You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 562

PLAYS: 237

(Sen. James F. Byrnes - From Supreme Court to Secretary of State)

As the unemployment numbers keep creeping up, it's interesting to take a look at a similar situation 70 years ago, when Unemployment Compensation was a new thing (since 1935) and had it's detractors. There really were people who felt it wasn't the governments responsibility to take care of the unemployed - as there no doubt are now. Future Supreme Court Justice and later Secretary of State James F. Byrnes - on February 27, 1939 as Senator from South Carolina, addressed a radio audience to explain just what this unemployment compensation thing was all about.

Sen. Byrnes: “Unemployment assistance by government is not a new question. As early as 1894, ex-President Benjamin Harrison demanded that the federal government set up a work program to fight unemployment. In 1921 at the instance of Mister Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce, a conference on unemployment was held in Washington. Bills were introduced in the Congress but nothing was accomplished. Improved business conditions lessen the demand for Federal legislation. But from time to time during the years that followed, bills on the subject were introduced in the Congress. In 1929, our so-called ‘boom year’, the national income was eighty billion dollars. And yet, we had three million unemployed. With that national income today the number of unemployed would be greater than in 1929 because of the technicalogical changes. And the levying of a payroll tax tends to encourage these changes because the tax levied is upon workers and not upon machines.”

Seventy years later, it's still going. And they're still trying to cut the benefits.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (77)

PLAYS: (217)

From Washington Journal Oct. 25, 2009. When asked what his assessment of President Obama's first ten months in office was, Rep. Dennis Kucinich stressed the need for job creation and said the "when the private sector doesn't provide the jobs; the government has a moral responsibility to provide jobs. FDR recognized that back in the 30's, and I hope the Obama administration will recognize that in the 21st century".

If you would like to watch the entire interview my cohort CSPANJunkie has it posted at You Tube.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

The Bush years are certainly the gift that keeps on giving, aren't they? All those people who had jobs with what they thought was a secure future are all going to be scraping by on Social Security. Oh, and I just read that one of the largest long-term care insurers is about to collapse. Sure would be nice if FDR was around - maybe he could dream up some real solutions, like national health insurance...

The financial crisis has blown a hole in the rosy forecasts of pension funds that cover teachers, police officers and other government employees, casting into doubt as never before whether these public systems will be able to keep their promises to future generations of retirees.

The upheaval on Wall Street has deluged public pension systems with losses that government officials and consultants increasingly say are insurmountable unless pension managers fundamentally rethink how they pay out benefits or make money or both.

Within 15 years, public systems on average will have less than half the money they need to pay pension benefits, according to an analysis by Pricewaterhouse Coopers. Other analysts say funding levels could hit that low within a decade.

After losing about $1 trillion in the markets, state and local governments are facing a devil's choice: Either slash retirement benefits or pursue high-return investments that come with high risk.

The urgent need for outsize returns by these vast public pension funds, which must hit high investment targets year after year to keep pace with rising retirement costs, is in turn fueling a renewed appetite for risk on Wall Street.

Before the crisis, many public pension funds had experimented with risky trading techniques or committed more of their money to hedge funds and other nontraditional firms, which in turn invested some of it in complex mortgage securities. When these melted down, pension funds got burned.

Now, facing an even bigger funding gap, some systems are investing in the same securities, betting that a rebound in their value will generate huge returns.

"The amount that needs to be made up is enormous," said Peter Austin, executive director of BNY Mellon Pension Services. "Frankly, they are forced to continue their allocation in these high-return asset classes because that's their only hope."

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 1092

PLAYS: 705

(Fala - Resented the right wing smears he heard nightly on the radio)

Take heart. When you think the insanity, the attacks, the lunacy have gotten out of hand, there is always more. There always was. In 1944, at the height of the Presidential election, FDR observed a new low had been reached.

FDR: “These Republican leaders have not been content with attacks on me, or on my wife, or on my sons. No. Not content with that. They now include my little dog Fala.”

And so little Fala, the White House dog, was not immune to the brickbats, smears and innuendos.

Further evidence insanity can always get worse.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 79

PLAYS: 11

(FDR - taking the right-wing brickbats in stride)

From April 28, 1935, his seventh Fireside Chat since taking office in 1933. FDR took the opportunity to lay out his plans for Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. The Social Security plan hadn't been voted on yet and was about to be introduced, along with a flood of relief and New Deal legislation. In 1935 these were new ideas that hadn't flown before.

FDR: “The program for Social Security that is pending before Congress is a necessary part of the future unemployment policy of the government. While our present and projected expenditures for work relief are fully within the reasonable limits of our national credit resources, it is obvious that we cannot continue to create governmental deficits for that purpose, year after year after year. We must begin now to make provision for the future. And that is why our Social Security Program is an important part of the complete picture. It proposes by means of old age pensions to help those who have reached the age of retirement to give up their jobs, and thus give to the younger generation greater opportunities for work. And to give to all, old and young alike, a feeling of security as they look towards old age. The Unemployment Insurance part of the legislation will not only help to guard the individual in future periods of layoff, against dependence upon relief, but it will by sustaining the purchasing power of the nation, cushion the shock of economic distress.”

Then, as now, any sort of social legislation that involving the common good was viewed with skepticism by the right-wing. This one was no different. Charges of Socialism popped up in the media, not to mention to aborted takeover attempt of the government by business and Wall Street interests in 1934.

FDR had his hands full. But he was able to weather the storm and the pundits and create many Programs that are in place today (although, it should be pointed out that a number of programs, including Social Security have withstood attempts at gutting during the Reagan years). Not listening or caving in to special interests or the hysterics proved to be the wise choice in the long run. The interests of the American people were what concerned him.

Something we could use a bit more of, especially today with the Health Care battle raging.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1510)

PLAYS: (7295)

It was somewhat gratifying to see Chris Matthews' right-leaning panel on his Sunday show -- which was, as expected, eager to deny the role of racism in the ugly animus that's been directed at Barack Obama -- at least admit the truth:

David Brooks: What Rush and Glenn Beck are doing is race-baiting. 100 percent. That's race-baiting.

...

Kathleen Parker: What Rush Limbaugh and Beck did in those two clips is to empower racists.

But it was even more interesting to watch Brooks in particular somehow manage to stumble upon the core of the problem:

Matthews: Would the White House like the leaders of both parties to say, 'Cool it'?

Brooks: Well, I think they would. First, I think Father Coughlin was objecting to FDR, and he -- that's what we're seeing, Father Coughlin, that's what these guys are --

Matthews: And he was far right.

Brooks: He was far right. The White House understands, you've got 10 percent of the country over here on the wacky right, 10 percent on the wacky left, that's not what they can pay attention to. And they're not going to pay attention to it. They're sticking with the independents -- that's what the health care, why it's tending toward the center.

The one danger -- the main danger of all this, the Glenn and the Rush and all that -- they're not going to take over the country. But they are taking over the Republican Party.

And so if the Republican Party is sane, they will say no to these people. But every single elected leader in the Republican Party is afraid to take on Rush and Glenn Beck.

Brooks' percentages are off -- it's more like about 5 percent on the left and 30 percent on the right side, and this latter fact is actually what he identifies as the problem; the right has been so overwhelmed by its wingnutty elements that they have largely taken over the GOP at this juncture in time. And there's no prospect of the David Brookses ever getting it back -- in no small part because they refuse to acknowledge the magnitude of what they're up against.

But at least they recognize the problem. That's a start.

I always ask teabaggers when I run into them, how any federal deficit has hurt them personally? They can't respond to that. They have no answer except to cry "socialism."

Sure, it's much better to have a surplus like Clinton did, but these same deficit hawks were quite happy when the Bush tax cuts came down and the rich got richer and the economy collapsed. But I ask again: How has deficit spending hurt you?

Long term debt is nothing to sneeze at, but when we're talking about reforming health care for America, who really cares if it's $700 billion for 10 years or $1 trillion or $1.5 trillion? (By the way, I love the way the press never tells America what it would cost per year because then the figure doesn't sound so bad. They make it appear that the cost is $700 or 900 billion a year.)

Go ask a teabagger about costs and see what they say. What will it matter in the long run? We can figure out how to pay for it. Even FDR was hampered by these deficit hawks when he brought the country out of the Great Depression, and now these deficit hawks almost put us back into a Depression because they were so deficit crazy.

The deficit hawk is code for keeping the rich---rich. And then finding ways to keep their money pouring in.

Digby has a great post up today about costs:

The Peterson Foundation is ready with the news. They released a report (pdf) on the Kennedy Bill today...

{}

The fact is that if all these benefits were actually realized, the country would be far, far better off, both financially and otherwise. Nobody expects that spending will go down, merely that the growth in spending will be less. Therefore, if the government finds itself having to pay out all that money in health care benefits, this healthier, more prosperous nation can surely afford to levy the necessary taxes to pay for it, right?

I don't give a damn what this is going to cost in 2029. And nobody else should either because these projections are based on bullshit. Nobody can see that far into the future. If we can pay for it now, then we should do it now. And if it costs more down the line, then we will find a way to pay for it. This nonsensical obsession with deficits decades into the future is nothing more than a scam designed to keep the gravy train going for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else.

If these numbers are correct, then the fiscal scolds are going to have to argue that people today have to die so that wealthy people in 2029 don't have to pay higher taxes. It's that simple.

The president is also talking about having a deficit neutral bill, but he's being attacked for it by the usual suspects.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 74

PLAYS: 22

(Truman and The Congress Of Nope in 1947)

The 80th Congress, dubbed the "Do Nothing Congress" by President Truman was the result of a Republican majority from the 1946 mid-term elections. Pretty much bent on overturning legislation enacted during the FDR Administration, they managed to stifle almost all the bills Truman introduced during the 80th session of Congress from 1947-1949. This meant, of course Universal Health Care which had been on the books in various forms since 1941 as well as a number of economic packages needed to deal with the Recession of 1947.

Pres.Truman: “On several occasions during the past year I have reported to the Congress and to the Nation on our general economic situation. These reports have told of new high levels of production and employment. Farmers are producing 37% more than in 1929. Industry is producing 65% more. In terms of actual purchasing power, the average income of individuals after taxes has risen 39%. The rapid growth of our post-war activity has exceeded expectations, and has revealed anew the potentialities of our economy. In each of my reports however, I have had to warn of dangers that lie ahead. Today, inflation stands as an ominous threat to the prosperity we have achieved. We can no longer treat inflation with spiraling prices and living costs as some vague condition we may encounter in the future. We already have an alarming degree of inflation.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 159

PLAYS: 10

(Ernest Lundeen - talked an interesting talk . . but)

I don't think there is any historic shortage of populist movements being undermined and subverted by people of skeptical motives. I say that due, in large part to the Teabagger Movement where, what appear to be sincere motives on some peoples parts, being hijacked by people of less than honorable motives to satisfy an agenda, a warped ideology or a grudge.

I was listening to a broadcast of a program, popular in the 1930's called "Peoples Lobby" which feature Congressman Ernest Lundeen as featured speaker from January 18, 1936. The subject was Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Health Care (yes, talked about even then). Lundeen was author of the Lundeen-Fraser Bill, which was widely supported in Congress as an anti-poverty measure.

Lundeen makes an interesting set of points:

Ernest Lundeen: “ Two hundred giant corporations control over half the corporate wealth of the country. And at the present rate of concentration, by 1950 over eighty percent of the corporate wealth of the country will be controlled by two hundred giant corporations. Each year we read of the huge salaries and dividends drawn by bankers and captains of industry Recently, the top salaries of 1935 have been published. In 1929 Eugene Grace of Bethlehem Steel Corporation received one million, six hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars in salary and bonus. In 1935 the Chairman of Bethlehem Steels’ board received two hundred and fifty thousand in salary alone. Coca-Colas President received One hundred thousand three hundred and fifty dollars. Woolworth’s Company President received three-hundred thirty-seven and a half thousand. The country’s largest publisher William Randolph Hearst drew five hundred thousand dollars, and so on down a long list of executive salaries. And that is not mentioning the House of Morgan and other money lords of the American financial aristocracy . . . as long as these great American natural resources continue to fill the greedy coffers of the super-rich, the corporations continue to function, corporate surpluses are piled high for the rainy day. But let business become slack and profits be reduced, a great cry goes up from the corporations that they cannot afford to do business and employ labor. And that is why the American people do not derive full benefit from our enormous natural resources because they have no control over their operation and the distribution of the wealth they produce. We, the people have lost the ownership of the country in which we live.”

It all sounds very good - a sympathy heard a lot today.

But in Lundeen's case it had something of a hollow ring to it. Lundeen, it turns out, had a lot of connections to the Nazi Party in Germany. So much so, that he was actively tailed by the FBI all the way until his mysterious death in a plane crash in 1940. The controversy surrounding his death has never been explained, as were the extent of his connections to Berlin.

His motives on the surface looked good. Beneath the surface, another story.

It reminds me a lot of the current argument about Health Care and who is really running the argument against reform.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 300

PLAYS: 10

(Sen. Claude Pepper - withstood many attempts at mud-slinging)

It's always interesting (and sometimes gratifying) to hear Sunday Morning talk shows from the past, just as a way of reminding yourself things were never as bad as they are now with mainstream media.

Case in point is certainly Meet The Press. Originally begun in 1946 as a feature on the Mutual Broadcast System Radio Network before switching to NBC in 1947, it was the brainchild of Martha Rountree and Lawrence Spivak and produced in association with American Mercury Magazine (of which Spivak was Publisher), Meet The Press pulled no punches and offered some serious grilling to whatever guest happened to be invited on. It prided itself in not asking canned questions and sometimes the results were newsworthy in themselves.

This episode, from November 27, 1947 features Senator Claude Pepper (D-Florida), himself an outspoken FDR Democrat, talking about our Post-war foreign aid policy and what needed to be done about it in view of the increasing presence of Communism in Eastern Europe.

Sen. Claude Pepper: “I’m in favor of spreading democracy in every part of the world. But there are many ways to spread democracy. You can’t cram democracy down the throats of people. And you can’t buy them off from Communism. We haven’t got enough money to buy the people of the world off from Communism. The best way, in my opinion, to spread democracy is to establish democracy so firmly here, that we’ll be able to propagate it to all nations and peoples of the world, we’ll be able to help them, we’ll set them a good example and the like . . not to buy them or cram it down their throats. . .

Lawrence Spivak: “ . . but certainly Senator we oughtn’t help those who are spreading totalitarianism . . or should we?

Pepper: Mister Spivak, we and the Communists have been living in this world a good many years together. Karl Marx started talking about Communism as you know in the last century. And it seems to me that unless we are willing to be blown to some other world to get away from a world where communism exists, we’ve got to live in a world with Communism. And they’ve got to live in a world with Capitalism. And the sensible thing to do is to learn to live together. We’ve got to live together whether we like it or not.”

Needless to say, Pepper didn't endear himself to the right wing fear mongers in the Senate, who nicknamed him "Red Pepper" and repeatedly attempted to smear him during the 1950's.

Times have changed - so have the people and so have the politicians.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 248

PLAYS: 15

(FDR - answering the well-upholstered whiners)

During the last few days of the 1936 Presidential campaign, FDR spoke at a rally in Wooster Massachusetts on October 21, 1936, answering Republican charges he mishandled the recovery that pulled the country out of depression. It was a familiar complaint:

FDR:

“Three and a half years ago we declared war on the Depression. And you and I know today that war is being won. But now comes that familiar figure, the well-upholstered hindsight critic. He tells us that out strategy was wrong, that the cost was too great, that something else won the war. That is an argument as old as the remorse of those who had their chance and muffed it.”

You'd think, 73 years later there would be a different story. But no.

I guess the upholstery just doesn't change.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 163

PLAYS: 9

(Interior Secretary Harold L. Ickes - Senator Alben W. Barkley - Message bearers)

1937 was the year President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a bill which would raise the number of Justices sitting on the Supreme Court bench from 9 to 15. He also added mandatory retirement at 70. Since many of the sitting Justices were at or beyond that age, Roosevelt foresaw a wholesale revamping of the court. Critics (among whom were former President Herbert Hoover) were hostile to the bill and its ramifications, calling it "Court Packing" and claiming it would would give FDR limitless power to enact more New Deal legislation.

Nonetheless, FDR set out to establish a series of "Townhalls" which were set up all over the country to get public support of his plan. Cabinet and Senate members who were loyal supporters of FDR and judicial revamping put forth the Presidents case for the bill.

Ickes: “ What have the President’s opponents been able to say to you? The Chief Justice and two other justices, the three averaging the age of 78, have told you that a court of nine judges is more efficient than a court of more than nine judges. But at the same time they serve notice that they would refuse to answer questions which might reveal whether a court of nine judges efficient in torturing the Constitution, might possibly be less desirable to the people of America than a court of more than nine willing to give men, women, children and democracy a chance to live.”

Continue reading »

First, the bad news:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June, driving the unemployment rate up to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent, suggesting that the economy's road to recovery will be bumpy.

The Labor Department report, released Thursday, showed that even as the recession flashes signs of easing, companies likely will want to keep a lid on costs and be wary of hiring until they feel certain the economy is on a solid ground.

June's payroll reductions were deeper than the 363,000 that economists expected.

However, the rise in the unemployment rate from 9.4 percent in May wasn't as sharp as the expected 9.6 percent. Still, many economists predict the jobless rate will hit 10 percent this year, and keep rising into next year, before falling back.

All told, 14.7 million people were unemployed in June.

If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June, the highest on records dating to 1994.

Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost a net total of 6.5 million jobs.

As the downturn bites into sales and profits, companies have turned to layoffs and other cost-cutting measures to survive. Those include holding down workers' hours and freezing or cutting pay.

The average work week in June fell to 33 hours, the lowest on records dating to 1964.

The worse news: as some economists predicted, the stimulus package was too small to affect the "real" economy - you know, the one you and I live in? - in any significant way. Sounds like those who urged Obama to think large and visionary (a la FDR's Public Works Administration) really did have the right idea:

Reporting from Washington -- Even as the nation's economy begins clawing its way out of the worst recession in 60 years, there are growing signs that this recovery could come with an unsettling twist: The wheels of commerce may begin to turn again without any substantial boost in jobs.

Not only is the national unemployment rate, now 9.4%, likely to climb into double digits later this year, but it is also expected to remain there well into 2010, economists say. That would prolong the misery of the unemployed, squeeze retailers and other businesses, and add millions of dollars in government costs and lost productivity. It could even threaten the recovery itself.

Though it's common for the jobless rate to keep climbing for a time after economic output turns positive, the aftermath of the last two downturns, in 1990-91 and 2001, introduced the idea of a "jobless recovery." Even though the economy improved, many unemployed workers discovered that jobs as good as the ones they'd lost were almost impossible to find.

This time, many economists say, there are new factors that could make the problem worse. Many more layoffs in this recession have been permanent, not temporary.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 131

PLAYS: 49

(If it only stayed that way)

Seventy years ago, on April 30, 1939 a crowd numbering roughly 600,000 jammed the site of the New York World's Fair and heard FDR declare the World of Tomorrow open. The official theme was Peace and Progress, but that would prove more than ironic as war was closely on the horizon, eventually leading to Germany's invasion of Poland only six months later.

But on April 30th, the future was here and it was bright and wonderful and grand. With towering monuments to technology and the first public glimpse of television, there was a lot to be optimistic for. In that time, the world going to war seemed distant and strange. All these amazing inventions and promises of the future made war seem out of place, an ugly reminder best left alone. For that brief six months, everything seemed possible and the world was cautiously hopeful.

Here are the opening ceremonies, featuring addresses Grover Whelen, Herbert Lehman, Mayor LaGuardia and President Roosevelt, as it happened on April 30, 1939.

(Glimpses of a world with infinite possibilities)

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1867)

PLAYS: (1329)

Marking his symbolic 100th day in office, President Barack Obama told Midwesterners Wednesday: "I'm pleased with the progress we've made but I'm not satisfied.

"We have begun to pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off, and we've begun the work of remaking America," Obama proclaimed. But he acknowledged, "We've got a lot of work to do because on our first day in office, we found challenges of unprecedented size and scope."

He defended his ambitious, costly plan, saying: "These challenges could not be met with half measures. They couldn't be met with the same, old formulas. They couldn't be confronted in isolation. They demanded action that was bold and sustained." And, Obama countered critics who said he's taking on too much, as he works to turn around the recession while revamping energy, education and health care in the United States. "The changes that we've made are the changes we promised," Obama said. "We're doing what we said we'd do

I think we've held him accountable which has been often and also shown strong support for the challenges he faces after inheriting an FDR-like economic disaster and two Bush wars at the same time. I also make sure to monitor the media and the Villagers to try and keep the coverage as honest as possible. Now that is a challenge. We also keep an eye on the radicalized right wing base that's getting scarier by the day.
Hillary Clinton has been a huge winner so far since she became SOS. Remember how the media went nuts over that pick?

Eric Boehlert writes: 100 days of the media's trivial pursuit

Campaign For America's Future has a host of articles up by great writers: 100 Days Forward

What are your thoughts on his first 100 days?