If Public Assistance Programs Disappeared, What Would Be The Consequences?

If all forms of public assistance disappeared, as some Americans seem to want, what would be the consequences?  I'm not sure I have many answers, but I have a lot of questions that "may" just be answers too. First, where would everyone work, if that's the goal of those who favor elimination of assistance? Collectively, companies have pretty much record profits, yet the unemployment rate remains around seven percent (6.1% as of June 2014), although many people have only part time work, but want full time employment. For one thing, wages would be driven down further, as there would be so many people added to the potential work force, and don't go exempting your own job in wage cuts, likely substantial wage cuts, as that nasty little "supply and demand" comes into play ... BIG TIME! Maybe if a lot of people worked for a buck an hour, there would be a sudden explosion of job openings? Of course with such wages, who would have the money to buy anything? Prices would have to come down, but with the rest of the world not participating in this exercise, how would that effect things? Who would take care of elderly or sick family members, if everyone had to work? And with low wages, who would have the money to hire anyone to do so? With no unemployment benefits, what would happen to people who didn't have jobs, for whatever reason? With suppressed wages, how would charities fare, if many people were already struggling to keep themselves from the poorhouse? (Or would there be a poorhouse?) With the wealthy fully in charge, would any and all worker protections disappear? You know, would you be required to work holidays and virtually any number of hours or consecutive days with no extra pay? And what about child labor?   

Just to add a little perspective here, the Great Depression and World War Two both brought major changes to the American labor market. With high unemployment during the Great Depression, one idea was to restrict the labor force; that is, cut down on the number of potential workers, leaving a more limited number to hold or seek scare jobs. Social Security became law in the mid 1930s, with a collection age of 65, but the program took a few years to actually start letting Americans collect (and not all that many companies had pension plans), but once in full swing, the 65 retirement age opened up jobs for younger workers to move up, or enter the work force, in a sort of "chain reaction" (this all took time, including after WW II). The whole situation of unemployment changed during World War Two, as millions of men (and a number of women) went into the armed forces, leaving all sorts of job openings for an economy that had shifted into high gear by making planes, tanks, guns, ships, helmets, military clothing, etc, besides most of the usual things it had already been making. 

Can our current system provide adequate numbers of jobs with living wages and benefits?* Notice I said "living wages and benefits," since providing jobs is not the end game in itself, but providing living standards must be part of our modern civilization. While we've progressed in civilization, there are those who want to go back in time, including some who seem to visualize the past as some ideal period. In the former television show Fantasy Island, people got to see what their "imagined dreams" were really like. My guess is, if we could get some of those with the misguided beliefs about the past onto a new "Fantasy Island," it wouldn't take long for them to want to scurry back to the present, with a very different perspective on the future

* For more on this subject, see these articles:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/06/capitalism-long-term-broad-based.html

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/07/capitalism-long-term-broad-based.html

WORD HISTORY:
Horn-This traces back to Indo European "kher," which had the idea of "top of the body or head, horn of an animal." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "hurnaz," meaning "horn." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "horn," which has remained that way for many centuries, with the exception of some adding an occasional ending "e" hundreds of years ago. The use of animal horns as instruments brought that added meaning. The other Germanic languages have: German "Horn," Low German "Hoorn," Dutch "hoorn," West Frisian "hoarn," Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Swedish "horn."

Do You Really Want To Return To the Past?

All eras have to be judged in perspective; after all, a thousand years ago people could never envision the things of today; in fact, neither could people from even a hundred years ago. Remember, in the more distant past, if you wanted to eat, you had to go find food, and not at the local grocery or convenience store either. If you wanted water, you had to go get it, either from a well, stream or pond. If you wanted hot water, you had to heat it, and not in the microwave or on a stove top where you flipped a switch, but you had to actually build a fire, you know, with wood and brush. I have a sneaking suspicion that many of those who want to return to the more distant past would not find such practices as quaint as they seem to think other things were back then. Like it, not like it, it's called "civilization" folks, and it has seen mankind develop procedures or devices in many parts of the world to make human life easier. Now, I'll bet you wouldn't want someone to call you lazy the next time you walked into the kitchen and turned on the hot water faucet, but that wouldn't necessarily surprise me, with some of this reactionary nonsense being espoused by an element of the country.

The other day I was having some medical tests done and there were two younger nurses talking about bread, and the one mentioned she needed to have several loaves on hand for some company she expected soon. I couldn't help but say to them, "When I was a kid, you wouldn't have been able to do that. When you bought bread on a Monday, it would already start to get stale by Tuesday and most certainly by Wednesday, depending upon the time of year" (hot, humid conditions made bread go bad more quickly). Bakeries had "day old stores," as they were frequently called back then, because they picked up bread from stores that hadn't been sold after one day on the self, which they then sold for reduced prices in these stores. If you bought bread in one of these stores, you had to look to be sure it didn't already have mold developing; that is, unless you planned on making your own penicillin. The two nurses said they had heard it was like that "in their parents' time," and in spite of the three of us agreeing that we aren't exactly sure that we're completely confident in the preservatives they use today, none of us decided we wanted to go back  Sometimes we need to remember that about other things too.

WORD HISTORY:
Mush-The ultimate origin of this word is unclear, but it goes back to Old Germanic "moes," which seems to have meant "food." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "mos," which meant "food, porridge." It later became part of the compound "appelmos,"  which meant "applesauce" (close relative German still has "Apfelmus" ("applesauce"), as in the English form and some other Germanic language forms, the meaning of "porridge" led to the additional meaning "pureed food;" thus the "applesauce" meaning. This led to the more modern version "mush;" that is, "cooked cornmeal," but it can also be used in reference to just about any "sticky, gooey" substance. Other Germanic languages have: German "Mus" (puree, and the more limited use, 'jam'), Low German "Moos" (porridge, mush), Dutch has "moes" (porridge, pulp, puree), Danish, Norwegian and Swedish all have "mos" (puree). Apparently Frisian no longer uses a form of the word, nor does Icelandic.

Conservatives Were Lucky

A few months ago on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," regular guest Jon Meacham, a respected author and editor, commented that "conservatives have won the argument" about cutting the budget, but while I have tremendous respect for Meacham, I must disagree, or at least "clarify," on his point, although it "appears" (or "appeared" at the time he made the statement) that conservatives have (had) won that argument. First, the conservatives, or more specifically the Republicans, were politically lucky that the economy took the dive it did in the waning months of the Bush administration. The worst political case for the Republicans was for them to win the 2008 election, especially with John McCain, a man many conservative true believers have detested for years, and still do. With polls still showing a majority of Americans, including about half of Republicans, hold George W. Bush responsible for the severe economic downturn, if Republicans had held the presidency and the Senate, I can't imagine it would have meant anything but a virtual obliteration of the Republican Party.* The policy of just letting things collapse until they could collapse no further would have been a recipe for their own destruction, if they dared to continue such policies. And some of the true believers would undoubtedly have continued to push such policies. Remember during the Gulf oil spill as the coast, the tourist industry and the seafood industry were devastated and disrupted, one Republican congressman publicly apologized to BP! Don't think the true believers ever "get it," they don't.

Huge deficits run during Bush's terms were forgotten by the conservatives, and even the nearly one and a half TRILLION dollar deficit inherited by Obama from Bush was then used AGAINST Obama.** As the economy began to right, the deficits also began to decline, although slowly. When deficit reduction was discussed, Republicans refused to consider any tax hikes to help lower the deficit. With responsible economists across the political spectrum saying that there needed to be some mixture of spending cuts and tax hikes, Republicans sat on their hands, refusing to raise taxes on the so called "job creators;" that is, the ultra rich, none of whom (see Word History, below) would have noticed the extra tax money missing from their monthly statements.***

When Obama defeated McCain, I have to believe some conservatives heaved a sigh of relief, as they then did not have to face the brunt of the economic plunge, nor its aftereffects. Instead they worked up a message that never mentioned any conservative involvement in the unfolding disaster. They quickly pivoted to place blame for the situation on the new President and Democrats. Although that message has not been totally successful, it did shore up the Republican/conservative base. When a couple of Republicans strayed from the ranch, they were lambasted for not standing firm with other Republicans.**** In the early going, the President correctly reached out to Republicans, even adding tax cuts to the actual stimulus plan to garner GOP votes, but it was virtually for naught, as Republicans, once so in favor of tax cuts, declared the cuts were not enough, and that they did not favor spending money directly to thwart the downward slide. Then a few months later, rightly or wrongly, President Obama gave the Republicans and conservatives a shot in the arm they could never have administered to themselves, health care. For about a year a titanic struggle played out day after day in front of an often disconnected American public, who thought the President had come to office to fix the economy. Some Republicans who had previously favored an "insurance mandate," quickly changed positions once Obama embraced their own basic plan. ***** Eventually the President won, but the cost was high, and his popularity has never totally recovered. Gleeful Republicans, then having been allowed to get back up off the floor, mounted an all out attack in the midterm elections, maiming Democrats across the country, and taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

So my point is, did conservatives win the argument? I say we don't really know, because they didn't have to face the music of the worst part of the economic downturn, and the economy still hasn't healed from the devastating blows it took. In other countries where cut backs have been put in place, economic growth has been slowing, and in fact this slowing could have a serious impact on our own economy. Some conservative governments in these countries have either been voted out (France), or have taken major hits in recent elections (Germany). To me, the verdict is still out, although most Democrats and most progressives agree that the deficit must be brought down, albeit gradually, something many have been saying independently from Republican demands of more immediate reductions.******

* Don't cheer too loudly Democrats. Some other party would have replaced it, or it would have survived on life-support, as there is always a counterbalance that eventually comes into play. And that is not a bad thing, although I can hear the names I'm being called for writing that.

** To be fair, the initial inherited deficit was increased slightly by certain stimulus spending, added after Obama took office, but the main deficit had been passed to him by the previous administration. The stimulus bill passed by Congress and signed by the President had spending spread over a couple of years, not concentrated in one year. Further, with the economy in headlong retreat, shrinking revenues only made things worse. I told you conservatives were lucky not to have won the 2008 election.

*** The "Bush tax cuts," as they have come to be called, cut taxes substantially on incomes in the top 2 to 2.5 %. The "bottom" of that bracket involves incomes of about $250,000 per year. While most of us would love to earn that much, that amount in itself doesn't necessarily make one wealthy. Myself, I did NOT support raising taxes on this income group. A debate raged at the time within Democratic circles over the income level higher taxes should start. Some suggested $500,000, others suggested one million dollars, something I DID support and still do! While much fuss was made by both sides, the taxes on upper incomes would have only increased about 3 1/2%, although you'd have thought from Republican rhetoric that Democrats were out to confiscate upwards of 100% from millionaires and billionaires.

**** Beleaguered and battered Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector even switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.

***** The basic idea was that if everyone, or virtually everyone, was going to be covered by a national plan, then everyone would have to purchase insurance. Insurance is based upon a "pool" of insured; that is, paying customers. In spite of the largely successful Republican rhetoric about "a government take over of health care," Obama supported free market insurance companies to insure Americans. Yes, the government would require people with preexisting conditions be covered, but it would also require that people buy insurance (or have company offered insurance), with extensive subsidies provided to lower and middle income people to help with the purchase of such insurance. The conservative policy group, the Heritage Foundation, was one of those conservative groups IN FAVOR of such a basic plan just a few years ago; in fact, I believe they PROPOSED IT. Other supporters of this approach were none other than Mitt Romney when he helped get statewide insurance when he was Governor of Massachusetts, and Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House. The idea is, if everyone is insured, including people with preexisting conditions, the "pool" has to be large enough to cover those people. This is just for example, but let's say you work for a company with 100 employees and you have hornswoggle of the big toe. Don't ask me what that is, I may tell you. The insurance company may not want to cover you, as you are higher risk, or let's say they agree to cover you for like $20,000 a year (ah, like I said, they don't want to cover you). If they can get the other 99 employees (let's say they are basically healthy) to buy insurance, they can lower the cost to you and the others to something much more reasonable, as the risk has been spread out.

****** Generally polls have shown deficit reduction much further down the agenda of most Americans. That doesn't make it right or wrong, but it does not support the notion that conservatives have won the deficit argument.

WORD HISTORY:
Who/Whom-This common pronoun goes back to Indo European "qwos/qwes," with several related meanings, but basically "who." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "(k)hwas/(k)waz," again with several related meanings, one of which was "who." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hwa," which later became modern English "who," and the "wh" was pronounced, but has obviously since been lost, but that's the reason for the modern spelling. "Whom" is the dative form of "who;" that is, for the object of a sentence or phrase, but its usage has slowly been in decline, as to many English speaking people, perhaps more so Americans, using "whom" seems a bit "high-style," or awkward; so we tend to say, "Who did I gave the book to?" Not the technically correct "To whom did I give the book?" Anyway, "whom" in Old English was "hwam." Various forms are common in the other Germanic languages, but as I noted in the Old Germanic (and Indo European) word, the basic word had several meanings (like "how" and "that" and others) which have come down to modern times in various forms in the Germanic languages. Standard German has three forms, not counting the genitive (possessive) form (I've mentioned before that German retains much of the complex Germanic grammar of old that was gradually simplified by its cousin, English): "wer," "wen" (accusative form), "wem" (dative form); Low German also has "wer" and "wem," and some dialects have "wäm" for "whom;" West Frisian has "wa;" Dutch has "wie;" Norwegian has "hvem;" Icelandic has "hver;" Danish has "hvo" and "hvem,"and Swedish has "vem."

Shared Sacrifice and Cooperation Is Not A Dirty Concept

First published in September 2013 


Working together and sharing sacrifices are what help make nations into, well, nations. Get out of the past and come forward into the current century. Since when should providing good educations from childhood to adulthood for all Americans be considered as something to scorn and look down on? How about with retraining workers displaced by technology or jobs lost to overseas?  Remember real people have been and are being hurt, their lives destroyed. Since when did trying to help them make or restore their lives become a bad thing? How about health care for all, where health care professionals get paid on a competitive basis and not by how many tests, appointments and procedures they can require? Yes too, this means taxes to help support such things, but when people realize the benefit that can be achieved for all, instead of for just the few, I think they'll see the value in those taxes.

These things don't weaken the nation, they strengthen it. The greedy want you to believe helping others is detrimental to the country, but then many of them, or their supporters, also want you to believe they are Christians, but in that case, they're either Christians or ruthless money grubbers, they need to pick one, but they can't be both simultaneously, unless we allow them to define the term. Call their hands, don't let them have it both ways. 

WORD HISTORY:
Name-This word goes back to Indo European "nom(e)n," which meant "name." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "namon," with the same meaning. This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "nama/noma," which meant "name," and a bit later, "noun" (the 'name' of people or things). This then became "name." The verb form in Old English was "namian" (to call, to name"). Common in the other Germanic languages (these are all the noun forms): German has "Name," Low German has "Naam," West Frisian "namme," Dutch "naam," Danish and Norwegian have "navn," Icelandic "nafn," and Swedish has "namn."

Obama Creates Bipartisanship

Unless you have been visiting another planet lately, you know the country is in the midst of a major discussion about taking action against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. President Barack Obama recently  came out in favor of the action, after he was convinced that Assad had used chemical weapons on his opponents in Syria, where there has been an ongoing civil war for about two years now. The whole situation has turned American politics on its head, as the President's decision has created bipartisanship the likes of which we have not seen since near the end of the Bush administration, as the economic meltdown brought people from both parties together. The thing is, this time, it has created a divide in both political parties, as some Democrats have joined some Republicans (we'll know how many of each officially very soon) to support the action, and some Democrats have joined some Republicans to oppose the action. Polls show Americans against the action by a substantial margin, and members of both houses of Congress say calls and emails to their offices are also running heavily against involvement in the conflict.

This President has a terrible habit of handing his opponents, both domestic and international, issues to use  against him, and he has gotten himself into a terrible situation, and it's HIS fault, no one else's, regardless of the talk where he indicated the world had drawn a red line in any country's use of chemical weapons. Did he consult with "the rest of the world" to get them to commit to the action they agreed to take in a hypothetical situation?  The answer appears to be "no," or if he did consult with them, he apparently didn't like their answers and he made pronouncements about Assad having crossed a red line and that action would be taken by the United States. It is important to note, the British Parliament just recently voted against Britain's involvement in this action, even though British Prime Minister David Cameron supported the President's position. The President then decided to get the approval of Congress, which, unless I miss my guess, he will not get, and he will face the fallout from it, which has the potential to be substantial, both at home and abroad. On the other hand, to go forward with military action, with or without the approval of Congress, will also bring fallout, both domestically and internationally, as he and Congress will be going against both American and world public opinion in a major way; it's called "lose, lose." He can't back away, because his ego won't let him, nor will the political situation he has created with his position, but he's damaged himself regardless of what now happens. Poor judgment on his part from the very start.

The evidence against Assad is all circumstantial, at least at this point, and much is based upon intelligence, a device severely tainted by the Bush administration's use of faulty intelligence to argue for an invasion of Iraq, a conflict which brought thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions in expenditures to America, whose citizens were never asked to pay (in money) for the war. What was not paid for in money, was paid for in lives and suffering of our wounded, and in the suffering to the families who suffered losses of life and limb.

 To further add to this current terrible situation, Secretary of State John Kerry has said there is no major Al Qaeda presence among Assad's opponents, a comment that seems highly suspect to me. This also brought Russian leader Vladimir Putin to publicly call Kerry "a liar." Now to be fair, Putin, while friendly with former President George W. Bush, seemingly can't stand President Obama, but Obama did stick his finger in Putin's eye (symbolically) early on after taking office.* Putin's ego stretches somewhere from Moscow to the furthest part of Siberia, so he didn't laugh off Obama's comments about him. Further, Russia has been a close ally of Syria for some time, giving Putin at least the chance to make mischief with Obama's plans for Syria, while he watches the President twitch in discomfort and face a likely meltdown of his presidency.

Then of course there's Republican Senator John McCain, who is holding the President's feet to the fire for strong action in Syria, and who has been itching to get the U.S. militarily involved in Syria for a couple of years, but then again, McCain pretty much wants America militarily involved on much of the planet, including I believe at the North Pole; after all, Santa does wear a red suit, and may be a communist, although he's definitely a socialist. Hey, he comes down chimneys and leaves free toys for kids. Now what kind of an example is that? These kids will grow up thinking you can get stuff for free, or at least for only a glass of milk, a cookie, and a few lumps of sugar for some reindeer. That's enough to get a military commitment to put "boots on the ground," or "on the snow," against Santa from John McCain.

The President and supporters have been making moral arguments about Assad and chemical weapons; and there's something to be said for that (if the intelligence is correct), BUT moral battles also have to be realistic, and this battle is not realistic.  

* In the months after his election in 2008, Obama commented (in so many words) that Putin was too stuck in the past, alluding to Putin's service as a fairly high ranking officer in the "KGB," the Soviet secret police during Communist rule. 

WORD HISTORY:
Utter-English has two words "utter;" one used as an adjective to mean "total" (as in, "utter chaos broke out"), and the other used as a verb to mean "to speak, to use the voice in some manner" ^ (as in, "The delirious woman uttered a few things"), but both words come from the same ultimate source. They go back to Indo European "ud," which meant "up, out." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "ut," which then gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "ut," which then later became modern "out." Old Germanic "ut" developed "utizon" as the comparative form, to mean "outer, furthest outside." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "utera," with that same meaning, and the notion of "furthest outside" brought about the figurative meaning   "total." Of course, the same form also gave modern English "outer." Other forms in Germanic (they all mean 'outer'): German has "äusser," Low German "uter," Dutch "uiter," Danish "ydre," Icelandic "ytri," Norwegian "ytre," and Swedish "yttre." Apparently Frisian no longer uses a form. Utter, the verb meaning "to use the voice," also goes back to Indo European "ud" (up, out), and this then gave Old Germanic "ut." This then gave Old English "útian," which meant "to expel, put out from land," a form which seems to mirror the then Low German "utern" and "uteren" in High German, both of which seem to have meant "express something, speak out, demonstrate/reveal something." The Old English form produced a later "outen," which meant "to reveal, disclose," and the Low German form apparently was borrowed in the 1300s or early 1400s and fused with the English form for "utter." Modern German has "äussern" (to express) and Low German has "ütern" (to express).

^ The verb also is used in law, most commonly to describe the passing of forged checks.  

Mirror, Mirror On The Wall, Who Is Richest Of Them All?

I suppose everyone has heard the tale of "Snow White," made even more popular in the U.S., and indeed, the world, in the late 1930s on by the Walt Disney animated screen version, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs." The story was first popularized back in the earlier 1800s by famous German storytellers Wilhelm and Jacob Grimm, also simply known as "the Brothers Grimm." The tale is about envy by Snow White's stepmother, who is so insecure, she uses a magic mirror to reassure herself by asking, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest one of all?"* She is comforted to hear the mirror answer that she is the fairest, until Snow White's beauty eventually becomes the mirror's answer, terribly shaking the stepmother who then tries to have her killed. The stepmother gets a hunter to kill the girl, but he leaves Snow White to what he believes will be certain death in the forest. Snow White comes upon a cottage owned by seven dwarfs who go digging for gold and ore every day. She tells them her story and the dwarfs ask her to keep house for them, which she accepts. The stepmother, however, asks the question of the magic mirror, only to learn that the hunter failed to kill the girl. She then sets out to accomplish the task herself, but fails three times, each time learning that Snow White has survived when the mirror tells her that Snow White is still the fairest.

While the story is about envy over beauty, it could just as easily be about envy over money. People with such insecurity can do just about anything when their egos feel threatened, including wage and benefit cuts and jobs shipped to low wage countries, where not only low wages prevail, but where there are often less environmental regulations; after all, what's a little pollution, when it comes to these insecure maniacs making more money. Just about anyone perceived to be standing in their way can become a victim. They're trying to get that answer from the magic mirror, "YOU are the richest one of all."  

* There are some variations in the English versions, as the original German couldn't be made to rhyme easily in word for word translation into English. The German is, "Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand, wer ist die schönste im ganzen Land?"  Literally, "Little mirror, little mirror on the wall, who is the most beautiful in the entire land? (or, 'in all the land')." Some English versions, in order to have the words rhyme, had the stepmother use a handheld mirror and say, "Mirror, mirror in my hand, who is the fairest in all the land?" German "Wand" (interior wall, partition) is related to English "wound" (not the word for "injury," but from "wind," with a long "i"). It goes back to the time when many building materials were fashioned from branches and twigs "wound" together. German also has "Wall," but it is used only for fortification walls and earthworks and a "Mauer" (closely related to "mural"), a word German borrowed from Latin, is an exterior wall, usually including walls around a city. The famous (infamous) wall that divided Berlin was also called "die Mauer," a feminine noun; thus, "die" is the article, "the wall."

WORD HISTORY:
Enough-This word, meaning "be sufficient, be of the necessary amount," is actually a compound going back to Indo European "ko(m)," which had the idea of "with, near," and whose Old Germanic descendant was "ga/ge." The second part goes back to Indo European "hnak/hnek," which had the notion of "attain." The two gave Old Germanic the compound "ganogaz," which meant "be sufficient, be of the necessary amount." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "genog," with the same meaning. This later became "inough/ynough," before the modern version.^ Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "genug," Low German has "noog," Dutch has "genoeg," West Frisian has "genôch," Danish and Norwegian have "nok," Swedish has "nog" and Icelandic has "nóg."

^ While English is from the West Germanic branch of the Germanic languages and is closely related to German, it is even more closely related to Low German, which is natural, as the ancestral homeland of English (Anglo-Saxon) is north/northwestern Germany, an area where Low German is still spoken with some regularity, although it has been in decline for quite some time, as standard German, based more so on high dialects, has been reducing the number of Low German speakers. Anyway, the "ga/ge" prefix on Low German words is pronounced "ya," as opposed to standard German hard "g" sound. So English "ynough/inough" reflects the connection to Low German pronunciation, and you must remember, the "gh" sound was pronounced in English years ago, but it morphed into an "f" sound, while the "gh" spelling was continued. Further, dialectal English pronunciation has given English "nough," corresponding to its Low German and North Germanic relatives (see above).

Labor Day

The national holiday of Labor Day was established by an act of Congress, and signed by President Grover Cleveland, in 1894, although the tradition of honoring labor in September actually began more than a decade earlier in New York City. Strong unions can help keep America's middle class grow by achieving good wages and benefits for workers, and this in turn can help other workers by setting wage and other standards in employment. An increasing percentage of the national income has been going to the richest people in country, a fact even admitted to by none other than Alan Greenspan, a conservative, pro-business, Republican, who warned the gap was growing so much, it's continuance could literally threaten capitalism. Support unions folks! You don't have to agree with them 100% of the time, but they'll be on your side far more than the wealthiest 1% will ever be.

WORD HISTORY:
Summer-This goes back to Indo European "sem," which meant "part of a year, a season, year." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "sumara," which had narrowed the meaning to the particular season of the year, "summer." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "sumor," which then became "sumer," before the modern version. The verb form, meaning "to spend summer in a particular area," was derived from the noun. Common in the other Germanic languages: German and Low German have "Sommer," West Frisian has "simmer," Dutch has "zomer," Icelandic has "sumar," Danish and Norwegian have "sommer," Swedish has "sommar."