Corporations are intensifying their multi-million dollar lobbying campaign against the Build Back Better legislation (BBB). The Business Roundtable — a group of dozens of top CEOs including Apple's Tim Cook, Walmart's Doug McMillon, and GM's Mary Barra — is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on
Corporations should be doing every thing they can to SUPPORT child care and invest in centers near their locations. I don't get it. Whine about not having employees then fight child care incentives?
I am a Pro Choice Catholic - and it disgusts me that real choices for women are so often ignored or destroyed.
When I had an abortion it was not a "choice" it was a necessity; it was simply not possible for me to leave my abuser and support a child.
This is true for the majority of women who get abortions: they are more likely to be compelled to get an abortion due to lack of options than they are to get an abortion due to actual choice.
Real choice for women includes the choice to have a child, and only by providing poor moms with safe affordable housing, affordable healthcare, and quality CHILDCARE will they actually be able to make choices regarding whether or not to get and remain pregnant.
I am happy to see an article supporting REAL choice for women.
The Chamber and its members are guilty of short-term thinking (which does not bode well for their long-term success). The only difference between them and the Taliban is that corporate America doesn’t use overt violence to coerce people. But they both advocate excluding half of their adult populations from participating in the economy. As long as as they oppose access for the people with the best minds, regardless of gender, they will lose the competition for dominance. Successful competition depends upon all participants being empowered to use their best skills and strengths to accomplish their best work. It is ridiculous to assume that the best skills of 50% of Americans are changing diapers and scrubbing bathtubs.
Thank you so much for this! I would love to be able to share a quick bit of truth to social media, quoting and linking to this newsletter. Have you considered creating sharable truths to combat the lies on social media?
Let me guess: the actual human members of the BRT, representing the corporate “members” - would they be predominantly persons with penises? If parents, would they predominantly have stay at home coparents? —I would be willing to spread such vicious truths about BRT (if I knew them) via my own social media accounts, though without an advertising budget I’d be unable to mimic their state targeting strategy. But this is the problem I see: not only do corporations have ridiculous amounts of power/money and little accountability, but they by nature perpetuate a patriarchal, misogynistic culture that’s extremely difficult to subvert. I give the President (and First Lady/VP/First Dude/…) major props for trying though, and Judd more props for a solid piece of reporting.
The wealthy are not "job creators." They don't start companies because they want to employ a lot of people, they start them (or buy them, more likely) because of demand, and they employ people because they have to. If there's demand for whale oil, there will be whale oil companies and jobs for whalers. If cars are in demand, there will be car manufacturers and jobs for people in car factories. It's demand that creates jobs, and demand comes from workers and the middle class, not the rich - there simply aren't enough of them compared to everyone else, and they spend a far lower percentage of their income.
What does a business need, at the bare minimum? A product or service to sell, and people who want to buy it and have the money to do so. If you take money away from workers - and even from the poor, who pretty much have to spend everything they get - you are taking money away from customers. Maybe not your customers, but your customers' customers, somewhere down the road.
Why is this so hard for business people to understand?
Another perfect argument against stuffing so many seemingly connected 'projects' or 'goals' into one inflated legislative effort. Our government hasn't worked in concert on anything of value in so long, it's foolish to think there is any chance - esp since our recent elections - that consensus can be achieved on even one, much less several, complicated issues. I hate to be such a cynic, but the more I witness of the convoluted 'compromises' our legislators waste so much time on, the more I believe it's all just for show. This country has always run on the Golden Rule: he who has the most gold, rules. If our elected representatives worked as hard as the lobbyists did, something of real value might be accomplished. It's THEIR job to care about American families, not the Chamber of Commerce.
Judd, once again you've explained an "issue" in very straightforward, clearly-stated language. (I put issue in quotes because who can argue that further enriching already obscenely wealthy people is somehow just and uncontroversial?) I am frequently amazed that your articles don't ooze anger and profanity - you show far more restraint than I would!
To what are they referring with this statement? Does anyone have a clue? Transfer payments sounds so vague yet costly. "the impact of the legislation on workforce participation, especially given the large amounts of transfer payments that are not connected to work."?
Corporations should be doing every thing they can to SUPPORT child care and invest in centers near their locations. I don't get it. Whine about not having employees then fight child care incentives?
Thank You so much for this article!
I am a Pro Choice Catholic - and it disgusts me that real choices for women are so often ignored or destroyed.
When I had an abortion it was not a "choice" it was a necessity; it was simply not possible for me to leave my abuser and support a child.
This is true for the majority of women who get abortions: they are more likely to be compelled to get an abortion due to lack of options than they are to get an abortion due to actual choice.
Real choice for women includes the choice to have a child, and only by providing poor moms with safe affordable housing, affordable healthcare, and quality CHILDCARE will they actually be able to make choices regarding whether or not to get and remain pregnant.
I am happy to see an article supporting REAL choice for women.
The Chamber and its members are guilty of short-term thinking (which does not bode well for their long-term success). The only difference between them and the Taliban is that corporate America doesn’t use overt violence to coerce people. But they both advocate excluding half of their adult populations from participating in the economy. As long as as they oppose access for the people with the best minds, regardless of gender, they will lose the competition for dominance. Successful competition depends upon all participants being empowered to use their best skills and strengths to accomplish their best work. It is ridiculous to assume that the best skills of 50% of Americans are changing diapers and scrubbing bathtubs.
Greed is ruining this country.
Thank you so much for this! I would love to be able to share a quick bit of truth to social media, quoting and linking to this newsletter. Have you considered creating sharable truths to combat the lies on social media?
The greedy cynicism of these companies is disgusting.
Same old story. Corporations and Billionaires controlling our destiny!
Let me guess: the actual human members of the BRT, representing the corporate “members” - would they be predominantly persons with penises? If parents, would they predominantly have stay at home coparents? —I would be willing to spread such vicious truths about BRT (if I knew them) via my own social media accounts, though without an advertising budget I’d be unable to mimic their state targeting strategy. But this is the problem I see: not only do corporations have ridiculous amounts of power/money and little accountability, but they by nature perpetuate a patriarchal, misogynistic culture that’s extremely difficult to subvert. I give the President (and First Lady/VP/First Dude/…) major props for trying though, and Judd more props for a solid piece of reporting.
The wealthy are not "job creators." They don't start companies because they want to employ a lot of people, they start them (or buy them, more likely) because of demand, and they employ people because they have to. If there's demand for whale oil, there will be whale oil companies and jobs for whalers. If cars are in demand, there will be car manufacturers and jobs for people in car factories. It's demand that creates jobs, and demand comes from workers and the middle class, not the rich - there simply aren't enough of them compared to everyone else, and they spend a far lower percentage of their income.
What does a business need, at the bare minimum? A product or service to sell, and people who want to buy it and have the money to do so. If you take money away from workers - and even from the poor, who pretty much have to spend everything they get - you are taking money away from customers. Maybe not your customers, but your customers' customers, somewhere down the road.
Why is this so hard for business people to understand?
Another perfect argument against stuffing so many seemingly connected 'projects' or 'goals' into one inflated legislative effort. Our government hasn't worked in concert on anything of value in so long, it's foolish to think there is any chance - esp since our recent elections - that consensus can be achieved on even one, much less several, complicated issues. I hate to be such a cynic, but the more I witness of the convoluted 'compromises' our legislators waste so much time on, the more I believe it's all just for show. This country has always run on the Golden Rule: he who has the most gold, rules. If our elected representatives worked as hard as the lobbyists did, something of real value might be accomplished. It's THEIR job to care about American families, not the Chamber of Commerce.
My solution is to kill the entire bill. Anytime the government tries to do something the costs become astronomical.
What the Democrats do with all their free money giveaways is make everything harder for those of us who aren't getting anything.
Judd, once again you've explained an "issue" in very straightforward, clearly-stated language. (I put issue in quotes because who can argue that further enriching already obscenely wealthy people is somehow just and uncontroversial?) I am frequently amazed that your articles don't ooze anger and profanity - you show far more restraint than I would!
To what are they referring with this statement? Does anyone have a clue? Transfer payments sounds so vague yet costly. "the impact of the legislation on workforce participation, especially given the large amounts of transfer payments that are not connected to work."?
There’s something wonky in your third paragraph.