Democrats Should Come Out Swinging Against the Court

Michael Tomasky: Democrats Should Come Out Swinging Against the Court

by Michael Tomasky Jun 24, 2012 12:00 AM EDT

If the Supreme Court overturns the health-care law, Democrats will be tempted to sulk and feel sorry for themselves. But that’s the last thing they should do.

I expect, as I think most of us do, an unfriendly decision (from the Democratic point of view) on the health-care law. Can’t yet say how unfriendly; at the very least, an overturning of the individual mandate, and maybe more. Assuming that’s correct, the question immediately becomes how the president and the Democrats should respond. There’s very little they can do legislatively. But I’ll be watching for rhetoric, tone, even body language. And on those counts, they had damn well better dispense with the usual liberal woe-is-me hand-wringing and shoulder slumping and come out swinging. They had better communicate to their base that they stand for something, it’s important to them, and they’re pissed. And if they do it the right way, they can make the Supreme Court an issue this fall in a way that might even persuade some swing voters that the court overstepped its bounds. I’d go so far as to say that an aggressive response can reset and reframe the whole health-care debate, once Americans have had their minds focused on this by a blatantly partisan court.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Let’s say the court overturns the mandate by a typical 5-4 vote, but leaves the rest of the law intact. What must the Democrats do? The main thing is all about tone. I can just picture already what I fear I will see: Obama coming out to a press conference with his head down, speaking in a dour monotone, still trying to point out the silver linings but in a way that sends the message to anyone listening that he’s really apologizing for them, and muttering that he is now “calling on the Congress to act” (this has become my least favorite Obama phrase) and get busy working on one of the alternative approaches that will still keep the law alive—which is nothing more than a punchline, really, because everybody knows Congress isn’t lifting a finger.

No, a thousand times no! He needs to stand up there and get mad. The law may be unpopular, but he and the Democrats are stuck with it, and being stuck with it, they need to stick by it. Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court taken a law duly passed by the people’s representatives and in just two years’ time invalidated it. If that isn’t legislating from the bench, what is? Mr. Cool needs to get Hot. Against unanimous and ferocious opposition, and in the face of blatant lies about what this bill would and would not do, he and the Democrats came up with a way for people with cancer and diabetes and what have you to get the treatment they need and not be either turned away or gouged. He’s proud of that, he ought to say, and by God, he’s going to fight for it. That provision of the law is wildly popular—85 percent supported that, in a late-March New York Times survey. If you can’t play offense with 85 percent of the people behind you, I give up.

He should also go right at Mitt Romney, on two points. First, Romney flatly opposes coverage for all people with preexisting conditions. He backs care only for those who have had “continuous coverage,” and not for people whose insurance had lapsed at any point during their illness. So Romney is against something 85 percent of Americans support. I am sadly confident that you did not know that. Good work, Democrats.

Second: when Romney was governor, he supported—insisted on—exactly the same provision that the court will have just struck down. The people of Massachusetts were forced to buy insurance. They live under that regime today, thanks to Governor Romney. And guess what? They like it—62 percent approved of the law, in a poll from earlier this year. And now, to please far-right interests putting hundreds of millions of dollars into his campaign, he would deny the people of the country the one good thing he did for the people of Massachusetts as their governor.

Now we come to the court itself. Far be it from me to second-guess Jeff Shesol, who wrote in Newsweek that Obama should not take on the court. But a brand-new poll by Hart Research for the Alliance for Justice suggests that with the right approach, the court can be made an issue. In the case that I suggested at the top of this column—a 5-4 decision along the usual lines—69 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents agreed that “they would believe that the justices based their decisions more on their own political views than on their interpretation of the law and Constitution.” Fifty-seven is not an overwhelming majority. But it’s a majority nonetheless, and if Democrats aren’t afraid to make this case strongly, they can turn it into an even bigger one.

And finally: blow that stupid broccoli analogy out of the water. Need to know how, Democrats? Here: read me on it.

In sum, the Democrats should see an adverse decision as a chance to put the other guys—the Republicans in Congress, Romney, and the court’s ideological majority—on the defensive. It is what Republicans would do; they’d bay endlessly about an “out of control” court and all the rest. It’s one of the key psychological differences between conservatives and liberals. When conservatives suffer a political setback, they prowl the terrain like lions, looking for a few necks to bite. When liberals suffer one, they ball up like kittens and ask themselves, “Oh, gee, what did we do wrong?”

That impulse, not any particular talking point, has been the whole problem on this health-care debate to begin with. As it is on so many matters. Maybe John Roberts and his little quartet of sea-green incorruptibles will finally get it through their heads.

In Health Care, Give the People What They Want: Medicare for All

Published on Thursday, June 21, 2012 by TruthDig.com

In Health Care, Give the People What They Want: Medicare for All

by Robert Scheer

 

The nutty thing about the health care debate that will play a prominent role in the next election is that most Americans want pretty much the same outcome: to control costs without sacrificing quality. And that’s not what either major-party candidate is offering. Few think that Obamacare, a Romneycare descendant that contains the same kind of individual mandate the then-governor of Massachusetts signed into law, will get us to that desired goal. Nor would Mitt Romney, who has been reborn as a celebrant of the old, pre-Obama system with a few nips and tucks.

 

Taken on November 3, 2011 in Franklin Mcpherson Square, Washington, DC. (Photo: Flickr/Glyn Lowe Photoworks) 

As the nation awaits a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Obama health care approach, a new Associated Press-GfK poll suggests that the vast majority of Americans want Congress to come up with a better plan. They know that the current system is unsustainable. Only a third of those polled favored the law President Barack Obama signed, but according to the AP, “whatever people think of the law, they don’t want a Supreme Court ruling against it to be the last word on health care reform.” The article continued, “More than three-fourths of Americans want their political leaders to undertake a new effort, rather than leave the health care system alone if the court rules against the law, according to the poll.”

That sentiment underscores the opportunity missed by Obama, who limited his ambition to what Big Pharma and the insurance giants would accept as “reform” in a system that they had so successfully exploited. Obamacare is a faux reform born of opportunism, as was Romney’s original version: Play ball with those who have profited most from the run-up of medical costs and expect them to make it more affordable.

Two dynamics doomed the experiment. First, the new Democratic president wanted to launch a bold progressive program, but rather than channel the spirit of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to address the economic crisis that he inherited, he continued the bailouts begun under George W. Bush and fixed on health care reform instead of the financial pain being suffered by average Americans.

"Obamacare is a faux reform born of opportunism, as was Romney’s original version"

The second dynamic that undercut the health care bill was an overeagerness on the part of the new White House operatives to collaborate with the profiteers in the very industry targeted by reform.

The email trail of cave-ins to the medical industry heavyweights is startlingly clear, and it is difficult to quarrel with the headline on a Wall Street Journal story: “Emails Reveal How the White House Bought Big Pharma.” Except, as a related editorial in the WSJ makes clear, it was the pharmaceutical industry that did the buying, with “a $150 million advertising campaign coordinated with the White House political shop.”

What the industry bought was an end to the notion of a health care “public option,” and a guarantee of no serious restrictions on drug prices, arranged by then White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who was in close communication with the lobbyists involved. The Journal article pointed to the cynical language of the emails exchanged, quoting one incriminating note from a lobbyist: “Rahm asked for Harry and Louise ads thru third party. We’ve already contacted the agent.” The American Medical Association and others also were in on the fix,  yet with all of that power being exercised the public wasn’t conned. As the WSJ editorialized (it galls me to agree with that newspaper’s editorialists), “The miracle is that despite this collusion of big government and big business, Obamacare has received the public scorn that it deserves.”

But scorn for an individual mandate that compels consumers to purchase something they don’t want does not translate into a rational alternative to the current mess. Californian Gary Hess, a retired school administrator and a Republican, is quoted in the AP story about the new poll as saying that he wants the Supreme Court to reject the entire Obama plan but that he still wants the government to retain the requirement that insurance companies cover people regardless of their prior medical conditions. “There needs to be compromise on both sides,” he said. Clearly, any good compromise must include both control on costs and the availability of health care to the needy in places other than the very expensive emergency room.

Let me humbly suggest that as an alternative to a mandatory system rejected by the majority, we return to the idea of covering most people by attracting them to quality public and private programs through consumer choice, and that one of those choices be a version of the public option we now offer seniors. It’s called Medicare and it works splendidly.

© 2012 TruthDig.com

Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle.

America Must Protect Its Solar Industry

America Must Protect Its Solar Industry

By Joel D. Joseph

The United States must lead the world in developing alternatives to oil, and solar energy should be a primary industry. Currently, Germany has more solar panels installed than the United States. Germany has about 25 gigawatts-worth of photovoltaic cells installed while the United States has only 2 gigawatts installed, with California providing half of that.

California and the American Southwest are much more compatible with solar power production than Germany. While Germany is cloudy and cold for six months of the year, California, Arizona and Nevada have warmth and sunshine most of the time. Fully 10% of Germany’s electricity is generated by solar cells. We can do much better.

Solar has come a long way in recent years and has great potential to grow in upcoming years. American innovation has solar approaching power at $1 per watt and parity with coal. Hawaii and large portions of Southern California are at wholesale grid parity. Residential and commercial solar markets are at retail grid parity in much of Northern California. This means that solar production is cost effective and competitive with coal.

That is the good news. Unfortunately, American solar manufacturing is at a crossroads. Simply put, events of the last two years have shaken the confidence our leaders and the public have in solar. Solyndra and China have been two daggers in the side of the American solar energy industry.

Chinese manufacturers, recipients of billions of dollars of illegal government subsidies, remain the culprit as they dump their products in the US market seeking to grab market share and push American manufacturers out of business. China’s unfair trade practices have crushed America’s solar industry, resulting in the closure or downsizing of twelve American manufacturing companies and the loss of thousands of American jobs. One company, SolarWorld, shut down its Camarillo, Calif., facility after 35 years last September and eliminated the jobs of nearly 200 employees. As a vocal advocate for products manufactured in the USA, this is startling news. The Made in the USA Foundation is one of 190 associate members of the Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing (CASM) – which represents more than 16,000 workers nationwide – and also explains why we are extremely interested in the industry’s continued development.

The United States must maintain and support a strong domestic solar manufacturing base to not only protect much needed jobs but also to protect the solar industry and to combat the stranglehold that oil and coal have on the United States.

Manufacturing jobs offer workers better benefits and better pay, and generate higher-levels of additional jobs than other sectors throughout our economy, which are exactly what California and America need right now. In fact, a recent report by the Photo Voltaic Group of SEMI, the industry trade group, noted that manufacturing had the highest job multiplier of any segment of the American economy, higher than construction, agriculture, or information services.
With the worldwide solar energy marketplace growing rapidly and expected to become even larger in the future, America must maintain its position as a leader in solar energy manufacturing and innovation. We cannot allow China to assume that role and take American jobs by breaking international trade laws.

Fair trade can benefit American workers and companies. Our goods and services are among the best in the world and competition ensures that the market operates fairly. US companies can compete and win against foreign competitors in the global marketplace, but only if it is done on a level playing field.

Those nations that break the rules to give their industries an unfair advantage must be held accountable to US and international trade law.

Contrary to the claims of installers who rely on cheap, subsidized Chinese solar panels, we believe that the US government cannot ignore US trade laws. The United States must enforce its trade laws and keep solar panel production in the United States so that we can lead the greening of energy production worldwide.

Joel Joseph is chairman of the Made in the USA Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting American-made products. Email joeldjoseph@gmail.com. Phone 310 MADE-USA.

From The Progressive Populist, June 15, 2012

Boot the Billionaires

June 15, 2012

EDITORIAL

Boot the Billionaires

President Obama probably didn’t change many votes with his announcement that he had completed his evolution on gay marriage, but it was the right thing to do.

Coming a few days after North Carolina voters approved a state constitutional amendment that not only bans gay marriages, but also prohibits civil unions and benefits for unmarried heterosexual partners, Obama’s announcement that he supports gay marriage boosted morale for one of the last minorities it is still socially acceptable in many communities to discriminate against.

But the presidential election won’t turn on Obama’s new support for gay marriage — which is largely moot because states are responsible for marriage laws. Instead the election will turn on the support of workers who want to see Obama and the Democrats take more forceful action to get businesses as well as state and local governments to rehire the 12.5 million Americans who remain unemployed. They also would like the government to protect the jobs that are threatened by profiteering corporate executives who are willing to take advantage of “free trade” laws to relocate factories overseas in their constant search for increased quarterly dividends. And it would be nice if Democrats would stand up for labor’s right to collective bargaining, which is under attack across the country.

Republicans have been very successful in getting working-class people to vote against their economic interests and instead support socially conservative Republicans who have run on “God, guns and gays” as a cover for dismantling the New Deal during the past generation. Too many Democrats have decided that the best way to fight the Republicans is to move to the center and “put everything on the table” in the hopes of winning points among independents as the “reasonable” party. Instead, independent voters see one party that believes in conservative principles, which, however reactionary, have become orthodoxy by repetition in the mainstream corporate-controlled media, and they see another party that is willing to compromise its progressive principles. That leaves progressives and centrists wondering why they should even get out to vote for candidates who appear to be “the lesser of two evils.”

But when progressives who were disappointed with the Democrats stayed home in 2010, Republicans seized their opportunity and took control of the legislatures in a dozen states, the US House and enough of the Senate to block progressive initiatives. They showed how evil right-wing ideologues can become. Republicans have attacked public schools, teachers, public employee unions, the Postal Service, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and they have passed voter suppression laws to exclude the millions of low-income workers and senior citizens who don’t have drivers’ licenses (and tend to vote Democratic) from the polls.

Wisconsin voters will have a chance to reclaim their democracy June 5 when they vote to recall Gov. Scott Walker (R) and four Republican senators after a year and a half of radical Republican union busting and implementation of right-wing initiatives ordered by the billionaire Koch Brothers and the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council. Wisconsin Democrats and labor unions collected nearly a million signatures to set up the special election, and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is challenging Walker and other Democrats are challenging four Republican senators who rammed the union-busting bill through the Legislature. Republicans then held a 19-14 majority, but lost two seats in recall elections last year.

There is plenty of damning evidence against Gov. Walker, who never mentioned in his campaign that he would be targeting unions. But after the “perfect storm” in 2010 swept him and Republican legislators into power, Walker claimed that fiscal necessity required him to strip collective bargaining rights from public employees.

That claim was called into question in May by the release of a videotape from January 2011 that shows Walker discussing with a wealthy campaign donor strategies to weaken public sector unions and then go after all labor organizations to make Wisconsin “a completely red state,” John Nichols noted in The Nation (June 4). “The tape confirmed the worst suspicions of grassroots activists, who have demanded that Walker, his cronies and their crude fiscal and political intrigues be held to account,” Nichols wrote. “If Walker and his allies are removed from office, the results will be seen across the country as a rejection of the false premise that cutting taxes for the rich while attacking unions and slashing services will somehow spur job growth. Walker promised that his policies would create 250,000 jobs. Instead of growth, the governor’s austerity agenda has brought about what the Bureau of Labor Statistics identifies as the worst pattern of job losses in the nation.”

Barrett, a progressive former congressman who lost to Walker by 5 points in 2010, argues that the governor abandoned fiscal common sense and “created an ideological civil war … in the State of Wisconsin.”

Some in Wisconsin are complaining that they aren’t getting enough financial support from the White House or the Democratic National Committee, while Walker can draw all the financial support he needs from his billionaire benefactors. Walker has raised more than $25 million to fight the recall while Barrett has raised $1 million. Walker supporters have spent millions more on “independent” ads. The DNC told the Associated Press it has sent $1.4 million to Wisconsin in this election cycle and plans more fundraisers, but Democrats will not be able to match the Republicans in the broadcast air war, so their hopes rest on the organizations that are working door to door to get out the vote.

In the 19th century, the People’s Party grew with a grassroots communications structure that included local Populist clubs, pamphlets, speakers at camp meetings and 100 Populist newspapers in Texas in the 1890s and they forced reforms that included regulation of corporations, progressive taxes, women’s suffrage and popular election of US senators. Today we still have newspapers (such as The Progressive Populist — see page 24 for gift subscriptions to friends) and other magazines that spread the progressive point of view but the real energy is on the World Wide Web, where anybody with an Internet connection can start a blog and occasionally they grow into behemoths such as DailyKos.com. But the Big Money that controls the mainstream press and broadcast media is trying to figure out how to put a gate on the Web. Obama’s appointees to the Federal Communications Commission have adopted “net neutrality” protections for wired Internet users that are weaker than free speech advocates would like, but even those modest rules are being challenged in court by Verizon and other telecoms.

Jeffrey Toobin chronicles the corporate takeover of the political process in “Money Unlimited: How Chief Justice John Roberts Orchestrated the Citizens United Decision” in The New Yorker (May 21).

Toobin follows the fight over limiting corporate spending in elections that goes back over a century. That fight took the hard-right turn when right-winger Samuel Alito Jr. took the seat given up by moderate conservative Sandra Day O’Connor in 2006. Anthony Kennedy took the balance of power and, seeing the restriction on corporate spending in elections as unconstitutional censorship, wrote the 2010 opinion for Roberts that protects the right of corporations to spend freely to advise voters. Toobin concludes, “The Roberts Court, it appears, will guarantee moneyed interests the freedom to raise and spend any amount, from any source, at any time, in order to win elections.”

The Wisconsin recall will be a test of whether a grassroots populist uprising can overcome the millions of dollars pumped in by Organized Money. The stakes are as high as ever and progressives cannot afford to sit out the Wisconsin recall or the general election in the fall. We can’t let John Roberts get any more reinforcements on the Supreme Court. . — JMC

From The Progressive Populist, June 15, 2012

How to End the Nightmare of Jobless America

AlterNet.org

  ECONOMY  

AlterNet / By Louis Ferleger and Jacob M. Magid

How to End the Nightmare of Jobless America

Researchers look at some of America's "dead zones" and discuss how to move stalled economies.

June 5, 2012  |  

 

 

 

Over the last six months, reports of the faltering U.S. jobs market have inundated the media. Last Friday's bleak numbers showed unemployment ticking up a tenth of a point, from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent. But largely absent from the discussion are the American cities where the jobs crisis is nothing new -- areas that have been experiencing an ongoing unemployment nightmare since well before the financial crash.

We can call them America’s "dead zones" —metropolitan and micropolitan areas where the unemployment rate has been at least 2 percentage points higher than the national average for five, 10 or 20 years.

Conventional wisdom assumes that economically distressed areas exist only in inner-city slums or rural backwaters. But dead zones, although plagued by persistent high unemployment, rarely fit those stereotypes. Rather, they come in all shapes and sizes; these cities are not necessarily crime-ridden or poverty-stricken. In fact, many dead zones have median incomes at or even above the national average. Instead, they share sustained, and in many cases are begrudgingly resigned to, high unemployment rates regardless of the national business cycle.

In general, between 25-35 percent of their residents’ incomes are provided by government aid, compared to 17 percent nationwide. Between 25-40 percent live on $30,000 a year or less. The workforce in most dead zones has a low education level, with more than 50 percent possessing just a high-school degree or less. Most jobs in dead zones are in low-end service industries, especially retail. Such jobs offer few prospects for upward mobility or skill enhancement.

A few dead zones are on the right track, while others are clearly headed down the wrong track. Shining a spotlight on five specific cases gives us clues to the scope of the predicament, and also potential solutions. We'll compare Henderson, North Carolina; Seneca, South Carolina; and Kokomo, Indiana with dead zones that seem doomed to further stagnation – Hanford, California and Natchez, Mississippi.

Inside Jobless America

1. Henderson, North Carolina
For more than 20 years, Henderson, population 43,000, has watched jobs vanish. The tobacco, cotton and textile industries once made it a thriving community, but for the last few decades the city’s main industries have been in distributional warehousing, low-end manufacturing and retail trade. Henderson’s median income has plunged by 9 percent over the past decade to stand at $45,000, the national average. Because of its poorly educated work force, Henderson sends few workers to nearby higher-education institutions like the University of North Carolina and Duke, or to Research Triangle Park, the high-tech hub located between Chapel Hill, Durham and Raleigh.

2. Natchez, Mississippi
Natchez has a lot in common with Henderson. Hugging the border with Louisiana along the Mississippi River, it was once a center for cotton, trade and textiles. Old South wealth settled in the area, and even today more than 200 antebellum structures remain standing. But today's Natchez has experienced high joblessness levels for 20 years. The 49,000 residents have a median income of $29,000, which is 11 percent less than a decade ago. In 2003, the already struggling city suffered a major loss when three companies shut down: International Paper Plant, Armstrong Tire and Johns Manville, a construction-supplies producer. Natchez now promotes itself as a retirement community and relies mainly on tourism, medical and retail industries, as well as a local casino and prisons.

3. Hanford, California
With 148,000 permanent residents, Hanford has had high unemployment for over two decades. The city’s median income is right at the national average, about the same as it was 10 years ago. Here, the primary employers are prisons, seasonal agriculture, the Lemoore Naval Base, a small Indian casino (located about 10 miles away), and two large firms: Del Monte (a canning plant) and Marquez Brothers (a cheese producer). As with other dead zones in the Southwest, Hanford’s economy depends on migrant workers. One area of strength is that Hanford provides the only major shopping center within 40 miles. Here again, however, low-paying retail work is the norm, with few opportunities for upward mobility.

4. Seneca, South Carolina
This very rural community of 71,000 residents has seen high levels of unemployment over the last decade. Its median household income is $41,000, down 13 percent from 10 years ago. Similar to Natchez and Henderson, Seneca was originally a textile town. Here, the influence of the textile industry was considerable—residents relied on the mills for everything from running schools to maintaining stores. The construction of Hartwell Dam in 1962 created two artificial lakes, which have made the area a self-described haven for retirees and recreational tourism. These lakes also led to the construction of the Oconee Nuclear Station in 1974. Small to midsize factories producing automotive and industrial parts comprise the rest of the local economy.

5. Kokomo, Indiana
The 98,000 people who live in Kokomo have historically relied on the automotive industry to provide good jobs. Chrysler operated four plants, and several suppliers of auto parts and materials also had factories in the area. For many years, young people who graduated high school could look forward to jobs at these local plants. So they had little incentive to pursue higher education, even though the city boasts four universities (Indiana University Kokomo, Purdue School of Technology, Indiana Wesleyan University, and Ivy Tech Community College). Though Kokomo’s median income is right around the national average, it is down 16 percent from a decade earlier. The city’s workforce was hit hard by the recession of 2008 and the subsequent Chrysler plant closings. Over the last five-plus years, unemployment has climbed steadily.

These cities illustrate the economic diversity of the over 200 dead zones in the U.S. But they also suggest that distressed areas have more similarities than differences. For example, many dead zones present themselves as destinations for tourists and retirees, and like Natchez, hope to create an image of this sector as a “renewable industry.” But tourism remains extremely sensitive to changes in tastes and macroeconomic conditions (as is the case in Las Vegas, where high unemployment has recently become the norm). It also tends to create low-skilled service jobs that offer almost no prospect for upward mobility.

Dead zones are often home to military bases, casinos and prisons—industries that demand very little skilled labor, and like retail and government work, offer few opportunities for workforce advancement and job growth. The single industry commonly found in dead zones that provides opportunities for advancement is medical services. But even here, the jobs in greatest demand tend to be in lower-paying occupations.

The overwhelming majority of dead zones have been economically distressed for decades. But in the cases of Henderson, Kokomo and Seneca, they have started to work with economic development organizations on programs that focus on improving local job prospects.

What Goes Right

Henderson, for example, created Triangle Park North in 2005 with three surrounding counties. This initiative includes sharing the costs of developing and marketing industrial parks in each of the counties. The hope is to provide manufacturing services for the nearby Research Triangle. The effort has begun to pay off, as a solar-panel manufacturer and an EMS-vehicle firm have recently announced plans to move to the area.

Dead zones differ in their approach to education and workforce training. In Kokomo, the days of 24-hour production and 15,000-plant workers are gone. A new business model has emerged that focuses on encouraging advanced, specialized manufacturers to relocate to the area. To that end, the Greater Kokomo Economic Development Alliance started working with local colleges and technical schools to retrain workers. This initiative has led to record enrollments, supporting the area’s education industry while simultaneously creating a more skilled workforce.

Seneca faces a very different challenge: a general lack of infrastructure. Here the Oconee County Economic Development Group has tried to attract businesses by highlighting its strengths: a stable local workforce and very low costs. In addition, a program was started that reaches out to students as early as eighth grade to begin career planning. Older workers who have recently lost their jobs are also attending classes at the local community college and enrolling in retraining programs in new fields.

Rodney Hollingsworth was laid off after more than 30 years of working in the construction industry in the Seneca area. With construction jobs scare, he decided to return to school and applied to the Goodwill and Tri-County certified nurse aide (CNA) program. After completing 92 hours of training plus an additional CPR class, and passing the CNA state certification exam, he was offered an interview for a part-time job by the head nurse at Clemson Downs Retirement Center. Having already cared for both his father and mother-in-law, who had recently succumbed to cancer, he knew this was the career path for him. Within three months, he was working full-time.

Rodney’s story is an example of local businesses and non-profits partnering up to tailor educational programs for specific needs. In Seneca, the plant manager for auto-parts manufacturer BorgWarner has been working with the superintendent of public schools as well as the directors of the local technical colleges to design programs that will enhance students’ employment prospects in advanced manufacturing. In fact, Seneca was recently honored at South Carolina's 20th Annual Industry Appreciation Week for its business-government partnerships.

In Kokomo, Chrysler recently announced a $1 billion investment plan to make the city the center for manufacturing certain car parts. The city has partnered with local colleges and even high-school career centers to ensure a steady supply of qualified electrical engineers and other technical workers.

In Henderson, when a new company moves to the area, the Henderson-Vance County Economic Development Commission schedules a meeting with representatives from local community colleges to determine what programs might be needed to support the enterprise. At Vance Granville Community College, administrators work on instituting and implementing customizable training services for the company’s workforce; they also created a new five-year program in which students can earn a high-school degree and an associate degree simultaneously. As a result, high school drop-out rates have fallen and new bio-tech labs have been established.

Business-government partnerships are only one part of what needs to be done to reduce the staggering number of dead zones. In Kokomo, even with a new business model, the economy remains heavily dependent on automotive manufacturing, so city leaders are now focusing on diversifying production to other industries; recently they have attracted a cabinet-making firm from Kansas.
Moreover, the city has created a commercial incubator, Inventrek, to nurture small businesses. After the automotive-electronics firm Delphi laid off 300 of its lowest-skilled engineers in Kokomo in 2008, the Economic Development Alliance partnered with a venture-capital firm, Purdue and Indiana Universities, Inventrek and the local community to create an engineering contract company, Neupath, which farms these workers out to different projects. Funded in part by a WIRED (Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development) grant from the U.S. Department of Labor, this new company enables qualified and experienced engineers to continue working in their fields without having to relocate. Not only does Neupath provide work for recently laid-off laborers, it also serves as a database for future employers looking to hire full-time. Kokomo’s mayor, Greg Goodnight, recently said, "Private-public partnerships are what move this community forward."

What Goes Wrong

Unfortunately, Henderson, Kokomo and Seneca are the exception rather than the rule among dead zones. Too many places, from Atlantic City to Branson, Missouri rely heavily on tourism as their major industry. Some places, like Hanford, still have not put in place a proactive economic-development program. Too many others have weak or nonexistent chambers of commerce (they mostly serve as directories for local businesses) and political leaders who lack the wherewithal to develop and promote programs to reduce unemployment. Other cities, such as Natchez, lack developmental resources—their local economic-development group, Natchez Inc., has only three staff members, all hired in 2010. They have had some success, attracting businesses like Elevance Renewable Sciences and InterSteel, but they have failed to put in place a comprehensive vision for Natchez’s future. They are now trying to promote industries as varied as tourism, forestry and chemical manufacturing.

Developmental initiatives take time to plan, implement and realize results. It is unlikely that outside resources—particularly from the federal government—will be available to boost employment in the near future. As evidenced by Kokomo and Seneca, economic-development programs can have a major impact. Both areas have seen significant reductions in unemployment since 2009 when they implemented such programs: from 14.7 percent to 9.9 percent in 2011 in Kokomo, and from 13.4 percent to 10.2 percent over the same time period in Seneca. Natchez and Henderson, on the other hand, have had proactive initiatives in place for a year and have not yet seen significant changes. Hanford, where the jobless rate sits at 16 percent, clearly shows that when no initiatives are taken, unemployment will remain high.

All dead zones, however, still face large obstacles. In Kokomo’s case, nothing could have prepared it for the mass layoffs of 2008-'09, nor could anything have saved it short of a full-fledged government bailout of Chrysler. But WIRED grants, plus local commitments, can make a difference. It remains the case, however, that state and federal aid is often both too slow and too scattered, minimizing its impact. Thus the onus for action falls to the local level, precisely where the fewest resources are available. Initiatives such as the workforce-retraining programs in Seneca and Henderson provide one potential model. Proactive business-government partnerships, education and training programs geared to specific labor force needs, and diversifying local economies hold the key to an America free of dead zones.

Louis A. Ferleger is a professor of history and director of the graduate program at Boston University. Jacob M. Magid is completing his master's degree in economics at Boston University.