Repeal Sequestration to Disarm Hostage Takers
| |||
AFL-CIO Executive Council Calls for Repeal of Sequestration to Disarm the Republican Hostage Takers
Repeal Sequestration to Disarm Hostage Takers
by Jackie Tortora
The AFL-CIO Executive Council today called on Congress to repeal - not replace - the economically destructive budget cuts that Republicans in Congress are using as leverage to demand Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefit cuts. If the sequester is to be replaced, in whole or in part, the council called for closing tax loopholes for Wall Street and the wealthiest 2%, which would minimize harm to the economy.
In its statement, No More Manufactured Crises - Disarm the Hostage Takers, http://www.aflcio.org/About/Exec-Council/EC-Statements/No-More-Manufactu... the council said:
The solution is to disarm the hostage takers so they no longer can hold the economy hostage to get their way. Disarming the hostage takers means repealing "sequestration" - not replacing it. Across-the-board cuts would increase unemployment and harm the economy, but so would replacement cuts of the same size.
There is no economic need to replace "sequestration" or meet any arbitrary deficit reduction target. Further fiscal austerity before the United States returns to full employment only would weaken the economy and cost jobs. If the "sequester" is to be replaced, it should be replaced in a way that minimizes drag on the economy - which is by raising additional revenues from the wealthiest households and corporations. Since January 2011, 70 percent of deficit reduction has been through discretionary spending cuts, which is an important reason why the recovery has been so sluggish. Under no circumstances should the "sequester" be replaced by furloughs for federal employees, who already have sacrificed $103 billion to reduce the deficit.
The Executive Council statement also called on Congress once again to reject Republican ransom demands to cut Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits, which would only encourage more hostage taking.
"[G]iving in to the ransom demands of the hostage takers - and giving them political cover - will not put an end to these manufactured crises. On the contrary, it will only encourage more hostage taking. The only solution is to disarm the hostage takers and allow the American people to decide for themselves - without bullying or threats or coercion or backroom deals - whether they want to cut Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits to pay for tax breaks for Wall Street and the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
The statement argues that only by standing up to the hostage takers and taking away their leverage can we "focus on the urgent challenge of fixing the economy, raising wages, investing in our people and putting America back to work."
Read the rest of the statement here.
| |||
Date of Source:
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Feb 22, 2013 – Leading up to November 6, I found myself focused on the matter of voter suppression and electoral shenanigans committed by the Republicans. This concern was not for nothing. Prior to and on Election Day there were myriad attempts to subvert the vote, particularly the vote of people of color. Frivolous voter challenges started well before Election Day itself, again targeting African American and Latino voters.
What was most striking about the 2012 election, then, was that in the face of this attack on our right to vote, there was something akin to a popular revolt by the African American and Latino electorate. Latinos voted over 70% for Obama and African Americans over 93%. But those figures do not tell enough. It was the turnout that was so significant.
Despite efforts by the political Right to dampen African American enthusiasm for Obama, using the issue of same-sex marriage, this tactic failed dismally. And Romney’s cynical anti-Latino approach, as evidenced during this primary campaign, came back to bite him in the rear.
It was more than this, however. It was something that you had to feel if you waited in line to vote.
I went three times to try to engage in early voting.
The first two times the line was out the building and I decided to return at a later date.
On the third time, I thought I had arrived early enough only to discover that the line started well within the building. I was on line for two hours, and this was early voting.
Around the USA, there were stories like that one — people standing in line for one to seven hours in order to vote.
What was most striking about the 2012 election, then, was that in the face of this attack on our right to vote, there was something akin to a popular revolt by the African American and Latino electorate. Latinos voted over 70% for Obama and African Americans over 93%. But those figures do not tell enough. It was the turnout that was so significant.
Despite efforts by the political Right to dampen African American enthusiasm for Obama, using the issue of same-sex marriage, this tactic failed dismally. And Romney’s cynical anti-Latino approach, as evidenced during this primary campaign, came back to bite him in the rear.
It was more than this, however. It was something that you had to feel if you waited in line to vote.
I went three times to try to engage in early voting.
The first two times the line was out the building and I decided to return at a later date.
On the third time, I thought I had arrived early enough only to discover that the line started well within the building. I was on line for two hours, and this was early voting.
Around the USA, there were stories like that one — people standing in line for one to seven hours in order to vote.
