Robert Reich: This Labor Day We Need Protest Marches Rather Than Parades

Noted economist and former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, has emphasized over the years the importance of using the well-being of working families as an indicator of the nation's overall economic health and prosperity. More recently, he has also been critical of the measures which have or have not been taken to address the deep recession and high unemployment that we suffer. Thus, it is not at all surprising that he now suggests that working families have little to celebrate on Labor Day. Instead of parading, he suggests, they should be protesting.

A brief excerpt from this article:

"The ratio of corporate profits to wages is now higher than at any time since just before the Great Depression.

Meanwhile, the American economy has all but stopped growing -- in large part because consumers (whose spending is 70 percent of GDP) are also workers whose jobs and wages are under assault.

Perhaps there would still be something to celebrate on Labor Day if government was coming to the rescue. But Washington is paralyzed, the president seems unwilling or unable to take on labor-bashing Republicans, and several Republican governors are mounting direct assaults on organized labor (see Indiana, Ohio, Maine, and Wisconsin, for example).

So let's bag the picnics and parades this Labor Day. American workers should march in protest. They're getting the worst deal they've had since before Labor Day was invented -- and the economy is suffering as a result."

Robert Reich: This Labor Day We Need Protest Marches Rather Than Parades:

'via Blog this'

La Popularidad de Obama Cae Entre la Población Latina

Para nadie es un secreto que la popularidad del Presidente Barack Obama ha caído de manera significativa entre electores latinos y la población latina en general. Las razones son muchas, entre las que se pueden destacar: la continua debilidad de la economía, la cual ha afectado seriamente a las familias latinas; altos niveles de desempleo; la ausencia, hasta hace unos días, de mejorías en las políticas migratorias del país; etc.

Si bien el estado de la economía y el desempleo alto son problemas generalizados que afectan a la nación, la población latina si tiene intereses particulares, como en el caso de una reforma migratoria, que han sido descuidadas por los poderes ejecutivo y legislativo.

Resultará interesante ver el comportamiento del electorado latino en la eleccion del 2012, puesto que los legisladores federales del partido Republicano, y sus contrapartes en muchas entidades estatales, son quienes han bloqueado una reforma migratoria y/o impulsado o aprobado leyes anti-inmigrantes.

Los Latinos verán a Obama y a los demócratas como la opción menos mala? Se aumentará el apoyo latino a los republicanos?

El desencanto actual con Obama es documentado por una nueva encuesta realizada por Impremedia/Latino Decisions. A continuación, un fragmento del articulo publicado en La Opinión y el link para dicha nota:

El más reciente sondeo Impremedia/Latino Decisions, realizado entre finales de julio y principios de agosto muestra que el nivel de voto seguro de los latinos por Obama en 2012 permanece a niveles insuficientes para, a estas alturas, ofrecer la supermayoría del voto hispano necesario para que el presidente pueda ganar determinados estados difíciles, como Nuevo México, Colorado y otros del oeste.

Actualmente, sólo el 39% de los votantes latinos está seguro de votar por el presidente Obama el año que viene. Esa cifra era de 43% en febrero, cuando IM/LD realizó una encuesta similar y había subido a 49% en junio, tras la captura de Osama Bin Laden y el discurso de Obama en El Paso, Texas, reafirmando su apoyo sobre la inmigración.

La encuesta también halló que sólo la mitad de los votantes latinos está "entusiasmado" para votar en las elecciones presidenciales del próximo año, un 26% está "algo" entusiasmado.

Obama pierde brillo ante latinos - La Opinión - noticias locales, nacionales e internacionales desde Los Ángeles - impre.com:

Tea Party Origins and Key Features

Campbell and Putnam offer a ver interesting analysis of the origins and key features of the Tea Party movement.

An excerpt:

Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.

What’s more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.

So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.

Crashing the Tea Party - NYTimes.com:

The Wrong Worries- Another Excellent Article by Krugman

Paul Krugman's consistent claims that it is necessary for US economic policy to focus on employment creation has been admirable, in light of the continuously high unemployment rates at the national level and, even more so, in states with high Latino and Mexican-origin populations.

His most recent op-ed in the NY Times calls attention once again to this issue, now framed within the context of the drastic declines in the stock markets in the US and other countries.

As he indicates in the excerpt below, the ratio of employment to population has remained virtually the same during the last two years, resulting in a lastin human catastrophe.

"Yes, officially the recession ended two years ago, and the economy did indeed pull out of a terrifying tailspin. But at no point has growth looked remotely adequate given the depth of the initial plunge. In particular, when employment falls as much as it did from 2007 to 2009, you need a lot of job growth to make up the lost ground. And that just hasn’t happened.

Consider one crucial measure, the ratio of employment to population. In June 2007, around 63 percent of adults were employed. In June 2009, the official end of the recession, that number was down to 59.4. As of June 2011, two years into the alleged recovery, the number was: 58.2.

These may sound like dry statistics, but they reflect a truly terrible reality. Not only are vast numbers of Americans unemployed or underemployed, for the first time since the Great Depression many American workers are facing the prospect of very-long-term — maybe permanent — unemployment. Among other things, the rise in long-term unemployment will reduce future government revenues, so we’re not even acting sensibly in purely fiscal terms. But, more important, it’s a human catastrophe."

The complete article:

The Wrong Worries - NYTimes.com: