These Keynesian-minded corporate heads are concerned about slow job and income growth and its effect on mass purchasing power; want a national healthcare program to relieve employers of private health care costs; and are alarmed by runaway budget and trade deficits which threaten a financial crisis.
Hindery, in effect, accuses members of the US business elite of placing their narrow personal and company interests ahead of their class interests, and the Bush administration of pandering to their selfish needs rather than acting in line with its broader responsibility as the “executive committee of the ruling class”. As Hindery puts it, "we need a team who will, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, 'save capitalism from the capitalists'." In this instance, however, unlike the 30s, America is not experiencing a deep depression, there is no left wing political challenge from which capitalism needs rescuing, and his is a distinctly minority voice within elite circles. He and his 200 pro-Kerry colleagues are, however, a measure of growing US and international business anxiety about the direction of American economic and foreign policy.
Marv Gandall
---------------------------------
Bush's economy is for the elite few By Leo Hindery Financial Times August 10 2004
Within an hour of John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as his running mate, the US Chamber of Commerce said it was forced to abandon its position of “neutrality” because Mr Edwards was “hostile to business”. I could almost hear the laughter in corporate boardrooms across the country. To argue that the Chamber intended to be, or has ever been, politically “neutral” reminds me of the film Casablanca when Claude Rains expresses shock that gambling was taking place in Rick's Café.
The line revealed the dirty little secret of the US Chamber of Commerce. It is run by the wealthy chief executives of the nation's biggest companies.
It is easy to see why enormously rich businessmen believe more personal income and lower taxes are good for them. But what is good for an individual chief executive's wallet does not translate into being “good for business” or for the nation's economy.
What businesses and the economy need are full employment, or as full as possible, and strong consumer demand, generated by a combination of consumer confidence and fair compensation. The Bush-Cheney ticket is failing that test. They adopt “anything-goes-for-big-business” policies, continue to push for ever-lower tax rates for the wealthiest Americans, defend self-serving executive compensation packages and condone benign regulation of corrupt practices.
The latest sign of how what is really good for ordinary citizens and the economy is being flipped on its head is George W. Bush's spin on sluggish job-growth numbers. Now, he contends, that bad is good. In response to the far lower than expected employment numbers for June, he said: “Steady growth. That's important. We don't need boom-or-bust-type growth.”
But when the number of new jobs created this year fails to keep up with the growth in the adult population - a trend confirmed by last Friday's job numbers for July - a little more boom and a little less steady stagnation would certainly be helpful.
Certainly the unemployed and businesses that need to sell products and services to people with incomes are getting weary of the disappointing growth. For the first time in more than seven decades, there are fewer jobs at this point in an election year than there were when the current president was inaugurated. A net 2.6m manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2001.
And anyone whose job has been outsourced to other countries should appreciate Mr Kerry's call to end tax loopholes and benefits that provide an incentive for shipping jobs overseas and keeping the profits there.
Compounding the problem, far too many of the jobs being created are low-wage positions with few benefits. Overall, wages for non-supervisory workers have failed to keep up with inflation over the past year.
But jobs and wages are not all that matters. Instead of Mr Bush's big tax cuts for the top 2 per cent of Americans, the Kerry-Edwards ticket would reform healthcare. That would make health insurance more available and affordable for millions of Americans and cheaper for businesses. The other 98 per cent of Americans and the businesses whose healthcare costs would be lower should welcome the choice between better healthcare and tax cuts for the wealthy.
The business community has also traditionally, and rightly, been concerned about massive government borrowing. But under the Bush administration, we have seen huge budget surpluses turned quickly into crushing deficits. That, too, takes a toll on consumer and business confidence. Make no mistake about it. There is a big distinction between the US Chamber and local Chambers. The local Chambers honestly focus on what is good for their communities. They understand that jobs and wages are essential for their business members to have customers and for their cities and regions to thrive.
Yes, the US Chamber would like to distract attention from the economy and scare Americans about the Democratic ticket. But in this election year, voters must make a distinction between policies that will create jobs and value for shareholders and organisations that speak and act at the whim of entrenched management and the economic elite.
Today, the Bush administration and the US Chamber are trying to twist even the questionable adage of Calvin Coolidge that “the business of America is business” into something farworse, namely that “the business of America is about super-rich CEOs and executives”. Instead, we need a team who will, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, “save capitalism from the capitalists”.
Americans have a fundamental choice to make in November, and the economy will be an important issue. The US Chamber hopes voters will - ignoring the facts, history and the candidates' records - assume that Republicans are better for the economy than Democrats. But the voters should avoid this knee-jerk reaction, and make the distinction between what is good for the elite few and what is good for the economy as a whole. Then it will be clear who will really do the best job of looking out for them and who will get our economy moving again.
The writer is chairman of HL Capital and was formerly chief executive of TCI, AT&T Broadband and The YES Network
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm