By Lewis Krauskopf and Caroline Valetkevitch NEW YORK (Reuters) - Investors are turning their attention to prospects that higher taxes could threaten the rally in U.S. stocks as President Joe Biden's administration moves forward with its agenda and seeks ways to pay for its spending plans. In recent days, investors have focused on a rise in bond yields that has pressured share prices, though indexes remain close to their record highs. Nevertheless, some worry that at least a partial rollback of the corporate tax cuts that fueled stock gains during the Trump era could eventually drag on equitie...
During a CNN "Inside Politics" panel discussion on the effectiveness of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), congressional correspondent Lauren Fox bluntly stated that the senior Republican has a "huge problem brewing" because he can't stop the infighting among his caucus members and has lost control.
Speaking with host Manu Raju, Fox was asked how McCarthy has been holding up as Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Nancy Mace (R-SC) continue their attention-grabbing fight.
"He wants to focus on issues, and this is not a winning issue, but how much control, Lauren, does Kevin McCarthy have?" host Raju asked.
"He has a huge problem brewing if the Republicans take over the House of Representatives, which right now they look like they have a path to do," she replied. "He will he have a hard time doing basic funding, trying to fund the government, cut any deals with Democrats on things like the debt ceiling."
"This is a major issue that it is constantly in the news he has members of his conference attacking Democrats with, you know, terrible comments, constantly," she continued. "Then he has people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Nancy Nace having a multiple-day news cycle because they're fighting with each other publicly. He calls them both to his office and it does not seem to help. Clearly he does not seem to have control."
CNN 12 05 2021 08 15 59 youtu.be
According to a report from the Daily Beast's Noah Kirsch, Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts (R) is trying to turn himself into a national player in the Republican Party by ramping up the "nuttiness quotient" and embracing far-right conspiracies.
As Kirsch notes, Ricketts previously kept his distance from former president Donald Trump but is now "embracing" the way the former president gained a mass audience while using the president's extremist playbook.
"Billionaire’s scion and Nebraska governor Pete Ricketts set a high watermark for controversy during his first six years in office. There was his 'crazy' refusal to lock down the state despite a surge of COVID-19 cases, the unearthed racist messages from his former campaign field director, and his maskless gabfest at a sports bar on election night 2020. (The restaurant worker who filmed the governor was fired)," the report states before adding, "Yet in recent months the nuttiness quotient has somehow metastasized."
According to political observers, Ricketts seems to have his eye on higher office, positioning himself for a possible cabinet position in the next Republican administration or, looking higher, the vice-presidential spot on the ticket.
Explained John McCollister, a Republican member of the Nebraska Legislature, "I think he’s gunning for either a cabinet office when a Republican president takes over in ’24 or a vice presidential slot. It’s ironic because he [initially] didn’t support Trump, but he’s embracing Trumpian types of policies now. I’d say during his first term, when I was in the legislature, he wasn’t embracing so many of these cultural issues.”
Another Nebraska politico claimed Ricketts seems to be trying to catch Trump's eye and attract the attention of his rabid followers.
“The only thing I can think of is that he expects Donald Trump to be a factor in the next election, whether he is a nominee or whether he anoints somebody else… and I think [Ricketts] is trying to appeal to the Trump faction of the party," the official explained.
As Kirsch notes, Ricketts can count on the support of his wealthy family which "collectively owns a majority stake in the Chicago Cubs," and "owes much of its wealth to the online brokerage TD Ameritrade" to fund his ambitions.
Noting the governor's previous resistance to Trump, the report states, "Pete Ricketts ultimately endorsed Trump, who infamously launched his campaign by calling many Mexican immigrants criminals and 'rapists.' Now, as the governor seems to be contemplating a similar presidential bid, he is fanning flames of his own, " with Kirsch writing that locals believe, "the governor seems to believe that political wedge issues offer his best shot at national office."
You can read more here.
Joe Biden frequently says that he wants to emulate Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president most revered among American liberals (along with John F. Kennedy and, latterly, Barack Obama). In one way he no doubt laments, Biden has indeed emulated FDR — by seeing a pair of "centrists" from his own party (in this case, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema) undermine his agenda. Roosevelt faced some of his fiercest opposition from conservative Democrats, including his own vice president, John Nance Garner, whose nickname really was "Cactus Jack."
This article first appeared in Salon.
Somewhat like Manchin and Sinema, Garner mouthed platitudes about tradition and limited government to mask his allegiance to what today would be dubbed "the one percent." For most of Roosevelt's first term, Garner watched in silent dismay as FDR sloughed off the Democratic Party's ideologically muddled history and moved sharply to the left, at least on economic policy. Garner had initially supported Roosevelt for the reasons many conservatives did, because he believed that saving democracy depended on easing the social unrest caused by the Great Depression. Once the immediate national distress began to ease, Garner reverted to being as dogmatically pro-business as any modern-day Republican.
In the months after Roosevelt's landslide re-election in 1936, however, Garner reached his breaking point. There was an issue where FDR took a stand that Garner saw as completely unacceptable, and that ruptured their relationship permanently. Not only was Cactus Jack off the ticket when FDR sought (and won) an unprecedented third term in 1940, Garner actually ran against Roosevelt for the Democratic nomination.
What was the issue? Roosevelt refused to take a strong stand against the "sit-down strike," a controversial labor tactic that posed a direct challenge to major industrial employers. In a sit-down strike, workers would literally (if only temporarily) seize the means of production, "sitting down" in a factory, for example, and refusing to budge. This made it almost impossible for employers to replace the strikers with scab workers or remove the equipment, at least not without resorting to physical force. Any strike that physically prevents employers from producing or marketing commodities without literally going through their workers could be described as a sit-down strike, but the term is generally used in factories or other large industrial facilities.
The U.S. experienced a wave of sit-down strikes in the 1930s, but the concept seems to have emerged in France, where in June 1936, many workers occupied their factories. This inspired American organized labor as well, and Georgetown history professor Joseph A. McCartin explained by email that a turning point came on Dec. 30, 1936, when workers at General Motors seized control of their complex in Flint, Michigan:
The activists used the tactic in Flint because they knew it was the crucial node in the GM system and they believed they had enough organization in the plants there to pull it off. Everyone was excited by FDR's recent landslide reelection, which seemed to ratify public support of the Wagner Act [a landmark 1935 labor law] and other New Deal measures. And organizers were growing impatient with GM's constant stalling and resistance to unionization. So they decided to force the company's hand.
Conservatives like Garner were intimidated because the strikes both challenged the core concept of industrial capitalism — the sacred character of private property — but also got results. FDR refused to order the workers removed from the Flint plant by force, and the strikers achieved their primary goal: a union at GM. McCartin again:
Without the Flint sit-down strike, it might have taken many more years to unionize General Motors and the entire industrial union movement might have failed to mature. The breakthrough boosted the Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO) and helped make other victories possible. Indeed, U.S. Steel decided to voluntarily recognize the CIO's Steelworker Organizing Committee (SWOC) in hopes of avoiding the kind of disruption GM had experienced. Both GM and USS capitulated to the CIO before anyone even knew whether the [Supreme Court] would uphold the constitutionality of the NLRA (Wagner Act), which it later did on April 12, 1937. This was a testament to how [much] leverage the sit-down strike gave workers.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
The Flint sit-down strike, McCartin concluded, "was certainly the single most pivotal strike of the era."
Those were heady times for American labor, but they didn't last long. By 1939, the political tide had begun to turn against Roosevelt, and the Supreme Court effectively declared sit-down strikes illegal. Internal conflicts among Democrats meant the party could not support a tactic that directly assaulted the private property of wealthy special interests. To use a phrase favored by Richard Wolff, a retired economics professor at UMass Amherst, they had become "hostage to their donors."
Garner was essentially the leader of the anti-union Democrats — United Mine Workers leader John L. Lewis famously described him as "a labor-baiting, poker-playing, whiskey-drinking, evil old man" — but he was not alone. While moderate or conservative Democrats had varying views on FDR's policies overall, they had zero patience for sit-down strikes, describing them as agents of anarchy and tyranny, redolent of Communist influence. Roosevelt himself was forced to back away, remaining neutral during the "Little Steel Strike" of 1937 out of fear of dividing the party and alienating Democratic voters. (Garner also went to war over FDR's attempt to reform the reactionary Supreme Court, which conservatives derided as "court packing" — and that history is a big part of the reason Biden is unwilling to alter the court.)
Sit-down strikes have largely disappeared from the labor movement, partly because a dwindling proportion of Americans work in large industrial facilities. There are conceptual echoes of the tactic, adjusted for the Zoom era, in the current age of the Great Resignation, which also challenges the implicit notion that workers must play by the rules of the game — as set by the owners of capital — and have no power to change them. Like sit-down strikes, the Big Quit challenges the validity of that entire system, which means that experts and pundits respond by pronouncing gravely that it's a terrible idea.
In an interview with Salon, Wolff observed that the entire idea that there is something special or sacred about private property is ridiculous. Private property, like every other aspect of economics, is a concept created by human beings, who can revise that concept and the social rules around it at any time. Culture and history have trained us to be horrified when workers seek to make fundamental changes in the rules regarding property relations — but Wolff says that the rich and powerful do that all the time.
"Private property is violated every single day here in the United States," he said. "It's only a question of who's violating it and for what purpose. When workers occupy a place and some yowling capitalist tells you about 'private property,' [that's] a ploy. It's a way to try to solve a problem." Practices like eminent domain — in which a person can be forced to sell private property if a government body declares it's needed for an alleged social purpose — have existed for centuries, and are often manipulated by wealthy developers, for instance.
Although it's unlikely the sit-down strikes of the 1930s will ever be repeated, Wolff suggests those strikers may be remembered for pointing the way forward, toward a more humane way to work. "It was a very profound movement forward that these auto workers did in Michigan by sitting in," he said. Whether they knew it or not, they were fighting not just for their own employment rights but for something much larger, which Wolff describes as "a displacement of the employee system by a democratization of the workplace where workers run their own businesses." Sit-down strikes, he said, were "a transitory step from the one to the other."
Nearly a century later, we're not much closer to a full "democratization of the workplace." But workers of the decentered gig economy and the work-from-home COVID economy are arriving at the same realization industrial workers had during the Depression: It's possible to change the rules, and maybe even the game.