Here’s an example of one of the corporations that the Republicans are so concerned about not  increasing marginal tax rates on — the “job creators”. Sure, let’s get them more tax cuts, so they can pay out ridiculous bonuses to themselves and their executives while laying off more American workers. Why not?

Newspaper Giant Gives CEO $32 Million Severance Package After Laying Off 20,000 Workers In Six Years

When Craig Dubow resigned as CEO of the nation’s largest newspaper conglomerate amid health problems last year, he ended a six-year stint that “was, by most accounts, a disaster.” Gannett, the parent company of the USA Today and 80 other American newspapers, had seen its revenue plummet $1.7 billion and its stock price fall 86 percent, from $72 a share to just over $10.

To counter those losses, Gannett shed jobs, and a lot of them. Industry estimates say the company has laid off at least 20,000 workers since 2005, reducing its workforce from 52,000 to roughly 32,000. Despite those losses, Gannett awarded Dubow a severance package worth $32 million, NPR reports:

Dubow’s final compensation package includes $12.8 million in retirement benefits, $6.2 million in disability benefits and a $5.9 million severance payment, according to the filing. Gannett stock options and restricted stock, which Dubow had accrued during his years of employment with the company, were also part of the package. Those stock awards are valued at nearly $7 million.

Separately, Gannett will pay $25,000 to $50,000 annually for a $6.2 million life insurance policy covering Dubow and another $70,000 annually for benefits such as health insurance, home computer and secretarial assistance and financial counseling. He will receive most of these benefits for three years unless he goes to work for a competitor, according to the filing.

Only in the United States of White Male Corporatism can you be a complete failure, put 20,000 people out of work, get a $32 million severance package, and still get an entire political party to fight to get you even more — while convincing the plebeians to take even less.



For change to occur, our leaders must understand that there is not only strength in compromise, courage in conciliation and honor in consensus-building — but also a political reward for following these tenets. That reward will be real only if the people demonstrate their desire for politicians to come together after the planks in their respective party platforms do not prevail.

I certainly don’t have all the answers, and reversing the corrosive trend of winner-take-all politics will take time. But as I enter a new chapter in my life, I see a critical need to engender public support for the political center, for our democracy to flourish and to find solutions that unite rather than divide us.

I do not believe that, in the near term, the Senate can correct itself from within. It is by nature a political entity and, therefore, there must be a benefit to working across the aisle.

She sounds like she’s plotting a third-party presidential run. This sounds like someone who’s planning something big, not someone receding from public life.

I’m curious, how would people feel about her running as a third party candidate?

Class Warfare

"Why do Republicans and the corporate news media only play the ‘class warfare’ card when someone stands up for the middle class?"

I heard this question asked and it struck me. Why do they play nasty when it becomes a debate about middle class? Could it be because they feel threatened? The “middle class” are people who have enough money and education (theoretically) and enough people who comprise the group to make them a viable threat to power.  Why does the corporate news media often feel free to completely ignore minorities or disregard when someone stands up for minorities? Because by definition they are in the minority and therefore have a disparate amount of power. But why is that? Because tragically, this reality exposes our xenophobia, lack of empathy and neglect of marginalized groups. It shouldn’t matter who is being shit on, as humans, we should care. Those in power should always be afraid to shit on the People, regardless of class, creed or color; because as fellow humans, we should all be outraged and standing in solidarity against such injustice, regardless of whether it affects you personally. 

Why Occupy Wall Street Has Left Washington Behind

Gordon Lafer   

Public discussion of the Wall Street protests has focused on the movement’s indictment of the economic elite, but Occupy Wall Street marks an equally profound critique of the country’s political system. As the weeks tick by, the protests at Zuccotti Park and across the nation are driving home this profound realization: this is a fight that can’t be won by voting. The crisis that most fundamentally shapes our lives cannot be solved through the legislative process. This is not because the agenda is unpopular—54 percent of Americans support OWS, with only 23 percent opposed—but because the system is corrupted beyond repair. This slowly dawning realization is both invigorating—an invitation to engage in the kind of bold, blue-sky strategic thinking that leftists have not entertained for decades—and disturbing, a harbinger of just how nasty the future may get.

What makes OWS different from the mass marches against the Iraq War or at the 2004 GOP convention is not just that it’s an ongoing occupation rather than a one-day affair. It’s that this protest is not, at its core, voicing an appeal to lawmakers. Click through to read more.