Tag Archives: Economy

Fix Our Roads, Fix Our Economy

  By Matt Murray | February 14, 2013 - 10:00 am |
Comments
Portsmouth_Memorial_Bridge_01

Portsmouth_Memorial_Bridge_01In tuesdays State of the Union address President Obama talked about the need to fix thousands of roads and bridges in the United States.  Our infrastructure is crumbling and here in New Hampshire we know all too well how bad the infrastructure is.  It was a little over a year ago when the Memorial Bridge literally fell down.

Even after that Granite Staters did not see an increase in spending for repairs.  Now a new report comes out showing just how bad New Hampshire is when it comes to investing in infrastructure and it is costing you money.

“A new national report found that every year the state is falling $74 million behind keeping up with its aging road and bridge infrastructure, costing the average motorist $323 in motor vehicle repairs.”  (Telegrapgh)

Transportation is fundamental to our states economy.  People need good roads and bridges to get to work and to move the products they make at work.  For thousands of people keeping up the roads is their work.

These building and construction trades have been hit hardest since the recession.  Add to the continual slow down of large scale construction projects, the state has tightened the budget so much that many of the usual road and bridge repairs are just not getting done, leaving these workers out of a job.

Other findings from the report are:

Poor Condition Roads: Currently, 37 percent of state-maintained roads are classified this way and without further investment that number will raise to 43 percent by 2016, the report said.

Rough Road Cost: Higher operating costs total $323 million to drive on N.H. roads with the highest repair bills facing ($503) facing those in southern New Hampshire, according to the report.

Deteriorating Bridges: The report found almost a third of state bridges, 31 percent, show some wear or don’t meet current design standards. Without further funding, that number will rise 16 percent by 2016.

Rural Fatalities: State highway crashes ending in death here are below the national average but the fatality rate on rural, non-Interstate roads is 3.5 times greater than the rest of the state.

I know that we cannot fix all of these problems at once but we need to start getting ahead of the problem.  We need to start investing in our infrastructure to build a better state.  By investing you are helping to create new jobs.  This in turn helps the state economy.  When workers have jobs they are not collecting from the government and in turn are paying taxes to the government.  It is a complete role reversal.

Not one legislator in Concord or Washington can say they did not campaign on creating new jobs.  Why have we not started yet?  We already have the list of roads and bridges that need to be repaired.  Put people back to work, and build a better state at the same time.

Congresswoman Shea-Porter Says: Stop the Sequester

  By New Hampshire Labor News | February 14, 2013 - 6:00 am | ,
Comments
Carol Shea-Porter_Official.2010-300x288

Carol Shea-Porter_Official.2010-300x288This is chapter twelve of “The Sky is Falling,” authored by Democrats in the House and Senate who opposed the 2011 Budget Control Act and the threat of the sequester it brought about. They warned that the economy would falter if the sequester came to pass. The Republicans, who hold the majority in the House, warned that the economy would fall if America did not pass a dramatic austerity program.  Their tea party members refused to raise the debt ceiling unless there were what they considered to be appropriate cuts to spending and what Democrats considered to be draconian cuts to spending. As America hung on the verge of default, and the tea party in the Republican Caucus refused to yield, the Democratic majority in the Senate and President Obama agreed to the Budget Control Act.

The deal was that there would be a “supercommittee” that would find the spending cuts, but if they could not compromise, the deep cuts would be spread equally between defense and domestic programs.  Everyone just knew, just was positive, that the unthinkable would never happen, that Republicans would blink on defense and Democrats would blink on drastic cuts to everything else, and that there would be compromise.  But there wasn’t, and now the sky might actually fall right on our nation’s economic recovery.  Last quarter is the first time that the nation’s economy has shrunk in almost 40 months, and the reason is the impending sequester, with its deep and irrational cuts that require lay-offs, slow-downs and freezes. When you demand that the federal government spend at least 9% less across-the-board this year, and you don’t even have specific targets, you will have a lot of unintended and unwelcome consequences, ranging from defense to medical research to education to transportation programs, etc.  Those politicians who kept insisting that the government does not create jobs now have to watch their friends, family, and constituents who work for the government or rely on federal contracts face lay-offs, and they will see companies lose business and profits. The consequences of deep cuts are upon us.

The Defense Department has been sounding the alarm more than other Departments. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been going before Congress—the very ones who created this mess—and talking about the damage the sequester will do.  In a letter to Senator John McCain, the Ranking Member of the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, Secretary Panetta wrote, “Such a large cut, applied in this indiscriminate manner, would render most of our ship and construction projects unexecutable—you cannot buy three quarters of a ship or a building—and seriously damage other modernization efforts. We would also be forced to separate many of our civilian personnel involuntarily, and, because the reduction would be imposed so quickly, we would almost certainly have to furlough civilians in order to meet the target.”  Panetta goes on to say that this would “seriously damage readiness.” What he is talking about here is national security and jobs.  Is anyone listening yet?  Everyone knows there are savings to be had in the Department of Defense, but we should target those cuts so we do not jeopardize security or jobs.

While Secretary Panetta is warning the country about our national security, the sequester is threatening other programs and jobs.  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says in a report that sequestration would be “deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments, and core government functions.”

We need to stop this impending sequestration. We need to find a compromise that allows us to gradually reduce spending, while we find revenue from closing loopholes, reforming the tax code, and going after waste, fraud, and inefficiency.  There are other suggestions as well.  We could add a public plan to the health insurance exchanges. We could require the government to negotiate the price of prescription drugs for Medicare Part D.  We could raise the cap on Social Security.

But there is very little action on Capitol Hill to do just that.  Even if we wanted to discuss it, we cannot, because the House is not actually in Washington, DC very often these days.

Sequester will hurt our economy in New Hampshire.  It will hurt our national economy.  It will lead to lay-offs, and it will create more misery for the middle class and the poor. Congress has spoken.  Now they need to listen.  It is time to stop the sequester and create a viable plan that reduces spending gradually and keeps the economy growing.

US HOUSE: New Session, Same Tricks

  By New Hampshire Labor News | January 5, 2013 - 8:00 am | , ,
Comments
Photo AP

Photo AP

Once again the Republicans in the US House are showing what their true priorities are, and the people are not one of them.

Yes that is right for the 33rd time Republicans in the House of Representatives introduced and voted on a repeal of ‘Obamacare’.  It was not until later in the day when they approved the stripped down Hurricane Sandy Relief bill.  The House passed a $9 billion dollar package for hurricane relief, well short of the $60 billion that was proposed.

Some news media’s are reporting the only reason that Speaker Boehner even brought up the Hurricane Sandy Relief bill was due to the enormous outcry from Republicans Chris Christie and Representative King.  Both blasted Boehner for not calling for a vote on the bill that has been sitting for over 60 days.

Speaker Boehner so far is continuing the same path as the 112th Congress.  Americans are still recovering from the worst recession since the ‘Great Depression’ and there has still been no mention of the American Jobs Act.  The AJA which has been waiting for Congressional approval since 2011, would reduce business taxes, create millions of jobs, and help returning Veterans all while rebuilding our nations infrastructure.

Only after people have money to spend again will the American economy truly recover.  Small businesses rely on the spendable income of everyday Americans to build and grow. People will only start to spend again when they are comfortable in their income levels and feel that they are secure in their jobs.

Hopefully now that the House GOP has gotten the repeal of Obamacare off their chest (which has no chance of passing) they can get to work on the things that really matter to this country.  They need to start working on the Debt Limit, and passing the American Jobs Act.

INZANE TIMES: Fix the Economy and the Debt Will take Care of Itself

  By Arnie Alpert | December 27, 2012 - 5:00 pm |
Comments
american friends service committee logo (AFSC)

(A repost from InZane Times)

In their recent op-ed for the “Campaign to Fix the Debt,” New Hampshire State Senator Lou D’Allesandro and former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell used several paragraphs to explain the danger that the country could go over the “fiscal cliff,” which they describe as “a series of across-the-board spending cuts and tax increases that will hurt everyone.”

That these measures, intended to reduce the federal government’s fiscal deficit, have aroused dread even among leaders of “Fix the Debt,” should be proof that the “debt’ is not the biggest problem we face. In the short run, the top economic problem the country faces is under-employment and stagnant wages for most workers.

The major cause of the current federal deficit is the economic collapse that began in 2008. When the economy melted down, the taxable income of workers dropped. Moreover, un- and under-employed workers were more likely to receive federal payments such as unemployment insurance, Medicaid, and food stamps.

The other significant causes of the deficit are the tax cuts pushed by President George W. Bush and extended/expanded by President Obama, and rapid expansion of military spending, including (but not limited to) the invasions/occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The cost of Social Security has nothing to do with the current deficit. If the population and economy grow at normal rates, the future workforce will deposit enough into the system to fund the retirement of those who are working now, especially if Congress raises the payroll tax cap and permits millions of undocumented immigrant workers to enter the formal economy.

Long-term, the cost of Medicare and Medicaid could pose a significant burden on the economy. But this has everything to do with the larger problem of rising health care costs and nothing to do with the fact that these are “entitlement” programs.

If the nation insists on cutting the deficit, we should return our attention to its causes: tax rates, excessive military spending, and the recession itself. If we fix the economy, the debt will take care of itself.

According to Bush Economists: His Tax Cuts Don’t Really Improve the Economy

  By Liz Iacobucci | December 18, 2012 - 11:12 am | ,
Comments
best case scenario

Another thing to remember, as you’re watching the Fiscal Cliff negotiations:

Back in 2006, President George Bush asked the US Treasury Department to analyze what would happen to the economy if his tax cuts were made permanent.  Treasury economists conducted a “dynamic analysis” of the tax cuts, which was clearly intended to provide a political justification for making the tax cuts permanent.

best case scenario for economic impacts of Bush Tax Cuts

This is the Treasury’s “best case” scenario, which
is based on extremely optimistic assumptions.
Source of chart: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

But here’s what they found, instead:

even under favorable assumptions, making the tax cuts permanent would have a barely perceptible impact on the economy.  Under more realistic assumptions, the Treasury study finds that the tax cuts could even hurt the economy. In addition, the study casts doubt on claims that the tax cuts are responsible for much of the recent growth in investment and jobs.  It finds that making the tax cuts permanent would lead initially to lower levels of investment, and would result over the longer term in lower levels of employment (i.e., in fewer jobs).

What ?!?

The Treasury study finds that making the tax cuts permanent would reduce long-run labor supply (i.e., the number of people working and the number of hours they work) by 0.3 percent.

Three-tenths of one percent in today’s labor market translates into about 468,000 jobs.

If we end the Bush tax cuts, will those jobs come back?

NALC President Speaks Out To Members and Congress About Pre-funding Obligations and Lame Duck Session

  By Bill Brickley | December 12, 2012 - 12:12 pm |
Comments
Rolando Letter to Congress 2

What follows is an email from NALC President Fred Rolando regarding the impending deal in Congress to eliminate a day of mail delivery each week. The sword is about to fall on many union jobs. At this point all we can do is call Senator Shaheen or Ayotte and ask them to preserve 6 day mail delivery.

“Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve asked you to call your representatives in Washington and tell them to wait until after the first of the year to work on meaningful postal reform, rather than try to push something through quickly during this lame-duck period after the November elections. And thousands of NALC activists made those calls. If you did so, thank you.

Unfortunately, we’ve learned that key members of the House and Senate have met together this week to work on a compromise postal reform bill, and it sounds as if eliminating a day of mail delivery service remains on the table during those discussions.

This is unacceptable. Cutting a day of delivery would mean sacrificing one-sixth of our workforce—25,000 city letter carrier jobs—all in the name of holding on to the misguided mandate to massively pre-fund 75 years’ worth of future retiree benefits and to do so within just 10 years. This policy is what’s really hurting the USPS, costing it billions a year and diverting its attention away from working on a true business plan for the 21st century. (It’s worth noting that this last postal reform law was passed during Congress’ lame-duck session in 2006.)

Besides, dropping a day of mail delivery is a sure-fire recipe for driving away business from the USPS by undermining the value of the service that we letter carriers faithfully provide.

NALC continues to oppose any congressional deal that eliminates a day of mail delivery and that fails to lay the foundation for a viable Postal Service. Click here to read the letter I just sent to every U.S. senator.

If there is a sliver of good news here, it’s this: It’s still not too late for you to act. Even if you have already called your representatives, please do so again—they can not hear from us enough on this important issue.

So please, call your House and Senate representatives at 202-224-3121 and tell them to oppose any lame-duck postal reform bill. Tell them that Congress should instead start over in the new year to craft a brand-new reform measure that preserves this institution, that allows it to grow and meet today’s challenges, and that takes into account the needs of all postal stakeholders and customers.

Also, encourage your fellow letter carriers, your family members and your friends to call their representatives, too.

And stay alert for future developments. If these members of Congress reach some sort of postal reform deal this week, I will schedule a tele-town hall meeting to mobilize the entire membership to fight it.”

In Solidarity,

Fredric V. Rolando, President
National Association of Letter Carriers

Below are two images. The first is the letter that President Rolando sent to the members of Congress, encouraging them to make new legislation in the next session and to do it correctly.  The second image show how their current proposed changes to the postal pre-funding will only net a savings of 5 billion over 10 years.  That will not be enough if they want to keep the post office functioning.

 

Promises, promises…

  By Liz Iacobucci | November 18, 2012 - 8:43 am | ,
Comments
EGTRRA signing

A lot of promises were made, back when the Bush tax cuts were first enacted.

Back in 2001, the Heritage Foundation projected that:

  • “Under President Bush’s plan, an average family of four’s inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010.”
  • “The plan would save the entire Social Security surplus and increase personal savings while the federal government accumulated $1.8 trillion in uncommitted funds from FY 2008 to FY 2011.” (“Uncommitted funds” is a fancy way of saying “surplus”.)

Did your family’s disposable income increase by $4,544 last year? (Wondering how the top 1% are doing? Browse through “How to Spend It” here.)

Has the national debt been paid off?
Is the Social Security surplus “safe”?
Has your family been able to increase your savings?

What happened to the $1.8 trillion federal surplus that was supposed to appear, after the tax cuts stimulated the economy and the “job creators” created jobs?

Lots of promises were made, back when Republican Leadership was forcing the Bush tax cuts through Congress. [Historical footnote: both the 2001 tax cuts and the 2003 tax cuts were passed in a way that made them exempt from Senate filibuster. In 2003, the Senate vote was 50-50 after Republican Senators John McCain, Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe voted “nay”; and Vice President Dick Cheney cast the deciding vote to enact the bill.]

Those promises never panned out. But now, Republican leaders in Congress are acting as if high-income taxpayers are somehow entitled to the low tax rates they have been enjoying for the last decade

What’s up with this idea of “entitlement”?

Millions of American workers have paid into the Social Security system for decades, based on the promise that we would get Social Security benefits when we retired. Isn’t it reasonable for all of us workers to think we’re entitled to the benefits we contributed to? But now, Congressional Republicans are insisting on “adjustments to eligibility and benefits in the Social Security and Medicare programs.”

One man – Dick Cheney – cast the deciding vote to give the wealthy their tax cuts; but now Congressional Republicans think those tax cuts are somehow sacred. Just two days ago, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told a hometown newspaper that any “fiscal cliff” deal “must not raise taxes on wealthy.”

Sense of “entitlement”?

“Gifts” from the government?

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to “jump-start” our economy. They were supposed to “trickle down” and enrich working families. They were supposed to eliminate the country’s debt. They didn’t do any of that – but now Congressional Republicans want us to pay the price, through cuts to our Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Didn’t they get the memo? Romney-Ryan lost.

Tax Policy: Time to go Back to the Future?

  By Liz Iacobucci | November 16, 2012 - 8:17 am | , ,
Comments
Top Tax Rates 1952-2008

President Dwight EisenhowerRemember what it was like, back in 1952?  The nation’s unemployment rate was 3%.

Remember the days of annual raises? Back in 1952, the average family income was growing by about 5.4% a year.

Remember the days when one job was enough for a family to live on?  Back in 1952, 75% of American families had only one income.

Remember when our country had a solid middle class?  Back in 1952, CEOs were paid only 47 times as much as their average employee.  (These days, CEOs receive about 230 times what their employees earn.)

Back then, lobbying was an $8-million-a-year industry.   In 2010, lobbying reached an all-time high of $3.55 billion (even after adjusting for inflation, that’s about 46 times what corporations spent lobbying 60 years ago).

What else has changed?  Tax rates.  After all that lobbying, Congress has slashed the tax rates that apply to top-income individuals.  (The top tax rate used to be 90% — both for earned income and for dividend income.  Now, the top tax rate for wage income is 35%, while taxes on dividends are capped at 15%.  Back in 1952, corporate dividends were taxed as “income”; now they are considered “capital gains”.)

What else?  The structure of executive compensation has changed significantly, to reflect changes in the tax laws.  Back in the 1950s, most executives received salaries plus perks such as a company car.  Now, executives receive compensation “packages” that can dwarf their base salary — including “non-cash” awards of corporate stock, which takes advantage of the low capital gains tax rate.

What else has changed? As CEOs receive more of their compensation in stock, they have a bigger personal stake in decisions about what to do with corporate profits.  Should the company reinvest profits by expanding operations and hiring new employees? Or pay profits out to shareholders as dividends?   Implement a long-term growth strategy?  Or loot the company for as much immediate payout as possible?  When top executives own millions of shares, they have a huge personal stake in that decision.

Remember how casino mogul Sheldon Adelson pledged to spend $100 million on Mitt Romney’s campaign?  Wonder how he could afford it?  It was only a fraction of the amount Adelson received this year in stock dividends from his company – even though “Dividend payments to shareholders are not standard in the casino industry, as companies generally still prefer to spend cash on new growth opportunities.” (Are you wondering who made the decision to pay dividends rather than grow the business?)

That $100 million was also slightly less than what Adelson could have received – just in lower taxes on dividends – just in one year – if Mitt Romney had been elected President and had been able to implement his proposed tax policies.  (All told, Adelson could have received tax breaks totaling $2.3 billion, if Romney had been elected.)

Lots of things have changed, since 1952.  Sixty years ago, who would have dreamed that one person would try to buy a presidential election?  Or that a presidential candidate would propose tax breaks which would benefit a single campaign contributor to the tune of $2.3 billion?

Maybe it’s time to start asking whether all those tax cuts have actually benefited America’s economy?  Or have they only benefited America’s richest individuals?

Maybe it’s time to consider what effect those tax cuts have had on corporate decisions.

Maybe it’s time to consider what effect they’ve had on America’s middle class.

Maybe it’s time to stop giving CEOs tax incentives to loot their own companies.

Maybe it’s time to go back to the 90% tax on dividend income, at least for dividends paid to executives by the companies they control.

 

350 Economist Speak Out: Jobs Not Austerity

  By Matt Murray | November 14, 2012 - 3:33 pm | ,
Comments
Hands off my social security

Today in a nation wide conference call over 350 economists came together to tell people we need ‘Economy Needs Growth and Jobs, Not Austerity‘.  These 350 economists are business leaders and scholars from across the country.   They want to alert everyone to the dangers of making massive cuts to the federal budget would push us back into a depression.

As even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recognizes, it is long term unemployment, not excessive deficits or debt, that is now inflicting the greatest human toll and economic damage. Polls show that voters agree joblessness and a bad economy are much higher priorities than deficits.

Yet too many in Washington are fixated on cutting public spending to balance the budget, not on how to put people back to work and get our economy going. There is no theory of economics that explains how we can deflate our way to recovery. Businesses are not basing investment decisions on how much Congress cuts the debt in 2023. As Great Britain, Ireland, Spain and Greece have shown, inflicting austerity on a weak economy leads to deeper recession, rising unemployment and increasing misery.

How do we rebuild our economy and create jobs? The answer is simple. We must double down on our reinvestment fundings.  Put people back to work by rebuilding our roads, bridges, and schools.  We can make serious investments for our future.

This is exactly how America pulled out of the ‘Great Depression’.  In 1945, our leaders placed a priority on putting people to work, not cutting spending. So government doubled down with public investments like the GI bill, housing, and highways — and widespread collective bargaining and equal opportunity laws made sure the rewards of growth were widely shared. Today, we need the same scale of public investments that made sure the greatest generation and their children enjoyed growth, opportunity, and shared prosperity.

What we need is a plan not party rhetoric.  We need Congress to pass the American Jobs Act take serious action to create jobs.  Budget cuts will only raise our unemployment stifle any growth and recovery that we have seen in the last four years.

Shaheen, Kuster Host Roundtable In Salem

  By New Hampshire Labor News | November 1, 2012 - 10:30 pm | , , ,
Comments

U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen joined Annie Kuster on the campaign trail today for a roundtable discussion in Salem, where the two spoke with voters about issues from education and women’s health to Medicare and job creation.

During the roundtable at Sammy J’s, Senator Shaheen talked about the importance of electing people like Annie who will stand up for the interests of New Hampshire’s middle class families and small businesses.

“This is an absolutely critical election for our state and country,” said Shaheen. “We need more people in Congress who are committed to giving students a chance to get a college education, ensuring that families have access to affordable healthcare, and supporting the small businesses that power New Hampshire’s economy. That’s the kind of person Annie is, and that’s why we need to send her to Washington on November 6th.”

“I’m thrilled to be out on the campaign trail with Senator Shaheen, who has been such a tireless advocate for New Hampshire families in the Senate,” said Kuster. “We both share a commitment to putting politics aside to do what’s right for our state, which is something we need a lot more of in Washington.”

Prior to the roundtable discussion in Salem, Annie greeted employees at UPS and Students First in Nashua.