People Before Profit blog

STOP THE VIOLENT ESCALATION IN GAZA

Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:06:00 +0000

The Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) calls for an end to the dangerous escalation in Gaza, and a return to serious negotiations on the basis of a two-state solution.

Events in recent days between Israel and the Hamas led government of Gaza show, once again, the danger of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's refusal to work seriously toward the resolution of Palestinian grievances.

For some time, a shaky de facto truce had existed between Israel and the Hamas led government of Gaza, though Qassim rockets were still being sporadically fired into Israel from militant groups in Gaza. In the past week, however, this truce has broken down, with the Israeli Defense Force having killed two civilians in Gaza (one a 12 year old boy, the other reportedly mentally handicapped 20 year old man). A barrage of rockets was fired into Southern Israel by militant groups in Gaza, which resulted in injuries to four Israeli soldiers.

Reportedly, a truce agreement was in the works when, on Wednesday, Israel sharply escalated the conflict by assassinating the head of the military wing of Hamas in Gaza, Ahmed Jabari, in a drone strike. This attack also killed and injured bystanders, and set off an angry reaction which included a great escalation of the firing of rockets at Israel. Israeli bombing of targets in Gaza has also sharply escalated, and civilian casualties, including children, are mounting on both sides, but more on the Gaza side.

At writing, Netanyahu is hinting that a ground invasion of Gaza, similar to the one in 2008 is in the offing. Reserves are being called up and troops are massing on the border for what the Israeli's are calling “Operation Pillar of Cloud”.

The United States and other Western powers have condemned the rocket attacks and emphasized Israel's right to defend itself, while most Arab states, among others, have condemned the Israeli attacks as brutal aggression.

The CPUSA points out that the present escalation must be seen in the context of the intransigence of the Netanyahu government, which has stalled all peace talks while it continues to promote building of settlements in land promised to the Palestinian people. This continues the imposition of another regime of violence on the Palestinians both in Gaza and in the West Bank: The violence of poverty and of the crushing of a people's aspirations. While there is no progress toward a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine situation, and while the mass of the Palestinian people, in Gaza, in the West Bank and in exile, suffer the consequences, the danger of war continues to be high. The bellicose rhetoric of the Netanyahu government, toward the Palestinians but also in the context of the Iran situation, increases the danger even more. A case in point is the recent threatening stance Netanyahu has taken toward the Al Fatah led government in the West Bank should they push their claim to enhanced status at the United Nations, a claim they have every right to make. We condemn, also, the irresponsible rocket bombardments from militants in Gaza (and the failure of the Hamas government to take action to stop this).

The CPUSA calls for the following:

*The Netanyahu government in Israel must cease the escalation of the Gaza situation, stop the attacks and pull back from sending in ground forces.

*The United States government must not confine itself to bland statements about Israel's right to defend itself, but must exert far more pressure on Netanyahu and his government to cease and desist from further attacks in Gaza, and to return to serious negotiations toward a two state solution that finally begins to fulfill the aspirations of the Palestinian people.

*The Hamas government in Gaza needs to move to stop the rocket attacks against civilian areas in Israel.

How the Left Can Become a True Political Force to Be Reckoned With

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:38:00 +0000

November 13, 2012 |

The 2012 elections may prove to have been a watershed in several different respects. Despite the efforts by the political Right to suppress the Democratic electorate, something very strange happened: voters, angered by the attacks on their rights, turned out in even greater force in favor of Democratic candidates. The deeper phenomenon is that the changing demographics of the USA also became more evident—45% of Obama voters were people of color, and young voters turned out in large numbers in key counties.

Unfortunately for the political Left, these events unfolded with the Left having limited visibility and a limited impact—except indirectly through certain mass organizations—on the outcome.

The setting

On one level it is easy to understand why many Republicans found it difficult to believe that Mitt Romney did not win the election. First, the US remains in the grip of an economic crisis with an official unemployment rate of 7.9%. In some communities, the unemployment is closer to 20%. While the Obama administration had taken certain steps to address the economic crisis, the steps have been insufficient in light of the global nature of the crisis. The steps were also limited by the political orientation of the Obama administration, i.e., corporate liberal, and the general support by many in the administration for neo-liberal economics.

The second factor that made the election a ‘nail biter’ was the amount of money poured into this contest. Approximately $6 billion was spent in the entire election. In the Presidential race it was more than $2 billion raised and spent, but this does not include independent expenditures. In either case, this was the first post-Citizen United Presidential campaign, meaning that money was flowing into this election like a flood after a dam bursts. Republican so-called Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs) went all out to defeat President Obama.

Third, the Republicans engaged in a process of what came to be known as “voter suppression” activity. Particularly in the aftermath of the 2010 midterm elections, the Republicans created a false crisis of alleged voter fraud as a justification for various draconian steps aimed at allegedly cleansing the election process of illegitimate voters. Despite the fact that the Republicans could not substantiate their claims that voter fraud was a problem on any scale, let alone a significant problem, they were able to build up a clamor for restrictive changes in the process, thereby permitting the introduction of various laws to make it more difficult for voters to cast their ballots. This included photographic voter identification, more difficult processes for voter registration, and the shortening of early voting. Though many of these steps were overturned through the intervention of courts, they were aimed at causing a chilling impact on the voters, specifically, the Democratic electorate.[1]

So, what happened?

Prior to the election, we argued that what was at stake in the 2012 elections was actually the changing demographics of the USA (along with a referendum on the role of government in the economy). What transpired in the elections was very much about demographics.

The percentage of white voters dropped from 74% to 72% between 2008 and 2012. Romney received 59% of the white vote.

Yet something else happened and it took many people by surprise. Despite the intimidation caused by the voter suppression statutes—and the threatened actions by right-wing groups—African Americans, Latinos and Asians turned out in significant numbers, voting overwhelmingly for the Democrats.[2] 93% of African Americans went with Obama, as did 71% of Latinos (which represented an increase over 2008) and, despite the fact that Asians are only 2-3% of the electorate, they went 73% in favor of Obama (which was a jump from 62% in 2008). The youth vote, by the way, increased to 19% of the electorate, over 18% in 2008, and went overwhelmingly for Obama. Labor union members went for Obama at a rate of 65%, and unions themselves played a major role in many key states in terms of voter mobilization. By the strategic mobilization of these voters in a well-organized ‘ground game,’ Obama won 332 Electoral College votes compared with Romney’s 206. Obama’s popular vote total was also 2.6% head of Romney.

The Romney/Ryan camp was entirely unprepared for this. While it is the case that the popular vote total was not overwhelming for Obama, there was nothing particularly unusual in US history for such a result. The bottom line is that Obama clearly won both the Electoral College vote and the popular vote and, as such, can claim a mandate for his next steps.

It is important that one understands that the African American/Latino/Asian turnout, along with the long-lines waiting to vote (including in the days of early voting) represented an audacious defiance of the forces that sought to suppress the vote. This audaciousness also represented a response to the increasingly racist attacks on Obama, attacks that were taken very personally by people of color generally and African Americans in particular.[3]

What was equally interesting about the November 6th elections were those in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Contrary to many expectations, the Democrats not only held onto the Senate, but slightly increased their margin of control. Within that expansion was the election of Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts to the seat once occupied by the late Teddy Kennedy. Warren, who gained a strong reputation in the fight to control Wall Street, promised actions on behalf of working people. Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist in Vermont, also decisively won reelection.

In the House of Representatives, Democrats increased their totals, but Republicans still dominate. This is mainly the result of the gerrymandering carried out by Republican state legislators during redistricting. The legacy of this gerrymandering may last at least a decade, part of the fallout which resulted from lower voter turnout combined with the Republican mobilization in the 2010 midterm elections.

Of particular note in the elections was the increased presence of women, especially progressive women, being elected to office, including the first openly gay Senator (from Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin). The state of New Hampshire now has women in all of the top governing positions.

Additionally several progressive ballot initiatives passed in various states, including on same-sex marriage and the decriminalization of marijuana. An interesting initiative in the state of Michigan to alter the state constitution in order to protect the right of workers to collective bargaining was defeated after a major and concerted attack by pro-employer groups.

What to make of the elections?

We return to our earlier conclusion, i.e., that what was at stake in 2012 was not Obama’s record but instead 2012 was a referendum over demographics and the role of government with the far right. Some on the Left found this assertion worthy of ridicule rather than introspection, and dismissed it, claiming that of course Obama’s record was central to the debate.

The results of the election conform much more to our conclusions. The vote for Obama, particularly by people of color, could not possibly have been the result of the conclusion that Obama’s record made him the great leader. Certainly his record was better than the interpretation projected by Romney/Ryan, but it was also the case that Obama’s record was complicated if not problematic. After all, we had witnessed an economic stimulus that, while significant by historical standards, was insufficient to the task; a healthcare reform package that, while bringing healthcare to millions, was based on a corporate model first elaborated by Mitt Romney when he was Governor of Massachusetts; a failure to close Guantanamo; the continuation and escalation of the Afghanistan/Pakistan war, including the usage of drone strikes; and the failure to adopt a clear policy to address systemic racial injustice in the USA. While there were a number of reforms that were introduced that were of significance, this was all far less than most of Obama’s supporters had hoped would be introduced.

So, what then could one say motivated the vote? We return to demographics and the role of government. Obama’s very existence represents the problematic future for the political Right; it’s not that he’s an individual whose birthplace is alleged by them to not be in the USA. This insane propaganda from the Birther movement is designed to distort the point entirely. The Birthers[4] and their off-spring hate Obama not because of where he was born but because he was born here. His very existence illustrates the changing demographics of the USA and its move away from being a ‘white republic’ governed by a broad ‘white’ front. Instead, we are moving more towards something else, toward a more openly multi-ethnic/multi-racial society, if not politically then at least numerically.

The election thus represented a repudiation of the right-wing irrationalists seeking to turn the clock back, and not just on race, but gender and class as well. In this sense it was not so much about what Obama had accomplished as it was about what sort of society 61 million people did not want. That retrograde society, which was rejected, was a neo-apartheid order of domination that condemned at least 47% of the population (according to Romney’s calculations) to marginalization, and condemned at least 90% of society to continued economic distress and submission.

Romney was proposing to reduce the role of government even further, at least when it came to supporting something approaching a social safety net. 61 million people recognized the barbarism contained in his message and program, and responded accordingly.

In sum, the November 6th elections were not a referendum challenging Obama’s course from the Left, but rather rejecting a challenge from the Right, since there was no viable Left alternative. At the same time there was an additional interesting feature of the elections as identified in various opinion polls: Democratic voters, while not as starry-eyed as many were in 2008, are looking for Obama to fight for them, or at least fight on their behalf. Frustration with Obama’s premature compromising in the name of so-called bi-partisanship wins the President few accolades within his base. The electorate is looking for something very different.

The Left in the elections: Building mass organizations vs. the mouths that screeched

Contrary to those who suggest that no Left exists in the USA, it is better to understand that there are two and a half Lefts in the USA. There is the organized Left, which takes the forms of very small political organizations, some of them calling themselves political parties, which are anti-capitalist and generally for some sort of socialism. There is also what Chilean Marxist Marta Harnecker would describe as the “social movement Left,” which are forces involved in left-leaning mass organizations and non-profits, more often than not single-issue or based within a specific sector. There is finally what we could term the ‘half’ Left, that is, the ‘Lone Rangers,’ the rather large number of independent individuals who self-identify as leftists but are unaffiliated with any left-wing project, with the possible exception a job with social impact, such as writers or teachers or health care workers. In each case these individuals and formations are anti-capitalist and seek a social transformation of the USA, but with varying degrees of organization, insurgency and effectiveness.

The US Left has historically had a difficult time addressing electoral politics. There are several reasons--the complications that arise from the undemocratic nature of the US electoral system; the size of the USA; the lack of attention to strategy; and most important, ambivalence when it comes to race. As a result the Left frequently sways back and forth between what could, perhaps, be described as apocalyptism on the one hand (i.e., waving the red flag so that the masses see us before the whole system collapses and, therefore, they know where to go), to reformist/incrementalism, on the other (i.e., believing that the best that can be done is to submerge into the Democratic Party and help move change until the system reaches a point where quantitative change morphs into qualitative change).

There is currently no significant and unified effort within the Left(s) toward building a self-conscious, broad radical Left project that has the objective of winning power. The bulk of the US Left does not think politically. Rather it engages in ideological or moral struggle and often thinks that ideology or morality is identical to politics. Rather than conceptualizing a protracted struggle for power based on the need to build a majoritarian bloc, too many individuals and organizations on the Left remain trapped in a self-satisfying world of small sects and Facebook tirades rather than the hard work of building the alliances of grassroots groups necessary to win.

The limitations of the Left’s approach to the fight for power can be illustrated in any number of places, but, for the moment, let’s reflect upon the electoral realm. Consider the following. In 1920 Eugene V. Debs ran, for the fifth time, for the Presidency. Though in jail at the time (as a result of political repression), he received nearly one million votes. In the famous 1948 campaign of Progressive Party candidate Henry Wallace, the candidate received 1,157,328 votes and no Electoral College votes. In the same election, Dixiecrat candidate Strom Thurmond received more popular votes and 39 electoral votes.

Now, in 2012, Green Party candidate Jill Stein received 402,125 votes. This is going the wrong way. But it reflects, more than anything, not the character of Stein or her supporters but the approach toward electoral politics taken by the Green Party and many of their followers.

Independent presidential candidacies in the modern era reflect what can be described as a flag-waving/protest mode rather than a struggle for power/bloc-building mode. In other words, they aim to express both outrage and reasoned critique at the system and frustration with the toxicity of democratic capitalism. They have no hope of gaining power either because they do not believe in struggling to gain power or because they believe that power is gained when the ship sinks and we, on the Left, are positioned in the proper lifeboats prepared to save the mass of distressed passengers.

This is only on the electoral side. The various small organizations of the organized Left which do not engage in electoral politics in their own names seem relatively content being small and of little consequence. In the absence of an effort at building a majoritarian bloc they can remain comfortable in their particular niche(s) and not feel the cold winds that often accompany entering into unexplored demographic or geographic territories. They remind us of the old Clifford Odet’s play, ‘Waiting for Lefty.’

At the same time, over the last 5-10 years there has developed a new interest in electoral engagement in the social movement Left. Sprouting up in different parts of the USA have been progressive—rather than explicitly Left—political formations that have either engaged in what has come to be known as “civic engagement” work, i.e., voter registration, education, voting rights, electoral law reform, and/or actual electoral engagement. The strength of this work is that its orientation can be described as left/progressive in that these are mass-based projects attempting to reach out to a broad array within our natural base.

Organizations ranging from Progressive Democrats of America to the Virginia New Majority and Florida New Majority fall into this camp, though the list is quite a bit longer than just these organizations.

In the lead up to the 2012 elections the Left was badly divided over how to respond. One segment, which we will describe as the “mouths that screeched” were adamant that Obama had betrayed progressives; that he was not progressive; that he represented the empire; and therefore not only should not be supported but that it was ideological treason to suggest any level of support or even just to give him a vote without any implied support.

The vitriolic attacks coming from this sector masked the fact that this segment of the Left is actually becoming irrelevant. They had no visible impact on the elections and their protests were largely ignored. Unfortunately, one of the key things that this segment missed was the racial element of the 2012 elections and the need for voters of color, along with a good number of white allies, to push back at the ‘demographic’ attacks that were underway from the political Right. By focusing on all that Obama did incorrectly, this segment of the Left ignored, as well, that the Left and progressives are on the strategic defensive in the USA and that they need alliances that will provide some level of space within which we can operate.

The segment of the Left that actually made a difference was those within the organized Left and the social movement Left who engaged their mass organizations and non-profits in electoral activity.[5] Whether it was voter registration; voter education efforts; electoral infrastructure work; or Get Out The Vote efforts, many of these organizations proved themselves to be very effective campaign organizations. They appear to be in the process of laying the groundwork for the sorts of progressive alliance building that will be necessary to respond to the next electoral realignment that hits the USA.

What is missing entirely, however, is a coherent, self-identified Left, taking either the form of a united front, alliance, or political organization that can serve as a pole for independent, radical yet grounded Left politics. The mass base for such an effort exists. The opinion polls that demonstrate that roughly one third of the population are open to directions other than capitalism means that approximately 90 million people are seeking alternatives. Consider that 90 million figure when you review the stats for the Green Party’s votes in 2012. The Occupy Movement also evidenced a political fissure that is certain to widen as the class struggle intensifies, though admittedly Occupy did not result in the formation of one or several credible Left organizations (no criticism implied).

Moving forward

The challenge for the Left then becomes two fold. One, there must be a self-identified, self-aware, mass radical Left formation that openly and unapologetically advocates against capitalism and for environmentally friendly socialism. Whether such an organization is called a political party, alliance or some other name is secondary to what it must do and what it must avoid. What it must avoid is the idea that it can or should compete in the electoral realm on the presidential level at this time. That is a no-win scenario. What it can do, however, is to unite and train the existing leaders in mass movements and develop an anti-capitalist program and ultimately an anti-capitalist project. We term this notion of a new, self-conscious and organized Left—inspired by the approach taken by and expression used by Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci—to be the “Modern Tecumseh.”[6] Second, the Left can also help to build a progressive front—perhaps a popular front against finance capital that unites disparate forces—that gains electoral expression in the form of an organization (rather than a third party) that runs candidates within the Democratic Party or, runs them independently if conditions exist (such as in Vermont where the candidacy and leadership of Senator Sanders needs to be supported).

As long as the progressive forces in the USA are on the defensive there will be tactical alliances that take place that are not satisfying but are nevertheless necessary. These should not be treated as matters of principle but rather as expressions of necessity of the moment. Further, we on the Left must pay much greater attention to what is transpiring among the people themselves. The fact that so many on the Left would have focused on Obama’s record and virtually ignored the intense racist offensive against Obama (and its broader implications) demonstrated that many of our friends are out of touch with reality.

Reality, however, is a good and necessary starting point if one ever wishes to build a majoritarian bloc and win power. We fully expect to see an intensification of class struggle in the near term. We need to assert a new culture of organizing capable of meeting the demands it will place on us, and now is the time to begin.

[1] The issue of voting rights remains critical since there are cases before the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge critical features of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, features that were part of the Department of Justice’s arsenal to overturn certain voter suppression legislation.

[2] It is important to note, however, that voter turnout was down in comparison to 2008 except for nine states. As of this writing it is not clear as to the sources of the decline.

[3] Attacks such as Donald Trump’s insulting demand that President Obama turn over his college transcripts. The suggestion of such an action is almost unbelievable. Nothing along those lines would have been tolerated when it came to former President George W. Bush, an individual who was not half the student that was Obama in college.

[4] The right-wing, irrationalist political movement that asserts that Obama was not born in the USA and is, therefore, not the legitimate president of the USA.

[5] To be clear, not all forces in the organized Left or the social movement Left engaged in left/progressive electoral organizing. We are simply noting that there were forces from within these sectors that did, in fact, choose to engage.

[6] Tecumseh: Shawnee leader in the first decade of the 19th century. Recognized that Native Americans would never defeat the USA by fighting as individual tribes or fighting through the creation of a confederation. He was the advocate for a Native American nation-state, i.e., uniting the tribes and fusing their efforts. He was killed in 1813 at the Battle of the Thames in Canada.

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/how-left-can-become-true-political-force-be-reckoned

Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/bill-fletcher-jr
[3] http://www.alternet.org/authors/carl-davidson
[4] http://www.alternet.org/tags/election2012
[5] http://www.alternet.org/tags/left-0
[6] http://www.alternet.org/tags/politics-0
[7] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

Middle East: The Next Four Years

Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:11:00 +0000

Dispatches From The Edge

Nov.11, 2012

Over the next four years the U.S. will face a number of foreign policy issues, most of them regional, some of them global. Dispatches From The Edge will try to outline and analyze them, starting with the Middle East.

Syria

The most immediate problem in the region is the on-going civil war in Syria, a conflict with local and international ramifications. The war—which the oppressive regime of Bashar al-Assad ignited by its crushing of pro-democracy protests— has drawn in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Iran, and the monarchies of the Persian Gulf, in particular Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The U.S., France and Great Britain are also heavily involved in the effort to overthrow the Assad government.

The war has killed more than 30,000 people and generated several hundred thousand refugees, who have flooded into Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. It has also badly damaged relations between Turkey and Iran. The former supports the insurrection, the latter supports the Assad regime. Pitting Shite Iran (and to a certain extent, Shite Iraq and the Shite-based Hezbollah in Lebanon) against the largely Sunni Muslim opposition has sharpened sectarian tensions throughout the region.

The war itself appears to be a stalemate. So far, the regime’s army remains loyal, but seems unable to defeat the insurrection. The opposition, however, is deeply splintered and ranges from democratic nationalists to extremist jihadist groups. The US and Britain are trying to weld this potpourri into a coherent political opposition, but so far the attempts have floundered on a multiplicity of different and conflicting agendas by the opponents of the Assad regime.

Efforts by the United Nations (UN) to find a peaceful solution have been consistently torpedoed, because the opposition and its allies insist on regime change. The goal of overthrowing the government makes this a fight to the death and leaves little room for political maneuvering. A recent ceasefire failed, in part, because jihadist groups supported by Qatar and Saudi Arabia refused to abide by it and set off several car bombs in the capital. The Sunni extremism of these groups is whipping up sectarian divisions among the various sects of Islam.

There are a number of things the Obama administration could do to alleviate the horrors of the current civil war.

First, it should drop the demand for regime change, although this does not necessarily mean that President Assad will remain in power. What must be avoided is the kind of regime change that the war in Libya ushered in. Libya has essentially become a failed state, and the spinoff from that war is wreaking havoc in countries that border the Sahara, Mali being a case in point. In the end, Assad may go, but to dismantle the Baathist government is to invite the kind of sectarian and political chaos that the dissolution of the Baathist regime in Iraq produced.

Second, if the US and its allies are enforcing an arms embargo against Assad’s government, they must insist on the same kind of embargo on arms sent to the rebels by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Third, China and Russia should be asked to negotiate a ceasefire and organize a conference aimed at producing a political settlement and transition government. China recently proposed a four-point peace plan that could serve as a starting point for talks. A recent Assad government controlled newspaper, Al Thawra,suggested the Damascus regime would be open to such negotiations. A key aspect to such talks would be a guarantee that no outside power would undermine them.

Palestinians

The conflict that will not speak its name—or at least that is the way the current impasse between Israel and the Palestinians was treated during the 2012 US elections. But as U.S. Gen. James Mattis, head of U.S. Central Command, the military formation responsible for the Middle East, said last spring, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a “preeminent flame that keeps the pot boiling in the Middle East, particularly as the Arab Awakening causes Arab governments to be more responsive to the sentiments of their populations” that support the Palestinians.

Rather than moving toward a solution, however, the government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu recently announced yet another round of settlement building. There are approximately 500,000 Jewish settlers currently on the West Bank and East Jerusalem, although all such settlements are a violation of international law. While Netanyahu says he wants negotiations, he continues to build settlements, which is like negotiating over how to divide a pizza while one of the parties is eating it.

Proposals to annex the West Bank, once the program of far-right settlers, have gone mainstream. A conference this past July in the West Bank city of Hebron drew more than 500 Israelis who reject the idea of a Palestinian state. The gathering included a number of important Likud Party officials and members of the Knesset. Likud is Netanyahu’s party and currently leads the Israeli government.

“Friends, everybody here today knows that there is a solution—applying sovereignty [over the West Bank]. One state for the Jewish people with an Arab minority,” Likud Knesset member Tzipi Hotovely told the audience.

Conference organizer Yehudit Katsover put the matter bluntly “We’re all here to say one thing: the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people. Why? Because!”

A major argument against absorbing the West Bank is that it would dilute the Jewish character of Israel and threaten the country’s democratic institutions. “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish or non-democratic,” Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak argues. “If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”

But right-wing conference goers dismissed that argument because they reject that there is a demographic threat from the Palestinians. According to The Times of Israel, former ambassador to the US, Yoram Ettinger, told the crowd that estimates of the Palestinian population are based on “Palestinian incompetence or lying” and that there are actually a million fewer than the official population count.

Legal expert Yitzhak Bam said he expected there would be no fallout from the Americans if Israel unilaterally annexed the West Bank, since Washington did not protest the 1981 annexation of the Golan Heights from Syria. Both areas were conquered in the 1967 War.

The Times reporter Raphael Ahern writes that that the conference reflects “The annexationists are growing in confidence, demanding in outspoken fashion what they always dreamed of but have never dared to say quite so publically.”

The expanding settlements are rapidly making the possibility of a viable two-state solution impossible. Eventually there will be no pizza left to divide.

The Obama administration has dropped the ball on this issue and needs to re-engage, lest the “pot” boil over.

First, the Tel Aviv government needs to be told that all settlement expansion must cease, and that failure to do so will result in a suspension of aid. At about $3.4 billion a year, Israel is the US’s number one foreign aid recipient.

Second, the US must stop blocking efforts by the Palestinians for UN recognition.

Third, negotiations must cover not only the West Bank and Gaza, but also the status of East Jerusalem. The latter is the engine of the Palestinian economy, and without it a Palestinian state would not be viable.

Iran

The immediate danger of a war with Iran appears to have slightly receded, although the Israelis are always a bit of a wild card. First, the Obama administration explicitly rejected Netanyahu’s “red line” that would trigger an attack on Teheran. The Israeli prime minister argues that Iran must not be allowed to achieve the “capacity” to produce nuclear weapons, a formulation that would greatly lower the threshold for an assault. Second, there are persistent rumors that the US and Iran are exploring one-on-one talks, and it appears that some forces within Iran that support talks—specifically former president Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani— are in the ascendency.

Netanyahu continues to threaten war, but virtually his entire military and intelligence apparatus is opposed to a unilateral strike. Israeli intelligence is not convinced that Iran is building a bomb, and the Israeli military doesn’t think it has the forces or weapons to do the job of knocking out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Polls also indicate overwhelming opposition among the Israeli public for a unilateral attack. This doesn’t mean Netanyahu won’t attack Iran, just that the danger does not seem immediate. If Israel should choose to launch a war, the Obama administration should make it clear that Tel Aviv is on its own.

US intelligence and the Pentagon are pretty much on the same page as the Israelis regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Even with its powerful military, US generals are not convinced that an attack would accomplish much more than delaying Iran’s program by from three to five years. At least at this point, the Pentagon would rather talk than fight. “We are under the impression that the Iranian regime is a rational actor,” says Gen. Martin Dempsey, chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Polls also indicate that nearly 70 percent of the American public favors negotiations over war.

In short, a lot of ducks are now in a row to cut a deal.

However, the US cannot make uranium enhancement a red line. Iran has the right to enhance nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and as long as inspectors are in place—as they currently are—it is virtually impossible to create bomb-level fuel in secret.

Not only has intelligence failed to show that Iran is creating a nuclear weapons program, the country’s leader has explicitly rejected such a step. “The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons,” says the country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, calling nuclear weapons “a great and unforgivable sin.” The Iranian government has also indicated that it will take part in a UN-sponsored conference in Helsinki to create a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

The Obama administration should endorse this effort to abolish nuclear weapons in the Middle East, although this will force it to confront the only nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel. Israel is not a NPT signatory and is thought to have some 200 nuclear weapons. Such a monopoly cannot long endure. The argument that Israel needs nuclear weapons because it is so outnumbered in the region is nonsense. Israel has by far the strongest military in the Middle East and powerful protectors in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). While Egypt and Syria did attack Israel in 1973, it was to recover territories seized by Tel Aviv in the 1967 war, not an attempt to destroy the country. And that was almost 40 years ago. Since then Israel has invaded Lebanon twice and Gaza once. Countries in the region fear Israel, not visa-a-versa.

While the White House has recently eased restrictions on the sale of critical medicines to Iran, the sanctions are taking a terrible toll on the economy and the average Iranian. So far, the US has not explicitly said it will remove the sanctions if talks are showing real progress. Since no one likes negotiating with a gun to the head—in this regard Iranians are no different than Americans—there should be some good faith easing of some of the more onerous restrictions, like those on international banking and oil sales.

Lastly, the option of war needs to be taken off the table. Threatening to bomb people in order to get them not to produce nuclear weapons will almost certainly spur Iran (and other countries) to do exactly the opposite. A war with Iran would also be illegal. The British attorney general recently informed the Parliament that an attack on Iran would violate international law, because Iran does not pose a “clear and present danger,” and recommended that the US not be allowed to use the British-controlled island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to launch such an attack.

The Gulf

Because US relies on the energy resources of the Persian Gulf countries, as well as strategic basing rights, it is unlikely that the Obama administration will challenge the foreign and domestic policies of its allies in the region. But then Washington should not pretend that its policies there have anything to do with promoting democracy.

The countries that make up the Gulf Cooperation Council, led by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are monarchies that not only suppress dissent but also systematically oppress women and minorities and, in the case of Bahrain, the Shite majority. The extreme jihadist organizations that the countries of the Gulf fund and arm are destabilizing governments across the region and throughout Central Asia. Washington may bemoan extremism in Pakistan, but its Gulf allies can claim the lion’s share of the credit for nurturing the groups responsible for that extremism.

The Gulf Council is not interested in promoting democracy—indeed, political pluralism is one of its greatest enemies, nor does it have much interest in the modern world, aside from fancy cars and personal jet planes. This past summer Saudi Arabia executed a man for possessing “books and talismans from which he learned to harm God’s worshippers,” and last year beheaded a man and a woman for witchcraft.

Lastly, the Obama administration should repudiate the 1979 Carter Doctrine that allows the US to use military force to guarantee access to energy resources in the Middle East. That kind of thinking went out with 19^th century gunboats and hangs like the Damocles Sword over any country in the region that might decide to carve out an independent policy on politics and energy.

The Worst Didn't Happen; Now another Danger Lurks

Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:21:00 +0000

"Keep in mind that these folks spent millions and millions of dollars - and played just as many dirty tricks - to defeat Obama and a host of other Democratic candidates, and that money wasn't spent, nor were those dirty tricks played, in the hope that Republicans might emerge victorious,' wrote Detroit Monster on The Black Liberal Boomer Blog on the eve of the vote. "This was an all-out, go-for-broke campaign that was not supposed to lose. They had successfully cleared the decks in 2010 to make way for a flood of rightwing Tea Party affiliated candidates, they had engaged in massive demonstrations of voter suppression right up to the day of the vote, they had a bought-and-paid-for Supreme Court majority who had handed a stolen presidency to George W. Bush in 2000 come to the rescue once again when they gave the thumbs-up to Citizens United, enabling super wealthy individuals and the corporations who love them to swallow America whole."

Alas, for the most part it didn't come to pass. The divisiveness, the smears, the racism, the attempted voter suppression, the obscurantism, and outright lying didn't work. The reactionary rightwing suffered a clear setback and for that the nation and the world can be thankful. But danger lurks from another quarter.

The "bipartisan" financial elite has always been determined to get its way no matter who was headed for the White House next year. While the nation has been preoccupied with who would run the government for the next four years, the austerity lobby has been quietly mobilizing its forces. It has been augmented by powerful corporate interests who are prepared to spend as much a $100 million on a campaign to make the 99 percent of us pay the
major costs of overcoming capitalism's latest crisis. They are intent on making sure that the greatest sacrifices are borne by working people, retirees and the poor.

This is how it goes down.

If a proposal to undermine Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid comes before the new Congress, all the members of that body will have to show where they stand. Although it will be easier now that the election is over, that will still be a political problem. And so, under the banner of "deficit reduction," and a threatened "fiscal cliff," a drive is underway to cut a backroom legislative deal. When the secret horse-trading is over, a package will be presented for approval and for which no one will take responsibility for any of its individual parts. It's called a "grand bargain."

The incoming administration has no mandate to do anything but uphold Reid's pledge.

The people of the country do not want to reduce the economic security and well being of seniors, or to sharply reduce healthcare provisions for low-income people and the disabled. That's why the matter was never debated during the campaign. Now the thinking is that this can be accomplished between the "lame duck" period now and when the new Congress convenes January 3. It's a strange view of democracy, wherein if you can't get enough of the peoples' elected representatives to approve of something, you extort it out in a backroom somewhere in Washington. Of course, it's all justified in the name of "bi-partisanship" and "compromise."

"Poll after poll has shown that the public rejects the millionaire-oriented, tax-cutting, government-slashing austerity plan known as "Simpson Bowles," Richard (RJ) Eskow of the Campaign For America's Future, wrote last week. "And yet politicians in both parties keep trying to force it through the legislative process under the banner of a `Grand Bargain.' Word is they're going to try again, either during the lame-duck session or when the new Congress convenes in January."

"Brace yourself for one of the most aggressive corporate lobbying campaigns of all time," Sarah Anderson and Scott Klinger wrote on AlterNet.org October 26. "And one of the most hypocritical."

On October 4, Financial Times economic writer, Gillian Tett, wrote that sometime last year she heard Erskine Bowles, "the wisecracking Democrat who has campaigned for bipartisan fiscal reform, throw down a gauntlet to American business." Speaking to an audience of corporate executives, at Harvard Business School, she wrote, he had "begged them to support his efforts to forge a practical deal - and argued that this corporate voice was crucial to breaking Washington gridlock." Tett rued the fact that, as she put it, "the appeal fell on deaf ears; chief executives have been missing in action (MIA) - or missing from the political fiscal action - in the past year."

"But could this finally be about to change?" wrote Tett because "a quiet new initiative has recently got under way to co-opt those MIA corporate leaders into the fiscal fight."

"Most notably, under the framework of a group known as The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget - led by people such as Maya MacGuineas with the spiritual leadership of Mr. Bowles and Alan Simpson - Washington and Wall Street players are trying to persuade those CEOs to support a campaign for bipartisan action," wrote Tett. "So far, about 100 CEOs have signed up, including Jamie Dimon (of JPMorgan), Lloyd Blankfein (of Goldman
Sachs), Jeff Immelt (of General Electric), and Mr. Cote himself."

"The group has raised more than $30m, and expects to raise more, to fund lobbying and public debate, via conferences, advertisements and social media (Mr. Bowles, as it happens, is on the Facebook board.)," reported Tett. (The mogul list also includes Steve Ballmer of Microsoft).

According to Tett, between now and the end of the year, this big business will advocate a "preliminary deal" to get past the so-called "fiscal cliff", and then, in the first six months of next year, they will launch "a serious drive to hammer out a grandiose fiscal plan." By this time, she suggests, it will be easier to strike a bargain since none of the bargainers will be up for re-election.

This big business super lobby is proceeding under the slogan "Fix the Debt".

"This is yet another project supported by Wall Street investment banker Peter Peterson," wrote economist Dean Baker. "For the last two decades Peterson has used his fortune to bankroll a number of organizations that were ostensibly pushing fiscal responsibility, but always had the same punch line: cut Social Security and Medicare."

If anything, the economy needs more public spending to get us out of a deep slump "The irony is that CEOs in the coalition's leadership have been major contributors to the national debt they now claim to know how to fix," wrote Anderson and Klinger. "These are guys who've mastered every tax-dodging trick in the book. And now that they've boosted their corporate profits by draining the public treasury, how do they propose we put our fiscal house back in order? By squeezing programs for the poor and elderly, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."

"There really is no shame," commented Bernie Sanders (Ind- Vt). "The Wall Street leaders whose recklessness and illegal behavior caused this terrible recession are now lecturing the American people on the need for courage to deal with the nation's finances and deficit crisis. Before telling us why we should cut Social Security, Medicare and other vitally important programs, these CEOs might want to take a hard look at their responsibility for causing the deficit and this terrible recession."

"Our Wall Street friends might also want to show some courage of their own by suggesting that the wealthiest people in this country, like them, start paying their fair share of taxes" continued Sanders. "They might work to end the outrageous corporate loopholes, tax havens and outsourcing provisions that their lobbyists have littered throughout the tax code - contributing greatly to our deficit."

A clear indication that the big business operatives have been gearing up for a big campaign was the appearance on the day before the election of a full- page advertisement in the New York Times titled, "The Fiscal Cliff and America's Future." It was paid for by 11 firms and funds, including the online stockbroker TD Ameritrade, the investment firm Morningstar, the multinational investment management corporation, BlackRock and AK Steel.
The ad called for a "bipartisan response" to what it referred to as a pressing need "to steer our nation away from this rapidly approaching fiscal cliff and towards a credible, sustainable deficit reduction plan."

The big business ad repeats the canard that businesses are holding off from investing the funds they have on hand because of the "uncertainty" about the economic future.

"The Fix the Debt campaign, much like the Bowles-Simpson Commission and the propaganda of the Peterson Foundation generally, contends that the projected national debt is depressing business willingness to invest now" wrote American Prospect co-editor Robert Kuttner October 30. "Presumably, businesses are worried about inflation and uncertainty. But the government can fund ten-year bonds at less than 2 percent interest and thirty-year
bonds at less than 3 percent. So investors don't seem worried about inflation. It's not lack of confidence in deficit reduction that's depressing business investment but lack of confidence in consumer purchasing power."

"If anything, the economy needs more public spending to get us out of a deep slump brought to you by the very people behind this campaign," continued Kuttner. "Cutting the deficit prematurely will only depress purchasing power and deepen the slump. That's the real lesson of Greece, Spain, Portugal, et al."

It is important to recognize what the so-called fiscal cliff is all about. The Republicans "want something" says economist Paul Krugman, and it is "making all the Bush tax cuts permanent" and, not having the necessary votes in Congress, they are "holding America hostage, saying - more or less explicitly - that if they can't have what they want but can't pass, they'll tank the whole economy."

According to former Treasury Secretary and White House economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, President Obama "has embraced the principles, though not all the details, embodied in the Simpson-Bowles commission report on budget deficits" and "Like the group of chief executives who made a major statement on deficit reduction last week he insists that achieving sustainable finances means both containing spending especially on entitlements and raising revenue" and "he has made clear that in talks with willing partners to conclude a deal, he is prepared to go beyond his budget proposals to ensure that debt accumulation is contained."

Repeatedly during the Presidential campaign, Republican Mitt Romney was sharply and correctly criticized for advocating a step reduction in taxes while refusing to specify which current deductions he would alter to achieve his goal. He steadfastly refused to say when asked. A similar demand should have been made to Obama; which of the "details" of the scheme advanced by Simpson and Bowles does he have reservations about? Nobody asked and he never said.

Last week, Kuttner, wrote ". on Wednesday morning, a struggle begins within the Democratic Party to save him (and us) from himself - to keep him from agreeing to a budget deal that will only slow growth, needlessly sacrifice Social Security and Medicare, and make the next four years much like the last four years."

"What a waste, what a pity," concluded Kuttner. "Progressive Democrats should be resisting the economic lunacy and political sway of an extremist Republican Party. Instead, they will be working to keep their own president from capitulating to fiscal folly."

Before the election, Eskow, of the Campaign for America's Future, observed, "It's unfortunate that the President isn't clearer and more forceful on this issue, but one thing's for certain: While he mentions `Simpson Bowles' often, he's not running on an unequivocal program of cuts to Medicare and Social Security, drastic reduction in other forms of government spending, and lower taxes for the wealthy."

"And that is Simpson Bowles."

"Nobody - nobody - is running on a straight Simpson Bowles ticket," wrote Eskow. "That's because it's as toxic politically as it would be economically, were it to become law. It would make a mockery of the democratic process to impose this austerity plan on voters who were never given the chance to vote for - or against - it." "As far as Social Security, my opponent is on record as wanting to privatize Social Security," says Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. "I am opposed to that. There is a reason that FDR passed Social Security in 1935. That's because older Americans, after they retired, they had no income, no way to survive, and their life expectancy was cut short. Same thing with Medicare. There was a reason in 1965 that we passed Medicare. Older Americans were dying and it wasn't of old age. They were dying for lack of healthcare. So now we've created Medicare, created Social Security, I am going to stand and fight for both of these programs. They are very important to seniors and future generations of seniors."

"I will promise you without fear of contradiction, I will do everything in my power to strengthen and protect Medicare and Social Security and it's going to be a cold day in the middle of August in the Nevada desert before I do anything that's going to harm those two essential programs," said Reid.

In her acceptance speech Tuesday night the new Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren pledged to defend Medicare and Social Security.

We didn't get a chance to express ourselves on this matter in the voting booth; the two major candidates wouldn't discuss it (the minor party candidates might have made it more of an issue but didn't). But
the incoming administration has no mandate to do anything but uphold Reid's pledge. To do otherwise is to spit in the eyes of a major and important section of its "base." Unions, senior advocacy groups and progressive organizations would do well to express their opinion on this right now and prepare for battle.

I know. Thanksgiving is upon us and Christmas, Hanukkah and New Years are near and we would like to forget about politics for a while. The problem is, matters of great importance to the well-being of a lot of working people in our country could be decided over the next seven weeks or so. On the sly.

_________________

BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member and Columnist, Carl Bloice, is a writer in San Francisco, a member of the National Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and formerly worked for a healthcare union

We Won! The American People Speak and Act With Strength and Determination

Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:54:00 +0000

Though many of the state margins were narrow President Obama ran the table winning every swing or battleground state with the possible exception of Florida where votes are still being counted as of 5:30 this morning.

President Obama also won the popular vote by 2 million votes. The President won 303 electoral votes to 206 for Romney. We knew about 11 pm that the President had won when Ohio was called for him.

Democrats also held the Senate. Elizabeth Warren won with a good margin in Massachusetts. Claire McKaskill won in Missouri beating Akin--he of the legitimate rape comment. Joe Donnelly also won in Indiana beating Republican Mourdock. Warren won by eight percentage points. Donnelly won in Indiana by 6 percentage points. Sherrod Brown won re-election. Tammy Baldwin won becoming the first openly gay Senator. Democrats picked up seats in the Senate.

Progressives like you worked their hearts out all over America for our people, our country, our president, and progressive Democrats. We fought and beat the Tea Party, the oligarchs and massive rich, Karl Rove's strategy, ALEC, the Koch Brothers, and all those who would tear down democracy and destroy the middle class and the labor movement. Women spoke strongly. Latinos spoke strongly. The LGBT community spoke strongly. And AFRICAN-AMERICANS fought back against the neo-poll taxes and disenfranchisement.

And as always our labor movement provided the President a foundation of support, energy, and strong presence.

The truth for progressives is that we are slowly winning the battle of ideas, future constituents, policies of justice. This election was won with progressive constituencies and a PROGRESSIVE AGENDA.

The President won with huge healthcare reform that we must continue working on and commitment to the middle class and acommitment to workers and unions and collective bargaining.

Republicans wake up this morning scratching their heads realizing they have lost 5 of 6 Presidential popular votes.

Now we must begin to think about how we build on this great victory to build a big struggle on America's biggest issues--inequality, investment in America and jobs (the agenda Dr. Levins and I laid out in Getting America Back to Work), collective bargaining, honoring workers, respect for every person in America.

We in the labor movement must continue to protect and expand collective bargaining--and to lay the foundation for the opportunity to create a struggle and perhaps a movement that addresses the economic issues of the middle class and THE POOR. We have to think outside our membership and act like the voice of all Working Families embracing new forms of organizational structures that work when the all or nothing NLRB fails or is irrelevant. We must act with boldness. NOW IS THE TINE TO END 35 YEARS OF WAGE STAGNATION and TO PUSH HISTORY FORWARD.

Democracy comes out on top on Nov. 6

Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:47:00 +0000

After a long and bitterly contested battle, the forces of inclusive democracy came out on top yesterday. The better angels of the American people spread their wings, as they went to the polls.

An African-American president was re-elected to the office of the Presidency, the Democrats unexpectedly strengthened their hand in the Senate and House, and victories, including big ones for marriage equality, were registered at the state level.

Moreover, the balance of forces - that is, the ground on which people fight going forward - has shifted in a progressive direction. And thanks in large measure goes to what might be the most notable development in this election - the emergence of a multi-racial, male-female, working-class-based electoral coalition that has the potential to transform America in the years and decades ahead.

The Communist Party said a year ago that the 2012 elections would be the main front of the class and democratic struggle, and subsequent events have confirmed that fact.

Indeed, we argued (and not everyone on the left agreed and probably still don't) that defeating right wing extremism was the key to moving the whole chain of democratic struggle forward in the coming period.

Conversely, we said that a victory by right-wing extremism would set into motion a far-reaching assault on the people's living standards, rights, and organizational capacities, the likes that we've never seen.

Had Romney won the Presidency and the Republicans the Congress, it would have accelerated to warp drive a capitalist class counterrevolution - a reversal of seventy years of social progress. In a matter of three months time, the entire body of social legislation dating back to the New Deal could have been expunged.

But that won't happen due to the fact that voters - new as well as old - in their majority rejected Romney, a host of right-wing extremist candidates, their ideology, and their model of governance.

While many things went into last night's victory, what was notable was the ability of the democratic movement to turn back Republican efforts to suppress the vote; what was history-making was the determination of the people's movement (with labor in the lead) to reach, educate, and turn out tens of millions of American voters on election day; what was not surprising was the continuing, strategic, and sometimes underappreciated role of the African-American people (93 percent voted for the president) in the front ranks (at the head in many instances) of struggle for progress and democracy.

What was heartening was the readiness of millions of white workers and trade unionists to stand with the President even in a weak economy and in the face of unrelenting and savage racist appeals, especially in the battleground states; what was of fundamental importance was the full-throttled entry of the Latino people onto the national political stage; what was extraordinary was the turnout of the Asian and Pacific Islander people; what was encouraging was the enthusiasm with which young people again supported the president; what was no surprise was the skill with which the president contrasted his views and values from those of Romney; what was critical was the capacity of the American people to sift through the myriad of lies and deceptions that came from the Republican side.

Above all, what was decisive was the unmistakable election imprint of a rainbow working-class based electoral coalition, which has the potential to effect a process of long-term political renewal and realignment the likes of which we haven't seen since the New Deal coalition of the 1930s.

The Republicans say that no sweeping mandate emerges out of this election, but if we think about it more deeply, we arrive at quite a different conclusion: the vote, and here I include more than a sliver of Romney supporters, is an insistent call for governmental action on the most pressing problems facing the working class and people.

This was not a vote for savaging social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; or rolling back domestic spending; or resolving the budget crisis on the people's backs.

It was instead a vote for jobs, housing relief, withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan, an end to U.S.-led wars in the Middle East, the preservation of the package of benefits and rights that the American people now enjoy, equal pay for women, health, and reproductive rights, infrastructure renewal - an issue that took on greater forces in the wake of Sandy - marriage equality, a larger commitment to public education, a tax system in which the wealthiest families and corporations pay a much larger share, reform of our punitive and anti-democratic immigration laws, a reduction in the unconscionable inequality that sets us apart from other advanced capitalist countries, and, not least, an America that stands for fairness, tolerance, and decency.

As I mentioned, the Republicans are not on board with this assessment. Too many act as if nothing has changed.

But in some ways, the bigger problem at this moment is that politicians on both sides of the aisle, major opinion makers, and the corporate elite are saying that a "Grand Bargain," is the order of the day, beginning with spending cuts for people's needs, a weakening of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with some extra revenue collected in the form of a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. Otherwise the country, the "grand bargainers" claim, will fall off a "fiscal cliff" threatening the economic recovery, global markets, and the long term viability of existing social programs.

But the conventional wisdom in this case is problematic. Many mainstream economists correctly say that the real crisis is not a fiscal one, but a jobs and growth crisis.

Once people get back to work and once economic activity picks up, they go on to argue, the nation can turn its attention to reeling in deficits without endangering economic recovery, but along very different lines than proposed by too many politicians on both sides of the aisle. On the table must be cutting military spending, ending corporate subsidies, and increasing corporate taxes.

Without catching its breath, the AFL-CIO and its allies are organizing actions against a bipartisan resolution that falls on working people. But organized labor can't do it alone.

The coalition that mined the country for votes over the past several months and the rainbow electorate that elected the president and defended democracy yesterday must spring back into action. Tens of millions must be mobilized. Diverse forms of struggle must be employed. Not everyone has to be an Obama voter. The fight to get the anti-austerity message heard above the din of the major media is a real challenge. But it can be done.

Whatever the outcome of this immediate battle, the struggle to put the people's needs and nature before corporate profits and war spending will be a long one. This still- emerging multi-racial, working-class based coalition will experience victories, like we did on Election Day. But it will also encounter defeats. The main thing is that it never lose sight of the necessity of deepening and extending its reach, unity, and multi-racial, class-based character.

The task isn't to replicate the movements of the 1930s and 1960s, but today's activists would do well to draw the lessons from those movements and adapt them to current conditions.

Both have much to teach, but given the concentrated corporate economic and political power that the American people are up against, today's movement has to eclipse them in terms of scope, depth, and class and anti-racist understanding and unity. We are at the dawn of a new era.

Photo: Democrat Elizabeth Warren takes the stage after defeating incumbent GOP Sen. Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race, during an election night rally at the Fairmont Copley Plaza hotel in Boston, Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012. Michael Dwyer/AP

Foreign Policy Implications of the November 6 General Elections in the United States

Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:33:00 +0000

The re-election of President Barack Obama on November 6, and the results of the congressional election also, can be seen as a positive development for the international working class and humanity.

Many on the left, both here in the United States and worldwide, will not agree with this. There is widespread, and justified, disappointment and anger with the foreign policy of both the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department. There is not space here to list all the things that have gone wrong or must be criticized, but an essential few would include:

*The continual U.S. hostility toward socialist Cuba, manifesting itself in the failure to end the trade blockade or make any headway in the release of the four remaining members of the Cuban 5 who are still imprisoned.

*The hostility of U.S. policy toward the leftward movement of governments and peoples in Latin America. Rather than taking the advice of Mexican presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and returning to Franklin Roosevelt's “Good Neighbor Policy” of the 1930s, of equal economic partnership and non-interference, http://www.ihavenet.com/World-Mexico-A-Way-Out-of-Mexico-Morass-FPIF.html the current administration has butted heads with progressive regional leaders and intrigued with their right wing opponents. In the case of two recent coups d'état, in Honduras in 2009 and in Paraguay this year, the Obama administration has, in the first case, connived with the coup plotters so as to allow them to consolidate their rule, and the second case has not spoken out as the government resulting from the coup has intrigued with U.S. based transnational corporations to prevent a return to democracy. The continual support of “the war against drugs” in both Colombia (Plan Colombia) and Mexico (Merida Initiative) are utter failures which have cost tens of thousands of innocent lives.

*The “pivot to the East”, in which the U.S. has been working to limit Chinese influence in Asia, combined with egregious rhetorical China-bashing in the electoral context, also does not contribute much to world stability and peace.

*In Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Africa, heavy handed actions carried out in cooperation with NATO and local reactionaries have had disastrous results. The continued war in Afghanistan, the intervention in Libya, and the current support for right wing Arab and other regimes which are contributing to the escalation of the violence and suffering in Syria is a matter for great worry and urgent action. Economic sanctions against Iran only hurt ordinary working people, and are sharply criticized by the Iranian left. Worrisome, too, is the increased U.S. military involvement in Africa.

*Though the Obama administration has been more critical of Israeli policy than some of its predecessors, which has inspired venomous attacks on Obama by Prime Minister Netanyahu, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2012/0911/Netanyahu-criticizes-US-refusal-to-draw-a-red-line-on-Iran it remains to be seen whether it will do anything to prevent an Israel-Iran war or to pressure the Israelis to bargain in good faith with the Palestinians. The pattern over several decades has been for U.S. administrations, both Democratic and Republican, to get frustrated with Israeli intransigence, but in the end to go along with the status quo, leaving the Palestinian people holding the bag.

*There are many other things that could be criticized, but I will close by mentioning the atrocious policy of “drone strikes” which have killed numerous innocent people in Pakistan and Yemen, and have probably driven far more people into the arms of the Salafist jihadists in the process. http://www.peoplesworld.org/civilian-deaths-mount-as-u-s-drones-strike-pakistan/

All of these are extremely serious negative features of the current administration's foreign policy. However, the election of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would have made things far worse, as would a Republican majority in the Senate, or the increase of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

Romney attacked the Obama administration from the right on foreign policy as well as everything else. This was not just electoral demagogy, although there was a lot of that in this election, as always. It also reflected the links and networks that Romney, Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan and others close to them in the Republican Party have built up over the years with specific major corporate and political actors within the United States and worldwide. Of course, the Democrats have such links also, but those of the current crop of Republican politicians are particularly dangerous.

The Romney-Ryan forces are politically very close to groups within the United States such as the Neocons http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/bush-all-over-again-mitt-romney-trojan-horse-neocons and the Cuban exile right. They also link internationally with right wing networks in other countries, especially in Latin America, as well as with the most intransigent right-wing factions in Israeli politics.

Romney's financial ties in Latin America include investments in his company, Bain Capital, by people close to fascist circles in Central America, especially in El Salvador. http://peoplesworld.org/romney-s-bain-capital-connected-to-salvador-death-squads/These are the people who, in tandem with U.S. neo cons such as former Reagan and Bush II official Elliot Abrams, former Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and Republican foreign policy figures such as John Negroponte, Roger Noriega and Otto Reich, have brought us such things as the Contra Wars in Central America and the Iraq War also. Had Romney and Ryan won, these individuals and their ilk would have been in charge of U.S. foreign policy, both conceptualization and implementation. This would have been no improvement over the Obama-Clinton approach.

The voters also sent the political class a message, not for the first time, that they are not enthusiastic about bellicose approaches to international policy.

In the Senate and House of Representatives, none of the group of about 80 congresspersons who stand for a less bellicose, more peacefully oriented U.S. foreign policy were punished for it by being defeated at the polls, with the sole exception of California Democrat Laura Richardson, who was defeated by another Progressive Caucus member, Janice Hahn--they were thrown against each other in the same district because of redistricting. There is also no hint that Richardson was defeated on foreign policy issues. The rest of this group, who in the House constitute the majority of the Progressive, Black, Hispanic and Asian-Pacific Caucuses, were all reelected. Several new Senators and House members elected on November 6 are likely to join this group in terms of support for a peaceful foreign policy, including no more wars and a normalization of relations with Cuba and other countries with which the United States has picked fights.

As final election results come in, it appears that Congresspersons who have played a role in questioning the hostile U.S. policy toward Cuba were all re-elected unless they did not choose to run. A major voice in opposition to an aggressive U.S. foreign policy, Congressman Alan Grayson, had been defeated for re-election in 2010, but came storming back this year, defeating his Republican opponent by a margin of 62.7 percent to 37.5 percent to get back his old Florida seat. California Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the only person in the House to vote against the war in Afghanistan when it started and a major player in efforts to change U.S. policy on Cuba, was reelected without opposition.

We can also say goodbye to Joe Lieberman, the Independent, former Democratic senator from Connecticut who has been a major promoter of right wing policies on the Middle East and also on Cuba. He is replaced by a progressive Democrat, Chris Murphy, who will be much more likely to take reasonable positions on foreign policy.

On the other hand, few of the most anti-Cuba members of House and Senate lost their seats either, with the exception of Republican Congressman David Rivera of Florida, who was defeated by a moderate Democrat, Joe Garcia. Rivera went down to defeat because of an electoral fraud scandal; time will tell what kind of attitude Garcia takes. He is also Cuban-American and actually was, for a time, the Executive Director of the anti-Revolution Cuban-American Foundation, but his views have since become more moderate. Another enemy of Cuba, Florida Representative Connie Mack, tried for a Senate seat but was defeated by the incumbent Democrat, Bill Nelson, who is certainly no friend of Cuba either http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-06/news/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-florida-senatebre8a60aj-20121106_1_nelson-ranch-florida-senator-bill-nelson-third-term. Very bad news is the election of Republican Ted Cruz to the Senate from Texas; he will definitely be a hard line supporter of reactionary foreign policy. And the tendency of even progressive Democrats to avoid any appearance of a conflict with Israel will probably continue.

There are also indirect, but no less real, reasons to think that the November 6 election was a victory for a saner foreign policy. A major goal of the Republican Party was to destroy the U.S. labor movement. They failed, and organized labor emerges from the election politically strengthened, and also with a greater tendency to speak out independently on international and foreign policy issues. Examples of this latter tendency include the outstanding role U.S. trade unionists have been playing in opposition to U.S. policy toward Colombia, http://www.aflcio.org/Press-Room/Press-Releases/Statement-of-the-AFL-CIO-On-Colombian-Labor-And-Huand in favor of a peaceful solution to that country's civil war. U.S. unions have also been active in solidarity with beleaguered independent left-leaning unions in Mexico and elsewhere. http://peoplesworld.org/mexican-miners-fight-back-an-interview-with-napoleon-gomez/ Weakening of U.S. unions would have greatly harmed those important solidarity initiatives. Now they are strengthened.

Nothing much positive is going to happen legislatively in the immediate future. The Republicans lost a few seats in the House of Representatives, but still have a majority there. The Democrats slightly increased their majority in the Senate, but the problem of the filibuster is not solved, and not all Democrats take even relatively progressive positions on foreign policy issues. And above all, there is no indication that because of the dynamics of the election, the Obama administration is going to make a sudden left turn on international affairs. Rather, what was good about the results of the election was that they headed off a major effort to move foreign policy to the right. Secretary of State Clinton has said she is going to step down, and there is speculation about who might replace her, or what kinds of political views such a person might have. It is premature to get into a whole discussion about this, but progressive people should be ready to speak out when things are further along.

But one thing is clear: We can not rely on the initiatives of even the best Democrats to create changes in U.S. foreign policy. Quite independently of the party identity of the occupant of the Oval Office or who controls the House and Senate, U.S. based transnational corporations, including most specifically finance capital and also the oil and mining interests and the military-industrial complex, exercise tremendous power within our state and in our elections. To provide a counterweight to these influences, we have to organize at the base, working with organized labor, civil rights, and other democratic forces to create a permanent mass lobby for a foreign policy that emphasizes peace and that is respectful of the national sovereignty of other nations, and of the right of all peoples to seek security, prosperity and dignity, whether international monopoly capital likes it or not.

And we have to teach our people not to be deceived by the game of “humanitarian interventions”. The American people do not, as a whole, approve of aggressive interventions in other countries; for them to accept such actions, they have to be dressed up as acts of humanity. Only better mass level education on foreign affairs can stop that game.

TPP -- and a Defense of Marx On Trade

Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:22:00 +0000

Once again the US Left -- broadly defined, including a range from the Sierra Club to the Communist Party -- is getting ready to oppose a new trade agreement covering many pacific rim nations and peoples. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, launched in 2007, and strongly supported by the Obama administration, is envisioned as a new and much expanded multilateral free trade agreement. The current list of participating, negotiating, and observing countries includes: Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, United States, Vietnam, Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines.

The opposition to the agreement on the Left is in much the same spirit as its prior vocal opposition to NAFTA (the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement), and to the very existence of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and indeed all “capitalist” globalization.

These ongoing negotiations have drawn criticism and protest not just from the Left, but also a number of public and elected officials, in part due to the secrecy of the negotiations and a number of controversial clauses in draft agreements leaked to the public. For example, the Citizens Trade Campaign writes, “Of the 26 chapters under negotiation, only a few have to do directly with trade. The other chapters enshrine new rights and privileges for major corporations while weakening the power of nation states to oppose them.”

Most controversy to this point (according to leaks) has centered around intellectual property rights, agriculture, and negotiation secrecy. A number of United States Congresspeople, including Senator Bernard Sanders and Representatives Henry Waxman, Sander M. Levin, John Conyers, Jim McDermott, John Lewis, Pete Stark, Charles B. Rangel, Earl Blumenauer, and Lloyd Doggett, have expressed concerns about the effect the TPP requirements would have on access to medicine. In particular, TPP may protect intellectual property to the detriment of efforts to provide access to affordable medicine in the developing world.

Leaked provisions of the draft treaty also reference “investor-state arbitration” provisions, which permit foreign investors to bring claims directly against states before panels of unelected trade arbitrators if they perceive a country’s actions, whether democratic or arbitrary, have “expropriated” their property. "Expropriated"also includes "excessive" taxation.

Further, this supra-national “investment protection regime” stands in potential conflict with national environmental and labor laws, human rights protection, and with public health and welfare regulation. TPP could be used to force states to lower (or raise?) standards for environmental and workers protection - or be sued for damages, pointing out the key question --- why can’t a trade agreement be used to force states to RAISE environmental and workers protection?? “Investor-state arbitration” will undoubtedly give transnational corporations powers to trump the sovereign powers of nations. Its true -- the rise of transnational institutions is an absolutely necessary to manage global trade and its many effects. Since economies of scale are a principal motivator of international trade, it also inevitable that large corporations will play a major role in trade negotiations. But it is also necessary that the ILO and Environmental interests also have comparable arbitration powers to trump the anti-labor and anti-environmental “sovereign powers of nations.”

The progressive sentiments motivating critics of TPP tempt us to simply oppose the agreement, as has been the pattern on the Left and in the labor movement for the past 70 years, at least. We know it puts American and Chinese and Mexican and Canadian and many other nations’ workers in direct competition with each other. There will be winners and losers in each country. There will not be unity. The UAW supports the Korea agreement because it expands auto exports; they oppose NAFTA because of lost manufacturing jobs to Mexico; Mexican auto workers, of course, support NAFTA.

Neither the left nor the labor movement has much to show for their opposition to free trade over the years. The protests have not stopped it. Or even slowed it down. Capital is invading every nook and cranny in the world. The global integration of economies, supply trains, communication and transportation systems and infrastructure, and even lagging labor markets, all lubricated by the dominant financial services industry, is advancing even in the depression. Depressions are normally strong protectionist eras.

Should the Left Have a Pro-Free-Trade Policy, and What Would That Policy Be?

First, A dose of Karl Marx on Trade.

Engels provided a short summary of Marx’s widely circulated 1848 speech on Free Trade.

To [Marx] Free Trade is the normal condition of modern capitalist production. Only under Free Trade can the immense productive powers of steam, of electricity, of machinery, be full developed; and the quicker the pace of this development, the sooner and the more fully will be realized its inevitable results; society splits up into two classes, capitalists here, wage-laborers there; hereditary wealth on one side, hereditary poverty on the other; supply outstripping demand, the markets being unable to absorb the ever growing mass of the production of industry; an ever recurring cycle of prosperity, glut, crisis, panic, chronic depression, and gradual revival of trade, the harbinger not of permanent improvement but of renewed overproduction and crisis; in short, productive forces expanding to such a degree that they rebel, as against unbearable fetters, against the social institutions under which they are put in motion; the only possible solution: a social revolution, freeing the social productive forces from the fetters of an antiquated social order, and the actual producers, the great mass of the people, from wage slavery. And because Free Trade is the natural, the normal atmosphere for this historical evolution, the economic medium in which the conditions for the inevitable social revolution will be the soonest created - for this reason, and for this alone, did Marx declare in favor of Free Trade.

Both Marx and Engels observe no fundamental distinction between free trade vs protectionist policies with respect to workers immediate interests. Not much has changed since then to refute this assessment, and there is good ground to explore their deeper observation -- that free trade breaks down national and other barriers to trade faster, and thus accelerates the development of capitalism, the enlargement of the working class, the intensive application of technology, and the prospects for social progress. Most important, trade brings the workers of the world face to face with each other -- to confront each other as they really are, with more interest in common with each other than their respective employers.

Rather than reject trade agreements, perhaps a better tactic is to embrace them, in the first place, as an opportunity to meet and establish common ground with the workers of trading countries. If the ILO can ever establish the presence and authority it deserves at trade agreement bargaining tables -- it will be through those issues where workers on all sides of trade agreements agree.

Since the very beginning of the modern labor movement, many unions and labor federations have reached out to initiate or establish fraternal ties with unions in different countries, often in response to solidarity appeals. But trade and globalization has compelled relations of a qualitatively new kind and intensity between workers across the world. The recent efforts of the USWA and the UAW are examples of solid steps toward meeting these challenges with greater international cooperation.

However, the fact that Korean and US auto unions did NOT agree in the end of the trade negotiations; that the UAW and OTHER unions such as the USWA, IAM, UE also had opposite positions on the Korean Agreement; that China-bashing still dominates some union ïnternational web pages, that Mexican and US auto workers do not agree on reforms to NAFTA; that there are very few foreign labor organization endorsements of US labor positions on trade agreements --- all this indicates that the road to common ground between workers of different nations is rocky and difficult.

But there is no other road to progress!. Simply protesting trade agreements for their defects with respect to ONE’S OWN nation does not generate sufficient force to prevail. And, as Marx notes, the alternatives of protectionism in the form of tariffs, bans or tax barriers to trade provides only illusory protection. The job claims of its advocates are at best ephemeral and more often simply fraudulent -- a cover for shifting capital from a less efficient to a more efficient business, and getting government price protection in the bargain. There is one exception to this: legitimate protection of what a nation may deem “strategic” investments --- investments in accord with a national industrial policy, and with a particular partition between private markets and public goods. One nation’s public health, safety, security and entitlements may appear to another as a trade subsidy, or unfair or unequal constraint---all matters on which workers of different nations can contribute useful ideas on cooperation.

In the fair trade regime that includes an appropriate voice for labor --- that voice must be international, and united, or it is powerless. And yes, there must be supra-national institutions, capable of sanctioning sovereign nations from violating universal human rights, as well as, and at times against, property rights. The pressures on these institutions are objective and arise from the ever-deepening commercial and infrastructure relations between nations. But commercial relations are inseparable from political relations and thus the politicization of international institutions inevitably contends and ultimately weakens the sovereignty of nations. Just like Marx predicted.

But, some will argue, doesn’t adopting a left “free trade” position run headlong into the theory of imperialism, outlined in a 1916 pamphlet by Lenin? In that pamphlet Lenin argued that oppressed nations’ aspirations for independence from “free market” predations was the progressive ally of workers’ worldwide common effort to prevent world war, and to prevent workers shooting each other on behalf of the the capitalists of their own nation’s ambitions to favorably re-divide the worlds resources and markets.

But, I submit, all of the re-division of the world envisioned by Lenin’s pamphlet has in fact transpired,. The heroic and titanic struggles of working people of the 20th century greatly shaped how the remaking of the world took place, on what terms some nations become independent, and others disappeared. The “anti-imperialist” and popular democratic movements spawned in response to two world wars and Fascism turned back a dark era.

But today, a single world market in everything, including labor, is clearly emerging and gaining ground. It is compelling a vast realignment of powers and resources across the globe, in every region. The question of whether or not to integrate into the world market is over. I submit there can be an approach to free trade, and free trade tactics, that is based on internationalism, and that points to the most powerful negation of imperialism. It will not be exactly the same as one based on national or sectoral advantage -- but it has a greater power to prevail politically in the long run, and more important, it can lead to real, incremental, measurable progress enforcing universal rights of workers.

Conclusion: Meetings between workers of trading partner countries should be the FIRST action item on the left trade agenda. Next, identifying common ground---Assess common ground potential BEFORE taking a position on the agreement. Next: agitating the government to include ILO representation with standing to demand “labor and human rights” arbitration powers to enforce compliance with ILO universal human right principles.

US labor law is in fact not currently in compliance ILO fundamental rights. And a supra-national sanction against firing and threatening people for engaging in union activity would be welcomed by millions of workers.

“...and the final lesson, that those who do the work of the world, ought to be united, is still to be learned....”

Int'l Rep Don Tormey, 1978 UE District Council 2 meeting.

Counting up to green -- Assessing the green economy and its implications for growth and equity

Thu, 11 Oct 2012 05:04:00 +0000

Editor --- this article is republished from the Economic Policy Insittute

What is a green job? We tend to think of a green job as one that benefits the environment, but illustrations tend to be limited to fossil fuels vs. renewable energy. In fact, whether to categorize a specific occupation as a green job is not always straightforward: what about bus drivers, or software engineers who help design smart-grid technologies, or commercial construction workers? The economy is made up of more than coal miners and solar panel installers, and many occupations have significant roles to play along the spectrum between the fossil fuel economy and a “clean” economy. Without a definition of what green jobs are it is difficult to count them, much less determine what role green jobs and industries play in the economy today and going forward. The Brookings Institution and the Pew Center on the States have both attempted to answer these questions, releasing reports that categorize green jobs on a detailed industry and occupational level. And in March 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) weighed in on this debate with a detailed survey of the green economy that defines green jobs, identifies the establishments producing green goods and services, and estimates the number of jobs involved (BLS 2012c). Surprisingly, this survey has received little attention aside from the occasional partisan attack. But the data itself are fascinating, providing a starting point for evaluating the green economy. Moreover, matching these data with existing BLS data on employment trends yields several intriguing findings:

Greener industries grow faster than the overall economy. For every percentage-point increase in an industry’s green intensity (the share of employment in green jobs), annual employment growth was 0.034 percentage points higher. Projections for the next 10 years suggest continued jobs benefits from green intensity.
States with greater green intensity have generally fared better in the current economic downturn.
Green jobs are accessible to workers without a college degree. For every one percentage-point increase in green intensity in a given industry, there was a corresponding 0.28 percentage-point increase in the share of jobs in that industry held by workers without a four-year college degree.
Manufacturing plays a strong role in the green economy. Although it represents only 10.8 percent of total private employment, manufacturing accounts for 20.4 percent of green jobs.
Green jobs go beyond the renewable energy industry. For example, nearly 50 percent of jobs in the water industry are green jobs, and the sector has opportunity to grow not just overall but in green intensity.

These findings suggest that investments in the green economy could accomplish multiple goals beyond simply creating a more sustainable economy. First, the strong economic performance of green industries suggests that green investments could play an important role in a broader short- and long-term job creation strategy. Second, investments in green jobs could promote economic mobility by opening up the labor market to more workers without a college degree. And finally, the investment opportunities for going green are vast throughout nearly all industries.

This report is divided into three sections. The first provides background on the data and definitional issues surrounding green jobs, explores some of the limitations of the BLS definition, and compares it to green job definitions used by other organizations. The second section explores the data from the BLS Green Goods and Services Survey by sector and state. The final section merges the detailed industry and state data with other BLS data on job growth and educational attainment to assess the quantitative and qualitative opportunities of green investment.

What color is your job?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is one of the federal government’s foremost statistical agencies. In fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated $7.8 million to BLS to develop an analytically valid definition of green jobs and to collect information about these jobs: the number and trend of green jobs over time; the industrial, occupational, and geographic distribution of the jobs; and the wages of the workers in these jobs.

Developing a definition of green jobs was the necessary first step. After reviewing a range of studies, BLS solicited comments on a draft definition and, consistent with that definition, a list of industry sectors (drawn from the North American Industrial Classification System, or NAICS) in which green goods or services are produced. After incorporating that feedback—the largest number of comments came from business and industry associations—BLS released its final definition and list of green goods and services industries in September 2010 (BLS 2012a).

According to the BLS definition, green jobs are either:

jobs in businesses that produce goods or provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources, or
jobs in which workers’ duties involve making their establishment’s production processes more environmentally friendly or ensuring that they use fewer natural resources.

These two approaches to measuring green jobs combine an output approach (the first definition) and a process approach (the second definition). In the output approach, jobs are green to the extent that they are in businesses that produce green goods or services and fall into one or more of five categories:

Energy from renewable sources.
Energy-efficiency equipment, appliances, buildings and vehicles, and goods and services that improve the energy efficiency of buildings and the efficiency of energy storage and distribution.
Pollution reduction and removal, greenhouse gas reduction, and recycling and reuse.
Organic agriculture; sustainable forestry; and soil, water, and wildlife conservation.
Government and regulatory administration; and education, training, and advocacy related to green technologies and practices.

Green employment data corresponding to these definitions are derived from surveying a sample of approximately 120,000 worksites of businesses classified by BLS among industry sectors producing green goods or providing green services (i.e., industries meeting the output approach). The final list of industries that produce green goods or services includes 333 of the 1,193 industries classified in the NAICS.¹ It does not include industries in which businesses generally receive less than half of their revenue from green goods or services. Therefore, BLS did not include businesses in these industries in its survey, and green jobs in those industries are not included in the total count of 3.1 million green jobs.

In the process approach, green jobs can be identified in any firm, regardless of the goods and services it produces and the industry sector in which it’s classified. Workers in these jobs research, develop, maintain, or use technologies and practices that impact their establishment’s ability to make progress in one or more of the first four categories identified above (energy from renewable sources, etc.).

The output approach data were released in March 2012, while the process approach data were released in late June 2012. This paper analyzes the dataset related to the output approach because its industry breakdown is more relevant to the issues of green intensity, employment growth, and education than the process approach dataset’s occupational breakdown.

Limitations of the BLS definitions and measures

Despite the sizable number of green jobs reported by BLS, the output approach employment data (which this paper uses) do not represent the total number of green jobs in the U.S. economy. First, the scope of the survey covers only a portion of the nation’s total employment; the BLS did not survey areas of the economy where it expected there to be few green jobs. Second, these data do not include a count of jobs involving processes that make a business greener, regardless of whether that firm provides green goods or services; as mentioned above, those data are contained in the separate survey released in June.

The BLS industry list also illustrates some of the limitations of the existing industrial classification system. Although NAICS was updated in 2012 to keep pace with the rapid growth of certain industries in the green economy, the green jobs data are based on the earlier 2007 NAICS classification, making measurement of the green economy a significant challenge.

For example, jobs in the solar photovoltaic sector grew by 10.7 percent and jobs in the solar thermal sector grew by 18.4 percent between 2003 and 2010, according to the Brookings Institution (Muro, Rothwell, and Saha 2011). Unfortunately, that can’t be verified with BLS data because the 2007 NAICS classification lumps solar into the same category with wind, geothermal, biomass, and other energy sources (the 2012 NAICS classification has since disaggregated these industries). Similarly, installation jobs for solar photovoltaics will be picked up by existing construction sectors (e.g., NAICS #238211, Residential Electrical Contractors, or #236200, Commercial Building Contractors).

The same typological confusion plays out in NAICS’s failure to classify wind turbine manufacturers. The manufacture in the United States of wind turbine towers, blades, and component parts has grown dramatically over the last several years; the domestic content of U.S. wind turbines increased from just 25 percent (in value) prior to 2005 to 60 percent today. Correspondingly, the U.S.-based supply chain of manufacturers now consists of 400 facilities spread across 44 different states (American Wind Energy Association 2012). However, wind turbine manufacturing is not included as one of the several hundred manufacturing subsectors that receive NAICS classifications.

Despite such categorical limitations, most of the jobs associated with wind manufacturing were likely counted in the BLS survey as part of existing manufacturing sectors that are not labeled as such (e.g., NAICS # 333611, Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units Manufacturing, or #333612, Speed Changer, Drive, and Gear manufacturing), as long as they produce specialized component parts for wind turbines and are in one of the BLS identified industry sectors.

Another reality of the green economy presents methodological challenges for researchers: The same business or worker can provide both green goods or services and goods or services that are decidedly not green. For example, a construction company and its workers can in one month retrofit a hospital to make it more energy efficient and in the next month build a strip mall that meets no green building or energy efficiency standard. Is that construction company a green business? Analogously, is a manufacturer that produces parts for both pollution control scrubbers and weapons systems a green business?

BLS addresses the measurement challenge presented by such businesses by apportioning employment at firms producing both green and non-green outputs based on the share of revenue generated by those different economic activities.² In this manner, BLS avoids an either/or approach to measuring the green economy.

Other definitions of green jobs

The BLS definition is broadly consistent with a number of other definitions of green jobs and the green economy developed by researchers studying the green labor market and job trends at a national level. Differences in labeling this economy and the jobs within it can easily cause confusion. One analyst’s “green” economy is another analyst’s “clean energy” or simply “clean” economy. And yet, despite the variety in branding, the definitions used are broadly similar:

A clean energy economy generates jobs, businesses, and investments while expanding clean energy production, increasing energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, waste, and pollution, and conserving water and other natural resources. (Pew Charitable Trusts 2009)

The green economy encompasses the economic activity related to reducing the use of fossil fuels, decreasing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, increasing the efficiency of energy usage, recycling materials, and developing and adopting renewable sources of energy. (National Center for O*NET Development 2009)

The clean economy is economic activity—measured in terms of establishments and the jobs associated with them—that produces green goods and services with an environmental benefit or adds value to such products using skills or technologies that are uniquely applied to those products. (Muro, Rothwell, and Saha 2011)

Differences in definitions do exist, however, most notably on the question of whether to count “process” jobs that make a business greener regardless of whether its output is green. The Brookings Institution researchers did not include such jobs in their definition, whereas BLS did. And yet, because this report only looks at the BLS data on “output” jobs, it corresponds very closely to the methodology used by Brookings in its analysis.

Because any definition of the green economy cuts across multiple industry sectors and many different kinds of economic activity, it is perhaps inevitable that disagreements remain about which sectors or subsectors are included or excluded. From our standpoint, BLS is if anything too conservative about which sectors it includes in its analysis. To cite one example, the BLS definition and industry list needlessly excludes a number of manufacturing sectors that are integral to value chains for renewable energy, energy efficiency, recycled products, and green chemistry. In sum, however, the choices made and methodology used by BLS in meeting the not-inconsiderable challenges of measuring the fast-emerging and dynamic green economy are fundamentally sound and consistent with mainstream economic analysis.

The green jobs and industries of today

From the results of its first Green Goods and Services Survey BLS reported that in 2010 3.1 million jobs in the United States were associated with the production of green goods and services in businesses defined as producing goods or delivering services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources.

Private vs. public

The 3.1 million green jobs include 2.3 million jobs (73 percent) in the private sector, 157,000 jobs (5 percent) in the federal government, 227,000 jobs (7 percent) in state governments, and 476,000 jobs (15 percent) in local governments (see Figure A).

FIGURE A

Private- and public-sector share of total green jobs, 2010 Source: Author's analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Green Goods and Services Survey (BLS 2012c)

Generally, government jobs have a higher green intensity (share of jobs that are classified as green) than jobs in the private economy. While only 2.1 percent of private jobs are green, 5.3 percent of federal jobs, 4.9 percent of state jobs, and 3.4 percent of local jobs are classified as green (Figure B).

FIGURE B

Private and public green intensity, by sector, 2010 Source: Author's analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Green Goods and Services Survey (BLS 2012c)

It is difficult to determine exactly what accounts for the differences in green intensity because much of the green jobs data by industry within the public sector are not available due to BLS disclosure standards (likely because the small sample sizes lead to overly large margins of error). Nonetheless, the information that is available suggests a few possible explanations.

The federal government’s 5.3 percent green intensity—over twice the green intensity of the private economy—appears to be driven by two factors. First, 82 percent of federal jobs are in public administration, which is three times as green as the private economy. Second, despite the fact that employment in utilities represents a smaller share of jobs in the federal government compared to the private sector, federal utilities jobs are nonetheless significantly greener: 74 percent green compared to 12 percent green for private utilities. This is likely due to the federal government’s significant role in hydropower—and to a lesser extent, nuclear—through its public utilities in the Pacific Northwest and the Tennessee Valley.

State government’s 4.9 percent green intensity also appears to be driven by its high share of public administration jobs, which represent over half of all state jobs. State jobs in the transportation and warehousing industry also play a role, being over six times as green as transportation and warehousing jobs in the private sector.

Overall, local government jobs are not as green as federal and state jobs, though still greener than the private sector. In contrast to the above examples, public administration jobs do not play a role in this: unlike their federal and state counterparts, local public administration jobs actually have a lower green intensity than the private economy average. The data are even spottier for local jobs than for federal and state jobs, but they suggest that administrative/waste services and transportation and warehousing jobs—both of which are significantly greener on the local level than they are in the private sector—contribute to local government’s slightly higher overall green intensity than the private economy.

Private sectors and industries—national analysis

For the public sector, data on green jobs by industry are spotty and limited to large sectors like construction, utilities, and manufacturing, but the private sector data are much more comprehensive and detailed. This allows us to examine with much greater detail the types of green jobs in the private economy.

FIGURE C

Private-economy green jobs, by sector, 2010 Source: Author's analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Green Goods and Services Survey (BLS 2012c)

The manufacturing sector is the largest source of green jobs in the private economy, with 461,847 green jobs (Figure C). Following manufacturing is the construction sector with 372,077 green jobs; professional, scientific, and technical services with 349,024 green jobs; administrative and waste services with 319,915 green jobs; transportation and warehousing with 245,057 green jobs; and trade with 202,370 green jobs. Together, these sectors comprise 86 percent of the private economy’s green jobs (Figure D).

FIGURE D

Share of total private green jobs, by sector, 2010 Source: Author's analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Green Goods and Services Survey (BLS 2012c)

Manufacturing may be the largest source of green jobs for the private economy, but at 4 percent green jobs it has only the sixth-highest green intensity out of 14 private sectors. By contrast, 11.9 percent of the utilities sector, 6.8 percent of the construction sector, 6.2 percent of the transportation and warehousing sector, 4.7 percent of the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, and 4.3 percent of the administrative and waste services sector are green jobs (Figure E).

FIGURE E

Green intensity of private-economy jobs, by sector, 2010 Source: Author's analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Green Goods and Services Survey (BLS 2012c)

Comparing the raw green jobs numbers and green intensity (what share of a sector’s total jobs are green) reveals interesting information about various sectors. Some sectors are both green intensive and large enough to provide a significant amount of green jobs to the economy; these sectors include construction; professional, scientific, and technical services; administrative and waste services; and manufacturing. Other sectors are highly green intensive but relatively small, such as utilities and transportation and warehousing. The trade sector is unique in both being one of the larger sectors and having a low green intensity.

Private sectors and industries—state analysis

Nationally, 2.1 percent of private-sector jobs are considered green, but there is substantial variation across states. Fourteen states (including the District of Columbia) are above 2.5 percent, 14 states are below 2 percent, and the other 23 states fall between 2 percent and 2.5 percent (Figure F).

FIGURE F

Green intensity of private-sector jobs, by state, 2010 Source: Author's analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Green Goods and Services Survey (BLS 2012c)

Vermont has the highest green intensity of any state, with 3.9 percent of its jobs considered green. Pennsylvania is a distant second at 3.1 percent green intensity, and Colorado (3.0 percent), Washington State (3.0 percent), and Oregon (2.9 percent) round out the top five. The least green-intensive states are Nevada (1.3 percent), Florida (1.4 percent), Oklahoma (1.4 percent), West Virginia (1.5 percent), and Arizona (1.5 percent). The top four states have over twice the green intensity of the bottom five states.

In the context of these data, there are two factors that determine a state’s green intensity. First is the state’s mix of industries. As seen in the national analysis, there is significant variation among industries with regard to green intensity, with utilities, construction, and transportation/warehousing ranking high and education/health, leisure/hospitality, and financial services ranking low. In other words, if a state has a high green intensity, perhaps it is because its industry mix favors industries that are naturally greener.

Second, there is variation within industries. For example, while the national average for utilities is 12 percent, in states like Massachusetts, Maine, South Carolina, Connecticut, and New Hampshire upwards of 40-50 percent of utilities jobs are categorized as green (largely due to the state’s emphasis on hydropower and nuclear over coal). In other words, perhaps a state is green not because its economy does different things, but because it does the same things but in a greener way.

Figure G plots each state based on these two factors. The two axes estimate how many more (or fewer) green jobs the state currently has relative to the amount of green jobs it would have (1) if each of its industries’ green intensities matched that industry’s national average (x-axis) and (2) if the state’s industry mix matched the national industry mix. For example, the previous graph shows that Nevada is the least green-intensive state. Nevada’s position in the bottom left quadrant of the graph indicates that this is because it suffers from both a less-green (dirtier) industry mix and also because it has a smaller share of green jobs in those industries than those industries have on average nationwide.

FIGURE G

What makes some states more green than others? Source: Author's analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Green Goods and Services Survey (BLS 2012c)

Vermont, on the other hand, is the greenest state. But that has very little to do with its industry mix: like Nevada, the mix of industries in Vermont would suggest that its economy would have a below-average green intensity. Instead it has the highest green intensity in the country because practially every industry in Vermont is a greener version of that industry’s national counterpart. For example, nearly 8 percent of the jobs in Vermont’s manufacturing industry are classified as green, compared to only 4 percent of manufacturing jobs nationally. Vermont’s construction, transportation/warehousing, professional/scientific/technical services, and natural resources/mining industries are all more green intensive than their national averages, in some cases significantly greener. This effect boosts Vermont’s green job levels by roughly 50 percent.

Comparing states based on these two dimensions hints at the role that state policy plays in a state economy’s green intensity. State policy is less likely to influence its economy’s industry mix and more likely to influence each industry’s green intensity because a state’s industry mix is more likely than each industry’s green intensity to be based on underlying factors such as workforce skills, geography, natural resources, etc. Therefore, if a state deviates more from the national average along the x-axis, then that suggests state policy is a greater factor in driving the effect. If a state deviates from the national average more along the y-axis, then state policy is less likely to be as significant a factor.

Where green is going

Greener industries grow faster

The main thrust of the green jobs concept argues that the transition from a fossil-fuel-based economy to a green economy need not cost net jobs. That is, there will be fewer jobs in oil drilling and coal refineries, but there will be an offsetting gain in green jobs as the economy adapts to more sustainable development. But the BLS data on green jobs suggest that greener also meansfaster growth.

In February 2012, the BLS released employment growth data for occupations and industries over the past decade along with projections for the next decade (BLS 2012b). By matching up the industry data in this survey to the Green Goods and Services Survey, it can be determined whether there is a relationship between an industry’s green intensity and its past growth and future growth prospects.

Figure H plots industries (four-digit NAICS codes) by green intensity and employment growth over the last 10 years.³ It shows that there has been a positive relationship between the two: the greener the industry, the higher the job growth rate over the last decade. This relationship is largely a function of transit, water and sewage systems, and waste management services, which are both green and fast growing, and manufacturing, which has less green intensity than the other four-digit industries measured (though it is still significantly greener than the overall private economy) and has declined in employment over the last decade.

FIGURE H

Green intensity of an industry and its 2000–2010 employment growth Note: Industries are four-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. Source: Author's analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Green Goods and Services Survey (BLS 2012c) and Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Projections (BLS 2012b)

Statistical analysis allows us to calculate the specific relationship between green intensity and the growth in jobs. For every percentage-point increase in the green intensity of the industry there is an associated 0.034 percentage-point increase in the annual employment growth in the industry over the last decade (95 percent significance).

Figure I plots industries by green intensity and employment growth over the next 10 years as projected by the BLS. It shows a similarly strong relationship, suggesting that the association between green intensity and job growth will continue through the next decade. Like the previous analysis, this relationship is largely driven by transit, water and sewage systems, and waste management services, though unlike the previous analysis it is also driven by green manufacturing industries (which perform significantly better than less green manufacturing industries).

FIGURE I

Green intensity of an industry and its projected 2010–2020 employment growth Note: Industries are four-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. Source: Author's analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Green Goods and Services Survey (BLS 2012c) and Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Projections (BLS 2012b)

Using the same analysis, for every percentage-point increase in the green intensity of the industry there is an associated 0.019 percentage-point increase in the annual employment growth in the industry over the last decade (95 percent significance). Both findings are consistent even when controlling for industry size.

These findings are consistent with past green jobs studies. For example, the Pew Center on the States found in its June 2009 report, The Clean Energy Economy: Repowering Jobs, Businesses, and Investments Across America, that clean energy jobs grew nearly two-and-a-half times as fast as jobs in the overall economy (Pew Charitable Trusts 2009).

Green states have fared better in the economic downturn

While practically all states are still struggling through the aftereffects of the Great Recession, some have fared better than others. There are many factors that determine the strength of a state’s recovery, such as the extent of its housing bubble, recoverable oil and gas reserves, and exposure to federal stimulus (or in the mid-Atlantic states’ case, the stabilizing presence of the federal government), among others.

There is also, however, a slightly positive relationship between a state’s green intensity and how well it has been able to recover from the recent recession. Figure J plots these variables, showing that, generally, the greener the state’s economy, the better it has fared in the recession (85 percent significance). This analysis, however, is slightly complicated by the fact that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act invested heavily in green infrastructure during this period (Walsh, Bivens, and Pollack 2011).

FIGURE J

Green intensity and private-sector job growth in recession and recovery, by state Source: Author's analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Green Goods and Services Survey (BLS 2012c) and Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics

Like the previous finding, this is consistent with past reports on green jobs. For example, Muro, Rothwell, and Saha (2011) found that, while green jobs were particularly hammered by the recession, they have outperformed the broader economy in the recovery.

Green jobs are accessible to workers across the spectrum of education

For the first few decades of the postwar era, economic growth was strong across the income distribution, with low-income, medium-income, and high-income workers all sharing in the prosperity derived from a strong and growing economy. But starting in the late 1970s, income growth began to diverge among these groups, with more and more of the nation’s income accruing to the highest-income workers. Between 1979 and 2008, national income grew by an average $10,400 per person, but the entirety of those income gains went to the top 10 percent. The income of the bottom 90 percent actually fell.

The assertion by many economists that education is the sole driver of inequality over the last few decades is not supported by the data. For example, roughly 60 percent of the growth in overall wage inequality has occurred within the group of workers with college degrees rather than between them and everyone else. In fact, overall compensation for college graduates has been flat over the last 10 years, even as income inequality has reached new heights (Mishel 2011).

Nevertheless, education has played a role in the increasingly divided economy. For example, in 1979 wages for workers with a college degree were 40 percent higher than the wages for those with only a high school degree. By 2011, this pay disparity had risen to 76 percent (Mishel et al. 2012). If we want economic policy to work for the nearly 70 percent of American workers without a four-year college degree (U.S. Census Bureau 2012), green investments offer an option.

Figure K uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey to plot industries by green intensity and the educational attainment of their workers. It shows that industries that are greener also tend to be more accessible for workers of lower educational attainment. For every one percentage-point increase in green intensity in a given industry, there is a corresponding 0.28 percentage-point increase in the share of jobs in that industry held by workers without a four-year college degree (95 percent significance).

FIGURE K

Green intensity of an industry and its share of workers without a college degree Note: Industries are four-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. Workers are employed and 16 years old and older. Source: Author's analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Green Goods and Services Survey (BLS 2012c) and Current Population Survey basic monthly microdata (U.S. Census Bureau 2012)

Manufacturing plays a strong role in the green economy

The manufacturing sector, the largest single source of green jobs in the private economy, is central to the green economy. This is partly due to the size of the manufacturing sector itself, but also to its green intensity, nearly twice as green as the broader private economy. In total, although representing only 10.8 percent of total private employment, manufacturing accounts for 20.4 percent of green jobs.

Within manufacturing, particular sectors, due to their size or their green intensity or both, make outsize contributions to the green-jobs total. Table 1 ranks four-digit manufacturing industries by weighting equally green employment and green intensity to create a list of the top 15 green manufacturing industries. The analysis reveals that the activities that drive green manufacturing center on home energy efficiency, energy-efficient appliances, recycling, renewable energy generation, construction, and transportation.

TABLE 1

Fifteen most significant manufacturing industries (by green intensity and size), 2010

Rank	Industry	Green jobs	Green intensity*
1	Iron and steel mills and ferroalloy mfg.	43,658	50.9%
2	Ventilation, heating, AC, and commercial refrigeration equipment mfg.	40,835	32.4
3	Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills	30,473	27.3
4	Household appliance mfg.	20,123	34.3
5	Turbine and power transmission equipment mfg.	20,360	22.4
6	Railroad rolling stock mfg.	8,978	48.8
7	Other wood product mfg.	25,939	13.4
8	Textile furnishings mills	12,141	21.2
9	Architectural and structural metals mfg.	22,843	7.1
10	Alumina and aluminum production	9,002	16.7
11	Office furniture and fixtures mfg.	11,561	12
12	Electric lighting equipment mfg.	7,765	17.1
13	Cement and concrete product mfg.	13,584	8
14	Basic chemical mfg.	11,970	8.5
15	Semiconductor and electronic component mfg.	19,287	5.2

* Share of jobs that are green

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Green Goods and Services Survey (BLS 2012c)

The green components of the manufacturing sector are also vital to its overall growth. To determine all of the green industries in the manufacturing sector, this analysis focused on the 30 four-digit industries with green intensities greater than the average for the overall manufacturing sector (4 percent green intensity). In the aggregate, the output of these industries is projected by the BLS to grow 42 percent in real terms between 2010 and 2020, significantly faster than the 31 percent output growth that the BLS projects for the overall manufacturing sector.

Green jobs go beyond renewable energy

Much of the commentary surrounding green jobs has focused on jobs in the renewable energy industry, such as solar panel installers or wind turbine manufacturers, but this misses just how pervasive green jobs are throughout the economy. It is true, for example, that utility jobs tend to be heavily green, over 50 percent more green intensive than any other sector. Furthermore, turbine manufacturing ranks as one of the most consequential green manufacturing industries in that it is both highly green and of significant size.

But some perspective is in order. Green utility jobs represent less than 3 percent of total private green jobs. While it is true that for every job in the utility industry there are roughly three jobs in supplier industries, only 6.9 percent of these jobs are in manufacturing, with the remaining scattered in general sectors that may not be as specific to utilities (BLS 2009). Even within the utility sector, renewable energy generation accounts for only 7.1 percent of its green jobs, with nearly 90 percent of green utility jobs in either nuclear energy generation (55 percent) or water, sewage, and other systems (33 percent). Rather, as its technologies are far from mature (in contrast to nuclear energy, for example), renewable energy generation is important to the broader issue of green jobs not because it is already of significant size, but because of the tremendous growth potential it offers, not to mention its environmental benefits.

The water industry—including water supply and irrigation, sewage treatment facilities, and steam and air-conditioning supply—merits special attention. First, with 21,500 green jobs and a nearly 50 percent green intensity, it is undoubtedly significant to the broader green economy, yet it has room to grow. Second, the country’s water infrastructure is outdated and overextended; reports by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Water Infrastructure Network, and the Congressional Budget Office place the annual investment “needs gap” as high as $59.4 billion (Copeland and Tiemann 2010). Finally, while the water industry is already very green, specific investments could make it significantly greener. A report released last fall by Green for All in collaboration with the Economic Policy Institute, the Pacific Institute, and American Rivers shows how local governments can dramatically green their water infrastructures through specific investments like green roofs and urban tree planting (Gordon, Hays, Pollack, Sanchez, and Walsh 2011).

Conclusion

The best case for greater environmental protections and green investments isn’t just about jobs, but rather about equity and broader economic growth. The “dirty economy” model relies on allowing businesses to push a portion of their costs of production onto third parties without their consent, simultaneously causing harm to people who are disproportionately impoverished and lack political power, and distorting the market by causing an overproduction of pollution-intensive goods at the expense of cleaner goods.

Furthermore, this old economic model relies on depleting the economy’s environmental capital stock at an unsustainable rate, depriving future generations of a healthy and diverse environment and harming long-run economic growth (since much of the economy depends on a clean environment and ample stocks of natural resources). In sum, a dirty economy subsidizes the well-off by taxing the poor and disenfranchised, distorts the market, and short-changes future generations by leaving the world a worse place for them to live. For these reasons alone, the case for transitioning to a greener and more sustainable economy is well justified.

But the concept of green jobs does play an important role in illustrating a positive vision of a green economy. It reminds us that the seeds of a green transition are planted throughout the economy, that the fundamental structure of the economy will remain intact, and that this vision isn’t so radical but rather is already happening all around us. This report reinforces these points, and introduces new evidence that suggests a greener economy will also be more open, accessible, and resilient.

Endnotes

1. The survey of industries does not include businesses that don’t pay unemployment insurance taxes; therefore, self-employed workers are not included in the green jobs count.

2. For nonprofits and government agencies, employment share is used as a substitute for revenue share.

3. Note that in some cases, data on projected job growth were not available by four-digit NAICS code, so in those cases data from the applicable three-digit NAICS code were used instead.

References

American Wind Energy Association. 2012. U.S. Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2011 Market Report. http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/reports/upload/4Q-2011-AWEA-Public-Market-Report_1-31.pdf

Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor) Current Employment Statistics program. Various years. Employment, Hours and Earnings—National [database].http://www.bls.gov/ces/#data

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. “Employment Requirements Matrix.”http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_data_emp_requirements.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012a. “The BLS Green Jobs Definition.” Accessed September 11.http://www.bls.gov/green/green_definition.pdf

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012b. “Employment Projections: 2010-2020, Table 2.7.” Last modified Feb. 1. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_207.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012c. Green Goods and Services (GGS) survey program.http://www.bls.gov/ggs/

Copeland, Claudia and Mary Tiemann. 2010. Water Infrastructure Needs and Investment: Review and Analysis of Key Issues. Congressional Research Service.http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31116.pdf

Gordon, Emily, Jeremy Hays, Ethan Pollack, Daniel Sanchez, and Jason Walsh. 2011. Water Works: Rebuilding Infrastructure, Creating Jobs, and Greening the Environment. Green for All (in partnership with American Rivers, Economic Policy Institute, and Pacific Institute).http://www.epi.org/publication/water-works-infrastructure-report/

Mishel, Lawrence. 2011. Education Is Not the Cure for High Unemployment or for Income Inequality. Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper No. 286.http://www.epi.org/publication/education_is_not_the_cure_for_high_unemployment_or_for_income_inequality/

Mishel, Lawrence, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Heidi Shierholz. 2012. The State of Working America, 12th Edition. A forthcoming Economic Policy Institute book. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. “Table 4.14: Hourly Wages by Education, 1973–2011.” The State of Working America, 12th Edition EPI digital release, http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-table-4-14-hourly-wages-education/

Muro, Mark, Jonathan Rothwell, and Devashree Saha. 2011. Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment. Brookings Institution.http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2011/07/13-clean-economy

National Center for O*NET Development. 2009. Greening of the World of Work: Implications for O*NET-SOC and New and Emerging Occupations. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor.http://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/Green.pdf

Pew Charitable Trusts. 2009. The Clean Energy Economy: Repowering Jobs, Businesses, and Investments Across America. June.http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/Report/Clean%20Energy%20Economy.pdf

Walsh, Jason, Josh Bivens, and Ethan Pollack. 2011. Recovery Act’s Green Investments Create or Save Nearly One Million Jobs. BlueGreen Alliance and Economic Policy Institute.http://www.epi.org/publication/recovery_acts_green_investments_create_or_save_nearly_one_million_jobs/

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Current Population Survey basic monthly microdata. Survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics [machine-readable microdata file]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.bls.census.gov/cps_ftp.html#cpsbasic. Accessed May 2012.