Archive for public sector jobs

VIDEO: Hey GOP Rep. Peter King, if Boston police officers are heroes, then stop cutting public sector jobs!

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

my hero smaller

The entire segment can be found here.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY):

The Boston police department is an outstanding police department, the FBI, homeland security, ATF, they're all working on this, the president is leading it, No, this is not a time for Democrat or Republican politics. I think the president is putting in place, putting in motion the counter-terrorism and anti-terrorism units we have in our country that have been developed over the last 11 1/2 years and they're going to do an outstanding job. I have no doubt of that whatsoever.

1. "Democrat" is not an adjective. "Democratic" is.

2. If the Boston Police Department did such a great job, then why does the GOP want to keep cutting budgets that would provide for more "outstanding police departments"? Oh, that's right. They're "union thugs." And King is a hypocrite.

3. ATF? ATF? They're "working on this"? Anyone seen the director?

tweet kristof atf block

4. Wait. Did he actually admit that President Obama *gasp!* leads?

5. This is no time for politics, says King. Oh really? Then what's up with this? Rep. Peter King (R-NY) implied what now? “Pressure cooker bombs described in Al Qaeda magazine.” Nothing prejudiced or premature about that at all. Appealing to your base, are you? Some-body is looking for more do-na-tions! Have dark skin or a "funny" name? You're guilty. Next!

Oh, and if you really don't want to play politics, rehire all those police officers you and your party fired.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO: "We have never cut government jobs when we were trying to save the economy. Until this time."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

see ya smaller

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rachel Maddow poignantly addresses who exactly the people are who Republicans insist on firing, on laying off, on eliminating sources of steady work, on denying employment, income, and therefore health care and education opportunities. Those people for whom many on the right show such obvious disdain are public sector workers who have (or had) jobs as real as any private sector workers have (or had).

Yet the GOP has reveled in slashing "government workers" as if they are something less than, as if their jobs aren't really jobs at all, as if there is something inherently inferior about what they do to get by.

And by get by I mean feel secure, and by feel secure I mean also offer the rest of us a degree of security by way of the services they provide to this country.

But busting unions and privatizing America is the goal of those on the right. Their priority? Profits over people. Power. Livelihoods and economic "certainty" be damned. Oh, and of course, denying President Obama any victories ever at the risk of assuring him a legacy of *gasp!* success (too late).

An appreciation by Rachel Maddow:

"We have never cut government jobs when we were trying to save the economy. Until this time."

"Good luck, officer, see you around!"

"We lionize and celebrate the people who teach us our multiplication tables and fix our streets and keep us safe at night and rescue us from fires. We lionize and celebrate them justly as we should, and then in record numbers, we can them, [!] hurting them and hurting us as a country. Not every public sector worker's gonna win the Medal of Valor like those eighteen heroes did at the White House today.

"But there is reason to appreciate them, both in the heroic individual specific, and in the aggregate, for what they do for us every day."

public sector job losschart graph public sector jobs bush chart graph public sector job loss Obamachart public sector job loss presidents

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO-- Paul Krugman destroys Fiorina talking points: "Don’t think about bureaucrats....We’ve laid off 100s of 1000s of school teachers."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

doonesbury jobs smaller

In my post Bikini Graph time! Once again, jobs were ADDED, revisions way up. #BlameObama, I quoted Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog:

The unemployment rate was effectively unchanged at 7.9%, and as is often the case, austerity measures undermined the employment landscape

— while America’s private sector added 166,000 jobs in December, the public sector lost 9,000 jobs. Indeed, over the last three months, the nation’s private sector added 624,000 jobs, while 24,000 government jobs were lost.

It’d be easy for Washington to improve the latter number and lower the unemployment rate, but congressional Republicans won’t allow it

As I've previously written, check out public sector job numbers under both Bush and Obama. Somehow under W, rising public sector employment was okay with the GOP, but if the Dems want to hang on to those jobs, it’s some kind of Kenyan Marxist commie union thug plot to destroy America:

chart bush v obama jobs private, public sector

The GOP wants government to shrink, aka firing government workers. Which of course means firing employed people who bring home paychecks that are used to pay for things, which, in turn, boost the economy.

That would make President Obama look good, and Republicans can't have that.

If all those public sector workers had not lost their jobs, there would be over a million more people employed, which of course would bring the unemployment rate down substantially.

That said, check out this video and transcript, courtesy of Think Progress:

CARLY FIORINA: I think it’s important to remember, when we talk about the economy, that a private sector job and a public sector job are not the same things. They’re not equivalent. I’m not saying public sector jobs aren’t important. But a private sector job pays for itself. A private sector job creates other jobs. A public sector job is paid for by taxpayers. [...]

PAUL KRUGMAN: But when we say public sector jobs, it is not a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.

FIORINA: Oh, it is, actually.

KRUGMAN: When we talk about public sector jobs — when we look at the ones that have been lost in large numbers in this — it’s basically school teachers. Don’t think about bureaucrats. It’s school teachers. What we’ve laid off hundreds of thousands of school teachers.

And when we talk about the cuts in public spending that have happened, they are not, you know, some god awful who knows what. It’s actually public investment. It’s largely fixing potholes and repairing bridges.

So, you know, you have this image of these wasteful bureaucrats doing god knows what. What we’ve seen is an incredible drought of basic infrastructure, and laying off hundreds of thousands of school teachers.

FIORINA: It is a fact that virtually every department in every organization in Washington, D.C. has seen its budget increase for the last 40 years. That money is being paid to hire people. The number of people who are — of course there are some teachers…

KRUGMAN: The vast bulk of public sector employees are at the state and local level. They are largely school teachers plus police officers plus firefighters. And your notion that it’s all these bureaucrats — that’s a myth that’s used…

FIORINA: It’s not a myth, it’s a fact. It’s not a myth, it’s a fact. We don’t have enough private escort job creation.

Krugman 1, Fiorina 0.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Female unemployment exceeds men's for first time since recession. Guess why...

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

women jobs unemployed

L.A. Times:

For the first time since the recession began, the unemployment rate for adult women surpassed that for adult men, indicating that while the U.S. might have been a "mancession," it also appears to be experiencing a "mancovery."

The unemployment rate for women 20 years and older rose to 7.3% in December, from 7% the month before. Unemployment for men of the same age remained at 7.2% in December.

Guess why that is... I'll wait.

checking watch waitingTimes up. Here's why:

You know all those government jobs that have been cut? The ones that Republicans want to cut even more because they hate government so much? 13,000 government jobs were lost from November to December, and 68,000 since December 2011. Those jobs include teachers:

Women occupy about two-thirds of public sector jobs, according to Joan Entmacher, vice president for Family Economic Security at the National Women’s Law Center. Women make up a large part of local government payrolls because they are a large proportion of the teachers in the country. The nation lost 53,900 local government education jobs in the last year.

So guess who's feeling the brunt of unemployment these days? That's right, the very women who educate our children. Hey, I used to be one of those!

Not only do women make less money than men, but this also happened:

Unemployment rose for single mothers, indicating that households headed by women could be especially vulnerable in the recovery.

5.1 million women, aged 20 and over, are still out of work. Those nice white GOP men on the Hill are salivating over the thought of slashing even more government jobs, which means more women will be jobless. Which means their families will suffer. Meaning their children. Which means they'll be more vulnerable. Which means they'll need more health care. Which they won't be able to afford.

How many of those nice white GOP men boast that they're big "pro life, family values" guys?

Of course, according to those same legislators, the ones who also deny that their zillions of abortion bills trump jobs bills in Congress, there is no War on Women.

chart pay gap women Maddow smaller

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"The absurdity of these right-wing attacks is straight out of Monty Python"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Today's L.A. Times letter to the editor, because our voices matter:

Re "Parsing Obama's 'fine' mess," Opinion, June 12

Under President Reagan and both President Bushes, public sector employment increased, softening the economic effects of the recessions that occurred during each administration. If President Obama had the same help given to the Republican presidents (instead of cutting public sector jobs), unemployment would be almost a full percentage point lower.

Meanwhile, in the private sector, more jobs have been created under Obama in the last 27 months than during George W. Bush's two terms, the stock market has rebounded and corporations have earned record profits.

The absurdity of these right-wing attacks is straight out of Monty Python, with GOP talking heads crowded around a critically injured patient (the economy) and accusing the doctor (Obama) of gross negligence. But every time the patient opens his eyes and mumbles "I'm not dead yet," one of the nurses (Congress) hits him over the head and knocks him out again.

Lon Shapiro

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"Shareholder democracy" is a joke... (hello, Rupert Murdoch)."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Michael Hiltzik has another informative column up at the L.A. Times that makes a lot of important points about workers vs. workers (Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's divide and conquer strategy), how this rivalry is affecting the working- and middle-class, the weakening of labor unions, and "where to find a counterweight to 'pro-business' government policies" that create a wealth gap .

I'm going to concentrate on some specifics that are self-explanatory, but please read the whole piece.

The title is, aptly, "Corporate power increases as workers battle one another," with the subheading, "Last week's anti-labor election results only scratch the surface of a trend that destroys social cohesion and makes it harder for businesses — small and large — to prosper."

As I read Hiltzik and listen to Rachel Maddow's and Ed Schultz's daily concerns about the drastic reduction in the number of unions (resulting in the drastic reduction in funding of Democratic candidates and causes), and after reading Paddy's post Karl Rove’s Crossroads PAC takes on six more Democrats in crucial Senate races, I find myself reaching for my Pepto-Pinot cocktail earlier and earlier in the day.

Here are a few excerpts from Michael Hiltzik's column:

Corporations collect their revenues from customers; unions get theirs from their members. But corporations don't necessarily represent the interests of their customers (or haven't you had to deal with your cellphone company lately?); while unions consistently represent the interests of their membership.
  [...]

The difference is that "shareholder democracy" is a joke: An anti-management shareholder campaign winning a majority vote at the annual meeting is man-bites-dog news. The increasingly prevalent democratic style in American corporations, especially in Silicon Valley, is for one shareholder or a small group to control a majority of votes (e.g. Google, Zynga, Mark Zuckerberg). Indeed, a single shareholder can control a corporation with less than 50% share ownership (hello, Rupert Murdoch).

By contrast, union elections are often close-fought affairs, with fundamental disagreements over policy and strategy at stake. None of this means that union members' interests are always aligned with the public interest, only that leaders of a union with a million members will tend to pursue policies and support candidates serving the common interests of a million people and their families. A corporation with a million shareholders still might reflect only the interests of the two or three guys at the top. [...]

President Obama got horselaughs recently for suggesting that state and local government layoffs have been a big drag on the recovery. But 190,000 workers in those sectors have lost their jobs in the last three years. Ask your local shopkeepers, who depend on customers like them, if they think that's funny.

And to drive home another point:

As you can see, out of ten groups that make political donations, only three are unions. And with super PACs, a handful of billionaires can influence election outcomes. So not only is it getting harder for businesses to prosper, it's also getting harder for Democrats and democracy to prosper.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO: Mitt Romney ad takes President Obama completely out of context... again.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

The above ad is how you say... full o' BullshMitt.

Our wonderful source Andrew Kaczynski at BuzzFeed gives us the full context that shows President Obama talking about the decline in public sector employment during the last recession as opposed to an increase under Ronald Reagan. Or to put it another way, the whole truth as opposed to Romney lies:

Here's Rachel pointing out the frequency of lies from Team Romney and how they have yet to correct them:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare