A newspaper is not just for reporting news, it's to get people mad enough to do something about it. -- Mark Twain
   Barbara Lee 
LATEST NEWS Iraq Colombia The Philippines North Korea France 
NEWS LINKS NewsDissector tomdispatch AlterNet.org Big, Left, Outside Black Commentator BuzzFlash Tom Paine.common sense Common Dreams The Daily Mis-Lead Google News http://www.indymedia.org/ indymedia.org Information Clearing House In These Times MotherJones The Nation 
Politech The Progressive portland.indymedia.org pulpnonfiction.blogspot rationalmind.net Rolling Stone Magazine Salon.com TruthOut Wired Working for Change Zmag MediaChannel.org WORLD WIRES IRNA REUTERS 
ALTERNATIVE to Right Wing Media: LIVE! 10:00 pm to 1:00 am Monday-Friday The Sunshine Tony Wong Show, featuring Uncle Bernie Ward aka the Lion of the Left! 
Then hear Ray Taliaferro and Operation American Freedom from 1:00 to 5:00 am Pacific Time.  KGO - San Francisco
 
ACTION ITEM 
Wal-Mart Liberation Front
GEEZE LINKS 
911 Preparation 9/11 Timeline 911review.org America Coming Together Black Box - Diebold bringthemhomenow.org Center for American Progress Center for Public Integrity Council on American-Islamic Relations Common Cause costofwar.com conspiracy-theory-news democracymeansyou.com FBI Cover-Up Catherine Austin Fitts Global Public Media Globalization Research Gold Anti-Trust Action Government Information Awareness Guerrilla News Network Gulf War Vets Richard Heinberg Hermes Press Iraq War Casualties Cynthia McKinney Online Journal Peak Oil & Gas Study Dale Allen Pfeiffer Re-Call Bush Michael Ruppert Sanders Research Danny Schechter ScoopMedia.NZ Peter Dale Scott SeptemberEleventh.org Stop Bush in 2004 TIKKUN Un-answered Questions VERPA.org - Vets votetoimpeach.org Watley Review Where is the Money? 
|
   
"Now, I understand the profit motive, as a matter of fact, no one is more pro business, pro American free enterprise than I am, but I'm also pro American worker." -- Lou Dobbs 
Ed. note: Here is a partial list of so-called "American" corporations that are sending jobs
offshore and phasing out American workers:
3Com, 3M, Adobe Systems, AMD, Aetna, A.G. Edwards, Alamo Rent A Car, Albertson's, Allstate, Amazon.com, American Standard, AOL, AT&T, AT&T Wireless, Avery Dennison Bank of America, Bank of New York, Bank One, Bear Stearns, Bechtel, BellSouth, Best Buy, Black & Decker, Boeing, Bumble Bee Capital One, Carrier, Charles Schwab, ChevronTexaco, Circuit City, Inc., Cisco Systems, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, Comcast Holdings, Computer Associates, Continental Airlines, Cooper Tire & Rubber, Cooper Tools, CSX, Cummins Dell Computer, Delta Air Lines, Direct TV, Discover, Dow Chemical, DuPont Earthlink, Eastman Kodak, Eaton Corporation, EDS, Eli Lilly, Emerson Electric, Equifax, Ernst & Young, Expedia, ExxonMobil Fedders Corporation, Fidelity Investments, First American Title Insurance, First Data, Fluor, Ford Motor, Franklin Mint Gateway, GE Capital, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Goodrich, Google, Guardian Life Insurance The Hartford Financial Services Group, Hewlett-Packard, Humana IBM, IndyMac Bancorp, Intel, International Paper, Intuit, ITT Educational Services Jacuzzi, JDS Uniphase, Johnson & Johnson, JPMorgan Chase, Juniper Networks Kaiser Permanente, Kwikset Lehman Brothers, Levi Strauss, Lockheed Martin, Lowe's, Lucent Marshall Fields, Mattel, Maytag, Medtronic, Mellon Bank, Merrill Corporation, Merrill Lynch, MetLife, Microsoft, Monsanto, Morgan Stanley, Motorola National Semiconductor, NCR Corporation, NETGEAR, Network Associates, Newell Rubbermaid, New York Life Insurance Co., Northwest Airlines Office Depot, Oracle, OshKosh B'Gosh, Otis Elevator Co., Owens Corning Perot Systems, Pfizer, Pitney Bowes, Pratt & Whitney, Procter & Gamble, Prudential Insurance Qwest Comm. Radio Shack, Raytheon Aircraft, RR Donnelley & Sons, Russell Corporation Sikorsky, Sprint, Sprint PCS, Starkist Seafood, State Farm Insurance, Supra Telecom, SurePrep, The Sutherland Group, Sykes Enterprises, Synygy Target, Tecumseh, Telcordia, TeleTech, Tellabs, Texas Instrumentsm, Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, Time Warner, Toys "R" Us, Tyco Electronics, Tyco International Union Pacific Railroad, Unisys, United Tech. Veritas, Verizon, VF Corporation Wachovia Bank, Washington Group Intl., Washington Mutual, WellChoice, Werner Co., West Corporation, Weyerhaeuser, Whirlpool, Wolverine World Wide, Wyeth, and Yahoo! Click HERE for a more complete list. Also see The Ten Worst Corporations of 2003 by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman: "Expanding the boundaries of corporate malfeasance to new lows of dirty dealing, these ten companies are the worst offenders in a year that saw a lot of offenses." Bayer, Boeing, Brighthouse, Clear Channel, Diebold, Halliburton, HealthSouth, Inamed, Merrill Lynch, and Safeway. [CLICK - AlterNet] 05FEB2004 Domestic Tool and Die: A Matter of National Security LOU DOBBS - CNN TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT DOBBS: Well, foreign competition, unfair trade practices, have combined to create a worsening problem for this economy. We went to the source of this story tonight to find American small-business owners who are suffering under unfair trade practices. And I will tell you, we hear on this broadcast from literally tens of thousands of people who have lost their jobs, who have lost their businesses, who are on the brink of losing their businesses. This is not about statistics. My first guest tonight founded his own tool and die company and was, for three decades, living, as he put it, the American dream. Now his business is in danger of failing. He's had to lay off nine of his 12 employees. He says NAFTA and the World Trade organization are to blame. I am joined tonight by Jim Tillmann. He's the founder of Tillmann Tool and Die. And he joins us tonight from Breckenridge, Minnesota. Jim, good to have you with us. JIM TILLMANN, FOUNDER, TILLMANN TOOL & DIE: Thanks, Lou. Thanks for having me. My pleasure. DOBBS: You are struggling right now with your business. What is, in your judgment, the principal reason for it? TILLMANN: Well, it's definitely the NAFTA and the WTO that -- we're dealing against unfair tariffs. If I build a tool that goes to China, that they charge us a 29.9 percent tariff on anything that goes over there. Anything coming in from China, there's a 3.3 percent tariff. That's got to be stopped immediately. I don't know how much longer we can hang on with that kind of injustice. It's just -- it's not fair trade. I don't know how they labeled it free trade, but that's what they labeled it, I guess. DOBBS: We had a viewer write in, Jim, said, if this is free trade, then I want to see that free lunch that everybody told me didn't exist. When you lay off nine out of 12 workers, is this saying that you really are close to closing your business? TILLMANN: Well, I don't know. Maybe I'm not a real smart businessman. I probably should have shut the doors two years ago, but I feel that's really -- that's really hard to do. I was laid off once. And I found out on Friday I didn't have my job on Monday and I know how that feels. So I have just been limping along. And I had a few other investments that I sold just to keep the shop going. And it's not like it sounds. I haven't laid off nine people, per se. We rotated people. And they took turns. And they started finding other jobs. And most of them found jobs that are lesser paying than what they were getting here. So I'm down to three people. And they are good people. They are all good people. I hated to lose any one of them. I had people -- I had a person that was here 18 years. And he was one of the best toolmakers you could find. And he's no longer here. DOBBS: You're talking about fair trade agreements. Congress enacted the fast track authority, so that Robert Zoellick, the U.S. trade representative, could negotiate on the president's behalf these trade agreements. Do you think that was a mistake? TILLMANN: Well, the fast track might have been all right if we had some strong leadership in the Congress, the Senate and the Congress, where, you know, it is thumbs up or thumbs down. They can't put any amendments under the fast track. I know Senator Dorgan -- I got an eight-page congressional record from him. And he's really good about it. I guess he's on your show tomorrow night. I wish you would ask him, how come he doesn't put thumbs down on some of these and make Ambassador Zoellick go back to the drawing board and negotiate these equal tariffs. And we're not even talking yet about wages, where they are paying 16 cents and hour and we're paying $20 an hour here. And we're not talking about OSHA. (CROSSTALK) TILLMANN: Pardon me? DOBBS: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Go ahead. TILLMANN: So, there's many things that enter into this. We have to contend with OSHA. For instance, I have used trichloroethylene one year for cleaning molds. If I dump that outside, I go to jail. Down in Mexico, they do that all the time. And that's why there are kids born down there without arms and legs. We don't have the same playing field. And now Clinton in 1992 or '93, I guess it was, signed the NAFTA agreement. And, you know, if it would have been retroactive until the year 2050, so it has people like my age could get out and people could think about it for 30 years before they got into it, it would be fair. It's like you and I playing Monopoly and, all of a sudden, halfway through, I change the rules on you, Lou. There's no way you could win. And this was my American dream, to own my own business. And they just cut it out from under me. It's my own country and I'm embarrassed for my own country. DOBBS: Well, you have a lot of company in that respect, Jim, as you well know. The president's trade negotiator I know you are critical of, and understandably so, given your experience. What bothers, I will tell you, personally, me, just talking to you Jim -- and we've had the opportunity to communicate here over the last couple of days in various ways -- but you're in the tool and die business. Your industry is the foundation of manufacturing in this country. TILLMANN: That's right. That's right. DOBBS: Irrespective of the industry, you're the foundation of the wealth creation of this country in the real economy. TILLMANN: That's right. DOBBS: What do you think the future holds for this country? TILLMANN: Well, at the present rate, it isn't very good. I just like to say a little story. When I was an apprentice in 1967, I worked at FMC in Minneapolis as an apprentice. And we made missile launchers for the Navy during the Vietnam crisis. And I had a guy that was 60 years old come up to me and he said to me, he says, don't you ever let happen to this country what my generation let happen to this country. And I looked at him real strange and I said, what's that? And he says, back in 1939, we let the machine shops and the foundries go down the tube. They were very obsolete. And it took us three years. We put women to work 12 hours a day for the war production. It took us three years to catch up to the Germans and the Japanese for the war. And that's what is happening right now in this country. If we continue to let the tool and die shops and the mold- building shops go under, that's exactly what is going to happen. And history will repeat itself. And for the people that don't -- that don't remember the past, we will surely relive it. And I'm afraid, if we have another 1939 again, we're in big trouble. If everything is going to be manufactured in China, if they are going to manufacture our missiles, some day, we're going to get them back here and they are going to be airmailed to us. DOBBS: Jim Tillmann, we thank you very much for being with us. And we wish you all the very best under what we know are difficult, challenging, tough circumstances. Thank you, Jim. TILLMANN: Well, thank you. Thank you for having me. Appreciate it, Lou. 30JAN2004 Offshore Pair of Dice
Ed. note: One day CNN's Lou Dobbs was rubber-stamping exclusively for Wall Street and stockholders,
and then suddenly he did a turnabout to looking out for American workers and jobs being exported
offshore. Dobbs staffers are compiling a list. Click on Lou Dobbs
and scroll down to:
Exporting America. It's up to us to check it out twice; find out who's naughty and fry their asses
accordingly...
This in the context of Did someone say, grassroots citizens initiative? and "This not just about news or analysis. Its about action!" The cost of living and a free press is no longer about people anywhere on earth, but about corporate profits everywhere on earth. The ballot box and the boycott is the only leverage we have against the neo-fascistic Military Industrial Complex (Bush White House), and the institutional lobby that discourages the Legislative and Judicial bodies from protecting our rights, preamblesque "welfare" and peace. [MORE] 
The "Wal-Martization" of the Economy ORThe Death of Horatio Alger by Paul Krugman "In modern America, it seems, you're quite likely to stay in the social and economic class into which you were born. Business Week attributes this to the "Wal-Martization" of the economy, the proliferation of dead-end, low-wage jobs and the disappearance of jobs that provide entry to the middle class." The other day I found myself reading a leftist rag that made outrageous claims about America. It said that we are becoming a society in which the poor tend to stay poor, no matter how hard they work; in which sons are much more likely to inherit the socioeconomic status of their father than they were a generation ago. The name of the leftist rag? Business Week, which published an article titled "Waking Up From the American Dream." The article summarizes recent research showing that social mobility in the United States (which was never as high as legend had it) has declined considerably over the past few decades. If you put that research together with other research that shows a drastic increase in income and wealth inequality, you reach an uncomfortable conclusion: America looks more and more like a class-ridden society. And guess what? Our political leaders are doing everything they can to fortify class inequality, while denouncing anyone who complains--or even points out what is happening--as a practitioner of "class warfare." Let's talk first about the facts on income distribution. Thirty years ago we were a relatively middle-class nation. It had not always been thus: Gilded Age America was a highly unequal society, and it stayed that way through the 1920s. During the 1930s and '40s, however, America experienced what the economic historians Claudia Goldin and Robert Margo have dubbed the Great Compression: a drastic narrowing of income gaps, probably as a result of New Deal policies. And the new economic order persisted for more than a generation: Strong unions; taxes on inherited wealth, corporate profits and high incomes; close public scrutiny of corporate management--all helped to keep income gaps relatively small. The economy was hardly egalitarian, but a generation ago the gross inequalities of the 1920s seemed very distant. Now they're back. According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez--confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office--between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent. (Those numbers exclude capital gains, so they're not an artifact of the stock-market bubble.) The distribution of income in the United States has gone right back to Gilded Age levels of inequality. Never mind, say the apologists, who churn out papers with titles like that of a 2001 Heritage Foundation piece, "Income Mobility and the Fallacy of Class-Warfare Arguments." America, they say, isn't a caste society--people with high incomes this year may have low incomes next year and vice versa, and the route to wealth is open to all. That's where those commies at Business Week come in: As they point out (and as economists and sociologists have been pointing out for some time), America actually is more of a caste society than we like to think. And the caste lines have lately become a lot more rigid. The myth of income mobility has always exceeded the reality: As a general rule, once they've reached their 30s, people don't move up and down the income ladder very much. Conservatives often cite studies like a 1992 report by Glenn Hubbard, a Treasury official under the elder Bush who later became chief economic adviser to the younger Bush, that purport to show large numbers of Americans moving from low-wage to high-wage jobs during their working lives. But what these studies measure, as the economist Kevin Murphy put it, is mainly "the guy who works in the college bookstore and has a real job by his early 30s." Serious studies that exclude this sort of pseudo-mobility show that inequality in average incomes over long periods isn't much smaller than inequality in annual incomes. It is true, however, that America was once a place of substantial intergenerational mobility: Sons often did much better than their fathers. A classic 1978 survey found that among adult men whose fathers were in the bottom 25 percent of the population as ranked by social and economic status, 23 percent had made it into the top 25 percent. In other words, during the first thirty years or so after World War II, the American dream of upward mobility was a real experience for many people. Now for the shocker: The Business Week piece cites a new survey of today's adult men, which finds that this number has dropped to only 10 percent. That is, over the past generation upward mobility has fallen drastically. Very few children of the lower class are making their way to even moderate affluence. This goes along with other studies indicating that rags-to-riches stories have become vanishingly rare, and that the correlation between fathers' and sons' incomes has risen in recent decades. In modern America, it seems, you're quite likely to stay in the social and economic class into which you were born. Business Week attributes this to the "Wal-Martization" of the economy, the proliferation of dead-end, low-wage jobs and the disappearance of jobs that provide entry to the middle class. That's surely part of the explanation. But public policy plays a role--and will, if present trends continue, play an even bigger role in the future. Put it this way: Suppose that you actually liked a caste society, and you were seeking ways to use your control of the government to further entrench the advantages of the haves against the have-nots. What would you do? One thing you would definitely do is get rid of the estate tax, so that large fortunes can be passed on to the next generation. More broadly, you would seek to reduce tax rates both on corporate profits and on unearned income such as dividends and capital gains, so that those with large accumulated or inherited wealth could more easily accumulate even more. You'd also try to create tax shelters mainly useful for the rich. And more broadly still, you'd try to reduce tax rates on people with high incomes, shifting the burden to the payroll tax and other revenue sources that bear most heavily on people with lower incomes. Meanwhile, on the spending side, you'd cut back on healthcare for the poor, on the quality of public education and on state aid for higher education. This would make it more difficult for people with low incomes to climb out of their difficulties and acquire the education essential to upward mobility in the modern economy. And just to close off as many routes to upward mobility as possible, you'd do everything possible to break the power of unions, and you'd privatize government functions so that well-paid civil servants could be replaced with poorly paid private employees. It all sounds sort of familiar, doesn't it? Where is this taking us? Thomas Piketty, whose work with Saez has transformed our understanding of income distribution, warns that current policies will eventually create "a class of rentiers in the U.S., whereby a small group of wealthy but untalented children controls vast segments of the US economy and penniless, talented children simply can't compete." If he's right--and I fear that he is--we will end up suffering not only from injustice, but from a vast waste of human potential. Goodbye, Horatio Alger. And goodbye, American Dream. [MORE] 16JAN2004 American Business Free Enterprise Is Dead, Long Live Free Enterprise! By KEVIN DANAHER and JASON MARK 
The growing mountain of scandals in the corporate world does not mean the death of corporate power in America. But they may be a mortal wound for the free market ideology that has been so dominant over the past twenty years.
For many years now we have been inundated with slick messages claiming that markets function best when government regulation is minimal or nonexistent. We have been told that if government regulatory agencies just get out of the way and let markets rule, we can trust corporations to do what is in the best interest of everyone. As it turns out, corporations operating in a deregulated environment do what is in the best interest of no one except the top corporate officials: government agencies and investors get lied to, pension funds lose billions, companies go bankrupt, thousands of workers lose their jobs, shareholders lose their investments, and faith in the system is shaken. Now we citizens must decide which definition of "free enterprise" will prevail. Will it be "the freedom of large corporations to go anywhere and do anything to people and planet" or will it be "the freedom of everyone to be enterprising"? The first definition is systematically crushing the second: family farms are being squeezed out of existence by big agribusiness, mom-and-pop stores are being knocked out by Wal-Mart, independent bookstores are being exterminated by Amazon.com and Borders. The second definition ("the freedom of everyone to be enterprising") is the version that 200 years ago fueled the American Revolution against colonial England. Family farmers, artisans, and just plain folks sacrificed everything for liberty and the idea of citizen self-rule. Now nothing seems sacred except the almighty dollar, and even that isn't so mighty lately. To redefine free enterprise in a democratic direction, we need to establish the separation of corporations and the state. Most people understand separation of church and state. Centuries of abuses by the Holy Roman Empire drove home to the founders of this nation the principle that no single institution should control government; the government should be the property of all the people. That is why our Constitution starts with the words: "We the people." Sovereignty (ultimate political authority) in a democracy is supposed to reside in the people, not in a subset of the society or one institution of the society. But now a single institution the large, transnational corporation has taken over our government, and we, the citizens, need to take it back before the current crisis matures into a full-scale bankrupting of our nation. Empowerment largely consists of knowing your options. We have choices we must make as a people. Should impersonal transnational money interests be given priority over locally rooted, family-owned enterprise? Should we invest capital in ways that destroy nature or in ways that preserve our natural heritage for future generations? These questions are easy to answer, but the follow-up work is difficult. If we are going to take our government back from the moneyed interests that have seized control of it, then we need to carry out several major areas of structural reform. We need deep and broad campaign finance reform. Only by building a solid wall between moneyed interests and our public officials (who are supposed to be working for we the people) will stop the tide of legislation that favors wealthy minority interests over those of the broad majority. We need the other half of welfare reform: corporate welfare reform. Whether it is oil depletion allowances, selling public resources to corporations at below market prices, creating roads in the national forests so logging companies can get to the people's trees better, subsidizing agribusiness companies so they can better squash family farmers here and abroad, or paying corporations to take our jobs overseas, all of this corporate feeding at the public trough must end. And we need to stop the revolving door between high-level government jobs and high-level corporate jobs. The typical scenario is that a corporate executive does a stint in government, learning where the money is and building up a fat rolodex, then switches back to the private sector and trades off the knowledge gained while on the public payroll. We know that these are major contributing factors to the mess we are in. Now we need to do something serious to fix them. Powerlessness corrupts, and absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely. Kevin Danaher and Jason Mark work for the international human rights organization Global Exchange and are coauthors of 'Insurrection: Citizen Challenges to Corporate Power'. Also see Creative Class War by Richard Florida. 
10JAN2004
Clinton lied. Bush lied. What diff?
When Clinton lied about the blow job, no one died. After the Bush White House lied about WMD, hundreds of U.S. troops died, thousands were wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed and maimed, as the neocon Bush White House scrambles to capture Iraq oil profits, and to protect Israeli real estate from a non-existent Iraqi threat. On the home front, today's awaited employment numbers were not a big deal on Wall Street. The only ones seriously affected by the employment numbers are the unemployed. Administration Claims of Better Economy Don't Follow the Numbers While the Bush/Cheney re-election website promotes the idea that the economy is "stepping on the gas pedal,"1 new figures released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed hiring to be flat in December 2003 with a net gain of 1,000 jobs.2 A new report released today by the Economic Policy Institute finds that the Bush administration's assertion that the president's 2003 tax cut fell 1.615 million jobs short of its prediction for the year.3 The president publicly unveiled his 2003 tax cut last year by tying it to job creation. In the State of the Union, Bush said, "When America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs."4 But the president's policies have failed to benefit American workers. A National Journal piece last week noted that "The economy is so far behind the administration's forecast that an average of 400,000 jobs would have to materialize every month until the end of 2004 to keep to the White House schedule. How hard is that? During the 1990s boom, such phenomenal job growth occurred in eight months out of 102."5 The White House has thus far focused on putting a positive spin on the state of the economy. The president said in early December, "This administration has laid the foundation for greater prosperity and more jobs across America so every single citizen has a chance to realize the American dream."6 But so far, the widely reported increases in productivity and growth aren't translating into jobs or higher wages. New jobs being created are paying 13% less than those lost during the recession -- $14.65/hour versus $16.92/hour. By contrast, new jobs created during the later years of the expansion, 1998 to 2000, paid 12% more. While the rapid growth of the recovery has so far failed to benefit workers, corporate profits have increased at a rate far beyond those of previous recoveries. According to the EPI study, previous recoveries provided an average of 61% of total income growth - and never less than 55% -- to workers. In this recovery, however, only 29% of the total income growth has gone to workers' wages and benefits. Meanwhile, corporate profits have claimed an average share of 46% of total income growth in this recovery, compared to an historic average of 26%.7 Sources: 1. Bush/Cheney '04 Web Site 2. "Employment Situation Summary: December 2003," Bureau of Labor Statistics 3. Job Watch, Economic Policy Institute. 4. 2003 State of the Union 5. "The Politics of Jobs," National Journal 6. "In Heart of Steel Country, Bush Talks of Economy, Not Tariffs" - NYT 7. Job Watch, Economic Policy Institute Wal-Mart settles self-beneficiary life insurance suit By DAVID KOENIG Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has settled a lawsuit over its practice of taking out life insurance on employees and making itself the beneficiary. The settlement with families of employees who died was reached hours before a federal appeals court ruled against the giant retailer. Terms of the deal, reached earlier this week, were not disclosed. Wal-Mart officials said the settlement could benefit relatives of 150 to 500 employees although only about six families were part of the lawsuit. The families who sued alleged that Wal-Mart never told workers about the life insurance policies - Wal-Mart disputes that claim - and said they were enraged that the company profited but they received nothing from the proceeds. "A large percentage of the population doesn't approve of the morality or the ethics of this type of conduct," Mike Myers, a Houston attorney for the families, said Friday. "My clients' reaction, when they found out, was stunned and disbelief, turning to frustration and anger." The families sued in 2001 in Houston. A federal court judge ruled in their favor, finding in effect that Texas law limited such insurance policies to key employees. Wal-Mart appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. But lawyers for the company and the relatives reached a settlement hours before the court issued its ruling Monday, upholding the victory by relatives and saying that Wal-Mart "unlawfully took funds that, under Texas law, rightfully belonged" to a dead worker's estate. Mona Williams, a spokeswoman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, said the company was pleased to end the litigation and expected the district court to approve the settlement. Wal-Mart says it lost $100 million on the policies and unwound them in 2000 after court decisions took away tax advantages. Wal-Mart is suing AIG and Hartford Life, which sold the policies, to force them to pay Wal-Mart's losses and additional expenses--potentially including the cost of Monday's settlement. Hartford Life, the original defendant in the families' lawsuit, was not involved in the settlement. Wal-Mart is one of many large U.S. companies in recent years that have taken out policies on the lives of employees, ranging from executives to workers on the bottom rungs of the pay ladder, with the goal of collecting benefits when the employees die. Companies term the policies corporate-owned life insurance, or COLIs. Critics call them dead-peasant policies. Wal-Mart set up a trust in 1993 and named itself as beneficiary on policies for 355,000 employees. [MORE] There is no job that is America's God-given right any more CARLY FIORINA Worried about possible government reaction to the movement of U.S. technology jobs overseas, leading American computer companies are defending recent shifts in employment to Asia and elsewhere as necessary for future profits and warning policy makers against restrictions. "There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore," said Carly Fiorina, chief executive for Hewlett-Packard Co. "We have to compete for jobs." In a report released Wednesday, the companies said government efforts to preserve American jobs through limits on overseas trade would backfire and "could lead to retaliation from our trading partners and even an all-out trade war." "Countries that resort to protectionism end up hampering innovation and crippling their industries, which leads to lower economic growth and ultimately higher unemployment," said Computer Systems Policy Project, whose member companies include Intel Corp., IBM, Dell Inc. and Hewlett-Packard. Intel chief executive Craig Barrett said the United States "now has to compete for every job going forward. That has not been on the table before. It had been assumed we had a lock on white-collar jobs and high-tech jobs. That is no longer the case." Barrett complained about federal agriculture subsidies he said were worth tens of billions of dollars while government investments in physical sciences was a relatively low $5 billion. "I can't understand why we continue to pour resources into the industries of the 19th century," Barrett said. The effort by the technology industry represents an early response to their growing concerns that U.S. lawmakers might clamp down on the practice, known as "offshoring," especially during an election year. Already, some Democrat candidates have criticized the practice. Democrat front-runner Howard Dean said during a debate last month that America needed a president "who doesn't think that big corporations who get tax cuts ought to be able to move their headquarters to Bermuda and their jobs offshore." Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., introduced a bill in November requiring service representatives to disclose their physical location each time a customer calls to make a purchase, inquire about a transaction or ask for technical support. The proposal targets the increasingly popular decisions by companies to move their call centers overseas to capitalize on low labor costs. A Commerce Department report last month said increasing numbers of technology jobs were moving from the United States to China, India, Canada, Ireland, Israel and the Philippines, and predicted that "many U.S. companies that are not already offshoring are planning to do so in the near future." The subject has been the focus of congressional hearings, and some lawmakers have asked the General Accounting Office for a study on the economic implications of moving technology jobs offshore. America's Government School Monopolies Fail Again The technology group argued in its new report that moving jobs to countries such as China or India, where labor costs are cheaper, helped companies more readily break into foreign markets and hire skilled and creative employees in countries where students perform far better than U.S. students in math and science. "Americans who think that foreign workers are no match for U.S. workers in knowledge, skills and creativity are mistaken," the trade group's report said. Even as technology companies lobby against limits on offshore employment, they are urging the Bush administration to approve new tax credits on research and development, spend more on university research on physical science and adjust tax depreciation schedules for technology purchases. They also want improvements in education, especially in elementaries through high schools. A vocal critic of technology companies moving jobs overseas, Marcus Courtney of Seattle, dismissed the latest report. "This is not a recipe for job creation in this country," said Courtney, president of Washington Alliance of Technology Workers. "This is a recipe for corporate greed. They're lining up at the public trough to slash their labor costs." [LET THEM EAT CAKE!]
Exporting America - Transcript Aired January 9, 2004 Ed. note: Thanks to TechsUnite for alert. This is only an excerpt. The complete transcript is well worth the read. LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight: a shocking employment report, virtually no new net jobs created in this economy last month, corporate America enjoying rising profits, while unemployed Americans struggle to find work and pay their bills. In "Exporting America" tonight, not only does this country have a half-trillion dollar trade deficit with the world; Americans don't even own the ships that bring those products to our shores. In "Broken Borders" tonight, no matter what the president and Congress decide about immigration reform, millions of illegal aliens are likely to remain in this country forever. Tonight, we focus on why and what should be done. Employers all but stopped hiring new workers in the month of December, and more than 300,000 people looking for work simply abandoned their search for jobs. The Labor Department today said employers added only 1,000 new net jobs in December, even though economic growth has risen sharply in recent months. The unemployment rate fell to 5.7 percent, but that was entirely due to the large number of people who dropped out of the labor market altogether. Instead of hiring new staff, companies have been working their existing employees harder and shipping an increasing number of American jobs overseas. [SNIP] (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The jobless recovery alive and kicking. In fact, it's kicking American workers right in the teeth. Here is an example. Holiday sales came in better than expected. How did the retailers do it? By pushing their workers harder and harder. In fact, retailers cut 38,000 jobs last month, on top of 28,000 jobs they cut in November. ERIC FRY, "THE DAILY RECKONING": I'm not a trained economist, but I would say the jobs report was awful. VILES: In this recovery, profits are not trickling down to workers. Backed by worker productivity gains, corporate profits rose an estimated 22 percent last quarter. Investors are riding a new bull market and yet employers are not giving raising and they're not hiring. In many cases, they are moving jobs overseas. RICHARD TRUMKA, AFL-CIO: When you see the corporate profits increasing by 25 percent, but workers wages stagnant, that's a bad policy. The jobs that are being created are, one, two-thirds of them are part-time, and they are inferior when it comes to wages, on average, $2.50 an hour less. VILES: Put it another way. Americans are working harder, smarter and more productively and they have nothing to show for it right now. BILL DUDLEY, GOLDMAN SACHS: The businesses don't pay higher wages if they don't have to. And they don't have to when the unemployment rate is high. So, I think that the productivity growth will eventually get captured by workers, but only after the fed pushes the unemployment rate lower than it is right now. VILES: Labor leaders now talk of 15 million Americans who want work. And here's how they get there: 8.4 million officially unemployed, another 1.5 million not working, but not counted as unemployed, because they have given up working lately, and another 4.8 million who want a full-time job, but can only find part time work, total 14.7 million. (END VIDEOTAPE) VILES: Now, there is another factor. And that is the huge underground labor market in the United States, illegal workers. It is likely there is job creation in that sector. And it could well be that that job creation hurting job growth, Lou, in the legal economy. DOBBS: And likely, not only possible. All right, Pete, it's a sad commentary. VILES: I wish we had better news on this. DOBBS: Pete, thank you very much -- Peter Viles. DOBBS: Well, in "Exporting America" tonight, American businesses are not the only ones exporting American jobs. So are a number of state governments. Those governments are using taxpayer dollars to employ workers in India, Mexico, and other countries to do government business. Katharine Barrett reports on what is a rising controversy from Washington state. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Welcome to the customer service help line. KATHARINE BARRETT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Call the welfare office in Washington state to check your food stamp balance, and, if you want a human voice, you may be routed to Bangalore, India, or Mexico. New software for Washington State Health Care Authority is being coded in part in Hyderabad. Even a Department of Corrections contract with IBM may be filled, in part, overseas. In a state with the nation's fourth highest unemployment rate, labor groups are stunned and steamed. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shocking. It's just absolutely unbelievable that the state government would willingly begin to hire skilled technical workers in India at the same time Washington state high-tech workers are facing double-digit unemployment. BARRETT: Politicians defend the practice of sending work overseas, saying the technology projects aid government efficiency and save money. Battered by a recession, Washington state has cut corners to overcome a $2.5 billion budget shortfall. TOM FITZSIMMONS, WA GOVERNOR'S CHIEF OF STAFF: We want the most value for our technology investment. And the most value adds up to perhaps including teams of vendors that include capacities from offshore. BARRETT: But those capacities may not always live up to their promise. The Indian subcontractor building Washington's new health authority software has repeatedly delayed delivery. Local legislators are battling back. Zack Hudgins will introduce a bill next week preventing government from hiring overseas workers. ZACK HUDGINS, WASHINGTON STATE REPRESENTATIVE: We're talking about millions of dollars that are being expended on these I.T. projects. And that's potentially millions of dollars that can be spent in our state that aren't. BARRETT: Washington is one of five states considering similar legislation to keep government jobs on U.S. shores. But, so far, none of those have passed into law. Katharine Barrett, for CNN, Olympia, Washington. (END VIDEOTAPE) DOBBS: New Jersey is also one of the states that's been considering a law to prevent the export of government jobs. But a powerful coalition of lobbyist groups convinced lawmakers in New Jersey to bury a bill that would have stopped taxpayer dollars going to foreign workers. Bill Tucker reports. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The bill to ban outsourcing of state contracts sailed through the New Jersey Senate, passing unanimously on a vote of 40-0, and then hit a brick wall in the assembly state government committee, where it sat for over a year and was never given a hearing or a vote. The Information Technology Association of America opposed the bill and actively lobbied against it. HARRIS MILLER, ITAA: What we're objecting to is these across- the-board bans in which the only factor that a procurement official would be able to consider when making the determination of looking at the vendors who want to bid on that contract is whether the work is done inside the United States or outside the United States. TUCKER: The ITAA is an industry alliance. Time Warner, parent of CNN, is a member. The bill was also supported by NASSCOM, a consortium of companies in India that provide outsourcing services. Public relations powerhouse Hill & Knowlton represents NASSCOM's interests. A representative from Hill & Knowlton says the firm didn't so much lobby against the bill as -- quote -- "educate lawmakers." Hill & Knowlton continues to represent NASSCOM and says it isn't currently educating legislators in any other state. Senator Turner isn't going away. SHIRLEY TURNER (D), NEW JERSEY STATE SENATOR: The bill may be dead, but my efforts are not. And I am determined that I'm going to get this bill passed. And, in fact, it will be my first order of business. TUCKER: The senator will reintroduce her bill to ban taxpayer money from going to overseas labor as early as next week. (END VIDEOTAPE) TUCKER: And while the senator will not let her bill fade away, the opposition is no less committed to making sure that these types of legislations in whatever state they appear, Lou, don't get passed. DOBBS: Bill, this is -- it's amazing. We are seeing the economic power at work here, now the political power. And, again, working men and women in this country are seriously under-represented, whether it be in state or federal Capitol buildings. TUCKER: Exactly right. DOBBS: Bill, thank you very much -- Bill Tucker. [SNIP] Economists predict that the U.S. trade deficit with China will reach $130 billion this year. One of China's leading exports to this country is furniture. Today, the United States International Trade Commission voted unanimously that there is evidence that cheap Chinese imports are hurting American furniture-makers. The Commerce Department now must decide whether China is illegally dumping that furniture and whether then to take action. Last year, the government imposed anti-dumping sanctions against Chinese textile and television makers. Let's take a look now at some of your thoughts. On the president's proposal to give millions of illegal aliens legal status in this country, Carl Orahood of Willowbrook, Illinois, wrote: "Can I, as an American citizen, legally change my status to undocumented worker? This way, I can get a job, medical assistance, and a driver's license." William MacRae of Culver City, California: "If we do not want to import foreign labor for low-paying jobs, then we need to raise the wages of the low-paying jobs, to the point that Americans will want to do them and be able to make a living, even if it means that we pay higher prices for goods." Sandy of Depew, New York: "Gee, why doesn't Mexico just become the 51st state?" On the president's announcement expected next week to build a permanent space station on the moon, Gary Goodrich of Brookfield, Wisconsin, wrote to say: "Clearly, sending certain politicians to the moon would serve the nation well. It would also free millions of hard-working American citizens from the fear and insecurity to which they have been condemned by an economy ravaged by outsourcers and proponents of endless worker visas." And Robert from Ancrum, Illinois: "In hearing of Carly Fiorina's God-given right statement, I feel I have to make my own comment. I have been a good HP customer for the last six years, thinking I was supporting a U.S. company and the U.S. economy. One thing is for sure. She has no God-given right to any more of my business." We love hearing from you. E-mail us at LouDobbs@CNN.com. [SNIP] DOBBS: That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll. The question is: Are you better off today than you were three years ago, yes or no? Cast your vote at CNN.com/Lou. We'll have the results for you later. [SNIP] DOBBS: Tonight's quote is from a member of the Bush administration who today talked about Mexico's position on illegal immigration to this country. And we quote, "The Mexican government doesn't like to see people trying to cross the border illegally." Those words from National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. [SNIP] These are the companies sending those jobs overseas or choosing to employ cheap foreign labor instead of American workers. Our additions tonight include the No. 2 supermarket chain in the country, Albertsons. Computer Sciences Corporation, Fedders, manufacturer of airconditioners, Metasolv, a software company, National City Corporation of Bank holding Companies, Suntrust Banks and SurePrep, a tax preparer. Please continue to watch our list as it grows and grows and grows. [SNIP] DOBBS: Now the results of our poll tonight. The 6 percent of you said you are better off today than you were 3 years ago. 94 percent of you said, you are not. Now that seems to me, the decided area of concern for a few political strategists. [FULL CNN TRANSCRIPT] [SNIP] Wal-Mart is the Machine!
The Matrix, and more...
 The CIA Infiltration of the Left What next? THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT BEGINS - MoveOn.org Also see 31DEC2003 Draft Hillary 2004 Update  if you missed yesterday's overnight news.
|
Skin Care and more
|
LISTEN HERE! and/or TALK TO GUEST
LiveJazz
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
le majickq.com
webmaster@ocnsignal.com updated 16 JAN 2004 |
