Penny Pritzker: Wealthy Obama Campaign Finance Chair Breaks With President, Opposes EFCA

FireDogLake:

Penny Pritzker, the finance chair of the Obama campaign who is now a member of his Economic Recovery Advisory Board, has a somewhat different opinion on the Employee Free Choice Act than the President does.

Read the whole story: FireDogLake

Comments

[EinChicago]

The ECFA is to Obam-a what health care reform was to Clin-ton in teh 90s. It won't happen. There's just no way to get teh senate votes for it. Not now , not ever.

Even most dems have a hard time swalloing the idea of taking away the right to a secret ballot.

[PhilipTaylor]

Obama sure has picked a great TEAM - ALL WALL STREET

NO MAIN STREET!

Thanks for the HOPE!

[Carolab]

Superior Bank suffered as a result of its former high-risk business strategy, which was focused on the generation of significant volumes of subprime mortgage and automobile loans for securitization and sale in the secondary market. OTS found that the bank also suffered from poor lending practices, improper record keeping and accounting, and ineffective board and management supervision.

George Kaufman, a finance professor at Loyola University Chicago called Superior's failure "a tale of gross mismanagement," adding that "[Superior] was engaged in relatively unethical practices, fancy-footwork accounting, playing it very close to the edge."

Kaufman says many share in the blame for the mess-the bank's managers, directors, and auditors, as well as banking regulators-but he also wonders how the PRITZKERS, as co-owners, could have allowed it to happen. "One of the great mysteries to me is what the Pritzkers were up to, why they took these chances," he said. "It makes no sense given their wealth and visibility

In December 2001, the PRITZKERS agreed to pay a record $460 million to the federal government to avoid being punished for the failure of Superior Bank.

In 2002 uninsured depositors filed federal class-action charges under the RICO Act against one-time board chairwoman Penny Pritzker, her cousin Thomas Pritzker, Dworman, other bank principals and Ernst & Young. Plaintiffs’ attorney Clint Krislov claimed that those who controlled Superior induced depositors to put money in the bank, “corruptly” funneling money out of the bank to “fraudulently” profit the owners.

(wiki)

[lessizmore]

I volunteered for Obama full-time for 1 year. I am getting very concerned about "his" people, even about people who are an arm's length away from him.

[zukervati]

I really feel bad for you and feel the same way here. Though I didn't take time off for full-time canvassing and back-office support, our family spent tremendous amount of resources (time and money) in support of Mr. Obama. It was so heartening to see so many people, from high-school kids to grandmothers who stuffed envelopes, placed phone calls and spread the word among their respective communities.
I recall standing in the chilling rain in Virginia next to a frail old man who would've probably passed away due to pneumonia if the kind police officer hadn't offered his rain coat to him. That old man stood through the entire speech and lost his voice screaming and hollering in support.
Pritzkers have been here for a long time, and if the system prevails, as it appears it will, for a lot longer. I hope that the POTUS doesn't forget who really put him in the office for this term - it'd be a shame!

[billw8017]

She returns to the fold. The Pritzkers are a wealthy family with deep roots in the Republican Party, and made out like bandits in the S&L crisis under the first Bush. Obama must have been pleased to get their support, but it remains possible to be a class warrior and spend a little time with Democrats. This split is sort of heart warming in its own perverse way.

[zukervati]

Pritzkers belong to the class of 1/10th of the top 1 percent, which controls 80% of all the known wealth - they got that rich because they realize the "opportunities" quicker and better than others. Having friends at high places is not a side benefit, that IS the key to this class' wealth. When they saw the power shift to the right in the 90's, they gravitated towards the Republicans and this time around it's the Democrats - there's money to be made in either tribe, especially when the tribe doesn't get voted off the island! When you don't have any underlying principals other than to make money, it doesn't much matter who you sleep with!

[rain33]

typical because he's going after corporations for tax havens and she knew that he was going to do that..i support unions and i do believe that it's the employees to offer unions to their co-workers.

[ramblin jack]

me a union man if she does not support the worker too bad dump her

[luvangelHussein330]

Well it should not come a s a shock to her... President Obama has been saying the same things since the campaing in regards to Unions...I­'m sure they both agree to disagree and have had this conversatin many a times before

[Mintcondition]

Until the MSM covers the bill and what it involves in detail, nothing will come of this. BTW, by someone who knows first hand how the bill will affect workers and employers.

[zukervati]

Let's see if Obama sings the old Beatles tune that "... money can't buy me love". The Pritzker family is a true force to be reckoned with, wonder if the POTUS will cave.

[tbone99]

Obama can't be treating this billionaires so canardly - they will take him out. Isn't that why they have him surrounded by Geithner, Summers and Bernake, just to make sure he toes the line ?

[Tulka2]

Big Obama supporter here, but have to notice the sort of people who initially supported him are not necessarily on the side of the lower classes. Here is a story paraphraed from Paul Woodruff's _First Democracy_. He uses this story to illustrate one of the "shadows" of real democracy.

A church loses a pastor. A couple of rich familes decide to do a pastor search. These families are concerned about certain liberal beliefs they feel are corrupting the church and so when they put up two pastors for the congregation to do a vote on, both candidates are in line with the rich families. When the vote happens, one wins in a landslide. After the vote, a large group from the church, including many who voted for this minister, go off and form a splinter group. The winning minister says, "Why? You all voted for me in a landslide.­"

The people left because they weren't fooled that voting gave them the fair choice they wanted.

In a country that does not have public financed elections, this shadow will continue on true democacy.

[Gumby123]

LOL! You get what you pay for Priztker! I have no sympathy for you at all.

[Alvy Singer]

I am a staunch Obama supporter, yet I think she is completely right on this one: EFCA is not a good bill, at leats not in its current form.

EFCA supporters still seem to believe that the only possible reason why more workers aren't unionized is because it's not easy enough for them to do so. But in fact, the de-unionization trend of the past 30-35 years was largely the result of globalization: It was much easier for unions to find support among workers when the companies they worked were undisputed giants with a huge market share and few or no competitors. But once your industry starts facing more intense competition from abroad, the same demands to improve compensation become a much riskier proposition (that pesky negative scale effect!), and fewer people will want to unionize and push for better terms of employment when such demands may well cripple the company and leave many of those workers unemployed.

The way to ensure better living standard for workers is not to push for more powerful unions, but to push for policies like universal health care and a new school financing system that offers affordable, quality education to all irrespective of background.

[Tulka2]

I respectfully disagree. Consider how some might read your opinion as paternalistic. Working people are just as smart as business owners and perfectly able to make their own decisions.

You and i might find common ground in the fact that there simply will not be enough jobs in the future. With technology doing more and more of the work in first world countries.­..? In the future, it will be a matter of a "fair share" more than a matte of a "fair wage". Even Walt Disney, that old reactionary jerk, thought that the future would mean more a smaller work week and that would be equally shared accross all classes. (There's a reason those Walt Disney 1950 glimpes of the future are no longer available.­)

[Alvy Singer]

Paternalistic is how I would describe the views of those who believe that we have low unionization rates because many workers can't unionize, and not because most workers won't unionize. I am giving the majority of workers full credit for having been making logical, economically rational, decisions all along.
What I am trying to point out is that this policy proposal (EFCA) is based precisely on that misunderstanding: if workers have been choosing in increasingly large numbers not to unionize, then trying to make it easier for them to unionize is not going to solve anything.

And I actually disagree about there not being enough jobs in the future: the history of the world in the past two hundred years is full of examples where resources (capital, labor, research and development) would be shifted away from obsolete enterprises and redirected toward much more productive uses. The fact that you and I are able to have this interesting discussion online, despite being (probably) quite far apart, is a perfect example of this type of progress that ends up benefiting everybody.

[madashellvoter]

The only reason big business wants universal Healthcare is so that THEY don't have pay for IT!
The more they have to pay employee’s health care the less THEY GET! GREED pure and simple.

I think you need to back to your history books and look what Regan / Republicans did to the union about 30 years. American Free Interprise instute. Unions bad for business, yet the averge wage in the United statets has gone done inthe last 10 years, even though the american worker works more hours and is more productive.

[Tulka2]

Obama is going to get rid of corporate tax havens and then Big Business will help pay for health care.

It's something to hear the corporate minions say, "The United States has the highest corporate taxes in the world!" As if. As if they pay taxes. Perhaps now that they will ALL be forced to pay taxes, their rate might come down.

[Alvy Singer]

"The only reason big business wants universal Healthcare is so that THEY don't have pay for IT!"

Of course! Because employer-provided health care benefits make our companies less competitive with those of other industrialized countries where there is no such link between health care and employment. So we all should be working hard to break that link: it's an issue of equality of opportunity (everyone should have access to health care) as well as an issue of business competitiveness: if you factor in the rising cost of health care, the median worker has seen his/her compensation rise, not fall, over the past 10 years.

And finally: the decline in unionization started around 1973-1974 (that's the year in which the US unionization rate reached its peak of 26%, twice what it is today), which is 7-8 years before Reagan took office. Republicans indeed had an anti-union platform, but the de-unionization trend had already started without them.
Oh, and I don't think I need to go back to my history books: I teach history and economics.

[BurtonOerney]

Then what problem do you have with EFCA? If it passes and union membership doesn't increase, your point will be proven. Personally, I don't think it's fair for me to pay what it costs to live in an american city but earn what somebody in an Indian city needs. Also, I shouldn't have to compete directly with workers in other countries. Believing that my government has no power to act as an intermediary between me and international competitors is pretty simplistic.

All a union does is allow me to negotiate with my employer along with other people in my occupation. My employer certainly belongs to business organizations that lobby the government for laws that help them earn more money and is able to use that clout to set wage and benefit levels they think are fair. I'm at a disadvantage if I can't belong to an organization that does the same for me.

[Alvy Singer]

If EFCA passes in its current form, it will actually raise union membership somewhat, because many workers who may not vote for unionization will also end up caving when being repeatedly asked to sign a card once cardcheck becomes enough for turning a workplace union.

My point is this: yes, whenever you lower the cost of something (like removing or lowering hurdles for getting the workplace unionized) you will get a higher level as a result (i.e.: more unionized workplaces), but since the actual reason behind the decline in unionization is the increase in trade with other countries, and EFCA is not going to change that, then what EFCA will not achieve is the general improvement in workers' conditions that its proponents state as its goal. (If anything, it might actually accelerate and precipitate the decline of some already declining industries).

Now, if anyone wants to fight the reason why de-unionization happened, then go ahead and argue your case against NAFTA and other trade agreements if that's how you feel, but that's not the debate we're having.

[Carolab]

"But in fact, the de-unionization trend of the past 30-35 years was largely the result of globalization:"

And, when the Third World workers try to unionize, what happens to them? (Goggle Russell Athletic, one of Buffett's companies, for an example.)

Stop it. You make no sense unless you'd like American workers to end up like the factory slaves in the rest of the world.

[NCYvonne]

If all of Obama's advisers agreed with him on everything that would make him George Bush!

He has pro-EFCA folks advising him and anti-EFCA folks advising him. And he's already decided to support EFCA so what's the problem?

[Pettit]

Thanks for your comment. It saves me time.

[luvangelHussein330]

I knew there was a reason I had you saved as a favorite

[tippydog11]

everyone gets up in the morning to go to work and all go to work to make money to support ones life style ...rich or middle class..
We are the labors, We are the consumers. So no labors, no consumers, then there will be no billionair­es....both are of value..bot­h are equal...ci­rcle of life....ri­ch want to get richer and want Americans to be their slaves.

We owe billionaires ,nothing, nothing. They.need labors ---pay us labors a fair wage that simple---or close shop....an­d do something else..and pay your fair share of taxes also...no excuses..p­eriod...