As Radical As Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson

It was entirely predictable that Politico has joined the chorus of voices, some of them emanating from the Hillary Clinton camp, denigrating Bernie Sanders.  Ben Shreckinger and Jonathan Topaz set the tone as they write

Democratic primaries have always featured liberal insurgent candidates, but perhaps none quite so liberal or insurgent as the socialist senator from Vermont. Sanders’ comments are a reminder of just how far the second-place Democratic presidential candidate stands from the American mainstream on some issues, and the looming reckoning Democrats face.

They're concerned that

many of his most important positions today fall well outside the traditional parameters that have bounded American political discourse in recent decades. He wants to raise the marginal tax rate for top earners to more than 50 percent — which would be the highest rate in 30 years and is more than 10 points higher than Barack Obama proposed as a candidate in 2007. He says he would replace the Affordable Care Act — perhaps Obama’s signature accomplishment in office and a prized victory for Democrats — with a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system, a position that was too liberal for Dean when he was governor of Vermont. (Sanders’ standard Obamacare line is to quickly laud its “modest gains” but quickly say it isn’t enough.)

Inform Politico: the last few decades have not been all sweetness and light for the American middle class. In 2013, The New York Times' Steven Greenhouse wrote

Wages have fallen to a record low as a share of America’s gross domestic product. Until 1975, wages nearly always accounted for more than 50 percent of the nation’s G.D.P., but last year wages fell to a record low of 43.5 percent. Since 2001, when the wage share was 49 percent, there has been a steep slide.

“We went almost a century where the labor share was pretty stable and we shared prosperity,” says Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. “What we’re seeing now is very disquieting.” For the great bulk of workers, labor’s shrinking share is even worse than the statistics show, when one considers that a sizable — and growing — chunk of overall wages goes to the top 1 percent: senior corporate executives, Wall Street professionals, Hollywood stars, pop singers and professional athletes. The share of wages going to the top 1 percent climbed to 12.9 percent in 2010, from 7.3 percent in 1979.

Greenhouse attempted to be fair and balanced, noting "Some economists say it is wrong to look at just wages because other aspects of employee compensation, notably health care costs, have risen."

Nonetheless

overall employee compensation — including health and retirement benefits — has also slipped badly, falling to its lowest share of national income in more than 50 years while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share over that time....

From 1973 to 2011, worker productivity grew 80 percent, while median hourly compensation, after inflation, grew by just one-eighth that amount, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group. And since 2000, productivity has risen 23 percent while real hourly pay has essentially stagnated.

It is true that Sanders wants to raise the rate on highest earners (chart below from National Taxpayers Union) to its lowest level in 30 years. Although  in 1981 it was 70%  before President Reagan embarked on his program to degrade, humiliate, and impoverish American workers, by 1987 it was down to 38.5%.  But it had been even higher in the early 1960s which, as Business Insider's Henry Blodget has noted, "was one of the most successful eras in US economic history. The middle class boomed, the economy boomed, and the stock market boomed. And all with the top marginal income tax rate over 90%."

Once that era ended

In 2003, the top bracket dropped to 35%. The deficit reappeared--and then soared. And, interestingly, we saw a repeat of the 1920s: An unsustainable economic boom that ultimately collapsed, followed by a massive recession and huge deficits. And soaring inequality, which still plagues us today.

Bernie Sanders is "well outside the traditional parameters," Politico argues of the man who has observed "If the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity, it would be more than $16 per hour today. "  Fun fact, according to Mother Jones (its chart, below): "if the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000."

Bernie Sanders doesn't "fall well outside the traditional mainstream on many issues."  Viewed from an historical perspective, it is the American political system which falls outside the traditional mainstream on economic issues, the issues dear to the Vermont senator. If Sanders falls well outside the traditional mainstream on many issues, there is something wrong with the mainstream... and its media.




next up: and as for that healthcare legacy....

Share |

Neglecting To Tell God Whom To Bless

Uh, oh. President Obama has gone and done it again- or as Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft put it, "more and more of who the man is, and what he truly stands for, is beginning to seep out."   (This is supposed to be bad.)

President Obama's weekly, Saturday morning, radio address (video below) was coincidentally delivered on Independence Day and included only 18 sentences in eight paragraphs, two of which were

We remember as well that this is the day when, 239 years ago, our founding patriots declared our independence, proclaiming that all of us are created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A couple of centuries later, we have made ourselves into a big, bold, dynamic, and diverse country. We are of all races, we come from all places, we practice all faiths, and believe in all sorts of different ideas. But our allegiance to this declaration – this idea – is the creed that binds us together. It’s what, out of many, makes us one.

The address was released, Hoft noted, "with one key ingredient missing: God."   The Washington Examiner observed "Twitter users also criticized Obama for the omission. One person, for example, called the president a 'Godless little man' and wondered if anyone was truly surprised by the omission." In an apparent effort to be even-handed, The Blaze found the speech was

One that left God out.

Obama ended it like so: “Thanks, everybody. From my family to yours, have a safe and happy Fourth of July.”

In fact, Obama didn’t mention “God” once in his address — though some might give him points for “Creator.”

Thus implied is the similarity to the Declaration of Independence's ringing assertion "we find these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator...."

A funny thing, however: it appears those men created equal did not include men (or women) of the black variety, inasmuch as the best evidence has it that 41 of the 57, or 72%, of the signers of the Declaration owned slaves.

The Founding Fathers were not partial to a commingling of church and state.  Further, the evidence that the Founding Fathers were stout believers in the Divinity is mixed, although not so with one of the signers, for John Adams stated

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.

He didn't quite buy the Jesus story, the one detailed in the same book that argues for God. Adams claimed also

It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet the one is not three, and the three are not one: to divide mankind by a single letter into [“consubstantialists and like-substantialists”]. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the quakers, live without an order of priests, moralise for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe; for I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition.

That was a little wordy, admittedly, and directed at the Son; but of the Father, Adams contended “God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world.”

And that was Christianity in general. Of Roman Catholicism in particular, Adams was less charitable. Washington's emphasis was "liberty of conscience," tolerance and good citizenship. Madison's concern was a strict separation of church and state, as was that of Samuel Adams, who believed "persecution is not an original factor in any religon, but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law."    Thomas Jefferson chimed in with “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”   He was particularly contemptuous of the concept of the Trinity and proclaimed "Christianity neither is, nor was, a part of the common law."

President Obama referred to the "4th of July," the occasion for beer, baseball, and barbecues, rather than Independence Day, that which has been traditionally celebrated. Conservatives, however, didn't notice that. Barack Obama did not give God a directive, in that he failed to say "And God bless the United States of America." How un-American!












Share |

Maureen Dowd, Still Creeping Around

If not for the reference to "cyberbullying," you would think this was a column from fourteen-plus years ago.  Maureen Dowd, who against all logic and journalistic sense still is employed by The New York Times, writes

The turquoise tranquillity of the Côtes d’Azur was rocked a couple of times during the Cannes Lions Festival, the advertising world’s rosé-soaked answer to the Cannes Film Festival.

Al Gore snubbed Monica Lewinsky. Lewinsky, who was giving a speech for Ogilvy & Mather about how she became “patient zero” in the cyberbullying epidemic, was slated to sit in a V.I.P. box with the former vice president, who got an award for being a good brand.

But her invite got yanked.

The contretemps was a reminder that Gore’s prissy attitude toward l’affaire Monica helped cost him the election, because he was so angry at Bill Clinton that he leashed the Big Dog, curtailing the president’s campaigning, even in the South. If Al had been less eager to put baby in a corner, there would have been no phony action on Iraq and plenty of action on melting glaciers.

Steve M. quotes this and more from the piece, in which Dowd targeted primarily the Clintons.  In the course of taking Dowd apart for her treatment of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, SM observes

All this leads me to ask: Why is Maureen Dowd still at The New York Times? Why hasn't she joined the likes of Dick Morris and Judy Miller and become the regular Fox contributor she's obviously qualified to be?

Her fixation on the Lewinsky scandal would make her perfectly at home in Wingnuttia, where old scandals are endlessly rehashed and grievances are nurtured for decades. What's more, Dowd's specific focus on the moment when Team Clinton tried to tarnish Lewinsky's reputation is strikingly similar to the right's obsession with the relatively brief timespan when Hillary Clinton's State Department downplayed the true nature of the Benghazi attack. In both cases, it just doesn't matter. The truth about Benghazi became obvious very quickly in the fall of 2012, and was soon acknowledged by the administration. In early 1998, the public wasn't fooled by Bill Clinton's denial of an affair, and didn't care -- a CBS poll taken within weeks of the Lewinsky revelations, in February 1998, showed that nearly three in four respondents thought Clinton was hiding something, and yet he had a 66% job approval rating. Seventeen years after the fact, Dowd is still fixated on a coverup, that didn't work.

But at least Bill Clinton got to the White House, and Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State. Although he outpolled George W. Bush nationally and in Florida,  Al Gore wasn't as lucky.  In October, 2007, Vanity Fair's Eugenia Peretz reviewed the 2000 presidential campaign and noted early in the campaign

Maureen Dowd boiled the choice between Gore and Bush down to that between the "pious smarty-pants" and the "amiable idler," and made it perfectly clear which of the presidential candidates had a better chance of getting a date. "Al Gore is desperate to get chicks," she said in her column. "Married chicks. Single chicks. Old chicks. Young chicks. If he doesn't stop turning off women, he'll never be president."

"I bet he is in a room somewhere right now playing Barry White CDs and struggling to get mellow," she wrote in another.

Meanwhile, though Dowd certainly questioned Bush's intellect in some columns, she seemed to be charmed by him—one of the "bad boys," "rascals," and a "rapscallion." She shared with the world a charged moment between them. "'You're so much more mature now,' I remarked to the Texas Governor. 'So are you,' he replied saucily." And in another column: "You don't often get to see a Presidential candidate bloom right before your eyes."

Gore's habit of talking issues didn't go down well with the media establishment, such as

for the environment, while Gore was persuaded by his consultants not to talk about it as much as he would have liked, whenever he did, many in the media ignored it or treated it as comedy. Dowd wrote in one column that "Al Gore is so feminized and diversified and ecologically correct, he's practically lactating." In another, referring to his consideration of putting a Webcam in the Oval Office, she wrote, "I have zero desire to see President Gore round the clock, putting comely interns to sleep with charts and lectures on gaseous reduction."

Gore remained relatively unflappable and

The notion that he was prickly or unpleasant to reporters doesn't jibe with what Tipper witnessed. From her viewpoint, he remained gracious with the reporters—even at an event during the campaign, when Maureen Dowd sidled up in the middle of a conversation he was having with two other reporters. "He stood up and got her a chair and said, 'Please, join us.'" After Dowd had written about him "lactating," he agreed to an interview with her, answering questions about his favorite this, his favorite that. According to his staffers, she was a fact of life that would have to be endured.

Joining in were other members of the media, such as the New York Times' Katharine Seelye, Time's Margaret Carlson, Newsday's Elaine Povitch, MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Brian Williams, Newsweek's Howard Fineman, and especially, The Washington Post's Ceci Connolly.  But most of those have moved on, and The New York Times- from which Dowd still opines in her uniquely snarky manner- still is remarkably influential.  As Steve M. puts it, "Give it up, MoDo. Go over to the dark side. We're sick of you here;" or to paraphrase Gore from 1992 (from Steve Liss for Time, below), it's time for her to go.

Share |

They Meant No Harm, Nor Much Of Anything

The Hollywood Reporter reports "TV Land has pulled reruns of Dukes of Hazzard in light of the recent uproar over the Confederate flag, which is emblazoned on the roof of the show's iconic General Lee 1969 Dodge Charger, The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed."

Historian David Bright (as quoted by Adam Serwer) argues

Even after the narrative of a benign and honorable Confederacy fell out of favor with historians, it continued to dominate American popular culture in film and literature, from The Birth of a Nation to The Dukes of Hazzard. The damage wrought by this interpretation of history is immeasurable. It is only now unraveling.

The Birth of a Nation and The Dukes of Hazzard- perfect together?  Not quite. Premiering in 1915, according to this account

The Birth of a Nation is three hours of racist propaganda — starting with the Civil War and ending with the Ku Klux Klan riding in to save the South from black rule during the Reconstruction era.

"[Griffith] portrayed the emancipated slaves as heathens, as unworthy of being free, as uncivilized, as primarily concerned with passing laws so they could marry white women and prey on them," Dick Lehr, author of The Birth of a Nation: How a Legendary Filmmaker and a Crusading Editor Reignited America's Civil War, tells NPR's Arun Rath.

The movie was "a runaway hit" and for many years "much of the storyline was accepted as historically accurate."  But it reflected "the embedded, bigoted, racist state of mind of the time" and "immediately after the film's release the Ku Klux Klan experienced a surge in membership, and it continued to use the film as a recruiting tool for decades after that."

There is no evidence that the ranks of the KKK grew during, or following, the run of the series from 1979 to 1985. Nor is there indication of an upsurge in racism while Bo and Luke Duke were evading the evil machinations of (Sorrell Booke as) Sheriff Boss Hogg, who was assisted by bumbling Deputy Roscoe P. Coltrane (video, below; r.i.p,, Waylon).  A modest hit of its time, it would have been even less likely to have sociological impact telecast on TV Land, where nearly 39 people across the U.S.A. would have watched it regularly.



 

That reality lends no more credence- even less, actually- to the remarks of Ben Jones ("Cooter"), who believes the Dukes of Hazzard "represents the spirit and the good heart of America [because] it’s the most positive show in the history of television. Kids of all races love this. Why are they doing this? This is like the book burning in Nazi Germany!"

Any similarity between the fictional Hazzard County and the all-too-real Third Reich is purely coincidental, and non-existent.   Although amusing in its absurdity, the program was hardly "the most positive show in the history of television," or the most anything in the history of television.  It probably was not wildly popular among black, Hispanic, or Asian children.  To the best of my recollection, very few African-Americans ever appeared (and none portrayed negatively) and probably no Hispanics or Asians. It would have detracted from the story line.... and this was the rural south, after all.

That storyline was intended to be entertaining and to carry no redeeming social value, positive or negative, notwithstanding Jones' interpretation.    Comedian Joe Rogan notes "The Dukes Of Hazzard was about a lot more than just that s****y paint job on one of the most beautiful muscle cars the good lord ever inspired man to create, it was about tradition. That show started the tradition of the most iconic piece of clothing our nation ever produced; The Daisy Duke shorts."

The Dukes of Hazzard was about one-dimensional characters- Bo and Luke Duke, "just good ol' boys, never meaning no harm;" the brilliantly played Boss Hogg and his Deputy; and the gorgeous, always scantily-dressed Barbara Bach (then and in 2013, below).  It was hard to take very seriously unless one were a young, rural male from certain parts of the country. with a crush on hot cars.

Ben Jones says the show was cancelled because of "sanctimonious left-wing special interests in New York and elsewhere." The Dukes of Hazzard was not The Birth of a Nation nor the cultural benchmark some cultural historians and Jones believe it was. Further, those sanctimonious special interests at Viacom probably were less motivated by politics or a passion for racial justice than the possibility of a backlash, which would hurt its image, thus its bottom line. (On a positive note, there was no reference to "Jewish left-wing special interests in New York." )

And still, we hear little about guns.





To American readers: Happy Independence Day!
To non-American readers: Happy 4th of July!



Share |

Remind Me: Who Was It With The Big Crowds in 2008?

Salon's Matthew Pulver wonders if  the attack upon Bernie Sanders by Claire McCaskill, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President, was approved by the Clinton campaign. Appearing on Morning Joe, the second term Missouri senator stated “Well, you know, Rand Paul’s father got massive crowds, Ron Paul,” she said. “He got the same size crowds. Pat Buchanan got massive crowds. It’s not unusual for someone who has an extreme message to have a following.”

Acknowledging it's difficult to determine at this stage whether the criticism was isolated or the start of a pattern, Pulyer notes

It compounds the already problematic dynastic dimension of Clinton’s campaign. The Clintons, preparing for the coronation, also get to police what is acceptable in the party, with Hillary the enforcer of the law Bill laid down? Continuing to call Sanders an “extremist” might only convince many Democrats that the Clintons consider the party theirs.

It shouldn't be necessary to explain the vast differences in political ideology among Paul, Buchanan, and Sanders (especially between Paul/Buchanan and Sanders) but Pulyer does it, nonetheless. Political principle may be alien for a Democrat who prides herself on being only the 50th most liberal member of the 100- person chamber. Pulyer links to one (below) of her campaign videos, in which McConnell brags that she has cast "votes to cap federal spending (and) against more regulation" and includes the tagline "right in the middle is right for Missouri."








Pulyer pegs the Clintons as "the political family most responsible for making Sanders’ fairly standard postwar liberalism an extreme position." He notes McCaskill endorsed Mrs. Clinton in June, 2013, which was long before we knew who would challenge the latter for the presidential nomination; if anyone at all would challenge her; and even whether she herself would run.  Yet, Claire McCaskill just knew she was "ready for Hillary."

In a way, McCaskill's absurdly early endorsement and her ridiculous jab at Senator Sanders should be of little surprise.  She endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, similarly offering no reason that spoke of principle.  She did, however, observe "a lot of people talk about his ability to give a great speech. And there's no question that he is truly gifted by God with an ability to speak to people in a way that touches him."  She went on to praise his soul and intelligence, though she neglected to mention that, like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and Bernard Sanders, he drew large crowds- even larger.  You might remember "yes, we can" (do what?).

However, the United States Senator did not apply her own judgement to the 2008 endorsement. Rather, "at the fierce urging of my 18-year-old daughter, I could not sit in the bleachers any longer."   She wasted no time in this cycle, not taking her cue from her daughter but evidently enthralled by the "incredible Secretary of State."  No mention of any particular accomplishment at State followed.

Whether Mrs. Clinton is "incredible" remains to be seen, though "incredible"- not credible- applies well to Claire McCaskill. The Senator should be asked at least two questions: whether Mrs. Clinton is now "truly gifted by God" as Barack Obama was in 2008; and whether the large crowds Senator Obama drew in 2008 should have forewarned us of the perils of an Obama presidency. The responses would be entertaining.







Share |

Targeting Unions

A CNN/ORC poll conducted by phone June 26-28 has found that for the first time in two years at least half of all Americans approve of the job Barack Obama has been doing as president. This followed a week in which, Will Bunch summarizes,

The Supreme Court sided with the progressive argument on three major issues of great import: Legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states, saving Obamacare and inoculating health-care reform against future challenges, and upholding the broad liberal interpretation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. President Obama, who basked in the glow of the Supreme Court victories, had another big win, getting congressional approval to negotiate in secret yet another free trade pact, this time with the Pacific Rim. In response to a horrific act of violence in Charleston, S.C., governors and other key politicos in the Solid South are starting the much-belated process of lowering a Confederate flag that had become a beacon to hate groups.

But he checks his enthusiasm, noting

Whoa, whoa, whoa...what was that middle one again? Not every win for President Obama is a victory for a progressive agenda, no matter what they say on Fox News. The trade deal -- the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP -- will be negotiated in secret by the Obama administration under the guidance of the same folks who pushed through two decades of so-called "free trade" that have decimated the American labor force, on terms that have been great for large multi-national corporations but have been terrible for the average blue-collar workers (not to mention the environment. The administration line on TPP is basically, "Trust us, this one is going to be different" -- but most everyday folks on the left and on the right don't trust them. It's the elected politicians of both parties, flush with corporate donations, who pushed the TPP, through.

Perhaps the President, as Charlie Pierce put it, "simply hasn't recognized the concept of lame-duckery," for once the week was over, word came down that he would give roughly five million workers a raise by extending overtime protections to full-time workers earning up to $50,400 annually.

But with Trade Promotion Authority approved, the specter of TTP, TTIP, and other trade agreements casts doubt on the future of the middle class. Now comes the announcement that the US Supreme Court in its next term will hear Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association  in which, Ian Millhiser explains, the primary issue is

“fair share service fees,” a fee that the unions at issue in this case charge to non-members in order to compensate the union for bargaining on those non-members’ behalf. Under well-established law, unions are required to bargain on behalf of every worker in a unionized shop, regardless of whether a specific worker elects to join the union. This means that union members and non-members share alike in the benefits of working for a unionized employer, and these benefits can be significant. According to one study, workers in unionized shops enjoy a wage premium of nearly 12 percent.

If workers were allowed to accept these higher wages without having to pay anything in return, however, that would create a free-rider problem — where workers would have no incentive to join the union because they benefit regardless of whether they are members. Eventually, the union would be starved for funds, and all the workers would lose the benefits they gain from being unionized.

To combat this problem, unions have historically charged fees — alternatively referred to as “fair share” fees or “agency fees” — to non-members in order to recoup the costs of bargaining on the non-members’ behalf. These costs can be significant, as collective bargaining often requires a sophisticated team of financial experts and lawyers who must be paid as professionals. Nevertheless, an individual worker’s share of these costs typically do not exceed the value of the higher wages and increased benefits they receive from collective bargaining. And if the union fails to strike a deal that increases workers’ take-home pay once the cost of agency fees are covered, the workers always have the opinion of voting not to be represented by the union.

Friedrichs, however, asks the Court to invalidate these agency fees — or, at least, to declare them optional — and permit non-members of a public sector union to gain many of the benefits of being in a union without having to pay for it. Should this case succeed, it would place enormous, potentially even crippling, financial pressure on public sector unions.

And once public sector unions are broken, the few private sector unions remaining are on the endangered list.  The success of Scott Walker in shredding public sector unions in Wisconsin by stripping most of their collective bargaining rights now has emboldened GOP legislators to promote legislation that would allow private sector workers to opt out of paying union dues.

As unions decline, pressure on employers in non-union businesses and agencies to keep wages and benefits up to deter unionization will disintegrate. Income will be increasingly concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, as this 2013 graph (below) from Piketty and Saez suggests.

At the close of his dissenting opinion in the same-sex marriage case, Chief Justice Roberts told gay marriage supporters to "celebrate the achievement of a desired goal," as well as "the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner (and) the availability of new benefits" but not the Constitution, for "it had nothing to do with it."

All that can be celebrated. But if the Court- presumably with the support of Justice Kennedy, the author of the majority opinion in the marriage case- declares agency fees optional, the 99% will have even less defense against the power of the 1%.  And no LGBT celebration or White House rainbow will change that.







Share |

President Obama Does Something Right

It was back in November on his Facebook page that Clinton 42 Labor Secretary Robert Reich credited business owner Nick Hannauer with the idea that

By executive order the President could raise the salary level at which employers are required to pay employees time-and-a-half for every hour worked beyond 40 hours a week. In 1975, more than 65 percent of salaried workers qualified for such overtime pay, and the threshold for receiving it was $69,000 in today’s dollars. But since then the value of the threshold has eroded to $23,660, so just 11 percent of salaried workers now qualify. If Obama raised the threshold back to the same standard we had in 1975, and everyone earning up to $69,000 got overtime pay, 

President Obama might as well have been listening because on Tuesday good news came when we learned

a long-awaited overtime rule from the US labor department would more than double the threshold at which employers can avoid paying overtime, from $455 a week to $970 a week by 2016. That would mean salaried employees earning less than $50,440 a year would be assured overtime if they worked more than 40 hours per week, up from the current $23,660 a year....

To keep up with future inflation and wage growth the proposal would peg the salary threshold at the 40th percentile of income, individuals familiar with the plan said. They requested anonymity in return for discussing the proposal ahead of the official announcement. The president has been scheduled to promote the proposal during a visit on Thursday to La Crosse, Wisconsin.

Obama’s proposal aims to narrow a loophole that the president has long said some employers exploit to avoid paying overtime.

Employees who make above the salary threshold can be denied overtime if they are deemed managers. Some work grueling schedules at fast food chains and retail stores, but with no overtime eligibility their pay may be lower per hour than many workers they supervise.

The existing salary cap, established in 2004 under George Bush, has been eroded by inflation and now relegates a family of four making just above the cap into poverty territory. Obama has long charged that the level is too low and undercuts the intent of the overtime law.  

"In this country, a hard day's work deserves a fair day's pay. That's at the heart of what it means to be middle class in America," wrote the President Monday for the Huffington Post. Thanks to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (and especially to fast-track, which will assure the TPP and future trade deals will be bad for American workers), fewer Americans will experience that middle class feeling. But for today at least, the President, with the new overtime rule he prompted, has given the middle class a major break or as Reich (his video from May, below) put it Tuesday, "a bit of good news for hard-working Americans."










Share |