The Hightower Report

Obama Must Be Even Bolder Than FDR

When Franklin Roosevelt was accused of being a traitor to his own privileged class, he jauntily replied, "I welcome their hatred."

He would feel right at home today, then, for FDR-haters are on the prowl once again, now led by right-wing think tanks and talk-show yakkers who are busy rewriting history to belittle the achievements of Roosevelt's New Deal. Their real target is Barack Obama's economic recovery plan, which is largely modeled on the New Deal approach of government spending for roads, schools, parks, conservation, and other public works, putting millions of people to work on jobs that need doing.

The official line of these naysaying popinjays was laid down last fall by the far-right-wing Heritage Foundation, which asserted that the New Deal was a failure. Yes, parroted Fox News pundit Monica Crowley, who blathered that the failure is proven by "all kinds of studies." Her Fox colleague Gregg Jarrett dutifully echoed her insight by saying, "I think historians pretty much agree on that."

Uh ... no, they don't. Indeed, they pretty much agree that millions of families were saved back then by the New Deal's public works programs and that many millions more continue to benefit today from the work that those people produced.

The chief shortcoming of FDR's public-spending approach is that he didn't do enough of it. After winning a smashing re-election bid in 1936, largely based on the popularity of his New Deal, Roosevelt gave in to Wall Street interests who were demanding a cutback in federal spending. The result was a relapse into recession in 1937, a return to double-digit unemployment, and a rejection of Democrats in the 1938 congressional elections.

Likewise, 2009 is no time for timid steps. The challenge for Obama – and for our country – is to stand firm against the ideological naysayers and to be even bolder than FDR.

Bringing Fairness to the American Workplace

It's a scream to hear corporate chieftains insist that there simply is no more need for unions in America. "In the sophisticated work- place of the 21st century," said the head of the National Association of Manufacturers, "the need for unions is obviated."

Oh really, chief? Let's see, for years now, workers have dramatically increased their skills and productivity, only to be rewarded with declining wages, elimination of health-care benefits, canceled pensions, constant downsizing, and the steady offshoring of middle-class jobs. Meanwhile, as CEOs enthusiastically axe workers, they extravagantly jack up their own pay and perks.

Not only are unions needed, but there is a widespread yearning for them. A 2006 poll found that 68% of Americans believe that labor unions are necessary to protect working families – a percentage that's undoubtedly climbed as our economy tanked in the past couple of years. Indeed, another survey finds that 60 million Americans would join a union tomorrow if they could.

So why don't they?

Because the rules have been deliberately rigged during the past 30 years to make union organizing next to impossible. For example, of those who even try, 20% get fired outright. Also, in an organizing campaign, union representatives are not allowed inside a business to talk to employees, yet every employee can be forced to attend one-to-one meetings with company bosses, who make clear that supporting the union would be a bad career move. And even if employees vote to form a union, top executives can simply ignore them.

But their rigged game could be up. The Employee Free Choice Act would make organizing campaigns more fair. Barack Obama supports it, but he and Congress are under intense pressure from corporate chieftains to back off. To learn more about it, contact www.freechoiceact.org.