from Wisconsin: "Mubarak for Governor" signs

According to the Associated Press, the legislators in the "Wisconsin Assembly have agreed to a deal that will limit further debate on a bill taking away collective bargaining rights for public workers and lead to a vote on the measure later Thursday," possibly as early as noon.

Meanwhile, the Chief of Police in Madison is asking the governor to explain "troubling" and "unsettling" statements the loose-lipped rookie Governor made while he thought he was on the phone with billionaire David Koch.

"I find it very unsettling and troubling that anyone would consider creating safety risks for our citizens and law enforcement officers. Our department works hard dialoging with those who are exercising their First Amendment right, those from both sides of the issue, to make sure we are doing everything we can to ensure they can demonstrate safely."

Police Chief Noble Wray
Madison, WI
Wisconsin State Journal, 24 Feb 2011

"There are a lot of folks out there who say, ‘It doesn't impact me, I'm not a union guy, I'm not a teacher, I'm not a civil servant.' Let me tell you how it does matter to you. Wages are going down in this country for everybody. When you destroy unions there will be no standard at all, nobody left to negotiate decent jobs for the middle class..."

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
Statement, 23 Feb 2011

"I would like to hear more of an explanation from Governor Walker as to what exactly was being considered, and to what degree it was discussed by his cabinet members."

Police Chief Noble Wray
Madison, WI
Wisconsin State Journal, 24 Feb 2011

The Chief has some legitimate questions, and the rest of the cheeseheads are coming up with some really great signs at the Madison protests, don't you think?

Political Correspondent Thomas Hayes is a former Congressional Campaign Manager; he's a journalist, photo/videographer, entrepreneur, and communications consultant who contributes regularly on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community, who incidentally stands in solidarity with the citizens and workers in Wisconsin refusing to let their Governor's self-created budget "crisis" and new spending priorities be re-cast as a reason to undermine contractual obligations and collective bargaining agreements.

You can follow Tom as @kabiu on twitter. Tweet

The Truth About WI Teacher's Pay

The data on how much is spent on teacher's pay isn't hard to find, but the truth may bother WI's Governor in his bid to blame unions and collective bargaining for his budget priorities:

The average teacher's salary across all Wisconsin districts is $48,267.  According to the Census Bureau’s Median Household Income by State – Single-Year Estimates the average household income in Wisconsin is $51,237 -- a difference of $2,970/year which would amount to a 6% raise if teachers were just brought up to the average.

Collective bargaining hasn't made Wisconsin teachers rich, it hasn't even brought them level with the rest of their state, but their new Governor wants to impose a new regulation restricting their rights.  If you ask me, that's new government regulations when the GOP has been telling us job creation is their priority.

Actions speak louder than words.

If you want to dig deeper, or verify the data on teacher pay, check the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction link: "Statistical Information Center - School Staff and Salary Data." It's all there: the low salary, high salary, average salary, average fringe, average local experience, average total experience for staff in each public school district, and more, in spreadsheets you can download.

If Governor Scott Walker hasn't blocked access, that is.

Political Correspondent Thomas Hayes is a former Congressional Campaign Manager; he's a journalist, photo/videographer, entrepreneur, and communications consultant who contributes regularly on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community, who incidentally stands in solidarity with the citizens and workers in Wisconsin refusing to let their Governor's self-created budget "crisis" and new spending priorities be re-cast as a reason to undermine contractual obligations and collective bargaining agreements.

You can follow Tom as @kabiu on twitter. Tweet

On, Wisconsin!

Paul Krugman's column Sunday, Wisconsin Power Play, detailed the parallels between Cairo and Madison; he concludes that as with Mubarak the real storyline is about power. As the economy continues to struggle with the effects Wall Street deregulation induced on Main Street, the crisis of confidence in Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's leadership is because his proposal would further accelerate the disturbing trend: redistribution of wealth away from the middle and lower classes.

Of course, logically the proposal flies in the face of the evidence about his spending and budget decisions, but he evidently thought he could slip that by in the current political climate. After all, as Pew research from earlier this month points out, while lots of people favor "cutting spending" when you get down to brass tacks it turns out that the vast majority like what the government is spending the money on:

So that leaves a real problem for those who campaigned on cutting the size of government: just what are people really willing to give up?

Walker's call to remove collective bargaining rights amounts to opening a new front in class warfare, and he's at the pointy end of the stick.

"...it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the state’s budget prospects even in the long run: contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so there’s not much room for further pay squeezes."

Paul Krugman, 20 Feb 2011

I feel for Governor Walker; new bosses that flex their muscles don't always understand the limits. Less than two months into his term he's learning that ascending to the executive branch doesn't come with absolute power. Voters who liked the sound of lower taxes in November apparently don't expect vague promises of "fiscal discipline" to reduce what's invested in our children's education or the support we guaranteed military veterans. Meanwhile certain of Walker's own spending increases smell of corporate welfare and backroom deals.

The Governor is losing the battle of public opinion. People in Egypt are ordering pizza for demonstrators in Madison, for crying out loud. If moderate Wisconsin Republicans can't mediate his position and broker a deal quickly, irate people in Wisconsin recalling that government bailed out banks and learning more about the Koch's support for their new Governor may just get beyond rumors they're talking about organizing a recall and actually do so -- which will make Walker's current concerns about losing face for reversing a strongly-stated position pale in comparison.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Congressional Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community, who incidentally stands in solidarity with the citizens and workers in Wisconsin refusing to let their Governor's self-created budget "crisis" and new spending priorities be re-cast as a reason to undermine contractual obligations and collective bargaining agreements.

You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter. Tweet

Government of the fat-cats, by the fat-cats, and for the fat-cats?

This is the United States of America, founded on the principle that there's both a wrong way and a "more perfect" way for government to act.

We have regulations controlling immigration, restricting tobacco and alcohol sales, establishing speed limits, and prohibiting the use of dangerous materials such as lead paint. We embrace regulations about what can’t be in our drinking water, and insuring we have the freedom to practice religion unfettered by the preferences of government agencies or the whims of men.

Not every decision is clear and simple. Our constitution was built deliberately to allow for clarifications and changes over time by wise men who had some notion of the limits on their own forecasting abilities. We've been trying to make good laws - good government regulations - and improve the bad ones ever since.

We have laws about everything from voter registration to verifying the safety & efficacy of drugs because we know we can’t simply trust everybody to do the right thing if there’s no judge or referee. Somehow the GOP has been persuaded to slow down the process of reforming Wall Street’s greedy, self-serving behaviors.

We know what happened when we let them call the shots; deregulation served a few very well indeed, while what trickled down to the rest of us was unemployment, foreclosures, and the destruction of the value of the largest asset most working Americans have, their home -- after we'd been encouraged to use it as a way to get credit to fuel corporate profits.

GOP strategists are now stalling reforms in the Senate, by asserting that we need economic analysis before "rushed rule-making." Where were they before the financial crisis in the late summer of 2008 and the resulting recession? I can tell you one thing, they weren't listening to the then-junior Senator from Illinois, who had written letters to the powers that be about what he saw as the looming mortgage lending crisis, but their hindsight may have factored that in.

Enough is enough. Wall Street needs reform if it's to create wealth for the nation instead of for itself. Congress may not get the new laws perfect on the first pass, but that's not news. If all the GOP has is questions, if they can't grasp the risks in leaving the system broken, I say let them step back; it's time to stop spouting sound bites while impeding progress and solutions.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Congressional Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community, who incidentally stands in solidarity with the citizens and workers in Wisconsin refusing to let their Governor's self-created budget "crisis" and new spending priorities be re-cast as a reason to undermine contractual obligations and collective bargaining agreements.

You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter. Tweet

Debunking the "regulations burden business" argument

In a discussion of the provocative Wall Street Journal headline “Study: Strict Derivatives Regulation Could Cost 130,000 Jobs” John Parsons and Antonio Mello point out, "It’s always possible to ignore the system-wide purpose of a regulation and claim it is costly due to the burden it imposes..."

Not everybody cares about the Dodd-Frank reform of financial derivatives markets, but we've seen what happens without regulation(s): the markets crashed, foreclosures destroyed home values, and millions of our friends and neighbors are unemployed.

It's costly to control immigration, to restrict alcohol sales, enforce speed limits, verify the safety & efficacy of drugs, and register voters, but we choose to do all these things because we know we can't simply trust everybody to do the right thing.

Why should you care? How much is at stake in this smoke and mirrors game of derivatives trading? $600 trillion. Compare that to the debt-ceiling, or the budget for the entire U.S. Government. $600 trillion is in play. That's why the players, and the Chamber of Commerce, are lobbying so hard to be left alone, and trying to scare us with more jobs lost.

"...there is 'no upside' to imposing margin requirements on end users, said David Hirschmann, who heads the U.S. Chamber’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness."

Victoria McGrane

Wall Street Journal February 13, 2011

Study: Strict Derivatives Regulation Could Cost 130,000 Jobs

Recovering our standing as the world leader in agriculture and industry, and creating the millions of jobs our country needs, won't be enough to keep Wall Street greed from ruining our economy. Can the financial markets "create prosperity" beyond Wall Street? It's hard to prove, lately; it's hard to see any upside in leaving those with the most to gain in charge of regulating themselves when they've already abused the system, or trust the tired old assertions about "burdens on business" so quickly, thoroughly debunked by simple logic.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Congressional Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.
You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.

Kraft, Mars, Nestle, Hershey - think before you buy that Valentine

The folks at GreenAmerica.org are determined to to promote green and Fair Trade business practices and end corporate abuse -- to make you aware before you buy chocolate and without realizing you might be supporting a company that exploits children, for instance.
♥ You can visit their website, or check out the chart (below) to compare the performance of brands you may or may not know. Of course, as chocolate buying peaks over the next few days...

"More than 35 million heart-shaped boxes of chocolate will be sold on February 14th, adding to the total 58 million pounds of chocolate to will be sold during the week of the most romantic holiday of the year.

Consumers are expected to purchase more than $345 million on chocolate treats for their beloveds."

Brigid Darragh
Green Chip Stocks
Friday, 11 Feb 2011

...it helps to understand just what the different certifications mean, and to do more than merely making deliberate choices. You can also spread the word, and communicate directly with companies such as Hershey to let them know you consider their business practices before you make your purchases.

"...every time a consumer purchases non-Fair Trade chocolate, they are putting money in the pockets of people who run a system based largely on forced child labor.

The U.S. State Department estimates more than 15,000 child slaves work on plantations in the Ivory Coast. Children are taken from their homes by traffickers for the very purpose of supporting the country's largest export crop: cocoa."

Brigid Darragh
Green Chip Stocks
Friday, 11 Feb 2011

Here are some basic definitions, courtesy of GreenAmerica.org:

Organic certification does not include labor rights standards. The program does not address wages, prices to producers, or management of cooperatives. Organic means 100% of the ingredients of a product be certified organic to earn the label.

Fair Trade prohibits forced labor, child labor, and discrimination, and protects freedom of association and collective bargaining rights. Fair Trade certified farmers are guaranteed a "floor price" for their cocoa beans, as well as a social premium. Fair Trade producers are required to form democratic cooperatives.

The IMO Fair for Life certification guarantees that human rights are protected at all stages of production, with a strong focus on hired laborers, as they are often the most marginalized in the supply chain. Fair for Life guarantees that smallholder farmers receive fair payment and that workers enjoy good and fair working conditions. The Fair for Life system prevents forced and child labor and also includes detailed environmental criteria. Fair For Life certified products must use Fair Trade ingredients if available, and regardless, 50% of all ingredients must be Fair Trade in order for a product to bear the seal.

The Rainforest Alliance (RA) standards prohibit the use of forced labor, child labor, and discrimination. The right to organize on RA-certified farms is not a critical criteria. RA does not require buyers to pay a specific minimum floor price for cocoa beans. Only 30% of the primary ingredient needs to be certified in order to earn an RA label.

And what about Nestle's UTZ Certification? UTZ was founded by Guatemalan coffee producers and the Ahold Coffee Company in 1997 and launched a cocoa plan 10 years later; it prohibits forced labor, however no organizations with a specific expertise in labor rights are included on the Board of Directors. So, while it protects the right to organize and bargain collectively, the price is solely based on negotiations between the buyers and farmers. Paying the legal minimum wage is required only after the first year of certification.

Now, what label is on your chocolate? ♥

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.
You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.

Multimillionaires Collecting Millions in Jobless Benefits

With the Republican Study Committee, (think: conservative House members) saying that they still wanted $100 billion in spending reductions as per the GOP's campaign pledges, what will they make of a move to cut unemployment benefits for millionaires? In a written statement explaining why he supports the bill introduced yesterday, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said, "Ending this practice will save nearly $100 million and correct a gross injustice against the millions of Americans who are out of work. Congress should pass this bill without delay. If there was ever a common sense spending cut, this is it."

Unemployment insurance for somebody who earns over $1 million a year? That's right, the way the system currently works, they qualify, too. So the safety net provides for people who pull down a million or two -- or even ten million dollars in a year -- did you know that? Here's the scoop from TheHill.com:

"As many as 2,840 households who have reported an income of $1 million or more on their tax returns were paid a total of $18.6 million in unemployment benefits in 2008, according to Internal Revenue Service figures.

This included more than 800 earning over $2 million and 17 with incomes exceeding $10 million. In all, multimillionaires were paid $5.2 million in jobless benefits..."

Vicki Needham at

Now I don't know about you, but I expect anybody who pulls down a 7-or-8-digit income to have acquired some assets and set some of it aside. If you're having trouble making payments on the Lamborghini or Bugatti maybe you could trade it in for something that gets a little better mileage, like a Lexus hybrid, and stop going to restaurants that don't have prices on the menu, until you get your cash-flow going in a positive direction. Mooching off the government at that level is just plain abusing the system even if it's technically legal - for now.

I applaud U.S. Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mark Udall (D-CO), and Jon Tester (D-MT) for being willing to take on the injustice. I hope this bill passes both houses of Congress swiftly.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community. You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.