That smug, right-wing line prevailed, and today, 25 years later, the absurdity of this conservative stance could hardly be plainer. “Farsighted companies” seem to have largely vanished off the U.S. corporate scene. “Shortsighted companies” — those that underinvest in the job training and R & D that leave corporations more productive — now dominate Corporate America.

These “shortsighted companies” are registering record profits, not despite but because they’re shortchanging tomorrow. The dollars they could be investing in making enterprises more effective and efficient over the long haul are instead going for high-finance gimmicks like share buybacks, a maneuver designed to artificially jack up corporate stock prices and enrich corporate execs in the process.

Many of these same executives have been busy pushing the mergers that the “Better Deal” so rightfully denounces. And still other top execs, those who lord over the pharmaceutical industry, have been pushing the unconscionable prescription drug price hikes the “Better Deal” also blasts.

But the “Better Deal” never links all these phenomena, never zeroes in on the greed grab of our corporate executive class that’s driving corporations to squeeze working Americans at every turn, be that squeezing come via disinvestment in training or job-killing mergers or outrageous price gouging.

This corporate executive class is, in effect, waging class war against working Americans, and this class war offensive is, if anything, intensifying. Working Americans are understandably hungering for a politics daring enough to launch a counter-offensive. The architects of the “Better Deal” haven’t delivered that politics.

What would that sort of politics propose on the policy front? One example: We’ve learned again and again over recent decades that outrageously generous rewards for top corporate executives only serve to give these top execs an incentive to behave outrageously. These execs will do virtually anything to pump up their share prices and inflate their own personal compensation. They’ll merge and purge. They’ll gouge consumers. They’ll underinvest.

Over in the UK, the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn has awakened to this new corporate reality. Labour is now calling for a new 2.5 percent corporate tax on any executive pay that runs over 20 times the national living wage and a 5 percent tax on executive pay that runs over 20 times the national median wage.

The Labour Party also wants to deny government contracts to companies that pay their top execs over 20 times what their lowest-paid workers are making.

Bold proposals like these helped propel the Labour Party to an unexpectedly strong and robust finish in this past spring’s national parliamentary elections. In the UK, the buzz — the excitement — has clearly shifted to the Labour side of the aisle.

Could the Democratic Party ever become so bold? Only if the party feels enough pressure to do better than the “Better Deal.”

***

Reposted from Our Future

Sam Pizzigati edits Too Much, the online weekly on excess and inequality. He is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. Last year, he played an active role on the team that generated The Nation magazine special issue on extreme inequality. That issue recently won the 2009 Hillman Prize for magazine journalism. Pizzigati’s latest book, Greed and Good: Understanding and Overcoming the Inequality that Limits Our Lives (Apex Press, 2004), won an “outstanding title” of the year ranking from the American Library Association’s Choice book review journal.

Posted In: Allied Approaches, From Campaign for America's Future

Union Matters

An Invitation to Sunny Miami. What Could Be Bad?

Sam Pizzigati

Sam Pizzigati Editor, Too Much online magazine

If a billionaire “invites” you somewhere, you’d better go. Or be prepared to suffer the consequences. This past May, hedge fund kingpin Carl Icahn announced in a letter to his New York-based staff of about 50 that he would be moving his business operations to Florida. But the 83-year-old Icahn assured his staffers they had no reason to worry: “My employees have always been very important to the company, so I’d like to invite you all to join me in Miami.” Those who go south, his letter added, would get a $50,000 relocation benefit “once you have established your permanent residence in Florida.” Those who stay put, the letter continued, can file for state unemployment benefits, a $450 weekly maximum that “you can receive for a total of 26 weeks.” What about severance from Icahn Enterprises? The New York Post reported last week that the two dozen employees who have chosen not to uproot their families and follow Icahn to Florida “will be let go without any severance” when the billionaire shutters his New York offices this coming March. Bloomberg currently puts Carl Icahn’s net worth at $20.5 billion.

***

More ...

Health Care Should Not Be A Bargaining Weapon

Health Care Should Not Be A Bargaining Weapon