Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: Gli Americani hanno capito che il LIBERISMO è DANNOSO...

PROFITS BEFORE PEOPLE: AMERICANS ANGRY
AT CORPORATE EXCESS WANT GOVERNMENT
TO STEP IN 
Anger and anxiety over layoffs, wage stagnation, declining benefits
and the movement of jobs overseas has left the American
public with a starkly negative view of the actions and motivations of
corporate America. Ire at large corporations crosses race,
class and political lines and is not waning despite the upbeat
economic news of the last several months. It's so intense that, for
the majority of citizens, it now rivals or exceeds anger at
government. Most significant and most surprising, anger at corporate
America has begun to translate into broad public support for
government action to make corporations act more responsibly -
and has the potential to change the nation's political landscape. 
These are central findings of a public opinion survey commissioned by
the Preamble Center for Public Policy in order to better
understand public anger at corporations and how it relates to issues
of public policy and to American politics. The study, and a
corresponding series of focus groups with middle and working class
Americans, reveal that the American people have become
firm in their belief that corporations are good investments but bad
citizens. For example, when asked to assign corporate
America letter grades for its performance in various areas, 78% of
respondents give companies good grades (an A" or a B")
for making profits." When it comes to keeping jobs in the US" and
being loyal to employees," however, seven in ten people say
companies are not getting the job done (giving companies a C," D" or
F" in these areas). 
Between 70% and 80% of the public recognize serious problems" in the
way corporations put the interests of their executives
and shareholders ahead of their employees and society, and identify
greed" as the motivation behind new waves of corporate
layoffs and downsizing," rejecting the corporate argument that such
actions are necessitated by competitive pressures. 
These attitudes are held across the economic and political spectrum,
and are especially evident among the core middle class
workforce hardhit by corporate layoffs and downsizing. This attitude
has remained intense and shows no sign of abating - even
as media coverage of downsizing has dwindled, and despite the recent
stream of positive economic news. The public now
realizes that corporate profitability does not guarantee worker
wellbeing (even though much economic policy making in recent
years has been based on exactly that assumption). 
The study also demonstrates that public anger at corporations has
significant political and policy implications as it begins to
translate into popular support for more aggressive efforts to alter
corporate behavior. While anger at government remains high,
people are so fed up with corporate behavior and so frightened by
their economic vulnerability that they are willing to take a
chance on government intervention. 
Consequently, seven in ten people (69%) favor government action to
promote more responsible corporate behavior and to
penalize bad corporate citizenship. Large majorities favor a host of
specific policy approaches, many of which are already part
of the political debate - from living wage" laws, to proposed New
Jersey legislation designed to penalize corporate downsizers,
to Minnesota's law requiring corporations that get tax breaks for job
creation, but do not create new jobs, to pay back the
money. 
The survey results also indicate that issues of corporate
accountability and economic fairness may well have increasing salience
in the electoral debate. This opinion climate creates the potential
for a new kind of political dialogue - the public is increasingly
eager to hear what their leaders have to say about the problems
created by big business. Those who present a strong critique of
corporate behavior and show how proactive government action can be a
remedy will be striking a responsive chord. 
Americans are much more likely to support leaders who favor such
policies as setting standards for responsible corporate
behavior and rewarding companies that meet the standards, denying tax
deductions for CEO raises granted at the same time
layoffs are occurring, and requiring large companies to provide basic
benefits to all employees. And when the public faces a
choice between a politician focusing on the problem of corporate greed
and one attacking big, bad government, public
sentiment will increasingly be with the former. In 1994, simply being
the more antigovernment candidate was often enough; in
the future, it won't be that simple. Progressive leaders focusing on
corporate misbehavior as a central cause of economic
problems for working families can more than hold their own in the
battle for the the public's hearts and minds. 
Among the additional major findings: 
     While public anger at government remains high, a majority of
people (68%) now view corporate greed" as an equally
     important or more important cause of the economic difficulties
faced by working families (46% of people say
     corporations are a bigger problem than government waste and
inefficiency," 22% choose both). 
     Americans firmly believe that recent trends in corporate behavior
- such as large- scale layoffs, downsizing," reduced
     benefits, and overseas job relocation - is motivated by greed
(70%) rather than a quest for competitiveness and
     efficiency (22%). 
     Americans across party lines - Democrats (79%), Republicans
(67%), and ticket- splitters (74%) - believe the
     economic and human impact of these corporate behaviors are
serious enough to warrant purposeful government
     intervention - through incentives, mandates and penalties
designed to make corporations think twice before trading jobs
     and wages for profits and CEO compensation, including: 
          setting standards for corporate behavior, and rewarding
companies which meet these standards with a lower tax
          rate than noncomplying companies (82% favor - 44% strongly
favor); 
          requiring corporations receiving government assistance (tax
breaks, subsidies, etc.) for the purpose of job creation
          to make specific commitments, and to pay back the aid if the
proposed jobs do not materialize (as is now law in
          Minnesota) (78% favor - 39% strongly favor); 
          requiring that all employees receive a basic package of
health and pension benefits, so that corporations cannot
          cut costs by replacing current workers receiving benefits
with new ones who will not (77% favor - 42% strongly
          favor); and 
          requiring any company that does business with a city or town
government, or receives any special tax break, to
          pay employees a living wage of at least $7/hour (76% favor -
42% strongly favor). 
In contrast, laissez-faire economic policies tested in the survey
generally received significantly lower levels of support. 
     In order to measure the true depth of public sentiment on these
policy issues, the survey asked respondents whether
     these issues would significantly affect their voting decisions.
Looking at the same breadth of progressive and laissez-faire
     policy options, people were asked if candidates campaigning on
these policies would be more likely or less likely to get
     their vote. We take the percentage who say they would be much
more likely to vote for a candidate who takes a
     particular policy position and subtract those who are much less
likely to vote for that candidate - creating a measure of
     net impact. Three policies stand out as having particularly
strong popular support, yielding a net impact of +37
     percentage points or more: 
          setting standards of responsible corporate behavior and
rewarding companies that meet the standards with lower
          taxes; (+48) among all voters and (+56) among
ticket-splitters; 
          disallowing tax deductions for excessive CEO compensation;
(+38) among all voters and (+45) among
          ticket-splitters; 
          requiring large companies to provide a basic benefits
package to all employees; (+38) among all voters and (+37)
          among ticket-splitters. 
About one-half of the public says each of these issues makes them much
more likely to vote for a candidate. All three are
progressive policies aimed at increasing corporate responsibility. 
     Middle class Americans are among the strongest advocates of a
progressive agenda for holding corporations
     accountable. The middle class is angry at finding itself stalled
on the ladder of success, with suddenly limited prospects
     for more affluent futures, and new fears that their careers and
lifestyles are no longer as secure as they once believed. 
          People in middle income families earning $35-$44,999 are
most likely to favor government taking action to make
          corporations act responsibly (81% versus 71% of Americans as
a whole). They are also most likely to believe
          that government serving corporate interests has a more
adverse impact on the economy than government waste or
          inefficiency (45% versus 21%). (Overall, 40% of Americans
pick government serving corporate interests versus
          33% who pick government waste.) 
          Middle class Americans are the strongest advocates of
mandating health and pension benefits (60% say they are
          much more likely to support a candidate who takes this
position compared to 3% much less likely - a net impact
          of +57 compared to +48 among all Americans). They also give
strong support to candidates who campaign on
          setting standards for corporate behavior (+47) and
eliminating tax deductions for CEO raises at companies laying
          off workers (+34). 
     Economic changes are creating a gray ceiling." Middle-aged
workers, once inclined to take steady promotions and pay
     raises for granted, are less likely to find them. Younger entry
level workers - whose salary increases and promotions are
     less costly to their corporate employers - are experiencing more
good news than other segments of the workforce. 
          The percentage of workers who have received both a promotion
and a pay raise, or know someone who has,
          declines as the workforce moves from entry-level (42% of the
workers 18-34), to more seasoned workers (26%
          of workers 35-54), to those nearing retirement age (only 17%
among people age 55-64). 
          About one in three Americans facing retirement (aged 55 to
64) is close to someone who has lost a job (31%) or
          had benefits reduced or eliminated (38%) - or has
experienced one of these crises themselves. 
          Among workers age 45 to 64, 55% give corporations a failing
grade for loyalty to employees - the highest of any
          cohort. 
          An extraordinary 69% of people age 55 to 64 say corporate
greed is a bigger cause of economic problems than
          big government. 
     Anger at corporations crosses racial lines. Large numbers of
Caucasians and African Americans say corporate greed is a
     serious problem which requires government intervention. 
          Large majorities of both Caucasians (67%) and African
Americans (83%) favor government doing something to
          insure that corporations act more responsibly. 
          About 7 in 10 Caucasians (71%) and 8 in 10 African Americans
(81%) support five out of seven progressive
          legislative items tested. 
          At least three-quarters of both Caucasians and African
Americans say corporate actions are causing serious
          problems for the nation. Specifically, they are concerned
about layoffs (81% Caucasians and 85% African
          Americans), outrageous CEO salaries (80% and 83%), and
stagnant wages (75% and 89%). 
     Angry White Males" may be angry at government and government
programs, but they are even more angry at corporate
     America. So are Caucasian women. 
          Caucasian men chose corporate greed (43%) over government
waste (32%) as the greatest obstacle to the
          middle class from getting ahead. 22% chose both. Caucasian
women also chose greed over waste (51% to 24%).
          Nearly two-thirds (62%) favor government taking action to
ensure that corporations act more responsibly.
          Caucasian women are even more likely to want action (72%). 
     Caucasian men report a deep support for the progressive
legislative agenda including: 
          Mandating basic benefits packages (net impact +31); 
          Setting standards for corporate behavior (+47); and 
          Disallowing tax deductions for excessive CEO compensation
(+36). 
The American Dream promises that hard work and loyalty will propel
people up the economic ladder into larger salaries, bigger
homes, better lives, and comfortable retirements. Throughout the
twentieth century, that dream has depended on the economic
might and communal benevolence of corporate employers. From health
care to pensions, defining elements of family and
individual security have long been fundamentally connected to
voluntary corporate largesse. Law and government never
required corporate employers to guarantee such things (as did the
collective public might of labor unions), but they seemed to
many Americans like birthrights all the same. 
Now, the public sees corporations beating a rapid retreat from
longterm standards of employee loyalty, high pay, and
community partnership. And the working families left behind - and
denied pay raises, promotions, and job security as a result -
are angry. Americans believe corporations have broken an unwritten
social contract whereby hard work and loyalty on the part
of employees was respected and rewarded. The sense of betrayal many
people now feel is reflected by the comment of a San
Jose focus group participant: 
A lot of these people who have had a job for twenty years, they were
told something when they first started working
there. They were given very clear issues that this is what we expect
from you and this is what we will give you in
return. And they're not keeping their word. So, when you see that
happening it creates some real problems...because
that is truly dishonest bad faith. - San Jose, CA; focus group
participant 
Despite decades of anti-regulatory politics, a majority of Americans
now believe corporations should be subjected to additional
government oversight designed to ensure more responsible behavior.
What is emerging from this intensifying public mood is
strong support for a new agenda of corporate responsibility - an
agenda geared toward ending the ability of corporations to
treat workers unfairly with impunity; compelling corporations to
fulfill responsibilities beyond the maximization of earnings, CEO
compensation and investor return; and reclaiming the guarantee of a
tradition whereby American citizens who play by the rules
are protected and rewarded by corporate citizens who do the same. 
METHODOLOGY 
The study was conducted by EDK Associates, a New York based research
firm, and directed by Ethel Klein, president of
EDK. Guy Molyneux, a vice-president of Peter D. Hart Research
Associates, served as a consultant throughout the project
from design to analysis. The project began with six focus groups
involving working and middle class Americans without clear
allegiance to either major political party. The focus groups were
conducted in order to gain a sense of how Americans feel their
lives are affected by changing economic circumstances, how they view
corporations as employers and economic actors, and
what policies, if any, they support to improve the economic well-being
of working families. 
     Three focus groups were conducted with Caucasian, working class,
non college educated men and women in Hartford,
     Connecticut on May 6, 1996; San Jose, California on May 23, 1996;
and in Oak Brook, Illinois on June 27th, 1996. 
     Two focus groups were conducted with Caucasian, middle class,
college educated men and women in Iselin, New
     Jersey on May 9th, 1996; and in San Jose, California on May 23rd,
1996. 
     One focus group was conducted with African American, working
class men and women of mixed educational levels in
     Oak Brook, Illinois on June 27th, 1996. 
A public opinion survey involving telephone interviews with 800
randomly selected registered voters nationwide was conducted
from June 17-21, 1996. The margin of error for the poll is 3.5%. All
percentage differences discussed in this report are
statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval.

government .....[omissis]