New certified totals from the Iowa Caucuses reveal that Rick Santorum finished ahead of Mitt Romney by 34 votes. Iowa GOP Party Chairman Matt Strawn discusses.
By NBC's Alex Moe
Updated at 2:55 p.m. ET
Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn says Rick Santorum is the winner of the Iowa Caucus. Period.
After the Republican Party of Iowa released the final certified results Thursday morning with eight missing precincts, Strawn released a statement saying he wanted to congratulate both "Senator Santorum and Governor Romney on a hard-fought effort during the closest contest in caucus history.” The press release specifically did not state a specific winner of the Jan 3. Caucus, rather implying it was a tie.
But this afternoon, Strawn went on WHO Radio in Iowa and announced there should be no “ambiguity,” that Santorum is, in fact, the winner.
"Certified results show Rick Santorum leading or won by 34 votes,” Strawn told Jan Mickelson, noting that he needed to apologize to Santorum for any misunderstanding.
On MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports," Strawn said, "In the wee hours of Jan. 4 ... I explained we had a two-week certification process."
Thursday afternoon, NBC News reported that Santorum aides say received a phone call from Mitt Romney offering congratulations for the new result in the Iowa caucuses.
The switch of views comes just hours after a prominent Iowa Republican, Craig Robinson, called for Strawn’s removal as chairman.
“Matt Strawn should be removed as RPI Chairman for refusing to declare Santorum the winner. The votes are either certified or they are not,” tweeted Robinson, who was the state party's political director last cycle.
It is unclear whether Strawn felt pressure from other prominent leaders in Iowa to make the switch, but the chairman was very assertive on the radio program -- even further acknowledging that if the missing precincts were able to be counted, if the results they currently have for them stuck, Santorum would be the winner either way.
But it is common knowledge in the Hawkeye State that Strawn has hopes of running for higher office in the state and obviously would not want complications over caucus results surrounding any run.
Many, though, wonder if the caucus process as a whole can continue in this fashion -- a process of hand-writing names on pieces of paper like a straw poll.
"One of the strengths of the Iowa caucus process is that the state was a level, fair playing field. Candidates could come to the state and get an honest airing. There aren't political machines or a history of fraud. The inaccurate counting tarnishes that reputation,” longtime Des Moines Register reporter David Yepsen told NBC News Thursday.
There has not been any official press release from the Republican Party of Iowa naming Santorum the winner, but the Santorum campaign and Strawn have. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell contributed to this report.
In this Jan. 7, 1997 photo, House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia and his wife Marianne leave their home for Capitol Hill.
By msnbc.com staff and wire reports
Updated Thursday at 1:15 p.m. ET
In excerpts of an interview scheduled to air on Thursday night, Marianne Gingrich claims that her ex-husband, Newt Gingrich, sought an "open marriage" before their own relationship ended.
In the interview with ABC News, Marianne Gingrich claims that when the then-House speaker told her of a long-term, six-year affair he was having with a congressional staffer (Callista Bisek, now his third wife), he asked if he could remain married to Marianne and continue the affair.
"I just stared at him and he said, 'Callista doesn't care what I do,'" Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. "He wanted an open marriage and I refused."
In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Newt Gingrich's ex-wife Marianne Gingrich claimed the former speaker's asked her for an "open marriage" and to allow him to continue his affair with then-mistress Calista.
Marianne Gingrich, the former speaker's second wife, also alleged that her ex-husband conducted his affair "in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington."
She also said Gingrich moved to divorce her just months after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. "He also was advised by the doctor when I was sitting there that I was not to be under stress," she said. "He knew."
According to Marianne Gingrich, her relationship with him began while Newt Gingrich was still married, but in divorce proceedings, with his first wife, Jackie. At the time, Jackie Gingrich was being treated for cancer. In a second interview with The Washington Post, Marianne Gingrich said her ex-husband asked for a divorce in May 1999, shortly before giving a speech on family values.
She asked in that conversation with The Washington Post, "How could he ask me for a divorce on Monday and within 48 hours give a speech on family values and talk about how people treat people?"
In an interview with NBC's TODAY on Thursday, before the ABC News excerpts were released, Newt Gingrich vowed that he won't say "anything negative" about his former wife.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich talks to TODAY's Ann Curry about his presidential candidacy, defends his comments about the poor and says he's not going to criticize his ex-wife, who has promised to give an explosive interview to ABC News.
According to The Washington Post, at a campaign stop in South Carolina on Thursday, he called the statements by Marianne Gingrich, "tawdry and inappropriate," but wouldn't go further. His third wife, Callista Gingrich, stood a few feet behind him.
As word spread Wednesday about the interview with Marianne Gingrich, the campaign responded with something of a "prebuttal."
In advance of that interview, the campaign released a statement Wednesday night from Gingrich's daughters from his first marriage, Kathy Lubbers and Jackie Cushman.
They wrote:
The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events.
We will not say anything negative about our father’s ex-wife. He has said before, privately and publicly, that he regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.
ABC News or other campaigns may want to talk about the past, just days before an important primary election. But Newt is going to talk to the people of South Carolina about the future– about job creation, lower taxes, and about who can defeat Barack Obama by providing the sharpest contrast to his damaging, extreme liberalism. We are confident this is the conversation the people of South Carolina are interested in having.
Our father is running for President because of his grandchildren – so they can inherit the America he loves. To do that, President Obama must be defeated. And as the only candidate in the race, including Obama, who has actually helped balance the national budget, create jobs, reform welfare, and cut taxes and spending, Newt felt compelled to run - to serve his country and safeguard his grandchildren's future.
President
Barack Obama and Orlando, Fla. Mayor Buddy Dyer, right, walk over to
greet onlookers after arriving at Orlando International Airport in
Orlando, Fla., Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012.
By The Associated Press
Updated at 1:55p.m. ET
Targeting
prize electoral territory, President Barack Obama called Thursday for
America to become the world's top travel destination, making an economic
pitch to Florida voters from the Magic Kingdom ahead of an upcoming
Republican presidential primary.
"America is open for business," Obama declared in his talk in front
of the sun-splashed Cinderella Castle in the heart of Disney World. "We
want to welcome you," he said.
Obama issued an executive order seeking to boost tourist visa
processing in China and Brazil and took additional steps including
promoting national parks and adding business executives to a tourism
advisory board.
The goal is to significantly increase travel and tourism in the
United States. The White House said that more than 1 million U.S. jobs
could be created over the next decade, according to industry
projections, if the U.S. increases its share of the international travel
market.
"The more folks who visit America, the more Americans we get back to work. It's that simple," Obama said.
Trumpeting America's attractions, Obama rattled off a list of
can't-miss tourist sites from Yellowstone and Yosemite national parks to
the Golden Gate Bridge and the skyline of his native Chicago.
"We've got the best product to sell. I mean, look at where we are.
We've got the most entertaining destinations in the world. This is the
land of extraordinary natural wonders," he said.
Beyond the economic case, Obama's trip to the tourist mecca was the
latest bid by the White House and his campaign to steal a share of the
spotlight from Republicans vying for the GOP presidential nomination.
Obama held a live video conference with Iowa voters during the
Republican caucus, Vice President Joe Biden held a similar event with
voters in New Hampshire on the night of the state's first-in-the-nation
primary, and next week Obama will travel to Nevada, which follows
Florida on the primary calendar.
Obama's high-profile trip to Florida could help him counter attacks
on his record lobbed by Republican presidential candidates during stops
across the state, where tough television ads are already airing. And it
allows Obama to lay the groundwork for the general election campaign in
Florida, a key political battleground he carried in 2008.
The state holds 29 electoral votes, making it a top target for both
Obama and his Republican rivals. Florida twice backed Republican George
W. Bush, providing the decisive electoral votes in the cliffhanger 2000
election that was decided after a 36-day recount.
Republican front-runner Mitt Romney greeted Obama with an open letter
to the president running as an ad in Thursday's editions of the Tampa
Bay Times. "Welcome to Florida," Romney says in the ad. "I have a simple
question for you: Where are the jobs?"
"Perhaps there's some poetic justice in the president speaking from
Fantasyland," Romney added in a conference call with reporters.
"Because, I'm afraid, he's been speaking from Fantasyland for some time
now."
A recent Quinnipiac University poll showed the president in a
near-statistical tie with Romney in Florida in a head-to-head matchup.
Tourism is a key component of the economy in Florida, which is
burdened by 10 percent unemployment and rampant home foreclosures.
Thursday's tourism and travel announcement was part of the president's
"We Can't Wait" initiative aimed at promoting executive actions Obama
can take without congressional approval.
The White House said the travel and tourism industry represent 2.7
percent of gross domestic product and 7.5 million jobs in 2010. But the
U.S. share of spending by international travelers fell from 17 percent
to 11 percent between 2000 and 2010, due to increased competition and
changes in global development, as well as security measures imposed
after Sept. 11, 2001, according to the White House.
Obama's executive order aims to: boost non-immigrant visa processing
capacity in China and Brazil by 40 percent this year; expand a Visa
Waiver Program that allows participating nationals to travel to the U.S.
for stays of 90 days or less without a visa; appoint a new group of
chief executives to the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, and
direct an interagency task force to develop recommendations for a
National Travel and Tourism Strategy, including promoting national parks
and other sites.
That was good news to Brazilian visitors Lilian Lara and Lindbergh
Souza, who welcomed the change in visa procedures as they shopped along
the resort's streets hours before the president's speech.
"It will make things a whole lot better," said Lara, a 22-year-old
student from Sao Paolo, who is working as a summer intern at the theme
park resort.
Souza said the visa process was expensive, at $500, and also time
consuming, especially for Brazilians who don't live close to consuls in
Rio de Janiero and Sao Paulo.
"The whole process took me six months," said Souza, who welcomed the
president's efforts to speed up the visa process especially for visitors
from Brazil and China.
The White House insisted the president's trip to Florida was not
purely political, dismissing suggestions that his itinerary was
connected to a slate of upcoming Republican primaries. Obama spokesman
Jay Carney said there were few tourist destinations "as iconic as Disney
World" and the tourist attractions surrounding Orlando represented a
fitting place to talk about the president's initiatives.
From Florida, Obama was to fly to New York City for four glitzy
campaign fundraisers, including an event at the famed Apollo Theater
featuring performances by Al Green and India.Arie. Tickets to that
fundraiser start at $100.
The president also was to attend a $35,800 per ticket fundraiser at
the home of director Spike Lee, and two small fundraisers at Daniel, an
exclusive Manhattan restaurant. Tickets start at $5,000 for the first
restaurant fundraiser and $15,000 for the second.
Rachael RettnerMyHealthNewsDaily
We've heard married people are happier, but that might not be a reason to rush to the altar, according to a new study.
In
terms of health, self-esteem, and psychological well-being, marriage
offers little benefit over simply living together without wedding rings,
the study found.
It's the relationship itself, rather than its
official status, that's key to its benefits, said study researcher Kelly
Musick, an associate professor of policy analysis and management at
Cornell University's College of Human Ecology.
"Being in a romantic relationship, irrespective of the legal form, does provide benefits over remaining single," Musick said.
Moreover, the findings suggest that for some, cohabitation may
be the better option than marriage, Musick said. Participants who
cohabited in the study were happier and had greater self-esteem than
those who were married. This may be because cohabitation offers more
room for independence and personal growth, which may be particularly
important for some people at certain stages in life, Musick said.
The study is published in the February issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family. Marriage vs. cohabitationMany
previous studies looking at the benefits of marriage have focused on
comparing married couples with single people, or comparing married with
cohabiting couples at one point in time.
The new study followed
2,737 single men and women over six years to see what happened when they
entered a relationship or got married. The study data were drawn from
national surveys given in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Participants
rated their overall health and happiness, and were also asked questions
to assess their self -esteem, depression and the strength of their ties
to friends and family.
Over the study period, close to 900 participants married or began living with a romantic partner.
In
general, both marriage and cohabitation came with an uptick in well
being. Those who got married or started living with a partner
experienced higher levels of happiness, and lower levels of depression, than those who remained single, although these advantages faded with time.
People
who married did report better overall health compared with those who
cohabited, which may be explained by the entitlements (such as health
insurance for spouses) that come with marriage.
However, marriage
and cohabitation also reduced contact with family and friends compared
to being single, and this effect lasted over time.
The researchers
noted it's been about 20 years since the surveys they used were
performed, and the relative benefits of marriage versus cohabitation may
have changed in recent years.
However, it's not clear whether
their findings would be more or less true today, Musick said. On the one
hand, the experiences of marriage and cohabitation have become
increasingly similar. But on the other hand, marriage may still hold a
greater social status than cohabitation in the United States, she said. Better off married?The
new findings are extremely valuable because they provide a clearer
picture of the advantages of marriage, and counter the view that
"marriage is the solution to so many of our problems" said Gary Lee,
professor and chair department of sociology at Bowling Green State
University in Ohio, who was not involved in the study. "I think that’s
an incredibly naive view," Lee said.
People who claim marriage brings great benefits to everyone "are kind of cherry-picking the research," Lee said.
In
reality, the people who aren't getting married may not be doing so
because it won’t make them any better off, Lee said. In today's economic
environment, marriage does not bring the same financial benefits as it
used it, he said.
The researchers emphasized that "we are
certainly not saying that marriage is irrelevant for individual
well-being," Musick said. For some, marriage may be a great source of happiness.
Still, the findings call into question the value of using limited resources on campaigns to promote marriage over
other family forms, Musick said. More research is needed to better
inform policy-makers about the advantages, or lack thereof, of such
campaigns.
The U.S. job market is showing more signs of getting back on a solid footing. That's especially true for state and local government workers, the target of sharp cutbacks as tax revenues dried up during the Great Recession and its aftermath. The government offered fresh evidence of a slowdown in job losses Thursday as the number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits plummeted last week to 352,000, the fewest since April 2008. Applications fell 50,000, the biggest drop in the seasonally adjusted figure in more than six years, the Labor Department said. The four-week average, which smooths out fluctuations, dropped to 379,000, the second-lowest level in more than three years.
"This continues a clear downshift in claims," said Ian Shepherdson, an economist at High Frequency Economics.
The drop in claims follows continued, gradual improvement in the pace of hiring. In December, employers added 200,000 jobs, the sixth straight month of net gains of 100,000 or more. The renewed hiring pushed the jobless rate down to 8.5 percent, a three-year low. The improvement was also driven by a slowdown in layoffs in public sector jobs following a wave of deep cuts.
For the past three years, government payrolls at all levels have been rapidly shedding workers. Since April 2009, some 700,000 jobs have been cut from all levels of government – interrupted by a spike in federal hiring for the 2010 Census. State and local governments, most of which are required to balance their budget every year, saw the biggest declines in payrolls.
Those job cuts began to slow last year as the economy began showing signs of strength; during the second half of the year government payrolls were roughly flat.
The slowdown in job cuts comes as state and local government finances have begun to stabilize. Many states and municipalities suffered something of a financial hangover last year after the expiration of billions of dollars of state aid provided by the 2009 federal stimulus package.
State and local finances have also turned around as the improvement in the overall job market and the economy has boosted incomes and has helped sales tax receipts to recover. And though home prices continue falling in many parts of the country, the rapid drop in local property tax receipts has begun to ease.
If those two trends continue this year, according to Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips, the job outlook for government workers should continue to improve.
“Assuming that these assumptions prove correct, it is likely that state and local payrolls will stabilize later this year, though we wouldn't expect state and local governments to add meaningfully to payrolls until at least 2013,” Phillips said in a research note this week.
Slowing or ending public sector job cuts would also help keep the economic recovery on track; heavy government layoffs have been a significant drag on the overall economy. Phillips noted that state and local governments employ roughly one in seven U.S. workers, and state and local government spending makes up roughly 11 percent of GDP.
As a result of the improved financial outlook, Goldman Sachs economists are forecasting that state and local spending will shift gradually from being a slight drag on the economy through the first half of this year gradually into a slight contributor to growth by the second half of 2013.
An end to government layoffs this year would also help ease the mismatch between job seekers to job openings, which now stands at roughly four to one. But it will take continued improvement in private sector hiring to make a big dent in the overall unemployment rate. The 1.6 million jobs added in 2011 were a big improvement over the 940,000 net job gains in in 2010. Economists expect roughly 1.9 million more jobs to be added this year, according to a survey by The Associated Press.
At that rate, it would take until 2016 to replace the roughly six million workers still sidelined by job losses from the 2007 recession, which wiped out 8.7 million jobs. More than 13 million people remain out of work. Millions more have given up looking for work and so are no longer counted as unemployed.
Don't get so excited about the jobless claims number, says CNBC's Steve Liesman. Weekly jobless claims dropped 50,000 to 352,000 last week. CNBC's Rick Santelli also weighs in.
In the days ahead of Saturday's South Carolina primary NBC's Tom Brokaw learned about the issues most important to people in the Palmetto State for the Nightly News series Main Street, USA.
By Tom Brokaw NBC NewsColumbia, S.C.
There are only two days left until South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary and a new NBC News/Marist poll shows former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is gaining ground. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has a 10-point lead over Gingrich, but Gingrich now has the support of 24 percent of likely Republican primary voters in the state – and the support of the latest candidate to drop-out, Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
I spent two full days in South Carolina, from Greenville-Spartanburg to Columbia and many stops between, including the old mill towns of Laurens and Newberry. The Palmetto State has so many parts -- the coastal areas, the midlands, the western front -- and they're all distinct in their geography and culture. But after speaking with people throughout the region, I found nearly everyone agreed that this year the economy trumps all in South Carolina, a deeply religious state where social issues such as abortion and gay rights have played larger roles in the past.
NBC's Tom Brokaw spoke with Ron Paul supporters at a "debate watch party" at Bailey's Pub and Grille in Greenville South Carolina.
Ernie Segars, the county administrator in Laurens, S.C., said although religious issues are “very important” to voters, “jobs and the economy are the major issues right now.”
“I think when the economy’s better and things are improved, and certainly the social issues are important and will have a role,” Segars said. Watch Tom Brokaw tonight on “Nightly News” as he connects with voters in the political battleground of South Carolina, the second in a series of reports called “Main Street, USA.” Click HERE to watch the first report, from Iowa.
Gov. Nikki Haley, a Tea Party darling who has struggled with her ratings her first year in office, echoed that sentiment.
“We’re looking for a president that understands it’s all about jobs,” said Haley, who has endorsed Romney. “The hardest part about my job has been the Obama administration … The people of South Carolina saw that we passed by the will of the people legal immigration reform and the Department of Justice stopped it … The people have experienced the mandates and the stops of the federal government and they’re frustrated with it. And so they’re looking for someone that can go in day one and say, ‘Lay off the states, let them do their jobs and let’s get people back to work.’”
South Carolina's unemployment rate has hovered close to 10 percent, even with a new BMW plant and the arrival of some support industries.
I also spoke with the state’s U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican who is being criticized by his own party and a variety of other party activists for his occasional departure from Republican orthodoxy.
“The question for the Republican party, would we put raising revenue on the table to solve our entitlement problem?” he asked. “Will our Democratic friends put on the table working longer and reducing benefits? And every time you put these ideas on the table, people come at you pretty hard.”
NBC's Tom Brokaw speaks with South Carolina's Sen. Lindsey Graham.
After talking with dozens of people, I encountered the most passionate opinions at a Ron Paul debate party at Bailey’s sports bar in Greenville: all working class and mostly young, many of whom had not been involved in politics before.
I asked Sandy Monroe what she found so appealing about Ron Paul.
“He challenged my ideas,” she said. “He sent me back to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and to the Founding Fathers … He could win if the people understood what he stood for. If people like me would actually go study what he says, it makes sense. And it’s our freedom that he’s talking about.”
But for Robert Whitney, “it’s a trust issue.”
“Everything that Romney says, he’s flip-flopped too much,” Whitney said. “When there’s big government people saying that Ron Paul has integrity, that he’s a man that stands by his word, then I mean, I think that’s all the proof you need.” Tune in to “Nightly News” tonight for more of Tom Brokaw’s reporting from South Carolina and join the conversation on the “Nightly News” Facebook page.
Perry drops out of GOP presidential race, endorses Gingrich
David Goldman / AP
Republican presidential candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry pauses while announcing he is suspending his campaign and endorsing Newt Gingrich, Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012, in North Charleston, S.C.
By NBC News, msnbc.com staff and wire reports
Updated at 12:30 p.m. ET
Texas Governor Rick Perry announced Thursday morning that he is dropping out of the presidential race and is endorsing Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination.
"There is no viable path forward for me," he told supporters on Thursday. "I gave fully of myself for a cause worthy of this country," he added. Perry said it was time for him to make a "strategic retreat."
Spokesman Ray Sullivan told reporters after the announcement that money was a factor; that the campaign had gone through "the bulk of our friends." He added that Perry is not yet ruling out running for re-election as governor or making another play for the White House in four years.
Of Gingrich, Perry said Thursday, "Newt is not perfect, but who among us is?" Perry continued, "There is forgiveness for those who seek God." He applauded Gingrich as "a conservative visionary who can transform our country."
The former House speaker watched Perry's speech from his campaign bus, parked outside of Beaufort, S.C. He said he was "honored and humbled" by the endorsement. He called Perry a "great patriot."
Gingrich's candidacy has been boosted by strong debate performances, with another debate scheduled for Thursday. But he's likely to receive more unflattering attention when ABC News airs an interview with his second wife, Marianne Gingrich. In the interview, Marianne Gingrich says Gingrich asked her for an "open marriage" in which he could have both a wife and a mistress, and she refused. Story: Gingrich ex-wife says he sought 'open' relationship
Perry's withdrawal and endorsement of Gingrich is a further sign that he's emerging as the main rival to Romney, who has failed to persuade many Republicans of his conservative credentials.
Perry had faced calls to drop out of the race to compel conservative voters, whose support has been divided among several conservative candidates, to rally behind Gingrich in hopes of stopping Romney. Recent polls show Gingrich gaining steam heading into the South Carolina primary, but he still trails Romney by about 10 percentage points.
Texas Governor Rick Perry holds a press conference in North Charleston, S.C., to announce he is dropping his presidential bid and endorsing Newt Gingrich.
Saturday's contest has been seen as the pivotal battle in the race, following what had initially been declared a narrow victory for Romney in Iowa, the first nominating contest, and a solid Romney win in last week's New Hampshire primary. Since 1980, no Republican has won the presidential nomination without a victory in the state.
But Republican officials said Thursday that Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, edged the former Massachusetts governor in Iowa by 34 votes, though no winner was declared because some votes remain missing. Story: Santorum declares victory after revised Iowa caucus total
Perry entered the race last August to great fanfare and high poll numbers. But his standing quickly fell after a series of campaign blunders. During a nationally televised debate in early November, he could not remember the name of the third Cabinet department he had pledged to eliminate. "Oops," he told the audience. He later admitted of the gaffe, "I stepped in it."
Perry finished fifth in both Iowa and New Hampshire and, at one at one point said he was going to go back to Texas to reassess his path forward, but then headed to South Carolina instead. Recommended: Rick Perry slideshow
The Texas governor's decision comes after a disappointing campaign and just days before the critical South Carolina primary, NBC News' Carrie Dann reports.
Perry made his announcement to withdraw from the race just hours before Thursday night's GOP debate. He was joined on stage by his wife Anita and son, Griffin, and stressed that the Republican Party "transcends any one individual."
He said that "the campaign has never been about the candidates," and lamented, "a calling never guarantees a particular outcome."
Yesterday, I wrote
about how the GOP is falsely pushing the argument that America’s
corporations are overtaxed. I included some great data courtesy of
conservative commentator Bruce Bartlett whose New York Times piece did an extraordinary job of putting the lie to the Republican assertions.
Today, and not a moment too soon, the non-profit Citizens For Tax Justice (CTJ) has
put out their findings revealing that twelve of the nations largest
Fortune 500 companies, while making $170 billion in profits during the
period of The Great Recession, paid an effective tax rate of negative 1.5%.
Yes, you read that correctly.
Not only have these twelve companies paid zero in taxes for the years 2008-2010, they actually received tax subsidies that added $62.4 billion to their bottom lines.
The companies were chosen by the CTJ to represent a range of
industries, including manufacturing, energy, services, transportation
and high tech and include – in alphabetical order – American Electric
Power, Boeing, Dupont, Exxon Mobil, FedEx, General Electric, Honeywell
International, IBM, United Technologies, Verizon Communications, Wells
Fargo and Yahoo.
Here are the bullet points presented by the report:
From 2008 through 2010, these 12 companies reported $171 billion in
pretax U.S. profits. But as a group, their federal income taxes were
negative: –$2.5 billion.
All but two of the dozen companies enjoyed at least one no-tax year
over the 2008-10 period, despite reporting substantial pretax U.S.
profits in those no-tax years.
Eight of the twelve companies reported net tax benefits over the full three-year period.
According to the study, not a single one of these companies paid an amount even close to the 35% statutory tax rate.
In fact, the tax rate paid by Exxon Mobile, when spread over the full
three years, was only 14.2% – a full 60% below the 35% rate that
corporations are supposed to be paying. And if we take a look at what
Exxon paid over just the past two years, it totals a mere 0.4% on their
pre-tax profits of $9.9 billion.
And get this – Exxon Mobile paid the most in taxes of any of the twelve companies on the list.
Here is my favorite part – had just these twelve companies paid at
the actual 35% tax rate the GOP is telling us they are chaffing under,
the sum would have added a full 12% to the totals the United States of
America’s treasury received through corporate taxes.
We sure could use that money.
Take a look at this chart, provided courtesy of Thinkprogress.com, and be amazed.
What I don’t know is whether or not the preponderance of American
corporations are getting away with the same kind of tax avoidance that
these twelve companies are managing to pull off.
Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, seems to believe that they are.
These 12 companies are just the tip of an iceberg of
widespread corporate tax avoidance. Our elected officials have a duty to
the American public to make reducing or eliminating the vast array of
corporate tax subsidies the centerpiece of any deficit-reduction
strategy.
McIntyre is certainly right when he points out the duty of our
elected officials. But they are not the only ones with such a
responsibility.
We, as voters, also have a duty to react when the GOP majority in the
House of Representatives tries to tell us we need to reduce this
phantom corporate rate from 35% to 25% so that these corporations can
pay even less in taxes while they pocket even greater amounts of
taxpayer money via corporate subsidies.
Worse still, Boehner, Ryan and friends have the unmitigated gall to
make their pitch while asking the rest of us to give up the social
programs that are so essential to most Americans.
Seriously, people, do we need an anvil to fall on our heads before we get it?
These numbers don’t lie – but your GOP Member of Congress is and it’s time to come to terms with this.
For those of you who continue to buy into the belief that following
what passes for conservative ideology today will save this country, the
rest of us really need you to approach this issue with a more open mind.
We ask that in the hope that you might arrive at the conclusion that
you are being played solely for the benefit of these large corporations
and wealthy Americans who stand in line to bankroll these Republican
politicians.
The time to do it is now as we take on the issue of raising the nation’s debt ceiling.
If you don’t believe we should raise our ability to take on more debt because we spend more than we should, I get it.
However, if you believe that the answer to lowering the debt is to cut or destroy services and benefit programs that you
depend upon while allowing wealthy corporations and individuals to
severely underpay their taxes – or simply pay none at all – then you
must examine this self-destructive streak that will, unfortunately, take
us all down with you.
The Democrats will agree to budget and deficit cuts when the GOP
agrees to get rid of the corporate subsidies and tax shell games that
allow the kind of results disclosed today by the CTJ. The Democrats will
agree to budget cuts when the GOP agrees to raise taxes on those
earning over a million dollars per year.
How does this hurt you?
It doesn’t.
But allowing those who want to sucker you into paying for our deficit
while giving a complete pass to the corporate and wealthy interests will
most assuredly cause you and your family enormous pain.
The American middle-class must take a step back from the ideological
precipice and review what is in their own best interest. Destroying
Medicare and Medicaid is not the answer. Threatening to create havoc in
the world economic system by playing chicken with the debt ceiling (and
no, we don’t know for certain that this will happen but is it really
necessary to test it?) is not the answer.
We need to get spending under control to be sure. But we also need to
require the entities who have bought their way into legalized greed to
pay up. Clearly, they aren’t prepared to do this because it is in the
national interest. Thus, we must force them to do so with the only
weapon we possess – our votes.
The U.S. is losing its fundamental competitiveness and ability to generate competitive companies and rising wages, says Michael Porter, Harvard Business School professor, who reveals results from a recent study on competitiveness.
By Scott Malone
updated
1/18/2012 9:09:28 AM ET
BOSTON — The
United States is becoming less economically competitive versus other
nations, with political gridlock and a weak primary education system
seen as the main drag, according to a survey released on Wednesday.
In particular, the nation is falling behind emerging market rivals
and just keeping pace with other advanced economies, according to a
Harvard Business School survey of 9,750 of its alumni in the United
States and 121 other countries.
Seventy-one percent of respondents expected the U.S. to become less
competitive, less able to compete in the global economy with U.S. firms
less able to pay high wages and benefits, the study found.
The findings come at a time when high unemployment is a major concern
for Americans, with 23.7 million out-of-work and underemployed, and the
economy the top issue ahead of November's presidential election.
"The U.S. is losing out on business location decisions at an alarming
rate" said Michael Porter, a Harvard Business School professor who was a
co-author of the study.
U.S. companies, which slashed headcount sharply during the 2007-2009
recession, have been slow to rehire since the downturn's official end
and some have continued to cut. This month, Archer Daniels Midland Co,
Kraft Foods Inc and Novartis AG all said they would be cutting U.S. jobs
this year.
Survey respondents said they remained more likely to move operations
out of the United States than back in. Of 1,005 who considered
offshoring facilities in the past year, 51 percent decided to move
versus just 10 percent who opted to keep their facilities in the
country, with the balance not yet decided.
Respondents, graduates of the prestigious business school who were
polled from Oct. 4 through Nov. 4, were particularly concerned about how
the United States was shaping up versus emerging nations such as China,
Brazil and India, with 66 percent saying the United States was falling
behind.
Among respondents who had decided to move operations out of the
United States over the past year, 70 percent cited lower wages as the
reason they chose a new location, pointing to what is widely seen as
emerging markets' main advantage.
While the United States held up better compared to other advanced
economies, with about 70 percent saying it was keeping pace
competitively, 21 percent said the U.S. was also falling behind other
wealthy countries, such as those in Western Europe and Japan.
The United States' main disadvantages compared with other advanced
economies were the complexity of its tax code, the ineffectiveness of
its political system and the weakness of its educational system from
kindergarten through high school.
Higher education fared better, with respondents citing high-quality universities as the nation's top competitive advantage.
Asked what the U.S. government could do to improve its competitive
position, respondents top recommendations were to simplify the tax code,
reform immigration policies and reduce the corporate tax rate.
Thomas Donohue, U.S. Chamber of Commerce president & CEO, discusses the state of American business; the U.S. economy, and the impact of President Obama's decision to stall the Keystone pipeline.
A woman walks past a man sleeping on a street in New York in November 2009.
By James Eng, msnbc.com
A
report released Wednesday says the number of homeless people in America
fell slightly between 2009 and 2011 despite a teetering economy, but
homeless advocates say the numbers don’t tell the full story.
The report, “State of Homeless in America 2012,” was issued by the National Alliance to End Homelessness,
a nationwide federation of public, private and nonprofit organizations.
It examined homelessness between 2009 and 2011, a period when the U.S.
economy was dragging itself out of its worst recession since World War
II.
Despite the dire economy, homelessness decreased 1 percent, or by
about 7,000 people, during the period – a development the report’s
authors said was most likely due to a significant investment of federal
money to prevent homelessness and quickly rehouse people who did become
homeless.
The report says an estimated 643,067 people experienced
homelessness in the U.S. on a given night in 2011 – down from 636,017 in
2009.
This translates into a rate of 21 homeless people per 10,000 people.
The
largest decrease was among homeless war veterans. Their numbers went
from 75,609 in 2009 to 67,495 in 2011, a reduction of 11 percent.
Why did the number of homeless drop even while the economy was in the doldrums?
The report cites the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program,
or HPRP, a federal program established with $1.5 billion in funding
from the stimulus package passed by Congress in 2009 at the urging of
President Barack Obama. In 2010, its first year of operation, the
program helped nearly 700,000 at-risk and homeless people, the report
said.
Despite the slight dip in homelessness, there is much reason
for concern and indicators suggest that homelessness may affect more
Americans in the coming years. Among the findings is a 13 percent
increase in “doubled up” households from 2009 to 2011 and a 22 percent
increase in families below the poverty line paying 50 percent or more
of their monthly income on housing.
The effects of the poor
economy on homelessness are expected to escalate over the next few
years, the report says. The money provided by HPRP has run out in many
communities and the program is slated to sunset entirely this fall. And
the fight in Congress over debt and deficit cuts means fewer dollars
will be available to help the homeless.
“In the year since the
data in this report was collected (January 2011), there have already
been reports that the number of homeless people is increasing,”
the authors said. “So while holding the line on homelessness between
2009 and 2011 was a major accomplishment of federal investment and local
innovation, the failure to sustain this early recipe for success
threatens to undermine progress now and in the future.”
Homelessness Research Institute
The data show that nearly half (24) the states and the
District of Columbia had increases in homelessness. State changes range
from a 33 percent decrease in Rhode Island to a 102 percent increase in
Wyoming.
Truth in numbers? Neil
Donovan, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, a
Washington-based nonprofit advocacy group, says the decline in the raw
numbers of homeless is likely based on poor data from the federal
government.
“I think in fact the numbers of homeless individuals
and families have gone up. It’s similar to the job market -- when
numbers go up and down it doesn’t always tell you the full picture but
it tells you how many people are still willing to participate in
activities that result in them being counted as homeless,” he told
msnbc.com.
The coalition is among several advocacy groups that contend the U.S. Census Bureau routinely undercounts homeless people.
Donovan
cites homeless schoolchildren as another example of faulty government
counting. School systems nationwide are required to report the number of
students experiencing homelessness. Last year, they reported a total of
770,000. But by federal government standards only 110,000 of those
children would be considered homeless, due to factors such as the
discounting of students living in hotels or doubled up, Donovan said.
Donovan says it’s likely that the number of homeless is actually getting worse.
“We
have many more homeless families than we did before. When you’re an
individual and you’re homeless, your homelessness can be very, very
difficult. When you’re a family and you’re homeless, it can be
impossible,” Donovan said. “When a person’s homelessness is impossible,
it’s imperative for us to come to their rescue because responsibility is
no longer a part of the conversation.”
Sharon Thomas, spokeswoman
for Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, agreed the numbers don't tell the
full story. She says the Seattle-King County area has added several
thousand new housing units for homeless people in the past few years.
Yet, the number of homeless hasn’t decreased in the same proportion.
“It looks like the numbers are going down, but there seems to be more people who are on the edge,” she said.
She notes the Union Gospel Mission is now serving an average of 1,500 meals a day – up from 1,200 not long ago.
“There
a lot of good people and organizations that care about homeless people
but there’s a lot of people out there who are hurting. We can always do
more.”
By: Patti Domm CNBC Executive News Editor
While U.S. drivers continue to cut back at the
pump, refiners are increasingly sending more gasoline and diesel fuel
overseas, making the U.S. a net exporter of refined products for the
first time in more than a half century.
Mark Lennihan / AP
“This
has been the trend all year,” said oil analyst John Kilduff of Again
Capital. “There’s been consistently poor demand (by consumers) all
year.”
The EIA Thursday reported that U.S. crude demand was down 2.2 percent in October, from a year ago.
Andrew
Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates, said the EIA October data
revealed other important trends. One is that there was another big drop
in consumer gasoline demand, even as prices at the pump came off the
summer highs. The other is that the U.S. increasingly exporting refined
products, led by distillates.
Unlike
gasoline, distillates demand is in fact rising domestically and the
refining industry is producing record amounts, he said. Distillates
include diesel fuel, jet fuel and home heating oil.
“Gasoline
demand is down 4.4 percent for October of this year versus last year,
and conversely they are showing distillate demand is up 4.5 percent,”
Lipow said. Distillate demand is rising in large part because of the use
of diesel fuels by the transportation industry.
Lipow
said the numbers show that the U.S. exported 1.07 million barrels a day
of distillates, which includes diesel fuel, double the 557,000 barrels
two years ago and up from last year’s 870,000 barrels.
Gasoline
exports have also grown to the point where they are getting close to
equaling the amount of imports. The number of exports totaled 562,000
barrels a day, compared to imports of 596,000.
For
all refined petroleum products, the U.S. in the first 10 months of 2011
exported 848 million barrels and imported 750 million. Lipow said he
believes this if the first time since World War II that the U.S. will be
a net exporter of refined petroleum products, but government data on
the EIA website only goes back to 1973.
Even
with its ability to export, the U.S. refining industry is not operating
at peak capacity. It is currently running at a rate of 84.7 percent,
but the picture for the industry could also change in coming months as
the east coast continues to see refineries shut down. Two big closures
are pending in the Mid-Atlantic for 2012.
“One
reason the U.S. is exporting more gasoline is that ethanol has
contributed more fuel supply so refineries have a surplus of gasoline
made strictly from crude oil,” Lipow said.
Some of the reduction in gasoline demand could be coming from conservation and more efficient engines.
Interestingly,
the U.S. in October exported nearly 10 percent, or 93,000 barrels a day
of its ethanol, which was being produced at a near-record level of
906,000 barrels a day. One country receiving some of those imports was
Brazil, a leading producer and consumer of ethanol.
Kilduff
said the drop in consumer gasoline consumption is a longer term trend
but the continued decline is worrisome and reflects a weak economy.
“Even (the weekly report) which should have captured the holiday driving
season was showing 8.6 million barrels (gasoline consumed), which is
low for this time of year,” he said.
Lipow
said he does not anticipate gasoline prices will keep dropping, but he
said the price at the pump may be more directly influenced by the price
of crude oil in the coming year.
“They’ve
(refiners) satisfied demand and exported the balance. It’s all going to
depend on the crude price because in 2012, you have declining demand
and adequate refined supply,” he said.
“Especially
in 2012 to watch, you can imagine that the exports of distillates is
going to be a political issue. We’re even exporting ethanol fuels,” he
said.
Gasoline
prices currently average $3.26 a gallon nationally, according to AAA. In
July, regular unleaded gasoline hit an average high of $4.114 and was
at $3.071 at this time last year.
Diesel
fuel hit a high of $4.845 this summer and is now averaging $3.824 —
well above the price at this time last year of $3.315 per gallon.
House
Speaker John Boehner criticizes the White House over its rejection of
the Keystone oil pipeline project that many Republicans argue would have
created thousands of jobs.
By msnbc.com staff and wires
Updated at 5:45 p.m. ET
President
Barack Obama on Wednesday rejected a Canadian company's plan to build a
U.S.-spanning, 1,700-mile (2,700 kilometer) pipeline to carry oil
across six U.S. states to Texas refineries, raising the stakes on a
bitter election year fight with Republicans.
Though the project promises thousands of temporary jobs for the
recovering U.S. economy, Obama said a February deadline set by Congress
would not allow for a proper review of potential harm from the $7
billion Keystone XL project.
"As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and
arbitrary deadline insisted on by congressional Republicans prevented a
full assessment of the pipeline's impact, especially the health and
safety of the American people, as well as our environment," Obama, a
Democrat, said.
The plan proposed by Calgary-based TransCanada would carry oil from tar sands in western Canada to Texas.
Republicans assailed Obama's decision as a job-killer and said the fight was not over.
And the State Department said the decision was made "without
prejudice," meaning TransCanada can submit a new application once a
route through environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska is
established.
Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer,
said the company plans to do exactly that. If approved, the pipeline
could begin operation as soon as 2014, Girling said.
Republicans were not assuaged.
Newt Gingrich, campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination
in South Carolina, called Obama's decision "stunningly stupid," adding:
"What Obama has done is kill jobs, weaken American security and drive
Canada into the arms of China out of just sheer stupidity."
Sen. John Hoeven, a Republican, has said of the Canadian crude oil: "It's going to go to China if we don't build it here."
But Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada Corp.'s president for energy and oil
pipelines, said last week the company soon will have a new route through
the state of Nebraska "that everyone agrees on."
For now, though, Mitt Romney, the Republican nomination front-runner,
called Obama's decision "as shocking as it is revealing," adding that
it "shows a president who once again has put politics ahead of sound
policy."
The Republican leader of the House, Speaker John Boehner, said Obama was breaking his promise to create jobs.
"This is not the end of this fight," said Boehner. He called the pipeline good for the U.S. economy and a major job creator.
The pipeline proposal has forced the White House to make a
politically risky choice between two important Democratic
constituencies. Many labor unions back the project because of the
prospects of new jobs in a fragile economy. Environmental groups fear
the pipeline could lead to an oil spill disaster.
Some liberal donors threatened to cut off funds to Obama's
re-election campaign to protest the project, which opponents say would
transport "dirty oil" that requires huge amounts of energy to extract.
Obama said his decision was not based on the pipeline's merits but on
what he called an arbitrary Feb. 21 deadline set by Republicans in
Congress. They set the deadline as part of a tax bill that Obama signed
into law in late December.
"I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision,
but it does not change my administration's commitment to American-made
energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil," Obama said.
Under his administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down, Obama said.
"In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to
partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security,"
Obama said.
To underscore the point, Obama signaled that he would not oppose
development of an oil pipeline from Oklahoma to refineries along the
Gulf of Mexico. TransCanada already operates a pipeline from Canada to
Oklahoma.
Refineries in Houston and along the Texas Gulf Coast can handle heavy
crude such as that extracted from Canadian tar sands — the type of oil
that would flow through the Keystone XL pipeline.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he was profoundly disappointed that Obama turned down the pipeline.
Sen. Kent Conrad, a Democrat, said he doesn't believe the Keystone XL
is a dead project. He said the Obama administration did not have enough
time to review the project, given the Republican-imposed timeline.
"I don't believe this is the end of the story," Conrad told The
Associated Press. "My personal view is that it should be constructed.
It's clear Canada is going to develop this resource, and I believe it is
better for our country to have it go here rather than Asian markets."
Bill McKibben, an environmental activist who led opposition to the
pipeline, praised Obama's decision to stand up to what he called a
"naked political threat from Big Oil." Jack Gerard, the oil industry's
top lobbyist, had said last week that Obama faced "huge political
consequences" if he rejected the pipeline.
"It's not only the right thing, it's a very brave thing to do,"
McKibben said. "That's the Barack Obama I think people thought they were
electing back in 2008."
Three oil refineries on US East Coast face possible shutdown
By Trent Novak 22 November 2011
Three
major oil refineries in the Philadelphia area are slated to close by
the end of next summer unless a buyer steps in to purchase them. If
these refineries shut down, 2,000 oil workers will immediately find
themselves unemployed, and the nearby communities are expected to lose
about 20,000 more jobs due to economic aftershocks.
On September
6, Sunoco announced it planned to sell its refineries in Marcus Hook and
South Philadelphia. Later in the month, ConocoPhillips followed suit by
putting its Trainer refinery up for sale and having its workers set the
facility to idling. Together, the three refineries are estimated to
comprise roughly a third of the East Coast’s refining capacity.
In
recent weeks, labor unio n officials have organized a public rally in
Marcus Hook with the declared intention of demonstrating local support
for oil workers, even as a group of prominent Pennsylvania politicians
have requested a federal analysis on the possible consequences of the
refineries’ closure.
Hundreds of workers, union members, and
local residents turned out for the November 6 rally, marching several
blocks from a United Steelworkers (USW) meeting hall to Market Square
Memorial Park alongside the Delaware River. Members of the USW, United
Auto Workers and other unions participated. Afterward, politicians and
union officials gave brief speeches professing their support for
American workers and the Marcus Hook oil workers in particular.
Although
the rally was billed as an effort to mobilize workers and residents,
the implicit agenda was to market the community to potential buyers as a
willing and ready labor pool. An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer quotes
David Miller, president of a USW local, announcing that Marcus Hook and
the other refinery areas are more than willing to help any buyer who
takes over the sites. “Anyone who’s looking to make money, c’mon down
and we’ll all help,” he declared. “Buy all three and you can be the
biggest, baddest dog on the block.” The mayor of Marcus Hook, James D.
Schiliro, declared the purpose of the rally to be “coming together to
show the buyers that we can make it work and we can make them money.”
Senator
Bob Casey (Democrat) and Congressman Pat Meehan (Republican) were also
present. Both men are included on the list of lawmakers seeking a US
Energy Information Administration assessment on how the loss of the
refineries would affect energy prices throughout the region.
While
workers came out of concern over potential job losses, they were
provided with no means of fighting. Instead, the rally was a platform
for the two parties of big business and the nationalist orientation of
the labor unions. One USW local president insisted that “keeping jobs in
the US is an absolute priority,” while other speakers emphasized that
the refinery closings are not a “partisan” issue, but a matter of
“whoever we can work together with.”
The absurdity of a
nationalistic approach and one that uncritically accepts the corporate
control of the energy giants and banks becomes obvious the moment one
examines the economic factors behind Sunoco and ConocoPhillips’s
decision.
All three of the Philadelphia refineries are only
equipped to process a lighter, sweeter variety of crude oil instead of
the heavier, more sour kind used by most refining facilities. Lighter
crude is more expensive, has to be shipped from a handful of countries,
and makes up the vast majority of Sunoco’s crude oil purchases.
An
article by a Reuters market analyst notes that, in July, Sunoco was
getting most of its oil from Nigeria, Norway, and Azerbaijan, with
access to Libya’s light crude hampered by NATO’s military intervention.
Because its East Coast refineries have to import oil from overseas and
lack the technical capability to process heavier varieties, Sunoco’s
expenses on crude ranked among the highest of all energy companies. The
author concludes that “Philadelphia and Marcus Hook are the two worst
refineries to own in the United States” and predicts they will be
converted into storage terminals for transporting natural gas and other
materials from the Marcellus Shale. The cost involved in updating the
refineries to process heavier crude would be prohibitively expensive,
the author wrote, due to international market pressures facing North
American and European companies.
Since the economic crisis began,
the longstanding “peak” in crude oil prices has been replaced with a
marked decline in US demand for refined petroleum products. Refineries
across the nation are now confronted with the possibility that consumer
demand will remain at a long-term low.
This is especially true of
Sunoco, which has a refining and supply sector that has been
unprofitable for 9 out of the past 11 quarters.
Sunoco CEO Lynn
Elsenhans has accordingly pursued a determined policy of manufacturing
divestitures. Sunoco has already sold off two refineries in the Midwest,
closed another Pennsylvania refinery, and pulled out of metallurgical
coke, home heating oil, and chemicals manufacturing. Elsenhans has
stated that the company’s future lies in retail fuel, convenience store
sales, and fuel transportation.
The potential closure of these
three refineries and the economic devastation that will be visited on
the towns that depend on them is just a single facet of the movements of
international capital. There is no “all-American” alternative,
especially when it comes to oil, a natural resource that has led the
United States to pursue war throughout the Middle East and, most
recently, in Libya. From the standpoint of the nationally based unions,
“keeping jobs at home” means transforming the US into a platform for
cheap labor, as has already happened in the auto industry, not uniting
energy workers around the world to defend jobs for all.
Bruce,
who has worked in both the Marcus Hook and trainer refineries for most
of his life, said his situation is representative of most workers at the
refinery. In many cases, workers have been there for 24-25 years. He
also expressed his worries that education in the area would be gutted as
local schools lose their tax base.
Nick, a union member at the
Marcus Hook rally, remarked that even if the refineries are used to
transport natural gas or for some other alternative, all of the
estimates he has seen show that only about half of the labor force would
be retained.
Nick went on to say, “large companies take the
human element out of it” and “just leave without preparing the people or
helping them retrain.”
This is precisely the problem
with a social system based on the profit motive rather than genuine
human need. The ruling class has no room for a “human element” in the
present economic crisis because it has to scramble and fight for its own
interests. Sunoco incurred a $17 million loss in refining and supply
last quarter. From the perspective of the company and its executives,
the livelihoods of thousands of people are insignificant in comparison.
If
the right to good-paying and secure jobs, decent schools and
neighborhoods is to take priority, the working class must fight for the
nationalization of the oil monopolies under democratic control, as part
of the socialist reorganization of economic life in the US and
internationally.
