2. After the lockout, NBA teams are more than toys for the rich
NBA owners absolutely crushed the players’ union in the 2011 lockout, cutting player salary by at least $280 million per year. Over the 10-year term of the new collective bargaining agreement, that comes out to a minimum of $2.8 billion in savings for the league’s owners, or an average of $93 million per team.
That’s a huge chunk of money. For teams already operating at healthy profits, it’s a massive boost to the bankroll. For teams breaking even, that creates a healthy positive margin. For the few teams who claimed to be losing money with the old deal, it makes the franchise a sustainable business.
Before 2011, the wealthy bought into the NBA often out of interest in the sport, to be seen courtside or to invest in a vehicle that would gain value in the long-term. But with the lockout deal, with all of those benefits still in place, NBA teams also become profit
Essentially since Capitol (the owners), screwed over the workers. It’s an easy way for the already extremely wealthy to increase their wealth even more.
Piketty throws down the intellectual gauntlet right away, with his book’s very title: Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Are economists still allowed to talk like that?
It’s not just the obvious allusion to Marx that makes this title so startling. By invoking capital right from the beginning, Piketty breaks ranks with most modern discussions of inequality, and hearkens back to an older tradition.
The general presumption of most inequality researchers has been that earned income, usually salaries, is where all the action is, and that income from capital is neither important nor interesting. Piketty shows, however, that even today income from capital, not earnings, predominates at the top of the income distribution. He also shows that in the past—during Europe’s Belle Époque and, to a lesser extent, America’s Gilded Age—unequal ownership of assets, not unequal pay, was the prime driver of income disparities. And he argues that we’re on our way back to that kind of society. Nor is this casual speculation on his part. For all that Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a work of principled empiricism, it is very much driven by a theoretical frame that attempts to unify discussion of economic growth and the distribution of both income and wealth. Basically, Piketty sees economic history as the story of a race between capital accumulation and other factors driving growth, mainly population growth and technological progress.
To be sure, this is a race that can have no permanent victor: over the very long run, the stock of capital and total income must grow at roughly the same rate. But one side or the other can pull ahead for decades at a time. On the eve of World War I, Europe had accumulated capital worth six or seven times national income. Over the next four decades, however, a combination of physical destruction and the diversion of savings into war efforts cut that ratio in half. Capital accumulation resumed after World War II, but this was a period of spectacular economic growth—the Trente Glorieuses, or “Glorious Thirty” years; so the ratio of capital to income remained low. Since the 1970s, however, slowing growth has meant a rising capital ratio, so capital and wealth have been trending steadily back toward Belle Époque levels. And this accumulation of capital, says Piketty, will eventually recreate Belle Époque–style inequality unless opposed by progressive taxation.[Emphasis added]
In other words when billionaires can throw around money like it’s candy, and even screw over millionaire employees in the process, while so many suffer, it should be obvious that something’s out of whack.
Throughout our history, powerful interests have tried to capture Washington and rig the system in their favor. From tax policy to retirement security, the voices of hard-working people get drowned out by powerful industries and well-financed front groups. Those with power fight to make sure that every rule tilts in their favor. Everyone else just gets left behind.
Just look at the big banks. They cheated American families, crashed the economy, got bailed out, and now the six biggest banks are 37 percent bigger than they were in 2008. They still swagger through Washington, blocking reforms and pushing around agencies. A kid gets caught with a few ounces of pot and goes to jail, but a big bank breaks the law on laundering drug money or manipulating currency, and no one even gets arrested. The game is rigged – and it’s not right!
But it isn’t just the big banks. Look at the choices the Federal government makes: Our college kids are getting crushed by student loan debt. We need to rebuild our roads and bridges and upgrade our power grids. We need more investment in medical research and scientific research. But instead of building a future, this country is bleeding billions of dollars in tax loopholes and subsidies that go to rich and profitable corporations. Many Fortune 500 companies, profitable companies, pay zero in taxes. Billionaires get so many tax loopholes that they pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. But they have lobbyists – and their Republican friends – to protect every loophole and every privilege. The game is rigged – and it’s not right!
Or take a look at what’s happening with trade deals.
For big corporations, trade agreement time is like Christmas morning. They can get special gifts they could never pass through Congress out in public. Because it’s a trade deal, the negotiations are secret and the big corporations can do their work behind closed doors. We’ve seen what happens here at home when our trading partners around the world are allowed to ignore workers rights and environmental rules. From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters, and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the upcoming trade deals in their favor.
Why are trade deals secret? I’ve heard the supporters of these deals actually say that they have to be secret because if the American people knew what was going on, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people – people whose jobs are at stake, small business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day – those people, those people without an army of lobbyists – would be opposed. I believe that if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not happen.
The tilt in the playing field is everywhere. When conservatives talk about opportunity, they mean opportunities for the rich to get richer, for the powerful to get more powerful. They don’t mean opportunities for a young person facing $100,000 in student loan debt to start a life, for someone out of work to get back on his feet, for someone who worked hard all her life to retire with dignity.
The game is rigged. The rich and the powerful have lobbyists, lobbyists and lawyers and plenty of friends in Congress. Everyone else, not so much.
Now we can whine about it. We can whimper. Or we can fight back. Me? I’m fighting back.
This is a fight over economics, over privilege, over power. But deep down, this is a fight over values. Conservatives and their powerful friends will continue to be guided by their age-old principle: “I’ve got mine, the rest of you are on your own.”
But we’re guided by principle, too. It’s a simple idea: We all do better when we work together and invest in our future.
We know that the economy grows when hard-working families have the opportunity to improve their lives. We know that the country gets stronger when we invest in helping people succeed. We know that our lives improve when we care for our neighbors and help build a future not just for some of our kids – but for all of our kids.
These are progressive values. These are America’s values.
These values play out every day. These values are what we’re willing to fight for.
We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe no one should work full-time and live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe people should retire with dignity, and that means strengthening Social Security – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe that a kid should have a chance to go to college without getting crushed by debt – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe workers have a right to come together, to bargain together and to rebuild America’s middle class – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe in equal pay for equal work – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe equal means equal, and that’s true in the workplace and in marriage, true for all our families – and we’re winning that fight right now.
We – the people – decide the future of this country.
These are our shared values. And we are willing to fight for them.
Though a local congressman is crying “cover-up” regarding the current VA scandal, a 2-year-old report highlighted the problems now coming to light at the Olin E. Teague Veterans’ Medical Center in Temple.
Both U.S. Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, are listed as recipients of the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General report dated January 2012.
[...]
Carter’s office said the 2012 report was generated as a result of his inquiry to the VA because of constituents who brought issues to his attention.
Though the report is public, his office never produced a news release that year on the matter, because “constituents who contacted our office did not authorize us to share their information,” his office said.
“Most importantly, Congressman Carter’s intent was to solve these problems for veterans and put them first, not gain political points in the media.
“We feel as though our efforts indeed brought on the leadership change at the Temple VA,” said Taylor Gilliam, spokesman for Carter.
The Herald was unable to confirm with Meyer what leadership change.
[...]
Carter’s Democratic opponent in November’s election, Army Reserve Capt. Louie Minor, called attention Thursday to the congressman’s receipt of the 2012 report because he said “it is imperative for veterans and constituents to be aware that John Carter had prior knowledge of these issues at the Temple VA.”
“It is disgraceful to use my fellow veterans to attack President (Barack) Obama and the administration when John Carter should be held equally liable,” Minor said.
Carter’s office said the cover-up he referenced Thursday was the “current situation.”
The Temple VA facility is just one of many VA health care centers to come under fire in recent months for altering veterans’ desired appointment dates to meet wait-time goals.
If Congressman Carter had perused this back then maybe the Temple VA wouldn’t be in this situation right now? The issue is that no one is doing right by our veterans. Hopefully sanity will reign soon, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).
This line from the end of an HChron Op-Ed following yesterday’s election sums up pretty well where we stand.
With an angry, anti-government tea party rampant in Texas, with moderate Republicans in retreat and with Democrats still confined to the porch (figuratively and otherwise), it’s hard to be optimistic about state government and its capacity to address Texas’ needs in the near future.
The party that’s been demagoguing government for decades now has it on the ropes. They don’t believe in government, they think it’s evil and the cause of all our problems. Don’t be surprised when they ruin it.
I wish every Democrat in the Texas House would drop their support of Joe Straus for Speaker. And I wish they would throw their support behind the House equivalent of Dan Patrick. Who would that be….David Simpson? I truly believe that is the quickest way for the Democrats in Texas to become relevant again.
Maybe four years of right wing rule in Texas can break this fever. One of my contentions has always been that most of what used to be the Republican Party in Texas liked to talk a good game, but when it got down to it really didn’t want to cut the legs out from under government. Now we’re going to find out if that’s true. Because these guys that are likely to be running Texas over the next four years are planning to do just that.
We’re one election closer to Democrats winning statewide again. PDiddie and Kuff have more.
Greg Abbott broke lots of bad news about himself last week, but as PDiddie at Brains and Eggs ruefully noted, none of it really seems to matter. The attorney general will just hide from the media for a few days until the dark clouds blow over, while the TXGOP will blame the “librul media”.
Neil at All People Have Value put in another solid week of quality blogging about a variety of topics both political and otherwise. All People Have Value is part of NeilAquino.com.
=======================
And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.
The Lunch Tray provides a few simple steps to help #SaveSchoolLunch.
Texas Watch calls on the Legislature to adopt some basic rules to help prevent another disaster like the one in West.
OffCite explores the politics of place names in one of Houston’s oldest neighborhoods.
SciGuy wonders what will happen if the US loses access to the International Space Station.
The Texas Progressive Alliance celebrates the ten-year anniversary of same sex marriages in America – which, at last report, was still standing – as it bring you this week’s roundup.
Houston’s social conservatives shrieked and wailed as city council appeared poised to pass a non-discrimination ordinance, and succeeded in getting it delayed for a week. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs believes that justice delayed is justice denied.
Horwitz at Texpatriate is concerned over Mayor Julian Castro’s nomination to a Cabinet position, worrying it may spell doom for a later run for Governor.
=======================
And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.
When Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler initially proposed rules to allow telecoms to charge Internet companies for access to a “fast lane” to speed content to their users, plenty of people sounded the death rattle for the principle of net neutrality. A few weeks later, despite today’s passage of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on a party-line vote similar to Wheeler’s original plan, the tenor of the debate has shifted. Under massive public pressure, the FCC has shown itself more responsive than Congress, opening up a legitimate debate over the rules. Tech firms have linked arms with the public against the Wheeler proposal. And what activists consider the only path to true net neutrality—reclassifying broadband Internet under Title II of the Communications Act as a common carrier service, allowing the FCC to regulate it like phone lines—has moved from an impossible dream to a more viable alternative.
People power did this—that allegedly outdated work of targeted mass organizing that isn’t supposed to make a difference in our increasingly oligarchical society. Over 3.4 million Internet users took action in some form against the FCC’s proposed ruled in the past three weeks, according to Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron. Dozens of protesters “occupied” the FCC, camping out for a week in tents, joined by hundreds in a mass rally today outside the meeting room.
The grassroots pressure got tech firms off the sidelines. Over 100 of them, including Google, Facebook and Amazon, publicly opposed Chairman Wheeler’s rules, arguing that the rules should not allow “individualized bargaining and discrimination.” Meanwhile, the telecoms could not even round up the same support they had in 2010, when the FCC last proposed open Internet rules. Then, 74 House Democrats joined a letter opposing net neutrality; this time, the telecoms could find only 20 Democrats to back them, while 34 other House Democrats publicly endorsed Title II reclassification.
It’s nice to see that it’s still possible for the people in this country to raise hell and change the debate. Now if we could only get this done regarding our corrupt campaign finance system. The article ends by stating that it’s time for President Obama to finally take a stand, on the side of the people, in this debate.
Advocates want President Obama, who has for years stated his support for net neutrality, to come off the sidelines and enter the debate. “This is his chairman and his FCC,” said Becky Bond, political director for mobile provider and progressive activist group CREDO. “The ultimate decision may depend on whether President Obama stands up for Internet users or remains silent.”
If nothing else, the FCC showed that it actually managed to listen to the public outcry. “One must think the Founding Fathers are looking down and smiling,” Wheeler said today, referring to the intense political engagement around the issue. Of course, there’s a difference between welcoming activism and actually having it change behavior. “Nothing about this rollout has gone the way the chairman would like to see it,” said Craig Aaron of Free Press. “But it’s going to take more political pressure to change the outcome.”
That last sentence is the most important. Nothing has been won yet. And the only way this will be won is with continued pressure until it is won. Of course the only reason this is a concern is because of whiny corporations. They believe that unless they can gouge consumers they will be unable to figure out a way to make a profit.
Comcast is seeking to acquire Time Warner Cable, in a deal that would combine the two largest cable providers in the United States in a single firm with control of about a third of the market. Comcast and Time Warner are nearly monopolists already in the cities where they operate separately, and the fact that the U.S. market for broadband access has failed should be clear from the chart above. (The image is used by permission of the artist. The data is from the OECD.) Americans typically pay more than $2 a month per megabit per second of connectivity, more than people elsewhere in the developed world, despite the piles and piles of money that cable companies are claiming as profit. Some countries have even higher costs, usually because their networks are controlled more exclusively by monopolists (such as Mexico’s Carlos Slim.)
A more competitive broadband industry would likely guarantee Americans to enjoy lower prices and faster speeds. Cable companies use their dominance of local markets to charge exorbitant rates for basic broadband connections, encouraging subscribers to buy more lucrative cable television subscriptions. Less competition, in the long term, will force federal regulators to run the entire industry from Washington, in the same corporatist style in which the Federal Communications Commission and AT&T collaborated to provide telephone access many years ago.
Broadband and wireless should have been treated like electricity was in the last century. Think of the innovation that could happen if broadband and wireless access were not only fast, no matter what, but was extremely inexpensive, or even better free.
The Texas House will propose a budget next year that uses all of the money in the State Highway Fund for transportation instead of sending some of those dollars to other state agencies, Speaker Joe Straus said Wednesday.
Various taxes and fees, such as the gas tax and fees on drivers’ licenses, go into the State Highway Fund to pay for transportation. But for almost 80 years, some of that money has also helped fund agencies that are not directly related to transportation, such as the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the Office of State Administrative Hearings.
Using the State Highway Fund exclusively for transportation would increase funding for roads by about $1.3 billion over two years.
“This approach will make the state budget even more straightforward, just as taxpayers expect,” said Straus, San Antonio. “It will also provide needed transportation revenue – without a tax increase – as Texas continues to grow twice as fast as the rest of the country.”
Straus said that the continued strong performance of the Texas economy will allow the Legislature to fund DPS and other agencies affected by Wednesday’s announcement.
What that means is Straus believes there will be enough surplus money in the budget for next biennium that at least $1.3 billion dollars can be used to alleviate transportation diversions. Straus is trying to do the least he possibly can and not get in too much trouble with the GOP base. It likely won’t work, his enemies on the right will hate this. But half measures like this is the best we can expect as long as Texas is governed by one party, scared of an extremist base.
This is foreshadowing that there’s likely to be another large surplus at the beginning of next session. And if the GOP again sweeps all the statewide races they will again do their best to put off the needs of working Texans that have been neglected for so long. With another surplus, and an overflowing Rainy Day Fund, it is time to address our state’s needs that have been neglected for the last decade. Things like public and higher education, universal pre-K, infrastructure, and health care to name a few.
Unfortunately if history is any guide we know the GOP will look to give tax breaks to their wealthy and corporate donors, and pay little attention to the needs of working Texans. It is time to make sure that stops. And electing Democrats to statewide office is the only way to turn this around and insure that the needs of working Texans are finally met.
Counties statewide can apply for the funds. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) then uses a formula which gives more money to those with the greatest oil & gas production. One of the state’s biggest oil-producing counties, La Salle County, has now sued TxDOT, faulting the formula and suggesting that some counties are getting funds without meeting requirements, leaving less for those that have suffered the most damage.
“We have not received a penny yet. But the expectation is we’ll utilize $4.9 million of state grant funding over the next year,” Fowler told StateImpact Texas. “We’re just now completing the paperwork and getting it over to the proper authorities.”
That $4.9 million DeWitt County expects to receive amounts to just 2.1 percent of the $229 million dollars in severance tax (what Texas calls the state tax on oil & gas production) that wells in DeWitt County generated in 2013 alone.
Policymakers, nonprofit representatives and local leaders gathered April 22 for the Community Impact Summit that addressed how to meet the needs of Williamson County residents during a time of swift population growth.
Speakers at the event in Round Rock said social- and human-service agencies must work together to address the needs of their current and future neighbors.
“In the not-too-distant future, we’re likely to be twice the size or larger [in population] than Travis County,” Cedar Park City Councilman Don Tracy said. “And it’s also no secret … that those who are moving to Williamson County—not all of them are high wage-earners. In fact, life will be tough for many of our neighbors in the future.”
Brian Kelsey, principal at the Austin-based Civic Analytics research firm, told more than 200 summit attendees that Williamson County draws newcomers chiefly from other counties in Texas and not out-of-state.
“The county is growing by about 16,000 people per year, and you’re gaining about 30 residents every day,” Kelsey said. “Like it or not, Williamson County is starting to resemble Travis County in a lot of important ways.”
One difference between the two counties though is that most Williamson County newcomers earn less than existing county residents. Many of the new high-tech jobholders who are moving to Travis County earn a median annual household income of $240,000, he said.
“Living-wage job growth [is needed]—I cannot emphasize this enough,” Kelsey said. “This by far has to be the No. 1 economic development priority, in this county, in Travis County and every other county that’s experiencing the rapid rise in cost of living.”
Most working adults in Williamson County do not have college degrees and will have difficulty finding local jobs that pay at least $17 an hour—the living wage for one adult with one child, he said.
Such underemployment contributes to the growing nationwide problem of poverty in suburban areas, said Elizabeth Kneebone, a fellow in the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution and co-author of “Confronting Suburban Poverty in America.” Williamson County will need higher-paying jobs and must improve residents’ access to public transportation, workforce training and nonprofit resources, she said.
LeAnn Powers, chief professional officer for the United Way of Williamson County, which co-sponsored the event, said a half-million new neighbors with transportation and job needs should be a concern for all residents.
“We cannot neglect this reality,” Powers said. [Emphasis added]
The need for everyone to work together to solve these issues was stressed over and over. And the need for transportation and infrastructure were mentioned as well.
Councilmen Tracy’s statement that “life will be tough for many of our neighbors in the future”was amazingly stark. Especially with all the rosy talk we hear from our elected officials in Texas about how great things are here. It’s like he’s resigned to the fact that there’s going to be a significant part of the population in Williamson County that will be, what’s called these days, working poor.
While a living wage needs to be part of the solution, just the mention of it is probably enough to make most, if no all, elected officials in Williamson County scream Socialism or worse. Education wasn’t mentioned in the article, but that certainly needs to be a priority too.
With more people comes more needs and responsibilities. We must have the leadership in place that can handle it. Williamson County, from what was said at this summit, appears to be a place where those who can’t afford to live in Austin and Travis County will reside. It means the affluent from out of state and around Texas will move there. While those who can’t afford it, because of a lack of earning capacity, will move to Williamson County.
Raising wages, especially in a time when rising inequality is a major issue throughout the nation, should be an easy part of the solution. Large majorities, across party lines, support raising the minimum wage. At the very least to $10.10, but likely higher. And should be a no-brainer for anyone running for office.
To try and remedy this situation local governments, employers, social and human service agencies, and the people will need to work together for a solution. It will also take assistance from the federal and state government as well. But in Texas, (see Medicaid Expansion), the state is likely to be of little assistance. Hopefully a summit like this will bring much needed awareness to these issues.
Presentations and materials from the summit are available here.
Democratic State Sen. Juan ‘Chuy’ Hinojosa has written a niceOp-Ed on the state of transportation funding in Texas. In it he chronicles the litany of neglect that any EOW reader is likely familiar with. What I take issue with is the tame “road ahead” he puts forth.
Even if the ballot measure is approved this November, the Texas Legislature must still come up with a viable “Texas solution” to fill the $4 billion difference to remedy our transportation inadequacies. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Transportation Funding, I looking forward to weighing all options and remain committed to delivering a sustainable funding solution to provide the transportation infrastructure our state needs and Texans deserve.
I’m sick to death of so-called “Texas solutions”. (That’s the reason we didn’t expand Medicaid because we couldn’t come up with a “Texas solution”!) What that means is someone is too scared to say we need to raise taxes to pay for something, not matter how worthwhile it is. And if there’s one thing in this state that we must raise taxes to pay for it’s roads. The gas tax hasn’t been raised in over 20 years, while the cost of everything – except maybe wages – involved in road building has gone up over the last 20 years.
One reason Democrats struggle in Texas is because when they’re on the right side of an argument they don’t argue strongly enough for a solution. Being open to solutions and wanting to provide a sustainable funding solution, isn’t good enough when the other side thinks that’s exactly the problem. They’d much rather sell off our roads to corporations. Is the Senator open to that?
I’d much rather see something like this.
The people of Texas want roads and new transportation options. Tell them the reason we don’t have that is because one party, the Texas GOP, has been blocking it for the past 20 years. Make the people of Texas understand why they’re sitting in traffic every morning and evening, and make sure they know who is to blame. Then maybe we can get an old fashioned solution.
