Meanwhile, back in the real world
by Trapper John
Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 08:41:31 AM PDT
Ezra Klein asks, "What sort of mindless utopia do we inhabit that the headline story for weeks could boil down to 1) was a war-hero badly injured and 2) was he in Cambodia on Christmas or did he risk his life there a few weeks later? How many of our people are employed that we can ask this? How many of our children are healthy and covered in case of disaster?" These are good questions. Last time I checked, the picture wasn't quite rosy enough in the USA to afford us the luxury of spending our time and enregy debating whether Al Gore invented the inter -- er, whether Michael Dukakis hates the flag -- er, whether John Kerry is 20 times or only 10 times the patriot that George Bush is.
But it's always been this way, or it least it has been for the past twenty years or so. Since the mid-'80s, the GOP has demonstrated a seemingly absolute compusion to focus elections on God, gays, and guns, and to avoid talking about bread and butter issues unless backed into a corner. And for good reason. Every day, it seems like there's a new outrage, either at home or abroad, that would alienate yet a few thousand more voters from Bush -- if the media wasn't so focused on the non-story du jour.
I want to focus today on just one of these overlooked outrages, one which will negatively affect millions of Americans. Nancy Pelosi quite rightly describes it as "the largest middle-class pay cut in history." But because of the all-consuming obsession with how much blood Kerry shed for our country, even many liberal blogs didn't cover Bush's outrageous overtime takeaway, which went into effect on Monday. Pelosi's office estimates that as many as 6 million Americans may lose overtime pay as a result of the administration's actions. The Economic Policy Institute concludes that, contrary to Bush and Elaine Chao's assertions, few low-income earners will gain overtime as a result of the changes, and that many low-income employees who currently earn overtime will be vulnerable to a total loss of OT benefits. Moreover, all workers in a number of professions, including cooks, preschool employees, and daycare workers, will almost certainly lose any overtime protections.
Not only did the takeaway get pushed off the front page by the SBL, but the coverage was a object lesson in the poverty of contemporary journalistic "objectivity." The AP story actually opened with the classic "some say this - some say that" line, "Paychecks could surge or shrink for a few or for millions of workers across the country starting Monday." Please. There is no genuine debate on how the changes will affect workers. As Matt Yglesias notes, "When you have the US Chamber of Commerce saying, de facto, 'this measure will be bad for employers, but good for workers and we strongly support it,' and the AFL-CIO says, 'this will be good for employers, but bad for workers and we strongly oppose it' then the AFL-CIO has infinitely more credibility than the US Chamber of Commerce . . . When the Chamber is pretending to operating against the interests of its members, we can tell that it's analysis is worthless -- the person talking to you is either a liar or else doesn't know how to do his job."
But some, such as USA Today (!), actually attempted to separate the manure from the produce, concluding that "New overtime rules are mostly bad news for employees." And John Edwards valiantly fough to cut through the clutter and bring home the harsh reality of the takeaway to voters, stating that "We are going to have a president of the United States who stands up and fights for your overtime, not one who takes your overtime away." The point is this: the overtime takeaway is a big issue, one that cuts straight to the pocketbooks of millions of voters. It's a winner for us, a loser for Bush, and the GOP knows it, and will keep trying to hide it bhind the shiny non-issues du jour. But as Edwards knows, that doesn't mean that we have to play along.
The SBL story had its day. But let's get back to the real world and to the issues that matter to real Americans. Let's get refocused on job losses, the Iraq quagmire, and the health cost crisis. And let's talk about how the Bush Administration took away our overtime.
But it's always been this way, or it least it has been for the past twenty years or so. Since the mid-'80s, the GOP has demonstrated a seemingly absolute compusion to focus elections on God, gays, and guns, and to avoid talking about bread and butter issues unless backed into a corner. And for good reason. Every day, it seems like there's a new outrage, either at home or abroad, that would alienate yet a few thousand more voters from Bush -- if the media wasn't so focused on the non-story du jour.
I want to focus today on just one of these overlooked outrages, one which will negatively affect millions of Americans. Nancy Pelosi quite rightly describes it as "the largest middle-class pay cut in history." But because of the all-consuming obsession with how much blood Kerry shed for our country, even many liberal blogs didn't cover Bush's outrageous overtime takeaway, which went into effect on Monday. Pelosi's office estimates that as many as 6 million Americans may lose overtime pay as a result of the administration's actions. The Economic Policy Institute concludes that, contrary to Bush and Elaine Chao's assertions, few low-income earners will gain overtime as a result of the changes, and that many low-income employees who currently earn overtime will be vulnerable to a total loss of OT benefits. Moreover, all workers in a number of professions, including cooks, preschool employees, and daycare workers, will almost certainly lose any overtime protections.
Not only did the takeaway get pushed off the front page by the SBL, but the coverage was a object lesson in the poverty of contemporary journalistic "objectivity." The AP story actually opened with the classic "some say this - some say that" line, "Paychecks could surge or shrink for a few or for millions of workers across the country starting Monday." Please. There is no genuine debate on how the changes will affect workers. As Matt Yglesias notes, "When you have the US Chamber of Commerce saying, de facto, 'this measure will be bad for employers, but good for workers and we strongly support it,' and the AFL-CIO says, 'this will be good for employers, but bad for workers and we strongly oppose it' then the AFL-CIO has infinitely more credibility than the US Chamber of Commerce . . . When the Chamber is pretending to operating against the interests of its members, we can tell that it's analysis is worthless -- the person talking to you is either a liar or else doesn't know how to do his job."
But some, such as USA Today (!), actually attempted to separate the manure from the produce, concluding that "New overtime rules are mostly bad news for employees." And John Edwards valiantly fough to cut through the clutter and bring home the harsh reality of the takeaway to voters, stating that "We are going to have a president of the United States who stands up and fights for your overtime, not one who takes your overtime away." The point is this: the overtime takeaway is a big issue, one that cuts straight to the pocketbooks of millions of voters. It's a winner for us, a loser for Bush, and the GOP knows it, and will keep trying to hide it bhind the shiny non-issues du jour. But as Edwards knows, that doesn't mean that we have to play along.
The SBL story had its day. But let's get back to the real world and to the issues that matter to real Americans. Let's get refocused on job losses, the Iraq quagmire, and the health cost crisis. And let's talk about how the Bush Administration took away our overtime.
- ::
Permalink | 78 comments