Today I would like to look at the next most important national policy that almost no American has been educated and it is key to progressive liberalism....and was dismantled by Clinton neo-liberals----SOCIAL COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. Remember, we knew when in 1999, Clinton/ then Obama embraced the 'Federalism Act' they were going to dismantle all Federal agencies and policies tied to protecting people. We knew as well they were going to do this when they embraced MARKET-BASED COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. The President decides this---no Republican or Wall Street makes him/her----they do it because they are Clinton Wall Street neo-liberals do it.
'In social cost benefit analysis, not only profit but also other effects like how will it affect life of others are considered. Whereas, in private cost benefit analysis, the focus of the analysis is on maximizing profits'.
Below you see why Governor O'Malley of Maryland pushed and Maryland Assembly passed a record amount of Wall Street financial instruments like credit bond leverage debt when they knew it would guarantee lost public revenue and assets and kill Maryland citizens' pensions and retirement not to mention sending Baltimore into bankrutpcty----in market-based Cost Benefit Analysis the profits made by Wall Street from the citizens of Maryland paying twice as much for school construction ---in the billions----is better than simply recovering corporate fraud and paying cash for rebuilding schools. See how one benefits corporate profit and one benefits the public interest?
Looking at who benefits from market-based Cost Analysis tells you who is working for or against the people. A very few benefit from market-based----whether race, gender, or labor. So, we have in Maryland one of the clearest examples of this stratification. It is incredible and it is done all to move away from progressive liberalism and broad social benefit to maximizing wealth for a few. Jimmy Carter moved towards market-based Cost Benefit Analysis but it was Clinton who placed it front and center in all his policies. Obama has now placed this on steroids. All national labor and justice leaders know this dynamic and they knew when Clinton was elected and embraced market-based Cost Benefit Analysis he would dismantle people's wealth and move it to this wealth inequity we have today. Same happened with Obama.
The AFL-CIO was formed in 1955 when the AFL and the CIO merged after a long estrangement. Membership in the union peaked in 1979, when the AFL-CIO had nearly twenty million members
1979 Lane Kirkland elected president of AFL-CIO
1995 Thomas Donahue replaces Lane Kirkland as interim head of AFL-CIO
John Sweeney president of AFL-CIO
Richard Louis Trumka (born July 24, 1949) is an organized labor leader in the United States. He was elected President of the AFL-CIO on September 16, 2009, at the labor federation's convention in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He served as the Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO from 1995 to 2009
If you look below you see that the US labor union went from its peak at the beginning of Reagan neo-liberalism to crisis after Clinton's neo-liberal terms. From the time the AFL-CIO learned that neo-liberalism would kill unions and the middle-class to today----about 20 election cycles for the House of Representatives and several election cycles to the Senate have occurred in which with national labor unions lead----progressive liberals could have killed this Clinton neo-liberal hold on US politics. Rather, AFL-CIO went free trade overseas and joined Clinton in pushing neo-liberalism. This is why to this day AFL-CIO support Clinton neo-liberals every primary election.
The AFL–CIO is affiliated to the Brussels-based International Trade Union Confederation, formed November 1, 2006. The new body incorporated the member organizations of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, of which the AFL–CIO had long been part. The AFL-CIO had had a very active foreign policy in building and strengthening free trade unions.
Brussels is of course the city of the 1%----the Global Corporate Tribunal.
You see above the consolidation of labor unions coincided with Reagan/Clinton neo-liberalism and global markets and the decline in labor union power in the US was augmented by US labor going international as US union workers lost all of the labor rights, wages, and benefits from neo-liberalism. See why Americans know absolutely nothing about national and local policy from the very organizations that should have been fighting this in the US?
Importance of Social Cost Benefit Analysis
Social cost benefit analysis is a process in which the social impact of a project or a policy is assessed and evaluated by the government before approving a project contract.
Social cost benefit analysis is a part of calculating the merits of a project or a government policy. As the name suggests, social cost-benefit analysis of anything is associated with its social impact. This means that how a project or a policy will affect people is analyzed. Only after calculating the opportunity cost of a project, it is approved.
The scope of social cost benefits can be applied to public investment and also to private investment. In case of public investment, it plays a major role in the economic development of a developing country. And, in case of private investments social cost benefit analysis is important as investments are to be sanctioned and are monitored by the government. There are two aspects of calculating the cost benefit analysis of any project. One is the private cost-benefit analysis and the other is social cost-benefit analysis. Though, social cost-benefit analysis is usually undertaken by the government.
Social cost is often in contrast with private cost. Major differences between social cost benefit analysis and private cost benefit analysis are as follows:
1. In social cost benefit analysis, not only profit but also other effects like how will it affect life of others are considered. Whereas, in private cost benefit analysis, the focus of the analysis is on maximizing profits.
2. For calculating social cost benefit, market prices for the factors to be considered cannot exist. Therefore, market price is not the main factor taken into consideration while calculating social cost benefit. Whereas, for private cost benefit analysis market price forms the base of the analysis and the key factor that determines if a project is viable.
Social Cost = Negative Impact
Social Benefit = Positive Impact
Social cost benefit analysis has been introduced to develop systematic ways of analyzing cost and benefits of factors which do not have market prices, like effect on environment and traffic. Social cost-benefit calculates non-monetized benefits/ losses. It is normally used for large fund projects like constructing a dam, a road. Such projects have higher social cost-benefits and also affects the price level to an extent.
Example: If a bridge is to be constructed then how much will it benefit the people who live in that particular area, is to be analyzed. Therefore, how many people are willing to use the bridge, how much traffic will be reduced and what is the increase in cost of traveling, will have to be assessed as a whole to come to a conclusion. Suppose, if people are not willing to use the bridge if the cost of traveling from the bridge is $5 and if $7 has to be charged per vehicle to make this project feasible, then the government may consider dropping the project out.
On the other hand, if people are willing to travel using the bridge, being indifferent to the toll price-difference of $2, and the traffic is reduced by a good amount, then the government will sanction the project. Therefore, it is beneficial to take up a project if its total benefits (B) are more than its total costs (C).
It can be put up as, a project should be undertaken if, B/C > 1 or even when B=C. That is, when the cost-benefit ratio exceeds unity or when benefit derived and the cost of the project is equal. Before sanctioning a project, cost and benefit of alternative projects are assessed too. For example, the opportunity cost of setting up a hospital instead of a school.
Importance of Social Cost Benefit Analysis
The importance has been explained with the help of the following factors that affect the general masses as a whole.
Market failure when a big project is not affecting everyone but only a few. A private firm would only look at profitability and related market prices to take up a deal but the government has to look at other factors. To determine the social cost in case of market failure and when market prices are unable to define them. These social costs are known as shadow prices.
Savings & Investment
Impact of the project on general savings and investment level. A project that induces more savings are investment in an economy and not the other way round.
Distribution & Redistribution of Income
The project should not lead to accumulating income in the hands of a few but, it should equally distribute the income.
Employment and Standard of Living
How a project affects employment and standard of living will be taken into account as well. The deal should lead to increase in employment and standard of living.
Externalities are impacts of a project which can be both harmful and beneficial. Therefore, both the effects are to be assessed before sanctioning a deal. Positive-externalities could be in the form improvement in technology and negative-externalities could be in the form of increase in pollution and destruction of ecology.
Taxes and Subsidies
In a general cost benefit calculation, taxes and subsidies are considered as expenses and income respectively. Though in case of social-cost benefit analysis, taxes and subsidies are considered as transfer payments.
Social cost benefit analysis enables the government to take up new developments which will benefit everyone and not just a few. Also, it helps in bringing about an overall development in an economy and can help make decisions that will increase employment, investments, saving and consumption, thus, improving the economic activities in an economy.
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/importance-of-social-cost-benefit-analysis.html
It was always Bill and Hillary's intent to dismantle the progressive liberalism and power of the Democratic base of labor and justice. Republicans didn't make them do it----they are Global Corporate Tribunals for goodness sake.
As I said yesterday, Bill took the black civil rights movement and Hillary the feminist/women's rights movement and captured it with this idea of civil rights centered on accumulating wealth and power and not broad social justice. Real Progressives worked for the good of the whole civil rights community----Clinton neo-liberals made progressive issues singular with separate non-profits to break up the power of inclusiveness.
The quote below says it all-----
THIS IS PROGRESSIVE LIBERALISM:
'Unless there is intersectionality, involving issues of race, class, sexual orientation and gender identity, disability, socioeconomic standing, in feminism, it is absolutely useless'.
So, Bill went to the NAACP and Historically Black Colleges to create a network of corporate black leaders seeing civil rights as accumulating wealth and power----and Hillary created Emily's List and took the NOW over to corporate feminism making sure only neo-liberal women had a voice and support.
Below is a great article written by women having experienced neo-liberal policy the longest. Not one good word around the world comes to neo-liberalism from people of color, women, and labor. Take time to Google the entire article and ask---why is the world against Reagan/Clinton neo-liberalism?
WILL YOU BE IN THAT LESS THAN 10% THAT LIVES WELL OR THE 90% MADE IMPOVERSIGHED AND DESPERATE.
NEOLIBERALISM THROUGH THE EYES OF WOMEN
Joo-Yeon Jeong & Seung-Min Choi, PICIS*
There is no place on Earth where neo-liberalism has not poisoned. It has allowed a handful of private interests to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize personal profit. It has poisonous effects especially in the Third World, where imperial powers continue to pirate natural and human resources to fill the pockets of transnational capitalists. Initiated by Reagan and Thatcher, for the last two decades, neo-liberalism has become the dominant economic and political trend for much of the leftist (so they identify themselves) governments as well as the right.
However, as women fighting against global capitalism and its new phase, as women yearning for a better world where we will not be exploited and abused, we must go a step further into looking into this 'neo-liberalism' through the experiences of women. And it is not just about how women linearly experience it - we must go into the depths to manifest how neo-liberalism operates in a very gender-biased way.
Meanwhile, the community organizer Obama----organized underserved communities for neo-liberal structures. Obama was not organizing for a progressive movement ---he was installing the breakdown of the progressive movement in the black community. Women's groups became almost exclusively Reproductive Rights and moving women up the corporate ladder. Wage equity! Meanwhile, neo-liberalism has sent more women and children into poverty than any time in US history.
ALL OF THIS IS EASY TO REVERSE---WE SIMPLY NEED TO REINSTATE RULE OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION BY RUNNING REAL DEMOCRATS IN ALL PRIMARIES.
You never hear media distinguish between neo-liberalism which the Democratic base hates----and progressive liberalism---which protected the Democratic base. This is deliberate----only neo-liberalism exists say Clinton and Obama. We now see the move of black voters to Republicans trying to escape the very Republican policies of Clinton neo-liberals and their wealth and power policies.
Contemporary racial neo-liberalism
Neo-liberalism has changed the fundamental nature of politics Politics used to be primarily about who ruled whom and who got what share of the pie Aspects of both these central question remain, of course; but the great new central question of politics is “Who has a right to live and who does not?” Radical exclusion is now the order of the day[George, 1999: np
Raise your hand if you understand Texas is not becoming liberal----it is becoming neo-liberal. Neo-cons rule Texas and neo-cons and neo-liberals are the same Global Corporate Tribunal Party owning global corporations together. Who is the biggest sell in Texas? Hillary Clinton because she works for reproductive rights. So, women's rights have come to protecting against domestic violence and reproductive rights and people of color are simply trying to stay out of jail and/or being killed by police. No concerns about equal opportunity and access. Hillary is not progressive folks----neo-liberalism is the opposite of progressive---it is regressive and repressive.
Change Is Coming To Texas. And It’s Liberal
- by Jessica Pieklo
- February 15, 2013
- 11:30 am
It can be easy for progressives in safe enclaves like New York and Washington D.C. to write off a place like Texas as a conservative wasteland not worthy of our attention. There are obviously a lot of problems with a view like that, not least of which is the sheer short-sightedness from an electoral perspective. Texas may not vote like California now, nor legislate like Washington, but give it a few years. It will.
Case in point: look at what the mayors in two of the state’s largest cities are doing to address domestic violence and sexual assault. First there’s Dallas where mayor Mike Rawlings will lead the city in an anti-domestic violence rally where he expects as may as 10,000 men to show up and pledge to change domestic violence culture.
In a press event announcing the rally, Rawlings was clear why it was so important that men show up and be counted in this fight. “Most of all, I want fathers to bring their sons,” Rawlings said. “We have an intergenerational teaching moment here because, undoubtedly, this is a learned behavior.” Rawlings said the whole campaign is a movement that will change the culture of domestic violence. “We’re making this a grass roots movement,” the mayor said. “And we’ll take it back to the community. In the past this has been viewed as a women’s issue, but it ain’t. It’s our problem.”
Meanwhile in Houston Mayor Annise Parker and the Houston Police Department recently announced details of a plan to eliminate a backlog of untested rape kits. Under the plan the untested kits will be sent to two outside labs for testing. It is anticipated the work will be completed in 12-14 months and cost the city $4.4 million, which will be covered with grant funding already awarded to HPD and dollars set aside for this purpose by City Council in the city’s current budget. “With this plan we will finally be able to say the backlog is gone. The problem was years in the making and we’ve been working to solve it since I became mayor. It has been a struggle to deal with during a period of extremely difficult economic times, but we remained determined. I am committed to it never happening again” Mayor Parker said.
HPD is recommending the contract be awarded to Bode Technology Group, Inc. and Sorenson Forensics, LLC. Both are recognized leaders in the field and both have worked on other large backlog projects in various places, including New York, Los Angeles and Los Angeles County. “This plan will eliminate the backlog of SAKs and other DNA cases entirely,” said Houston Forensic Science LGC Chair Scott Hochberg. “This will allow the existing crime lab to focus on current casework and give the LGC a clean start and the ability to focus on other issues as it works to establish an entirely independent city crime lab.”
Amazing. Two separate mayors in two separate cities moving forward to address significant issues that undermine the health and safety of women in Texas all while the legislature moves to close more clinics and further stigmatize the state’s poor.
But the thing is, this news isn’t really that amazing. Demographic breakdowns from the last election show that while the state is still red, it is leaning purple, and leaning hard. Cities like Dallas and Houston and San Antonio (not just reliably-liberal Austin) are witnessing a shift away from the hyper-religious conservatism that has defined state politics toward a more balanced liberalism that would make former governor Ann Richards proud.
It’s an important point that can’t be stressed enough. Liberals need Texas if we’re to maintain a forward-moving and looking political agenda and, we’re closing in on having it. That is of course so long as we don’t screw it up by falling into tired assumptions of the state’s politics that are designed more to serve a certain insecurity that plagues some on the left rather than push the movement ahead.
Everyone lost in this economic crash as Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons used last decade's corporate frauds brought to us from a Clinton-era dismantlement of oversight and accountability in Federal agencies. Neo-liberalism killed the middle-class because it seeks to bring the economy to market gains and profit. The entire labor buildup from FDR to Johnson revolved around building the Federal and state government structures to protect progressive liberal policies. That's why the economy was humming through the 1970s----middle-management in public and private sector worked to keep progressive social Cost Benefit Analysis in place. Clinton embraced neo-liberalism and VIOILA----massive unemployment and a boom and but economy that killed the middle-class and drove the poor to third world levels. When Clinton supporters keep showing stats that he had the greatest surplus or high employment---they are not showing you the long-term effects of policy during his Administration.
Whenever progressive liberalism is dismantled, women and people of color are hurt most-----but all labor is brought to poverty and that hurts over 90% of people
Market-based Cost Benefit Analysis created the drop in both employment and the rise in massive corporate fraud and wealth redistribution to the top----dismantle all oversight and accountability and then rob the US Treasury and people's pockets!
95 Percent Of The Jobs Lost During The Recession Were Middle Class Jobs
By Michael Snyder, on May 1st, 2012
Who is the biggest loser in the ongoing decline of the U.S. economy? Is it the wealthy? No, the stock market has been soaring lately and their incomes are actually going up. Is it the poor? Well, the poor are definitely hurting very badly, but when you don’t have much to begin with you don’t have much to lose. Unfortunately, it is the middle class that has lost the most during this economic downturn. According to Bloomberg, 95 percent of the jobs lost during the recession were middle class jobs. That is an absolutely astounding figure. Yes, some executives lost their jobs during the last recession as did some minimum-wage workers. But overwhelmingly the jobs that were lost were middle income jobs. Sadly, the limited number of jobs that have been added since the end of the last recession have mostly been low income jobs. A higher percentage of Americans are working low income jobs than ever before, and the cost of living continues to rise at a very brisk pace. This is causing an erosion of the middle class unlike anything we have ever seen in American history.
When I was growing up I was taught that the fact that we had the largest middle class in the history of the world was evidence that our economic system was working incredibly well.
So what does the fact that the middle class is shrinking at a very rapid pace at this point say about how well our economy is working?
Middle Class Incomes Are Going Down
During the last recession, millions of Americans lost their jobs and the percentage of working age Americans that have jobs has not bounced back in the years since the recession ended.
But most middle class Americans still have jobs. The big problem for many middle class families is the fact that their incomes are not going up. In fact, after you account for inflation, middle class incomes are actually way down during the Obama years as a recent Bloomberg article explained….
As a candidate in 2008, Obama blamed the reversals largely on the policies of Bush and other Republicans. He cited census figures showing that median income for working-age households — those headed by someone younger than 65 — had dropped more than $2,000 after inflation during the first seven years of Bush’s time in office.
Yet real median household income in March was down $4,300 since Obama took office in January 2009 and down $2,900 since the June 2009 start of the economic recovery, according to an analysis of census data by Sentier Research, an economic- consulting firm in Annapolis, Maryland.
So is this the “hope and change” that Obama was talking about?
But let’s not just blame Obama and Bush. The truth is that the trend toward lower paying jobs has been going on for a very long time.
Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.
So where will it end?
Will 50 percent or 60 percent of all Americans soon be working low income jobs?
At this point, approximately one out of every four jobs in America pays $10 an hour or less.
Could your family survive on $10 an hour?
The Rising Cost Of Living
As middle class incomes go down, the cost of almost everything that middle class families buy continues to go up.
The Federal Reserve claims that it has kept inflation “low” for decades, but that is a giant lie.
When you take a look at the long-term picture, it is amazing how much prices have changed.
Back in 1950, the average price of a new car was $1,510.
Today, the average price of a new car is $30,748.
In 1967, yearly tuition at Yale was $1,950.
Today it is $38,300.
And inflation continues to take a great toll on the paychecks of middle class families.
For example, electricity bills in the U.S. have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.
Also, the price of gas has risen by more than 100 percent since Barack Obama entered the White House and the average U.S. household spent a staggering $4,155 on gasoline during 2011.
The Destruction Of Middle Class Wealth
What is the number one financial asset for most middle class families?
Most middle class families don’t have a lot of stocks, bonds or other financial assets.
Instead, normally the family home is the number one financial asset for most middle class families, and in recent years the value of that asset has been absolutely decimated.
When you take inflation into account, housing prices have fallen all the way back to 1998 levels. The following is from a recent Smart Money article….
The latest S&P / Case-Shiller numbers, reported last week, show that prices in 20 major markets declined 3.5% over the year through February. They’re now back to 2002 levels. If we subtract for inflation, they’re back to 1998 levels.
Overall, home prices in the U.S. have declined for six months in a row and are now down a total of 35 percent from the peak of the housing bubble.
Unfortunately, things don’t look like they are going to turn around any time soon. Yale economics professor Robert Shiller recently said the following about U.S. home prices….
“I worry that we might not see a really major turnaround in our lifetimes”
But falling home prices are not the only problem we are witnessing. We are also seeing millions of middle class families lose their homes.
According to the U.S. Census, homeownership in America is now at the lowest level it has been in 15 years.
According to Gallup, the current level of homeownership in the United States is the lowest that Gallup has ever measured.
Owning your own home is an indication that you are part of the middle class, and so the fact that the number of Americans that own a home is falling rapidly is not a good sign for the health of the middle class at all.
The Future Is Not Bright
Those that are graduating from college right now are supposed to be the future of the middle class in America.
But for most of those college graduates, the future is not so bright. Last year, a staggering 53 percent of all U.S. college graduates under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed.
Millions of young college graduates have been forced to take jobs that do not even require a college degree. Just check out the following stats from a recent CNBC article….
In the last year, they were more likely to be employed as waiters, waitresses, bartenders and food-service helpers than as engineers, physicists, chemists and mathematicians combined (100,000 versus 90,000). There were more working in office-related jobs such as receptionist or payroll clerk than in all computer professional jobs (163,000 versus 100,000).
Aren’t those numbers crazy?
The truth is that a college education is no longer a ticket to the middle class.
What Happens To Americans That Fall Out Of The Middle Class?
As the middle class shrinks, the ranks of the “low income” and “the poor” are absolutely swelling.
Today, approximately 48 percent of all Americans are either considered to be “low income” or are living in poverty.
That is almost half the country.
Each year, millions more fall out of the middle class. In 2010, 2.6 million more Americans fell into poverty. That was the biggest increase that we have seen since the U.S. government began keeping statistics on this back in 1959.
As the middle class shrinks, the number of Americans dependent on the government for survival rises. Right now, government dependence is at an all-time high and things are only going to get worse from here.
In November 2008 (when Barack Obama won the election), 30.8 million Americans were on food stamps. Today, more than 46 million Americans are on food stamps.
Will we eventually see 50 million or 60 million Americans on food stamps?
The U.S. economy desperately needs more middle class jobs.
Unfortunately, the Republicans failed to generate them under George W. Bush and the Democrats failed to generate them under Barack Obama.
Instead, both parties continue to promote the politics of division and they both continue to push for more of the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place.
Nothing is being done to solve our problems and so the middle class in America is going to be even smaller by this time next year.
If you still have a spot in the middle class, hold on to it as tightly as you can. It is not as secure as you might think.