the Voice of
The Communist League of Revolutionary Workers–Internationalist
“The emancipation of the working class will only be achieved by the working class itself.”
— Karl Marx
the Voice of
The Communist League of Revolutionary Workers–Internationalist
“The emancipation of the working class will only be achieved by the working class itself.”
— Karl Marx
Feb 18, 2002
Mechanics at United Airlines voted down a proposed contract with more than 68% voting against the contract. It was the first United offer the workers voted on since the old contract expired in August of 2000, 18 months ago.
United’s offer included a 37% wage increase, which doesn’t look bad until you consider that workers at United gave up sizeable wage cuts in 1994 when United pleaded poverty. Despite years of record profits turned in since by United, they haven’t made up what they lost. Moreover, the company was unwilling to pay the mechanics full retroactive pay for all the months since the last contract expired.
If these had been the only issues, it’s possible the contract would have passed–since at least the wages would have gone up significantly.
But there was a trick included in the package. United included “linkage” language in the contract–by which it meant that if other United workers accepted concessions in their new contracts, then the mechanics would also have to accept them after the fact. The ground crew as well as the flight attendants still have contracts to be negotiated.
In other words, the mechanics could get a 37% wage increase written into this contract–and yet have to give it all back, without ever voting on the contract again and without ever having the legal right to strike again. At the same time, it puts all the responsibility for making a fight in the laps of the other workers who will have to strike in order to avoid giving concessions. This is a way to divide the workers–exactly at the moment when they need to bring their forces together.
What happens next is up in the air. But a business writer in the Chicago Tribune commented, “linkage will be requested, and ultimately achieved, regardless of whether the language is in the contract.”
This may be only one writer’s opinion. But it’s a reasonable assumption. It’s clear that United is pushing to get concessions from all its workers. And the Air Transportation Stabilization Board set up by Congress REQUIRED the airlines to get concessions if they want loans from the government. This was part of the bonanza voted to the airlines under the pretext of September 11.
“Linkage”–it’s nothing but a new word, covering over an old worn-out trick that profitable corporations use. Put in ordinary language: they are trying to divide us so they can more easily take back gains we have all made.
Look at United itself. Yes, it suffered losses after September 11–much of which it has already been compensated for, either by the government or by its insurance carriers. And yes, there is a downturn in the economy that cuts back its revenues–temporarily.
But United is a company which has accumulated vast profits over the years. In the five years between 1996 and 2000, it accumulated 3.2 billion dollars in profits–after taxes!
In 2001, it had so much available money, it tried to buy US Air for 4.3 billion dollars, plus assuming 7.3 billion dollars of US Air’s debt. The government wouldn’t let United do it. In that same year, it established Avolar, a business jet company, for 70 million dollars.
Actions speak louder than words. And United’s actions show that it has money. It simply is using September 11 to squeeze its workers still harder.
This contract proposal, this “linkage” is the battering ram being used against all United workers–and through them, other airline workers and then other parts of the working class.
We don’t need the kind of “linkage” the bosses want–which would simply tie us up hand and foot so we end up making sacrifices to increase their profits.
We need “linkage” of course–but the kind which links us together in struggle. We need solidarity.
Feb 18, 2002
Allfirst Financial announced the loss of 750 million dollars last week in Baltimore. The bank blamed the loss on a currency trader who either made bad or fraudulent trades in currencies over the past year.
Allfirst was quick to say the problems concerned only this one trader and would be thoroughly investigated. They wanted to reassure their customers that nothing much is wrong. Some point out that a loss of 750 million dollars is nothing to the parent company of Allfirst, Allied Irish Banks, the largest bank in Ireland with assets of 75 billion dollars.
Even if all this turns out to be true, the fact is that even small losses can be the breath of air which blows down the house of cards.
But, in fact, one person losing all this money without anyone knowing it is beyond belief. The head of foreign exchange for Barclays Capital said, “I can’t think of any scenario that a loss like that would happen in a small trading operation. It defies belief.” And he ought to know!
Banks, financial institutions and most corporations frequently trade currency, betting on small rises and falls among the currencies of the world. This makes them a profit on cash not being used at that moment. The Baltimore trader, like all the traders, was simply gambling on the financial markets, but he lost.
The entire world economy has become a giant gambling casino. Every day trillions of dollars streak around the globe by computer seeking profits. This is not money used in the most basic way to provide the goods and services people need to live. No, this is financial speculation.
And this speculation, this giant crap game that all the corporations, governments and institutions indulge in, threatens to bring about a complete collapse of the world’s economy.
Sometimes a crooked trader is caught; sometimes a chief executive is brought up on charges. But the game–using “accepted accounting procedures”–continues. The money actually comes from the work which everyone does to make the goods and services all the members of society need. What we don’t need is capital’s system of gambling–keeping the profits for themselves, forcing us to cover their losses.
Feb 18, 2002
Forty-eight billion dollars–that’s how much Bush wants to increase the military budget.
To get some idea of what that means, consider this: Not a single other country in the world spends 48 billion dollars on their TOTAL military budget.
Bush tries to tell us that this vast increase in military spending is needed to win the war on terrorism. No, the problem of terrorism can’t be addressed with high tech planes and weapons of mass destruction. Afghanistan has already shown that–just as September 11 did. But high tech planes and weapons of mass destruction are useful for handing out money to the corporations.
Significantly, the figures for the military budget were released first not by Bush, not by Congress, not by the military–but by lobbyists for the big corporations. The ones who are taking the biggest share of this lucrative pot were the ones who knew all about it.
We shouldn’t forget that almost all the top 500 corporations get an important part of their profits either directly or indirectly from the U.S. military budget. With this new budget, they will get still more. And in fact, that is the main point of this budget: to help the large corporations roll up vast profits.
Where will the money come from?
Think of a program that serves the population and you have a program that is going to have its budget cut this year.
Medicare spending is to be cut–bringing the total cuts enacted in Medicare up to 200 billion dollars since 1997. This can only mean reduced medical service to retirees.
Spending for public services will undergo drastic cuts: highways, CUT 28%; Army Corps of Engineers, which maintains dams, harbors and river ways, CUT 13%; the Forest Service, CUT by four%; the Environmental Protection Agency, CUT six%; departments in the National Institute of Health that work on chronic disease prevention and on infectious disease control are both cut.
Workplace programs will get the ax: the National Institute for Workplace Safety, which sets safety standards, CUT 10%; OSHA which enforces the standards, CUT two%; the Labor Department agency which enforces the minimum wage, CUT five%; two Labor Department job training programs for laid-off workers are to be entirely ELIMINATED and vocational training programs run by the Department of Education will also feel the ax. Cutbacks in funding to the states will translate into cuts in state funding for education. Cutbacks in funding to the cities will translate into more cuts in city services.
This budget is an enormous attack on the vast majority of the working people–those who work for a living and their children and those who are retired.
All this increased military spending means that the budget will be in deficit.
And that leads to a big increase in the total government debt–and to an increase in the amount of money the government pays out in interest payments on the money it borrows.
The big banks, Wall Street brokerages and the major insurance companies couldn’t be happier. When the budget is in deficit, they take care of funding it–and drawing big interest payments to do so.
In fact, today, interest is the third biggest item in the federal government’s budget–and about to grow bigger still.
With the move into government debt, the so-called “firewall” that both parties promised to keep up around Social Security funds is to be torn down. More than two TRILLION dollars from the Social Security surplus are to be used–even according to Bush’s most optimistic estimates.
The very same people who today tell us that Social Security is in bad shape are proposing to dip into it again.
If it’s in such bad shape, maybe it’s because they can’t keep their sticky fingers out of it.
Now what about the wealthy?
A year ago, Bush proposed and the Congress passed a “tax reform” law which provided enormous tax cuts to the wealthy and to the corporations. Oh, yes, everyone got a little money coming back–remember that $300 rebate you got last year. But the wealthy got much more than everyone else put together–almost 90% of the total.
Now, as we see, this tax cut is directly contributing to the budget’s problems. In and of itself, the amount handed to the wealthy in the form of this tax cut is more than the total budget deficit.
The easiest way to overcome the deficit would, of course, be to roll back the tax cut for the wealthy.
But, no, Bush proposed even more tax cuts, 591 billion dollars more over the next 10 years. And an even bigger part of those are to go to the wealthiest part of the population.
Does that make sense? No, of course not, but it sure makes the wealthy still wealthier.
This budget and all the politicians who eventually will pass some version of it are not defending the population. They are attacking us.
That’s why Bush keeps harping on September 11 over and over again–in order to cover up what is really going on.
It’s not in our interest to fall for calls for patriotism. Patriotism for the politicians is nothing but a pretext for robbing from the poor to give to the rich. It’s the weapon they use as they stick us up.
In a very significant way, the United States looks very different from all the other developed countries. It is the dominant imperialism–meaning that its corporations go more or less where they please. Backed by U.S. armed might and by the military dictators which the U.S. arms and pays for, the big corporations impose near slave labor conditions around the world.
Inside the country, there are few social programs and very reduced public services. As we all should know–we’ve been told it often enough–the U.S. is the wealthiest country in the world. But this wealth does not go to organize decent public transportation and housing; to guarantee medical care to everyone; to provide adequate pensions for people who have worked their whole life, or adequate disability payments for people who suffered injuries preventing them from working, etc.
The social programs which people take for granted in other countries either don’t exist here at all or, at best, exist on a very minimal level. This is not due to a lack of wealth. The lack of social programs and public services is a direct consequence of the diversion of vast sums of money into military programs.
That will not change except when the U.S. working class decides it has the right to make this society respond to its needs, and not to build an even bigger military to impose low wages on still more people around the world.
Feb 18, 2002
In the last few weeks, we have begun to hear about the deaths of numerous civilians in Afghanistan, victims of U.S. bombing from the air or commandos on the ground. These deaths occurred after the U.S. declared a victory over the Taliban on December 16.
Right after the declaration of victory, on December 20, U.S. bombing killed at least 60 people from two villages in Paktia province. On December 27, bombing killed at least 25 in another village in the same province. On December 29, there was an air raid on the village of Niazi Qala, in Paktia province. Survivors said at least 100 civilians were killed, including many women and children who had congregated for a wedding. On January 3, there were 32 killed in the Zhawar Kili region.
On January 11 and 12 the U.S. bombed the town of Zhawar and its surrounding area, killing 15 and forcing survivors to flee to Pakistan. In the days between January 13 and 18, continuous cluster bomb attacks led to dozens of deaths.
On January 24, a U.S. raid in village of Hazar Qadam in Oruzgan province killed at least 15 people. Survivors found charred bodies of people whose hands were bound with strips of tough white plastic before they were killed.
On February 6, three peasants in the Zhawar Kili region near the Pakistan border looking for scrap metal were killed by an anti-tank missile fired by a U.S. Predator drone, an unmanned plane that sent back TV images, while ground controllers pushed the trigger.
These reports came out because Afghan allies of the U.S. released the information. The civilians were from their villages.
And, given the disruption of communications, we can be sure that this is only a small proportion of all the civilian deaths that have occurred.
If this is what is happening after the U.S. “victory” on December 16, what about before then, when wholesale bombing was going on? At that time, the media blitz in the U.S. was at its strongest, and we were told repeatedly how “smart” the bombs were, and that only Al Qaeda and Taliban forces were being hit.
Of course, even then major attacks on civilians came to the world’s attention–although the U.S. media carried little information. Twice in October the U.S. bombed Red Cross warehouses in Kabul. On October 11, it bombed the village of Karam in Nagahar province. The mud huts in the hamlet were destroyed, with survivors saying 50 to 100 people were killed. On December 1, the U.S. bombed several villages near Tora Bora. Anti-Taliban forces demanded that the U.S. military stop the bombing when it was underway, and said that at least 115 civilians were killed.
New York Times reporters who did an in-depth study of civilian killing estimate that, “certainly hundreds and perhaps thousands of innocent Afghans have lost their lives during American attacks.” Professor Marc Herold of the Department of Economics at the University of New Hampshire documented a minimum of 2,998 civilian deaths through February 7. In addition to the civilian deaths that have already occurred, the seeds have been sown for many more deaths. U.S. planes often dropped cluster bombs, which scatter more than 200 canisters, containing hundreds of pellets each that can shred human flesh. There are thousands of these canisters that didn’t explode, but that could explode, if disturbed, at any time in the future.
The killing of innocent civilians is exactly what warfare is all about, despite all the talk about smart bombs and precision bombing. Behind Bush’s pretense that the U.S. bombed Afghanistan to save the population from oppressive Taliban rule, the population is the one that pays the price–even while the Taliban militias have melted into the armies of the local warlords.
Feb 18, 2002
On February 14, the minister for aviation and tourism of Afghanistan’s shaky new government was killed at the airport for the capital city of Kabul. At first, the news media reported that the minister had been killed by a mob of hundreds of people who had been prevented from going on a pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
However, the next day Afghanistan’s Prime Minister charged that other top officials of his own government, including two generals and a Justice Ministry official, had participated in “assassinating” the aviation and tourism minister under cover of the actions of the angry pilgrims.
Afghanistan’s capital city of Kabul has been the only place in the country where U.N. peacekeeping forces are being used to give an appearance of order–thus helping to prop up the new government the U.S. has installed. This violence between members of factions within the very highest levels of Afghanistan’s government shows how shaky that government is.
In the rest of the country, the violent struggle for power between local warlords and political factions is much more open. The recent destruction of the Taliban-led central government by U.S.-supported mini-armies of tens of these local warlords has in many ways returned Afghanistan to the same situation that the country faced before the Taliban came to power. In recent weeks there has been open warfare between two or more of these competing mini-armies in at least a half dozen cities and in tens, if not hundreds, of towns and villages all over Afghanistan. Hundreds of people have been killed in the fighting between local warlords’ armies. Tens of thousands of refugees returning to Afghanistan, mostly from neighboring Pakistan, have been crowding into Kabul, despite the fact that it is largely destroyed, because they say they feel safer there than in their former cities, towns and villages where this gang warfare is underway.
The U.S. has pretended that the object of its military action in Afghanistan was to rid the country of terrorism and establish a stable “democratic” government. But to get rid of the Taliban, the U.S. used warlords who had already proven their readiness to turn the country into a bloody killing ground.
No one should be surprised that this is now what they are doing.
Feb 18, 2002
With Bush’s State of the Union speech, in which he called Iraq, Iran and North Korea an “axis of evil,” the media has been talking about the possibility of a war against Iraq.
The U.S. is, however, already at war with Iraq. Since the Persian Gulf war in 1991, U.S. and British airplanes have maintained a low-intensity bombing campaign against Iraqi cities. And there has also been a relentless economic embargo against Iraq since 1991, bragged about by U.S. State Department officials as “the toughest, most comprehensive sanctions in history.”
The effects of the embargo have been devastating for the population of Iraq. According to the estimates of United Nations agencies, half a million children under the age of five died in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 due to malnutrition and deterioration of sanitary conditions directly caused by the embargo. The infrastructure and health care system of the country are in a state of deterioration and disrepair, causing epidemics of diseases such as malaria, which had practically disappeared before 1991. The U.N. and Red Cross say that as many as 70% of women in Iraq are suffering from anemia, and one in every three Iraqi women who die in child-bearing age (15-49 years old) die due to complications surrounding maternity. Compared to the 1980s, infant mortality in Iraq has more than doubled. Today, one in every four babies born is underweight; 60% of the population doesn’t have access to clean water; 83% of all schools are in dire need of repairs. According to the U.N., Iraq has gone “from relative affluence to massive poverty” during the last 11 years.
And now Bush seems to be proposing to open a new war front against Iraq, which obviously could only increase the devastation and heighten the suffering of the people of Iraq.
If Bush and the corporations whose interests he represents, continue to have their way, the people of Iraq stand in danger of even more suffering than they have had to endure for the past 11 years. They would not be the only victims. Workers in the U.S. also stand to lose if we agree to fight these wars. We will be the ones paying the social and economic costs of the billions of dollars wasted in these destructive wars; and we, our sons and daughters, are called upon to put our lives on the line.
Feb 18, 2002
Has the Bush administration decided to target the Iraqi government and overthrow Saddam Hussein?
Certainly, officials from President Bush on down have made these kinds of threats before, especially in the weeks after September 11. But they didn’t seem particularly serious until Bush’s secretary of state, Colin Powell, let it be known that he opposed a new war against Iraq. Given Powell’s former position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Persian Gulf War, undoubtedly he was voicing not just his personal opposition, but the opposition of many top military officials.
But in mid-February, Powell began to make public statements indicating that he too supported some kind of action by the U.S. government to overthrow Saddam Hussein. This was taken to mean that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had come on board, that plans for some kind of new U.S. offensive against Iraq and Saddam Hussein are in the works.
It was one thing for President Bush to mouth off against Iraq, including in his State of the Union speech about “the axis of evil.” But when Powell came on board, this made it seem that the U.S. could be planning some new round of violence against the people of Iraq, over and above what they had already done during the Persian Gulf War, and what they are still doing with the deadly trade embargo.
One of the big questions that came out of the Persian Gulf War was why the U.S. left Hussein in power, why it decided not to finish him and his army off when they had them on the run, when there was nothing standing in the way on the road to Baghdad. Was this a mistake, as many commentators and politicians have said?
The U.S. had gone to war against Hussein, not out of any humanitarian concerns for the people of Iraq and the Middle East, as they tried to claim, but simply because Hussein had defied them. Hussein had dared to invade Kuwait. This was not a question of starting a war. Hussein had already carried out a bloody war against Iran for the U.S. The problem was he invaded Kuwait on his own.
The U.S. may be the major superpower in the world with by far the biggest military force. But since its military can’t be everywhere, it must still depend on governments and dictators to keep order in their countries so that the big corporations can “peacefully” expropriate the wealth of those countries. Those dictators may get money and arms from the U.S., but they have to toe the line. The U.S. carried out the Persian Gulf War to show what happens to dictators when they try to carry out an independent move.
So, why did the U.S. then leave Hussein in place and even return most of his army, especially the elite forces of the Republican Guard and their attack helicopters? Because the U.S. feared the consequences of destroying an apparatus that could keep order in Iraq: the Iraqi military and police apparatus that Hussein headed. At the time of the Persian Gulf war, an incipient civil war had been spreading in Iraq. In the north, the Kurds were revolting against Hussein. In the south, the Shiite minority. If the U.S. had finished destroying the Iraqi military apparatus, it would have opened up the possibility for the revolts to destabilize Iraq and to spread into Iraq’s neighboring countries.
Rather than sending in its own forces to put down those revolts, carrying out a potentially long and costly occupation, the U.S. interrupted its war against Hussein, and allowed him to do the job instead. Despite the war against Hussein, they needed his dictatorship to keep order.
But once order was established, the U.S. still needed to demonstrate who was boss: it carried out the devastating trade embargo, and continued to bomb the country. The Iraqi population was made to pay for what the Iraqi dictator had done.
Why is the U.S. targeting Hussein now? Certainly, it has nothing to do with “weapons of mass destruction” as the U.S. says. How could Hussein, at the head of a tiny, impoverished country, ever compete with the U.S. in this regard? No, there are other reasons–which U.S. spokespersons are not mentioning, and which can only be guessed at.
Could the U.S. be trying to shift attention away from the war in Afghanistan? Bush may have declared victory in Afghanistan, because the Taliban regime crumbled, but the U.S. was not able to achieve any of its main goals, such as capturing Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, or curbing the influence of the different terrorist groups. If anything, the war in Afghanistan increased the influence of these groups, since it stirred the anger and resentment of millions of people all over the world. The U.S. war didn’t even prevent most of the Taliban militias from rejoining the armies of the various warlords, with weapons intact.
Certainly, it’s possible that the U.S. will simply carry on another intensive bombing campaign against Iraq to show that it still has muscles and knows how to flex them. But there are other possibilities.
Perhaps U.S. officials have reason to believe that Hussein’s own military is getting ready to overthrow him. In that case, it could make sense that U.S. statements are meant to encourage a coup which sees the Iraqi army handle the problem. And Bush would certainly like to take credit for it.
U.S. officials may now believe that the Iraqi army and the population are weakened enough by the combined toll from the Persian Gulf war and the 11-year trade embargo so that U.S. troops could waltz into Baghdad.
Of course, a march into Baghdad is only the first step. Then comes the long-term occupation of the country.
Obviously, if there was strong opposition inside the U.S. military to a new U.S. military offensive in Iraq it is precisely because the military recognizes the enormous risk that it could get bogged down in such an undertaking.
The leaders of most governments in the world including most of Europe and the Middle East have openly opposed the idea of a new war on Iraq. They fear that they will get stuck with having to cope with the consequences. All they have to do is look at what happened in Afghanistan. The U.S. chose Afghanistan as the target, it bombed the country, it sent in a few special forces. But it is the other governments that are now stuck with providing the forces to carry out “peacekeeping” duty in a country that is now wracked by medieval gang warfare.
In any case, whatever happens will not serve the interests of the people of the world, including first of all in Iraq and then here. One thing is sure, the last people to know what is really going on will be the population in this country–fed a diet of lies and deceit.
Feb 18, 2002
In recent local news, BCBSM has been the center of attention. Michigan’s governor has accused BCBSM of mismanagement, claiming that this resulted in the loss of about 400 million dollars in the small group market. He has demanded reorganization of the Board of Directors and dramatically increased control by the State over the Board.
Blue Cross spokesmen have argued that unfair regulations have caused them to have to charge higher rates. The Blues say they want to remain not-for-profit, but they want other insurers to have to play by the same rules. Of course, they don’t mention that they get an extra tax break because of their not-for-profit status.
One thing is for certain. Major, powerful interests are clashing over who will control the Michigan health insurance market. And it is not a clash to see who will improve health care, or make it more accessible to everyone by making it less expensive for all. It is a clash to determine what capitalists get what profits off of health care in Michigan, and how much.
Isn’t it already outrageous enough that the unemployed, underemployed, and many elderly people are already deprived of medical attention? Recently released statistics show Detroit leading the nation in infant mortality rates. With all the billions of dollars of wealth produced by workers in Southeast Michigan there is no lack of money. The crime is that this money goes to line the pockets of the already rich instead of going to provide for health care needs.
Feb 18, 2002
Bill Gates and his wife have created the largest charitable foundation in U.S. history with assets of 24 billion dollars. It is supposed to focus on health care in the poor countries.
Bill Gates reported he was “shocked” to find out that poor countries have 90% of the world’s diseases and only ten% of the world’s resources used on health care.
If Gates was shocked, then it’s because he’s been too busy counting his money to notice what’s been going on. In any case, Gates is now presenting himself as a philanthropist. But philanthropy begs the question of where poverty-borne disease comes from.
In the rich countries, capitalists push to increase the exploitation on their work forces, as much as they are able–whether in the form of lousy wages, worsening working conditions, rising health care payments, ruined pensions or temporary work contracts. Where did Gates own money come from if not the poverty level wages of so many thousands of part time and temporary workers at his Microsoft facilities in Seattle? Exploitation translates into poverty for an important part of the working class, and increased poverty translates into increased disease.
On the scale of the world, the same thing happens–but with this difference: the corporations take advantage of arbitrary national borders imposed on the former colonies–borders which prevented a coherent economy from developing inside these countries. They use the roots they sunk deep in their ex-colonies to continue controlling the economy. They use their own armies and navies to back up local military dictators who keep the population in check. All of this enables them to pay starvation level wages. Microsoft wouldn’t be nearly so profitable without the widespread use of child and female labor to put together computer parts under near slave labor conditions. (After all, without computers, what use is software?)
Capitalists like Gates, presenting themselves as philanthropists, are still the top dogs in a system which ensures the poverty of the vast majority of this world.
His foundation doesn’t touch this aspect of the problem–but it certainly saves him a pretty penny in taxes while, he can hope, it will shine up his tarnished image.
Feb 18, 2002
The town of Herculaneum, Missouri has only 2800 people, but one fourth of the children under the age of six have lead poisoning. In other words, one of every four children could experience brain damage, possible hearing loss, stunted growth and kidney problems. This is six times the average rate of lead poisoning in the rest of the country. In such a situation, even adults are not immune.
For over 100 years, lead ore has been processed in the town at the Doe Run Company smelter, the town’s main employer. This summer the Missouri Department of Natural Resources found lead levels up to 300,000 parts per million in the road near the smelter. This is 700 times higher than the allowable rate.
Doe Run claims to have spent 15 million dollars on reducing pollution last year, and it bought out the homes of 60 families nearby. But what about the rest of the town of Herculaneum? The EPA finally directed the Missouri Natural Resources Department to replace contaminated soil in the town. The EPA also proposed to TEMPORARILY move 100 more families while the work is going on. Meanwhile, the smokestack of Doe Run still spits out tons and tons of pollutants into the air. In 2001 the company produced 160,000 pounds of emissions. That may be better than 1,600,000 pounds per year, which was the range of emissions from the smelter a few decades ago. But it is still far over the limit.
Since the 1970s, lead has been banned in paint and gasoline. But medical science has known since World War II that lead was a deadly poison to human beings and could be spread in the air or under ground. Nonetheless, the U.S. government still today allows continuing pollution of this deadly mineral.
If the EPA were really to enforce a clean up, the first thing it would do is shut down the smelter. This doesn’t have to mean a loss of income. Doe Run has made billions by polluting this town. It can pay to maintain incomes and to clean up the pollution. Justice requires that those who cause the damage pay its costs.
Feb 18, 2002
Sweetheart Cup division of Fonda Industries, in Baltimore, Maryland, just posted a notice of an attack on the work force: workers younger than 40 will no longer be eligible for health benefits from Sweetheart when they finally retire, no matter how long they worked at Sweetheart. The company also made eligibility rules a little more difficult for workers who are currently between 40 and 50, pushing up the retirement age to 65 from 60, and requiring 15 years of continuous service after age 50.
The only workers not affected by the changes are those already over 50. At least, so far.
The Sweetheart bosses, like bosses everywhere, never stop looking for ways to prop up their profits. Reducing pension and health benefits is just their latest way to do that.
But Sweetheart had help–important help–from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of the federal government. If anyone had illusions that the EEOC was set up to protect the rights of workers, its ruling August 17 gave the green light to all corporations to cut benefits like Sweetheart did. The EEOC ruled that age-discrimination law suits could not be brought against employers that offered different health care plans for older retirees compared to those offered for younger workers.
The retiree health benefit cut is one more offense by the bosses against the entire working class.
A 2000 study showed that only one large company in three (with over 500 employees) provides health care coverage to retirees under 65. As recently as 1993, 46%–almost half of all such companies–provided this medical coverage. The situation is even worse at smaller companies.
Companies have also stopped guaranteed pensions where these once existed.
Today, less than half of all workers have pensions of any sort. Of those who do, half of these have only the Wall Street slot machines known as the 401(K) plan.
Effectively, the bosses are saying to the workers, “work until you drop–and if you’re no longer able to work then just drop. There’s a handy trash can nearby.”
Feb 18, 2002
Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition, was a Bush supporter in the last election. Because he was so well known for his attacks on the right to abortion, Bush kept him under wraps once he had decided to run for president. After all, Bush was styling himself a “compassionate conservative” and Reed was notably low on compassion. Reed might have cost him votes.
But Reed managed to do OK for himself. Thanks to Karl Rove, Bush’s top political adviser, Reed got very well paid employment–receiving ten to twenty thousand dollars per MONTH–from Enron! His job while at Enron was to lobby states to deregulate the electricity market–that is to open up consumers to this massive rip off that found them paying two, three, five or more times as much for electricity, while companies like Enron pocketed hundreds of billions of dollars.
This self-proclaimed defender of morality found nothing immoral in pushing for the biggest fraud in recent history. How fitting!
Feb 18, 2002
On February 15, Bush offered his plan for reducing pollution by offering a way to supposedly reduce emissions. This was Bush’s answer to criticism he got when he rejected the Kyoto agreement. Admittedly, the Kyoto agreement on emissions and global warming calls for only a tiny restriction on the ability of corporations to poison the planet. But Bush openly thumbed his nose at the rest of the world when he rejected it.
So now, here he comes trying to repair the damage, pretending to offer a way to lower pollution emissions.
Well, not exactly.
Bush spoke about lowering greenhouse gas “intensity.” Lowering intensity sounds like a good thing. But what does “intensity” mean? According to Bush, this is an abstract mathematical ratio between a country’s gross domestic product and its pollution. The amount of emissions can increase, so long as a country’s GDP (gross domestic product) also increases.
“Intensity” can go down while the total amount of emissions actually increases.
But it’s not the ‘intensity” that matters–it’s the amount of emissions. When these go up, the poisoning of the planet gets worse. That’s what counts.
Bush can smirk, lie to our faces and pretend he is doing something for the world, all at the same time. He’s a very clever fellow. Not to mention, hypocritical.
Feb 18, 2002
In January, a Baltimore landlord got a slap on the wrist for endangering his tenant Cynthia Ware and her four children. A few months ago, he turned off water service for an entire week, without giving any reason. Ms. Ware had to go to neighbors to get water. Recently, when leaking water caused the kitchen ceiling to collapse, the Fire Department turned off the water and electricity for safety reasons. The family lived for two weeks without either water or electricity, waiting for the landlord to make repairs. Ms. Ware paid $500 a month for this falling down house.
A District Court judge used strong words, calling the landlord "despicable,” saying he was an example of a "bad landlord."
So what did the judge do to teach this despicable landlord a lesson? He was fined a great big whopping $500 and sentenced to 10 days in jail–with the sentence immediately suspended to ONE DAY.
A poor person who steals groceries from a neighborhood market is likely to end up serving several years in prison. But a landlord who twice denied a family water, causing major health and safety hazards for tenants, gets a day in jail.
No wonder there are so many “bad landlords.”