Rest. A time of rest from long hours of work. That's the principle enshrined in Labor Day, a 125-year-old American holiday that celebrates the spirit of organized labor. It's the spirit behind the six-day workweek, too. A day of rest was enshrined in monotheism's holy texts, after all, but it didn't become law until labor unions demanded it. ("Thou shalt remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" -- did your boss forget?)
It's also the spirit behind the principle that people who work all their lives deserve a financially secure retirement. Our forebears fought to win us this time of rest, too, and now we're called on to defend it once more.
The White House keeps hinting that the president will once again propose cuts to Medicare and Social Security -- either when he presents his jobs proposal next week, or shortly afterwards. That would roll back the hard-won principle that people who work hard deserve their time of rest. It would also be a harsh blow to a struggling economy after a devastating jobs report.
If Americans return from their Labor Day celebrations to hear their president announce these cuts, it will feel like the breaking of an ancient compact. Voters should encourage him not to make that mistake, and not to break that promise.
Days of Struggle
As the Department of Labor explains, "Labor Day is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers." The first Labor Day celebration took place in New York City in 1882, organized by one of the first trade unions. States and municipalities began recognizing it as a holiday in the years that followed, and Congress designated Labor day a Federal holiday in 1894.
Here's a question: Would a bill like that pass Congress today? How far have we really come in the last hundred years? Workers and their rights are under attack all across the country at the local, state, and national levels. Wisconsin is an encouraging sign of resistance, but we're living in an age where the ultra-wealthy are regaining Gilded Age riches and power while the hard-won rights of working-age Americans are being eroded.
If the President of the United States cuts the retirement benefits Americans have paid for throughout their working lives it would reverse more than a century of progress. And it would be unnecessary. Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit and is easily fixed with relatively minor revenue adjustments. Medicare can only be fixed by correcting the distortions that for-profit medicine have introduced into our health economy -- or, to put it more plainly, by getting the greed out of health care.
The Department of Labor notes that this holiday "constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country." Is the White House going to celebrate working people on Monday only to give them the short end of the stick on Thursday?
Days of Rest
Holidays and weekends didn't happen by accident. They were the result of hard-won victories. A 60 or even 70-hour working week was typical for industrial workers in the 19th Century. Fights for 10-hour workdays and a six-day work week were a key part of early union struggles. Now we're seeing working hours rise steeply for households, as both adults now work with diminishing success to maintain the standard of living many of their parents enjoyed on a single income.
It's becoming more common for struggling middle-class people to work two jobs to make ends meet, which means their work weeks are going back up to 19th century lengths. And the benefits that used to come with work -- like health insurance, pension, vacations, and paid sick leave -- are becoming rarer and weaker.
For 25 million Americans, their hours of rest are involuntary. That's how many people are unemployed or under-employed in this economy.
As for Medicare and Social Security, I've objected in the past to calling them "entitlements." But if I pay my taxes I'm entitled to police protection. If I pay my insurance and my house burns down, I'm entitled to file a claim.
We didn't destroy the economy with Wall Street greed, or give tax cuts to nonworking billionaires, or start unnecessary wars. So if we've kept our part of the bargain all our lives -- working, following the rules, paying our share -- are we "entitled" to these programs when we retire?
Damn straight.
Days of Surrender
The White House's Office of Management and Budget is now forecasting unemployment of 9 percent or greater through next year (and the next election), and above 6 percent through 2016. That would be the end of Barack Obama's second term, if he wins re-election. Unless the president comes forward with a truly bold jobs plan next week, this economic message will be plainly understood by all 25 million struggling Americans:
No, we can't.
The government can create jobs, if it has the political will. We need a bold and effective action plan for employment. That's half the message the president needs to convey: Here's how we're going to create jobs. The other half of the message must say to middle-class Americans who work in offices, shops, factories, homes, and retail outlets, We will protect your financial security. We will not violate the contract your nation made with you: that if you work hard, the benefits you've earned will be waiting for you when you need them.
That promise demands clear commitments from the president: No cuts to Social Security or Medicare. Real health reform that controls runaway costs, so that every American is ensured decent health coverage -- now, and when they retire.
Without bold action the economy will continue to struggle, dooming the prosperity of middle-class Americans -- and the re-election prospects of Democrats. The issues of jobs and "entitlements" (Social Security and Medicare) are closely related. We can't create jobs until more people are able to spend money.
And this is not just an argument about tomorrow's security or the needs of older Americans. The cuts proposed by the president would reduce benefits immediately. That means people will have less money and their fears for the future will discourage them from spending what they have.
August's employment report was grim -- no new jobs and underemployment on the rise. A cut in Social Security benefits would man even less consumer spending, leading to continued stagnation and unemployment.
The end result would be an ongoing cycle of economic -- and moral -- failure.
Days of Action
The president is set to announce his jobs plan sometime next week -- that is, if the Republicans don't decide to change it again. Who knows? They may decide they want to hold a luau (Pina colada, anyone?) or that they don't want to miss karaoke night at the C Street house. But unless another GOP tantrum calls for more coddling, that speech is only a few days away.
Here's an idea: While you're enjoying your long weekend, thanks to the struggles of working people a century ago, why not spare a few minutes to let the White House know how you feel? You can get yourself in the mood by watching this video, which points out the difference between President Obama's pledges and his proposals.
Then you can go here and sign a petition that tells President Obama: Jobs, not cuts. Once you're done, you can hoist a couple of beers, or colas, or protein-enhanced vegetable smoothies, or whatever it is you like to drink on your day off. When you do, don't forget to lift one to those 19th century organizers who made those days possible. We could use some of their spirit right about now.
And while we're offering toasts, here's one: For every American who works for a living -- and every American who can't -- here's to ya.
Happy Labor Day. You've earned it.
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Robert E. Prasch: President Obama's Speech and the Unemployed: Why Now?
Obama Accepts Request To Reschedule Jobs Speech Amid Conflict ...
Obama Jobs Speech Thursday Night: President Gives In To ...
President Obama's jobs speech to conflict with NFL opener - ESPN
Obama moves jobs speech date to Sept. 8 | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Obama jobs speech creates conflict with GOP - The Washington Post
Obama wants jobs speech Sept. 7 -- Boehner, Sept. 8
President Obama Jobs Speech: Democrats Want 'Bold' Plan - ABC ...
I am voting every incumbent out of office in every election until they start getting it right. That's at every level.
We are seeking only legislation to end starvation wages and intolerable hours.…"
Franklin D. Roosevelt
In his annual message to Congress in January of each year President Franklin Roosevelt lobbied (tried to influence law-makers) for important issues and pieces of legislation that would come before Congress during the next twelve months. In his speech on January 3, 1938, Roosevelt explained how the very low wages of factory jobs restricted the buying power of a large segment of the U.S. population. If their purchasing power could be raised, Roosevelt continued, they could buy their share of manufactured goods.
With the low cost manufacturing in China due to their devalued currency our prices of formerly American made goods should have dropped a great deal if competition was operating.
I think Sherman Anti-Trust prohibited price-fixing is being practiced by the companies manufacturing in China.
We are now seeing the moral failure of our Corporations, and lack of support from the Government. If the Repubs win the battle, they will return us to the nineteenth century-----so, instead of a hoilday today; in the future we will be working 70 hours weeks---6 day work weeks---locked in factories that catch on fire----little johnny will be working in the dirty factory. This is the world that the corportist want again for you and me.
Say no to the Race to the Bottom----
Whoa, that was precisely MY work schedule before I retired, financially secure, at the age of 55. 'Course I wasn't one of those "working Americans" that Obama has deemed deserving of tax cuts. I was one of those overpaid executives who just coasted along, exploiting the working class.
We pulled double shifts and sometimes slept in a boiler room........when we did have two days off, they were split. Of course we were on our feet all day long in a sweat shop......not pushing pencils and coasting along in a desk.
Of course I am also retired at 55 (with a broken down body) and a very small pension, and future of SS under attack by the jack wagons on the right! (NEVER COLLECTED UNEMPLOYMENT, FILED FOR DISABILITY, OR ASSISTANCE EVER)
Believe me, CEO's ARE OVERPAID AND EXPLOITING the biggest fraud ever seen in this country. That is why I WONT PUT UP WITH ANY BS RANTS FROM anti union smear merchants on here.
Make Some Money, See the World, and Share Time with Elite People.
Fun Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXVxPpvIszY
Terribly misguided statement for those retirements are mostly funded by younger citizens. A person runs through THEIR Social Security in about 3 to 5 years after which they are quite literally living off of the grandkids.
Don't believe me? Look at your SS statement which will tell you you will collect say $1,500 per month after having contributed only about $30K. Do the math.
But dont worry -- the younger generation doesn't want social security -- and wont get it. Better start saving for your retirement -- from your low wage job.
Obama had better turn into a Roosevelt overnight and come up with a bold tangible plan, or very likely many people will be revolting, just like they did in France in 1789.
Of course, this weakens the dollar and pushes up import prices of oil but you will blame the "evil oil companies" and speculators (they exist though) instead of the real culprit - the FED.
This is precisely the action that Perry famously deemed "treasonous", i.e., influencing the economy in order to impact the outcome of a democratic election .
Also, many widely used drugs are coming off patent so generics should be available further reducing Medicare costs.
And the unintended consequence of these reduced payments will be that fewer and fewer doctors will accept Medicare patients, effectively rationing health care for the elderly through a lack of availability of providers. It's sounding more and more like what's happening with socialized medicine in Britain, Canada and elsewhere. Are you saying this is a GOOD thing?
The people in both Canada and Britain live longer than those in the United States so it does seem like a GOOD thing to me.
With so many people permanently laid-off without health care the doctors seem not to mind Medicare and Medicaid patients.
And herein lies the distortion of facts, but it won't change the actual math that paints a very different picture. The writer knows this is a false statement. This is why government no longer works because the lies are replacing facts in many minds that cannot fully understand the issues.
SS was originally meant to aid workers in the very last years of their lives. Recently a democrat pundit said her grandmother at age 95, had ONLY SS as her means of support. While this was suppose to tug at your heartstrings, but it should have also shone a light on a system that is mathematically flawed. That woman has been receiving benefits for 30 years. There is NO possibility the benefits she is now receiving was paid for by her or her spouse if she is now collecting his benefits. True for a long time those paying into the system far outnumbered those receiving benefits. Now that is no longer the case. Those unemployed young people today are not paying into a system that badly needs that money as SS is now in the red and has been since 2009. Outlays exceed the revenue. So each month money must be raised from another source, like issuing more debt, to pay for the difference.
Medicare is fraught with corruption. Last year it was determined by the GAO that about 100 billion was incorrectly distributed for services, but the problem is the government does not have a system that can retrieve those faulty payments. So they can't claw back.
The really crazy thing about Medicare is what it doesn't pay for such as eyeglasses, dental work, hearing aids, that without any doubt plague the seniors along with illnesses needing prescriptions. A good hearing aid cost over 5,000. I know first hand.
When I had my cancer surgery at 42 yrs of age, I was in surgery with several seniors that were getting hip, knee replacement and brain surgery. I would estimate their ages to be close to 75. Others being treated for cancer, like myself, were also very old and very frail. It was MY wake-up call about why health care costs are rising rapidly. BTW, a republican pundit railing against cutting Medicare, told viewers his father, age 96, was receiving prescription meds costing 90,000 yearly and had been for many years.
We have promised way more than the MATH will deliver regarding out social programs. All systems, including disability are mathematically flawed and denying that is true won't make it go away.
"SS was originally meant to aid workers in the very last years of their lives."
I think I read somewhere that at the time SS was enacted, the average life expectancy for males (the vast majority of the workforce then) was 65 years, i.e, the age at which SS benefits would begin. We indexed SS benefits for inflation but never indexed the program for life expectancy. And, of course, we continued to extend benefits far beyond what was initially intended.
In addition to the massive fraud and waste with Medicare, the program plays a shell game with our health care system, paying an ever-declining percentage of usual, customary and reasonable expenses for care, thereby forcing providers to pass the deficit on to other patients. This, along with countless other cost-saving opportunities, was totally disregarded by ObamaCare.
But the most costly missed opportunity might just be the one that would directly save people...from THEMSELVES. If we mandated that all health insurance policies charged higher premiums for those with lifestyles known to endanger their health (smoking, obesity, sedentary lifestyle, alcohol/substance abuse, etc.), we would reduce premiums for responsible people AND provide a strong inducement for others to mend their ways. But for those paying NO premium (Medicaid patients), you simply explain that any illness they contract that is related to their irresponsible lifestyle habit will entitle them to hospice...nothing more. Tough love, but fair and possibly life-saving.
Diabetes for one can and does run in families (You cant change your DNA)
Why should those folks pay for higher premiums? Tough love?..........No... what you are talking about is "tough greed"
When my father, in his 70s, was deemed terminal, it was his doctor that changed my life. My father was a skeleton and nothing in the world was ever going to bring back my father that had been plagued with dementia since his 50s. Yes, they could have operated to stop the internal bleeding, but they could not fix my father's brain. His doctor, a very young person, asked us with great feeling to let him go. We said our good byes, and he was gone in hours. The nursing home where he had been previous to the hospital stay was full of seniors just like him that needed to go. NOBODY,but me was visiting those residents. Is that providing care for seniors when family members refuse to come because it makes them feel uncomfortable, or they simply can't find the time? That year broke my heart seeing all those souls just drooling over their food. Many of those people had once been amazingly productive people in life. I know. I spent the time trying to get to know them as best as anybody could at that point.
The majority of health care cost is spent on an individual in the last 2 years of their life. It is those life saving heroic measures to gain a month here or there that is robbing those that still have a future. It just plain isn't right.
This is the discussion our country should be having without passing judging and demonizing those that believe we must pay attention to the bottom line for the sake of all future generations.
I am sorry but your war figure is another distortion. We have spent an enormous sum that was never funded, but enhancing this figure to meet your political view is wrong and it actually is harmful since it numbs the discussion.
My, what an inflammatory story! Can you tell us when, where and how often this happened? Was anyone prosecuted for this crime?
Inquiring minds want to know the particulars...
http://inteldaily.com/2011/02/union-busting-in-america/
Obama had wide support and majorities in the house and senate. he failed to deliver on the economy and health care. If people had experienced any benefit from the HCR bill prior to the 2010 election there probably wouldn't be a tea party. If people experience a benefit prior to the 2012 election Obama would probably not be facing certain defeat. Why in the world would they wait untill 2014? It is likely never to see the light of day. Despite having the majority the democrats punted on budget issues. They celebrated the summer of recovery which was akin to Bush's mission accomplished. Life for most Americans is not better than it was in 2008.
Now, the republicans are on the verge of unwinding a century of progress for the working American, a feat they could not accomplish on their own. They could only accomplish it with the capitulation and weak leadership of Obama. He is doing more to undermine the principals and policies endorsed by the democratic party than the republicans could hope for.
It important you all wake up. Nothing can or will ever change as long as you keep think free trade was rigged to help you. It isn't.