Rachel's News #857: Explaining the News

[Guest guest]

rachel

Rachel's News #857: Explaining the News

Fri, 2 Jun 2006 12:24:12 -0400

..

..

The national conference on precaution opens next week (June

9) in Baltimore. Not registered? No problem. Just show up

at the door. You'll be welcome.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #857

" Environment, health, jobs and justice--Who gets to decide? "

Thursday, June 1, 2006..................Printer-friendly version

www.rachel.org -- To make a secure donation,

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Featured stories in this issue...

 

The Context of Our Work: Slow Economic Growth, Part 1

As we all struggle to create a decent, peaceable world where

everyone has enough of what they need, our work takes place within

contexts that are often invisible. One such context is the slowed rate

of economic growth since the 1970s. It explains much of what's in the

news each day.

Tyranny of the Christian Right

An article about Christian nationalism may seem far afield from

" environmental health. " That is, until you realize that the U.S. is

now controlled by a political party that derives its electoral

strength from an unlikely coalition of Christian nationalists and

plutocrats (the wealthiest 2% of Americans). As Republican Kevin

Phillips points out in his new book, American Theocracy, about 55%

of Republicans who voted in the last presidential election believe the

world is going to end soon in a bloody conflagration -- and if that's

the case, why spend time worrying about the natural environment or

human health?

Rising Rate of Twin Births May Be Tied to Bovine Growth Hormone

Monsanto has always claimed that its bovine growth hormone (known

variously as rBGH, rBST and bovine somatotropin), injected into cows

to make them give more milk, would have no effect on humans drinking

the milk. Now a study indicates that women who drink Monsanto-

modified milk (about 1/3 of all milk in the U.S.) are five times as

likely to give birth to twins (compared to those drinking normal

milk). Twin births can endanger the health of both the mother and the

babies.

The Fight to Take Back Our Water

Multi-national corporations are busy privatizing public water

utilities across the U.S. They now control 15% of our water. With

concerns over price gouging and poor service, communities in Illinois

and elsewhere are starting to fight back.

Middle Class Losing Hope for the American Dream

Corporate profits and employment are strong. Yet the American dream

of a steady job with benefits like healthcare and vacation pay is

growing more elusive for many people. While corporate executives are

taking home record paychecks, the middle and working classes are

treading water at best.

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #857, Jun. 1, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

THE CONTEXT OF OUR WORK: SLOW ECONOMIC GROWTH, PART 1

 

By Peter Montague

 

In the U.S., what we call " the system " is beset by multiple crises.

 

** The end of cheap oil is coming.

 

** Global warming is upon us.

 

** Water shortages are worsening in the U.S. and globally.

 

** Rising inequality divides the top 2% from the rest of us.

 

** The rising cost of medical care and the high cost of medical

insurance weigh on the minds of most people.

 

** The promise of secure retirement is fading for many aging boomers

(which of course affects their children).

 

** The social safety net created after the Great Depression is being

shredded bit by bit year after year.

 

** Families and indeed the nation are deeply in debt.

 

** Widespread insecurity afflicts large portions of the populace (good

jobs disappearing, debt rising, the children's future uncertain).

 

** A serious time crunch has beset many families.

 

** Some ecological limits have appeared on the horizon (no place left

to throw away toxics; cost of some resources critical rising, etc.).

 

** The political party that controls the White House, the Congress,

and much of the judiciary now owes its electoral success to a large

group of people who believe the world is going to end soon, which may

make earthly problems seem unimportant to many of them. For the first

time in American history, a religious party now controls the

government.[1]

 

Perhaps the future is bright

 

Perhaps " the system " will navigate through all these interlocking

crises without encountering any serious economic difficulties, but

perhaps not. It seems possible that as the combined effect of all

these problems grips the nation more tightly, economic growth-rates

may slow down further, dipping below their current levels.

 

Unfortunately, we are already getting a preview of how " the system "

will respond to slowing growth. The rate of economic growth (measured

by GDP) has been slowing for the past 35 years,[2,3,4,5,6] and the

system's response has not been pretty. Without going into a lot of

detail, I believe much of what passes for " the news " each day can best

be explained as " system responses " to slowed growth.

 

For the 100 years spanning 1870 to 1970, the U.S. economy (measured by

gross domestic product, or GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 3.4%

per year. Since 1970, the U.S. economy has grown just 2.3% per

year.[5,pg.5] This may seem like a small difference, but it really

isn't because the effects are cumulative, year after year. The

difference between two percent and three percent isn't one percent --

it's fifty percent.[5,pg.7; 6,pgs.63-75]

 

Here's another way to look at it: if the U.S. economy had grown at

3.4% per year since 1973, instead of 2.3%, the additional wealth

created during the two decades 1973-1993 would have added up to an

extra $12 trillion (adjusted for inflation) -- enough to replace every

factory in the U.S., including all capital equipment, with a modern

new factory; or enough to pay off the entire government debt plus all

home mortgage debt plus all credit card debt.[5,pg.5]

 

If economic growth had maintained its historical level since 1970, the

average family in 1993 would have had an additional $5,500 to spend

each year. Over the 20 years, 1973-1993, the average family would have

had at least an additional $50,000 of income -- enough for a young

couple to buy a first home, a low-income family to maintain health

insurance, or for someone to go to college. State and local

governments would have collected an additional $900 billion in taxes

during the 20 years -- to support schools, libraries, parks, public

transit, emergency services, police and fire protection, affordable

housing, local economic development, and so on. [5,pgs.10-11]

 

The U.S. is not unique. The trend of declining growth-rates can be

seen in all the wealthy nations of the world, the 29 members of the

OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development]. During

each passing decade since 1970, growth in OECD countries has declined,

compared to the previous decade.[6,pg.38] The trend of slowing growth

doesn't affect just the average family. Even more importantly, it

affects the super rich -- in the U.S., the one percent of us who own

50% of all private wealth, or, more broadly, the 5% of us who own

2/3rds of all private wealth.[7]

 

Understandably, the wealthiest few expect a decent return when they

invest their capital, and slow growth makes decent returns hard to

find.

 

What is a decent return on investment? Here's one way to answer that

question. When the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

considers a new regulation (for example, to control mercury emitted by

power plants) the agency asks whether the benefits justify the costs.

They say to themselves, " This regulation will cost industry X dollars

per year. How much wealth could those dollars create if they were

invested with a return of Y percent per year? In that equation, OMB

now sets Y equal to 7 percent. OMB assumes a typical business

investment should yield a 7% annual return.[8]

 

Of course in recent years, many investors have been looking for 20%

annual returns so 7% may seem puny by comparison. Still, 7% is twice

the long-term historical rate of return on investment (measured as

growth of GDP) and three times the average rate of return since 1973.

So modern owners of capital expect decent returns that far exceed

historical averages. Therefore they are likely to be unhappy if their

return merely meets the historical average, and doubly dissatisfied

with returns 30% below the historical average (e.g., 2.3% instead of

3.4%). They naturally believe they deserve better -- America deserves

better -- the world deserves better -- and they believe government

should help boost their returns one way or another. After all,

capitalism as we know it would stop working if capitalists stopped

investing, so providers of capital deserve a decent rate of return,

they might argue, and they would have a point.

 

According to the hypothesis I'm describing here, five features of

modern life have caused the downturn in economic growth in the U.S.

(and in the rest of the industrialized world):

 

(1) Saturation of effective consumer demand; those who can afford to

buy stuff already have about as much stuff as they need or can afford;

indeed, to pump up demand further, U.S. industry now spends $250

billion each year on advertising.

 

(2) A reduced demand for fixed investment (such as factories) and

working capital (money to meet business expenses and expand

operations).[3; 6,pgs.37-39] It's getting harder to find safe,

productive places to put capital to work these days, partly because of

saturated consumer demand and partly because there's a glut of

capital.[9]

 

(3) The proportion of people in the labor force can't increase much

beyond where it is today;[3] all the able-bodied are pretty much

already working or looking for work; the rest are children, elderly or

disabled.

 

(4) The rate of growth of productivity of workers (the rate at which

output per hour grows) has slowed in recent decades;[6,pgs.63-75]

 

(5) Some ecological limits have come into view -- for example, toxic

industrial chemicals are now found everywhere on earth, from the tops

of the tallest mountains to the bottoms of the deepest oceans and

everywhere in between, including human breast milk. We can no longer

convincingly argue that we can throw away unwanted industrial

byproducts without affecting living things, so our byproducts must now

be managed at considerable expense.[10,11]

 

The system has responded to these realities in the following ways:

 

System response No. 1: Easing Credit

 

No need to belabor this. Credit card debt, home mortgage debt and the

national debt have all skyrocketed in recent years.[12,13] Debt is

beneficial for those with money to lend, especially credit card debt,

which now garners doubt-digit returns. As in no previous generation,

young people now leave college (end even high school) saddled with

debt.[14] As Kevin Phillips has pointed out, we are witnessing the

" financialization " of the U.S. economy. In the year 2000, moving money

around became a larger portion of GDP (20%) than manufacturing

(14.5%).[1,pg.265; and see pgs. 265-346]

 

System response No. 2: Promoting International Capital Flow

 

This is what the corporate " globalization " project is about --

removing barriers for people with money to invest in cutting down the

rain forests in Indonesia or setting up a cyanide-leach gold mine on

native land in South America or northern Canada. Globalization is

about clearing the decks for capital to cross borders unimpeded, in

search of a decent return.

 

System response No. 3: Reduced Restrictions on Financial Firms

 

Banks, savings and loans, and brokerage firms used to be rigidly

segmented by law; now all their functions have been legally merged.

The savings and loan bailout in the '80s was the first result; the

" dot.com " bubble of the late '90s was the second; the Enron-Worldcom-

etc. debacle was the third. There is no end in sight.[6]

 

System response No. 5: Disinvest in Public Infrastructure (roads,

bridges, runnels, airports, wastewater treatment plants).

 

" Our infrastructure is sliding toward failure and the prospect for any

real improvement is grim, " says William Henry, president of the

American Society of Civil Engineers, releasing the society's 2005

Report Card for America's Infrastructure at a news conference in

March.[15] Of course this is a short-sighted policy, but almost by

definition the search for decent return on investment focuses on the

next quarter, not the next decade or two.

 

System response No. 6: Expand the Defense Budget

 

Defense is the only national industrial policy that almost everyone

will agree to, or at least acquiesce to, perhaps for fear of being

labeled unpatriotic. Foreign enemies are the ultimate consumers of our

military preparations, so in the face of flagging demand for toasters

and SUVs our economy now arguably requires a growing supply of foreign

enemies.[16] As the President himself said shortly after he committed

the U.S. to a perpetual war against evil-doers world-wide, " Bring 'em

on. " War is good business, with future prospects that seem to grow

brighter each passing day.

 

System response No. 7: Cut Taxes for the Wealthy

 

Cut income taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and corporate

taxes to benefit the wealthiest Americans, shifting more of the tax

burden onto the middle class and the working poor.[17]

 

System response No. 8: Tax Evasion and Tax Cheating.

 

Both are now rampant and have been the subject of several recent books

offering abundant detail. Meanwhile federal authorities turn a blind

eye.[18,19]

 

System response No. 9: Creation of New Industries:

 

Space exploration, laser-weapons-in-space, casino gambling, the

pornography industry, the recreational drug industry (and its

conjoined twin, the prison industry) -- all demonstrate America's " can

do " entrepreneurial spirit in the face of slowed growth.

 

System response No. 10: Diminishing Social Investments

 

Slowed growth requires that the economic pie be divvied up in new

ways. Therefore, all social investments have been put on the chopping

block -- veterans' benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security,

education loans, Head Start, public lands, water and air quality,

charity hospitals, Amtrak, the infrastructure of roads, tunnels,

bridges, and entire government agencies (the Internal Revenue Service,

the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human

Services, among others) and so on and so forth. There is no end to the

proposed cuts. Nothing is sacred except of course Defense (and more

recently its domestic twin, Homeland Security) where the bipartisan

sense of entitlement to insider gains has developed over decades of

exemplary military-industrial cooperation.

 

Cutting the social safety net has the salutary effect of disciplining

the workforce to accept lower wages, longer hours without overtime

pay, increased workload on the job, reduced vacations, diminished

health, elimination of pensions, and so on. (See System Response No.

12, below.)

 

As a result of these changes, the main historical difference between

the two political parties disappeared at least two decades ago. The

Democrats now find, for the first time in living memory, that they

have no political agenda of their own. As a result, voter disaffection

has risen to historic proportions. Cynicism spreads like kudzu.

Political apathy then cements the status quo in place.

 

System response No. 11: Expanding and Discrediting Government

 

Given the need to distribute the economic pie in new ways,

discrediting government has become a necessary political goal because

government has occasionally intervened on behalf of " the little

people " against " the big people. "

 

Traditionally, government has made modest attempts to level the

playing field for everyone, in keeping with the slogan, " With liberty

and justice for all. " Without basic economic security for families and

individuals, neither liberty nor justice is possible.

 

To his credit, George W. Bush has provided real innovation here.

Previous Republican theorists wanted to shrink government so small you

could drown it in a bathtub. Mr. Bush recognized that a large inept

government was far more useful that a small government, from the

viewpoint of those aiming as a matter of high principle and national

necessity to transfer a larger portion of the pie from working people

and the middle class to the super rich.

 

The federal response to Katrina was perfect -- a huge bureaucracy that

utterly failed. What better way make people think that government is

hopeless, that taxes are a waste? Who wants more of a corrupt,

bungling bureaucracy that is indifferent to human suffering? Drowning

such a creature in a bathtub seems too kind.

 

Meanwhile, insiders who know how to work the system -- for example,

Halliburton, Raytheon, and Boeing -- are earning record returns, and

two important public purposes are thereby fulfilled: rates of return

on invested capital are pushed upward, at least for a well-connected

few, at the same time government is disgraced and discredited. Voters,

dismayed, stay home in droves, so the status quo is doubly secured.

 

Thanks to this President's extraordinary vision and leadership, it may

take decades to restore confidence in government as the leveler of

playing fields, if it can be done at all.

 

System response No. 12: Cut wages for workers.

 

Over the past 30 years, this has been accomplished in the U.S. by a

variety of creative techniques, and it must be considered the

centerpiece of the ongoing effort to redistribute the pie, to maintain

investors' portions at fair, historical levels or better.[7]

 

Techniques for cutting wages now include:

 

a. As labor productivity has increased in recent decades (meaning,

more output per person-hour of work), modern owners have simply

refused to pass the increased income on to workers in the form of wage

increases. This is a new trend of the past 30 years, but unmistakable.

Productivity has continued to rise during the past 3 decades (though

more slowly than historical average rates), but wages have stagnated

and in many cases declined. The owners are simply keeping more for

themselves.[20] This approach has both simplicity and transparency to

commend it.

 

b. Keep the minimum wage low, rising at a rate that fails to keep up

with inflation. The minimum wage sets the floor beneath all wages, so

if it fails to rise with inflation, all wages will tend to stagnate or

decline. This has been accomplished through exemplary bipartisan

consensus. Congress last raised the minimum wage in 1997 (to $5.15 an

hour, an annual income of $10,300).

 

c. Eliminate existing labor unions and prevent the formation of new

unions. Unionized workers earn, on average, 21% more per hour than

non-union workers. Perhaps more importantly, organized workers have

come to expect somewhat safe and modestly healthful working

conditions, a modicum of medical benefits, overtime pay, 2-week paid

vacations, and perhaps, in extreme cases, even retirement benefits.

When growth is slow and owners are feeling that their return on

investment is unfairly pinched, unions are seen as standing in the way

of efforts to redistribute the pie upward. So unions must go. It's now

so blatant that Human Rights Watch issued a stinging report in 2000

accusing the U.S. of repeated intentional violation of the

internationally-recognized human rights of its workers.[21]

 

d. Eliminate defined benefit pensions, and, in an increasing number of

instances, eliminate pensions entirely, as was done recently at United

Airlines with the good help of a Reagan-appointed federal judge.

Efforts to eliminate pensions entirely are gathering steam, as one

would expect if my hypothesis about the bipartisan response to slow

growth is correct.[22]

 

With the average age of the population rising, the reduction or

elimination of retirement benefits (such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social

Security, and private pensions) may at first blush seem like a

political powder keg.[22] Perhaps the thinking among the leaders of

both parties is that an elderly, destitute population will remain so

frightened and disoriented that it cannot effectively make its

political will felt. In any case, efforts to eliminate retirement

benefits seem to be proceeding apace and working well. As the man who

jumped off the skyscraper said as he fell past the 20th floor, " So far

so good. "

 

e. Increasingly, the U.S. workforce has been put into direct

competition with low-wage workers in Third World countries. Without

strict oversight and enforcement of a kind never yet seen anywhere in

the world, this sort of competition inevitably creates a " race to the

bottom " for wages, working conditions, and environmental standards

simultaneously -- all of which are ways to " externalize " costs of

production and thus to move a larger, fairer portion of the pie into

the domain of the investor class.

 

f. Reduce the availability of health insurance. In 2003, 45 million

Americans had no health insurance, up 1.4 million from the year before

and up 5.1 million from the year 2000.[23]

 

System response No. 13: Promote rapid technical innovation

 

Business and government together are constantly searching for " the

next big thing, " hoping to induce rapid technical innovation. It's the

star wars missile defense shield; no, it's biotechnology; no, it's

nanotechnology; no, it's really " synthetic biology " -- the creation of

entirely new life forms never previously known on planet earth. Of

course, by definition, rapid innovation and deployment are

incompatible with thoughtful consideration of likely consequences

prior to deployment. However, ill-considered deployment has been the

norm for 180 years, so it is now thought to be " business as usual " and

is easily justified as the price of progress. Rapid innovation churns

the economy and creates manifold opportunities for decent return on

investment -- particularly during the early stages of a new product or

process. It is only later that trouble becomes apparent and profits

decline, at which point government typically steps in to pick up the

pieces and shield investors from the consequences of their impetuous

zeal. (Think Superfund. Think nuclear power.)

 

Despite official protestations to the contrary, U.S. government

policies generally encourage industrial enterprises to " externalize "

the costs of their damage to nature and human health, and this trend

has accelerated in recent years as economic growth has slowed. The

truth is, many industrial operations simply cannot afford to

internalize their costs and at the same time provide a decent return,

so they MUST externalize their costs. They don't really have a choice,

given the pressing need for decent return on investment.

 

[To be continued next week.]

 

=============

 

[1] Among other sources, see Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy; The

Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money. New

York: Viking, 2006. ISBN 0-670-03486-X. According to Phillips, roughly

55% of those who voted for Mr. Bush in 2004 believe that the world

will end in the battle of Armageddon, as described in the Book of

Revelation. As Phillips says (pg. vii), " ... the last two presidential

elections mark the transformation of the GOP [the Republican Party]

into the first religious party in U.S. history. " Phillips is a well-

known Republican.

 

[2] Bernstein, Michael A., and David E. Adler. Understanding American

Economic Decline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. ISBN

0-521-45679-7.

 

[3] Bjork, Gordon C. The Way It Worked and Why It Won't; Structural

Change and the Slowdown of U.S. Economic Growth. Westport, Conn.:

Praeger, 1999. ISBN 0-275-96532-5.

 

[4] Cohen, Richard and Peter A. Wilson. Superpowers in Economic

Decline; U.S. Strategy in the Transcentury Era. N.Y.: Taylor and

Francis, 1990. ISBN 0-8448-1625-6.

 

[5] Mardick, Jeffrey. The End of Affluence; The Causes and

Consequences of America's Economic Dilemma. N.Y.: Random House, 1995.

ISBN 0-679-43623-5.

 

[6] Shutt, Harry. The Trouble with Capitalism; An Enquiry into the

Causes of Global Economic Failure. London: Zed Books, 1998. ISBN

1-85649-566-3.

 

[7] Data on our growing inequalities of wealth are available from

several sources, but my current favorite is Gar Alperovitz, America

Beyond Capitalism; Reclaiming Our wealth, Our Liberty and Our

Democracy (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005); see pgs.

204-206. See also 6.] Chuck Collins and Felice Yeskel, Economic

Apartheid in America (New York: New Press, 2000) with revised and

corrected data available here. See also, for example, Edward N.

Wolff, Top Heavy; the Increasing Inequality of Wealth in American and

What Can Be Done About It (New York: The New Press, 2002). Another

excellent book is Michael Zweig's, The Working Class Majority;

America's Best Kept Secret (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,

2000); ISBN 0-8014-3637-0.

 

[8] " EPA Revises Regulatory Reviews To Discount Long-Term Benefits, "

Inside EPA, October 8, 2004.

 

[9] Floyd Norris, " Too Much Capital: Why It Is Getting Harder to Find

a Good Investment, " New York Times March 26, 2005, pg. C1.

 

[10] Peter M. Vitousek, and others. " Human Appropriation of the

Products of Photosynthesis, " Bioscience Vol. 36 No. 6 (June, 1986),

pgs. 368- 373. Available here.

 

[11] Peter M. Vitousek and others, " Human Domination of Earth's

Ecosystems, " Science Vol. 277 (July 25, 1997), pgs. 494-499; available

here. And see Jane Lubchenco, " Entering the Century of the

Environment: A New Social Contract for Science, " Science Vol. 279

(Jan. 23, 1998), pgs. 491-497, available here.

 

[12] Gretchen Morgenson, " After the Debt Feast Comes the Heartburn, "

New York Times Nov. 27, 2005, pg. 3-1.

 

[13] See Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy; The Peril and Politics of

Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money. New York: Viking, 2006.

ISBN 0-670-03486-X. See Part III, " Borrowed Prosperity, " pgs. 265-387.

 

[14] http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_generation_of_debtors.06

0523.htm

 

[15] " Crumbling Infrastructure Erodes Quality of Life in U.S., "

Environment News Service March 10, 2005.

 

[16] William Rivers Pitt, " The Thing We Don't Talk About, "

Truthout.org June 23, 2005.

 

[17] Robert Johnson, " Little Dogs Don't Pay Taxes, " New York Times,

August 1, 2004, Sunday Business Section, pg. 2.

 

[18] Donald Barlett and James B. Steele, America: Who really Pays the

Taxes? (New York: Touchstone, 1994; ISBN 0-671-87157-9).

 

[19] Donald Barlett and James B. Steele, The Great American Tax Dodge;

How Spiraling Fraud and Avoidance Are Killing Fairness, Destroying the

Income Tax, and Costing You (Berkeley, Calif: University of California

Press, 2002; ISBN 0520236106).

 

[20] Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America

2004/2005, September 5, 2004.

 

[21] Lance Compa, Unfair Advantage; Workers' Freedom of Association in

the United States Under International Human Rights Standards (New

York: Human Rights Watch, August 2000). ISBN 1-56432-251-3.

 

[22] See, for example, Eduardo Porter and Mary Williams Walsh,

" Benefits Go the Way of Pensions, " New York Times February 9, 2006;

and see Mary Williams Walsh, " The Nation: When Your Pension is

Frozen, " New York Times January 22, 2006; and Mary Williams Walsh,

" Whoops! There Goes Another Pension Plan " New York Times, September

18, 2005, pg. 3-1; and Mary Williams Walsh, " How Wall Street Wrecked

United's Pension, " New York Times July 31, 2005, pg. 3-1.

 

[23] Robert Pear, " Health Leaders Seek Consensus Over Uninsured, " New

York Times May 29, 2005, pg. A1.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

AlterNet, May 30, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

TYRANNY OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT

 

By Michelle Goldberg

 

Whenever I talk about the growing power of the evangelical right with

friends, they always ask the same question: What can we do? Usually I

reply with a joke: Keep a bag packed and your passport current.

 

I don't really mean it, but my anxiety is genuine. It's one thing to

have a government that shows contempt for civil liberties; America has

survived such men before. It's quite another to have a mass movement

-- the largest and most powerful mass movement in the nation -- rise

up in opposition to the rights of its fellow citizens. The

Constitution protects minorities, but that protection is not absolute;

with a sufficiently sympathetic or apathetic majority, a tightly

organized faction can get around it.

 

The mass movement I've described aims to supplant Enlightenment

rationalism with what it calls the " Christian worldview. " The phrase

is based on the conviction that true Christianity must govern every

aspect of public and private life, and that all -- government,

science, history and culture -- must be understood according to the

dictates of scripture. There are biblically correct positions on every

issue, from gay marriage to income tax rates, and only those with the

right worldview can discern them. This is Christianity as a total

ideology -- I call it Christian nationalism. It's an ideology adhered

to by millions of Americans, some of whom are very powerful. It's what

drives a great many of the fights over religion, science, sex and

pluralism now dividing communities all over the country.

 

I am not suggesting that religious tyranny is imminent in the United

States. Our democracy is eroding and some of our rights are

disappearing, but for most people, including those most opposed to the

Christian nationalist agenda, life will most likely go on pretty much

as normal for the foreseeable future. Thus for those who value secular

society, apprehending the threat of Christian nationalism is tricky.

It's like being a lobster in a pot, with the water heating up so

slowly that you don't notice the moment at which it starts to kill

you.

 

If current trends continue, we will see ever-increasing division and

acrimony in our politics. That's partly because, as Christian

nationalism spreads, secularism is spreading as well, while moderate

Christianity is in decline. According to the City University of New

York Graduate Center's comprehensive American religious identification

survey, the percentage of Americans who identify as Christians has

actually fallen in recent years, from 86 percent in 1990 to 77 percent

in 2001. The survey found that the largest growth, in both absolute

and percentage terms, was among those who don't to any

religion. Their numbers more than doubled, from 14.3 million in 1990,

when they constituted 8 percent of the population, to 29.4 million in

2001, when they made up 14 percent.

 

" The top three 'gainers' in America's vast religious marketplace

appear to be Evangelical Christians, those describing themselves as

Non-Denominational Christians and those who profess no religion, " the

survey found. (The percentage of other religious minorities remained

small, totaling less than 4 percent of the population).

 

This is a recipe for polarization. As Christian nationalism becomes

more militant, secularists and religious minorities will mobilize in

opposition, ratcheting up the hostility. Thus we're likely to see a

shrinking middle ground, with both camps increasingly viewing each

other across a chasm of mutual incomprehension and contempt.

 

In the coming years, we will probably see the curtailment of the civil

rights that gay people, women and religious minorities have won in the

last few decades. With two Bush appointees on the Supreme Court,

abortion rights will be narrowed; if the president gets a third, it

could mean the end of Roe v. Wade. Expect increasing drives to ban gay

people from being adoptive or foster parents, as well as attempts to

fire gay schoolteachers. Evangelical leaders are encouraging their

flocks to be alert to signs of homosexuality in their kids, which will

lead to a growing number of gay teenagers forced into " reparative

therapy " designed to turn them straight. (Focus on the Family urges

parents to consider seeking help for boys as young as five if they

show a " tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the

roughhousing that other boys enjoy. " )

 

Christian nationalist symbolism and ideology will increasingly pervade

public life. In addition to the war on evolution, there will be

campaigns to teach Christian nationalist history in public schools. An

elective course developed by the National Council on Bible Curriculum

in Public Schools, a right-wing evangelical group, is already being

offered by more than 300 school districts in 36 states. The influence

of Christian nationalism in public schools, colleges, courts, social

services and doctors' offices will deform American life, rendering it

ever more pinched, mean, and divided.

 

There's still a long way, though, between this damaged version of

democracy and real theocracy. Tremendous crises would have to shred

what's left of the American consensus before religious fascism becomes

a possibility. That means that secularists and liberals shouldn't get

hysterical, but they also shouldn't be complacent.

 

Christian nationalism is still constrained by the Constitution, the

courts, and by a passionate democratic (and occasionally Democratic)

opposition. It's also limited by capitalism. Many corporations are

happy to see their political allies harness the rage and passion of

the Christian right's foot soldiers, but the culture industry is

averse to government censorship. Nor is homophobia good for business,

since many companies need to both recruit qualified gay employees and

market to gay customers. Biotech firms are not going to want to hire

graduates without a thorough understanding of evolution, so economic

pressure will militate against creationism's invading a critical mass

of the public schools.

 

Taking the land

 

It would take a national disaster, or several of them, for all these

bulwarks to crumble and for Christian nationalists to truly " take the

land, " as Michael Farris, president of the evangelical Patrick Henry

College, put it. Historically, totalitarian movements have been able

to seize state power only when existing authorities prove unable to

deal with catastrophic challenges -- economic meltdown, security

failures, military defeat -- and people lose their faith in the

legitimacy of the system.

 

Such calamities are certainly conceivable in America -- Hurricane

Katrina's aftermath offered a terrifying glimpse of how quickly order

can collapse. If terrorists successfully strike again, we'd probably

see significant curtailment of liberal dissenters' free speech rights,

coupled with mounting right-wing belligerence, both religious and

secular.

 

The breakdown in the system could also be subtler. Many experts have

warned that America's debt is unsustainable and that economic crisis

could be on the horizon. If there is a hard landing -- due to an oil

shock, a burst housing bubble, a sharp decline in the value of the

dollar, or some other crisis -- interest rates would shoot up, leaving

many people unable to pay their floating-rate mortgages and credit

card bills. Repossessions and bankruptcies would follow. The resulting

anger could fuel radical populist movements of either the left or the

right -- more likely the right, since it has a far stronger

ideological infrastructure in place in most of America.

 

Military disaster may also exacerbate such disaffection. America's war

in Iraq seems nearly certain to come to an ignominious end. The real

victims of failure there will be Iraqi, but many Americans will feel

embittered, humiliated and sympathetic to the stab-in-the-back

rhetoric peddled by the right to explain how Bush's venture has gone

so horribly wrong. It was the defeat in World War I, after all, that

created the conditions for fascism to grow in Germany.

 

Perhaps America will be lucky, however, and muddle through its looming

problems. In that case, Christian nationalism will continue to be a

powerful and growing influence in American politics, although its

expansion will happen more fitfully and gradually.

 

The country's demographics are on the movement's side. Megachurch

culture is spreading. The exurbs where religious conservatism thrives

are the fastest growing parts of America; in 2004, 97 of the country's

100 fastest-growing counties voted Republican. The disconnection of

the exurbs is a large part of what makes the spread of Christian

nationalism's fictitious reality possible, because there is very

little to conflict with it.

 

A movement that constitutes its members' entire social world has a

grip that's hard to break. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah

Arendt put it this way: " Social atomization and extreme

individualization preceded the mass movements which, much more easily

and earlier than they did the sociable, non-individualistic members of

the traditional parties, attracted the completely unorganized, the

typical 'nonjoiners' who for individualistic reasons always had

refused to recognize social links or obligations. "

 

America's ragged divides

 

Those who want to fight Christian nationalism will need a long-term

and multifaceted strategy. I see it as having three parts -- electoral

reform to give urban areas fair representation in the federal

government, grassroots organizing to help people fight Christian

nationalism on the ground and a media campaign to raise public

awareness about the movement's real agenda.

 

My ideas are not about reconciliation or healing. It would be good if

a leader stepped forward who could recognize the grievances of both

sides, broker some sort of truce, and mend America's ragged divides.

The anxieties that underlay Christian nationalism's appeal -- fears

about social breakdown, marital instability and cultural decline --

are real. They should be acknowledged and, whenever possible,

addressed. But as long as the movement aims at the destruction of

secular society and the political enforcement of its theology, it has

to be battled, not comforted and appeased.

 

And while I support liberal struggles for economic justice -- higher

wages, universal health care, affordable education, and retirement

security -- I don't think economic populism will do much to neutralize

the religious right. Cultural interests are real interests, and many

drives are stronger than material ones. As Arendt pointed out,

totalitarian movements have always confounded observers who try to

analyze them in terms of class.

 

Ultimately, a fight against Christian nationalist rule has to be a

fight against the anti-urban bias built into the structure of our

democracy. Because each state has two senators, the 7 percent of the

population that live in the 17 least-populous states control more than

a third of Congress's upper house. Conservative states are also

overrepresented in the Electoral College.

 

According to Steven Hill of the Center for Voting and Democracy, the

combined populations of Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, North and South

Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Alaska

equal that of New York and Massachusetts, but the former states have a

total of nine more votes in the Electoral College (as well as over

five times the votes in the Senate). In America, conservatives

literally count for more.

 

Liberals should work to abolish the Electoral College and to even out

the composition of the Senate, perhaps by splitting some of the

country's larger states.(A campaign for statehood for New York City

might be a place to start.) It will be a grueling, Herculean job. With

conservatives already indulging in fantasies of victimization at the

hands of a maniacal Northeastern elite, it will take a monumental

movement to wrest power away from them. Such a movement will come into

being only when enough people in the blue states stop internalizing

right-wing jeers about how out of touch they are with " real Americans "

and start getting angry at being ruled by reactionaries who are out of

touch with them.

 

After all, the heartland has no claim to moral authority. The states

whose voters are most obsessed with " moral values " have the highest

divorce and teen pregnancy rates. The country's highest murder rates

are in the South and the lowest are in New England. The five states

with the best-ranked public schools in the country -- Massachusetts,

Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey and Wisconsin -- are all progressive

redoubts. The five states with the worst -- New Mexico, Nevada,

Arizona, Mississippi and Louisiana -- all went for Bush.

 

The canard that the culture wars are a fight between " elites " versus

" regular Americans " belies a profound split between different kinds of

ordinary Americans, all feeling threatened by the others' baffling and

alien values. Ironically, however, by buying into right-wing elite-

baiting, liberals start thinking like out-of-touch elites. Rather than

reflecting on what kind of policies would make their own lives better,

what kind of country they want to live in, and who they want to

represent them -- and then figuring out how to win others to their

vision -- progressives flail about for ideas and symbols that they

hope will appeal to some imaginary heartland rube. That is

condescending.

 

Focus on the local

 

One way for progressives to build a movement and fight Christian

nationalism at the same time is to focus on local politics. For

guidance, they need only look to the Christian Coalition: It wasn't

until after Bill Clinton's election exiled the evangelical right from

power in Washington that the Christian Coalition really developed its

nationwide electoral apparatus.

 

The Christian right developed a talent for crafting state laws and

amendments to serve as wedge issues, rallying their base, and forcing

the other side to defend seemingly extreme positions. Campaigns to

require parental consent for minors' abortions, for example, get

overwhelming public support and put the pro-choice movement on the

defensive while giving pro-lifers valuable political experience.

 

Liberals can use this strategy too. They can find issues to exploit

the other side's radicalism, winning a few political victories and,

just as important, marginalizing Christian nationalists in the eyes of

their fellow citizens. Progressives could work to pass local and state

laws, by ballot initiative wherever possible, denying public funds to

any organization that discriminates on the basis of religion. Because

so much faith-based funding is distributed through the states, such

laws could put an end to at least some of the taxpayer-funded bias

practiced by the Salvation Army and other religious charities. Right

now, very few people know that, thanks to Bush, a faith-based outfit

can take tax dollars and then explicitly refuse to hire Jews, Hindus,

Buddhists or Muslims. The issue needs far more publicity, and a

political fight -- or a series of them -- would provide it. Better

still, the campaign would contribute to the creation of a grassroots

infrastructure -- a network of people with political experience and a

commitment to pluralism.

 

Progressives could also work on passing laws to mandate that

pharmacists fill contraceptive prescriptions. (Such legislation has

already been introduced in California, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada,

and West Virginia.) The commercials would practically write

themselves. Imagine a harried couple talking with their doctor and

deciding that they can't afford any more kids. The doctor writes a

birth control prescription, the wife takes it to her pharmacist -- and

he sends her away with a religious lecture. The campaign could use one

of the most successful slogans that abortion rights advocates ever

devised: " Who decides -- you or them? "

 

A new media strategy

 

In conjunction with local initiatives, opponents of Christian

nationalism need a new media strategy. Many people realize this.

Fenton Communications, the agency that handles public relations for

MoveOn, recently put together the Campaign to Defend the Constitution,

a MoveOn-style grassroots group devoted to raising awareness about the

religious right. With nearly 3.5 million members ready to be quickly

mobilized to donate money, write letters or lobby politicians on

behalf of progressive causes, MoveOn is the closest thing liberals

have to the Christian Coalition, but its focus tends to be on economic

justice, foreign policy and the environment rather than contentious

social issues. The Campaign to Defend the Constitution intends to

build a similar network to counter Christian nationalism wherever it

appears.

 

Much of what media strategists need to do simply involves public

education. Americans need to learn what Christian Reconstructionism

means so that they can decide whether they approve of their

congressmen consorting with theocrats. They need to realize that the

Republican Party has become the stronghold of men who fundamentally

oppose public education because they think women should school their

kids themselves. (In It Takes a Family, Rick Santorum calls public

education an " aberration " and predicts that home-schooling will

flourish as " one viable option among many that will open up as we

eliminate the heavy hand of the village elders' top-down control of

education and allow a thousand parent-nurtured flowers to bloom. " )

 

When it comes to the public relations fight against Christian

nationalism, nothing is trickier than battles concerning public

religious symbolism. Fights over creches in public squares or

Christmas hymns sung by school choirs are really about which aspects

of the First Amendment should prevail -- its protection of free speech

or its ban on the establishment of religion. In general, I think it's

best to err on the side of freedom of _expression. As in most First

Amendment disputes, the answer to speech (or, in this case, symbolism)

that makes religious minorities feel excluded or alienated is more

speech -- menorahs, Buddhas, Diwali lights, symbols celebrating

America's polyglot spiritualism.

 

There are no neat lines, no way to suck the venom out of these issues

without capitulating completely. But one obvious step civil

libertarians should take is a much more vocal stance in defense of

evangelicals' free speech rights when they are unfairly curtailed.

Although far less common than the Christian nationalists pretend, on a

few occasions lawsuit-fearing officials have gone overboard in

defending church/state separation, silencing religious speech that is

protected by the First Amendment. (In one 2005 incident that got

tremendous play in the right-wing press, a principal in Tennessee

wouldn't allow a ten-year-old student to hold a Bible study during

recess.) Such infringements should be fought for reasons both

principled, because Christians have the same right to free speech as

everyone else, and political, because these abuses generate a backlash

that ultimately harms the cause of church/state separation.

 

The ACLU already does this, but few hear about it, because secularists

lack the right's propaganda apparatus. Liberals need to create their

own echo chamber to refute these kind of distortions while loudly

supporting everyone's freedom of speech. Committed Christian

nationalists won't be won over, but some of their would-be

sympathizers might be inoculated against the claim that progressives

want to extirpate their faith, making it harder for the right to frame

every political dispute as part of a war against Jesus.

 

The challenge, finally, is to make reality matter again. If

progressives can do that, perhaps America can be saved.

 

Fighting fundamentalism at home

 

Writing just after 9/11, Salman Rushdie eviscerated those on the left

who rationalized the terrorist attacks as a regrettable explosion of

understandable third world rage: " The fundamentalist seeks to bring

down a great deal more than buildings, " he wrote. " Such people are

against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multiparty

political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government,

Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short

skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex. "

 

Christian nationalists have no problem with beardlessness, but except

for that, Rushdie could have been describing them.

 

It makes no sense to fight religious authoritarianism abroad while

letting it take over at home. The grinding, brutal war between modern

and medieval values has spread chaos, fear, and misery across our poor

planet. Far worse than the conflicts we're experiencing today,

however, would be a world torn between competing fundamentalisms. Our

side, America's side, must be the side of freedom and Enlightenment,

of liberation from stale constricting dogmas. It must be the side that

elevates reason above the commands of holy books and human solidarity

above religious supremacism. Otherwise, God help us all.

 

Reprinted from Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by

Michelle Goldberg.

 

Copyright 2006 by Michelle Goldberg

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

New York Times, May 30, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

RISE IN RATE OF TWIN BIRTHS MAY BE TIED TO DAIRY CASE

 

By Nicholas Bakalar

 

American women who eat dairy products appear to be five times as

likely to give birth to fraternal twins as those who do not, according

to a new study, and one explanation may lie in dairy products from

cows injected with synthetic growth hormone.

 

Dr. Gary Steinman, an assistant clinical professor of obstetrics at

the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, reached that conclusion by

looking at the medical records of 1,042 mothers who were vegans

consuming no dairy products and comparing them with those of mothers

who regularly ate dairy products.

 

His findings appear in the May issue of The Journal of Reproductive

Medicine. Eating dairy products increases blood levels of insulinlike

growth hormone, or I.G.F., and it is this increased hormone level that

is associated with increased rates of multiple ovulation.

 

In a study published in 2000 and cited in the findings, vegan women

had concentrations of I.G.F. that were 13 percent lower than those in

women who regularly consumed dairy products.

 

Multiple births are associated with increased health risks for mothers

and infants, but Dr. Steinman said he was not prepared to use these

findings as the basis for advising women about diet before pregnancy.

 

" Since this is the first time diet has been implicated in an important

role for determining twinning rate, " Dr. Steinman said in an e-mail

message, " it must be confirmed by others before rigid recommendations

can be made concerning health care. "

 

Insufficient diet in general lowers the rate of twin births, but Dr.

Steinman said he had found evidence that the rate was directly related

to levels of growth hormone.

 

" The more I.G.F., the more the ovary is stimulated to release

additional eggs at ovulation, " he said.

 

Animal studies, in rats and mice as well as in cattle, have

convincingly demonstrated that increased serum levels of growth

hormone are associated with increased ovulation.

 

All cow's milk has bovine growth hormone in it, naturally produced by

the animal's pituitary gland. Many dairy farmers inject their cattle

with recombinant bovine somatotropin, a synthetic version of the

naturally occurring hormone. This increases size and milk production,

but it has another effect: cows with higher growth hormone levels

produce more twins.

 

The consumption of any dairy products increases blood levels of

insulinlike growth hormone in humans, and consuming milk from cows

that have been injected with synthetic growth hormone can have a

correspondingly larger effect.

 

About one-third of American dairy cows are in herds where the hormone

is used, said a spokesman for Monsanto, the only manufacturer of

synthetic bovine growth hormone in the United States.

 

The evidence that eating dairy products increases the chances of

multiple ovulation is suggestive, but not conclusive. Many factors,

dietary and other, affect the rate of twin births. A study this month

in Lancet, for example, suggests that the B vitamin folic acid may

increase the survival of embryos in in vitro fertilization procedures,

resulting in more twin births.

 

Fraternal twins run in families, so genetics also plays an important

role. And the recent rise in the birth rate of twins is at least

partly attributable to delayed childbearing, as older mothers are more

likely to have twins.

 

The rate of twin births has also increased significantly since 1975,

when assisted reproductive technology came into wide use. But these

factors alone, Dr. Steinman said, do not explain the continuing

increase in the rates in the United States since 1994, when

recombinant bovine somatotropin was approved for sale.

 

In 2003, the United States had 3 sets of twins per 100 live births --

more than twice the rate of Britain, where growth hormone injection is

banned. (Triplets and higher multiple births raise this figure to

3.18.)

 

Dr. Steinman suggested that one significant reason for the large

difference was the recombinant bovine somatotropin.

 

" I am not claiming to be the first to show that variations in dietary

amounts can affect the twinning rate, " Dr. Steinman said. " What is new

is specifying what in the diet may have this effect and how. "

 

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Chicago Tribune, May 28, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

PRESSURE TURNED UP IN THE WAR ON WATER

 

Towns push to make service public again

 

By E.A. Torriero

 

For many towns across the country, it once seemed like a good idea to

have municipal water utilities in the hands of private companies.

 

Now, bristling against skyrocketing rates, spotty service and foreign

ownership, a number of towns across Illinois and the U.S. are waging

fierce battles to regain control of their drinking water. A host of

them are fighting a German conglomerate that has snapped up more than

1,800 American water utilities.

 

The battle is intensifying in Illinois, where the German company RWE

and subsidiary Illinois American Water own the water supplies for more

than 1 million people in 125 areas of the state.

 

Responding to complaints, American Water held meetings last week in

Homer Glen, Orland Park and Bolingbrook hoping to mollify angry

customers. Instead, they tapped into a deep vein of frustration.

 

" Everything we hear is double-talk, " said Debbie Litoborski of Homer

Glen, who is fighting the company over an $800 water bill. " Should we

call Germany to get the answers we need? "

 

In most of the country, including Chicago and many suburbs, water

service remains a public utility. About 15 percent of America's water

business, however, is in private ownership. Those ranks have tripled

in the last decade as cash-strapped cities seek ways to upgrade aging

water systems by turning to private firms.

 

Nevertheless, a showdown is brewing in Illinois as a half-dozen

communities are plotting to take over water systems. If they succeed,

Illinois American could lose as many as one-third of its customers.

 

Grass-roots groups are forming statewide to exchange battle plans,

hold rallies and plot strategies. Busloads of angry suburban residents

descended on Springfield this spring, demanding legislative help. In

April, Urbana's Mayor Laurel Prussing flew 4,327 miles to chastise RWE

executives and shareholders in Essen, Germany.

 

" I fired a diplomatic shot across the bow, " she said. " I was there to

show the flag and to let them know that Americans are offended by

foreign intervention and corporate bullying. After all, it's our

water, not theirs. "

 

Nationally, government and community takeover attempts against the

subsidiaries of Germany's RWE have lasted years and cost taxpayers and

consumers millions of dollars for legal challenges, referendums and

public relations campaigns.

 

In most instances, American Water--RWE's U.S. arm and the largest

private water company in the country--has won. In the last 15 years,

it has sold only three operations because of hostile challenges.

 

Bought by RWE for $7.5 billion in 2001, American Water has 1,800

operations in 29 states and three Canadian provinces, serving 18

million and generating $2.2 billion in revenues.

 

To the company, the threats are government piracy to thwart free

enterprise. The backlash has split towns, torn apart councils and

spawned court fights that landed in state supreme courts.

 

" The communities lose and the company loses, " said Joe Conner, a

Tennessee attorney who has litigated the company's battles against

several communities.

 

In Monterey, Calif., last year, the company went on a blitzkrieg

advertising rush to defeat soundly a ballot issue calling for a public

water utility purchase. In Chattanooga, Tenn., the company spent more

than $5 million before fending off a city takeover in 2000. In

Lexington, Ky., a bitter battle is now headed toward a November

referendum.

 

In Illinois, in a blow to the company, state legislators passed a bill

this session that would make it easier for communities to seize local

water operations. The legislation is awaiting the governor's

signature.

 

The Illinois challenges come at an especially delicate juncture for

the company. Although American Water officials say none of the firm's

individual units is for sale, RWE is pursuing a public stock offering

for the whole of American Water.

 

If communities succeed in taking over even a few of its subsidiaries,

the value of the public offering could be seriously eroded, company

officials say.

 

In Illinois, the company defends its record despite two pending cases

before the Illinois Commerce Commission and an aggregate complaint

from the state attorney general over allegations of bad service and

rate gouging in three Chicago suburbs.

 

In the last decade, water wars in Illinois have taken psychological

and economic tolls. Seven years into its battle, Peoria decided last

year against a water takeover after an appraiser put the price tag at

a hefty $220 million. A few miles away, in Pekin, a takeover attempt

was squashed when the Illinois Commerce Commission ruled in 2004 that

Pekin was not capable of running the utility better.

 

Now, a half-dozen Illinois communities--Pekin, Champaign, Urbana,

Homer Glen, Orland Park and Bolingbrook--are bent on forcing Illinois

American to the bargaining table.

 

Consumers became riled in Champaign-Urbana last summer, when failed

pumps led to impure water on five occasions. Then, firefighters

arrived at a blaze in Champaign to find two of three hydrant covers

stuck shut. Illinois American describes them as isolated incidents,

but a backlash had begun.

 

On May Day, activists in Urbana staged a mock birthday party complete

with cake and balloons for Donald Correll, American Water's chief

executive. They sent Correll " greeting cards " demanding the company

sell local operations at a reasonable price.

 

The company has been firing back with letters to consumers in

Champaign-Urbana and telephone polls asking whether city officials'

attentions should be elsewhere. They gathered central Illinois

business leaders recently to warn that local officials were embarking

on a costly fight.

 

" I'm sort of perplexed why we would want to go through this, " said

John Stewart, who runs an advertising business in Urbana and lives in

Champaign. " It seems likely it would be a laborious process that could

split the community, and nothing in the end would get accomplished. "

 

- -- -- -

 

E.A. Torriero etorriero

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Center for American progress, May 15, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

MIDDLE CLASS LOSING HOPE FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM

 

Report Suggests Correlation Between Higher CEO Compensation and

Declining Unionism

 

A recent report by John Burton and Christian Weller for the Center

for American Progress describes how the dreams of upward mobility for

middle-class families are plummeting due to stagnant wages and

vanishing benefits, while corporate CEOs are enjoying record levels of

compensation and corporations are reporting record profits.

 

The findings show compensation for CEO's is spiraling out of control:

 

** At the 350 largest public companies, the average CEO compensation

is $9.2 million. Compensation for oil and gas execs increased by 109

percent between 2003 and 2004.

 

** In 2004, the average CEO received 240 times more than the

compensation earned by the average worker. In 2002, the ratio was 145

to one.

 

** These levels of CEO compensation are not the norm for the

industrialized world. Typically, CEO pay in other industrialized

countries is only about one third of what American CEOs make.

 

** Highly-compensated CEOs are not being rewarded for performance with

the interests of shareholders in mind, the " textbook " explanation of

CEO compensation, according to an extensive body of research and

reporting.

 

** After-tax profits are booming and corporate America can easily

afford to offer fair wages and benefits to rank and file employees.

Unfortunately, while CEOs have enriched themselves, middle-class

families have taken hard hits to their paychecks, their health

coverage, and their pension plans.

 

The study suggests a couple of factors which are contributing to

excessive compensation. There is a negative correlation between

executive compensation and unionization; reducing union workers

results in higher pay for CEOs. The fraction of shares held by large

institutional investors has a direct relationship with the fraction of

executive pay in the form of stock options.

 

The report looks at the complexities for outsiders to assess the true

level of compensation. It discusses the difficulties in understanding

what a fair compensation package is due to the various forms of

compensations and compensatory perks outside of a firm. It also looks

at different forms of payments being made to CEOs as opposed to forms

used by other firms.

 

The report also discusses the executive entitlement system in which

the elite sub-culture of executives and directors are often unable to

objectively assess the individual performance of their fellow elites

and how this culture designs its own norms, hierarchies, and

behaviors.

 

It points out that in 2003, if a CEO would have made only $2.3 million

the average pay for worker should have been $51,148 (estimate by

Sklar, 2004.) But as CEOs got richer, more families were falling into

poverty. Median income declined by about $600 in inflation-adjusted

dollars, or 1.2 percent between 2001 and 2003, according to Census

data. In fact, from the end of 2003 through March 2005, inflation-

adjusted weekly earnings for the " production non-supervisory worker "

(this includes 80 percent of the American workforce) actually declined

by 0.9 percent (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005).

 

The report concludes, " As fair-minded people, Americans believe that

there should be a correlation between the job well done and the

reward. The trend in excessive CEO compensation reflects a culture of

greed and a growing inequality that poses a threat to the viability of

the American dream for many middle-class families. As a nation, we

must move forward with a progressive vision that restores our values

of hard work and fair play and insures that the promise of economic

opportunity is extended to all. "

 

Click here to view a copy of the report.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment &

Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are

often considered separately or not at all.

 

The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining

because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who

bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human

health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the

rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among

workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy,

intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and

therefore ruled by the few.

 

In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, " Who

gets to decide? " And, " How do the few control the many, and what

might be done about it? "

 

As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots,

please Email them to us at dhn.

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as

necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the

subject.

 

Editors:

Peter Montague - peter

Tim Montague - tim

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy

& Health News send a blank Email to: join-rachel.

 

In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that

you want to .

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

Environmental Research Foundation

P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903

dhn

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

---