The wooing of the middle class

[spare_change]

Al Knight
Denver Post columnist
Article Last Updated: 10/16/2007 04:38:01 PM MDT

Sometimes, strange as it may seem, it pays to listen to what politicians are saying.

Certainly that was the case earlier this month when Hillary Clinton, the leader in the Democratic presidential sweepstakes, outlined what she calls her "plan to rebuild the road to the middle class."

Pay no attention to the muddled metaphor. The New York senator isn't concerned about funding roads; she wants to drop billions in direct and indirect government funds directly on members of the middle class. At first blush, this doesn't seem remarkable. Politicians start making promises long before elections and seldom stop until the results are in.

There are two things, however, that make Clinton's proposal worth further attention. The first is that she is echoing one of the major 1992 campaign themes of her husband, former president Bill Clinton. It was Bill Clinton who famously declared the 1992 economy in the worst shape in 50 years, and promised not only new jobs for Americans but "high-paying jobs."

Well, surprise, surprise. Mrs. Clinton has recently claimed that income disparity in the U.S. is now worse than it has been since the year of the stock market crash, 1929. She has also spotted a whole series of clouds, not one of which appears to have a silver lining.

The middle class, she says, can't make ends meet. Health care and college tuition costs have skyrocketed, and families that used to rely on building equity in their homes not only can't do that any longer, "they are losing their homes."

At this point, it may be useful to recall that Bill Clinton, after running on a promise of tax cuts for the middle class, abandoned those promises, raised taxes instead and later said that he agreed with critics who said he raised taxes "too much." Oh, and by the way, Clinton found that once he took office, the economy didn't look as bad as it once did.

The second reason Mrs. Clinton's speech deserves close attention is that much if not most of the benefits in her proposal are direct handouts to labor unions. While it is true that members of labor unions may be members of the middle class, it is also true that under the Clinton proposal they are the most-favored class of all. Unions would benefit from the so-called creation of a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund. Mrs. Clinton wants to create this fund by extracting the money from oil companies and spreading the money around in grants.

These grants would, of course, require the payment of the prevailing wage, which has become another term for the "union wage." In addition, bridges and highways would be rebuilt on a scale never before achieved. Trade laws would be rewritten to better benefit the unions. The health care delivery system would be revised in ways that would encourage unionization and, finally, the public education system would be largely left alone, unbothered by new programs that might threaten the teacher's union monopoly.

High on Mrs. Clinton's list of how to rebuild the middle class is a proposal that would allow labor unions to organize the work place without the necessity of getting the approval of workers through a secret ballot.

It is not clear that there has ever been an urgent need for government programs to help what is the largest class of American citizens, the middle class.

Sadly, there is not a word in Mrs. Clinton's proposals about what is arguably the biggest problem facing the middle class: the unavoidable fact that the Social Security program and Medicare are both careening toward bankruptcy. On those subjects, she and the rest of the Democratic presidential field remain tongue-tied.

Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@ mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post's editorial-page staff. His column appears twice a month.

[p.a]

Al Knight
Denver Post columnist
Article Last Updated: 10/16/2007 04:38:01 PM MDT

Sometimes, strange as it may seem, it pays to listen to what politicians are saying.

Certainly that was the case earlier this month when Hillary Clinton, the leader in the Democratic presidential sweepstakes, outlined what she calls her "plan to rebuild the road to the middle class."

Pay no attention to the muddled metaphor. The New York senator isn't concerned about funding roads; she wants to drop billions in direct and indirect government funds directly on members of the middle class. At first blush, this doesn't seem remarkable. Politicians start making promises long before elections and seldom stop until the results are in.

There are two things, however, that make Clinton's proposal worth further attention. The first is that she is echoing one of the major 1992 campaign themes of her husband, former president Bill Clinton. It was Bill Clinton who famously declared the 1992 economy in the worst shape in 50 years, and promised not only new jobs for Americans but "high-paying jobs."

Well, surprise, surprise. Mrs. Clinton has recently claimed that income disparity in the U.S. is now worse than it has been since the year of the stock market crash, 1929. She has also spotted a whole series of clouds, not one of which appears to have a silver lining.

The middle class, she says, can't make ends meet. Health care and college tuition costs have skyrocketed, and families that used to rely on building equity in their homes not only can't do that any longer, "they are losing their homes."

At this point, it may be useful to recall that Bill Clinton, after running on a promise of tax cuts for the middle class, abandoned those promises, raised taxes instead and later said that he agreed with critics who said he raised taxes "too much." Oh, and by the way, Clinton found that once he took office, the economy didn't look as bad as it once did.

The second reason Mrs. Clinton's speech deserves close attention is that much if not most of the benefits in her proposal are direct handouts to labor unions. While it is true that members of labor unions may be members of the middle class, it is also true that under the Clinton proposal they are the most-favored class of all. Unions would benefit from the so-called creation of a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund. Mrs. Clinton wants to create this fund by extracting the money from oil companies and spreading the money around in grants.

These grants would, of course, require the payment of the prevailing wage, which has become another term for the "union wage." In addition, bridges and highways would be rebuilt on a scale never before achieved. Trade laws would be rewritten to better benefit the unions. The health care delivery system would be revised in ways that would encourage unionization and, finally, the public education system would be largely left alone, unbothered by new programs that might threaten the teacher's union monopoly.

High on Mrs. Clinton's list of how to rebuild the middle class is a proposal that would allow labor unions to organize the work place without the necessity of getting the approval of workers through a secret ballot.

It is not clear that there has ever been an urgent need for government programs to help what is the largest class of American citizens, the middle class.

Sadly, there is not a word in Mrs. Clinton's proposals about what is arguably the biggest problem facing the middle class: the unavoidable fact that the Social Security program and Medicare are both careening toward bankruptcy. On those subjects, she and the rest of the Democratic presidential field remain tongue-tied.

Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@ mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post's editorial-page staff. His column appears twice a month.

And these are bad things?:confused:

[spare_change]

And these are bad things?:confused:



If you are a non-union worker, I would guess so.

[p.a]

If you are a non-union worker, I would guess so.

Thats an untrue statement. Non-Union workers have always reaped the benefits of Labor Unions in pay, health care and working conditions.
The Fair Labor Laws
Child labor laws
The Fair Wage Act
OSHA

All these were because of Labor Unions involvement

I don't disagree with whats being said about Hillary Clinton. I really don't care for the Clintons anyway. But Labor Unions where I draw the line. They have been the greatest arbitrator for the working man since this country began.

When we lose collective bargaining is when we become China.
But then to corporate America that may not be a bad Idea.

[spare_change]

I won't disagree --- but favoring Labor unions to the detriment of others is abusing political privilege.

[dartgirl]

I have always respected the unions, my dad was a member of the woodworkers union for alot of years. They have been a great aid in giving people a living wage and benifits.......but.......like most organizations there is always a point where they go to far. My son works for a company that occasionally gets to works on some prevailing wage jobs. When they work those jobs their wage practically doubles, which is not a bad thing for him but those jobs tend to be government jobs so it is no wonder that deficit is so bad.

[mrh50]

i love the union it was good for the country:nu

[spare_change]

i love the union it was good for the country:nu


"Was good"? Does that mean they aren't good for the country now?

[mrh50]

well just look around since the union has lost its foot hold we are going down hill for the middle class lower wages, no insurance, no reteriment. and i can just go on and on but i won't:nu "Was good"? Does that mean they aren't good for the country now?

[spare_change]

well just look around since the union has lost its foot hold we are going down hill for the middle class lower wages, no insurance, no reteriment. and i can just go on and on but i won't:nu



How did the union "lose its foothold"?

[Iwantutowantme]

Al Knight
Denver Post columnist
Article Last Updated: 10/16/2007 04:38:01 PM MDT

Sometimes, strange as it may seem, it pays to listen to what politicians are saying.

Certainly that was the case earlier this month when Hillary Clinton, the leader in the Democratic presidential sweepstakes, outlined what she calls her "plan to rebuild the road to the middle class."

Pay no attention to the muddled metaphor. The New York senator isn't concerned about funding roads; she wants to drop billions in direct and indirect government funds directly on members of the middle class. At first blush, this doesn't seem remarkable. Politicians start making promises long before elections and seldom stop until the results are in.

There are two things, however, that make Clinton's proposal worth further attention. The first is that she is echoing one of the major 1992 campaign themes of her husband, former president Bill Clinton. It was Bill Clinton who famously declared the 1992 economy in the worst shape in 50 years, and promised not only new jobs for Americans but "high-paying jobs."

Well, surprise, surprise. Mrs. Clinton has recently claimed that income disparity in the U.S. is now worse than it has been since the year of the stock market crash, 1929. She has also spotted a whole series of clouds, not one of which appears to have a silver lining.

The middle class, she says, can't make ends meet. Health care and college tuition costs have skyrocketed, and families that used to rely on building equity in their homes not only can't do that any longer, "they are losing their homes."

At this point, it may be useful to recall that Bill Clinton, after running on a promise of tax cuts for the middle class, abandoned those promises, raised taxes instead and later said that he agreed with critics who said he raised taxes "too much." Oh, and by the way, Clinton found that once he took office, the economy didn't look as bad as it once did.

The second reason Mrs. Clinton's speech deserves close attention is that much if not most of the benefits in her proposal are direct handouts to labor unions. While it is true that members of labor unions may be members of the middle class, it is also true that under the Clinton proposal they are the most-favored class of all. Unions would benefit from the so-called creation of a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund. Mrs. Clinton wants to create this fund by extracting the money from oil companies and spreading the money around in grants.

These grants would, of course, require the payment of the prevailing wage, which has become another term for the "union wage." In addition, bridges and highways would be rebuilt on a scale never before achieved. Trade laws would be rewritten to better benefit the unions. The health care delivery system would be revised in ways that would encourage unionization and, finally, the public education system would be largely left alone, unbothered by new programs that might threaten the teacher's union monopoly.

High on Mrs. Clinton's list of how to rebuild the middle class is a proposal that would allow labor unions to organize the work place without the necessity of getting the approval of workers through a secret ballot.

It is not clear that there has ever been an urgent need for government programs to help what is the largest class of American citizens, the middle class.

Sadly, there is not a word in Mrs. Clinton's proposals about what is arguably the biggest problem facing the middle class: the unavoidable fact that the Social Security program and Medicare are both careening toward bankruptcy. On those subjects, she and the rest of the Democratic presidential field remain tongue-tied.

Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@ mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post's editorial-page staff. His column appears twice a month.

************************************************** ***

The social security system may by heading towards bankruptcy. A simple and honest way to stop that from happening is to have the democrats and republicans stop 'stealing' from the social security systems's funds and using it for their own pet projects and to help keep them in office. All monies collected for social security should be used for that purpose only. Kripto

[spare_change]

************************************************** ***

The social security system may by heading towards bankruptcy. A simple and honest way to stop that from happening is to have the democrats and republicans stop 'stealing' from the social security systems's funds and using it for their own pet projects and to help keep them in office. All monies collected for social security should be used for that purpose only. Kripto

I certainly agree. However, just sheltering future Soc Sec contributions will not be enough to meet future needs. There needs to be a payback of SOME of the money borrowed ... in accordance with the agreements that allowed them to withdraw it. But, of course, where is that money going to come from? From you and me .... we get to fund our Social Security for the second time.

[mrdiscreet]

I won't disagree --- but favoring Labor unions to the detriment of others is abusing political privilege.

The weak link to favoring unions was simply that the grants -- to build energy independence so we don't keep sending petrodollars to terrorists -- would require paying prevailing wages, not that workers be union.

Going back to the original post, interesting that blame the poor is now creeping up the ladder to blame the middle class.

It will be interesting to see how long the middle class, with falling real income, less and less healthcare (they have healthcare until they get seriously ill, then get fired and can't afford COBRA), and less and less job security, continues to vote GOP.

[Iwantutowantme]

Thats an untrue statement. Non-Union workers have always reaped the benefits of Labor Unions in pay, health care and working conditions.
The Fair Labor Laws
Child labor laws
The Fair Wage Act
OSHA

All these were because of Labor Unions involvement

I don't disagree with whats being said about Hillary Clinton. I really don't care for the Clintons anyway. But Labor Unions where I draw the line. They have been the greatest arbitrator for the working man since this country began.

When we lose collective bargaining is when we become China.
But then to corporate America that may not be a bad Idea.

EXCELLENT POST If there were no labor unions, we, the people will be at the mercy of the corporate elite. Bringing back the guilded age (New world order) seems to be their plan. The last 4 presidents have been helping to usher in the NWO........... Giving away our jobs and factories in exchange for slave labor from the countries that have signed the NAFTA and CAFTA. Good for corporations, bad for all labor involved.

[c50t]

I grew up in the heart of AFL/CIO territory. Unions certainly had their place, but they have become what they originally sought to overcome - a controlling entity that limits a workers options.
I've been a member of a union, and worked in the exact same field after resigning from the union. In my experience, the union closed more doors to me than it opened. At first the union helped me earn more benefits, and salary per job than I could have negotiated on my own. However, in exchange, my jobs were few and the ability to negotiate my own future was out of the question.
After exploring the job market on my own, I quickly found that the initial period of risk led to an even greater reward for motivated individuals.
While my personal experience may not translate to a global understanding, it still makes it very hard for me to believe that I need Big Sister Hillary's help. I don't want her money (translated tax dollars taken from other people) for me. I don't want her money for my kids. When I look around at the economy right now, it's amazing how good we have it. The things that seem to be rampantly wrong involve the redistribution of $ by the Fed. Schools. Health Care. Government contracts.
I think we'd get more out of this country if the country stayed out of our lives as much as possible.

[mrdiscreet]

I grew up in the heart of AFL/CIO territory. Unions certainly had their place, but they have become what they originally sought to overcome - a controlling entity that limits a workers options.
I've been a member of a union, and worked in the exact same field after resigning from the union. In my experience, the union closed more doors to me than it opened. At first the union helped me earn more benefits, and salary per job than I could have negotiated on my own. However, in exchange, my jobs were few and the ability to negotiate my own future was out of the question.
After exploring the job market on my own, I quickly found that the initial period of risk led to an even greater reward for motivated individuals.
While my personal experience may not translate to a global understanding, it still makes it very hard for me to believe that I need Big Sister Hillary's help. I don't want her money (translated tax dollars taken from other people) for me. I don't want her money for my kids. When I look around at the economy right now, it's amazing how good we have it. The things that seem to be rampantly wrong involve the redistribution of $ by the Fed. Schools. Health Care. Government contracts.
I think we'd get more out of this country if the country stayed out of our lives as much as possible.

I'm not one to claim unions are nirvana, and don't present their own abuses and corruption problems as they grow large.

But who is the "we" that have it so good? It is very rapidly becoming the top 10%. I do not see that as a sustainable model for a healthy economy.

When the Japanese started building US auto plants, they offered near-union wages and located in the deep south to avoid unions.

Now they are established, and Toyota (maybe its Honda?) is now opening a plant in southern Indiana that will only accept applications from a mapped region largely excluding union households, even though that plant enjoys major state-wide paid subsidies, paid for in good measure from the taxes of union employees.

That plant will offer jobs in the $15 range, as opposed to the $25 range prevailing wages in the auto industry.

Thus, the race to the bottom continues. Thus, our middle class shrinks. The shift toward a 10/90 economy is exactly what to expect if labor has no bargaining power. Let's keep it up if we want America to become a nation of wage slaves.

[p.a]

I'm not one to claim unions are nirvana, and don't present their own abuses and corruption problems as they grow large.

But who is the "we" that have it so good? It is very rapidly becoming the top 10%. I do not see that as a sustainable model for a healthy economy.

When the Japanese started building US auto plants, they offered near-union wages and located in the deep south to avoid unions.

Now they are established, and Toyota (maybe its Honda?) is now opening a plant in southern Indiana that will only accept applications from a mapped region largely excluding union households, even though that plant enjoys major state-wide paid subsidies, paid for in good measure from the taxes of union employees.

That plant will offer jobs in the $15 range, as opposed to the $25 range prevailing wages in the auto industry.

Thus, the race to the bottom continues. Thus, our middle class shrinks. The shift toward a 10/90 economy is exactly what to expect if labor has no bargaining power. Let's keep it up if we want America to become a nation of wage slaves.

EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY:thankyou:

[c50t]

[QUOTE=mrdiscreet]I'm not one to claim unions are nirvana, and don't present their own abuses and corruption problems as they grow large.

But who is the "we" that have it so good? It is very rapidly becoming the top 10%. I do not see that as a sustainable model for a healthy economy.

When the Japanese started building US auto plants, they offered near-union wages and located in the deep south to avoid unions.

Now they are established, and Toyota (maybe its Honda?) is now opening a plant in southern Indiana that will only accept applications from a mapped region largely excluding union households, even though that plant enjoys major state-wide paid subsidies, paid for in good measure from the taxes of union employees.




When I said "we" I was refering to the middle class, which by just about any measure you'd care to take - includes me.

The plant you're speaking of is just outside Evansville, Indiana. I know people that work there.
It's in the middle of what was formerly a heavily depressed area. Small farms are closing up there pretty fast. The population was getting older as kids moved away. That plant is revitalizing the entire economy of the region. It may be a wage that is less than the average for auto workers, but the wage they pay is far and away an incedible paycheck for the area. I've heard people talk about it in Wabash County, IL - a county with one of the highest unemployment rates in the state. They love the plant. They love the benefits. They love the way they need more power, more parts, more water, and more workers.

I don't understand what they are losing.
I think I do understand what the unions are losing.

[p.a]

[QUOTE=mrdiscreet]I'm not one to claim unions are nirvana, and don't present their own abuses and corruption problems as they grow large.

But who is the "we" that have it so good? It is very rapidly becoming the top 10%. I do not see that as a sustainable model for a healthy economy.

When the Japanese started building US auto plants, they offered near-union wages and located in the deep south to avoid unions.

Now they are established, and Toyota (maybe its Honda?) is now opening a plant in southern Indiana that will only accept applications from a mapped region largely excluding union households, even though that plant enjoys major state-wide paid subsidies, paid for in good measure from the taxes of union employees.




When I said "we" I was refering to the middle class, which by just about any measure you'd care to take - includes me.

The plant you're speaking of is just outside Evansville, Indiana. I know people that work there.
It's in the middle of what was formerly a heavily depressed area. Small farms are closing up there pretty fast. The population was getting older as kids moved away. That plant is revitalizing the entire economy of the region. It may be a wage that is less than the average for auto workers, but the wage they pay is far and away an incedible paycheck for the area. I've heard people talk about it in Wabash County, IL - a county with one of the highest unemployment rates in the state. They love the plant. They love the benefits. They love the way they need more power, more parts, more water, and more workers.

I don't understand what they are losing.
I think I do understand what the unions are losing.

I think that is great the company is paying a living wage based on the cost of living in that area. My concern would be if they ( the company ) continued to pay a living wage based on the cost of living in that area without the need for collective bargaining. The cost of living would also include health care.

One of the draw backs of a national union is that they negotiate contracts without taking in consideration that the cost of living in certain areas is lower than the national norm. $15.00 an hour in someplace's is good and in others not so good.

When I lived in Florence South Carolina, I worked a job ( briefly ) with some guys who had been with this company for 3 years and had no health care benefits. You had to be full time to get health care benefits and these guys were considered temps even though they worked a 40 hour week.

When I moved to Missouri and became employed I was eligible for health care benefits after 30 days. I was eligible for profitshareing and 2 weeks vacation after one year. I'm not sure if these guys got paid vacations or not.

I think there are places where unions can be a plus and someplaces that unions are not needed YET.

[mrdiscreet]

I don't understand what they are losing.
I think I do understand what the unions are losing.

Consider it as a reverse auction, taking place in slow motion:

Do I hear $25/hr? (yesterday) Do I hear $15/hr? (today) Do I hear $10/hr? (tomorrow).

Then think about how our economy grows if there effectively is no middle class: who will buy the houses, cars and other products services that make up our GDP?

We are largely already there: over the past several years, fully 30% of mortgages granted were sub-prime (poor credit quality/income security); if you count Alt-A mortgages (no underwriting, commonly called "liars loans"), fully 50% of mortgages were not soundly written.

So, we've been pretending that we can still afford housing, when in fact foreclosures are going to rock our society at 10-15 times any rate seen since the Great Depression.

Bankers used to refuse to lend at payments anything beyond 25% to 28% of income. This discussion can shoot off in lots of different directions on this point. But what is the net effect of the loose mortgage lending? Inflated housing prices that have simly made the cost of living unsustainable for the middle class.

[spare_change]

Consider it as a reverse auction, taking place in slow motion:

Do I hear $25/hr? (yesterday) Do I hear $15/hr? (today) Do I hear $10/hr? (tomorrow).

Then think about how our economy grows if there effectively is no middle class: who will buy the houses, cars and other products services that make up our GDP?

We are largely already there: over the past several years, fully 30% of mortgages granted were sub-prime (poor credit quality/income security); if you count Alt-A mortgages (no underwriting, commonly called "liars loans"), fully 50% of mortgages were not soundly written.

So, we've been pretending that we can still afford housing, when in fact foreclosures are going to rock our society at 10-15 times any rate seen since the Great Depression.

Bankers used to refuse to lend at payments anything beyond 25% to 28% of income. This discussion can shoot off in lots of different directions on this point. But what is the net effect of the loose mortgage lending? Inflated housing prices that have simly made the cost of living unsustainable for the middle class.

You can choose to interpret the mortgage issues that way -- but, what actually is happening is that people are buying more house than they can reasonably afford, and were being assisted by financially risky mortgage agents and companies.

How old were your parents when they bought their first house? Your grandparents? A home mortgage should never be more than 30% of your total income .... most people buy in at 40-45% .... and are assisted by the mortgage companies. In 1960s, the average age of a first time home owner was mid-30s... today, it is in the late 20's. All of us have, or know, married children who had to move back in with their parents because they couldn't make it financially. They tried to get it all at once --- a new car, a new house, vacations, etc ... and then, we wonder why they can't afford health care.

We are suffering the result of the "I want it, and I want it NOW" generation. It's easier to borrow for a house, than it is to save for a house. It's easier to borrow for a car, than it is to save for a car. Fiscal irresponsibility is a significant component of our middle class problems today. Not the only component, most assuredly, but definitely a prime contributor.

[mrdiscreet]

You can choose to interpret the mortgage issues that way -- but, what actually is happening is that people are buying more house than they can reasonably afford, and were being assisted by financially risky mortgage agents and companies.

How old were your parents when they bought their first house? Your grandparents? A home mortgage should never be more than 30% of your total income .... most people buy in at 40-45% .... and are assisted by the mortgage companies. In 1960s, the average age of a first time home owner was mid-30s... today, it is in the late 20's. All of us have, or know, married children who had to move back in with their parents because they couldn't make it financially. They tried to get it all at once --- a new car, a new house, vacations, etc ... and then, we wonder why they can't afford health care.

We are suffering the result of the "I want it, and I want it NOW" generation. It's easier to borrow for a house, than it is to save for a house. It's easier to borrow for a car, than it is to save for a car. Fiscal irresponsibility is a significant component of our middle class problems today. Not the only component, most assuredly, but definitely a prime contributor.

Let's leave the ability to pay for healthcare as a separate subject, plenty to chew on here.

On housing payments, you hit on exactly what I meant by the different directions/viewpoints the discussion could go.

But consider, if many unqualified purchasers are bought into the market, you have inflated the cost of housing even for qualified buyers, thus squeezing everyone on housing costs.

You can choose where to lay the blame for over-extended mortgage debt: no one puts a gun to the head of buyers and makes them sign the mortgage. By the same token, owning a home is such a powerful draw that many will take on any risk to achieve the American Dream.

I believe financial institutions have a duty to act with integrity -- so to that extent I reject pure free markets -- because the macro effects of horribly irresponsible lending affect all of us.

On the flip side, the loose mortgage terms have allowed us as a society to ingnore that standards ov living have actually been actually dropping for the middle class.

[Lacey]

Am I the only one to notice when Spare talks or starts a thread ...podiums go up? lol

[spare_change]

Am I the only one to notice when Spare talks or starts a thread ...podiums go up? lol


Not sure what to make of that, Lacey --- but, yes, I have opinions -- I would hope everybody else does, too -- nothing more dangerous than an uninformed, or uninvolved, populace.

[Lacey]

Not sure what to make of that, Lacey --- but, yes, I have opinions -- I would hope everybody else does, too -- nothing more dangerous than an uninformed, or uninvolved, populace.




I mean nothing bad by it at all!!I like reading your post,I think your very smart and there is alot to learn from ya,I would be honored in a way if it was me.....